Should we have a universal ID card?

[WelshBluebird]

What waste?

I'm in the process of applying for a mortgage. I've just sent my bank statements, a copy of my electricity bill, and a copy of my passport to my mortgage broker. I sent them electronically in an encrypted 7-ZIP folder.

With a digital ID this would save me having to send a copy of a passport and, possibly, a copy of the electricity bill. I'd still have to send everything else. The time saved is minuscule.

For one person doing one thing you save a tiny amount of time. For millions of people doing multiple things that require such ID demands that very quickly adds up to a lot of time.

 

[bleeder4]

For one person doing one thing you save a tiny amount of time. For millions of people doing multiple things that require such ID demands that very quickly adds up to a lot of time.

That's a moot point really though. We're individuals, we assess things based on how they impact us as individuals. As the poster you quoted has said, having a digital ID wouldn't really save any time for him as an individual. Ask anyone on the street "are you interested in something that isn't going to save you any time?" they'd all say No. We're all in it for ourselves at the end of the day.

 

[gswindale]

That's a moot point really though. We're individuals, we assess things based on how they impact us as individuals. As the poster you quoted has said, having a digital ID wouldn't really save any time for him as an individual. Ask anyone on the street "are you interested in something that isn't going to save you any time?" they'd all say No. We're all in it for ourselves at the end of the day.

It depends though - it might only save you personally 5 minutes per request for the ID, but if, for example, you move house every couple of years, that eventually starts to add up. Add it onto the time saved for the person/people verifying the documentation and it quickly adds up.

 

[WelshBluebird]

That's a moot point really though. We're individuals, we assess things based on how they impact us as individuals. As the poster you quoted has said, having a digital ID wouldn't really save any time for him as an individual. Ask anyone on the street "are you interested in something that isn't going to save you any time?" they'd all say No. We're all in it for ourselves at the end of the day.

It very much is not a moot point when part of the argument seems to be about the cost. For that to be an actual fair and accurate discussion you also need to consider the time (and thus money) saved across the whole economy.

And yes for Joe bloggs on the street it may not save much time / money individually (though if say your job is flipping houses maybe you'd disagree). But if you're a large company who has lots of new starters frequently, or a large legal firm dealing with lots of property purchases, then that time and thus cost really does at up.

Basically if something costs x, but saves y, and y is higher than x, then its worth doing even if that initial cost x is high.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Saving 5 minutes every couple of years at best is really not what this was intended to do.

Sounds to me like the arguments in its favour are getting pretty thin on the ground. As someone said, a solution looking for a problem

 

[Baxenden Bank]

The key point is what function does the ID actually serve?

If it is the sole ID needed to complete a task (taking up employment, buying a house) then it may save time/cost. If, as has been said, other evidence is still required as part of that process (KYC / Knowing Your Customer) then only some time/cost may be saved.

The latest Government proposal was simply to prove a right to work, which as a simple bod my take is that you either have a National Insurance Number or you don't. If you don't why not. If the employer is not collecting, background checking and recording NI numbers, why not.

Looking at the Wikipedia page on National Identity cards across the world, the UK is in a small group (eight - listed below) which do not have a card of any kind. The rest are a mish-mash of optional / compulsory and what data is recorded, shown, how it is held and how it may (or may not by statute) be used. In some countries ID of some kind is required but it does not have to be the ID card itself it can be another document e.g. a driving licence or passport. In those countries where it is compulsory to possess ID (or equivalent) it may or may not be compulsory to carry it and may or may not be demanded to be produced with or without reasonable cause.

So remind me again, what was the UK seeking to actually introduce?

List of countries with no ID requirement, as per Wikipedia article accessed 15 January 2026. Yes it is riddled with inaccuracies, such as including territories which are not countries. As per the list neither Germany nor India are compulsory.

Andorra

Australia

The Bahamas

Canada

Nauru

New Zealand

Tuvalu

United Kingdom

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

It very much is not a moot point when part of the argument seems to be about the cost. For that to be an actual fair and accurate discussion you also need to consider the time (and thus money) saved across the whole economy.

And yes for Joe bloggs on the street it may not save much time / money individually (though if say your job is flipping houses maybe you'd disagree). But if you're a large company who has lots of new starters frequently, or a large legal firm dealing with lots of property purchases, then that time and thus cost really does at up.

Basically if something costs x, but saves y, and y is higher than x, then its worth doing even if that initial cost x is high.

In which case the holder of the card should receive it wholly free of charge, funded by all those companies saving all that time and money.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The key point is what function does the ID actually serve?
If it is the sole ID needed to complete a task (taking up employment, buying a house) then it may save time/cost. If, as has been said, other evidence is still required as part of that process (KYC / Knowing Your Customer) then only some time/cost may be saved.

