UK: ID card benefits "exaggerated" by government
01 September 2005
In August Tom McNulty, the Home Office overseeing the government's £6 billion ID card project, said that the government had overstated its case in claiming that the cards were a panacea for a range of problems from terrorism to asylum to benefit fraud. McNulty told a private seminar:
Perhaps in the past the Government, in its enthusiasm [for the scheme], oversold the advantages of identity cards. We did suggest, or at least implied, that they may well be a panacea for identity fraud, for benefit fraud, terrorism, entitlement and access to public services. (Times 4.8.05.)
He also suggested that a "change of gear" might see a delay in the scheme and its implementation. The Home Office has predicted that it might not be implemented until 2014 as doubts in the IT industry increase about the 2007 date for launching the database.
McNulty's comments follow recent remarks by Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, who expressed his doubts about the usefulness of ID cards in preventing a terrorist attack, following the 7 July bombings in London. Asked if ID cards would have helped prevent the attack from taking place, he replied:
I doubt it would have made a difference and I've never argued, and don't argue, that ID cards would prevent any particular act.
Gordon Brown, Labour's "leader in waiting", is also reported to have become disillusioned by the scheme and his former press secretary, Charlie Whelan, told the New Statesman magazine that it would get "an early bath" if Blair stood down soon: "Does anyone seriously believe that Brown will back this bonkers idea?" he mused.
The government's ID card scheme has been roundly attacked by all shades of political opinion for its divisiveness and intrusiveness. While there is particular concern that the card will be used to single out black and ethnic groups for unfair treatment there are also fears that this so-called "entitlement" or "opportunity" card will create a health underclass. Thousands of people could be denied access to health care to which they are entitled, because they are unable or unwilling to produce an ID card. In a letter to the Guardian newspaper, senior trade union officials castigated the wastefulness of scheme, saying:
The number of costly government IT failures is too long to list. The money that will be squandered on this scheme would be far better spent on investment in health and education, or solving the pensions crisis.
In June a study by the London School of Economics (LSE) claimed that the cards will cost £230 per person and it is taken for granted that, whatever the eventual cost, it will be considerably more than the £95 suggested by the Home Office or the £30 mooted by Tony Blair. The authors of the LSE report also highlighted other serious concerns about the project:
* The technology ("no scheme on this scale has been undertaken anywhere in the world")
* Civil liberties issues (conflicts with human rights legislation)
* The database (which could be accessed by computer hackers)
* The burden on individuals and small businesses
The LSE study, which involved 14 academics and consulted 100 experts and researchers was dismissed as "unfair" by the government.
No2ID, the campaigning organisation opposed to the government's planned ID card and National Identity Register, predicts that hundreds of thousands of people will defy the government by refusing to carry the cards, despite the risk of imprisonment. The campaign cites the 1987 Australian protests which forced that government to abandon its scheme. No2ID has extended its "Refuse Pledge" scheme, which was launched last July. The organisation has obtained the support of over 11,000 people who have pledged to refuse to sign up to the ID scheme and donate £10 towards a legal fund to protect those the government might prosecute for refusal to comply. It is hoping to get 50,000 people to pledge £10 each to generate a £1m fighting fund.
Lon