Sarah Spencer

David Blunkett's enthusiasm for identity cards may be waning like that of his predecessor, Michael Howard, whose initial insistence in 1995 that an ID system could make a significant contribution to tackling crime was soon qualified as the practical difficulties, and doubtful benefits, emerged. Howard's proposals were shelved in face of opposition from the libertarian right and scepticism from those who would have to enforce it.

Blunkett has already felt the need to reassure us that the police would have no power to demand to see the card, recognising public and police concern that such a power would cause resentment and damage community relations. Look behind the apparent public support for ID cards and we find that only 45% supported unrestricted police powers to see the card, last time around, and 51% expected young people and minority groups to be harassed. Those with long memories will recall that the wartime ID system was abolished in 1953 precisely because the police demanded to see the cards as a matter of routine. As the Lord Chief Justice said in the case that led to their abolition, 'such action tends to make the public resentful of the acts of the police and inclines them to obstruct them rather than to assist them'.

Yet research which IPPR and Justice carried out in 1995, in response to Michael Howard's Consultation Paper, concluded that the value of an ID card to the police would be in proportion, first, to the amount of personal information stored on it and, second, to the extent of their powers to demand to see it. If the police could not require an individual to produce their ID card, it is difficult to see how it could be a valuable new weapon in their arsenal. Once the scheme was in existence, pressure to allow a range of officials to demand access would surely follow.

For the police on the street, establishing identity is rarely the issue; rather it is evidence that connects the individual to a crime. The greater the amount of personal details on the card, the more helpful it could be in providing police with an information trail to follow. But that information would need to be held on a single national database, allowing officials access to information that is currently held separately and disclosed only on a need-to-know basis. ID cards abroad sometimes record sensitive information like previous convictions and religion, as well as more standard details like address and occupation. Blunkett must tell us how much information we would be required to disclose on our ID card, and what guarantees we would have that more sensitive information would not be added in the panic that follows the next terrorist attack.

ID cards could of course be counter-productive if they provide a false sense of security. Yet it appears to be accepted that professional criminals would have little difficulty in forging ID cards, as they do passports. Conservative Minister Earl Ferrers told Peers in 1994 'I should have thought that terrorists were among the most motivated and capable of falsifying documents of any people'.

89 million people entered the UK last year, 29 million of whom were not British. It would not be practical to provide ID cards to so many people, yet they are perhaps the prime focus of current concern. The minority who take up residence cannot apply for citizenship for five years and, during that period, are subject to a bewildering array of differing entitlements to work, use the NHS, take up benefits or vote in elections. Streamlining that system and providing clear documentation on entitlement would be of great value to both migrants and service providers. But the government should not underestimate the complexity of the task nor the fears to which such large scale investigation of immigration status would give rise.

The benefits of a national ID system are unclear; the practical difficulties daunting and expensive, the threat to privacy and community relations apparent. In this decision, but this alone, David Blunkett should quietly follow Michael Howard's example.

Sarah Spencer is the Director, Citizenship and Governance Programme at the Institute for Public Policy Research

ID Cards index