In the drive to beat terrorism, the government proposes to introduce national identity cards in 2007.

Yet lawyers fear that civil liberties will be diminished, reports Andrew Towler

With further arrests being made in Manchester last week under the Terrorism Act 2000, people are again being forced to ask themselves exactly who is living down their street and what is going on behind the faade of a normal urban existence.

The government's proposed draft legislation to enable the introduction of identification (ID) cards could be seen by some to be the answer to such concerns.

A draft Bill is expected to be published very shortly, with a 2007 date set for the national implementation of the ID card scheme, and Home Secretary David Blunkett has argued that the scheme will do more than just reduce the threat of terrorism.

Since the idea of the scheme was first made public in 2002, the government has argued that requiring all British citizens to have an ID card would also prevent illegal immigration and illegal working, tackle identity theft, reduce benefit fraud, and enhance the sense of community.

An opinion poll last week showed strong backing for ID cards, while they have also had widespread support from law enforcers, with Metropolitan Police commissioner Sir John Stevens this month speaking of his support for the scheme and its effectiveness.

Additionally, recent opinion polls suggest public support for ID cards is running at 80% or more, and in January this year technology to read iris scans or fingerprints - the suggested method of identification on ID cards - was tested by the government.

But several civil liberties groups and human rights lawyers have spoken out against the idea of 'labelling' every person in the country.

The Law Society has also hit out at the idea.

It stated in a parliamentary brief published in December 2003 that it seriously doubted 'whether an identity card scheme would significantly reduce the incidence of identity fraud, or of other crimes.

But it would increase the administrative burden on the police and put a heavy financial burden on government and individuals'.

In addition, at a seminar convened by the Society on the subject last month - widely attended by MPs and other stakeholders - President Peter Williamson said: 'The Society is of the view that the government has not yet made the case for adopting a national ID card scheme.'

Rodney Warren, director of the Criminal Law Solicitors Association, says there are two perspectives as to why the scheme should not be introduced - 'the human rights and privacy issues and the question of functionality'.

On the human rights side, Mr Warren says: 'The fact that each individual's details will have to be stored on one huge database is very alarming from a civil libertarian point of view.

There is always the risk that the central records could be accessed and used by an individual in an inappropriate manner at some point in the future.'

Barry Hughill, a spokesman for human rights organisation Liberty, points out: 'The notion of an ID card would not just be restricted to a person's name and address, but the system would link up education, health and transport departments to one central database, making the quantity of information large and dangerous.'

Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights policy at legal civil liberties group Justice, adds that 'function creep' could be a major problem with a central database of such a scale.

'The personal information gathered could stretch to a person's DNA and blood samples,' he says.

'Then, if the government allows private organisations to access the information, you could find a situation where your local video shop asks for your ID card and has a free trawl through your life's details.

I don't think the government has properly addressed these questions.'

Human rights lawyer Louise Christian, a partner at London-based human rights and immigration firm Christian Khan, says she sees 'huge problems in the passing of information around a number of agencies'.

She says: 'We live in a society where private life is private.

If you have contact with one government department, you don't expect information to be passed on to other agencies.'

However, Ms Christian's views of how an ID card scheme infringes human rights go a lot further than just privacy.

'There is a danger of creating a two-tier system of citizenship,' she says.

She explains: 'Those people who are not full British citizens, and thus without an ID card, would be excluded from all benefits and exist outside the usual civil society of most people in the UK.

People fleeing persecution abroad would be afforded second-class status in the UK.'

Ms Christian also sees a danger that the scheme could inflame racism and prejudice - a particularly sensitive area in the current climate.

She says: 'If you look like a foreign national, you would be more likely to be stopped and asked to produce a card; and not just by the police, but potentially when claiming basic public services such as healthcare and housing.

There could be the creation of an underclass and a police state, where to be an asylum seeker would mean to be excluded from society.

There are worrying examples of this throughout history.'

However, speaking at the Law Society seminar, Stephen Harrison, head of policy in the Home Office's ID cards programme, said people will not have to carry their cards, and the police will not have the power to stop people and demand to see their ID cards.

Mr Hughill fears that the government may be taking liberties away.

'The state has duties to its citizens and not the other way around,' he says.

'There must be a very good reason for an individual to reveal their private lives to the state, and ID cards are not worth that sacrifice.'

Such a huge project will inevitably require large funding and while the government has quoted the cost at an already staggering 3 billion to 4 billion, Mr Hughill foresees the eventual cost being nearer 7 billion.

'The UK has never had an ID card system, with the exception of the Second World War, so we would be starting from scratch.

The cost would be astronomical for something that has no proven benefits, when the money could be spent on something far more worthwhile like the war on terrorism.'

The government naturally argues that by spending the money on ID cards, that is exactly what it is investing in.

However, as Mr Warren says, there is also a widespread belief that ID cards not only amount to a breach of civil liberties, but will be ineffective in tackling the issues - such as terrorism, immigration and fraud - that they set out to address.

Mr Warren explains: 'People manage to come in and out the country without the right paperwork at present and I don't see how introducing another form of ID will change that.

As for fraud, the device may catch out the casual criminal, but is unlikely to deter the professional.'

Mr Metcalfe also fails to see how the ID cards will achieve their objectives, pointing out that 'nine of the 11 September hijackers had authentic ID, stating who they were and where they were from - so I don't see how another form of that would have helped'.

Mr Hughill is equally dismissive.

'Benefit fraud has nothing to do with identification,' he says.

'It is more to do with conmen saying "I am injured" or "I require housing benefit".

Similarly, terrorism will not be stopped by establishing identities - Spain has a standard ID card scheme and failed to stop the Madrid bombings.'

He continues: 'Canada, Australia and New Zealand have all considered introducing similar schemes and have each experienced overwhelming support in public opinion polls.

However, when the full debate comes to fruition and the practicalities and costs are highlighted, the plans have been thrown out.'

Ms Christian, Mr Hughill and Mr Metcalfe all agree that forms of ID can be improved and say they have no objection to biometric data (the term given to iris scans or fingerprint identification) being used on passports and driving licences.

However, Ms Christian says: 'I suspect the whole thing will go dramatically wrong before any reasonable debate on this starts.'

In the immediate future, the imminent draft legislation potentially holds fears for Mr Metcalfe.

'It depends what type of Bill it is that is published,' he says.

'If it covers the first stage of implementation, such as biometric data on passports, then I don't foresee a problem.

However if it goes one step further and would enable the introduction of compulsory ID cards by regulation - as opposed to legislation where there is more chance for debate - then it is a major concern.'

Mr Harrison emphasised that all incremental extensions to the scheme would need parliamentary approval.

He pointed out that ID cards have been checked as human rights compliant, and several other countries with ID cards are signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Those countries are 'baffled' by the human rights concerns in the UK, he said.

The loudest argument from those doubting the functionality of the ID card scheme seems to be that any form of identification is only as good as the information on which it based.

As Mr Hughill points out: 'If it was decided that ID cards were to be issued to all UK citizens, then somebody with a current fake ID could take that along to the ID card producers, have biometric readings taken, and get published with new, legitimate fake identification.

I can't see how that would prevent any wrongdoing.'

With so many concerns gathering about the ID cards, lawyers will be avidly waiting to see the detail of the government's proposals - and giving the papers a thorough checking.

Andrew Towler is a freelance journalist