An identity crisis

JANET PARASKEVA URGES CAUTION AS THE GOVERNMENT SETS OUT ITS CASE FOR IDENTITY CARDS

Earlier this month, the prime minister indicated that, with the continuing threat of terrorism, it was likely that identity cards would be introduced more quickly than originally planned.

A few days later, the home secretary promised that a draft identity cards Bill would be published within a month.

Yet despite all the bold talk, there is little political consensus around the question of ID cards.

The press continues to report divisions in cabinet, with several senior ministers expressing strong reservations.

The public does not seem to have much of an appetite for the proposals either.

Most striking of the surveys carried out was that on the Web site of STAND, a voluntary group seeking to increase democratic involvement in the legislative process.

It received more than 5,000 e-mails about the scheme, 97% of which opposed the introduction of ID cards.

The government announced its proposals for a scheme in July 2002, and the Law Society has been actively involved with the issue since then.

Most recently, in March we hosted a debate on identity cards, which involved the government, MPs, lawyers, academics and non-governmental organisations.

The government has provided a number of rationales for introducing an identity card scheme.

The cards have been variously heralded as the answer to identity fraud, illegal working and health tourism and as an essential tool in the fight against crime, illegal immigration and terrorism.

However, the government has not yet spelled out convincingly how any of those benefits will be achieved.

Some people will be opposed in principle to any identity card scheme, whether or not the government can demonstrate its effectiveness for those purposes.

Others will argue that there is no reason at all why identity cards should not be mandatory even if no such benefits can be shown.

I think most lawyers' views will lie between those extremes.

Requiring every individual to register for an identity card marks a shift in the balance between the individual and the state, which is undesirable unless there are clear pressing social needs and compensating benefits.

It is for the government to demonstrate that the benefits that would be obtained from an identity card scheme justify the intrusion into personal liberty.

The Law Society has a number of serious worries about the proposals.

These include concerns both about the effectiveness of identity cards in combating fraud and criminal activity, the impact a scheme may have on vulnerable populations, and the potential violation of human rights, especially in relation to privacy.

It is the Society's view that ID cards are unlikely to be effective in combating identity fraud.

Dependence on a single form of identity has been shown to be ineffective - two forms of identity are much more reliable.

Similar schemes in other countries have failed in this respect.

ID cards are unlikely either to do much to address illegal working.

Employers who are willing to employ people illegally without National Insurance numbers will probably continue to employ people illegally without identity cards.

Nor would they have a huge impact on crime reduction.

The biggest problem for the police is not identifying individuals, but rather linking individuals to crimes.

An identity card would do little to solve that problem.

Furthermore, although Spain has strong rules in relation to ID cards and data protection, this did not halt recent terrorist activity in Madrid.

The Law Society also has concerns about privacy and data protection.

It is essential that people have confidence that highly personal information would be kept confidential.

This includes information held on the card, on the central register and a third type of information that is generated every time the card is used.

There needs to be a clear statutory definition of the purposes of the scheme and the restrictions to the use of data on the face of the legislation.

The government's proposals for the introduction of ID cards are in two stages.

Phase one comprises the introduction of biometrics on passports and driving licences, voluntary cards, and cards for foreign nationals.

Phase two would make it compulsory for all citizens to register for a card, though not to carry one at all times.

The Law Society maintains that it is imperative that any proposals by the government should be contained in two separate pieces of legislation - a compulsory scheme should not be introduced by statutory instrument.

The question of whether the scheme should be compulsory is a tricky one.

The government appears to be seeking consensus for ID cards on the basis that they would be voluntary with a separate decision then necessary to make them compulsory.

Yet in reality we all know that it is inconceivable that any scheme would not become compulsory either in practice or in law, because none of the benefits that identity cards promise would accrue unless the scheme were universal.

History shows that all types of cards are forgeable.

From National Insurance numbers to passports, each scheme has been riddled with technological problems and linked with forgery and a profitable black market.

The government's proposals do not inspire confidence that practical problems will be effectively addressed or principled fears allayed.

It is the Law Society's view that the case for identity cards has not yet been made, and extreme caution should be exercised before the government plunges headlong into implementing these proposals.

Janet Paraskeva is the Law Society chief executive