Surely it would replace the KYC checks?

The latest Government proposal was simply to prove a right to work, which as a simple bod my take is that you either have a National Insurance Number or you don't. If you don't why not. If the employer is not collecting, background checking and recording NI numbers, why not.

Having an NI number doesnt prove you have the right to work though. Just that the person whose number it is does. I guess that is part of the issue.

In which case the holder of the card should receive it wholly free of charge, funded by all those companies saving all that time and money.

And id agree, given how photo ID is so vital to today's world, such an ID should be easily and widely available for free rather than relying on passports or driving licences.

Saving 5 minutes every couple of years at best is really not what this was intended to do.

Sounds to me like the arguments in its favour are getting pretty thin on the ground. As someone said, a solution looking for a problem

If you are a large employer, or a large property solicitors, how many of those 5 minutes savings would there be? A hell of a lot.

And that is before you consider for those without photo ID it isnt 5 minutes, its much more time and effort.

And that is before you consider that for lots of people its more often than every couple of years. Every time you start a new job, rent a new place, open a new bank account / credit card, buy or sell a property etc. Take myself and my wife, we both have a passport and a driving licence so have it fairly easy - yet you'd end up with quite a lot of time spend proving our IDs in the last 3 years when you consider her starting a new job, both of us buying our house, her dealing with her late dad's estate, both of us opening new bank accounts etc. And thats "on easy" with our access to photo id.

 

[gabrielhj07]

If you are a large employer, or a large property solicitors, how many of those 5 minutes savings would there be? A hell of a lot.

And that is before you consider for those without photo ID it isnt 5 minutes, its much more time and effort.

And that is before you consider that for lots of people it’s more often than every couple of years. Every time you start a new job, rent a new place, open a new bank account / credit card, buy or sell a property etc. Take myself and my wide, we both have a passport and a driving licence so have it fairly easy - yet you'd end up with quite a lot of time spend proving our IDs in the last 3 years when you consider her starting a new job, both of us buying our house, her dealing with her late dad's estate, both of us opening new bank accounts etc. And thats "on easy" with our access to photo id.

Making life easier for property developers was never the point of ‘digital id’, be honest.

You make it sound as though we’re all permanently snowed in with paperwork trying to prove who we are. It’s amazing we do anything else in this country, really.

Meanwhile we still wait for the government to tell us how illegal working will be prevented…

 

[WelshBluebird]

Making life easier for property developers was never the point of ‘digital id’, be honest.

Im not saying it is.
What i am saying is that if your argument against it is cost, then you need to take both cost aspects together. Yes how much it will take to build, but also how much it will save throughout the entire economy.

You make it sound as though we’re all permanently snowed in with paperwork trying to prove who we are. It’s amazing we do anything else in this country, really

Not at all. What I am saying though is such a scheme would give tangible real benefits. Its upto each individual to determine if those benefits are worth it to them or not based on the very real downsides too.

Meanwhile we still wait for the government to tell us how illegal working will be prevented…

Presumably by actually making sure the person working is who they say they are, rather than someone who is claiming to be someone else or using someone else's NI number.

 

[bahnause]

The key point is what function does the ID actually serve?

If you chose an open system (like many countries do): Any function you want. Age verification online and in person might be one of the first use cases, maybe even a game changer for online businesses. My ID on the test platform holds my personal data (that‘s „standard“) and my health insurance card, my driving licence, my organ donor card and my social security card.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Surely it would replace the KYC checks?

Never assume anything, as my legal friend advises. What is written on the tin of the Government proposal? Referring again to the Wikipedia analysis, many countries with Photocards and/or Digital ID still require other checks.

Having an NI number doesnt prove you have the right to work though. Just that the person whose number it is does. I guess that is part of the issue.

Indeed, the train crash involving a parcel courier van on the user-worked crossing near Alsager had the drivers brother as the official, vetted, employee! Not sure any ID can solve that one except biometric checks every time a person clocks on, then follow them round to ensure they don't swap drivers outside the yard!

And id agree, given how photo ID is so vital to today's world, such an ID should be easily and widely available for free rather than relying on passports or driving licences.

Not vital except to those who want to nail everything down the the nth degree with zero risk. Blindly accepting an electronic verification just passes the responsibility from the immediate organisation requiring a check onto the organisation that issued that ID, accepting them as having carried out satisfactorily the necessary checks before issuing that ID.

If you are a large employer, or a large property solicitors, how many of those 5 minutes savings would there be? A hell of a lot.

And that is before you consider for those without photo ID it isnt 5 minutes, its much more time and effort.

