UK ID Card moving forward despite significant opposition

Privacy International

27/10/2004

The Home Secretary announces a mandatory universal ID card, promising that it would protect the UK against illegal migration and working, organised crime, terrorist activity, identity theft, and fraudulent access to public services.

The report on consultation noted serious concerns regarding specific aspects of the cards, all of which was summarily ignored by the Home Office. Below we offer the salient points from the Summary of Consultation report released today.

Repeatedly the Government tries to highlight support where there is little or where it is mostly uninformed. For example, the vast majority of those polled do now know what biometrics are, but then the Government heralds that the vast majority favour the collection of iris-scans, face-scans, and fingerprints. Repeatedly, repsondents said that the Government has failed to make the case, but then the Government claims that the population is in support. On issuance, the vast majority are opposed to receiving the ID card with their passport, and yet the Government is insisting. In polling the Government did its best to make ID cards seem like an inevitable thing.

This report shows that the vast majority of consultation responses were opposed to ID cards (48% opposed, 31% in favour). The Home Office highlights, oddly, 'general comments' (outside of the consultation process, such as emails) included a larger number of people in favour (31%), while most were 'neutral' (48%). Finally the Home Office declares that ethnic minorities were in favour ('clear majority' -- 'especially with Chinese respondents at 84%).

A number of industry associations expressed some concerns regarding the proposed scheme. Many individuals had grave concerns, and non-governmental organizations or 'campaigning bodies' providing the most analytical criticisms, along with 'Legal bodies'. Even those organizations and individuals who supported the scheme had serious reservations and 'expressed concerns about the effect of compulsion on socially excluded groups, and those who do not register'.

Many also questioned 'whether the ID card would have the benefits that are attributed to it, including in tackling terrorism, illegal working and immigration. They expressed concerns that it was not clear how the scheme will achieve its stated objectives.' Repeatedly it was said that the Government 'has not made the case' for ID cards.

Even when 'external events' were held for further consultation, including the 'BT Consultation Event', 'delegates generally supported the Government’s stated aims for the proposed identity cards scheme, i.e. to reduce identity fraud, improve immigration control, reduce illegal working, counter-terrorism and organised crime, and provide easy access to public services. However, they were less clear exactly how these benefits would be achieved through the proposed scheme and wanted more explanation on the benefits case.

Focus groups approved of the principle of ID cards, 'or were at least accepting of it'. The focus groups were sceptical of the cards particularly because they were not compulsory to carry. On biometrics, those who heard that they might be required on ID cards/passports or that they were already used in the U.S. were generally comfortable with the idea. 'The benefits of using biometrics were largely undisputed.' Although costs 'caused much surprise' as they were 'seen as very high' causing 'indignation'. 'After the discussions, respondents who had initially been in favour of ID cards were generally a little less enthusiastic in their support, although they still believed that the scheme should go ahead.'

Polling of the general public included questions such as

'As you may already know, the Government will be introducing national identity cards. Identity cards are likely to be coming in a few years time, so what type of information do you think should appear on them?'
A biometric is a unique personal physical characteristic such as a fingerprint or iris pattern. To what extent do you think having biometric details on your identity card will be effective at...
...stopping other people stealing your identity and using your card
...making it easier to prove your identity (e.g. by not having to remember a PIN number)

and questions regarding costs. The key findings included that less than a third of people knew what 'biometric information' was, though the majority was in favour of providing all three types of biometrics, and that it would help the scheme. The vast majority felt that ID cards would help in opening a bank account. Most did not want to pay for the card.

Polling of minority groups was also done. Questions here included:

We’re going to be talking about identity cards, which the Government will be introducing in a few years’ time. To what extent are you in favour of or against the introduction of identity cards in the UK?
It is intended that under the identity cards scheme people won’t have to carry a card at all times and there won’t be any changes to police powers. How concerned are you about how the police will use the identity cards scheme in practice?
There are no plans to record ethnicity on identity cards. Do you think that ethnicity should be recorded on the card?

The majority were in favour, mostly because of the ability to tackle crime. More than half feld that ethnicity should not be shown on ID cards. Support amongst Chinese respondents grew since 2003. Opposition was highest amongst the Black and Pakistani/Balgladeshi populations. 77% of Black respondents were worried that BME groups would be asked to produce ID cards more often. Indian respondents were also concerned regarding ethnic discrimination.

<< Back

Email us at privacyint@privacy.org.
Call on +44 (0)208.123.7933.
Privacy Policy - About PI - Support PI