Digital IDs and why we cannot trust a political party of any stripe with this tech

Compulsory digital ID for the UK has once again reared its ugly head with rumours circulating around Westminster of an imminent government announcement. But whilst some might think it is the silver bullet needed to tackle our illegal migration crisis there are justified serious concerns about its introduction and abuses. Campaigning groups say such a scheme could disenfranchise vulnerable groups such as disabled people and pensioners due to access issues.

But it is not just Labour MPs that support the idea, but also some Conservatives such as former Tory leader Lord William Hague and former home secretary Lord Kenneth Clarke. They argue times have changed since their original opposition 15 years ago to the idea of compulsory ID Cards that the Labour government of 1997 to 2010 wanted to introduce. Thankfully, the idea was scrapped when the coalition government was formed in 2010.

Lord Clarke believes we cannot successfully control immigration without digital ID, whilst Lord Hague argues that many of us already carry around personal information on our smartphones and that a digital ID card is only a natural extension of this.

He also makes the valid point that millions already share their personal data with tech companies like Microsoft, Google, Apple and others, so why would they baulk at the idea of having a form of government-backed digital ID?

With tackling illegal migration to the UK being the number one priority for millions of voters, the climate could not be better for Labour to introduce such a scheme. But this only works if you genuinely believe that it would stop those illegally coming to this country from working and accessing public services. I am not convinced it would.

There will always be businesses prepared to pay cash in hand to people to save money, even if it means they run the risk of prosecution if caught. And I cannot imagine for one moment that any NHS doctor who abides by the Hippocratic Oath of "First, Do No Harm" would turn away an individual in dire need of medical attention.

Compulsory digital ID might make a great headline for Labour as part of their perceived fight against illegal migration, but the reality of its effectiveness really is up for debate. When it comes to political opposition to compulsory digital ID, Nigel Farage has raised concerns that it could be used as a form of "suppression".

Shadow Justice Secretary Robert Jenrick has said the Conservatives would oppose it and there were rumblings at the recent Liberal Democrat conference that supporting it would mean they would stop being a truly liberal party. My opposition comes from a place of distrust of big government when it comes to securely holding our data.

Headlines over the past several months have been littered with examples of high street brands, banks and even car manufacturers being cyber attacked and data leaked. Just look at the devastating consequences currently facing Jaguar Land Rover after they were a victim of a vicious cyber-attack.

And without meaning to sound like a whack-job conspiracy theorist, I do not trust a government of any political colour not to use the power of compulsory digital ID to their political advantage in extreme circumstances. We should all remember how quickly our basic human rights were rescinded during the COVID-19 pandemic.

If accessing much-needed public services was dependent on your compulsory digital ID and you happened to oppose a government's latest diktat, what is to say they would not restrict your access as a way of clamping down on your opposition?

These concerns aside, there are countries around the world where digital schemes are embraced by its people with Estonia often being given as an example where 99% of its people happily use digital ID. The system is decentralised which makes it harder for hackers to target just one place. People can also see who accessed their data and for what reason.

Recent UK opinion polls show that support has grown for such a scheme and opposition has become diluted. Pollsters say this is due to us already having so much personal data on our smartphones, a growing number do not see what the issue is. If Labour wanted to successfully tackle illegal migration, they should not have scrapped the Rwanda deterrent scheme set up by the Conservatives.

And if they want this grumpy middle-aged chap and others like me to lovingly embrace the concept of compulsory digital ID, then they will need to do a much better job of convincing us that it will be secure, not subject to abuse, and that those who struggle to get to grips with such technology will not suffer.