The only good thing that has come out of the debate on identity cards is that the cabinet has actually discussed the matter. And it is hardly a state secret that, not surprisingly, there is a good deal of opposition in senior levels of the government to what is being proposed.
It is over half a century since ID cards were abolished (by the Tories: we should have done so by 1950), and there is no reason to bring them back now. The home secretary, trying to justify their reintroduction, said he didn’t know how many illegal immigrants there were. His French or German counterparts are also unlikely to have such information about their illegals, despite those countries having identification documents.
While it may not be compulsory, at least in the beginning, to carry such a card, it will certainly be necessary in law to provide all the required information about oneself, as without this any scheme could not get off the ground. And it is simply untrue that police officers and officialdom will not be suspicious instantly if the card is not produced during questioning.
With costs estimated at somewhere between £1.3 and £3.1 billion, it is understandable that Treasury ministers are very reluctant to underwrite the project. Just think of the number of hospitals, schools and police officers that such sums could provide. Opinion polls have shown that while, initially, ID cards may well be popular, enthusiasm sharply wanes when respondents are asked whether they would actually be willing to pay for them.
Highly organised international criminal gangs would waste little time in trying to counterfeit cards. The Home Office consultation paper on ID cards admits that they could become a target for organised criminals.
Indeed, the Home Office state that the existence of ID cards could lead organisations to place too much reliance on them and drop their guard in checking applications. Perversely, this could result in an increased risk of identity fraud. I would welcome a new criminal offence of identity fraud, as suggested by the Home Office in the same paper.
Opponents of ID cards need to be careful not to exaggerate our case with talk of Britain becoming a near police state. After all, those leading European Union countries with ID cards are hardly less democratic than Britain.
But there is a strong instinctive feeling in this country, with our different traditions and history, that in peacetime an identity card for every citizen should be avoided. In much the same way, there remains opposition that in ordinary, everyday duties police officers should be armed.
Prior to her promotion to Home Office minister, Fiona Mactaggart criticised supporters of ID cards for giving the impression that the cards would substantially contribute to tackling problems like illegal immigration, crime and benefit fraud. She suggested that what is being proposed would not do anything significant about these problems, feeding the public’s cynicism about politics generally.
Of course, terrorism remains a constant threat, and after September 11th no one should underestimate the dangers involved. But would anyone seriously argue that in order to avoid similar atrocities in this country ID cards would be a real deterrent? The terrorists in the US had legitimate papers or compelling forgeries for their stay.
The government has many battles on its hands. There is no need to open another front over an issue where such strong and justified feelings exist on matters concerning civil liberties and personal privacy.