Most European countries have identity cards, but in Britain the idea has had a chequered history. As a security measure, during the second world war, everyone was required to hold one, but they were abolished in 1952 by the Conservative government, concerned with privacy and state intrusion. Since then, there have been a number of unsuccessful proposals to revive the idea. In 2006, the Blair government introduced one as part of the ‘war on terror’, but only for people working in high security occupations. That law was repealed by the coalition government.
Since then, the digital world has evolved, and as the Labour government struggles to find ways of improving the management of migration – and especially illegal migration – the idea of a universal, digital identity credential is being revived. We now have a report from the Labour Together thinktank. They propose that such a credential could simplify access and identification for many purposes (including voting), and greatly simplify control of informal migration.
The present system is a mess
The report points out that the UK currently lacks a consistent, universal identity verification system. The essential documents – birth certificate, passport and driving licence – are currently only offered in physical form; and none of them is in itself an ‘identity’ document. This has created inefficiencies and injustices, and huge administrative costs, for individuals, employers and the state. Illegal migrants exploit the system, while employers and landlords struggle to comply with complex rules. A recent Home Office survey found 80% of employers had answered one of the identity compliance questions wrongly, exposing them to potential prosecution. And there is almost no checking whether employers are actually verifying people’s right to work, or landlords verifying their right to rent. Meanwhile, lawful residents – especially vulnerable or undocumented British citizens – face barriers accessing their rights, including the fundamental citizen’s right to vote; and the Windrush scandal exposed the human cost of poor identity policy.
At present, a series of disconnected digital initiatives are underway. By 2027, all Government services that provide users with a credential will need to offer a digital version, and a digital driving licence is in development. A Government-issued ‘digital wallet’ is due to be launched this summer; the Department for Education is launching a digital single pupil number, and work continues to develop the NHS App. Several systems are being created, but they are not being joined up.
A ’Britcard’
So, the report proposes a ‘Britcard’ which would be a free, universal, digital credential, stored on a smartphone and linked to the UK’s One Login and GOV.UK Wallet platforms. It would provide real-time verification of a person’s identity, right to work and right to rent, using secure biometric and cryptographic tools. It would be mandatory for all citizens and legal migrants, and employers/landlords would use a free verifier app to confirm status instantly. It might later be expanded to include other credentials – like driving licences, proof of age, or health records – forming the foundation of a broader digital identity ecosystem in the UK.
It would increase the efficiency of government, and simplify life for individuals, by replacing a host of incompatible, inefficient, paper-based and error-prone systems. Vulnerable groups and those without passports would finally have access to official identity tools, helping them navigate work, housing and services more securely. It would reduce legal and administrative costs and wrongful fines for compliance errors. It would also make targeting welfare systems much simpler.
And by making it much more difficult for illegal migrants to find work or tenancies, it would help to restore public trust in the immigration system. It would also prevent future injustices like Windrush, by providing every legal resident with proof of their status.
Public support and concerns
Labour Together conducted a poll on these ideas, and found well over 80% in favour of a system which would enable employers to check the right to work, and landlords to check the right to rent. When asked about the potential risks of introducing a digital identity to help manage migration, people’s biggest concerns were the risk of the technology being misused by a future government (40%), and the cost of the system (33%), followed by the impact on the undocumented population (23%).
The report identifies potential risks. They include privacy and surveillance fears; exclusion of those without smartphones or digital skills; and costs of implementation. To mitigate these, they propose that it should be built gradually and co-designed with civil society and user groups, particularly those most at risk of exclusion. It would have no centralised database, although the verifier app would enable government agencies to cross-check employment records with other sources. And there would be offline alternatives (e.g. smartcards), in-person support and partnerships with trusted community organisations.
Implementation
The report points to examples of recent successful tech rollouts like the EU Settlement Scheme, COVID Pass and Universal Credit as models.
They propose implementation in stages. The first would be creating the right-to-work/rent credential required to manage immigration, using existing data from HM Passport Office and UK Visas and Immigration to issue credentials. The current GOV.UK App would then be evolved into the ‘BritCard App’. By requiring its use only for new migrants and new employment and rental agreements after a set date (perhaps 2028), the workload of issuing Britcards would be spread over a number of years.
They estimate the cost as £140–400mn, with annual running costs of £5–10mn – modest compared to the Home Office’s £640mn annual spend on migration enforcement.
This would align with ongoing initiatives like One Login, the Digital Identity and Attributes Trust Framework and the digital driving licence.
Concerns
Of course, concerns about privacy and government intrusion will remain. As with all policy decisions, a lot depends on the balance of risks and benefits. The report’s authors believe that there is potential for public support for a system which simplifies their lives and prevents illegal activity.
Whether our politicians agree will determine where this idea goes next.
