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
MP
s 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.
