THE last battle with ID cards began half a century ago, on a very wet Saturday in April 1951. Four women - all officers of the British Housewives' League - stood outside the Houses of Parliament and tried to burn their hated papers. Struggling against the driving rain, only one succeeded. A Mrs Palmer, of Sidcup, tucked her National Registration Identity Card in a coffin tin and lit it. Within a year the papers were no more.

The women, The Herald reported, had been protesting "in the hope that attention will be drawn to the increasing pauperisation of the British people". ID cards had been introduced more than a decade before, a supposedly short-term emergency war-time measure and, by the 1950s, were deeply unpopular.

Yesterday, the Home Office announced the cards were coming back: most Britons, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said, should have one by 2017.

The British Housewives' League was not happy about that. "We are animated about this now as we were in the early 1950s," said the now much diminished organisation's honorary secretary, Lynn Riley.

"I remember when we joined Europe we were told we wouldn't need our passports to go to France or Spain or Portugal and we thought that was wonderful. What we did not realise is that we would need an ID card to go to Tesco."

Mrs Riley is not alone. Her group - which remains staunchly conservative - has lined up with people of an astonishingly wide spectrum of political opinions, left, right and centre, who are uncomfortable with the government both requiring ID cards, and, more importantly, collecting the data, some of it biometric, that they will require.

"This is a declaration of war by the state on its people," Mrs Riley said. "There is a lot of common ground on the left and the right about this."

Passions are certainly running high. Libertarians, whatever their politics, are nervous. Britain is already widely thought to have more CCTV camera coverage than any other nation. England and Wales - though not Scotland - have one of the world's biggest databases of DNA, where the genetic fingerprints of the innocent are thought to outnumber those of the guilty. CCTV and the DNA database have helped solve crime. Both were rolled out in the name of security. So, at least partly, are ID cards.

Ms Smith yesterday said the cards would help defend British families from identity fraud, illegal immigration and terrorism. Not everyone is convinced of that. Stella Rimington, the former head of M15, numbers among critics of the scheme.

Unless they were completely unforgeable, she said, they would be "utterly useless". Of course, even a foolproof ID card scheme would not stop all terrorism, and the government is not pretending it would. After all, the 9/11 hijackers had enough ID to get on planes. The Islamist terrorists who blew up trains in Madrid had Spanish ID cards.

Cards, however, make up just a tiny part of the government's plans of a National Identity Register. Essentially, what the government is proposing is a single, massive database of information about its citizens and many foreigners who chose to live in the United Kingdom.

Yesterday, the Home Office stressed that details would be kept separately - photographs, say, would not be in the same place as national insurance details.

In a statement, it said: "The National Identity Register will hold a small amount of personal biographic details separately from biometric fingerprints and photographs, making it incredibly difficult for anyone to steal or exploit another's identity.

"The government has already proved its ability to build a sound foundation for the National Identity Scheme. Fingerprinting is already required for visa applicants to the UK, and over 10 million British e-passports have been issued since the end of 2006, containing an encrypted digital version of the holder's personal details and a photograph on a secure chip."

That did not reassure Geraint Bevan, who speaks for NO2ID, a fast-growing group campaigning against the cards and the National Identity Register, in Scotland. "What we are talking about is a giant metadatabase from a government that has already lost the details of 25 million people. The little plastic card is just an excuse to grab people's information. And, let's face it, the government doesn't exactly have a good record with IT projects."

So how much is this all going to cost? The most modest estimates put the final bill for creating the National Identity Register at something over £5bn though Ms Smith yesterday said she could shave £1bn off costs.

The London School of Economics, in findings disputed by the Home Office, said two years ago that the scheme would cost at least twice as much as the government thought. Worst-case scenario? Nearly £20bn, said the LSE. Some of that cost will be borne by citizens themselves - they will pay for the cards.

Another branch of the Home Office spent huge sums on new IT in the war with illegal immigrants - but did not stop them coming in. One of the reasons was revealed this week: a dodgy fence. The Conservatives yesterday said they wanted to help in the fight with illegal immigrants and terrorists too. But not using ID cards. A spokeswoman for Annabel Goldie, the Tory leader in Scotland, said: "It is a costly use of public money that could be much better spent protecting our borders."

ID cards may not get past one border: the Scottish one. Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has signalled he will resist ID cards and has broad support from other politicians for doing so.

The SNP's home affairs spokesman in Westminster, Peter Wishart, said: "ID cards are not wanted in Scotland, and the Scottish Government has made it clear that ID cards will not be required for devolved services."

Will the British Housewives' League back Mr Salmond and other opponents?

Mrs Riley was not sure whether her fellow homemakers were eager to break the law again. "I hope we won't have any cards to burn," she said, then added: "I shall keep a magnet in my handbag: that ought to wipe it."


STUDENT
AMY Drysdale wants her identity to be safe. And she wants a card to make sure.

"My mum had her identity stolen and I know what that is like," she said yesterday. "I have no problem with an ID card at all."

Ms Drysdale, 20, studies English language at Glasgow University. That could make her one of the first British citizens to get a card. The government yesterday said young people and students could expect to see the system rolled out from 2010. "It makes sense for young people to get them first," Ms Drysdale said. "They are starting out in life and already getting ID, say a bank card or a driving licence. Actually, it could be useful to have a proof of age.

"I want to make sure my details are secure. The government is going to have to make sure information is much more protected than now.

"If you haven't done anything wrong, you shouldn't worry about them having your details, even your DNA."


IMMIGRANT
AHMAD Khan already has an identity card and he doesn't want another. A Pakistani national, he still has his papers from home, two years after emigrating to Scotland from the Punjab.

He is not convinced he needs any more ways of proving who he is. "I have a driving licence, I have a passport, I have utility bills and I have a Pakistani ID card," he said yesterday. "It's ridiculous to ask for anything more."

Mr Khan, 30, is a solicitor, with Shoaib Associates, a Glasgow law firm specialising in immigration cases. Will ID cards help keep out illegals? "I don't think so," he said. "There are already people who avoid settling legally because of the costs. ID cards are more likely to encourage people to go underground."

Foreigners should start getting their cards as early as this year but not citizens of the EU, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein. Mr Khan is not sure it is fair that new immigrants will be "carded" first. "The community feels it is being targeted," he said.