SENIOR TORIES are completely united on the issue of ID cards. Ring them up, tell them you are writing a column on the subject and — to a man and woman — they groan. You might get the occasional nervous giggle, but that does not exactly count as dissent. They all know that their party is in a pickle on this subject.
You would have thought that a party whose fundamental tenet is that “the people should be big and the State should be small” would not have the slightest difficulty. The Tories must oppose ID cards on principle.
For this is a scheme which will give the State unprecedented access to information about its citizens. One glance into a policeman’s iris recognition machine could tell him how much you earned last year, whether you suffer from depression, what benefits you claim and what your recent movements have been.
You won’t even need to produce your card for the police to find out all your secrets. They will be able to keep tabs on us without even encountering us on the street. If we move house or live with a friend for a few months, we shall be obliged to notify them, on pain of a huge fine. Can this really be Britain we are talking about?
The Conservatives were swept back to power in 1951 on the promise that they would scrap the hugely unpopular wartime ID cards. We are not at war now, and the reintroduction of these cards is a manifestation of the least attractive nanny-state tendencies of this overweening Government.
David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, understands that. In his party conference speech, he said: “When it comes to controlling the honest citizen, Labour are enthusiastic for any and every means of control: speed cameras, ID cards, trials without juries — they love all that.” Now, poor man, he is reduced to offering qualified support in principle for ID cards, and merely asking difficult questions of the Government on the practicalities.
I have talked to dozens of Tory MPs and aides about this issue, and have not found one who did not admit that “personally” he or she found ID cards obnoxious. So why on earth does not the party say so?
There are two obstacles: one political, one personal. The political problem is that the Tories are worried that opposition to ID cards will be unpopular. Labour will be able to outflank the Conservatives on the Right just months away from a general election.
It is true that polls show overwhelming public support for these cards. But that support would fall drastically if pollsters asked people whether they were happy to pay £85 for each card and whether they were content for all their private information to be gathered together on one national database. The experience of many other countries shows that initial support evaporates very quickly once the implications of these cards are spelt out.
On the other side, there is huge public antipathy to Labour’s curtailment of individual liberty. An ICM poll for Reform, out yesterday, found that 71 per cent of voters agreed that, on matters such as smacking, smoking and hunting, “too many infringements on personal liberty are being proposed on matters that should be for individuals to decide for themselves”. Unsurprisingly, Conservative voters felt most strongly about nanny-state laws, but still 62 per cent of Labour voters and 66 per cent of Lib Dems agreed.
This should be home territory for the Tories. They have, in the past few years, carved out an attractive niche for themselves as protectors of liberty. A failure to oppose ID cards on principle would sully that record.
As for being outflanked on the Right, the Conservatives really don’t need to worry. Labour may be able, to some extent, to neutralise the Tory lead on crime and security with all these Bills, but it is hardly going to overtake. The Conservatives will never be thought of as soft on crime, any more than Labour will be thought of as keen on tax cuts. “Law‘n’order” courses through the bloodstream of the Tory party just as “tax‘n’spend” courses through Labour’s.
If anything, the danger is that the Conservatives support ID cards in principle, in order to get them through an election campaign, and then find themselves blamed, along with the Government, when the policy becomes deeply unpopular later. The Liberal Democrats will be the only party with clean hands. Sounds familiar?
No, the political problem is nothing like as big as it looks. Indeed, the Tories might even gain from opposing ID cards. It would give them a clear, principled position, in contrast with their fudges on tax and the war. It would chime with their underlying philosophy. And it would be consistent with their attempts to protect the citizen against Labour attempts to expand the power of the State.
Unfortunately, one man disagrees with this sensible policy. More unfortunately, he is the leader of the party. Michael Howard is a keen supporter of ID cards. Last time he tried to introduce them, when he was Home Secretary, he was overruled by his Cabinet. This time, even though there seems to be a majority in the Shadow Cabinet against him again, he is the leader and can overrule his colleagues.
I suppose one could commend him for honesty — at least he is saying what he thinks. Yet what he thinks is at odds with his “I believe” principles. If he were to go with the majority of his party, he would be more consistent.
In fact, he could do worse than read these extracts from a recent newspaper article: “Is it time for national identity cards to deal with the problems of illegal immigration, crime and foreign visitors abusing our NHS? My answer is no. First, they would be very expensive . . . Second, they would only work if it was compulsory to carry them at all times . . . Do we really want to live in a country where police can ask ‘where are your papers?’ and arrest you if you are not carrying them? . . . What’s wrong with identity cards is that they are expensive and probably futile cards just for existing.”
The author of that reasoned case? One David Cameron, Mr Howard’s own head of policy co-ordination.
maryann.sieghart@thetimes.co.uk
