HUBRIS ABOUNDS

James Cleverly asks the question : "Is Labour rotten to the core?" Well, given recent events, the simple answer would have to be a resounding "Yes!"

But there is an intense irony in the current situation. In a quite palpable sense, the Great Bottler is inheriting what Bliar had sown during his period in office; in other words, Bliar's immediate 'legacy' to the clunking fist is to mire him ever deeper in the sleaze that so dogged his last days. According to the BBC, that (Man-of-) Straw, Jack, accepts the underlying principle in this and believes that "there [are] questions to be asked of Tony Blair, because many of the donations were made when he was Prime Minister". So much for all that tosh about leaving front-line UK politics with the public begging for more!

Isn't it strange too - almost 'ass-covering' one might say - that Bliar has been seeking to distance himself from his pre- (and post-) 1997 savaging of Major and the Tories over sleaze? His football analogy is especially apposite - it suggests that he knows full well that he 'took a dive' in order to gain political advantage. Regret on his part? Well, he says yes. Contrition? No way. But, more intriguingly, this sort of intervention from the sidelines must be making the Great Bottler apoplectic. Having effectively dumped him in it, the only Christmas present his old boss can offer him is that it was all a load of stuff-and-nonsense anyway. As for Blair, I have the teeniest suspicion that he might be just be revelling in the Great Bottler's discomfort - a sort of arrogant "Well, Gordo, it's not as easy as you thought" and "Now you know why I kept you out of No. 10 for so long" attitude.

Mind you, the Great Bottler may have already sown some seeds of revenge. Taken together with Straw's comment above, his insistence that the mess of the Abrahams donations is "illegal" is tacit acknowledgment that our erstwhile PM may well have a criminal charge to answer to. Could it be that he will have his collar felt again by the men in blue as they act on the Electoral Commission's referral of the file to them?

As to the hubris in all of this - and the thing that is so odious to anyone observing from the outside - it is the mind-numbing way in which all the players can just sit there and maintain that they personally have done nothing wrong - Hain is an absolutely classic example ("administrative error" doesn't cut it!). It beggars belief that they really imagine that we will be prepared to take such mendacious posturing seriously.

FACEBOOK CHOOSES DATA PRIVACY

This is extremely good news - and, despite being forced so to do, Facebook have made the right decision. I cannot help feeling that it should be a fundamental principle of data privacy that "opt-in" rather than "opt-out" systems should be the default - except in very exceptional circumstances. Now if only our 'lords and masters' could get their heads round this little bit of techno common-sense, wouldn't the world be a better place?

One other thought. It is often assumed/maintained that the IT generation has little interest in precepts of personal privacy/confidentiality (as per this sort of stuff). I have never accepted that view and have tended to feel that, in the rush to be techno-savvy and have all the latest gizmos to play with, people have ignored such considerations and laid them to one side. But, as they have become more aware of the potential implications/repercussions of their online activity, so such concerns have surfaced with more solidity in their minds - no doubt the HMRC fiasco has fine-tuned them in spades! The campaign that led to Facebook's having to climb down over this would seem to confirm this view.

(MORE) EDUCASHUN, EDUCASHUN, EDUCASHUN

Hot on the heels of my post yesterday about our kids slipping down the literacy league table, we are now told that they're getting worse at science too. I especially like Joe Fay's line: "... the nation's youth probably won't be too upset about their unboffinish performance – it's not like they'd be able to read about it after all." Mind you, given the US ranking, perhaps we don't have quite so much to worry about.

EXCUSES, EXCUSES

Two stories from The Register have caught my eye, this and this.

So, on the one hand, we've got to stop our kids from pigging out on their video games fest so that they can get out there and play footie. On the other, according to Goggle-Eyed Balls, we've got to do it so that they can bury their heads in more books. Umm!?!

Usual stuff, really - dimwits trying to establish a direct causal relationship where none exists (and, in respect of the latter, just so much spin). The sad reality is that our blokes aren't very good at footie because they aren't managed very well - lest you doubt it consider the 'reasons' that Terry Venables or Alex Ferguson attribute to their respective teams' failings in the article (they're new slants on that perennial favourite of "Why the trains don't run on time"). Quite apart from that, nine times out of ten, the other lot are much better than us!

And the reason our kids are getting worse at reading is that the Government's/Bliar's much-trumpeted attempts to concentrate on "educashun, educashun, educashun" have had the perverse effect of making matters infinitely worse - to wit slipping from 3rd to 15th in the league table of reading skills.

BACK IN THE SPIN CYCLE?

Now here's a thought.

