Twenty Labour MPs rebelled, including former ministers Clare
Short, Glenda Jackson and Kate Hoey, leaving the Government
with a majority of just 31.
The Government published its proposals for the national ID card
scheme in April 2004, revealing that the cards will be supported by
a database containing detailed personal information on all
cardholders, and which could potentially create an electronic
fingerprint of everyone who uses a service, such as the
NHS, that
requires an ID card check.
After running out of time before May's general election, the ID
Cards Bill was reintroduced into Parliament a few weeks ago. The
Government was expecting a rough reception in the House of Commons,
particularly over the cost of the scheme.
This was highlighted in a report published by the London School
of Economics this week, which argued that the Government is wrong
to expect that the combined ID card and biometric passport will
cost around £93.
If all the costs associated with ID cards were borne by citizens
(as Treasury rules currently require), the cost per card (plus
passport) would be around £170 on the lowest cost basis and £230 on
the median estimate, says the report.
During fevered debate on the issue yesterday, Home Secretary
Charles Clarke was forced to concede a cap on the cost of the ID
card, although he did not give a figure. Nor did he mention the
biometric passport, leaving critics to fear that much of the cost
will be steered into the passport, which is designed to be issued
at the same time as the card.
The Home Secretary also hinted that the cost of the card would
be reduced for poorer citizens, and argued: "the ID card system is
a bulwark against the surveillance society, the Big Brother
society, and not a further contribution to it."
But Labour rebel Lynne Jones, MP for Birmingham Selly Oak, said,
“This Bill should be killed at birth.”
“The more people understand about the implications of the
proposals in this legislation, the more people realise that what
was a superficially attractive idea is, in fact, not only a dumb
idea but a very dangerous idea,” she added.
David Davies, the shadow Home Secretary, warned, “The party that
in 1945 promised that generation welfare from cradle to grave is
about to give this generation surveillance from cradle to
grave.”
“The Home Secretary’s proposals represent a fundamental shift in
the balance of power between the citizen and the state,” he said.
“They are not just excessive, but also expensive. Not just
illiberal, but also impractical. Not just unnecessary, but also
unworkable.”
The Bill now goes on to the committee stage, where it will be
examined in detail, and then on to a vote in the House of
Lords.
