Would you support compulsory digital ID cards?
To the puzzlement of other European nations, few issues in Britain provoke as much controversy as a national identity system.
Opponents have long decried ID cards as a step towards an Orwellian surveillance state. As Britain seeks to reform and modernise its struggling public services, despite the debates and difficulties, some politicians on all sides are saying it would be logical to integrate a digital identity system into the plans.
Digital IDs offer far greater benefits than traditional photo ID cards. Typically combining a universal digital identifier with personal details and biometric data, they can simplify access to public services and facilitate transactions with private businesses. They can also be expanded to store official documents, qualifications, and membership cards, effectively becoming a digital wallet. Estonia, a pioneer of the “e-state” concept, allows citizens to use e-IDs for everything from ordering prescriptions to voting, and estimates the system saves 2 per cent of GDP annually. Other nations, including Australia, Singapore, and Italy, have implemented digital ID schemes, either voluntary or compulsory.
A British e-ID could accelerate public service reform—helping, for instance, to integrate personal health records, streamline welfare payments, and improve tax collection. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, a think tank founded by the former prime minister (a long-time advocate of digital IDs), estimates that such a scheme could boost public finances by around £2 billion per year, primarily by reducing benefits fraud and enhancing tax revenues, alongside broader economic benefits. It suggests that a voluntary system, partly based on the government’s existing but low-profile One Login initiative, could be established within a single parliamentary term, with up to 90 per cent of citizens signing up.
A functional digital ID could eliminate the need to search for documents when opening bank accounts or purchasing property, while also helping to prevent identity theft. Proponents argue that a national identity system could also deter illegal immigration via small boat crossings in the Channel. Anecdotal evidence suggests that one of the UK’s main attractions for migrants is the perception that the absence of ID cards makes it easier to disappear into the grey economy than in many European countries. Requiring an e-ID to access benefits and housing could act as a deterrent to undocumented migrants and people-smuggling networks.
There are, however, valid reasons for caution. Given the sensitivity of data privacy and the risks of hacking and cyber attacks, getting the technology right is crucial. Britain’s track record in public sector IT projects is poor—one need only recall the Post Office Horizon scandal. Some Labour insiders argue that a digital ID initiative is too complex and politically contentious to add to the challenge of rebuilding already overstretched and underfunded public services. Others remain haunted by the backlash that led to the downfall of the Blair government’s post-9/11 national identity scheme, introduced in far more favourable economic conditions.
Nonetheless, there are many successful models abroad from which Britain could learn. Much of the country’s public service IT is so outdated that it would be worth leapfrogging directly to next-generation technology, as Estonia did in the 1990s. Concerns over privacy carry less weight in an era where most adults willingly carry smartphones packed with apps tracking everything from their daily step count to their shopping habits.
While opposition remains vocal, a YouGov poll last year found that more than half of UK adults supported compulsory ID cards. A UK e-ID system would require debate and consultation. It would not be easy. But if Britain truly aspires to be a modern state, this is an idea whose time has come.
What are your views? Would yo support compulsory ID cards?
