In a wide-ranging interview with BBC Newsnight on 10 July, the former head of the UK’s Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Alex Younger, offered candid views on irregular migration, digital identity, and the evolving dynamics between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.
The interview, conducted by presenter Paddy O’Connell, followed the announcement of new UK–France agreements on nuclear cooperation and migration control.
Younger, who led MI6 from 2014 to 2020, argued that the UK should adopt a national identity card system to combat irregular migration and the black market labour economy. “It’s absolutely obvious to me that people should have a digital identity,” he said.
Citing the absence of ID cards as a major pull factor for undocumented migration to the UK, he added, “In that context, the grey labour force won’t exist. And we’ve removed a pull factor, so let’s stop shouting at the French – a lot of this is on us.”
Challenged by O’Connell on whether this amounted to an explicit endorsement of ID cards, Younger confirmed: “Yes.” He dismissed what he called the “weird anathema” in British political culture around the idea, sarcastically blaming Allo Allo for perpetuating the association with authoritarian regimes. Instead, he framed ID systems as pragmatic and necessary for both immigration control and societal trust.
Turning to the subject of Russia, Younger warned that President Putin was mishandling his relationship with Donald Trump.
Despite the former U.S. president’s sympathetic stance toward Moscow’s narrative on Ukraine, Younger suggested Trump may be reaching his limit. “It’s becoming very clear to Donald Trump that Putin has no other plan other than to subjugate Ukraine, and he’s going to make Trump look like a muppet if he continues – and that’s not acceptable,” he said.
Describing Putin’s strategy as increasingly irrational, he added: “He doesn’t have a military solution. We’re three years in, he’s lost a million men, and he’s got less territory than he did in ‘22… Trump is his only answer. And I would agree with you – he’s playing it very dangerous here.”
The full interview is available on BBC iPlayer and BBC Sounds, with highlights on @BBCNewsnight.
Younger’s temperament is the reason he’d like a national ID card scheme, but the rationalisation he comes up with is clearly disingenuous. Ultimately you can’t work legitimately or interact with a financial services provider of any sort in this country if you don’t have a valid NI number. The ‘grey’ labour force is made of workers who are employed illegally by people who don’t care if their employees are documented in any way or not.
I really don’t understand anyone being against a national ID card. Why would you not want to have one like every other country. Doesn’t even need to be a card can be an app on your phone.
Yeah, no thanks, never needed one, never wanted one.
“All around, Sheeple”.
I’m not really sure that provides a rational argument against them to be honest – merely a statement of your position. The use of the word Sheeple on the other hand says much more.
To what end, Jim? Yet another costly waste of money. Any form of ID I might carry would change nothing unless we were forced to carry them and show them on demand. More stop-and-search profiling nonsense that I don’t want. I want the government to find the right way to expel illegal migrants, not identify them, stop them from working and turn them into a greater burden on the tax payer. Until they know how to deport, identification is counterproductive. Once they know how to deport, the problem will go away.
Better as a card because your phone can run out of power or you may be in a location where you cannot reach a network.
We have run into these types of problems when trying to use e-tickets.
It’s a matter of principle. I’m sure the former head of MI6 would love everyone to have ID cards because it would make his job easier (and I sympathise with him in wanting to do that, just not by way of this method). Personally, I really don’t like the idea of being legally forced to have to carry anything on my person. Wherever possible, the interaction between a citizen and their government should be on the citizen’s terms, not the governments. There are very few senior politicians to whom I would entrust overseeing the roll out and management of such a project and given the number of high-profile cyber security breaches of major government institutions and companies (including the military), I personally would prefer to minimise what ever data is out there on me. The whole thing is just far too open to abuse and/or political incompetence.
Suppose for example one wished to participate in a demonstration against some government policy or the use of digital id cards became mandatory at the polling booth? Or the whole thing was outsourced to a private company to manage everyone’s private data. No thanks.
Unfortunately I think that hoping that the government doesn’t have a plethora of data on you due to everything being done via the internet these days, is a forlorn one.
Although , of course , that doesn’t mean ID cards and their potential (mis)use should, therefore, be accepted- they shouldn’t. I’m merely pointing out that there’s a hell of a lot of data on each of us, already ‘out there’.
