A perception of “widespread” electoral fraud has led to plans to introduce compulsory photographic ID for voters at polling stations, thereby preventing voter impersonation. This has reignited discussion around the need to reliably confirm any given person’s identity for a variety of reasons, including the entitlement to live, work, vote and receive benefits in the UK. This dialogue is inextricably linked to concerns about illegal immigration, benefit fraud, identity theft, and the growing threat of terrorism. This is particularly relevant, as no one in the UK is currently required to carry any form of ID whatsoever.
To start with, it is worth revisiting the British experience with identity cards. The dictates of wartime security led to compulsory identity cards being issued during both 20th-century World Wars, in 1915-19 and 1939-52, as a result of the National Registration Acts of 1915 and 1939 respectively. The post-war Labour government retained the National Register until 1952 to facilitate the issue of ration cards, National Service registration, administration of the National Health Service, as well as the allocation of family allowances and post-war credits. The National Registration identity card was finally abolished on February 22, 1952, and the National Register was transformed into the National Health Service Register.
Concerns over the rising threat of global terrorism led to the Identity Cards Act 2006, which created the UK national identity card. This plastic wallet card carried a unique Identity Registration Number, included a photograph and a secure electronic chip holding biometric information, and was unveiled by the Home Secretary on September 25 2008. The Identity Cards Act was duly repealed by the Identity Documents Act 2010, which came into effect from midnight on January 22, 2011. The National Identity Register, a centralised computerised database, was destroyed, and the already issued identity cards could no longer be used as proof of identity. Card purchasers were predictably denied refunds. Thus ended ingloriously yet another large-scale British IT project.
Being unable to prove one’s identity has a down side. The Windrush immigration scandal primarily affected immigrants who arrived in the UK between 1948 and 1971 from Caribbean countries. The British Nationality Act 1948 had given all members of the Commonwealth the same rights of citizenship as people born in the UK. Their status changed abruptly with the Immigration Act 1971, which came into effect from January 1 1973 and abolished these particular rights. Many of the people who arrived as part of the Windrush generation unfortunately did not update their paperwork and obtain passports, which would have confirmed their settled status in the UK. This prevented them being able to access public services and even led to the wrongful deportation of at least 83 people back to the Caribbean despite decades of uninterrupted residence in the UK under the government’s “hostile environment” policy towards undocumented immigrants.
The UK has traditionally taken a libertarian view when it comes to the matter of compulsory identity cards, in contrast with many of its European neighbours. It was indeed, the Conservative Party, usually branded as a “law and order” party, that abolished identity cards in 1952, and again in 2010. However, documentation to confirm identity is frequently required in day-to-day life, such as when purchasing alcohol, obtaining a tattoo, or securing entry to bars and nightclubs-to give a few familiar examples, not to mention accessing social security benefits.
Currently, photo ID can be provided in the form of passports, photo driving licences, Biometric Home Office photo IDs, Proof of Age Standards (PASS) cards, Defence Identity Cards, EU National ID cards, CitizenCards, and travel passes. Unfortunately, none of these are entirely foolproof, being susceptible to the efforts of skilful forgers, despite the introduction of newer high-security printing techniques. Moreover, photo ID only verifies that the bearer of the document is the same person as in the photo but does not necessarily confirm the written identity of that person. There is nothing to protect against a fake identity.
When it comes to photo ID for voters, opponents argue that such a measure may potentially disadvantage, and thereby disenfranchise, certain sections of society, including the elderly, disabled, poor, homeless, Travellers, and black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) voters. Photo ID will also not address electoral fraud caused by tampering with ballot papers or that involving postal votes or proxy votes. On a wider front, the erosion of civil liberties and intrusive surveillance by the state have been cited as reasons against the introduction of compulsory ID. However, photo ID is already in use for the purpose of elections in Northern Ireland, ever since the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 required voters to present photographic identification at polling stations. The Northern Ireland Electoral Identity Card, issued free of charge, was thus created for those without any other valid form of photo ID.
Any method that can be reliably used to verify identity will ideally have to include biometric identifiers, which can uniquely identify any given person. These physiological and measurable methods of identification include fingerprints, facial recognition, iris recognition, retina scanning, voice recognition, earlobe or hand geometry, and DNA matching. Establishing a national database based on biometric identifiers will, however, involve a major and costly logistic exercise.
The likely costs of a national and compulsory ID system have to be balanced against any potential benefits. Given the changing social and political landscape of British society, all informed dialogue about the issue is welcome and any system , if ever adopted, will have to be equitable, foolproof, as well as cost-effective. It will be pointless to rush into a poorly tested system just for the sake of political expediency.
Ashis Banerjee (passport holder)