Eye Of The Cardholder

The man stopped in his tracks, paused, then hurriedly searched through his wallet for documentation that would provide the proof of his name and address to satisfy the policeman, and thus let him on his way.

What the officer could not know was that this particular citizen was a leading human rights campaigner. And yet, Jean-Pierre Dubois offered no protest as he willingly presented his documents for inspection. This was France, but the same scenario will be a fact of life in Britain in 10 years’ time if David Blunkett gets his way.

Considering the furore that last week greeted the Home Secretary’s plans to bring ID cards to the UK, it is hard to see British libertarians coming to terms with ID cards as easily as Dubois, who is vice-president of the French League of Human Rights and deputy general-secretary of the International Federation of Human Rights.

"There had been a robbery and somebody had killed someone in the street about half a kilometre away," he explained. "The police were looking for people waiting to help the robbers. I did not find it a scandal. I understood they were in a specific emergency action and needed to act quickly. I didn’t find it any kind of violation of my human rights. The way your identity can be proved is not for me something shocking."

Dubois admits Britain is different to France, which was the first country to introduce an ID card in 1893. And he warns that the cards can be used to harass innocent civilians. "The enforcement of these controls is racist in France. Those asked to show identity cards are always from certain groups like minority communities," he says. "That is fuelling violence and causing humiliation among those communities."

But Dubois admits it would be "dishonest to deny" identity cards are a major weapon in the war against terrorism, and Britain is decidedly out of step with most of Europe in this matter. Eleven European Union countries have some kind of ID card. Four of those - Belgium, Germany, Greece and Spain - require citizens to carry their cards at all times ready for inspection, while the French can use other documents, such as a driving licence, to prove who they are.

In countries with porous borders, ID cards were seen as a way to check whether citizens from other countries were moving in and as a means to spot foreigners intent on cross-border crime. Blunkett’s reasons for gradually introducing ID cards by 2013 - initially using driving licences and passports - include international crime, the war on terror and illegal immigration, but also to identity theft, and ensure free public services and benefits are only given to those entitled to them.

He has received powerful backing from the police, with Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens insisting ID cards are "absolutely essential" to the fight against terrorism. His status helped override previous police complaints that cards would just add an unnecessary burden and not help fight crime. In Scotland, Dumfries and Galloway Chief Constable David Strang, chairman of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland’s general policy committee, and Allan Shanks, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, also back ID cards.

The government estimates it will cost at least 3bn to produce a card featuring not just a photograph and signature, but also ‘biometric information’ that will make it more foolproof than a basic document.

It is understood the favoured option is to use three types of biometrics - the iris scan currently used to gain access to secure areas such as sensitive laboratories, a fingerprint and details of the shape of the face - recorded in a black data strip such as those on existing bank cards. Independent experts say this level of detail, together with the required network of scanning stations and creation of a massive central database, could push the price up to 10bn.

The prospect of such a bill has placed Chancellor Gordon Brown at the head of the ID card refuseniks in the Cabinet - including Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. One senior minister arriving for a crucial showdown last week remarked of the carpet in the Cabinet room: "They’ll need to clean this afterwards." The anticipated bloodbath ensued, with victory going to the pro-ID card Prime Minister and his Home Secretary.

Brown said the costs would be horrendous, and argued that passing the up-front costs - at least 35 - on to the citizen would be portrayed as a tax on the individual. For a Chancellor uniquely sensitive to barbs about his reputation as a stealth taxer, this is not an academic point. Prescott was forced to intervene and order Brown and Blair to calm down at the height of their Cabinet bickering.

Meanwhile, Straw, a former Home Secretary, presented a paper to colleagues that catalogued the enormous practical problems with introducing an ID scheme.

"Jack has said these things on many occasions in the past," a ministerial colleague explained. "When it comes to ID cards, he is the expert. It has been a painful experience, but he has stuck to his instincts on this one." Straw left the Home Office in 2001 with a vague pledge to keep the vexed issue under review, but that wait-and-see policy was never enough for Blunkett, an altogether more hardline Home Secretary.

