Papers, citizen!

Brits have consistently been against ID cards since they were phased out in the 1950s. But now we've got them anyway.

By Claire Loneragan

On 25th September it was announced that all British adults would be issued with digital ID, not as an optional tool to make our lives easier, but as a compulsory measure. It’s a response, apparently, to the very high levels of illegal immigration; the hope is that it will reduce the pull factor by making it harder to find work.

But if working cash-in-hand without a National Insurance number is already so prevalent that it is a significant pull factor for illegal migration, lack of government issued digital ID is unlikely to make much of a difference.

Whatever the motivation for this new – likely very expensive and certainly Draconian – measure, if we’re going to enforce it, the data quality had better be gold standard.

But will it?

When the issue of data quality was debated in Parliament, Sex Matters certainly had their doubts, and their lordships agreed. It will come as no surprise that the data causing most concern is sex. That particular data point has been deliberately corrupted by those who’ve bought into gender identity ideology to the extent that the 2021 census data on “gender identity” has been declared not fit for purpose. Many will likely already have forgotten that if not for Fair Play For Women and the funding by thousands of ordinary women, the question on sex would have gone the same way, and we’d be in the absurd position of not knowing how many men and women were resident in the UK on census day. Thank goodness for Nic Williams.

But such is the calibre of our current crop of MPs that many seem entirely untroubled by such trivia. The implementation of digital ID will go ahead even if we can’t even be sure that even the holder’s sex is accurately recorded, because the Commons voted down the Lords’ amendment that:

• The Secretary of State must assess whether public authorities handle personal data accurately and reliably (clause 28(4)).

• Public authorities can only share data that is accurate, and they must know what it refers to (clause 45(6)).

• The Secretary of State may establish a “data dictionary” so that different items of data are not muddled up (clause 140).

It’s not that MPs are unaware that the data may be flakey, or that they don’t understand the need for accuracy – they definitely do. And plenty have made the arguments against being required to identify who they are. But without robust data verification this Act allows some to “prove” that they are someone they are not.

I wrote to my MP, Edward Morello (Lib Dem) back in early May with concerns and he didn’t beat about the bush:

let me begin by saying that I absolutely agree with you that accurate data is essential for effective public policy—particularly in areas like healthcare, education, and safeguarding. We need to be able to gather and interpret information that reflects the needs of different groups across our society, including data on sex where it is relevant and necessary.

But apparently the Lords were asking too much.

Unfortunately, the amendment in question falls short of that goal. It calls on public authorities to “rectify inaccurate data” on sex, but fails to define what “inaccurate” means in this context, or how such determinations could be made in a way that is consistent with existing law. For instance, if someone has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate and updated their legal sex on official documents, it is not at all clear how a public authority would—or could—access or verify that individual’s sex at birth without breaching their privacy or legal protections.

I don’t know what to say to an MP who thinks it’s not possible to provide accurate data when that data point is accompanied by a definition. More than anything, it rather begs the question: what’s the point in holding a digital ID if we can’t trust the data that comprises it?

His remark “In short … I support the principle that data must be accurate and fit for purpose” was probably meant to soothe, but it implies that in practice the data often will not be accurate, and Mr Morello is fine with that.

Worse still, it’s probably not even his own work. I’ve had sight of other Lib Dem responses to women raising similar concerns and the phrasing is identical in parts, including calling the proposed amendment “knee-jerk” which struck me as a very odd phrase in the circumstances.

So, we’ll be expected to trust digital ID that will, for some, include falsified data. And at least one “opposition” party, rather than explore solutions to such an obvious problem, is supporting the government all the way. What could possibly go wrong?

Papers, citizen!