Britcard - It won't happen!

"Nobody in the UK raised a hue and cry when mandatory ID cards were imposed on colonial citizens"

I find myself in unfamiliar territory, as I kinda agree with Sir Kier Rodney Starmer. He has announced that a UK digital identity is on the way—the modern equivalent of the identity card—and this is a good thing. He’s partially correct because the proposal will only work if supported by a raft of strident actions that Starmer appears unwilling to take. 

The media already refers to the verifiable digital identity, which operates via an app, as the BritCard. 

But it's not going to happen. The UK public's reaction is swift, overwhelmingly negative, and offers yet another stick to beat Starmer’s struggling prime ministership. As a side issue, the handling of this policy is another sign that Starmer is pretty crap at this politics game. 

In Hong Kong, we are accustomed to carrying identity cards, just as citizens of many other countries do. Places such as Belgium, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Greece, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Argentina, Chile, and many more require their citizens to carry their identity cards at all times. Other countries require citizens to obtain and possess a national ID card, but they do not legally enforce carrying it constantly. 


Clearly, Starmer is promoting this effort to address illegal migration, which the public has identified as one of its main concerns. However, reactions of ‘big brother’ and ‘state control’ have greeted the proposal. The fact that the idea originated and developed in the Tony Blair Institute does not help. He and his supporters remain deeply distrusted.

Additionally, many social clips have heavily highlighted allegations that the platform managing the digital ID has Blair’s son as a significant shareholder. Taking firm stances, the discourse revolves around corruption, a global control agenda, and government overreach.

The argument goes that the government wants the Britcard for verifying the right to work. Therefore, you will need to present it to get a job. However, this is viewed as the thin end of the wedge, as it may soon be required to produce the Britcard for various activities, leading to increased government control. Ultimately, an Orwellian system of “social credit” could be implemented.  

Given the current raging anxiety around freedom of speech in the UK and the overzealous policing of social media by police officers, the Britcard adds another hot ingredient to the spicy debate. 

And yet, most Brits already have multiple digital identities spread across passports, driving licenses and various banking apps. This rather defeats the arguments about privacy. Except that most systems in the UK aren’t joined up, whereas the Britcard will offer that opportunity.

Nobody in the UK raised a hue and cry when mandatory ID cards were imposed on colonial citizens. Odd that.

Hong Kong also introduced identity cards to address illegal migration, which threatened to overwhelm the then colony. The first identity cards were introduced in 1949 in response to the post-war influx of refugees from the mainland, which made it difficult to determine the population accurately.

The 1949 ID card was a simple paper document. Initially, it was not compulsory for all residents; only the adult population were required to carry one.

When I joined the police in 1980, a cheap-looking plastic identity card was in use. A red circle on the back indicated the holder didn’t have permanent residence and may be subject to deportation. Of course, this being a British colony, Expatriates didn’t carry identity cards.

Things changed on June 2, 1980, with the introduction of compulsory carry laws, following the launch of the Hong Kong Identity Card Scheme for all citizens. Once again, the primary objective was to address the serious issue of illegal immigration. This scheme made it mandatory for all residents aged 11 and above to register and carry an ID card.

This was Hong Kong's first computerised identity card, a plastic card with a laminated strip containing the holder's details, making it much harder to forge than the old paper versions. And with that, my role became much easier: I had access to criminal records that were swift, and I could determine if someone was wanted—a game changer. 

In June 2003, the Smart Identity Card was launched. This card contained an embedded microchip, which stored the holder's biometric data, including fingerprints and a digital photograph. This greatly enhanced security and reduced identity fraud.

The chip also allowed the card to be used for automated immigration clearance through the e-Channel system and as an optional digital certificate for online transactions. A further upgrade in 2018 introduced new security features and increased durability to stay ahead of evolving forgery techniques.

What is overlooked in the UK's current outcry is that the country has a notable history of identity cards, particularly during wartime. The UK first introduced national identity cards under the National Registration Act 1915. The primary reasons were military conscription, which enabled the government to monitor men of fighting age and identify those available for service. 

The ID cards also assisted with rationing and labour allocation as the war advanced. The scheme was discontinued shortly after the war ended in 1919.

Identity cards were reintroduced at the start of World War II under the National Registration Act 1939. This legislation enabled universal registration: every citizen, including children, was issued a card with a unique National Registration number.

The cards were crucial for managing the rationing system for food, clothing, and fuel. The government utilised them to track population movements, particularly after bombings or evacuations.

After the war, identity cards continued to be used, but public backing diminished. The obligation to carry identity cards was abolished in 1952 following a public campaign and a notable court case, Willcock v. Muckle (1951). 

In more recent times, a brief scheme was introduced under the Identity Cards Act 2006. It was abolished in 2010 by the new coalition government due to concerns over cost, civil liberties, and effectiveness.

Critics of the current policy in the UK argue that ID cards (digital or otherwise) have not reduced illegal migration to Germany and other countries. That may be true because these countries haven’t linked the ID cards to the quick identification and removal of illegal immigrants. That remains the central issue in the UK. 

As a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UK is bound by its provisions, and this convention offers avenues for illegal migrants to appeal, delay, and obstruct deportations. Until this issue is resolved, the Britcard is of limited use. Sure, it could help the government better assess the population size. 

Additionally, UK citizens are assigned a National Insurance number for employment purposes, which renders the Britcard redundant even before it is rolled out. No wonder citizens are suspicious. 

The Britcard could be effective if the UK acted swiftly to remove illegal immigrants. Here in Hong Kong, IIs from the mainland (which are very rare nowadays) are sent back the next day. 

The official Hong Kong government position, as stated by an Immigration Department spokesperson in 2012, is that Hong Kong has a "long-established policy of not granting asylum and we do not admit individuals seeking refugee status", citing fears that asylum seekers would abuse the system given the prosperity of the city's economy and liberal visa policy.

Those asylum seekers who try and fail because, when asked “Why didn’t you claim asylum in safe countries on route here?”, they cannot provide a reasonable answer and their applications are rejected. 
​
In the UK, there is no appetite for the Britcard, and a government with no resolve to tackle illegal immigration beyond gesture politics. Until Starmer grasps the nettle of the ECHR, the Britcard is superfluous except as a weapon to attack him.