NO2ID

I see the 'government' is now wanting every man woman and child to have their DNA taken and recorded centrally on a database. Will this eventually be linked to the ID card scheme?
There is a consultation document where you can voice your objections or your support...
Nuffield consultation document

Yes, unless we can stop them. My guess is they're having this debate now to see if they can get DNA from passport applicants.

I think that presupposes far too much premeditation and planning. (As do most of the other "They're softening us up!" suggestions.) Not everything in politics revolves round ID: rather the ID scheme is a symptom of a control obsession, and bureaucratic model of the person.

If an ID scheme succeeds, however, it is absolutely certain that the DNA database would be linked to it. That doesn't mean universal DNA sampling. It doesn't mean the Identity Cards Act would be altered to permit the storage of DNA 'fingerprints' in the Register. But as a simple matter of administrative logic, it would become the best way of identifying the individual to whom the sample was attributed, so an ID number would be added to the details recorded in the DNA database when any new sample or any reference to the database were made.

Normally I'd agree with you, but Blair probably didn't consult anyone (his DNA suggestion backfired massively).



I thought the Act would not need to be altered as it says "3.(6) The Secretary of State may by order modify the information for the time being set out in Schedule 1."

Anyone?

I might be wrong, but wouldn't such an order need to be done via e.g. a Statutory Instrument, and therefore be subject to some kind of vote as per 3.(8)?

How far would Schedule 1, 2(d) "other biometric information about him" need to be stretched to be allowed to include DNA? i.e. since that is biological rather than biometric.
Would this count as a "modification" as per 3.(6) or an "addition" as per 3.(7)...?

As in "3.(7) The Secretary of State must not make an order containing (with or without other provision) any provision for adding information to the information that may be recorded in the Register unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

Though the effectiveness of putting something up for a vote in the Commons these days is 'somewhat open to question'...

Since passports are "royal prerogative", surely DNA can be collected then. It would help them link up the police databases to the NIR too.

A question for Mr Hall methinks.

Changing the Schedule for the time being is altering the Act.

Thanks for posting the link to the Nuffield consultation. It's a matter that affects us all. Especially the question posed that to reduce the 'potential bias' towards young males and ethnic minorities in the current DNA bank, would it be a good idea to store the DNA profile of all children at birth!

They don't care about us, it's the next generation they are really after, by the look of it, because it won't matter what they say when they grow up, they'll already have been digitised and stored by the government for law enforcement purposes.

Nuts, what's to stop the detail of the ID bill being tampered with by the ministerial powers vested in the Abolition of Parliament bill? It's not as if Blair cares any longer about disguising the reality of the NIR's purpose (allowing the police to go on fingerprint fishing trips).

What did we do wrong, Mr Blair, apart from vote you in? Why are you doing this to us?

(OT, but just in case anyone isn't aware of this one)

NB this is now an Act (see OPSI : LRRA 2006 for text) - if it's any comfort, a whole stack of opposition amendments were pretty much waved through, and the final result was a massive improvement.
Last Commons debate on it recorded here and a good short summary at the Save Parliament website

That the powers to alter every detail of the Identity Cards Act 2006 are already within that Act itself, and it could easily be radically extended by clauses tacked on to other primary legislation.

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is a much less terrifying beast than the original bill, and the powers contained in it are both less than the powers under ICA 2006 (they can't be used to create new powers) and politically too difficult/obvious to use when other procedures would be smoother and not wake all sorts of Pavlovian responses in some observers.