As the BBC reports, on the parliamentary battlefield the positions of those who view the problem in the broader context of a conflict between civil rights and the increasingly authoritarian approach of the authorities will collide. And this is only one element in a huge government program on security and fighting crime designed to last a year and a half.
The official justification for the need for a single identity card often boils down to two points. “Identity cards will help deal with illegal migration and support law enforcement agencies in the fight against the current threat of terrorism,” says British Home Secretary Charles Clarke. But the response from human rights groups remains unchanged. Shami Chakrabarti, director of the respected organization Liberty, says: “More and more harsh words and bad laws... This shows a lack of respect for our democratic traditions.”
However, foreigners are often amazed by the disputes over identity cards. Especially those from European countries where identity cards have long been taken for granted. At the French embassy in London, the question of whether the country objected to the introduction of identity cards is met with surprise. There they answer that identity cards are a long-established fact and allow the French to travel to European Union countries without a passport.
In Germany, identity cards are compulsory from the age of 16. “Nobody gives it any thought, nobody asks questions, if you have problems – you show your identity card – and that’s it, we don’t mind providing information about ourselves if necessary,” says one German diplomat.
Public opinion polls show that in the UK, 80% of the population supports the introduction of identity cards. However, resistance to the introduction of identity cards is explained by several reasons.
The traditional objection of the free Englishman (at least in his own self-image) boils down to the statement: “Why should I prove to anyone that I am who I say I am?” In a country with four million surveillance cameras, such a statement is not very convincing.
Many are closer to the position of the independent Information Commissioner Richard Thomas, who recently drew attention to how much information about citizens the authorities collect. According to Thomas, this tendency to such curiosity has a “strong continental flavor,” and in support of this he cited the experience of the former Eastern European socialist countries and fascist Spain.
There are also opponents of the bill on the introduction of identity cards within the ranks of the ruling Labour Party. Veteran lawmaker Gwyneth Dunwoody said the bill worries her greatly. “The experience of police and authorities collecting data on all aspects of a person’s life shows that this data is often used with the most unsavory intentions,” she says.
The bill limits the type of information that can be held in a database linked to the new identity cards. It will record a person's name, date and place of birth, address, citizenship, immigration status and basic physical characteristics. To introduce new categories of information into the database — financial or medical data, details of employment or criminal convictions — a new law would be required.
A new law is also needed to make holding identity cards compulsory. Trying to reassure critics, the government stresses that people will not be required to carry their identity card with them. However, for every official explanation there is an objection from human rights activists and other opponents of the project.
Take, for example, the fight against terrorism. Potential terrorists, the dissenters argue, will either have their documents in order or simply forge them. The problem is not documents, but knowing who is planning what. The government has not explained how identity cards will help here.
As for illegal immigration, plastic cards will not help either – they will not help track down illegal immigrants or those who have been denied refugee status. Not unless the police undertake to check the entire population several times over.
When it comes to welfare benefit fraud, identity cards are also ineffective, according to Tony Blair's opponents. Fraudsters almost always conceal information not about their name or address, but about their health or financial situation.
There are also practical objections. Introducing identity cards and their supporting computer system costs a lot, and as recent experience shows, the government is not very good at implementing projects of this kind.
Richard Thomas notes that the government has changed its line several times regarding the very main purpose of introducing identity cards. And according to one information technology expert, the lack of a precise goal in such a large-scale project almost guarantees failure. “I wouldn’t touch it. There is no project justification, and the authorities will certainly want to change something on the fly.”
What is clear is that Tony Blair, before stepping down as prime minister, is firmly determined to make identity cards a key element of his political legacy. Cynics may say that this is actually the justification for the project.