Digital ID Can Only End Badly

It’s finally happening—after decades of successive governments threatening Brits with a mandatory ID scheme, the UK is set to at last impose the ‘BritCard.’ Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer is planning to reheat the Blair-era plan to make national identification compulsory in the UK. The government intends to complete the rollout of these cards by the end of 2029—before the next, presumably non-Labour, government can stop it. 

The idea is that anyone with the right to work in the UK will be issued one of these digital ID cards, stored on your smartphone. This would contain a passport-style photo, as well as information like your full name, nationality, date of birth, and residency status. They would be issued not just to Brits but also to those born abroad, so long as they have permission to work in the UK. 

Starmer has, somewhat unconvincingly, claimed that the BritCard will help to tackle the UK’s out-of-control illegal migration problem. He has tried to frame the scheme as “an enormous opportunity for the UK” and wants us to believe “it will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.” Apparently, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that.” But this isn’t really about immigration. Technocrats like Starmer and Tony Blair before him have been itching to introduce national ID cards for decades now, deploying every excuse under the sun, from COVID-19 to fixing potholes. 

The idea that digital ID will meaningfully combat unlawful employment is laughable. Employers are already legally required to check that everyone who works for them has the legal right to work in the UK—that’s what National Insurance numbers are for. Any company that isn’t already checking its prospective employees’ documents is unlikely to start doing so after the BritCard is introduced. 

Nor is there any real evidence that the BritCard will stem the tide of illegal migration. National IDs have been widespread across the European Union for decades now. All but two EU member states have some form of ID, and in 15 of those, the cards are compulsory. Many nations are also starting to trial and roll out digital versions. If these cards are so effective at determining who should and shouldn’t be in the country, how come so many EU states are still experiencing their own migration crises? In Germany, for example, every citizen over the age of 16 must have either a national ID card or passport. And yet, illegal immigration and unlawful employment remain huge problems. 

Even if mandatory ID was a workable solution to illegal migration, that doesn’t mean we should accept it. As Peter Hitchens has pointed out, this scheme will only succeed in punishing and inconveniencing law-abiding citizens for the failures of their government. Why should Brits be forced to register themselves or else be treated like criminals, simply because the state has failed catastrophically to control its borders? 

It doesn’t take a conspiracy theorist to speculate about the dangers of digital ID. For starters, it raises questions about data protection—collecting the personal data of every single working adult in the UK presents an alluring target for malicious hackers. Combine this with the fact that the British state doesn’t exactly have a great track record when it comes to implementing digital systems and keeping public data safe. You need only look at some of the government’s biggest tech failures. The Post Office Horizon scandal, for example, saw an IT error falsely accuse more than 900 sub-postmasters of stealing money, resulting in many losing their jobs, going to prison, and being financially ruined. Some even took their own lives. Why would the BritCard system—which is much bigger in scope and higher in stakes—be at any less risk of disaster?  

In an imaginary scenario where the BritCard is adopted flawlessly, we should still vehemently oppose it. The old-age adage that “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide” is pure nonsense. We ought to all fear losing our basic freedoms. It’s not difficult to imagine universal ID quickly becoming an internal passport for everyday life, extending from work checks to renting, banking, travel, protests, and access to public services—meaning that a simple IT error could lock you out of your livelihood. This is almost what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the government threatened to tie people’s vaccination status to their ability to live a normal life and participate in society. Perhaps even more worryingly, digital ID accelerates possibilities for mass surveillance. Linking IDs across government and private databases enables real-time profiling of where you go, what you buy, and who you meet. 

If there is a silver lining to this, it’s that Starmer is facing some serious opposition. The Conservatives oppose the scheme, as do the usually wet Liberal Democrats. Reform UK has, of course, also come out against the BritCard, with leader Nigel Farage expressing concerns that digital ID is yet another means of “controlling the population, telling us what we can and can’t do, of fining the innocent.” Many on the Left are unhappy with the programme, too. Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has called the BritCard “an affront to our civil liberties” and “excessive state interference.” Even within Starmer’s own government, there are murmurs of disagreement. MP for Nottingham East Nadia Whittome described the scheme as “divisive, authoritarian nonsense,” and MP for Norwich South Clive Lewis has vowed to support “any trade unions, civil society organisations and campaign groups opposing this dystopian mess.” This hints at a rare cross-party coalition, which could hopefully fight to protect our civil liberties. 

Starmer has already made his authoritarian tendencies clear, with his government monitoring those who express anti-immigration views online and implementing the Online Safety Act to further chill speech. Giving that same government access to the personal data of every working adult in the UK is a terrible idea. And expecting any subsequent Parliament to dismantle a vast surveillance system is certainly wishful thinking. We should all hope that, for once, the British state’s incompetence works in our favour, before our freedoms are eroded even further.