I agree with the motion passed by conference [link] and feel that accreditation for Federal Conference is illiberal and unnecessary and should be rejected. As such I completely oppose its use in the future.
All those entering conference already have to pass through security checks which would reveal any weapons or other harmful devices, and all successful terrorist attacks against conferences in recent history have not been ones that would have been prevented by accreditation. The Brighton bombing involved a bomb that was planted at a hotel months before the conference so, unless the FCC proposes to vet everyone staying at the conference hotel for months beforehand, accreditation would not have prevented it. All major organised terrorist attacks have been carried out by people with the correct paperwork who would not have been caught out by accreditation and the shootings in Norway last summer were conducted by a man who impersonated a police officer and who therefore would not have been caught by accreditation.
Accreditation would do little or nothing to improve safety and goes against fundamental liberal values - especially in the requirement for people to specifically ask that their data be deleted following the accreditation procedure.
I am also extremely disappointed that the FCC seems to feel that the clear will of conference was not sufficiently clear. It is not the place of the FCC to overrule conference and this "consultation" held for just one week in the middle of the local election campaigns smacks of an attempt to undermine party policy. I hope that members of the FCC will be judged on this in the elections to the FCC later this year.
Membership number: XXXXXXX