Fergus Cassidy

Hallmark cards

THE notion of a national identity card itself suffers from an identity crisis. Using the word identity, especially in an Irish context, calls up a long and arduous history of examination and re-examination.

So in floating the possibility of a national ID card last week, the justice minister said events elsewhere might mean the introduction of such cards. He spoke of his personal reluctance to bring them in but encouraged discussion and debate on the issue.

But dialog is hard when the subject matter is both vague and yet complex. Why is there a need to identify ourselves? And if there is a need, what attributes and information about us leads to underlining the definition of identity?

Hopefully there will be enquiry and dialog. The approach of the justice minister on this issue so far is welcome.

Because any proposed national ID card scheme would be using technology in ways never used before. The last time technology of this magnitude appeared was electronic voting, which was abandoned in the nick of time before the last general election.

While electronic voting hasn't been ruled out for future elections, a very positive outcome of the debate was a deeper understanding of the importance of technology and how it is used.

The government adopted an imposing attitude to electronic voting. It was going to happen and that was that. When campaigners sought to explain and warn they were met with accusations of Luddism.

The justice minister's flag-flying couldn't provide a more stark contrast: "This is a case where desirability for ID cards has to be shown by people who want it. This isn't a top-down thing, this will be a bottom-up decision. If people don't want ID cards, then we won't impose them", he said.

If the same approach had been taken to electronic voting, the shoddiness surrounding the lynch-pin of democratic participation might have been avoided.

The minister's remarks are a good start to a debate that has been coming for years. It seems the government has no strategic interest in introducing national ID cards. That's a relief, because it means the government won't end up like Colonel Custer, defiantly defending the indefensible.

Unlike our British neighbours, who are introducing a compulsory ID card, the Irish government is calling on others to put the case: "My own starting point is that the onus is on people who argue for it rather than against it", said the justice minister.

So a national ID card is not government policy but it is open to persuasion. But by whom? Who will argue for ID cards, as the minister suggests. And more importantly, why?

The forecasted threat from international terrorism has tempted other governments to re-balance civil rights in favour of national security. The European Union might be one source arguing for identity cards.

The security industry is one of the fastest growing businesses in the world. Insurance companies, health companies and financial institutions may well be in the forefront of ID card advocacy.

But in the immediate future, the business of government will be the strongest voice. The desire to deliver public services more efficiently and cheaply is at the heart of government policy, enshrined in the translucent title of e-government.

The Reach project is a mainstay of these plans. It's mission is "to develop a strategy for the integration of public services and to develop and implement the framework for electronic government".

A significant part of this is the proposal from the Department of Social and Family Affairs for a Public Services Card.

One look at the statistics for existing cardholders and it's easy to see why: Social Services Card for social welfare purposes (2.3m); the Drugs Payment Refund scheme card (1.3m); Medical card (767,000); Garda age card (100,000) and the Social Welfare Free Travel pass (580,000).

A government-appointed steering group was tasked last June to examine unifying these cards into one. But its term of reference also includes looking at the "possible use of a public service card as a national identity card".

The morphing of one into the other has many implications and consequences, but at least - for now - the cards are on the table.