Report - Guardian

114 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005At a meeting at the Law Society in 2004, Stephen Harrison, the policy head of theIdentity Cards team at the Home Office, was asked whether ID cards are alien to ourculture and our traditions. Mr Harrison conceded that they may have been at the turn ofthe century, but the Government believes that times are changing and that people shouldchange with them. 299 This debate is not likely to lead to a consensual solution.It is more important, and more relevant, to understand the form of changes beingintroduced to Britain's methods of policing. As ID cards are promoted for use incombating fraud and illegal immigration, and to permit the police to gain access to thenational identity register, we must consider the effects of these powers and measures onthe practice of law enforcement.This section questions the effects that the cards, as with other technologies, have onpolicing in the United Kingdom. It is not necessarily the case that advances intechnology always lead to an advance in the efficiency of the UK’s law enforcementagencies.Demands from the PoliceAssertions that identity cards would be a useful tool for policing have received littlesupport or substantive backing by academic or law enforcement bodies. During debatesin the mid-1990's over the proposed introduction of an identity card, the Association ofChief Police Officers (ACPO) said that, while it is in favour of a voluntary system, itsmembers would be reluctant to administer a compulsory card that might damage goodrelations with the public.According to police organisations, most economically developed countries find that themajor problem in combating crime is not lack of identification procedures, butdifficulties in the gathering of evidence and the pursuit of a prosecution. Indeed, fewpolice or criminologists have been able to advance any evidence whatever that theexistence of a card would reduce the incidence of crime, or enhance the success ofprosecution. In a 1993 report, ACPO suggested that street crime, burglaries and crimesby bogus officials could be diminished through the use of an ID card, although this wasin conflict with its position that the card should be voluntary.Support along these lines for the introduction of cards is also predicated on theassumption that they will establish a means of improving public order by making peopleaware that they are in some way being observed. Sometimes, cards are proposed as ameans of reducing the opportunity for crime. In 1989, the UK government moved tointroduce machine-readable ID cards to combat problems of violence and hooliganismat football grounds. The premise was that cards would authorise the bearer to entercertain grounds and certain locations, but not others. The card could also be cancelled ifthe bearer was involved in any trouble at a ground or related area. The proposal wasscrapped following a report by the Lord Chief Justice that claimed that such a schemecould increase the danger of disorder and loss of life in the event of a catastrophe at aground.299 ‘IDENTITY CARDS: BENEFIT OR BURDEN?’, The Law Society, Monday 22 March 2004, Report of theDebate.