One member of the MPs’ Home Affairs Committee said last night: "It is fair to say that Blunkett was always going to push for an ID card, preferably a compulsory one. He doesn’t have any problems with the powers of the state and doesn’t have any truck with the people who point out the drawbacks.

"There are two reasons why he’s basically got his way: September 11 and asylum. This wasn’t always about terrorism and illegal immigrants, but Blair and Blunkett have made that the battleground."

The Cabinet row only ended when Blair called for a vote and made it plain a vote against a compromise plan to phase in the ID card scheme was a vote against him.

"In principle, Cabinet believes a national ID card scheme can bring major benefits," Downing Street crowed in an understated victory statement afterwards. To Blairites, the compromise of starting off with voluntary cards and phasing them in is merely a delaying tactic: the foot is in the door.

The arguments will continue to rage and could yet cost political lives. Jack McConnell even entered the fray, insisting a scheme created by London would not necessarily apply in Scotland. While the Scottish Executive is keen on its pilot scheme for ‘entitlement cards’, even for children, the First Minister is cooler on the sort of tougher scheme envisaged by Blunkett.

The experience in Australia and Canada suggests much could yet go wrong with the government’s plans. Nine out of 10 Australians backed ID cards at first, but, in the words of one official, support crashed "like a wave on Bondi beach" when the public heard the details. Later polls showed nine out of 10 were against.

Canada was also expected to introduce ID cards, but an unexpectedly critical report by a parliamentary committee has seen the government back off from the idea.

Charles Shoebridge, a former counter-terrorist intelligence officer who advises on crime and security and has researched the issues surrounding ID cards, also believes Blunkett’s proposals are flawed. He says they do not go far enough.

Shoebridge agrees ID cards are an infringement of human rights, but says it is worth it if they produce results in the war on terror. "As currently envisaged, and without being universally compulsory, they are unlikely to be particularly useful against terrorism, despite Blunkett’s marketing of them to the contrary," he said. "For the majority of British citizens, the proposals will hurt their privacy and finances, but not deliver the promised improved security."

He said it was an "optimistic aspiration" to suggest the cards would not be forged, and pointed out that foreign nationals do not have to register for a card until three months after arriving in the UK. Even when they do, establishing the identity of someone from countries "of terrorist interest" such as Yemen and Afghanistan is highly problematic given the lack of records in those countries.

It is estimated that 0.8% of all passport applications are from people trying to establish a fake ID. Much the same level could be expected for ID cards, which will ultimately be reliant on a publicly available piece of paper - a person’s birth certificate - that is open to forgery.

Whether Britons are ready to give a European shrug of the shoulders to ID cards or react like Australians remains to be seen. According to the government’s own consultation process, 80% are in favour. Furious human rights activists are already preparing for a dirty battle, claiming some consultation responses were ignored. But it is clear they are currently losing the argument, and it sounds like they know it.

John Scott, of the Scottish Centre for Human Rights, admitted he sometimes felt he sounded a little paranoid when explaining that ID cards would help to set up a mechanism for a police state, where political dissidents would be added to the current target list of criminals, terrorists and illegal immigrants.

"Why should it get to the stage where your ID card is your licence to walk the streets?" he said. "If I’m walking along the pavement, I don’t want to have to have anyone’s permission."

Keeping tabs

BRITAIN’S only previous experiment with identity cards followed the National Registration Act, a piece of emergency legislation which received Royal Assent just four days after the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939.

The law established a national register, which contained details of every civilian in Britain, including their name and address, sex, age, occupation, marital status and if they were members of the reserves of the armed forces or civil defences.

The register was the responsibility of the Registrar-General, and the information was compiled in the same way as the Census and cards holding the information were issued to all civilians. Members of the armed forces and merchant sailors did not have to carry them.

The cards had to be produced whenever demanded by the police and other authorities, who would quiz the holder and check his or her answers against the details on the register to confirm their identity.

Anyone who gave false information, impersonated someone else or forged a card faced a 100 fine and two years in prison.

The original legislation said the Act would remain in place until "the emergency that was the occasion of the passing of this Act came to an end". It was revoked in 1952.