Liberal Democrat Home affairs spokesperson Mark Oaten sets out his party's position on identity cards and highlights why they believe the Government's proposed scheme will not deliver its intended benefits.
The Identity Cards Bill to establish a national register of individuals has now been put before Parliament. Despite all the controversy and criticism these proposals have attracted, the Government continues to press ahead with this misguided and hazardous scheme.
The Liberal Democrats stand in a long tradition of protecting the rights of the individual from unnecessary intrusion by the state. This does not mean that we would never accept ID cards under any circumstances, but we will demand that a very strong case is made. It is true that Britain has had ID cards in the past, but on both occasions they were brought in as an emergency measure during the World Wars. The present circumstances are very different and the Government must show that ID cards will be both necessary and effective. They have categorically failed to do this and the Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose these proposals on principle and in practise.
|
We will continue to oppose these proposals on principle and in practice
|
The introduction of ID cards would be a dramatic piece of constitutional reform. It has the potential to significantly alter the relationship between individuals and the state by introducing a presumption that citizens must prove their identity. My fear is that this will fuel a culture of mistrust, increasing the divide between citizens and public services. Instead of building barriers between individual and state we should be encouraging dialogue and interaction. The successful reform of public services, be it education, health or policing; depends on re-engaging and utilising the expertise of local communities. For example in policing, the real priority must be for police forces to build stronger relationships with the communities they serve. One of the aims for ID cards is to catch more illegal immigrants and this is likely to lead to more “stop-and-search” checks which will further alienate minority groups. This type of approach would be disproportionate and counterproductive.
We should also ask whether we are happy for our personal data, together with details of our daily activities, to be gathered, stored and shared without our consent. The Government claims that the system will only hold basic information, which is already held by other agencies. However the Bill also gives the Home Secretary power to expand the register by order. The Government also claims that the card will only have to be produced in circumstances where identity already has to be proved, but the Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to specify the ID card as mandatory for any public or private service. When Britain last had ID cards from 1939-51, they were introduced for three stated purposes: conscription, national security and rationing. By 1950 an audit found that there were 39 stated functions. There is a very real risk of a similar function creep with the current legislation because the Bill contains insufficient safeguards against the use of executive power.
|
This scheme has all the hallmarks of a financial disaster waiting to happen
|
Undoubtedly the most significant practical objection to the scheme is the cost. Even if we trust the Government's own figures ID cards will cost the country £5.8bn – that is a cost to every citizen of £93. However the Government has already revised these figures up from their initial prediction of £3bn. Because they have failed to include the cost of installing expensive biometric card reading equipment, independent assessments of the total cost have been much higher. Research by the London School of Economics estimates the cost could reach £19bn with a best case scenario of £10.6bn. Combine this with the Government’s appalling track record on introducing new IT systems and the eventual costs are likely to be wildly in excess of initial estimates. The Home Office in particular has a horrendous track record when it comes to introducing large scale IT projects. New systems at the Passport Office, Probation Service, Police Service and Child Support Agency have all run massively over budget. The ID cards scheme would be the most ambitious and expensive public sector IT project ever undertaken and it has all the hallmarks of a financial disaster waiting to happen.
The Liberal Democrats propose that the money allocated to set up the ID cards scheme would be much better spent on recruiting 10,000 extra police officers. If these extra officers were added to existing Government plans for 20,000 new Community Support Officers then this money would make a very real contribution to cutting crime and increasing public safety.
|
It is far from clear what ID cards would achieve
|
Even if the government were able to control the costs of the scheme it is far from clear what ID cards would achieve. Initially the Government claimed that ID cards would be a key weapon in the fight against terrorism. Much as we might wish this was the case, the unfortunate truth is that the fight against terrorism will be much more difficult and complex. After the terrorist attacks on Madrid, I visited the city to speak to the authorities specifically about the effect of ID cards. They were very clear that ID cards would not help stop a terrorist attack. To put it bluntly, a determined suicide bomber or terrorist will not be deterred by such a card. The problem of identity is, in most cases, simply not an issue. This is clear from the fact that the terrorists involved in the Madrid and 9/11 bombings carried valid identity documents. By the government's own admission, two out of three known terrorists do not use multiple identities. And if ID cards really are necessary to combat terrorism, why is the Government proposing to wait a decade before they are compulsory?
The Government has also claimed that ID cards will prevent identity and benefit fraud. Research by the University of East Anglia suggests that ID cards are not the answer to identity 'theft'. Much identity fraud is internet-based and it is very difficult to see how ID cards could prevent this type of fraud. ID cards would be similarly ineffective at preventing benefit fraud. At present only 5% of cases of benefit fraud are due to someone claiming to be sombody else. The vast majority of cases are due to people misrepresenting their circumstances, and ID cards could not combat this type of fraud. The Government also claims that IDs will combat illegal employment, but the truth is that sectors where illegal employment is widespread are already subject to stringent controls on confirming the identity of employees. The problem is that the Government doesn’t do enough to enforce these measures.
The merits of ID cards can be seen from the comments emanating from the Home Office. Home Secretary Charles Clarke said he was doubtful that ID cards would have made any difference to preventing the 7/7 terrorist attacks. Home Office Minister Tony McNulth went further admitting that the Government had "oversold the advantages of identity cards". The truth is the scheme will be a financial catstrophe that will bring few benefits and on balance will do more harm than good.