During a second reading of the Identity Cards Bill Monday night, members of Parliament's upper chamber queued up to condemn the plans, which narrowly survived a House of Commons vote last week with a majority of 25.

Lords from across the parties signaled they too were preparing to oppose the bill when it returns to the House for a vote.

Opening the debate, Home Office Minister Baroness Scotland said the cards would help protect against crime, terrorism, illegal immigration and identity fraud.

But Liberal Democrat Lord Phillips of Sudbury said: "ID cards look impeccable in theory but the claims made for them usually do not withstand critical scrutiny."

Conservative Baroness Anelay of St. Johns criticized the "expensive and intrusive bureaucracy" of the scheme -- "funds that could be better spent on more police, more border controls, better public services."

And Conservative Baroness Carnegy of Lour condemned the measures as "draconian" and "very worrying."

Should the bill become law, the first identity cards are due to be issued in 2008.

They will carry biometric data, such as iris scans, facial images and fingerprints, with the information stored on a national identity database.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has said the bill will fundamentally adjust the relationship between citizen and state, and has criticized the lack of safeguards in the legislation.

A member of the committee, Liberal Democrat Lord Holme of Cheltenham, said Monday concerns had centered on the identity database, which would contain "unprecedented" files of information on each individual.

"We must be very careful that we do not get to the point where the citizen and his or her life are at the disposal of the state rather than the other way around."

Baroness Scotland stressed police would not have powers to demand people produce the card in the street. The bill specifically stated people would not have to carry the cards on their person, she said.

There would also have to be a further vote of Parliament if the scheme were to be made compulsory, she added.

There were "clear benefits" to the cards, which would provide people with a reliable and convenient way to prove their identities, she said. Currently people had to carry their passports and produce utility bills as proof of address, she noted.

"I believe the time has come when we might perhaps accept that the introduction of the Identity Cards Bill is a wise and sensible, some would say commonsense measure to protect our identities."

The latest Home Office research in August had found that 73 percent of the public backed the scheme, she pointed out.

However several peers warned against a "creeping compulsion," noting that those applying for a passport would be forced to sign up to the identity register. It would not be long before cards would be required for access to a variety of public and private sector services, they predicted.

For the Conservatives, Baroness Anelay said the scheme was the most ambitious and complicated ever attempted in Britain, questioning whether the government was capable of running it efficiently.

"The fact is that biometric technology is fallible," she said, noting that in testing, there had been problems with identifying people with brown hair, bald heads and dark skin.

Lord Phillips said collating so much sensitive information in a single database could have a honey-pot effect for criminals, who would be able to cause mayhem should they discover how to manipulate the system.

The cards would end up being required at every shop and bank, he said, with "vast" amounts of data being collected.

"What none of us wants, even a government I think, is a slippery slope, at the bottom of which broods an over mighty state where the privacy of the citizen is largely figmentary."

But some peers said that the individual was already monitored to an extent that most people were unaware of. The scheme simply involved collating information that was already available, they said.

The scheme also received strong backing from former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Lord Stevens, who said law enforcement agencies wanted one single means of identifying people.

One man imprisoned last week for $1.75 million in fraud had used no fewer than 130 different identities, he said.

The government must now work to avert defeat when the bill returns to the House of Lords for a vote at third reading. Should the Lords oppose it, the government will be forced to make substantial amendments, or face the prospect of a lengthy parliamentary battle between the two chambers.

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express