I left our recent federal conference in Bournemouth, the first I’ve attended, with my head abuzz. Only a small part of this was due to the cumulative hangover that happens when a man in his late thirties boozes as he did in his late twenties. The overwhelming majority of the remaining buzz is a result of the optimism, confidence, and positivity of everyone I met and the warm welcome that was shown to us repentant sinners, formerly of other political parishes.
Key points like Tim Farron’s barnstorming speech, making the defiant and full-throated case for patriotism and liberalism, and Jamie Greene’s warm, clever, and energising remarks about how Liberal Democrats have welcomed him into the party as our newest MSP were highlights for me. As were the other fringes, receptions, and engaging conversations I had over the weekend. Thank you all.
Our conference was buzzing, and a good thing too – other parties will envy us our good mood, and they are right to.
However, with so many important causes and issues jostling in the scrum for attention, it’s important that crucial ones do not slip through the cracks.
And what could be more important than the UK Labour Government planning to force British people to carry mandatory digital ID to access work and services?
One of the fringe events I attended at conference was held by privacy and civil liberties campaigners, Big Brother Watch in the Bournemouth Library (next year, we must get them back in the main venue). Joining their staff on the panel was our brilliant MP for Orkney and Shetland, Alistair Carmichael. It was excellent discussion and the report that Big Brother Watch have published on the topic, Checkpoint Britain, is well worth your time.
As Alistair said during the discussion, this is a matter of first principles and of instinct. There is something in the prospectus of mandatory ID, digital or otherwise, that offends a liberal sensibility. It feels wrong, in other words, to give the government the authority to demand we prove we are who we say we are at any moment and for any reason that some bureaucrat wishes to use. It is an existential threat to the way life in the United Kingdom has always been, a threat to the liberty it is infused with, and a threat to the way we as British subjects relate to the state.
Liberal Democrats are very good at the local stuff. Kemi Badenoch identified us as the people who will come along to “fix your church roof,” and thought she landed a knockout blow. Au contraire mon Kemi! Getting on with what needs done, with a smile and a quiet determination, is the Lib Dem brand and we are very and rightfully proud of it.
However, there is also a national picture to consider and I fear that, on some occasions, we’re too focused on the detail and intricacies of a policy and its impact where we live that we don’t give proper focus to the big stuff. This fear may be unsubstantiated, but better someone has it and we catch this kind of thing than nobody does, and it turns out to be very founded indeed. Especially if it turns out that we don’t give enough attention to the perils of mandatory digital ID.
So far, the signs are good. Our science and technology spokesperson, Victoria Collins, has laid out the Lib Dem objection to this overreaching and potentially discriminatory policy; I particularly enjoyed her pithy line in which she says that, “people should not be turned into criminals just because they can’t have a digital ID, or choose not to,” – that second element being particularly important. We must keep up this attack to defend our freedom and, when it comes to it, our MPs must, if they’ve any conscience at all, vote to kill this hideous measure.
My concern, however, is that this monstrous policy is allowed to bed in and become acceptable and palatable. This is particularly dangerous in a nation that has fond memories of huge government intrusion into our private lives and curtailing of civil liberties in its recent past. I am worried that our supine and submissive response to many aspects of the COVID pandemic has softened us up for exactly this kind of thing.
In the weeks and months that follow, I’ll continue to write and speak about this authoritarian proposal in the hope that others will do so too. Please, join in before it’s too late!
* Alan is a writer and a regular columnist for the Scottish Daily Express. He also runs Alan Grant Communications, specialising in political communications and public affairs.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
What should the Liberal Democrats stand for?
Ben Wood
Ed Sanderson
Jack
Matt (Bristol)
John Grout
11 Comments
I would like to see this fully debated. I am a retired lawyer. When in practice proof of ID for clients could be a real problem, even those I’d known since childhood. Older people do not have passports or driving licences so an ID card for them would be a benefit. ID cards could also ease cost and bureaucracy for business being a consolidation of the piecemeal approach we presently take to this matter.
There are huge questions about how such cards would be used. I think most people feel Ok about a card simply identifying their face, name, date of birth, whether or not a Bristish Citizen, whether and when you came from another country and what kind of permission you have to be here; that sort of thing, but little more is needed, is it?
I notice in the Checkpoint Britain it says that each time the card is used will be recorded; surely that is not necessary and could be forbidden by law. I would love a law preventing supermarkets knowing what i have bought.
Checkpoint says digital ID would be a burden, but surely less of a burden than all the cards, accounts and apps that we are forced to have already. Electronic systems are already burdensome as far as identification is concerne and have gone way beyond what I consider necessary. It also says a range of institutions would issue and manage digital IDs; surely it would only need one government department to do that with laws preventing anyone else accessing them.
