26. Memorandum submitted by
JUSTICE
1. JUSTICE is an independent all-party law
reform and human rights organisation. It is the British section
of the International Commission of Jurists.
2. JUSTICE responded to Entitlement Cards
and Identity Fraud: a consultation paper in December 2002. We
responded to an earlier consultation document in 1995 jointly
with the Institute of Public Policy Research in a document entitled
Identity Cards Revisited. Both responses were sceptical of the
value of Identity or Entitlement Cards.
3. We continue to be sceptical of the case
for ID cards on the grounds set out in our earlier response. We
make just three points in relation to the Government's current
proposals.
4. First, as an absolute minimum, we consider
that the Government should regard its proposed two stage approach
as involving completely severable stages. In other words, new
legislation would be required to move towards the second stage,
not simply the "full debate and a vote in both Houses of
Parliament" promised in the Next Steps paper. The case for
extension beyond stage 1 is just not made at the current stage
of technology alone.
5. Second, the case for and against ID cards
must be made by reference to principle. The Government must make
its case explicitly in relation to Article 8 of the European Convention
on Human Rights and the general data processing principles that
should underlie all consideration of data processing. The data
processing principles are set out in a note to our earlier submission.
Article 8 states that:
(1) Everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life . . .
(2) There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society
in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection
of the rights and freedom of others.
We hope that the Committee will argue its case by
explicit reference to these guiding principles.
6. Third, public support of ID cards may
prove more elusive than the Government suggests. It has asserted
a majority in favour of ID cards only by eliminating negative
responses that have come through a campaigning website. This does
not necessarily mean that they are untrustworthy. Further, though
rises in the cost of passports and driving licences may be acceptable
to those applying for them, the imposition of a cost for a card
with little immediate benefit might well prove highly problematic.
ID cards have not been successfully introduced in a common-law,
English-speaking country and there is likely, in the event, to
prove high cultural resistance.
December 2003
| 
