NEWS RELEASE – ID CARDS

GLASGOW MSP CALLS FOR ID CARD PILOT BOYCOTT

Green MSP Patrick Harvie has called for a boycott of the Home Office?s pilot scheme of identity cards in Glasgow.

Glasgow, along with Newcastle, London and Leicester, has been chosen for a pilot scheme for the ?biometric? cards carrying iris scans, fingerprints and facial recognition data.

Mr Harvie, said, ?I call on Glasgow residents to boycott this pilot scheme ? I for one certainly will. I will not provide biometric data for an ID card, and I will not carry compulsory ID. I call on everyone who has anything less than absolute confidence in the integrity of all governments which might ever exist, to join me in the same pledge.

?This kind of scheme changes citizens? relationship with government forever ? can we really trust all the future governments to come? We must remember that the powers we give to this Government we give to all governments which follow, be they left or right, liberal or authoritarian, flushed with power or terrified of losing it.?

Greens argue that the introduction of compulsory ID cards is an infringement of civil liberties, and that their effectiveness in enhancing security and reducing the threat of terrorism is unproven.

Mr Harvie said, ?It is one thing to offer people a convenient way of proving their identity when they need to, it is quite another to force people to submit to compulsory ID cards. Quite apart from the erosion of civil liberties, the introduction of ID cards is likely to be another bureaucratic disaster and there is little proof that the scheme will improve security.

?First Minister Jack McConnell has claimed that ID cards will not be required to access devolved public services such as health care. We need to hear him repeat that promise. I will be writing to Glasgow MSPs, political parties, union branches, churches and voluntary organisations to call for a determined stand against ID cards.?

Big Issue article – nuclear weapons

The last day of my long weekend this Easter was spent with a few hundred other folk outside the Faslane nuclear submarine base on the Clyde.

The home of Britain?s weapons of mass destruction sees regular demonstrations, blockades, marches and rallies, as seasoned campaigners and enthusiastic youngsters of many political persuasions and none join together to call for the scrapping of Trident.

One of the speakers expressed frustration and confusion about why the whole of Scotland wasn?t there with us. I share these feelings. The presence of Trident on our river threatens the whole of the West of Scotland, and the existence of all nuclear arsenals continues to threaten all life, everywhere.

This year the protests take on a new urgency. The UK Government has indicated that it will be in the next session of Parliament that the decision will be taken about what comes after Trident. It is widely expected that they will throw in their lot with the US (for a change) and kick-start a whole new arms race.

Actually the Blair government is already spending large amounts of money on expanding its research capacity so that successors to Trident can be provided ? a new generation of nuclear weapons as a response to a new international situation. During the cold war those who supported nuclear weapons wanted a means to threaten a huge monolithic enemy ? the Soviet Union.

Twenty-first century warmongers will want something more flexible, capable of engaging the kind of enemies they?re busy making now. This means so-called ?mini-nukes?, such as bunker busters and battlefield nuclear devices.

Some of these may blur the line between nuclear and conventional warfare, however UK Government ministers have already threatened first-strike use even of Trident, so it?s clear the line is becoming meaningless to them.

The theoretical horror of all out nuclear warfare, of mutually assured destruction, looks set to be replaced by actual horror, in a world which has reinvented nuclear warfare and given it a place in the continuous engagement of the ?War on Terror?.

Already we?re using nuclear by-products in weapons, in the form of depleted uranium. If the likes of Bush and Blair have their way, DU will be little more than a warm-up act before the nuclear show really gets started.

When Albert Einstein warned us over half a century ago that in a nuclear age we must learn a new way of thinking, this wasn?t what he had in mind. A government which fosters hate around the world, which goes to war against its people?s will in the name of democracy, which creates a whole new generation of nuclear weapons, which relies on the fear of annihilation to impose its will, such a government has failed to heed Einstein?s warning.

But any citizen who sees this threat and does not act to challenge that government has also failed. There are things we can all do, in word and in deed, to issue such a challenge. We must ensure that over the coming year we make this a top election issue. We must make our demand with clarity ? we will not send any MP of any party to Westminster at next year?s election unless they are prepared to oppose this insanity.

You can do it right now by picking up a pen or making a phone call. You can also do it by joining us at the next Faslane blockade ? mark the 23rd of August in your diary now and get in touch with Scottish CND for more information, or to become a member.

Big Blockade Action Line ? 0845 4588361
big_blockade@hotmail.com
Scottish CND, 15 Barrland Street, Glasgow G41 1QH

Read Patrick Harvie every week in the Big Issue in Scotland.

Recycling in Glasgow

Glasgow has never been good at recycling. Only about 6% of our waste currently gets recycled, and the lack of services and facilities is a major reason for this. Most people want to be responsible with their waste, but the option is closed off to most of us.

The City Council is promising improvements, but in the last week or two there have been setbacks. Recycling facilities at Safeway supermarkets in Partick, Baillieston and Crossmyloof have all been marked for closure.

The Council and Safeway are busy blaming each other, and I find it difficult to trust the arguments on either side. But it’s pretty clear that recycling has never been a high priority for most Glasgow councillors.

