Report - Guardian

The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005 95The Government seems intent on pointing to international obligations and precedents.Our research indicates a fragmented approach to ID cards around the world, and there ismuch to learn from the experiences of others. A national identity card need not resemblethe one that the Government is proposing, nor is anyone under any obligation to createsuch a card. Indeed, no other country has so far done so.This is linked to another finding from our research: the nature of the systemimplemented in a given country is related to the institution proposing it. A controlorientedregime implements one system, a democratic system another. When ID cardsare implemented to enable electronic commerce and e-government, they tend to be lesscentralised and less focused on the collection of significant amounts of personalinformation. When a system is devised by an Interior or Home Affairs ministry, thesystem always proposes a centralised solution involving the mass collection of personalinformation and the intensive use of biometrics. This was best exemplified by thevarying proposals in France, and it appears to be the situation in the United Kingdom.Our fundamental conclusion, that open deliberation on ID cards is the reason why somecountries have refused to adopt them, is called into question immediately byinternational dynamics. Numerous mechanisms are currently being used to reducepublic debate and create a sense of inevitability. Increasingly Governments are arguingthat identity cards are essential because of international obligations, in particular thecalls for harmonization from within the EU, or passport requirements emerging from theUS. This has the effect of minimising debate and deliberation because the system isseen as inevitable; but this needs not be the case, because the averred obligations do notyet exist.The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that the UK must implement facial, finger, oriris-based biometrics because of obligations imposed by the US. Our research hasshown that this is simply not the case. Even if the Prime Minister were to argue that newregulations from the EU require biometric passports with fingerprints, this could not betrue because the UK is not party to the agreement that establishes this standard.Governments are increasingly using international agreements and standards as adefensive strategy in order to minimize debate. Canada is implementing biometrics onthe grounds of its ‘Smart-Border’ agreement with the US, yet these claims are notquestioned in Parliament or by the general public. The European Union is working onharmonizing identity cards, despite the variances within countries and the legalrestrictions on the collection of further information. These international agreements areoften beyond the reach or attention of the Parliaments of individual countries, and so theapparent element of compulsion is rarely questioned. However, it is important that theseassumptions of inevitability are interrogated, particularly as the UK takes over thepresidency of the EU and begins working on The Hague Programme action point ofharmonizing identity documents: something that the UK Parliament has yet to approvein the UK. Similar dynamics are emerging in Germany, where the Government ispursuing policies abroad that they are prevented from pursuing nationally. In France, theGovernment argues that perceived international obligations and developments in theUK, oblige them to ignore all the legal and cultural precedents of their country anddevelop a system similar to our own proposed identity system.