Just as a matter of interest, Jean Corston was created a life peer by the UK government in July this year and is is chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party. She is an ex Labour MP and Parliamentary Private Secretary (PPS). Call me cynical but it is really difficult to believe this little exchange wasn't worked out in advance of the debate:
"Baroness Corston: While my noble friend is finding the appropriate place, perhaps I may comment on something she said earlier. I have been very dismayed at the degree to which noble Lords have referred to a particular report as the "LSE report". It was actually written by a Mr Simon Davies, who works for Privacy International, which is an international organisation that is violently opposed to identity card Bills and has opposed them in many countries. Mr Davies came to a meeting in the other place chaired by me a couple of years ago when the Government first mentioned identity cards.
It is true that Mr Davies is a visiting fellow of the LSE, but that is a different matter. Indeed, the present director of the LSE, Howard Davies, has confirmed that the document itself is not an official corporate document of the LSE. Perhaps we should start calling it the "Davies report".
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My noble friend is absolutely right: it is the Davies report. I am perhaps in error in calling it the London School of Economics report. That is how it has been referred to in the debate. It is an inaccurate reference. I do not want to cast any aspersions on the London School of Economics. I will certainly take my noble friend's stricture and from henceforth I will refer to it only as the "Davies report". So we have that clarity."
Baroness Anelay, the Conservatives's shadow home affairs minister in the House of Lords, then points out that given the range of LSE professors associated with the report it is reasonable to call it the "LSE report." But Jean Corston insists she will now continue to label it the "Davies report."
Now let's look at what the LSE Department for Information Systems website says about the LSE ID card research:
"The Identity Project
The Identity Project has published two reports on the Government's Identity card proposals. These reports have been widely discussed in the press and parliament and you can download the reports and link to the press coverage on these page.
The Identity Project has been organised and sponsored by the LSE Department of Information Systems. Two departtment members, Gus Hosein and Simon Davies have co-ordinated the production of the reports and have serviced the advisory committee of 14 LSE professors who guided the report. Dr Edgar Whitley co-ordinated the international team of 60 researchers who contributed to the report."
So the report was created by the LSE Department of Information Systems, 14 other LSE Professors and an international team of 60 researchers. And as for Jean Corston's suggestion that the director of the LSE, Howard Davies, had distanced the institution from the report, let's look at his letter to the Times on the subject in full:
From the Director of the LSE
Sir, Over the last six months a team of London School of Economics researchers has mounted a major research project to assess the Government’s Identity Cards Bill and its implications. Sixty people contributed to the work, overseen by a dozen LSE professors.
The report is long (305 pages) and detailed. One conclusion among many is that the Government’s scheme will be more costly than it claims (report, June 28).
Aware of the work, Home Office officials demanded to see advance copies. Before they had been provided, the Home Secretary condemned the cost estimates as “mad”. When it was published, he described the analysis as a “fabrication” and one of the project mentors as “highly partisan”.
Following the media coverage, LSE’s Governing Council reasserted the right of academic researchers to publish and be damned. The report is not, of course, a “corporate” LSE document. It does, however, represent the honest and considered views of a team of experts.
It is unfortunate that, on an issue where the civil liberties concerns are so serious, the Government should have chosen to adopt a bullying approach to critics whose prime motivation was to devise a scheme which might work, at an acceptable cost.
HOWARD DAVIES
Kingsway, London
Not much room for government comfort there then. I really don't know whether Simon Davies should be flattered or annoyed at the attention he's getting from the government but the LSE report is certainly a major thorn in their side in the ID card debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment