I’ve got mixed feelings and while I can see both sides of the coin I’m more inclined to be against it.
This has been kicking around for years on and off, but to my mind Boris’s decision to mandate picture ID for voting has brought things back in to focus and is the start of the slippery slope. Local councils are now required to issue people who don’t have picture ID with a form of pictorial ID so they can vote, so this is one step further. According to a google search, about 85% of British people have passports, so we are nearly there already between voter ID, driving licence and passports.
Whether it’ll make a huge difference I’m not so sure. Most employers already want to see ID before they’ll give someone a job. The police have a huge bank of DNA profiles, fingerprints, mug shots etc and PNC has descriptions of tattoos etc and other potentially identifying features, and if the police really want to confirm someone’s ID they can nick them (assuming they’ve committed an offence) and hold them until they’ve confirmed their ID. The police, border force all have access to mobile fingerprint checking devices so they can also be used.
Anyone who comes in to the U.K. and claims asylum or is a refugee is finger printed. ID cards could assist reduce benefit fraud - no ID equals no claim, but equally that could be tackled by requiring people who claim benefits to give a finger or thumb print as a condition of claiming benefits. This would eliminate multiple bogus claims in false names.
If we have a national id card, does that mean the police will be allowed “routine” access to it?
I think we have systems in place that could be adapted to resolve some of the issues without having a full blown ID card and the expense of introducing it. Introducing stiffer penalties for employing illegal workers and closing down loopholes should be the starting point if the purpose of the ID cards is illegal migration.
This has been kicking around for years on and off, but to my mind Boris’s decision to mandate picture ID for voting has brought things back in to focus and is the start of the slippery slope. Local councils are now required to issue people who don’t have picture ID with a form of pictorial ID so they can vote, so this is one step further. According to a google search, about 85% of British people have passports, so we are nearly there already between voter ID, driving licence and passports.
Whether it’ll make a huge difference I’m not so sure. Most employers already want to see ID before they’ll give someone a job. The police have a huge bank of DNA profiles, fingerprints, mug shots etc and PNC has descriptions of tattoos etc and other potentially identifying features, and if the police really want to confirm someone’s ID they can nick them (assuming they’ve committed an offence) and hold them until they’ve confirmed their ID. The police, border force all have access to mobile fingerprint checking devices so they can also be used.
Anyone who comes in to the U.K. and claims asylum or is a refugee is finger printed. ID cards could assist reduce benefit fraud - no ID equals no claim, but equally that could be tackled by requiring people who claim benefits to give a finger or thumb print as a condition of claiming benefits. This would eliminate multiple bogus claims in false names.
If we have a national id card, does that mean the police will be allowed “routine” access to it?
I think we have systems in place that could be adapted to resolve some of the issues without having a full blown ID card and the expense of introducing it. Introducing stiffer penalties for employing illegal workers and closing down loopholes should be the starting point if the purpose of the ID cards is illegal migration.
