Airport workers are calling for consultation over plans to make them first in line for ID cards.
Unite, the union which represents workers in the civil air transport sector, wants "full consultation" with airport group BAA after it was revealed it is in talks with the Home Office over the plan.
And the union said it wants to make sure workers will not shoulder the projected £93 cost of the biometric card.
BAA confirmed it was talking to the Home Office about airport workers being among those required to have ID cards under the £5.4bn National Identity Register scheme from about 2009.
Brian Boyd, national officer for Unite, said: "We would be seeking assurances that the introduction of ID cards would in no way discriminate against existing or new BAA employees.
"We want the process to be transparent, they [the BAA] would have to be able to substantiate the reason why workers are not able to get employment or an ID card. If the cards are necessary for continued employment at BAA they also need to make sure that the costs do not fall on the employee."
A spokesman for BAA said: "We can confirm that we are in preliminary discussions with the Home Office."
A spokesman for the Identity and Passport Service said it made sense to adopt an incremental approach to rolling out ID cards: "It is obviously right and logical that our first priority should be to consider where ID cards can be of greatest benefit to the security of the UK."
Read this
The shape of tech spending in 2008
Environmentally and economically sustainable tech will continue to be an increasingly important theme this year
Foreign nationals coming to the UK will be given cards from the end of this year and the Home Office is expected to announce details within weeks of which category of migrants will be required to have a card.
The widespread rollout to UK citizens, known as "Borders phase II", is now slated to begin in 2012; two years later than indicated in an earlier government action plan.
Critics of the scheme said the perceived two-year slip in the widespread rollout of the cards is another sign of wavering support among Gordon Brown's government for ID cards. Doubts in the scheme were further exacerbated by Accenture and BAE Systems pulling out of the procurement process to build the ID card computer system.
Meanwhile the government admitted to another embarrassing data mishap after it revealed a CD containing details of 4,000 offenders the Dutch authorities wanted to trace had been missing for almost a year.
Talkback
Are we saying that the current system of identifying airport workers is flawed? Surely this is a far more important news item. "Government admits current airport worker ID scheme broken" !!
Why not spend a little time and effort and fix that instead.
Maybe it would be a bad idea to ensure that all the relevant components for a 100% coverage ID theft of an airport worker are placed in a centralised database with countless people all over the country able to get in and have a peek.
I would suspect that the current system, if it even has a core database is localised, only has the details relevant to identifying the individual and only allows access to people relevant to the task of securing that airport .. or group of airports.
Are the union people concerned about this, no, they want to make sure that their people don't have to fork out £93 for their card. Maybe they should be concerned about the scheme itself costing every taxpayer considerably more than this each. They are in an excellent position to stick roadblocks in the way of this scheme by coming back with logic along the lines of those made above and trying to help the rest of us bring down this expensive, dangerous and misconceived scheme.
Surely the current ID checks for airport workers are adequate? If they are inadequate, then all air travellers are constantly at a high risk - which I doubt.
If the current ID checks are adequate, then why does the system need changing? And changing to a system that will be less secure?
Another point I agree with: The government has demonstrated over and over again that it simply is not able to safeguard citizen data effectively. Why should we trust it with yet more information, held in centralised databases, accessible by thousands more people?
Tom