With proposals resurfacing, MP Simon Hoare asks if it’s security theatre, a serious tool for immigration control – or another failed IT promise?
As I write, the issue of the potential introduction of Digital ID cards is breaking: the details (and the Devil is always in the detail) remain scant. So, rather than rush to a thumbs up or thumbs down response, I will wait to see those details. A lot has happened with regards to how we use and handle our data since Mr Blair first tried to introduce them – we now carry much more of ‘us’ on our person in digital form every day. The anxiety that some form of digital ID creates a ‘papers please’ society is understandable, but I believe misplaced. Indeed, I was heartened to hear Big Brother Watch (a civil rights-championing organisation) declare that this did not make the UK into North Korea.
I also know, from conversations with French officials and migrants themselves, that the lack of ID cards in the UK makes it more attractive compared with countries on the Continent where such systems are in place.
As a people, we have asked the Government to use every weapon in its arsenal to deter and reduce illegal entry to the country. Having asked it to do so, it would be churlish to dismiss out of hand the creation of a proof of citizenship and rights, if there is a clear indication that it would help in the task of deterring illegal immigration.
The black economy continues
However – and there usually is a ‘however’ – in political debate, I well remember when I was a PPS at the Home Office, some MPs coming to ask the department to introduce a new law to ban a particular activity.
We were not convinced, and asked civil servants to see if there were any existing laws that would do the job. There were. In fact, there were two sides of A4 which did exactly the job in hand.
It is already illegal to employ, or let a house to, someone who is not here legally. There are already rules which cover access to a whole range of public and social services. The existing rules merely need robust enforcement … increased fines … stiff prison sentences … confiscation of assets. All could be used to put the onus onto the lawbreaking employer etc.
In any case, I firmly believe that those already breaking the rules – by employing, letting, or otherwise – are unlikely to be deterred by the introduction of a digital ID card.The black economy has always been with us and, regretfully, it always will be. With the recent cyber attack on M&S, the nursery chain Kiddo and the debilitating impact of the one on Jaguar Land Rover, the robustness of the security arrangements which would be needed to support such a massive national project need to be set out clearly.
Unfortunately, His Majesty’s Government plc does not have a terrific proven track record when it comes to handling and delivering huge and complex IT projects. The government’s communication has already been woeful – both in explaining the hurdles involved and in setting out how to overcome them, as well as highlighting the potential benefits of an ID card for UK society. I have told a senior minister this in unambiguous terms.
At a time when the national finances are under huge pressure and growth ever-further away, we will also need to know the costs of both introduction and maintenance. A full Cost Benefit Analysis is needed to inform the debate.
So, for the moment, from me it’s a ‘watch this space’. I was opposed, fundamentally, to the first proposal, but digital tech has changed, and the scale of the immigration challenge increased. Let’s not be like Reform and first advocate for and then oppose a card: the Pushme/Pullyou bandwagon jumpers of UK political debate.
Nor, like the Lib Dems who, Vestal Virgin-like, will wang on about principles of abstract liberty. The proposal deserves a big national conversation, and a much deeper understanding of the whys and the wherefores than Sir Keir has been prepared to give the country to date.
