Businesses fear that the government's ID card scheme will not be robust enough to guarantee people are who they say they are, and that companies will carry the can where the system fails.
Following a major consultation with member companies, the CBI is saying for the first time that employers are ready to back an ID scheme in principle. But the business body makes clear that it regards the current plan as "vague and insufficiently thought-out".
Publishing its response to the Home Office consultation on the draft ID card bill today (Friday), the CBI says the government has failed to spell out sufficiently its objectives for the cards or how it would achieve them.
If the scheme is to have value, businesses and individuals must have certainty over the accuracy of information on the ID registry. There is too little detail on how the government will achieve this, a view exacerbated by the uncertainty surrounding use of biometric technology, which includes facial images, iris scans and fingerprints.
The employers' organisation is particularly concerned that the government will not accept liability when companies use information on the ID registry that turns out to be wrong. It says this could expose firms to time-consuming court cases and damaging legal bills for errors that are no fault of their own.
The CBI submission says it is not clear whether the government intends this to be a universal identity-authentication system or simply a means to control immigration and crime. If it is to become widely accepted, the government must win the confidence of business or the scheme will be of little use.
The CBI says there could be valuable social and economic benefits for business and individuals from the development of a single system of identity authentication, but only if the government gets its proposals right.
Advantages include:
- Citizens would have a single, certain, means of identification. That would improve security and give greater confidence that we know who is in our country, on our planes or teaching our children.
- A single source of identity data would be the best protection against fraud, making criminal activities more obvious so reducing the cost of fraud and of detecting it.
- A system where all identity data is stored in one secure place means citizens would have less need to call and write to lots of different government bodies and businesses to update personal details.
But business still has some severe doubts. The CBI is calling on the government to accept legal liability in cases where the ID registry fails and to spell out precisely how the scheme will address illegal working, terrorism and rights of access to public services.
CBI Deputy Director-General John Cridland said: "Businesses share the government's concern that not having a reliable means of proving identity makes us all more vulnerable to criminals and terrorists. ID cards could improve security and make access to public services more efficient. Companies want ID cards to be a universal identity-authentication system but they are concerned that the government has not appreciated the dangers of driving through a vague and insufficiently thought-out plan.
"Employers cannot be ID card enforcers. They just want to be sure that when a would-be employee hands over ID, the system is in place to guarantee the employer can rely on what's in front of them.
"The scheme will be fatally undermined if employers do not have that trust. The government must spell out how broad its objectives for ID cards are and exactly how the scheme is intended to achieve them. It must set out how it will prevent ID card registration abuse and clarify what information a central ID database would contain and how it would be used.
"It must also make clear that businesses will not be penalised when they have relied on data that turns out to be wrong. Companies that rely on ID cards as a means of authentication should not be financially liable for fraudulent activity carried out under a false identity when the system has let them down.
"If the government hasn't got the confidence to take responsibility for its own scheme than why should companies and individuals have that confidence."