After some setbacks, this big idea has continued to build significant momentum, drawing support from an unusual and politically diverse set of people and political constituencies. This time around, an attempt to establish a similar system a few years ago was met with massive public outcry and ultimately dropped. Advocates of the ID card tout its potential to make access to public services more efficient, fight illegal immigration and curb fraud. On the other side, opponents raise red flags about privacy and government overreach.
This idea of a universal ID card is nothing new to the UK. In 2003, the government put the concept to its first major test. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair similarly floated the idea of a plastic “entitlement” card to streamline people’s interactions with government services. Even with these efforts, the initiative faced an uphill battle. In the end, it was junked due to widespread public outcry and opposition based on civil liberties concerns.
Today, that argument is back once again, joined by the forces of new societal demands, shifting priorities, and technology. The result of a recent British poll shows that 53% of the British public favor a universal ID card. Of those, one in four show a high level of excitement about the effort. Just 19% of respondents are against the concept, marking a major change in public attitudes compared to recent years.
Support for ID cards transcends political divides. Almost half of Labour supporters, two-thirds of Conservatives, three-fifths of Liberal Democrat and three-fourths of Reform UK supporters back the move. This tremendous bipartisan support reflects a rapidly increasing agreement across the political spectrum that a national ID system could enhance public safety and security. Support for the proposal cuts across demographics, with overwhelming majorities in all age groups. This proves that ID cards are a hit with all ages, not just Millennials.
Advocates say that the ID cards would improve access to and make citizens’ interactions with an array of public services more efficient and secure. At the moment, there are 191 different account configurations and service access methods on gov.uk, the UK saver government’s online service portal. As well, there are 44 different sign in methods for gov.uk services, making for a piecemeal and frequently perplexing experience for citizens. A unified ID card system could streamline these processes, providing a single, secure method for verifying identity and accessing services.
Jake Richards, the then Rother Valley MP, who helped to write a report leading to the scrapping of ID cards. This unusual collaboration reflects the growing political urgency surrounding the issue. The report unveils a bold new ID card, the “BritCard.” This card would be the UK’s first national identification card issued since the Second World War. If successful, this smart city initiative will be a first step towards a new paradigm of how governments identify citizens and give them access to services.
One of the proponents’ main arguments for ID cards is that they will stop illegal immigration. Supporters claim that ID cards would prevent undocumented migrants. They would have a more difficult time getting a job, renting an apartment, and using public services. By requiring individuals to present a valid ID for these activities, authorities could more easily identify and deter those who are in the country illegally.
ID cards would prevent fraud on benefits which is currently 2.2%. In this way, authorities can safeguard against fraudulent claims by ensuring that they’re validating the identity of benefit recipients. This helps make sure that limited resources are focused on the places that need it most. This may lead to billions in net cost savings to the federal government and taxpayers over ten years.
Former home secretaries Alan Johnson, David Blunkett and William Hague are united in their vigorous support of ID cards. Having their endorsement carries tremendous weight for the proposal. Their backing adds even more credibility to the proposal and signals that it could have the legs to win support from both parties. The Met police commissioner has been a great champion of this concept. He refers to it as an “absolutely indispensable” tool in the war on terrorism. This support underscores the potential security advantages of a national ID system.
Civil rights advocates say their worries are far from assuaged and point to risks for privacy violations and government overreach. Opponents of these efforts warn that a national ID card could usher in the birth of a surveillance state. They worry it would give the government a way to obtain deep and detailed information about American citizens. They underscore the danger of such systems to be abused and foster discrimination.
These issues are not a recent development. If they want to build public trust, any proposed ID card system will need to do a much better job at addressing them. No less than a robust suite of safeguards—including guardrails, oversight, and accountability—should be established to protect individual Americans’ personal data and prevent misuse or abuse. Narrowly define the ID card’s scope and purpose. Only by doing so can we make sure it’s not used for unscrupulous ends.