In these parlous times for New Labour, is it worth wondering how different things could have been? In the bad old days of Bliar, the man himself would have chosen (essentially) to sit back and ride out the storm - spinning the "well ... umm ... I'm a pretty straight sorta guy" line for as much as he was worth. And, to be fair, this tactic proved uncannily reliable in making sure that not too much (if any at all) effluent or excrement stuck to him. Like it or not, he was superb at that particular part of the politicians' stock-in-trade.

But he - or his underlings - would also have seen an opportunity in the current frenzy (and, on occasions, undoubtedly took advantage of it), namely to 'bury' any bad news stories that might be lurking in the Westminster/Whitehall undergrowth.

Now, the Great Bottler wouldn't try that on, would he? After all, he maintains the Bliar approach has been binned now that he's in the hot seat. We..ell ... the week-end approaches when the Westminster tribe seems to assume some sort of collective narcolepsy and this whole scrutiny thingie goes down the pan. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm going to make sure I'm keeping a pretty close eye on Departmental press releases for the next few days (perhaps even weeks or months if, as looks likely, the donation scandal continues to foment amongst the media).

ContactPoint "DELAYED"

So reports Kablenet. And a good thing too. Yippee!!!

But it is only a delay. And, needless to say, Goggle-Eyed Balls and his crew are trying to spin that the HMRC debacle is only a very minor consideration in this decision - as pointed out by John Oates here.

A few thoughts come to mind. The Written Statement insists that "ContactPoint will be a simple basic online tool" and seek to allay any anxiety by insisting that "No case information will be held on ContactPoint". As ever these dimwits singularly fail to understand that it is possible to infer a huge amount about any given individual from even the slimmest/most basic biographical data. For example, on their own admission, it will include "an indication as to whether a service or practitioner holds an assessment under the Common Assessment Framework or whether they are a lead professional for that child". Now, it doesn't take a genius to work out that, if an assessing "service", "practitioner" or "lead professional" is identified on the database, it becomes comparatively easy to work out the specific area of concern for/of that child. In other words, his/her data privacy and confidentiality has been circumvented.

In addition I've always struggled to understand how it is that a potential total user-base of 330,000 individuals - no doubt of the same calibre as those at HMRC - generates consistency with or confidence in the reassurance that "only cleared staff subject to the highest level of Criminal Records Bureau checks would be able to access the system". And, bearing in mind how adept Government staff have been at losing their laptops (see here), let us hope that those 330,000 people - I'm sure they're all good souls with no malicious intent!?! - can at least avoid dropping their random number generating tokens down the back of the train seat or what have you!

POLITICAL DONATION WOES

As others have said far more eloquently than I (there are any number of posts out there but Guido's coverage - available here - together with this and this from Iain Dale cover all the (current) bases), the scandal - and it is a scandal of mega-proportions - that has erupted over David Abrahams is beyond parody. File under the "You really couldn't make it up" department!!! And, as they are all saying, we've got to reckon we're only seeing the tip of the iceberg at the moment - as the media/blog pack sniffs and digs at the story, a whole bunch of nasties are going to be unearthed in due course.

But I can't help feeling that the real problem for us poor beleaguered citizens in all of this (Northern Rock, disk-gate, and now the donation scandal) is that increasingly the Great Bottler and his Government are in a state of (near) complete paralysis. One of the primary purposes of any administration is to get on and govern. But this shower are now so mired in sleaze, so much at the mercy of the blizzards of 'events' that are buffeting them, that that purpose seems to be flying out of the window minute by minute. It is perhaps too early to tell whether GB's administration is holed below the water-line - although Matthew Parris has his own take on that here. (Incidentally, one has to admire the prescience of Matthew's concluding paragraph: "Something is going to happen, something quite nasty. What, we must wait to see.") But it is legitimate to ask what on earth his bunch of malodorous incompetents are for if they are incapable of governing. Needless to say, this is the (unstated but inferred) narrative that underpinned David Cameron's savaging of the Great Bottler at PMQs.

ContactPoint DATA SECURITY

Kablenet, here, and The Register, here, both update us about the above. So ... whoop-de-do. We - and our kids - can now all sleep easy in our beds knowing that the DCFS is going to be looking after the sensitive personal data of our children securely and safely.

But, hey, hang on a minute! Call me cynical but isn't the substance of this - "strict access control", "two stage authentication process", &c - exactly what was meant to be in place over at HMRC? And it didn't help much there did it? Not uncommon with this shower, but in truth this is little more than another manifestation of The Government's technological illiteracy and the "Gotta-be-seen-to-be-doing-something" syndrome that rears its ugly head so often.

