st180994

James Langton, "Focus: ID Cards - Identity charade" / Nearly 50 resolutions at next month's Tory conference call for the reintroduction of identity cards. Would they - as John Major thinks - help the war on crime? Or would they be easily abused by law-breakers and police?, The Sunday Telegraph, London, 18^th September 1994

THE British abandoned identity cards after the last War. They were flimsy things; badly printed on cheap cardboard. There was a number but no photograph, and crude official stamps. As a result, they were easily forged. But that was not why they were scrapped. They were scrapped because they were unpopular. Members of the public complained that the police were using them to throw their weight around, in particular in the direction of motorists.

In 1951, the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, judged that this practice was 'wholly unreasonable' and tended to 'make people resentful of the actions of the police'. It could, he warned, 'turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers'. The following year identity cards were abolished by Winston Churchill's new Conservative government.

Now another Conservative government is suggesting that it may bring them back. The Prime Minister has indicated that he believes that ID cards would help the police fight crime. Nearly 50 resolutions at next month's Tory conference call for their reintroduction.

More significantly, it was announced last month that all new driving licences will carry a photograph from 1996. The new design, a plastic credit card format, will be issued first to provisional licence holders and then be extended as the 35 million drivers apply for duplicates.

The new driving licence will provide more information than the old identity card. It will reveal the holder's name, age and address and, of course, appearance. Only in one respect is it any different from an identity card. Carrying it will not be compulsory.

But why should we not want to carry the new driving licences? It will join at least half a dozen other plastic rectangles in most wallets or purses. Similar cards allow us take out money, extend our credit and have our broken down cars rescued. Most people with a job carry some form of identity card, either to show to old ladies on the doorstep or the security guard at the main gate. There is no requirement to carry any of these - but just try leaving them at home.

The new driving licence will, says the Department of Transport, help enforce motoring laws and stop people taking the driving test for others. Undoubtedly it will also be useful in any situation where identity is called into question; collecting a parcel from the Post Office or a beardless 18 year-old seeking a pint in a pub.

In time, supermarkets and petrol stations will ask to see a driving licence as collateral for the simplest transaction. Theatres, cinemas and airlines will want a look before handing over tickets booked on the telephone. Those who do not wish to drive may send off for a provisional licence to make life easier.

Is the new driving licence blazing a trail for a national identity card? The Government says not, but both supporters and opponents of ID cards believe otherwise.

The argument in favour of identity cards is a simple one. 'Those who have nothing to hide have nothing to fear.' Those who oppose such a system would be the criminals and the welfare scroungers, the illegal immigrants and the terrorists.

At worst, such a system will make life difficult for those who seek to abuse the law and would cut back on the millions lost to social security fraud. To reverse the phrase: 'Those who have everything to hide have everything to fear.'

But those who oppose identity cards are not all terrorists or cheats. They range across the political spectrum and their objections are comprehensive. Liberty, also known as the National Council for Civil Liberties, disputes the effectiveness of identity cards and the principles behind them. On the one hand, says Liberty, 'such a scheme would breach the long-established principle that identity documents are acquired by choice and in return for a specific benefit'.

On the other: 'There is no evidence that identity cards would lead to a reduction of crime in general, and the forgery of cards would present few obstacles to professional criminals.'

It is certainly true that it is difficult to see any difference in the crime rate in nations such as France, which have a compulsory identity card, and those which do not. A social security card is routinely carried in the United States, but does not appear to make much impact on crime in its larger cities.

Liberty also claims: 'In many countries that have a compulsory system there are complaints that minorities, dissidents and young people are harassed by over-zealous police checking.' Is this really a danger in Britain, a democracy with a free press? In fact, there are many who believe that the real victims of identity cards would not be minorities, but the great majority. Sean Gabb, a supporter of the Right-wing Libertarian Alliance, says: 'The real victims of an identity card scheme will be us, the honest public. What remains of our freedom is held ever less by legal right than by the simple inconvenience for the authorities of taking it away.' Identity cards, says Gabb, will allow the state to examine our lives in ways which would never be permitted by Parliament. They are, he says: 'The equivalent of laws to make us send our letters unsealed through the post, and to give sets of our housekeys to the police.'

Many of the concerns over identity cards are based on the technology now available. The latest generation of 'smart' cards, which contain an electronic chip, could combine the functions of a driving licence, a social security card and national health card, and, of course, an identity card. There is no reason why it might not also act as a bank guarantee or credit card. To carry only one card would be very convenient - as long as it was not also a passport for someone to read everything rather than everyone to read something.

The Data Protection Registrar, the official body which regulates information held on computer, has already called for a full debate on any national identification system. The outgoing registrar, Eric Howe, said earlier this year: 'If pressures continue for a national identification system there should be a careful evaluation of any benefits which might flow from such a system and weighing of these against the undoubted risks to privacy and personal freedom.'

The electorate appears to share his concerns. The most recent survey, for the computer company ICL, found that just over half of 1,029 people in a survey were against the introduction of identity cards.

The card envisaged by the survey incorporated photograph, fingerprint, bank details, driving licence and National Insurance number. Convenient yes, but, for the moment, apparently too high a price to pay.