The Case Against ID Cards

Speech by Lembit delivered to UCL Law Society on Sat 28th Jan 2006

Opponents of ID cards have plenty of choice. When speaking against them we have a whole smorgasbord of options to choose from. This speech will run through the reasons why I believe the ID cards bill is an offensive and illiberal piece of legislation. I'll talk about points of principle, practicalities and the current state of play.

First- my background. I was voted in a poll as the most libertarian member of parliament. In my view the role of the state must be carefully calibrated to protect without intruding. My view of the state is as a safety net, not a watchdog. The state is necessary, but individual freedom must be preserved and prioritised.

So it won't surprise you to know that ID cards are not my bag! ID cards are to me what the Maastrict treaty is to Bill Cash, what the Iraq War was to Ken Livingstone, and what Ken Livingstone was to Mrs Thatcher. You're more likely to hear Norman Tebbit singing the praises of multiculturalism than you are hear me supporting ID Cards.

-

The first question to ask about any piece of legislation is what is it for? On ID cards, the answer is pretty elusive.

In the same way the Government switched its justification for the war in Iraq, so they shifted their argument on ID cards. When Blair's protestations about Saddam's security threat fell apart he retrospectively used the humanitarian argument. Instead or personal security, it was moral responsibility.

Originally we were told ID cards would combat terrorism. This paper-thin argument collapsed faster than a house of cards on a wobbly table. The terrorists who attacked New York in 2001 and Madrid in 2004 carried valid identity documents. The attacks on London last year, by British born terrorists, reinforced the vacuous nature of the Government's claims.

Now we're told they'll halt identity fraud. Yet by stocking information on every individual at a single point, we are creating a library for fraudsters and hackers. I'm sorry- I simply don't believe that any computer system in the world is invulnerable.

If IT geeks can hack into the Pentagon, they will not be halted by the Home Office, particularly when the prize is so precious. Criminals, hackers and fraudsters will see it as their Holy Grail- as valuable as the original but a lot more accessible.

The Government says ID cards will combat illegal working. But the problem here lies not with immigrants but with the companies that employ them. As long as sections of our economy rely on poorly paid illegal workers to sustain them, ID cards will not prevent illegitimate labour.

It's the same when it comes to benefit fraud. The vast majority of benefit fraud stems from people misrepresenting their circumstances, not their identity. It's more a case of 'I do, therefore I'm owed,' than 'I am, therefore I'm owed…'

If the Government doesn't know what they're for, they're equally unsure how much ID cards will cost. The Home Office's disputed estimate put the cost of the scheme at £3bn over 10 years. Individuals will have to pay £85 for a passport and ID card together, and registration will be compulsory when your passport comes up for renewal. But these figures are widely seen as very conservative and don't include figures the cost of card readers, of training staff, or developing fingerprint and iris biometrics. As far as money goes, if the Millennium Dome was a white elephant, ID cards will be a white Whale!

At least when the Dome project went belly up all we were left with was a large empty building and a very large receipt. With ID cards we are leaving ourselves open to fundamental violations of personal privacy. When I say Big Brother is round the corner, I don't mean George Galloway in a leotard (You'll be relieved to know).

Our lack of a written constitution means that any Government can get away with expanding the uses of the card and lowering the safeguards on data sharing. At first, the identity register will hold only basic details, but the Bill allows the Home Secretary to expand it by order whenever he likes. When ID cards were introduced in 1939 it was for 3 stated purposes: conscription, national security and rationing. By 1950, an audit found that this had expanded to 39 stated purposes. The risk of 'function creep' is very real and very frightening.

On this issue, beneath the New Labour presentation lies a deeply old Labour philosophy- Blair's faith in ID cards is based on the belief that Government is good and benign and that extending its powers will strengthen the nation.

That's why they have put forward this scheme without laying out in detail how much ID cards will cost, or even what they're for. The creed is as follows: the longer the arms of the state, the better for the nation.

As a liberal I'm fundamentally opposed to this line of thinking. The state exists to support its people, not to spy on them. This Bill will not strengthen the nation. It will do the opposite. A nation is built on the social contract between its people and its Government. This contract must be voluntary, based on will, not coercion and computers. By inverting the relationship between the individual and the state, this bill is an awful landmark in the balance between state power and individual liberty.

-

So how far has this Bill got. Well, I voted against it in the Commons….

And so did all my colleagues but the Bill went through and has reached the Lords, where it has had a rum old time. The final day of Report stage in the House of Lords is on Monday. It then goes back to the House of Lords for Third Reading on 6th of February.

The Bill the Government get back from the Lords will look very different to the one the handed up. Close cooperation between the Lib Dem and Tory Lords, as well as rebellion on the Labour benches, has led to several major defeats for the Government.

The first change the Lords won was to ensure that the Bill could not come into effect before the Government has laid a report before Parliament containing detailed estimates of the revenue and capital costs arising from the ID Cards scheme. This report would have to be approved by the Commons before the ID cards Bill could become reality.

The second Government defeat was on a Liberal Democrat amendment, supported by the Tories. It strengthened the provisions in the Bill to make sure that the way in which information in the register is recorded and stored is secure against unauthorised use or access.

Third, the Government's definition of "public interest" in the Bill is "securing the efficient and effective provision of public services." This has been tightened to ensure that the register could only be used for preventing illegal access or fraudulent access to public services.

The fourth change, really blew a hole in the Govt's plans. It was a Lib Dem amendment, supported by the Tories and it basically ensures that the introduction of ID Cards will be truly voluntary. Under the Government's plans, when you apply for a passport or a driver's licence you'll have to be entered onto the register. In what way is this voluntary!?!?! Under the Government's plans ID cards would be voluntary if you never want to leave the country or drive a car again. Ever. Our amendments have broken that link.

Fifth, the Government's plans would create a back-door mechanism for ID cards to pass from the so-called 'voluntary' period to all-out compulsion. Under Government proposals the House would only have one chance to oppose or amend this switch. The Lords have changed this so any move to all-out compulsion would be by the standard three-stage route of primary legislation, rather than the so-called 'super-affirmative' procedure which is currently laid down in the Bill.

We've worked very closely with the Tories on this Bill, and by doing so we've been able to make a huge change to the Bill. That doesn't mean these changes will stick. Unless there are sufficient Labour rebels in the Commons, these amendments will all be overturned when the Bill goes back there.

What happens then? We may find ourselves in the situation we came across with the hunting bill, with the bill bounced back and forth between Commons and Lords. In this case we face the prospect of the Parliament Act.

Tony Blair is desperate to secure his legacy. If he uses the Parliament Act again to bypass the Lords, his legacy will be a needless, illiberal and massively expensive project, that will curtail civil liberties while doing nothing to preserve our freedom. I hope the Government wakes up and smells the coffee, before it's too late.