UK News 30-06-2005 ID Cards: The £18bn Dog`s Dinner who: Home secretary Charles Clarke what: Admits there are serious practical concerns over introduction of ID cards as Bill passes first reading with reduced majority where: House of Commons, LONDON when: Tuesday snippet: "Does Charles Clarke think we are all children?" wondered The Mail on Wednesday. "His blustering attempt at justifying ID cards on the Today programme yesterday was an insult to the intelligence and was an example of New Labour`s patronising arrogance at its worst." This typically scathing leader follows the first reading of the Identity Cards Bill in the Commons on Tuesday when 20 Labour MPs, including Clare Short, Glenda Jackson and Kate Hoey, voted against the government. "The Identity Cards Bill secured its second reading by 314 votes to 283, cutting the government majority from 67 to 31," says The Scotsman. "In order to secure even this vote, Mr Clarke had to give a string of concessions including a promise to cap the cost of the cards and subsidising them for the unemployed and less well off." Mr Clark said that ID cards would act as "bulwark against the big brother society" but shadow home secretary David Davis claimed it would be precisely the opposite and would lead the country inevitably towards a mandatory internal passport scheme. "If he`d had the courage to say the cards are a necessary evil, this paper might have some respect for his position," The Mail`s leader writer continued. "Instead, his blather about the battle against illegal immigration and terrorism does not bear examination." The week started badly for the Home Office when an investigation into the scheme, by a panel of 14 professors at the London School of Economics, warned that issuing the population with ID cards could cost £18billion - three times the government estimate, or possibly more. Professor Ian Angell of the LSE`s IT department branded the system a "one-stop shop for fraudsters" and, in a nutshell, "a dog`s dinner". His report`s list of complaints includes "cost, renewing the biometric testing, replacing ID cards, enrolling difficulties, difficulties with card reader machines, non-cooperation from the public, civil liberty, privacy and legal implications, problems for disabled users, security concerns and the creation of a new offence of identity theft," says The Guardian. But that is far from all. The LSE team also felt the cost of card-readers was punitive to small businesses and they argued there was no "clear and focused" reason for introducing the cards. They fear the cards will breach human rights and predict a public disobedience campaign. They are also concerned that the cards will leave citizens prone to identity theft, putting their fingerprints or iris scans "permanently in the hands of criminals, with little hope of revoking them". However, the Home Office claimed the ID card scheme will save up to £1.1billion a year "through reducing crime, increasing immigration control and preventing fraud," says The Times. Mr Clark said he "acknowledged that there were practical concerns over the legislation and offered to look at resolving them later". [... more]

What The Papers Say is delivered to thousands of readers every morning by web, WAP and email. Sign up today!