The proposed
introduction of ID cards
Green Party press office briefing
April 2004
Contact Ruth Somerville or Spencer
Fitz-Gibbon, 020 7561 0282
Preface
This briefing was first drafted in
November 2003, when a sceptical cabinet allowed Blunkett to "proceed by
incremental steps to build a base for a compulsory national ID card
scheme". Since then, the government has sought to exploit the aftermath of
the Madrid bombings of March 2004 as an opportunity to accelerate the drive not
only to introduce ID cards but to make them compulsory straight away. It now
appears that the draft bill as it stands allows a compulsory scheme to be
introduced after a simple vote of MPs and peers without the need for fresh
legislation [1].
Opponents of a compulsory scheme believe that in the current climate of fear
over terrorism, the measure would easily be passed if all that was required was
a simple Commons vote.
This briefing is intended as a response to Home Office claims about the benefit
of ID cards, to be voiced before ID cards are introduced quietly, and without
proper consideration for the future implications of such an important measure.
1. What type of card is being
proposed?
1.
The ID card is not
just another plastic card. It is an integral part of a vast national
information system, components of which will include:
a. The card itself with surface information about
name, address and gender.
b. A chip stored within the card containing
"bio-metric" details of the holder (ie fingerprints and iris scan).
c. Creation of a central database containing
"bio-metric" data on each of the 60 million residents of the UK.
1.2 The Home Secretary insists that
stored information will be limited to name, age, address, and gender, but there
is potential for this to include everything from financial and medical to
employment records, which could then be shared with third parties including
police, immigration and even the private sector.
2. What will they be used for?
2.1 The Home Office website states that
they will only be used to claim benefits, use the NHS, and get a job. Although
it does not specify that ID cards will be compulsory for travel, the Home
Office acknowledges that cards can be used for travel in the UK and around
Europe.
2.2 The Home Office website states that
it will not be compulsory to carry an ID card, nor will police have that
"stop and produce" powers.
3. What is the government doing?
3.1 At the time of writing, the Bill is
in draft stage, but David Blunkett states that he wants to introduce the cards
"incrementally". The first cards are to be issued in 4 years’ time,
and will be introduced in 3 ways:
a. When people renew or apply for passports and
driving licences, they will be replaced by ones with ID card bio-metric
details.
b. People with no passport/driving licence can
"voluntarily" apply for an ID card.
c. Foreign nationals will be obliged to apply for
compulsory ID cards.
3.2 The target is that 80% of the
population will have one by 2013. Then a vote will be taken on whether to make
the scheme compulsory.
3.3 Compiling a register of 60 million
people would cost an estimated £186 million in the first 3 years, with the
eventual bill for running the system at £3 billion. This is an enormous task.
(Currently the largest bio-database only holds details of 30,000 people.)
3.4 It will be largely paid for by the
public, with a massive increase in card prices including:
4. Arguments for and against
"An ID
card scheme will help tackle the crime and serious issues facing the UK,
particularly illegal working, immigration abuse, ID fraud, terrorism and
organised crime."
David Blunkett, Home Secretary
"All the evidence from other European countries
suggests that ID cards are expensive, ineffective and damage community
relations… Tackling fraud, combating terrorism and reducing crime require
detailed and intricate policy solutions. ID cards are no answer at all. They
represent a real threat to our civil liberties and our personal privacy."
Mark Littlewood, campaign director, Liberty
4.1 The governments reasons for
introducing the cards are given as:
a. Preventing crime and organised terrorism.
b. Preventing benefit fraud.
c. Preventing immigrants from illegally claiming NHS
care or benefits, working illegally, or being "lost".
Preventing crime and organised
terrorism
4.2 Most crime is unsolved because the
perpetrator hasn’t been caught, rather than because they haven’t been
identified. In the UK last year, over 75% of 4 million reported crimes went
"undetected" – no-one was even arrested, much less charged or
convicted.
4.3 Faking ID cards is no object at all
to sophisticated terrorist and money-laundering groups: the perpetrators of the
9/11 atrocities were all either in possession of legitimate identification
documents or held compelling forgeries. Those who are active in terrorist
networks may well have the appearance of being typical law-abiding citizens in
other aspects of their lives. The French government discovered that fraudulent
production of their new "unforgeable" smartcard quickly became one of
the most profitable criminal activities in the country in the mid-1990s.
4.4 Identity is not the key to
preventing crime or terrorism. So unless the cards are used for greater
"stop and search" police powers, or unless it becomes compulsory to
carry them, it is difficult to see how they can affect crime figures.
Preventing benefit fraud
4.5 The overwhelming majority of benefit
fraud occurs from people lying about their economic circumstances and health,
not about their identity. ID cards will make little difference unless the data
on the cards is expanded to include financial, medical and employment records.
Preventing immigrants from illegally
claiming NHS care or benefits, working illegally, or being "lost"
4.6 Most immigrants and asylum seekers
are entitled to NHS care and education. The small number who are fraudulently
claiming could not possibly cost the NHS even a tiny fraction of the £3 billion
it will cost to set up the ID card scheme.
4.7 Asylum seekers have to be enrolled,
background-checked and use a "smart" card to claim regular income
benefits. People who defraud the benefits service usually do so by lying about
finances and illegal work. So again identity cards would solve nothing.
4.8 Many people working illegally do so
with the full knowledge of their employers: ID cards will make no difference.
4.9 "Missing" immigrants have
never been issued with ID cards, so ID cards therefore cannot be used to track
them.
5. Conclusion
5.1 In their proposed form, there is no
convincing argument for ID cards: whilst they definitely cost the public £3
billion, there is no proof at all that they will solve any of the
problems they are purported to deal with.
5.2 In fact the only way ID cards can
have any purpose is by expanding the data on them and the power attributed to
them. This can be the only logic behind introducing such a costly scheme.
5.3 Whilst we have no idea how they may
be used or abused by future governments, we know in the past ID cards have been
used to persecute certain groups (eg Jews in Germany), and that the cards are
being billed as a "solution" to "bogus" asylum seekers and
that they will be introduced for foreign nationals before British nationals.
Taking these racial aspects into consideration, it would seem that the introduction
of ID cards would not only be pointless, but also potentially dangerous [2].
Notes
1. "Cabinet leak exposes conflict
on ID cards," The Guardian, Monday March 22, 2004:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1174835,00.html.
2. For Further discussion of the potential racial abuses, see "ID cards
could worsen racism: race discrimination could be worsened by the introduction
of a national UK identity card, a committee of MPs has been told," BBC
news, 3 February 2004: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3455685.stm
ENDS