And that is before you consider that for lots of people its more often than every couple of years. Every time you start a new job, rent a new place, open a new bank account / credit card, buy or sell a property etc. Take myself and my wife, we both have a passport and a driving licence so have it fairly easy - yet you'd end up with quite a lot of time spend proving our IDs in the last 3 years when you consider her starting a new job, both of us buying our house, her dealing with her late dad's estate, both of us opening new bank accounts etc. And thats "on easy" with our access to photo id.

I do not wish to put any personal data out here but I have carried out most of those tasks (some admittedly decades ago) without photo ID. The rigmarole not related to ID cost more in time, effort, stress and travel fares than the ID element. For example an old paper Power of Attorney, recently activated, where different financial institutions wanted it presented it in a slightly different way. Backwards and forwards to get revised notarised copies.

 

[gabrielhj07]

Im not saying it is.
What i am saying is that if your argument against it is cost, then you need to take both cost aspects together. Yes how much it will take to build, but also how much it will save throughout the entire economy.

What a good question. What was the savings figure identified by the government as a result of this policy, and over what time period?

 

[Tetchytyke]

For one person doing one thing you save a tiny amount of time.

You don’t though. The person on the other end still has to check the digital ID: check it is valid, check it actually belongs to the person who is presenting it, and they still have to fully document that they have done the check and it has come back ok. That will take time.

It may be slightly quicker (although I am sceptical given how quickly I can check a passport through WorldCheck or C6) but it will still take time.

Presumably by actually making sure the person working is who they say they are, rather than someone who is claiming to be someone else or using someone else's NI number.

Employers who don’t check right to work now aren’t going to check right to work under any shiny new digital ID scheme.

Surely it would replace the KYC checks?

It may replace some of the existing KYC checks, but mostly it won’t. Verifying identity is only one KYC check. AFAIK the digital ID won’t even verify an address.

The digital ID isn’t going to verify anything else, it isn’t going to verify source of wealth, it isn’t going to verify source of funds.

 

[nilvaj395]

And id agree, given how photo ID is so vital to today's world, such an ID should be easily and widely available for free rather than relying on passports or driving licences.

I'm not even sure about that in regards to digital ID specifically (physical IDs are exempt from this) because to have a Digital ID you must have a capable device that can handle it. It dosen't offer much benefit to the millions living in digital poverty, certainly not compared to a one off per 10 years £34 for a provisional (which could just be made free for low incomes). After all, phones don't come cheap and don't last more than 2-3 years most of the time nowadays. So realistically the very groups this is meant to benefit (low incomes with a free ID) may struggle to even have the digital devices nessecary for said ID in the first place.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Jan 2026 ==

Obviously like I said physical IDs are exempt from this. I actually agree in that we need a PASS card that's actually taken seriously because not everyone can get a provisional or wants to use a driving license as a daily ID. This comes from experience as someone who didn't want to take their driving license everywhere so used their provisional to get a free PASS card (and the difficulties getting places to accept said card, sometimes it would be 'we don't accept that, we need a driving license or passport').

We already have the infrastructure for a physical ID card because that is what the PASS scheme is (there is even a digital version), but I don't know why is this being totally ignored in any proposal.

 

[styles]

Presumably by actually making sure the person working is who they say they are, rather than someone who is claiming to be someone else or using someone else's NI number.

The minimum right to work checks are well above just an NI number already.

 

[bahnause]

Incidentally, you can still register for the beta version of the Swiss e-ID for testing purposes. As far as I know, there are no country restrictions. Detail are on the Digital identity and Trust Infrastructure website.

Unlike physical ID cards, the Swiss e-ID is free of charge.

If you would like to find out more, you can also create a business case and issue your own digital credentials directly in the app. You can also develop a proof of concept in the federal government's test environment. This should provide a good overview of how such a system can be designed and how it behaves.

 

[styles]

Incidentally, you can still register for the beta version of the Swiss e-ID for testing purposes. As far as I know, there are no country restrictions. Detail are on the Digital identity and Trust Infrastructure website.

Unlike physical ID cards, the Swiss e-ID is free of charge.

If you would like to find out more, you can also create a business case and issue your own digital credentials directly in the app. You can also develop a proof of concept in the federal government's test environment. This should provide a good overview of how such a system can be designed and how it behaves.

I'd trust Switzerland more than the UK tbf. They've often rejected bids from the likes of Palantir for such critical data. The UK on the other hand hasn't hesitated to give contracts to the likes of Huawei.

 

[bahnause]

I'd trust Switzerland more than the UK tbf. They've often rejected bids from the likes of Palantir for such critical data. The UK on the other hand hasn't hesitated to give contracts to the likes of Huawei.

Again, the whole point of a decentralized e-ID system is: There is no data to "take", the user has full control over the data stored in his device.