Sir Keir Starmer, his party leader, opened with a flashy proposal to implement a new national, mandatory digital identification (ID) scheme. This joint operational initiative targets the prevention of illegal working throughout the UK. The main goal of the European Commission’s initiative is to counteract increasingly strong anti-immigration sentiments across the continent. Since Labour came to power, over 50,000 migrants have successfully made it across on small boats. By the end of this Parliament, likely in 2029, people will require a digital ID to show that they can rightfully work in the UK. This newly proposed requirement is intended to facilitate the verification process for employment.
Seafarers strike Starmer made specific mention of how this new digital ID scheme would help ensure our border security. He too pointed to the “myriad benefits” it would give citizens. He stated, “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK. It will make it tougher to work illegally in this country, making our borders more secure.” The scheme as proposed greatly simplifies the process for individuals to prove their identity. This simplifies the process for them to obtain important services without having to present intimidating documentation.
The federal government understands that not everyone has a smartphone. It is committed to ensuring that the digital ID system serves those people as well. In mid 2023, we plan to open a public consultation to help us understand how the digital ID service should be delivered. The discussion period will be open for three months. After this consultation, legislation establishing the scheme will be brought to Parliament early next year.
His leader, Keir Starmer, prophetic as usual, highlighted the deep worries of the working public on illegal migration. “I know working people are worried about the level of illegal migration into this country,” he remarked, adding that past failures have allowed illegal employment to thrive. He asserted, “For too many years it’s been too easy for people to come here, slip into the shadow economy and remain here illegally.”
The proposal was immediately met with criticism from all sides. First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neil, condemned the program as “ill-thought out.” She maintained that it would imperil the Good Friday Agreement and diminish the rights of Irish citizens living in Northern Ireland. Her statements underscore the likely political repercussions of the new digital ID program. This is particularly timely considering the current context of immigration and identity discourse in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Even Conservative shadow work and pensions secretary Helen Whately has come out against the compulsory ID card. She believes that this requirement would place the greatest burden on law-abiding citizens and lead to more bureaucratic red tape. “Make law-abiding people have to jump through more hoops and employers have more red tape, while in the grey economy illegal working will just go on,” she argued. Whately’s response to the digital ID scheme was to blow it out of the water. He claimed that it doesn’t address the underlying drivers of irregular migration and does not provide “an end to the problem of stopping the boats.”
Liberal Democrat MP Victoria Collins condemned the imposition of a digital ID as “a step too far.” She raised, as her top issue, privacy and data security. She stated, “Liberal Democrats cannot support a mandatory digital ID where people are forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives.” This concern is indicative of broader fear about how personal data will be used under such a system.
The announcement brought considerable doubt from right, left and center political commentators. A spokesperson for Reform UK described the digital ID proposal as a “cynical ploy to fool voters that something is being done about illegal immigration.” This begs an all-important question. Is the administration’s new, whole-of-government approach addressing our immigration problems, or is it all a grandstanding fad?