Mike O'Brien MP

Press speculation that the Government will introduce compulsory identity cards in the aftermath of the recent appalling terrorist atrocities has tended to focus on the dangers to civil liberties, but the strongest arguments against i.d. cards are not libertarian, they are practical ones. They don't work.

Personally, I do not object to carrying an identity card, indeed the idea of a citizenship entitlement card might have some merit, but I am not convinced that doing so would make much difference in the fight against terrorism or crime. Identity cards would not have stopped the suicide bombers in the USA; after all it would appear that the terrorists had gone through passport checks and were legally present in America.

In our understandable desire for security we must nevertheless approach with caution each demand that would place restrictions on personal freedom. Our aim must be to win the fight against the terrorists in order to preserve liberty. Remember that Britain has fought a war with IRA terrorism for a quarter of a century without seriously damaging our civil liberties; indeed we passed the Human Rights Act three years ago to further protect our liberties. Regular calls to introduce i.d. cards have been rejected by Governments for almost fifty years. Ministers have recognised that our aim is to seek to protect freedom and democracy, and therefore each time we are forced to undermine these values, terrorists will claim it as a victory.

Identity cards were abolished in the early fifties for good reasons. They were unreliable in proving identity and damaged the relationship between the public and the police.

Imagine this: you are a person of good character who supports the police and agrees with the newly introduced law on i.d. cards. You get home late and after a quick change of clothes, you take the dog out for a walk. A policeman stops you and asks for your i.d. card. You have left it in your other jacket and so you have committed an offence. You are quite properly arrested, charged and convicted and get a record. Not only have you lost your good character, but also in future you may think twice before helping a police officer. That sort of incident was all too common in the forties and fifties and produced Lord Justice Goddard's charge that i.d. cards undermine public support for the police.

In the forties and early fifties, forgers had a steady business in falsifying cards. If cards were introduced today the forgers, with computers at their disposal, would make even more money. There is already a worrying trade in forged passports and false national insurance numbers. I.d. cards would create a constant race by the authorities to keep our technology ahead of document forgers. Each time forgers developed a technical advantage in the process of creating false documents, the government would have to issue new and better cards to about forty million people, a costly and logistical nightmare.

If the forty million i.d. cards were to have any value there would need to be security checks on everyone who gets one. That would be intrusive as well as expensive. Anyone who has read "The Day of the Jackal" by Frederic Forsyth knows it is possible to get a birth certificate to create a false identity to get a passport. To prevent applicants for i.d. cards doing the same thing the screening of applicants would have to be thorough with references followed up and backgrounds analysed.

There is also the danger that i.d. cards can give people an illusion of security. We assume we can rely on them, which means we do not make other checks on identity. Once a criminal was in possession of a convincing card, it could paradoxically make crime much easier.

Setting up a good identity card system is a long term project, requiring new laws, a new administrative system, a means of issuing of millions of cards and then of allowing the police to check them quickly in the street. The system would require tens of thousands of staff and take four years or more to set up. It would be of little help in the meantime against terrorists or other criminals.

The cost would be over a billion pounds a year, maybe two billion. Money that would be better spent putting more police officers on the beat or developing a wider range of other security measures to stop terrorism and crime.

In the last two weeks the debate on i.d. cards has dovetailed into the debate about a Citizenship Entitlement Card. The latter proposal does not rest on law and order arguments. The primary argument for the Citizenship Entitlement Card is that it allows easier access to benefits and public services backed by a unique identification number for everyone.

To convince us that the Citizenship Entitlement Card justifies the major administrative effort involved, the Government will need to show it gives us something extra, something we do not get without it today. I assume we would not be obliged to produce it in the street to a police officer, but we might be encouraged to carry it if it enhances our access to public services.

If the Government does adopt the Citizenship Entitlement Card, it will have to present its arguments with care and be wary of making claims that it is a panacea to stop criminals. Even though opinion polls may show the public initially supports the idea of i.d. cards, it is worth remembering that Michael Howard found in 1996 that such support soon drops when the practical problems are exposed.

When it comes to fighting terrorism and serious crime, there are more effective things to spend our money on.

Mike O'Brien is a former Labour Home Office Minister. This article appears in a Charter88/ Liberty pamphlet ID Cards - Arguments Against, and was published at the Labour Party conference 2001.

ID Cards index