TRUSTING DATA SECURITY

On the face of it this from ECOTEC Research & Consulting (via cc:eGov, seemingly an offshoot of the European Commission's DG Information Society and Media's eGovernment Unit) makes a helluva lot of sense - although I haven't had a chance to read the whole report yet. I have to say too that I'm a little nonplussed that something as commonsensical as this has emanated from the EU. The BBC's report on this is here.

As their press release says, in the wake of the HMRC fiasco, their paper is "a timely reminder about the need to manage trust and security effectively." A masterpiece of understatement! And, as the Chairman of ECOTEC, John Bell, says: “This study has demonstrated that trust in public authorities and their technological systems is a key issue for governments across Europe and one that will not go away. Dealing with it will be the next great challenge for governments in the digital world”. Well ... actually it's been "a key issue" for the past decade or longer, and dealing with it is becoming more urgent with each passing day.

Given the history of all this, we'll have to wait and see whether there is a cat in hell's chance of any of it feeding into the development of policy whether at a pan-European level or by individual member states. But I'm not holding my breath that The Great Bottler and his cohort will have the wit to pick up this particular ball and run with it.

BLUNKETT: GENERAL IGNORANCE

Dizzy has an excellent hatchet job on David Blunkett's letter today to The Times. As he says the former Home Secretary - and, lest we forget in light of the HMRC debacle, former Secretary of State at the Department of Work and Pensions (how much of the 'systemic' failure within the Child Benefit system stems from his tenure of that office?) - "should shut up".

I've little enough to add - Dizzy covers all the bases superbly. But I have to admit that a wicked, perhaps even provocative in this politically correct age, thought came unbidden to my mind: "There's none so blind as them that can't see!"

P.S. Rest assured and for avoidance of doubt it's a commentary on his intellectual capacity rather than anything else.

COULD 25m PEOPLE SUE HMRC?

On reading Iain Dale's post about this, I couldn't resist looking up the relevant text of the Data Protection Act. Section 13 seems to be the most pertinent provision. It states:

"13 Compensation for failure to comply with certain requirements

1. An individual who suffers damage by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that damage.
2. An individual who suffers distress by reason of any contravention by a data controller of any of the requirements of this Act is entitled to compensation from the data controller for that distress if—
   (a) the individual also suffers damage by reason of the contravention, or
   (b) the contravention relates to the processing of personal data for the special purposes.
3. In proceedings brought against a person by virtue of this section it is a defence to prove that he had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to comply with the requirement concerned."

I'm no lawyer but, on the face of it, anyone affected by the HMRC fiasco could sue for not only "damage" (i.e. financial loss, identity theft, or what-have-you) but also "distress" (i.e. mental anguish caused by the whole sorry episode, &c). Interesting.

But what really tickled me about this was the prospect of the Government, as a defence, seeking "to prove that [it] had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required" should anyone choose to take action against them. That really would be interesting!

TEACHERS' PERSONAL DATA

Dizzy has posted this about the 'privacy policy' of the Teaching and Development Agency For Schools.

As an addendum to his comments, it is worth having a look at Section 16 of the Data Protection Act. Presumably, under the terms of the Act, the TDA is compelled to notify the Information Commissioner's Office that it is a 'data controller'. As such it also has to provide the ICO - and, by extension, its data subjects via the expedient of its privacy policy - with a number of 'registrable particulars' which include (at sub-paragraph (1) (f)): "the names, or a description of, any countries or territories outside the European Economic Area to which the data controller directly or indirectly transfers, or intends or may wish directly or indirectly to transfer, the data,". The logic behind this, correctly identified by the text of the privacy policy statement is that "The data protection and other laws of these countries may not be as comprehensive as those in the UK or the EU..." (In fact, this is one of the primary sources of friction between the US and the EU over PNR (Passenger Name Data) in recent months/years.*) Clearly the privacy policy does not contain the relevant information required by Section 16 (1) (f). On the face of it therefore the TDA is in breach of the DPA.

In the circumstances, I can't help wondering how many other Government Departments, Agencies, &c have an equivalent 'error of omission' in their privacy policy statements, especially because of the burgeoning use of out-sourcing for processing of data.

* I've been meaning to do a post about this for some time - I promise I'll get round to it soon.

NORTHERN ROCK: CLOUD CUCKOO LAND

There was a quite extraordinary exchange about Northern Rock and the tripartite system of regulation for the sector in the House of Lords yesterday.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry had asked the Government "Whether they are proposing any changes in the relationship between the Bank of England, the Financial Services Authority and HM Treasury." In response Lord Davies of Oldham offered these (specious) crumbs of comfort (my emphasis): "... he will recognise that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was explicit about the way in which the tripartite system works. It has been tried and tested on a number of occasions ... Of course, evaluation is going on on the operation of the system, but it should be recognised that it has stood this country and its economy in good stead. It should also be recognised that it is much admired elsewhere in the world and others are eager to follow a similar strategy to tackle what we all recognise is a very difficult situation."

