Intelligence

Minister admits ID card benefits were exaggerated

Britain, UK news from The Times and The Sunday Times - Times Online

By Richard Ford, Home Correspondent

THE Government has admitted that it has overplayed the advantages of identity cards.

Tony McNulty, the minister in charge of the ID card project, admitted that ministers had been too enthusiastic in suggesting that the cards could be the answer to a host of problems such as terrorism and multimillion-pound benefit fraud.

Mr McNulty also disclosed that the Government’s plans for changing the scheme from a voluntary to a compulsory one could end in parliamentary deadlock, with the Commons voting in favour of it and the Lords voting against.

Ministers and Home Office officials are looking at legislative ways of avoiding a parliamentary crisis that could prevent the card scheme becoming compulsory in about 2012 to 2014.

The minister’s admission came at a private seminar in Whitehall, in which he indicated a “change of gear” in the Government’s approach towards persuading the public of the benefits of the scheme.

Mr McNulty, who is piloting the ID card legislation through the Commons, told the seminar: “Perhaps in the past the Government, in its enthusiasm, 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.”

His frank admission seemed to be an implied criticism of David Blunkett, the former Home Secretary, who was the chief advocate of identity cards and who managed to push through the scheme despite strong doubts among Cabinet colleagues.

Mr McNulty said that the identity card scheme would help to tackle some of the problems but not overcome them. “It will help where fraud and abuse of identity is part of the equation. It will help in the development of some, but not all, strategies to combat identity fraud, serious crime and terrorism,” he said.

He said that he made no apology for overselling the case for identity cards, but added: “Perhaps we ran away with our own enthusiasm.” Mr McNulty indicated that the Home Office would adopt a new strategy of highlighting how useful the card would be for the citizen.

He said: “We have been arguing what the State can get out of it rather than what it can do for the individual in providing a gold standard of protecting your identity. This is our fault. It has always been seen in terms of what this can do for the State rather than in developing the gold standard in proving identity and saying how precious your identity is to you.

“There are now so many, almost daily occasions, when we have to stand up and verify our identity.”

Mr McNulty’s views on the benefits of identity cards reflect the more cautious approach to the scheme of Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary. On the day after the July 7 bombings in London, Mr Clarke was asked whether ID cards would have made any difference.

He said: “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. The question is . . . does a particular measure help or hinder? I actually think ID cards help rather than hinder.”

Mr McNulty also highlighted how plans to move towards a compulsory card in about seven or eight years could end in parliamentary deadlock.

Under the legislation the Government wants to use a formula by which both the Commons and Lords would have to approve the move to compulsion.

He admitted that the proposed system, known as a “super-affirmative” resolution did not deal with the situation if the Commons said “yes” and the Lords said “no”. It could end up travelling back and forth between the two houses, he said. The government of the day would be unable to use the Parliament Act to get its way because the Act cannot be used for secondary legislation.

Mr McNulty said that the 840,000 Irish citizens living here would be treated the same as everyone else. They, too, would have to apply for an ID card should the scheme become compulsory.

STEPS SO FAR

1995: Michael Howard launches ID card debate

1996: Michael Howard promises introduction of voluntary ID card scheme

1997: Tories lose power and idea is abandoned

2002: Labour puts forward plan for “entitlement card”

2003: Cost put at £73

2005: Identity Card Bill published; Sets up National Identity Register containing details of everyone over 16 Register contains individual’s date and place of birth, address, previous residences, gender, full name and identifying characteristics People will register at 70 offices around the UK By about 2013, some 80 per cent of population will have a card Parliament then to decide if it should be compulsory for everyone to have one Public support has fallen from 79 per cent to 45 per cent in two years

August 4, 2005 at 01:45 AM in UK | Permalink | Top of page | Blog Home