Blair’s ID cards failed in the 2000s - could Starmer’s version fare better?

Tim Holmes, Senior Lecturer in Criminology and Policing, Bangor University

The UK government is once again looking at the possibility of introducing identity cards, with the prime minister Keir Starmer announcing plans for a new scheme for all UK citizens.

The argument is familiar. With tougher ID systems, illegal immigration would be harder and the UK less appealing. But it also raises a familiar set of questions. How would such a scheme work? And what lessons are there to be learned from the last time the UK had ID cards?

Identity cards were compulsory during the second world war, but the system was scrapped in 1952 after growing unease about police powers and civil liberties.

Fifty years later, Tony Blair’s Labour government proposed new biometric ID cards backed by a national database. Ministers claimed they would help tackle terrorism, illegal immigration and identity theft while giving people secure access to public services.

At the time, terrorism, illegal immigration and identity theft were major concerns. The 9/11 bombers had avoided detection in the US, 23 illegal immigrants had died while cockle picking in Morecambe Bay in 2004 and people were increasingly falling victim to online fraud and identity theft.

[mid-content-banner]

Biometric security features

In 2006 the Identity Cards Act was introduced. The scheme would introduce cards for citizens with new biometric security features and data stored on a national database. Eventually, whether you wanted a card or not, you could not function in UK society without one.

Some argued it would lead the UK to becoming a surveillance society. Protest groups warned of the risks, while Liberal Democrat MP Simon Hughes vowed to go to prison rather than accept the card and the power it gave the state.

In the end, the cards were never tested. The scheme collapsed in 2010, undone not by principle but by cost and a change of government.

[lower-mid-content-banner]

2025 proposals

Rising public concern over illegal immigration has once again led to calls for solutions.

The UK government’s latest proposals follow a home affairs committee inquiry into digital IDs and electronic visas in June. It examined whether migrants should be required to use them to prove their status when applying for jobs. The argument being that with a tougher ID system, illegal immigrants would be deterred from attempting to enter the country.

The UK is already far more digitally monitored than it was 20 years ago. Biometric passports, digital driving licences and online identity checks are used as a matter of course.

In 2010, when the last ID card scheme was scrapped, public attitudes towards surveillance were generally favourable when used in public spaces. But monitoring in private spaces was not.

In 2025, attitudes towards surveillance vary depending on the type. There is now more concern around the mass surveillance of people’s online activities, for example.

Identity schemes are used in 142 countries around the world, 70 with electronic ID. Biometric technology has improved considerably over the past 20 years. More than 120 countries now use facial recognition in passport systems, while UK police forces have integrated the technology into their work.

The question is not whether cards can verify identity – they can. It’s whether they reduce crime or illegal immigration. That depends on how essential they become to everyday life. If an ID check is required for employment, housing and access to services, people without documents may be pushed into the margins, rather than required to leave the country.

In 2005, writer Arun Kundnani argued that ID cards risked becoming “exclusion cards”, creating a new underclass of people unable to access services legally but still present in the shadow economy. That would give organised crime networks even greater power over undocumented migrants, offering illegal routes into housing and work.

Another unresolved question is cost. The last scheme collapsed under the financial weight of setting up the infrastructure and issuing cards nationwide. With public finances tight, the government could find itself facing the same problem again.

Surveillance

There are also broader questions about trust. Academic Clive Norris, who has studied mass surveillance, has warned that constant monitoring encourages the view that ordinary citizens cannot be trusted: “If we are gathering data on people all the time on the basis that they may do something wrong, this is promoting a view that as citizens we cannot be trusted.”

Digital identity cards could bring benefits. For those entitled to live and work in the UK, they might make access to services simpler and faster. But the debate is about more than efficiency. It goes to the heart of how much oversight the state should have over everyday life, and whether a costly system would achieve its stated aims.

The last attempt at ID cards was sunk before it could be tested. Two decades on, the UK is more accustomed to digital surveillance and more anxious about immigration. The question is whether that makes this the right time for a second attempt – or whether the country risks repeating old mistakes.

This article was first published on The Conversation