Which planet is he living on? As Baroness Noakes subsequently asked: "... how can the Minister stand there and say that this system has been tried and tested? At its first trial, it failed dismally ... It is clear that the Government have to take some action." And of course the Government have already acceded to the latter point as legislation in this area was trailed in the Queen's Speech.

Could it be that, in the face of Northern Rock, the HMRC debacle, the worsening economy, &c, an utterly delusional bunker mentality is developing and deepening amongst Treasury ministers?

GOVERNMENT SECURITY FAILURE (2)

In my post about this yesterday, I inferred that the fall-out from this fiasco would be protracted and far-reaching. And, judging by current reaction, one of the first major planks of Government policy to feel the fall-out is the NIR and ID cards.

Of course, this figured prominently in George Osborne's response to Darling's statement with him saying that the debacle is "the final blow to the Government’s ambition to create a national ID card." Cameron ran with it again taday at PMQs, describing retention of the policy as "weird" and "truly bizarre" . Like Ross Anderson, Alice Miles in The Times has put a wider gloss on it: "The Government's entire public IT agenda — all those systems and databases and supposed safeguards — is now under threat. [Darling's] statement was fine and comprehensive, but it became risible at one point: when he claimed that ID cards would somehow have made this lost information safer ..." Even The Sun, not renowned as being especially libertarian on this issue, insists: "The shocking blunder means Labour’s plan to bring in ID cards now looks doomed." All good stuff and, of course, grist to NO2ID's mill. Anyone with even half a brain should be able to see the sense of this train of thought. At the very least there should be a moratorium on development of the project - and a host of others including the Children's Index, the NHS NPfIT, &c - until such time as the security features of the plethora of databases that the Government has on us have been properly reviewed.

But ... but ... but!

Paradoxically it could well be that this "beyond farce, past comprehension, criminally irresponsible and beneath contempt" (to borrow Alice Miles' words) fiasco could entrench The Great Bottler's (possibly unwilling) support for ID cards. The trouble for GB in his bunker is that, on the back of the election-that-never-was, the political initiative has been sacrificed. In stark contrast to his honeymoon period from July of last year, the Government now looks like a victim of "events, dear boy, events" rather than being in control of the overall situation. So there is no advantage, political or otherwise, to the Government bowing to the pressure of those events and tossing ID cards onto GB's earnestly-to-be-wished-for Bliar-rite funeral pyre. Quite the reverse in fact. Politically the last thing GB and his Government want to be seen doing right now is 'collapsing' or flip-flopping in the face of difficult circumstances. Undoubtedly there's a huge storm out there at the moment (which could get even worse before it gets better) but they are reckoning that the best, if not only, route to redemption is to ride it out and hold the line, although it has to be said that the pressure of events may force their hand anyway,

But, then again, ... but ... but.

There is room for supposing that the Government actually had taken a decision to scrap the ID cards policy. While it is always difficult to decipher Westminster Village smoke signals, you, dear reader, will recall that two or three weeks ago - actually on 4th Nov, the timing's important (i.e. before the shit hit the ministerial fan over the HMRC debacle) - the Sunday Mirror dropped exactly this bombshell on to an unsuspecting public: "... the proposed roll-out to force all Britons to carry [ID cards] will be shelved indefinitely, according to Whitehall sources." The ever-reliable and ever-acerbic John Lettice's take on this can be found here at The Register. Now, from outside the bunker, it's impossible to say how authoritative the Mirror's line was. But what we can say is that, as a matter of course, there is 'no smoke without fire'. Equally The Mirror isn't exactly known for being backward in coming forward in support of and/or to help out Labour administrations. So could it be that some underlings from the No. 10 bunker were tasked with preparing the ground for a major policy announcement on ID cards by briefing the line to the Mirror? Well, stranger things have happened - but I suppose The Great Bottler would say, "Not on my watch, not any more!" Still (after 10 years of Bliar) there is a discernible strategy here which could/should have run something like this: spin and/or leak a major story to a tame tabloid; issue junior ministerial denials while letting the story run; bide one's time before conceding that the spin/leak was accurate and that the policy change has been arrived at because of the arrival of an authoritative and unarguable piece of evidence commissioned (of course) by one's good self; QED off the Bliar-rite hook!!!

