|
The case for and against identity cards
(Filed: 25/09/2001) THE Government is thinking of introducing compulsory
identity cards. But would they cut crime and protect us from terrorism?
Philip Johnston reports Have we had ID cards before? ID cards were introduced
during the First World War as part of a statutory registration scheme. It
ended in 1919. They were reintroduced in 1939 and remained in force for
several years after the war until they were abolished by Churchill in 1952.
They were only considered tolerable in times of emergency and the public came
to resent the police checks in times of peace. The last Conservative government
toyed with the idea in 1995. Michael Howard, then Home Secretary, issued a
Green Paper setting out the various options but decided not to proceed. Would they cut crime? The police think ID cards would help
in a number of areas, including tracing suspects or identifying accident
victims. But this could only be of benefit if the card was compulsory and
carried at all times. The police already have many powers to ask people who
they are in specific circumstances. Critics say a burglar is breaking the law
anyway so penalties for not carrying an ID card are unlikely to deter. They
could be useful in cases of low-level disorder such as fights or football hooliganism
where the police want to establish identities quickly without taking them back to the police
station. The Commons home affairs select committee, which looked into ID
cards in 1996, said there was "no firm evidence" that ID cards had reduced
crime in countries which use them. Would they stop fraud? Police told the Commons committee
that an ID scheme would "have a deterrent effect on offenders who profit
by practising criminal deception". Other witnesses, however, pointed out
that most fraud is not identity-related. The Department of Social Security said
only five per cent of benefit fraud related to identity and the major cause was "misrepresentation
of circumstances" which would not be caught by an ID card. MPs concluded
that an ID card could have a deterrent effect. Where bank and retail fraud
was concerned an ID card would be a straightforward means of establishing
identity but machines would have to be set up in shops to ensure that the
card was not forged. Would they stop illegal immigration? Arguments were being
made for ID cards even before Sept 11 by those who think they could help
reduce the number of illegal immigrants. However, many people who are
described as illegal immigrants are, in fact, asylum-seekers. An ID scheme
would not prevent their arrival in the country. It could help prevent illegal
working by asylum-seekers, who are not meant to take jobs for six months and
only then with permission. But existing restraints - such as national
insurance checks and minimum wage requirements - are already flouted.
Unscrupulous employers will not ask to see an ID card. One reason why the
Government wants ID cards is that ministers removed embarkation controls at
all ports three years ago and it is no longer possible to establish who has
left the country so that their whereabouts can be checked. If there was a national
ID scheme, the police could also be given powers to demand that visitors
produce their passports on demand. Would an ID card stop terrorism? Countries with compulsory
cards or voluntary cards have not stopped terrorist attacks. These countries
also have large numbers of illegal immigrants. The terrorist is more likely
to have the ability to forge cards and, in the case of suicide attackers, the
card will not be a deterrent, even if it makes tracking them easier for the
police. As well as producing no obvious benefits, it could also give people a
false sense of security when vigilance is required. What information could they contain? Cards could be a
basic means of ID, with photograph, name, address and date of birth. But no
Government introducing ID cards could resist the smartcard micro-chip
technology that allows masses of information to be included - ranging from a
person's criminal record to his credit-worthiness and marital status. It
could also be proof of eligibility to public services such as the NHS. Are they secure? Basic photo-based identity cards would be
fairly easy to forge to get past a cursory check. For more complex cards,
biometrics provides a means of ensuring that the holder of a card is who they
say they are. A biometric is a unique measurable human characteristic that
can be used for automatic identification. This can be anything from a
fingerprint to an iris scan. Babies could be scanned for their biometric characteristics
at birth for later use on the ID
card. One drawback is that the police would need to carry scanning equipment around
with them to carry out random checks. But this is being developed. What are the main objections? The principal objections to
ID cards is that they are an infringement of the citizen's right to remain anonymous
if he chooses. They give the state powers it has only ever had before in
wartime. There is no evidence they provide additional security for citizens.
And the benefits are outweighed by privacy and data protection considerations. An ID scheme would
also be hugely expensive. The last official estimate, in 1996, put the cost
of setting up a national registration data base at £600 million and annual
running costs at up to £100 million. More recent, though unofficial,
estimates have suggested setting up a scheme could cost £1 billion. What happens in other countries? About 100 countries have
compulsory ID cards, including Germany, Belgium and Spain. Some, such as Australia,
Canada, New Zealand and Japan, have no ID cards at all. Others, such as France,
Italy and Austria, have voluntary schemes under which it is not compulsory to
carry a card at all times. |