The police would be sued more often if the government legislated for an identity card, compulsory or not, civil rights lawyers have warned.

The imposition of ID cards could also infringe human rights legislation, legal specialists said in reaction to the Home Secretary's green paper announcement at the Conservative party conference'Police are already paying out large sums for wrongful arrest and false imprisonment claims, and if identity cards are introduced it will increase the number of cases against the police,' said Louise Christian, of London solicitors Christian Fisher.'People are going to be asked by the police to produce their ID, even if it is a voluntary scheme.

It is a very quick slide into a police state when you can be held in prison because the police are not satisfied you are who you say you are.'Ms Christian, who often acts for clients suing the police, said that anything resembling a 'pass law', making it an offence not to have valid ID, would infringe the European Convention of Human Rights privacy provisions.Peter Thornton QC, t he leading civil rights silk from Doughty Street chambers, said that clumsy attempts to enforce an ID card regime would lead to problems.

'The more the police are stopping people without good reason the more you get confrontation,' he said.

'Civil actions against the police are a lively market, and much compensation is paid out.' Cards would lead to more of the same.Civil liberties groups like Liberty, which spoke out against the Howard card, were taking some comfort from case law on the subject.Before the wartime card was abolished in 1952, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard, in a case involving a motorist who refused to show his card to a police officer, remarked: 'Because the police may have powers, it does not follow that they ought to exercise them on all occasions and as a matter of routine...

such action tends to make the people resentful of the acts of the police, and incline them to obstruct the police instead of assisting them.'At a fringe meeting organised by the Law Society, a warning that solicitors were essential for the protection of basic rights was sounded.Kamlesh Bahl, chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission, a leading solicitor, told the meeting: 'Lawyers are essential to the development of the law and the development of democratic freedoms,' pointedly adding: 'The law protects us against an over-zealous government administration.' Ms Bahl later made it clear that her comments did not relate directly to the question of ID cards.It is understood, however, that the EOC will want to look hard at the race and sex discrimination implications of a card scheme.Mr Howard said a voluntary card would build on existing government initiatives to put photos on driving licences and to crack dole fraud with a card for social security claimants.A voluntary scheme based on drivers and the unemployed would reach 75% of the population.

'No one else would be forced to get one, but I believe that, in time, the vast majority would,' Mr Howard said.A veteran of the poll tax debacle, he defended his decision not to force through his ID plans with greater dispatch: 'If anybody thinks it would be sensible to rush ID cards, I suggest they ought to see their neighbourhood psychiatrist.'-- HOWARD'S SAYMain points of Michael Howard's speech.-- Government remains 'absolutely committed' to criminal cases review authority, but will not say when it will legislate.-- Courts to have new powers to confiscate criminals 'ill gotten gains'.-- Witness support schemes to be established in every Crown Court by the end of 1995.-- Maximum penalty for racial harassment to go up to six month in jail.-- National DNA database to be operational from early next year; police to have extensive powers to take DNA samples from suspects.-- Green paper in the spring on the options for a national ID card.