Here you've got to throw the Crosby Public Private Forum on Identity Management into this potent Witches' Brew. This was instigated by GB - though first touted by him in February 2006 in a speech to the Royal United Services Institute* - in July of 2006 when he appointed Sir James Crosby, formerly of HBOS, to head up the Forum, the terms of reference of which are:

• a) Review the current and emerging use of identity management in the private and public sectors and identify best practice.
• b) Consider how public and private sectors can work together, harnessing the best identity technology to maximise efficiency and effectiveness.
• c) Produce a preliminary report for the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Ministerial Committee on identity Management by Easter 2007.

The word on the street about this - endorsed in part by this from The Ideal Government Project - is that the Forum is leaning heavily towards a federated structure with extensive use of/reliance on 'infomediaries' and 'trusted third parties' rather than government (i.e. a system wholly at odds with the existing legislation for and architecture of the ID cards project) as the primary movers of identity management.

Now, whatever else one might say about GB, he is one of the archest politicians of his age. From his fastness in the Treasury he would surely have recognised the potential downsides of the ID card policy in both financial and political terms, not least because the parliamentary debates on the relevant Act had thrown up all sorts of nasties (the statutory requirement for the twice-yearly Cost Report, the concept of a "plastic poll tax", &c). So, whatever he may have been saying publicly about ID cards at the time, what was his motivation in setting up a wholesale review of an established and (supposedly) agreed line of Government/New Labour policy? Surely it is not too incredible to suppose that he was aiming to cover his back against these pitfalls.

One can speculate, as Ideal Government do, why it is that the Forum hasn't published any of its results yet, despite the inference in their terms of reference that something would be forthcoming by Easter of 2007. Of course , it may be as straightforward as their thinking being wholly antipathetic to the ID cards project - perhaps we'll never know. But it could also be that The Great Bottler knows full well the flavour of any Report and is witholding its release until a moment of his choosing so that he can play it to his maximum political advantage.

I make no bones about it. I may well be adding 2 + 2 and making 5 in all this. Nonetheless it's intriguing stuff. Time alone will tell. So, as they say, watch this space.

* In fact, a large section of the speech is devoted to GB's thinking on ID cards and makes for interesting reading.

'LOST' HMRC DISKS FOR SALE!!!

So The Register reports.

Well, someone had to do it didn't they? Made me chuckle anyway.

GOVERNMENT SECURITY FAILURE

Not surprisingly the blogosphere is awash with the fall-out from HMRC having 'lost' 25m - yes, 25 MILLION!!! - data records. I don't have a great deal to add to what others have already said on the subject - notably in no particular order Dizzy, Iain Dale, Man In a Shed, Ian Brown at Blogzilla, SpyBlog, et al. But, for me, Ross Anderson at Light Blue Touchpaper is absolutely spot-on in his reaction. As he says:

"It’s surely clear by now that the whole public-sector computer-security establishment is no longer fit for purpose."

I should coco!!!!

For my part, I make these observations:

• The Great Bottler's dandy wheeze, when still Chancellor under Bliar, to expand his empire by combining tax and benefit functions under one roof at HMRC has come back to haunt him - he certainly looked pretty nervy as Darling delivered his Statement. A case perhaps of the biter bit?
• The fall-out from this will resonate for many weeks and months (and, as Dizzy suggests, Darling falling on his sword over it is a wholly viable prospect; it may even leech towards The Great Bottler himself). It is impossible to exaggerate how serious and damaging this could potentially be to the stability of the economy not only at the level of individual families but also much more widely;
• For anyone who has shrugged their shoulders and assumed that they are content that Government should be the primary manager and/or administrator of their personal data, this is proof positive (not for the first time) that they have been deluding themselves (as suggested above by Ross). And, while on the subject of shrugging shoulders, the litany of security lapses and failures perpetrated by Government and its departments is now so long that we should be demanding that effective action be taken to remedy the situation, not sitting back and let them repeat the same old mistakes time and time again;
• there is an urgent requirement to review and re-balance the legal position vis-a-vis the ownership of personal data. Currently the individual citizen has no rights of ownership whatsoever and inevitably therefore control over how the data is administered, processed, manipulated, &c is severely constrained and limited. At the very least the law should grant us some enforceable rights in this increasingly important area;
• at this stage, the Information Commissioner is quite right to reserve judgment. But, as a general principle, these sorts of security lapses need to be proceeded against with the full force of the law. Too often, they are dealt with internally by resort to what are, compared to what would happen in the private sector, relatively soft disciplinary measures. Rather, because of the position of trust in which Government and its staff find themselves, they should be prosecuted to the max.