If the targets for improvement are to be met, this will have to change.

Please consider emailing or writing to your local councillor about this issue, and you could also ask your constituency MSP to sign my motion about it (below).

Not one of them has done so yet!

You can find information about how to contact them in the Contact section of this site.

S2M-1174 Patrick Harvie: Recycling in Glasgow
That the Parliament expresses concern at the loss of recycling facilities from supermarkets in Glasgow; considers that supermarkets have a responsibility to make provision for recycling, given the huge amount of packaging generated by their business, but that a reasonable level of service from local authorities is necessary in order to keep “bring sites” in good order, and urges Glasgow City Council to give greater priority to ensuring that Glasgow residents can access recycling services either from home or from local facilities in their community.

Letter to Herald – ID Cards

Many people will react with horror to the idea of compulsory ID cards with DNA profiles and other biometric data, as suggested by Dan Bradley (letters, April 14th). My own gut feeling is strongly against such ideas.

As I wrote last month in the Big Issue though, I would be willing to listen to my head rather than my heart, if I was convinced that ID cards really would work to protect people against the kind of atrocity which Madrid experienced recently.

But listening to Government ministers put the case for ID cards reminds me of listening to their reasons for invading Iraq – each time a counter argument was put they would shift the ground from WMD to supposed links with al-Qaeda, from UN resolutions to Saddam just being a really bad guy.

With ID cards their options include illegal immigration, benefit fraud, organised crime and the top trump, terrorism. I can see that an ID card would help identify a body, but I don’t see how it would stop a UK citizen from carrying out a suicide attack if they’re so minded.

There’s also a research gap – if it is argued that ID cards will make security services more effective, we need to know how. A major concern, as John Lettice wrote in the Register recently, is that “the UK? is about to commit one of the primary sins of IT systems specification by commissioning a project without first figuring out how (or whether) it can achieve its stated objectives. Which is how all the Great British Government IT Disasters commence.”

If I really thought the case for ID cards was strong I might just swallow my pride and go along with it. But I still believe it’s a dangerous ploy. We must always remember that the powers we give to this Government we give to all governments which come after it be they left or right, liberal or authoritarian, flushed with power or terrified of losing it. Even Tony Blair’s supporters should realise that and think again.

I will not provide biometric data for an ID card, and I will not carry compulsory ID. I want to call on everyone who has anything less than absolute confidence in the integrity of all Governments which might ever exist, to join me in the same pledge.

Patrick Harvie MSP
The Scottish Parliament

Big Issue article – Planning

The Scottish Executive last week published its public consultation on the planning system. This is one that many campaigners have been waiting for eagerly ? the reform of the planning system has the potential to put social and environmental factors right at the heart of the way we build our towns and cities, our transport systems, our housing, and more.

Now I know that planning isn?t exactly the sexiest subject imaginable. For many people it would come a poor second to trainspotting or the intricacies of the D?Hondt system versus the Sainte-Lagu? method (it?s a PR thing apparently), but it really is a hugely important function of your local authority. If the system is reformed, you?ll feel the impact. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life.

Jack McConnell?s coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats contained the commitment to legislate on planning, and to consult on ?wider rights of appeal?. This phrase was a nod in the direction of so-called ?Third Party Rights of Appeal? (TPRA), but it wasn?t explicit enough to be called an endorsement.

To explain, when a planning application is refused the applicant (for example a property developer) has the right to appeal the decision. In fact they have up to six months to do so, and the objectors to the development will have to wait that long before they have any certainty. However if things go the other way and the application is successful the objectors have no right to appeal.

Even if there are hundreds of people objecting because they will be personally affected, there is nothing they can do. We?ve seen this with big high-profile developments like landfill sites and road-building projects, but it is also happening all over the place on a smaller scale. In Glasgow it seems that every bit of open space is being taken over by housing, and I?m sure the same is true elsewhere.

So TPRA as the campaigners call it would level the playing field. Personally I would rather call it ?equal rights? of appeal, since the objectors are often the people with most at stake. They may be complaining that a development will damage their health, their local environment, the cohesion of their community. Very often the developer is a private business with no connection to the area and whose interest is only commercial. If anyone should be described as a ?third party? it?s them.

This is a critical issue for environmental justice in Scotland. The current planning system is blatantly biased in favour of the developer, and the people most directly affected by development are out of the loop.

A more sustainable system would allow health considerations to be taken into account. It would use the precautionary principle where possible. It would have a presumption in favour of sustainable development and would apply the meaning of that concept fully. It would facilitate developments which can claim to benefit social justice, environmental justice and economic justice.

At the very least, it would give equal rights of appeal for developers and objectors. Equal rights of appeal must exist in four categories as a bare minimum: for all developments which are contrary to the local development plan; those in which the planning authority has an interest; those which require an environmental impact assessment; and developments which were subject to planning officers’ recommendation for refusal.

The overhaul of the planning system is overdue, but it must be taken as an opportunity to put sustainability at the heart of the system, so that the impact of development on the environment and the people who live in it aren?t sacrificed for developers’ profits.

Read Patrick Harvie every week in the Big Issue in Scotland.