Minister pulls out of ID cards speech

Beleguered Home Office Minister Beverley Hughes today pulled out of a key speech on identity cards after a major Cabinet rift on the plan was revealed.

Ms Hughes, under mounting pressure over a secret " opendoor" policy in her immigration department, cancelled an appearance at a Law Society debate on the ID cards.

Instead she took the rare step of allowing a senior civil servant to answer questions in public on the plans.

Four senior ministers have written to Home Secretary David Blunkett, Ms Hughes's boss, warning him not to breach a Cabinet agreement by forcing through compulsory ID cards.

Leaked Cabinet letters revealed Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Transport Secretary Alistair Darling, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Paul Boateng and the Trade and Industry Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, have told Mr Blunkett he would need two Bills in Parliament - one to set up a voluntary scheme and the second to make it compulsory.

They were said to be furious that draft legislation showed the compulsory scheme could be "nodded through" by a single parliamentary vote.

The draft, to be published before Easter, is intended to allow a full debate on the details of the scheme before the substantial Bill is introduced at the beginning of the new parliamentary session in the autumn.

Mr Blunkett wants to get ID cards on the statute book before the general election and faced down Cabinet critics who oppose them on civil liberties and cost grounds.

They point out that Spain's ID card system, which goes back to the dictatorship of General Franco, did nothing to stop the Madrid bombings.

In a leaked letter Mr Boateng, a former Home Office minister, said: "I remain concerned about compulsion - an issue that cuts to the core of the political and public acceptability of the scheme."

Ms Hughes was due to speak at a Law Society seminar and would have faced critics including its president and civil liberties groups.

The society of lawyers is opposed to the ID card plan, accusing the Government of having no "clear rationale" for its implementation.