No doubt this story'll run a bit in the coming days so I may well return to it. But for now, my mind is just boggling at how incompetent this whole sorry affair is - I've got to lie down with a wet towel over me head to try to recover!!!

CHILDREN'S BIOMETRICS.

ARCH (Action on Rights for Children) have issued a useful report entitled "Child Tracking: Biometrics in Schools & Mobile Location Devices". The Register has an article about it here.

As the Report says : "The whole issue of using children’s biometrics urgently needs far closer examination and informed debate.", not least because of the way in which they are being increasingly used for 'low-level purposes' (issue of library books, school meals, &c) in a pretty much unregulated way. Of course, in the main, the underlying intention of these sorts of schemes is probably well-meaning but one cannot escape the sense that they are entered into in complete ignorance of their wider consequences and implications, especially in respect of fundamental rights. In fact one could say that this, combined with the odious Children's Index (commentary here), &c., means that ID Cards - i.e. adult surveillance - are a walk in the park compared to the degree and extent of surveillance to which this Government has subjected our children.

YOU COULDN'T MAKE IT UP DEPT. (1)

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!?!?!

For sure, with a friend like this, the climate change lobby doesn't need any enemies. What on earth is Mucca on?

WHAT CAN BROWN DO FOR YOU?

Amusingly current advertising for UPS in America runs under the by-line of "What can brown do for you?" The press release announcing the launch of the Ad campaign (way back in 2002) can be found here. I particularly like the comment from Dale Hayes, vice president for brand management, that " ...... [B]rown is more than a color – it's a tangible asset that people associate with all the things that are good about our brand." (Brown, you see, is the corporate colour of UPS.) Just about sums up The Great Bottler's stature in New Labour doesn't it?

It must be my warped sense of humour but when I first discovered this, I had a vision of a whole bunch of UK residents, if they knew about it, getting in touch with UPS and sounding off about the PM - answers of the ilk of 'resign', 'call an election', &c flooding in to their corporate offices. But then I suppose our American cousins would have a huge sense of humour failure if that were to happen. It'd still be fun though, don't you think?

RIPA

The odious Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is back in the news. I shan't regale you, dear reader, with the foetid history of this rank piece of legislation, let alone the sorry mess of the Govt's attempts to implement the encryption keys provision - it is all a matter of record. But this (from The Register) is ample evidence that anyone who expressed anxiety/distaste/rejection of it when it was going through Parliament can now feel themselves exonerated.

Of course, in their own way, animal rights "terrorists" are no less terrorists than any other - at least insofar as they espouse violence. But one can't help feeling that this particular case wasn't the intended way in which the legislative provision would be used. And, as Richard Clayton implies it would seem to demonstrate serious flaws in the way in which the Code of Practice has been prepared, not to mention the underlying principle(s) upon which it is based.

OLD HABITS DIE HARD

This from The Register had me chuckling out loud ... particularly this bit:

"The Information [on the site] does not constitute an offer and Tony Blair makes no warranty or representation as to the accuracy, completeness or fitness for purpose of the Information ..."

It's a pity we didn't have that sort of caveat to hand over the past ten years or so!!!

NO2ID CAMPAIGN

The ever-reliable John Lettice at The Register reports that those excellent folk at NO2ID (website here) are calling in the donations offered as part of its 2005 'refuse' pledge (relevant details here). I urge everyone and anyone to contemplate lending this very worthwhile campaign their support

The NO2ID introductory editorial has it spot on:

"In 2005 a still-popular Labour government was re-elected against an "unelectable" opposition. One manifesto commitment, sold on that occasion as immigration control, was a National Identity Register. Policy makers thought it was a pretty good idea. The public scarcely noticed.

"But when they are summoned to an official interview about who they are and where they live - they'll notice."

And, as they say: "Now the government seems to have started work on the [ID Cards] scheme in earnest" with no doubt the tabling of a welter of statutory instruments to give effect to their plans now imminent.

John Lettice's article makes the wholly valid point that, in respect of these items of secondary legislation:

"... little or no debate takes place, and many of them are barely noticed. "They come before Parliament on a wet Wednesday," says Herbert. "Or they're even tabled over a recess, so that at the end of the recess three men and a dog vote them through" and virtually nobody notices."

