No IDea

The Home Office is consulting on the implementation of Identity cards in its consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008', which details the roll-out of ID cards to foreign nationals, airport workers, young people and then to the whole population . . . "voluntarily".

From November 2008, the UK Border Agency will be charged with issuing biometric ID cards (including fingerprints) to foreign nationals. This according to the Home consultation document will "protect the community against crime, illegal immigration, and terrorism".

However, a cursory scan of the internet reveals that crime, immigration and terrorism are still present in countries with ID cards. The ID card has always been a solution looking for a problem, and the consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008' only serves to highlight this fact.

Desperately seeking a reason for ID cards, the Home Office have allowed nonsense such as this to be printed: "more frequently than before we have to prove who we are to people who do not know us: for example when we apply for jobs, use public services, travel abroad and open bank accounts".

But the fact is that mechanisms and forms of ID already exist for all these purposes – and this has not become more frequent in recent years. For decades now, people have worked, used public services, travelled abroad and even had a bank account without needing an ID card. Indeed, later in the consultation paper it states that ID cards will provide "the same level of proof as a passport for confirming your identity", so why are ID cards necessary?

Next in line, after foreign nationals, are airport workers who have been told they must pay £30 for an ID card from 2009 to work in the job they already do. The Unite union has stated that the workforce at airports already "undergoes lengthy and vigorous pre-employment checks", and therefore "see little additional benefit stemming from the introduction of identity cards".

The National Union of Students is also "extremely concerned" about the Government's proposals to issue young people with ID cards "on a voluntary basis" from 2010: "They say that the card will be 'voluntary', but those students who decide not to have an ID card will encounter difficulties when applying for student loans and bank accounts", and so in practice the card becomes compulsory. From 2011/12 the scheme "voluntarily" rolls out to the rest of the population.

The NO2ID campaign states that "Whether you volunteer or are coerced onto the ID database, there's no way back. You'll be monitored for life. That's why the government is targeting students and young people".

Corporate Watch is also concerned about the role of the private sector, and the ever-expanding veil of commercial confidentiality. The Government states that the "market would provide" enrolment for the card, including the taking of biometric data. The full report 'Corporate Identity' can be downloaded from Corporation Watch.

The deadline for responding to this consultation is 30th June, and the full consultation document 'National Identity Scheme: Delivery Plan 2008' can be downloaded from the Home Office website.

Painting the town green

The Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) is consulting on the proposals for the first wave of eco-towns, but already local campaigns against them have formed at virtually every proposed site. The DCLG states that construction at some sites will start as early as 2010. The sites in question are in Leeds, Rossington, Manby, Rushcliffe, Curborough, Pennbury, Coltishall, Middle Quinton, Marston, Henley Grange, Weston Otmoor, NE Elsenham, Bordon-Whitehill, Ford, and St Austell.

There are serious concerns with every alleged benefit of these new eco-towns: the environmental, housing, and democratic.

On the environmental case, many green groups that initially welcomed the proposals are now expressing concerns that far from being about the reclamation of brownfield sites adjacent to existing conurbations, almost all the short-listed schemes in the consultation paper are on greenfield sites. The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) states that it "supports the idea of exemplary development that achieves high environmental standards", but that the majority of current proposals "appear to be in unsuitable, unsustainable locations". In a four-page dossier, CPRE assesses each of the proposed locations in turn.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) also states in its balanced document 'Sustainable solution or too good to be true' that "by being sited on top of a former wildlife haven or by causing lots of new road traffic", even the best eco-town "is unlikely to be a model of green development and living". FoE also rightly questions why the environmental criteria applied to eco-towns cannot be applied to all new housing and to existing settlements – in its document Home Truths.

Of the over 100,000 homes that could be built through these proposals, it seems that somewhere between none and very few will be council homes. Instead, the proposals refer to the nebulous concept of "affordable housing".

The role of councils in the whole eco-towns scheme is also limited. The detailed proposals are shrouded under "commercial confidentiality" as the new towns will be run by a management body, which will "co-ordinate delivery of services and manage facilities".

The Local Government Association has raised concerns that "locally agreed planning policies could be bypassed" and "councils would be unable to insist that services such as schools, shops, parks and public transport are integrated into the new settlements". In other words these new eco-towns could be corporately controlled towns, and national planning rules will override local democratic accountability in their design and construction.

The consultation document can be downloaded from the DCLG website, and the deadline for responses is 30th June.