For the vast majority of people with nothing to hide, identity cards may hold few fears at first look, even for experts on George Orwell's Nineteen eighty-four.

But as a representative of Liberty said at this week's Law Society seminar on the proposed cards, it should be for the government to show why we should adopt them, rather than for their opponents to show why we should not.

Even if the principle is accepted - and the government is wisely advancing the debate carefully given the sensitivity of the issue - the detail needs to be subjected to the fiercest scrutiny and safeguards put in place to avoid a future administration subverting the system.

There seems little doubt that human rights concerns can be overcome - after all, plenty of countries signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights have identity cards.

But Roger Smith, the director of Justice, has a point when he noted at the seminar that the biggest issue may well be a cultural one.

No English-speaking common law country has adopted a compulsory scheme, while despite the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, even George Bush's White House has shied away from them.

What the seminar demonstrated is that this is the kind of debate where lawyers can and should have an influential role.

It is the proper place of the legal profession to offer views on matters of general public interest where it is well placed to do so.

This is one of those times.

The profession has no obvious axe to grind when it comes to identity cards, and its voice should be heard.