Report - Guardian

286 The LSE Identity Project Report: June 2005Concerns of principle3. An identity card scheme of the sort and on thescale proposed by the Government wouldundoubtedly represent a significant change in therelationship between the state and the individual inthis country. International experience does notsuggest that objections of principle areoverwhelming, although the development of abiometric-based scheme does introduce newelements that have not been tested elsewhere. Wedo not, however, believe that an identity cardscheme should be rejected on constitutional groundsalone. (Paragraph 59)4. The test should be whether the measures neededto install and operate an effective identity cardsystem are proportionate to the benefits such asystem would bring and to the problems to betackled and whether such a scheme is the mosteffective means of doing so. (Paragraph 60)Practical concerns5. The proposed system is unprecedentedly largeand complex. It will contain sensitive personalinformation on tens of millions of individuals. Anyfailure will significantly affect the functioning ofpublic and private services and personal andnational security. Measures to ensure the integrity ofthe design, implementation and operation of thesystem must be built in to every aspect of itsdevelopment. As we will remark at a number ofpoints throughout this report, the Government's lackof clarity about the scope and practical operation ofthe scheme, and the nature of the procurementprocess, does not give us confidence that this will beachieved. (Paragraph 64)Benefits and weaknesses of the Government's scheme6. It is reasonable for the Government to haverefined the aims of its scheme after a consultationexercise and development of proposals for itsimplementation. It has now set out its reasons forintroducing identity cards, in its most recentdocument, Legislation on Identity Cards: AConsultation, which accompanied the publication ofthe draft Bill. (Paragraph 70)Conditionally supported. There is generalagreement among key stakeholder groups that theproposals represent a fundamental change in therelationship between the individual and the state.Unless appropriate and necessary safeguards andguarantees can be built into the system it isentirely reasonable to consider rejecting thescheme solely on constitutional grounds.Conditionally supported. While proportionality isa key consideration in the development of thescheme, such arguments should not overridelegal rights and guarantees.Supported by research. The study agrees withthis conclusion in its entirety.Conditionally supported. The aims of the schemeare broad and non-specific (see section 7 & 8below). The consultation exercise undertaken bythe government was perceived widely to belargely ineffective in facilitating national debate.