1.1.4 – Rights in context
It was announced in September that the government were to introduce a compulsory digital ID scheme, the purpose of which was to prove an individual had the right to work in the UK. The scheme is being designed specifically to link to work, meaning that pensioners would not require them. This could be interpreted as a move to avoid antagonising an older generation who are more likely to vote, and who may be more distrusting of digital technology and an ID card scheme in general.
Digital ID cards are the norm across Europe, with only the UK and Ireland without them. Estonia’s system has been championed for allowing access to a wide range of state-run services, which otherwise might require different forms of ID as proof of identity.
However, proposals for an ID card scheme are not without criticism. Opponents regard it as an afront to civil liberties, especially given the compulsory nature of the proposed scheme for virtually all adults of working age. A lack of clarity over the scheme will only create further opposition, especially until the Government clarify questions around who can demand to see proof of ID, and in what circumstances. This can be seen as giving the state far more power over individuals.
Critics of the scheme may compare it to ‘Covid passports’, when proof of vaccination became necessary for entry into many businesses and venues. This was considered by some to be an assault on individual liberty as it effectively made vaccination compulsory by virtue of the restrictions it placed on those who chose not to receive them. Over time, it is argued, digital IDs will become necessary to access more and more services, thereby making them all but compulsory.
Reform UK have already attacked the scheme from a civil liberties angle. It will be interesting to see if the Conservatives follow suit. Their initial response questioned how effective the scheme would be at tackling illegal migration, rather than address the principle of the scheme.