My gut feeling is against them, but their simplicity if they replace what is happening already sounds so attractive.
My instinct has long been against any form of mandatory ID on principle, but there is much detail missing from the Government’s proposals. For a start, what will it cost?
They say it will be in place by the end of this Parliament – is that for 34 million people in the workforce, 60 million adults, or the nearly 70 million entire population? They will need to get that many people’s details in, including photographs, and the photographs will presumably need to be verified as for passport applications. They need to finish their consultations, specify the system, put it out to tender in one or more parts, contract the winners, and get all those details into the system. The chances of all that happening by 2029 against opposition in the Commons and Lords seems vanishingly small.
And if mandatory for right-to-work checks, will businesses be required to repeat checks for all current 34 million employees under the new system? The cost and admin burden of that will be very unpopular. But if not, then people’s interactions with the system will trickle in very slowly over years when they enter the workforce or change jobs, and anyone already in the workforce is safe as long as they can keep their current job.
And the Government said this will *stop* illegal working (not reduce), and by that measure it can’t possibly succeed as there will still be unscrupulous employers paying cash in hand….
I understand that it is party policy to opposed digital ID, and that is the position Ed Davey has taken.
However I think that on this issue our party has the wrong policy. I can see many advantages for both the state and for individuals in having digital ID. In particular, I want to do everything reasonably possible to make it harder / impossible for those who are in our country illegally to work or access services that the taxpayer is providing.
In all the debates about digital this and digital that it’s often forgotten there are a great many people (especially the elderly and those in low paid employment) who either can’t afford digital equipment, find it difficult to cope with, or live in rural areas where it won’t function. It is a form of disenfranchisement and exclusion.
The main banks are one of the great culprits in putting profits before service in all this.
It would be nice if Lib Dem M.P.s could tackle this issue in parliament and suggest ways of dealing with this matter.
@Mohammed Amin
“I want to do everything reasonably possible to make it harder / impossible for those who are in our country illegally to work or access services that the taxpayer is providing.”
Please define ‘those who are in our country illegally”
It is my understanding that many people who are working in our country ‘illegally’ are doing so because they are being exploited by those who employ them. It’s the black economy.
https://www.workrightscentre.org/news/report-the-systemic-drivers-of-migrant-worker-exploitation-in-the-uk
As someone who has recently engaged a lawyer, I feel Iain McDonald’s pain. Since I am interacting with them digitally, a physical ID card would have been of no use. What would have been very useful is if I could log in to my single government account and ask them to notify the solicitor that I am who I say I am, am resident at my given address and am not a money launderer or sanctioned person. This would not only be simpler for both parties but also reduce the number of personal documents that must be shown to people that don’t need to see them.
@David Raw. I don’t think we can hold back from delivering greater convenience for the many because some cannot benefit. What we need to do is maximise the number of people who can benefit. I would like to propose a network of terminals in local government buildings where people without their own devices could access government services. Each should have a member of staff available to help where necessary.
It is the users of these devices (especially those who can’t remember passwords) who might actually benefit from a physical card. It wouldn’t be a photo ID just a key card containing account number, card number and biometrics. The terminal could confirm that your face or finger matched the card then send a hash to log you in automatically. It would never be useful to a ‘papers please’ regime and would be used by sufficiently small numbers of people that not having one would not be considered suspicious.
I am one of those apparently very weird people who can run a busy and active life without being permanently plugged into a smartphone. It would be nice to think that I could maintain that choice in a so say liberal society.
@Nonconformistradical: That document is about problems with (legal) work visas – not the same thing. People in the country illegally are: People who overstayed their visas, people smuggled (eg. in small boats) who chose not to claim asylum, and people refused asylum who then disappeared instead of leaving the country. In other words, people who have no legal grounds to be in the UK but who have come here to work illegally. They are generally exploited in the sense that they are often paid below minimum wage and their employer doesn’t pay NI/etc, but usually they are being exploited willingly because they are still earning a lot more than they would in their home countries. There’s no way to know for sure how many people doing this there are – because obviously these people don’t willingly make themselves known – but estimates vary from a few hundred K up to a million. And those are the people the Government hopes that we’ll be able to identify and deport more easily with digital ID.
We must distinguish between a compulsory ID card and a digital identity. A digital identity brings many benefits from easier access to government services and financial/legal services to avoiding a plethora of different user identities. Also from a government perspective a reduction (but not elimination) of the black economy and tax avoidance/evasion.
A physical card could be an instrument of repression.
Our policy should be more nuanced, preserving rights, fairness and privacy whilst looking to optimise the benefits of a digital identity.
And for those worried about costs, there are plenty of overseas examples to emulate rather than reinventing the wheel.