That said - and I'm trying to be constructive and helpful here - a very useful and effective vehicle does exist for legitimate objections to be raised in the shape of the "House of Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments" (homepage here). In fact, in recent times it has been instrumental in giving expression to justified concerns over a wide range of issues arising out of statutory instruments (as with Super Casinos here, HIPS (Home Information Packs) here and here, and the National Children's Database here). In fact, so far as the first of these is concerned, the relevant statutory instrument was debated on the floor of the House (here + subsequent pages), following which the Lords voted the measure down. Corresponding debates (without being taken to a vote) took place on the other two issues (here and here respectively) with all three being informed by the overtly trenchant (to varying degrees) criticisms of the Merits Committee. In effect, while not perfect, its existence does guarantee some degree of scrutiny of these insidious bits of legislation, provided of course appropriate representations are made to it.

So I hope NO2ID are up-to-speed about this and are actively considering using the Committee as a conduit to permit pledgees to make their views known about any nasties that the Government might drop in our laps. I'm sure they are!

(UPPER CRUST) SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH...A FEW THOUGHTS

The recent Times article (here) about Peers' Expenses has provoked a certain amount of comment - not least Wat Tyler over at BOM (available here - scroll down to Item 2).

As the Times says : "[P]eers do not have to submit receipts and an analysis of their expenses shows that nearly two thirds automatically claim the maximum almost every time they visit the Lords." As BOM rightly observes: "this would simply not be tolerated in the real world". And it is inevitable that this sort of 'grabbiness' leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

Mind you, so far as I can tell, the practice, distasteful as it may be, is within the rules. And, as the Times infers, peers - unlike MPs - are not in receipt of any form of salary for their parliamentary duties and so claims for expenses are the only available means of defraying any costs associated with attendance. To that extent, the observation that the current expenses system represents "the best compromise possible after the 1999 reforms" is probably fair.

It's worthwhile too trying to put this in some sort of context and, thinking about it, I recalled this article from the BBC in July of 2002 which reveals the (I think staggering) fact that: "Each European MP costs taxpayers nearly £1m a year - that compares with £385,000 for a Westminster MP and £84,000 for a peer." It would be interesting to see where the numbers stack up now and whether the differentials have narrowed at all.

Now, I'm not trying to defend either the practice or the ermine-clad monkeys themselves. Nor am I opening up a debate as to whether the House of Lords represents value for money - that's a much wider issue for a different occasion. What I am saying is that occasionally one has to be careful what you wish for. I think we can be pretty certain that, should HMRC be seen to be sniffing around the issue too much, the old dodderheads would quickly resort to Plan B and demand salaries across the piece in line with Commons practice. And that, dear reader, would escalate the cost of the Red Benches very dramatically!

As I say, it may pong, but it may be an ugly stench that we would be better advised to put up with for now.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH DEBATE

It can be quite revealing to see which Ministers/Spokesmen are allocated to which days in the debates on the Queen's Speech (or more correctly, "on the Motion that a Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty").

So, on Wednesday in the House of Lords the expected topics for debate will be "Consumer Affairs, Industry, Energy and Economic Affairs". All good and well. Now, normally one would anticipate that the Government would put up their Treasury spokesman (as it happens Lord Davies of Oldham) either to open or close the day's debate, the more so given that substantial Treasury bills were trailed in the Queen's Speech - certainly the proposed legislation "to protect depositors and ensure confidence in the banking system" (in the wake of Northern Rock) and, perhaps not quite so meaty, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Bill. But, as revealed here on the Government Whips' web-site, the Government will in fact be represented by Lord (Digby) Jones of Birmingham (DBERR and FCO) and Lord McKenzie of Luton (DWP).

Of course the former is a Minister of State and the latter is a PUSS so, nominally, they are both 'senior' to Lord Davies (as Deputy Chief Whip in the Lords) and that may account for this slightly off-key arrangement. But equally could it not be possible that Lord Davies is being 'punished' for his gaffe a month or so back - as commented upon by Iain Dale here? Or - and probably more likely bearing in mind the gist of Iain's last paragraph - could it be that the Government's business managers are trying to circumvent their Lordships from being able to indulger in detailed and effective scrutiny of the current state of the UK economy?

It seems to me that this could be a trend well worth watching.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH

I'm a little late in having my two pen'worth on this for which apologies - the pressures of work have seen me otherwise engaged.

So, in the event, Jack Straw (as putative Lord Chancellor) handed the speech to Her Majesty (see previous post here) whilst the previous incumbent, Cheeky Charlie, was mouthing off from the side-lines in a impishly - and, one assumes, unintentionally - amusing way (as reported by the BBC, something about "pyjamas"). Ho-hum - it could be interesting to try to find out how their Lordships feel about having their Chamber effectively 'invaded' by a mere Commoner? And, I wonder, does Spring-Heels Jack deem this the crowning apogee of his political career - or perhaps a foretaste of his rightful future inheritance (i.e. elevation in due course)?

