Tuesday, September 23, 2025
Why Liberal Democrats must oppose ID cards
Liberal Democrats were, of course, at the forefront of opposition to Tony Blair's plans, but has there been a change of heart at the top of the party? The BBC certainly seems to think so and judging by Ed Davey's remarks at his Q and A session, it does look as if his visit to Estonia has caused him to consider supporting a digital version.
The BBC quotes Davey as saying that "times have changed" and the party should look at the issue again and not be "knee-jerk" in its opposition:
He said he had been impressed by a visit to Estonia, where a liberal government had brought in digital ID that he said was "very different" to the scheme proposed by Tony Blair when he was prime minister.
If a UK system was about "giving individuals power to access public services" Sir Ed said he could be in favour because "that could increase people's freedom and rights", but he warned against a model that could be abused by an "authoritarian" government.
Fortunately, he does not have the full Parliamentary party behind him or the Party's Home Affairs Spokesperson, Lisa Smart:
On Sunday morning, Smart chaired a packed fringe meeting to test the party's mood on the issue.
The majority of those present argued against digital ID cards, over civil liberties and data security concerns, among other things.
Veteran MP Alistair Carmichael told the meeting: "It seems to me if we are going to go along with the Labour Party on this then we are saying 'we are quite happy to trust the government on this'.
"And I think the day we start saying we trust the government is the day that we stop being a liberal party."
He added: "I think it is ocean-going nonsense to change our mind at that this stage."
Bridget Fox, from Islington in North London, who like many of those present is a veteran of the No2ID campaign 20 years ago, said: "I shouldn't have to prove who I am, going about my own business in the place where I live."
She warned about the impact on "digitally excluded" people, such as the elderly and disabled - and voiced concern about digital ID being abused to intimidate vulnerable and marginalised people.
"I can only too easily see some vigilante patriots stopping people and demanding to see their ID and saying 'I am not carrying it or I don't have it' would no longer be an excuse."
Like others at the meeting, she expressed concern about the "massive" government database that would be needed and the potential impact on the environment.
"This stuff is coming but we should be the constructive critics, we should be the guardians of freedom in this," she told the meeting.
"Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should."
In the Q and A session, Davey appeared to be arguing that ID cards would be acceptable if they empowered people and presumably if they were voluntary. However, just because they may be digital does not make them better than a piece of plastic, in fact, as Bridget Fox argued, that would exclude people from participating in the scheme. And we all know that ID cards would only work if they were compulsory, anathema to Liberals.
And as for the argument that digital ID cards would enable people to better access public services, well, in whose world? Aren't people accessing them perfectly well now? More importantly the reverse is also true. Somebody who does not have an ID card for one reason or another, could be denied access to services they are entitled to.
Our MPs should not sign up to anything unless the party has had a chance to debate the issue and take a position. But if they do want to consider it, here are 24 questions posed by Stand.org.uk back in 2004 that they should answer first, most of which are still relevant to the present proposals:
1. the actual reason for the introduction of ID cards;
2. what ID cards can and cannot do;
3. who will be able to demand an ID card and under what circumstances;
4. if ownership of ID cards will be compulsory;
5. if the carrying of ID cards will be compulsory;
6. whether all parties asking for ID cards will be able to see all of the information held on the card;
7. the security of the ID cards and the centralised database;
8. the form of any biometric data to be held on ID cards;
9. how any biometric data might be collected and how much time and effort would be required of that process;
10. the ability of the cardholding citizen to view personal data held on ID cards;
11. the accessibility of such information to people using minority computer systems, to those without computers and those requiring assistive technologies;
12. the ability of the citizen to demand the correction of misleading data held on the ID card;
13. the supervision of the centralised database necessary to operate the ID card system;
14. whether there will be data on the ID card to which the citizen does not have access;
15. the ability of a citizen to track the usage of their ID card and by whom;
16. the ability of the government to track ID card usage;
17. if centralised data will be shared between government departments, researchers or commercial organisations;
18. if personal data will be exported from the country and hence out of the remit of the Data Protection Acts;
19. what protections will be put in place to prevent "function creep";
20. what protections will be put in place to prevent abuse of the ID card system by future administrations;
21. what protections will be put in place to prevent official abuse of the ID card system;
22. how the ID card system will not discriminate against ethnic minorities;
23. if the ID card scheme violates the Data Protection Acts;
24. if the ID card scheme violates the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998), especially as legal opinions suggest it will
I look forward to Ed Davey and Lisa Smart posing these questions to government ministers.
