It was 16 years ago, on a platform at London’s St Pancras International Railway Station, when then-home secretary Alan Johnson stood proudly and flashed a new identity card for the British, calling it a “no-brainer”.
The non-compulsory biometric card was a watered-down version of Tony Blair’s government’s initial idea for a national ID card, but still, Mr Johnson said it would combat fraud and allow holders, who paid £30 for the privilege, to travel Europe without a passport.
But less than 100 days later, following the arrival of the Toy-Lib Dem coalition government, new home secretary Theresa May vowed to “consign the intrusive ID card scheme to history”, with the unpopular roll-out producing just 15,000 cards.
“Abolishing the national identity register is a major step in dismantling the surveillance state,” added Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
But nearly two decades on, Britain is a wholly different place.
The country has since witnessed the advent of the smartphone era, a continuing roll-out of governmental digital services – a digital driving licence is planned later this year – and, critically, an increase in levels of migration, and all the concerns that come with it.
And so, on Friday morning, following days of speculation over the expected launch of a digital ID card scheme, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer confirmed the go-ahead for a proposal to issue a “Brit card” to every UK citizen.
Subject to a consultation and requiring legislation, all adults will have to have a digital ID to prove their right to work by the end of this Parliament.
Ministers hope it will reduce illegal immigration by curbing the ability of those who come to the UK illegally to earn money.
With there currently being many ways for people to prove they have the right to work in the UK, it is argued that a government-issued ID, which includes their name, date of birth and driver’s licence, would be harder to target for fraudsters.
But what about the discontent seen in the 2000s?
There is no doubt that there is opposition to this latest scheme. More than 500,000 have signed an online petition against the idea, while civil liberty group Big Brother Watch said it would create a “checkpoint society that is wholly unBritish”.
Politically, Reform UK has also strongly spoken out against the idea. Neither the Tories nor the Lib Dems would commit their support. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch dismissed it as a “gimmick that will do nothing to stop the boats”.
However, latest polling data from Ipsos revealed more than half, 57 per cent, of Britons support the introduction of a national identity card scheme.
The poll of more than 1,000 adults in July found people liked the idea of bringing together their ID onto one card, making it easier to prove their identity and prevent illegal immigration.
However, the survey highlighted that a third of people were worried it could lead to data being used without permission. It is a point, Ipsos said, that showed Labour must convince the public it will keep their personal information safe.
“Safety concerns aren’t just conspiracy thinking,” said Chloe Coleman, a digital ID expert who now runs Vouchsafe, a government-certified identity verification company.
“There are emerging international standards for how to build digital ID safely, but questions remain. How centralised will the data be? Who will have the power to revoke IDs?
The questions, though, have not put people off the idea, said Mr Coleman, who added that the increasing use of digital devices had “desensitised people to the act of proving who they are”.
She said: “People see digital ID as the least painful path compared to the current way of proving who they are; intrusive face scans and fiddly pictures of passports and driving licences.”
David Birch, a security finance expert, said there had been a “demographic shift” on digital ID, with almost all people aged between 16 and 24 using a smartphone.
“They’re absolutely baffled why they have to send copies of their gas bill to people when they’re trying to do something online,” he said.
But while he welcomed a discussion on digital ID amid the announcement of a “Brit card”, Mr Birch said he was keen to distinguish the difference between his support for an improved digital ID infrastructure and a digital ID card.
He said instead of people being asked to prove their ID, they should be asked to present a verifiable credential, so as to avoid creating a centralised database that could provide a “honeypot” for scammers.
“There is a world of difference between the pub worker asking to see your ID card, which tells them who you are with your date of birth, than a device used by the barman to ask your phone if you are over 18,” he said.
Rachel Coldicutt, a technology strategist who has studied digital IDs, agreed.
“Making better infrastructure to make sure people can prove who they are when it matters most is important, but that is different to instituting a ‘papers please’ culture in which people’s identities are routinely checked.”
Ms Coldicutt also said the Brit card scheme appeared to be trying to do too much for it to be implemented by the end of this Parliament, and she questioned how people who do not use smartphones will be included.
The idea for the “Brit card” came from a paper from the left-leaning think tank, Labour Together, given to Sir Keir’s policy team.
It stated that the “new piece of civic infrastructure”, at a cost of between £140m and £400m, could become a familiar feature of daily life, which would provide a quick way for people to verify their identity and migration status when taking up a new job.
Its co-author, Morgan Wild, told The Independent: “I think the case that we can put to people who are concerned about privacy and civil liberties is much, much stronger today. There’s an argument as well that, of course, a lot of our data is already online, you’ve got NHS app for just one example.”
Benefits from the card, said Mr Wild, included combating illegal working, which his think tank said undermined honest business and undercut wages.
And he added: “There’s also actually a really strong progressive social justice case for doing this because by doing it you roll-out documentation to people who previously haven’t been able to easily prove that they have a right to be here.”