Just like anti terror laws brought in that would only be used in rare circumstances and within two years were used on a pensioner for heckling Tony Blair this will be abused very quickly.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist but most governments now seem to be exercising control over the population that in years gone by would have been absolutely unacceptable
Absolutely spot on.
While I disagree with using what happened to that pensioner, we have to realise that society is changing and not for the better.
Social media enables organisation and co-operation between criminal and deviant elements, and also enables foreign state actors to undermine social stability. It has also given voice to political extremism within, both woke fools and far-right wingers crying victim too much.
Simply, our tolerant democracy is being abused to such an extent that we are now going to lose it.
I disagree fundamentally. While the threats take a different form we are far far better off as a society now than the 50s 60s 70s. Both socially and economically. We literally had several aircraft hijackings a month. British communist parties advocating the joining of soviet union not to mention a very very real threat of nuclear annihilation. And through all of that they wouldn’t have allowed id cards to be compulsory even though it was suggested.
Its not apples for apples but I’d be a da.ned
Social media and the Internet I dont disagree is a double edged sword but you dont make things better with the I.position of draconian laws
Sorry the imposition of draconian laws will emboldened those that want thw worst of society
Also social media is entirely voluntary. There no laws which require one to be on instagram or facebook. ID cards would be fundamentally different; we absolutely should not go down the path of fining people (or worse) for not carrying something . It is and always should be the right of the individual to decide what, if any, personal data they share with another, or the government. Besides, I’m sure Putin/Jinping etc. would lose no time in trying to acquire UK ID card data for nefarious purposes the moment it were implemented.
I don’t agree that the society we have now is better than the 1960/70s.
I would even say the 90s were a better period
IMHO We have entered a new era of Social and economic instability, working-class people are very much divided over race /religion / sexuality / gender ..etc In many instances, you dare not have a difference of opinion without being accused of being hateful
The price of housing, cost of living means that even the middle classes now have very little disposable income each month and narrowed life choice options.
The threat of nuclear annihilation is still present.
How is this a better era?
Getting back on topic, we can look at “Just stop oil” or “Palestine Action” and many other toxic Activist groups, these peoples attitudes and behaviours abuse democracy and will cause new draconian laws
I’d make two comments about that program which I have listened to twice. First on ID cards, I think Ian (above) is correct in his assumption that the grey labour force; based on illegal migration and those employers on the dark side are not going to change because we (legitimate folks) have ID cards; the N.I. numbers haven’t stopped them, why would ID cards? The government would end up throwing ID cards around like confetti. The second point I’d make is that I don’t think Putin cares about the loss of a million Russian young men. Moldova is his next goal when he has Ukraine under his belt. He’s not going to stop: he has always said he will not rest in bed until he has rebuilt his beloved Soviet Union. Trump will end up looking a pillock for trying to stop Putin and I think Younger was right in this. What worries me is how far Putin will go. Most despots overstep the line eventually; what will Putin do? Thrash out at Britain? Who knows?
I.D. Cards on here would be a great Idea.😁
*changes name to MvcLovin*
McLovin, dammit!
ID cards would make it easier for a legitimate employer.
It is a nightmare in construction and there are plenty of grey market firms out there.
Do we really need another ID system? We already have various ways of proving ID – driving licence, NI number.
Another ID card is just another layer of ‘paperwork’ even if digital. Something else to pay for/administer and open to hacking and abuse.
Why not just change employment laws to put very large fines on companies that employ illegals and without ID and then actually enforce the law. Make the fines so large and quick and make company directors personally liable that they won’t want to risk employing illegals.
I suspect that most British people are against compulsory ID for the same reason Americans don’t like gun control. Because it hands more control to a state that will almost certainly abuse it. If your unhappy with illegals then stop them crossing the channel. It’s not difficult to do, it just requires the political will to enforce a border.
The idea of digital ID is a complete joke when all these firms cam’t even look after their IT solutions without it being hacked or DDOS attacked or breached. I can just see the headlines now… The entire UK has it’s identity stolen and sold on the dark web!
It’s been estimated that over the last 15 years or so about 1.5 million illegal immigrants have managed to get in here in the back of lorries, transport containers etc.
Once here, the criminal networks bringing them in organise NI numbers, NHS numbers, well forged home office documentation (“Indefinite Leave to Remain”), passports, driving licences etc. Immigrant GP’s working for the criminals then sign them off long-term sick so the criminals can get extra benefits, housing, council tax relief, PIP payments etc.