As to the Speech itself and the legislative programme that it foreshadows, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it is tired stuff. For sure, the adjective "visionary" cannot be deployed. At a guess this was never the intention. Rather the strategic plan back in July when the whole thing was pre-trailed would have been that the public mood would favour a 'steady-as-she-goes' message, a reinforcement of Gordon's (assumed) competence in office post-Bliar. Unfortunately both the 'bottled' election and the Northern Rock crisis have intervened, along with a bunch of other stuff. So the intended underlying narrative of the occasion - so important to political parties in this day and age - has failed to gel with people's perceptions of the reality of the situation (viz: the serial incompetence displayed recently over the number of immigrants in work, &c). In consequence, if anything, the State Opening could well have left the Great Bottler even more on the back foot. Time will tell.

There's one other interesting sidebar that stems from the occasion. The PM has made much of his desire to signal a material change between himself and Bliar by attempting to ensure that Parliament and its debates matter more to the eventual outcome of policy. The beacon here is of course the (wholly politically-motivated - i.e. in the hope the Conservatives implode over the issue) decision to devote massive parliamentary time to the European Constitution (whoops!) Reform Treaty. But there are also the potentially huge debates surrounding the number of days for detention and abortion. It seems to me that, in both these areas (and to a lesser extent, the EU issue as well), the Great Bottler and the Cabinet, by not articulating the outcomes they would prefer to see, are running a very real risk of reinforcing the impression of indecisiveness. Certainly Jacqui Smith's vacuous comments to date on the former fit that sort of scenario. Again time will tell.

However, reading between the lines, the legislative programme is unlikely to do anything much to break GB and New Labour out of the becalmed political waters in which they find themselves or to assist them to regain any kind of political initiative. They're not sunk yet but they do seem to be drifting.

ID CARDS COSTS

The Government's flagship white elephant that is ID cards is never that far way from the news. So in the past week or so we've had LibDem leadership - more like hand-bags at dawn than a genuine contest albeit there are mild signs that potential tantrums between the two are getting a little bit uglier (see here) - contender, Nick Clegg, attempt to claim some sort of moral high ground over the issue. Despite this inspiring a certain amount of aeration from that stalwart, Guido (see here) (and I do not disagree with the fundamental point he is making about the responsibilities of legislators), Clegg's position is not quite as 'principled' as it may outwardly appear, as John Lettice points out in The Register (see here). It seems the perennial Janus-like habits of the LibDems aren't going to be excised any time soon.

Be that as it may, there is another reason why the whole shebang might resurface again in the dead tree press over the next week or so. You, dear reader, will recall that, in order to get the ermine-clad monkeys to let the Bill through, the Government had to concede to publication of a six-monthly financial health-check of the whole vainglorious scheme as provided for by Section 37 of the Act. The Act received Royal Assent on 30th March, 2006. So, on strict interpretation of the text, the Home Office is required to publish its Cost Report on 30th March and 30th September each year. Well,... 30th Sept has been and gone without a sniff of the relevant Report and so Basher Reid's "not-fit-for-purpose" HO is in breach of its statutory duty.

Of course, dear reader, you will also be aware that this isn't the first time the HO has failed in this particular respect. This year's previous Report (and an exceptionally skimpy, disingenuous piece of work it was too - available here), due as I say on 30th March, wasn't published until 10th May. That failure provoked this somewhat genteel exchange on the red leather benches. I suppose, if a generous frame of mind were applied, the deadline for publication could be stretched to 10th November - previous late publication of 10th May + 6 months - but, in truth, I'm not holding my breath that even this will be complied with. (As an aside one can only speculate what havoc would have been wreaked in the Home Office had The Great Bottler not bottled it and we had been in general election mode over the past month or so!) Whatever, can we expect Baroness Noakes, as the prime mover of the original amendment in the Bill, to be tabling another question in the Lords asking the Government why they seem serially incapable of complying with their own laws?

This, after all, is the real significance of the issue. An administration that expects us as citizens to comply with 1,000s upon 1,000s of new laws, regulations, imposts, edicts, &c that they have imposed upon us since it came to power in 1997 cannot even be bothered to obey this relatively trifling statutory requirement imposed upon itself. And that, my friends, really does beg the question of whether we shouldn't perhaps follow their example and be somewhat more contemptuous of what they legislate into law, supposedly in our names. And ironically, this brings us full circle to Nick Clegg's less-than-principled stand on ID cards. We could perhaps have more faith in his leadership ambitions if he took this concept to heart rather than indulging himself in essentially meaningless gestures in an unedifying attempt to establish his putative libertarian credentials.