Facts and figures

• The history of ID cards in the UK
• Successful introductions of ID cards
• Failed attempts at introducing ID cards
• UK public opinion
• Adding up the costs
• The fight against terrorism

The history of ID cards in the UK

The carrying of identity cards was compulsory in the UK from 1939 to 1952. They were introduced as a security measure at the start of the Second World War and continued after the war to help in the administration of food rationing.

The police had powers to see identity cards in certain circumstances. If an individual did not show one when asked, it had to be produced at a police station within two days.

The National Registration Act, which made the carrying of ID cards compulsory, was finally repealed in 1951 following the change of government and an important court case.

In December 1950 Clarence Henry Willcock, the manager of a dry cleaning firm, refused to show his identity card when asked to by the police following a minor motoring offence. Two days later, having failed to produce it at a police station, he was charged. In the magistrates court he argued that it was wrong for the authorities to continue to use a power given during a national emergency when that emergency no longer existed. He was convicted but given an absolute discharge.

He appealed against the conviction and in June 1951 the case reached the High Court where the Lord Chief Justice concluded that the Act was passed for security purposes, and not for the purposes for which, apparently, it was now being used. This case hastened the end of the ID card in the UK.

Successful introductions of ID cards

Eleven nations in the European Union now have some form of ID card, even if they are not compulsory. Apart from the UK the only members without any form of identity card scheme are Ireland, Denmark, Latvia and Lithuania. ID cards have become widely accepted by their citizens. In France, for example, about 90% of the population carries one.

Failed attempts at introducing ID cards

The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled in 1998 that a national ID system violated the constitutional right to privacy. The same happened in Hungary in 1991. In Australia, privacy objections came from the public and lobby groups rather than the courts. Massive protests against the Australian Identity Card in 1987 led to the withdrawal of the proposals.

UK public opinion

A consultation process carried out by the UK government in 2003 demonstrated strong support for the idea of an ID card with 79% of the public in favour, 13% opposed and 8% unsure.

The results of a consultation carried out in 2004 however, based on a smaller response rate, were a lot less positive towards the idea. In this survey, 48% opposed the proposals, 31% were in favour and a further 8% supported the idea in principle but with reservations.

Respondents in the 2004 consultation process who were supportive of the introduction of identity cards believed they would benefit society in a number of ways:

• assist in the fight against crime and anti-social behaviour;
• support counter-terrorism;
• help in proving identity, particularly for those without a driving license or passport;
• help prevent illegal immigration and working;
• make it easier for those entitled to services to access them and deter those who were not legally entitled to them;
• provide proof of age;
• provide a single 'all encompassing card' that incorporates a number of existing documents, including the passport, driver's licence, proof of age card and national insurance record.

Those who were against ID cards cited the following reasons:

• concerns about the security of information contained in the proposed Register (a centralised database) and "function creep" (the increase of personal information held on the Register over time);
• loss of Privacy through a centralized register of personal details;
• costs of the scheme;
• accuracy of information contained in the Register National database;
• concerns over disclosure of information held on the Register;
• the scheme would aggravate racism by enabling police to disproportionately target ethnic minority groups;
• worries over Biometrics either because they would infringe civil liberties or because too much confidence would be placed in the technology/system;
• ineffective in tackling illegal working and immigration because those who already employ without National Insurance numbers would continue to employ those without identity cards.

Adding up the costs

The government claims that if it did not implement a scheme which covered everyone, but instead concentrated purely on implementing more secure passports and driving licences including biometrics, the 10 year cost of passports would rise to around £73 and driving licences to around £69. Under the national identity cards scheme, they estimate that:

• a 10 year plain identity card would cost most people in the order of £35;
• a combined passport/identity card would cost £77; and a combined driving licence/identity card would cost £73.

The fight against terrorism

A study by human rights group Privacy International found that there was, "almost no empirical research ... to clearly establish how identity [cards] can be used as a means of preventing terrorism".

The report found that almost two thirds of known terrorists operate under their true identity. Most of the September 11th hijackers were travelling under their own names and didn't have criminal records.

The remaining third use forgeries or impersonation to create fake identities, and hi-quality ID cards would still prove forgeable.

^ Top