The Government's proposals to bring in legislation concerning identity cards has caused quite a stir. The arguments in favour of the Bill are straightforward at a time when terrorism remains on the agenda - knowing who people are helps with tracking down terrorists, it is argued.

I must admit to being woolly on the details about this. I'm still not entirely sure if introducing a legal requirement to carry an ID card will act as an effective deterrent against someone prepared to blow themselves up.

Opponents of the cards argue principally that civil liberties will be seriously curtailed and we will be on our way to a police state. Again, I'm not entirely sure how it is that the need to produce an ID card will prevent people from going about their (lawful) day-to-day business.

Would we really be opening the door to Big Brother just by having to carry a card?

In reality, the arguments of both sides mask deeper concerns. The Government argues that ID cards will help the police in making our streets safer (although the requirement for them didn't seem to help the terror attacks in the United States or Madrid) and that the introduction of cards will also help with cracking down on other criminal activity relating to immigration and benefit claimants.

There is little doubt that the need for an identity card is going to make it harder for those people who may attempt to benefit from impersonating someone else - whatever the reason may be, and one of the strongest arguments in favour of the legislation may be simply that there is never a legitimate reason to impersonate another.

Yet for opponents, there are a whole host of practical reasons to oppose the cards, not least those residents of middle England who fear the whole red tape of it and wonder what happens when you lose your card .

How much will it cost to replace it? What's the fine for not having it when asked? What happens when someone steals your ID and pretends to be you?

Opposition is also likely to come from those who can foresee a future when they will be asked for their ID simply based on their appearance. As Home Office Minister Hazel Blears has already noted, those of an Asian appearance need to accept that, in the current climate, they are more likely to be stopped than most other people with regard to terrorist incidents.

Which brings us to the central question: how much do we trust those with power not to make the identity card a rod with which to break the back of citizenry rather than a plank in the defence of civil society? Twenty five years ago, in his report into the Brixton riots, Lord Scarman found the abuse of stop and search laws by the police a major reason for conflict. And the BBC's Secret Policeman programme demonstrated that the attitudes of many in the police still leaves a lot to be desired.

This is about a fundamental change in our way of life, with the potential for every financial transaction, every doctor's appointment and every late night stroll requiring you to be ready to produce your ID card. Are you ready to do this? And if not, would that answer still be the same if a major terrorist incident took place next week?

Hopefully we'll never know but, until then, enjoy these moments of relative freedom from state interference. You never quite know how long it will last.

* Harry Mead is unwell.