The Identity Cards Bill, which was given a rough reception first time round, is expected to face even more opposition this time, in the light of the Government's reduced majority in the House of Commons.
Speaking yesterday, Home Secretary Charles Clarke made a robust defence of the proposals, although his earlier arguments that ID cards are necessary in order to fight terrorism appear to have given way to arguments that the cards are vital in the fight against identity theft.
Many Labour MPs are uneasy about the bill and the Liberal Democrats have pledged to oppose it. The Conservative party has so far given a mixed response to the proposals, first voting in favour, then abstaining in a second vote.
However, David Davis, the likely front-runner in the forthcoming Tory leadership contest, has made plain his opposition to the bill.
He told the BBC: "On an issue of this importance, one that represents such a fundamental change in the relationship between the citizen and the state, the Government must make the case and conclusively prove the need for such a change."
"The database is the thing that makes this a change of relationship between the individual and the state. And they have no answer as to how they are going to protect that database," he added.
In the light of such extensive opposition the Home Secretary has promised to discuss the bill with concerned MPs, and has indicated that some concessions could be made.
Background
The Government published its proposals for the national ID card scheme in April 2004, including draft legislation that would allow for a database to be kept containing detailed personal information on cardholders, and which could potentially create an electronic fingerprint of everyone who uses a service, such as the NHS, that requires an ID card check.
It is planned that the scheme will be ready by 2007-2008 although it is unlikely to be made compulsory until 2013, after further legislation has been passed. A new National Identity Scheme Commissioner will oversee the workings of the system.
Experts and civil liberties groups are outraged by the proposals, which they see as rushed, over-reaching and damaging to human rights.