All that Younger’s insane ID card suggestion would achieve is that the criminal networks would rapidly work out how to forge them – and then more grade creep in the Home Office
If we had an effective police service that could take down the criminal networks making millions out of this trade, Reeves could probably take 3p off income tax to spend on defence
Would this be the same A Younger who was allegedly investigated by the Security Service for decades as a Russian mole during Operation Wedlock?
The problem is ID cards will only work when you are dealing with honest, law-abiding citizens
The criminal-minded, the devious, and people who have something to hide simply won’t engage with this system.
“can’t find it”, “left it at home”, ” it was stolen”, “dog chewed it” …etc
The best estimate I found, via Google AI, was that the shadow global economy was about 12% of global GDP. However, I also saw one headline estimate that the US shadow economy was 12%, given that less well developed economies are estimated to have shadow economies in the region of 50% I strongly suspect that the global estimate is seriously undervaluing the shadow economy.
So if we estimate the UK shadow economy is somewhere between say 7 and 12% (probably and under guesstimate) of the GDP then the UK economy’s total is significantly bigger than the official numbers suggest. If you could wave a magic wand bring just half of that economic activity into the light you would instantly grow the GDP figures by 3.5 to 6%..! That would solve a lot of issues.
It would need a lot of very unpopular legislation to tackle the issue as the shadow economy is all about corruption in business and the state. One example, is the proposed Hillsborough Law that would place a responsibility of openness and honesty on state employees after a disaster. It has been delayed and held up and ignored since 2017 because it would require people responsible for wrong doing or mistakes to admit it in front of any inquiry, civil and/or criminal (I believe)… If that was passed it would explode the vale of secrecy around more corruption that can lead to such tragedies such as the Grenfell Tower disaster. If the companies and public servants involved in the tragedy had been compelled to tell the truth (i.e. the excessive use of phrase like “I have no recollection” being deemed illegal) would quickly shine a light on lots of other illegal goings on. Simple extension of the law to utilities and key national suppliers or those involved in public works and you would rapidly start a rolling exposure of the corruption that enables the shadow economy to thrive. The intelligence developed into criminal groups and corporate practices would greatly enhance the ability of law enforcement to limit the growth and influence of the shadow economy, assuming enough of them are honest enough..!
An effective whistleblower law and limiting the scope of legally enforceable NDA’s would also be good steps forward.
All of which has been proposed and quietly sidelined by the very corrupt people the laws would tackle… and there is the rub.
Cheers CR
I wonder what the unforeseen consequences of implementing such a law to remove this ‘shadow economy’ would be – as there would surely be plenty. I’m not advocating such a law shouldn’t be in place – far from it – but I do wonder if some of the reluctance is due to the uncertainty regards its potential impact- apart from the obvious of course.
I wandered about that as well whilst writing my post. For example, the City of London is a recognised money laundering center and tax is paid once the money shiny clean apparently, however, the money laundering doesn’t make us many friends and I believe there is a lot of tax avoidance as well so, “yer so takes yer choice and pay the bill”. On balance I figured the victims of Grenfell and Hillsborough deserved better. How many people are living in flats with dangerous cladding and how many lying CEO’s have been prosecuted?
So yeh, I agree, there will be some down side but when you factor in a bit of justice (there’s precious little of that as it is) on the +ve side of the balance sheet I think it would be worth the effort.
Cheers CR
So, people who don’t want to engage with this automatically have something to hide? A lot of law-abiding citizens don’t want more government, more bureaucracy, breaches, or more government overreach
I recall that a very long time ago someone proposed that the driving licence photocard should act as a persons National ID Card and that non-drivers could be issued with a virually identical ‘Non-drivers licence’, which merely omittted the driving classes section on the back. Simples. Very cheap and quick to do.
Spot on Graham, I’ve spoken to numerous IT bods over the years and they all said the same, it’s cheap, it would be highly effective and once folks get used to it we would just take it on board.
The Core Biometrics are already in place as the driving licence and passport system use a common database, it just needs scaling.
I actually think the grey market is vastly underestimated and even if only half weed forced to go legit it would increase GDP by Billions. Quite what the rest of them would do could be interesting.