By Joe McCann
COUNCILLORS have given a resounding thumbs down to government plans for digital ID cards.
Members of the council’s Corporate Services Committee have voted unanimously to write to the government declaring their opposition to the plan, which has already been opposed by three million people who signed a petition.
The government proposed digital ID cards as a way to tackle illegal immigration but the plan has been universally unpopular.
Introducing the motion at the recent committee meeting, Independent Unionist councillor Wesley Irvine said Ards and North Down Council should write to the government and make its opposition to the plan clear. “This is an issue that has caused considerable concern, not just throughout the borough or the country, but throughout the United Kingdom as a whole,” he said.
“It creates the infrastructure for potential mass surveillance, allowing the state to track activities across various services, which fundamentally changes the relationship between the individual and the state, and also the mistrust that that would bring with it.”
Mr Irvine warned that concentrating large volumes of personal data would increase the risk of cyber attacks.
“Centralising vast amounts of sensitive personal data makes the system a target for hackers.
“I know cyber security is a big issue for a lot of companies, and we’ve seen many major companies and also government agencies that have fallen foul of hacking from both domestic and non-domestic hackers and hostile states as well.”
He also raised concerns about expansion beyond its original purpose. “Though the government are saying that digital ID is to help curb illegal immigration, there’s concern that it would then gradually expand in scope to cover more and more aspects of daily life.”
The Bangor Central councillor said elderly people, those with disabilities and people on low incomes risked exclusion from essential services, and argued that non-compliant employers would continue to ignore the law while others faced extra burdens. He described the proposal as ‘a departure from UK’s tradition of limited state interference and freedom.’
Seconding the motion, Independent councillor Steven Irvine said the issue came down to protecting fundamental rights. “I’m pleased to second this notice of motion because at its heart, it’s a very simple principle. The protection of our residents’ fundamental rights and freedoms,” said Mr Irvine.
He stated a mandatory system linked to everyday services would create a single gateway to daily life and said failures or misuse could unfairly exclude people from healthcare, benefits or banking. “Moreover, once a digital ID becomes mandatory and tied to essential services, it concentrates an enormous amount of personal information in one place,” he added.
“That creates opportunities for misuse, surveillance, data breaches and mission creep, where a system introduced for one purpose begins to be used for many others without democratic consent.”
UUP alderman Philip Smith said ID cards were ‘fundamentally un-British’ and said such cards had been abolished in 1952 after the Second World War.
He questioned claims the system would address illegal immigration and warned of a move towards a surveillance state, adding that there was no public appetite for the proposal.
DUP alderman Alan Graham said the proposal lacked a democratic mandate. “The government introducing legislation or proposing legislation which they have not a mandate for that they have not included in their manifesto for election and I think that is inherently bad for democracy,” he said.
