|
After many years of discussion through successive governments, in 2003 Home Secretary David Blunkett announced that the government intends to introduce a British national identity card linked to a national identity database, the National Identity Register.
The cards and database will record biometric data. It is expected that by 2013 up to 80% of the working population will have some kind of biometric identity document, with the cards becoming compulsory then. The cost is currently estimated by the government as at least £3.1 billion.
Although the focus of the proposal is on the identity cards themselves, not least in the title of the Bill, it is the National Identity Register database that is the key component. Due to the data stored on the Register, cards will not be essential to establish identity, since all that will be required will be to submit to a biometric scan.
Legislative progress
The Identity Cards Bill was included in the Queen's Speech on November 23, 2004, and introduced to the House of Commons on November 29.
It was first voted on by Members of Parliament following the second reading of the bill on December 20, 2004, where it passed by 385 votes to 93. The bill was opposed by 19 Labour MPs, 10 Conservative MPs, and the Liberal Democrats, while a number of Labour and Conservative members abstained, in defiance of party policies. A separate vote on a proposal to reject the Bill was defeated by 306 votes to 93. Charles Clarke, the new Home Secretary, had earlier rejected calls to postpone the reading of the Bill following his recent appointment.
Public reaction
The announcement of the scheme followed a public consultation; the government has been criticised for ignoring the overwhelming majority of those replying who stated that they did not want national identity cards. The government claimed that over five thousand negative online responses through a single portal site represented one lobby group so treated them as one reply.
National opinion polls suggest that the public are generally supportive of the scheme in principle if the Cards are free. However a majority also believe that their data will be illegally disclosed and nearly half are unwilling to pay the initial estimate of the fee: £35. More recent estimates from the Home Office place the cost of a 10-year passport and ID card package at £85.
In addition the polls consistently predict that around three million people would refuse any ID Card on principle. The general trend of the polls is that the more detail people are given about the plan the less they support it.
Public opinion on the issue varies considerably across the UK. The 2004 State of the Nation poll [1] (http://www.jrrt.org.uk/SoNSummary.pdf) by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust showed that opinion in Scotland was far less supportive than that in the rest of the UK.
Background to the scheme
The latest interest in the scheme by David Blunkett followed the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack on the New York World Trade Center, but was generally opposed by Cabinet colleagues.
As a result of the opposition, by February 2002 the original proposal had been downgraded to an "entitlement card", to be used to obtain social security services. However ongoing discussions led to the inclusion of the original national identity scheme in the November 2003 Queen's Speech, despite doubts over the ability of the scheme to prevent terrorism.
National Identity Register
Key to the ID Card scheme will be a centralised computer database, the National Identity Register (NIR). To identify someone it will not be necessary to check their card, since identity would be determined by a taking a biometric scan and matching it against a database entry.
Many people argue that the NIR is more of a threat to privacy and civil liberties than the ID Cards themselves.
The NIR will contain a huge amount of information on every British citizen, including current and all previous addresses. Failure to inform the Government of a change of address or other personal details will result in a fine of £1000, while the fine for refusing to register or failing to submit to scanning will be £2500. There will be an audit trail that records when and where the Card was used.
Perhaps most controversially of all individuals will have no right to see or correct information held about them on the NIR.
Voluntary vs Compulsory
The current proposals are for a two stage scheme. Initially registration will be "voluntary" with compulsion being introduced at a later date. Controversially the move to compulsion will not require further primary legislation. That is, a minister will able to impose compulsion using delegated legislation.
In reality the "voluntary" period will be nothing of the sort. It will be mandatory during this period to have an ID Card in order to renew a driving licence or passport — thus an estimated 80% of the UK population will be forced to have an ID Card during the "voluntary" scheme.
The Commons' Home Affairs Committee said:
- To describe the first phase of the Government's proposals as 'voluntary' stretches the English language to breaking point.
Trials
In January 2004, a six-month trial of the biometric technology began, organised by the United Kingdom Passport Service. It was expected that 10,000 people will be involved in the trials, the cost of which was not disclosed.
Problems with the technology forced the Passport Service to cut the trial down to three months. Opponents to the government's plans criticised this cut as reducing the efficacy of the trial.
Universal children's database
According to leaked Cabinet minutes reported in The Times newspaper of July 25, 2004 [2] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,2-523-1190990.00.html), the government has commissioned a feasibility study into the creation of a national database of all children living in the UK. The database is to contain school achievements, a record of medical consultations, police and social service records and home address. Legislation for the database was included in the Children Act 2004.
The aim is to help the authorities to identify and protect children at risk from abuse or neglect. Critics have claimed that it is a proto-national identity database.
Privacy concerns
Information Commissioner
One notable voice raising serious concerns over the government's plans for the identity card and database has been the government's own Information Commissioner.
In a press release on July 30, 2004 (.doc file) (http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/cms/DocumentUploads/ICO%20publishes%20concerns%20on%20identity%20cards%20-%2030.07.04.doc), Richard Thomas stated that:
- I want to make it very clear to the public that this draft Bill is not just about an ID card, but an extensive national identity register and the creation of a national identity registration number. Each of these raise substantial data protection and personal privacy concerns in their own right.
- Further clarification is also needed [for] the reasons why such a large amount of information needs to be recorded as part of establishing an individual's identity.
- I also have concerns in relation to the wide range of bodies who can view the record of what services individuals have used. This will enable the Government and others to build up a comprehensive picture of how we live our lives. However, individuals will not know which bodies have been accessing their personal information.
The commissioner has also pointed out that those who renew or apply for a driving licence or passport will be automatically added to the National Identity Register, so losing the option of not registering.
In a subsequent interview in The Times newspaper of August 16, 2004 [3] (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1218615_1,00.html), the commissioner also mentioned concerns over the children's database, the Office for National Statistics' Citizen's Information Project, and the Department of Health's NHS database, and stated that My anxiety is that we don't sleepwalk into a surveillance society, and drew a parallel to the way that governments in Eastern Europe and Spain gained too much power and information in the 20th century.
As long ago as February 2003, on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he warned that ID cards could become a target for organised crime to steal identities and access their confidential details, adding that We are dealing with matters touching on the very nature of the society in which we live.
Other bodies
Elsewhere, doubts remain concerning the practicability of the scheme and whether it would actually help counter terrorism, while some claim that placing trust in a single document may make identity theft easier.
Privacy campaigners have also raised concerns over the uses to which the national database might be put, especially the ability to link between the national identity database and other computer systems. Intended uses so far discussed by ministers have included countering illegal immigration and health tourism.
Database links could potentially be used to assemble a comprehensive file on a particular person, including current and previous jobs and addresses, tax and finances, family relationships, health, and religious or political affiliations. With the additional integration of information from CCTV facial recognition systems and mobile phone location services a person might even be tracked in real-time. While such a information may play a useful role in countering terrorism and crime, it could also be used less benignly by a future totalitarian government or in the hands of organised crime.
Other Opposition
Amongst other arguments, opponents of ID cards have compared the scheme with the tattooing of prisoners for identification purposes in the Nazi concentration camps [4] (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/tattoos1.html).
Historical national identity cards
Compulsory identity cards were first issued in the United Kingdom during World War I, and abandoned in 1919.
Cards were re-introduced in World War II, but were abandoned seven years after the end of that war in 1952, amid widespread public resentment. Opposition reached its peak with the 1951 court case of Willcock v Muckle, after Clarence Henry Willcock refused to produce his identity card. The judge in the case said that the cards were an "annoyance" and "tended to turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers".
See also
External links
Oppositon groups
| 
