France's carte nationale d'identité

Passports, driving licences and sometimes even credit cards can all be used as a document to prove someone’s identity. Yet, in many European countries, the government decided at some point to provide its citizens with a document issued specifically to endow each of them with a proof of identification: an identity card. Italy requires its citizens over the age of 18 to have one, and the same is true for Poland. In France the Carte nationale d’identité sécurisée is today an optional document of identification. Germany’s Personalausweis (identity card) is one of the two documents (the other is the passport) between which German citizens are required to choose as their compulsory proof of identification. In Sweden and Denmark, where identity cards exist but are not compulsory, they are of very little use. In other words, the approaches of various countries to the ‘ID issue’ are quite different. The general trend, however, is a positive attitude towards them. In all but one case.

The Identity Issue in the UK

The United Kingdom, apart from a short period during World War II, never issued identity cards to its citizens. The Labour government has repeatedly attempted to introduce identity cards to the population, lastly through the Identity Cards Act in 2006. The cards were supposed to be joined to a National Identity Register, and from 2009 the plan of distribution of cards to British nationals on a voluntary basis started. The plan was supposed to be further developed, by making the possession of an identity card compulsory in the nearby future. The creation of a Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition in 2010, however, put a definitive halt to the plan. The Identity Documents Bill 2010 published in May announced the scrapping of the entire project. Identity cards for foreign nationals resident in the UK, introduced in 2008, remain compulsory in accordance with the EU law.

Thus the UK, for the moment, has put an end to the long debate about IDs that started soon after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. At that time identity cards were presented by then Home Secretary David Blunkett as a necessity in the fight against terrorism. Later on the discourse expanded and among the benefits chanted by the ID plan supporters were the positive effect that identity cards and databases could have in the fight against identity fraud, benefit fraud and access to public services.

The project was also supported for the role it could play as a consumer facility, when opening a bank account as much as when buying alcohol. Great importance was attached to the idea that identity cards, together with the compilation of the National Registry, could make it easier to identify and catalogue immigrants in the fight against illegal immigration. This proposal, however, made sense only if joined to a general amnesty towards illegal immigrants. The amnesty would have given legal status to all immigrants in the UK in exchange for their voluntary submission of data to the Registry. In this way it would have been easier to track down and prevent future influxes of illegal immigrants, while regularising the condition of those already in the country. The issue was very controversial, since it would have meant taking a lenient approach towards immigration not agreed upon by the majority of the population.

Arguments Against ID

As soon as the debate started a chorus of ‘no’ was raised against the plan. The most popular argument against the project was that the creation of a database holding information about each citizen infringed upon civil liberties. Richard Thomas, Information Commissioner from 2002 to 2009 stated that the creation of a national database violated privacy rights ‘building up a picture of an individual’s card use and a detailed picture from this of how they live their lives.’

An issue with ID or with immigrants?

Mr Blunkett had already explained, however, that the data held in the database were going to be limited and accessible only to selected organisations and individuals. ‘I know some people believe there is a sinister motive behind the cards; that they will be part of a ‘Big Brother’ state. This is wrong – only basic information will be held on the ID card database – such as your name, address, birthday and sex,’ he explained. The data, moreover, could be released only with the individual’s permission, making the data quite safe.

Concern was also repeatedly expressed on the issue of racial discrimination, and how the introduction of compulsory IDs for foreign nationals could make UK citizens the object of discriminatory identity checks only due to the colour of their skin.

Finally, the issue that was probably the most important reason to drop the plan earlier this year was its cost. A study by the London School of Economics published in 2005 established that the cost for the plan to be implemented could oscillate between £12 and £18 billion. This seemed to be confirmed by the constant budget revisions, that saw the plan’s expenditures for the following ten years rising from £5.3 to £5.612 billion in 2007. The Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition has already repeatedly shown its intention to cut the budget deficit, and unnecessary or at least not urgent identity cards seem to be an easy way to save up money. Even if that means that those citizens that volunteered to release their data and have an identity card issued will not get a refund for the money they paid for it. But that is not going to be a great problem, since only 12,000 British citizens bought the card since last November – or at least that is what the government seems to believe.