The government must fix the flaw in its digital identity plan

[IwantToRetire]

Sir Keir Starmer has announced plans for a compulsory UK-wide digital ID scheme for the right to work.

Whatever your position on mandatory or voluntary digital identification, one thing is certain: it only has one job to do. If any digital identity system is going to work, it must enable people to prove who they are, and prevent them from falsely proving that they are someone else.
Sex Matters has been sounding the alarm about a flaw in the system since 2022: identifying individuals reliably is not compatible with allowing people to disappear from their old life in one sex and reappear with a new life and a new identity in the opposite sex.

During the passage of the Data (Use and Access) Bill, together with Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom, Sex Matters called on the government to solve the problem and explained how. It’s really not difficult: you just need to keep sex data accurate and stop letting people change their records.

Continues at https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/the-government-must-fix-the-flaw-in-its-digital-identity-plan/

Sorry but your wrong there is no carve out that allows a job to be just for trans people.
The only protected characteristics that you can specifically discriminate are age as in someone must be over 18 to work behind a bar etc and sex where a role can be specified as for female only or male only.
Any other restrictions on employment ie must be trans would be illegal under the equality act because there is no specific carve out for it in the equality act.
Even religious schools cant refuse to employ or accept pupils from a different religion.

I'm sure this would cause a fuss with some - being reminded of reality .Hurty feelz.

I see. I can see that is definitely going to affect the numbers of people for or against such a scheme. I suppose with some sensitivity it could be worked through, because for the right to work issue, potentially Irish passport holders could be exempt from needing to hold a digital ID for proving the right to work in NI, for example.

Probably though, as with Brexit, politicians will ignore this for as long as possible.

Schedule 9 Part 1 Occupational requirements

General

1(1)A person (A) does not contravene a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) by applying in relation to work a requirement to have a particular protected characteristic, if A shows that, having regard to the nature or context of the work—

(a)it is an occupational requirement,

(b)the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, and

(c)the person to whom A applies the requirement does not meet it (or A has reasonable grounds for not being satisfied that the person meets it).

(2) [lists provisions that bar discrimination based on protected characteristics]

(3)The references in sub-paragraph (1) to a requirement to have a protected characteristic are to be read—

(a)in the case of gender reassignment, as references to a requirement not to be a transsexual person ...........;

(b)in the case of marriage and civil partnership, as references to a requirement not to be married or a civil partner..........

Explanatory Note:

787.This paragraph provides a general exception to what would otherwise be unlawful direct discrimination in relation to work. The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or not being a transsexual person, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work, and the person whom it is applied to does not meet it (or, except in the case of sex, does not meet it to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who applied it). The requirement must be crucial to the post, and not merely one of several important factors. It also must not be a sham or pretext. In addition, applying the requirement must be proportionate so as to achieve a legitimate aim.

This Schedule does not provide an exemption for preferentially employing a trans or married person, because the exemption is not needed. It's already legal to discriminate against 'cis' people and single people, because they don't have a protected characteristic.

I actually think that, if done properly, a digital ID scheme could help close some of the loopholes created by the Gender Recognition Act.

If I were in charge, I would design the digital ID scheme with two sections: the basic information section and the sensitive information section. The basic information section could include information such as your current full name, date of birth and right to work (i.e. confirm that you are either a citizen or a legal immigrant). This part can be shareable with, for example, a bartender asking to see ID before they sell you alcohol, or a prospective employer for a job which does not require DBS clearance. The sensitive information section could include details such as previous names and any criminal convictions, and only be accessible on a need to know basis, for example, to the police, or a prospective employer for a job which does require DBS clearance.

I also think we need to abolish the deed poll system. Have one, formal, centralised process for individuals wishing to change their name, including upon marriage or divorce. People with a clean record should be allowed to change their names, but their digital ID should show the link between their current name and any previous names. People with unspent convictions should not be allowed to change their name or gender.

The digital ID system could help to streamline these processes and improve safeguarding.

Your sex isn't private information.

I can think of one reason.

Since the Supreme Court judgment, quite a lot of trans people have expressed their intention to break the law and continue to use single sex spaces and services for members of the opposite sex.

What do you do if, for example, you run a female only rape crisis centre and a trans identifying man shows up wanting to join a support group, and you say, "I'm sorry, this service is female only, can I direct you to an alternative service?" and the trans identifying man gets out his passport and says, "I am female, look, it says F in my passport."

He knows he's male, you know he's male because you can tell just from looking at him, but you can't prove it. How do you deal with that situation?

If the digital ID scheme included biological sex as well as gender identity or pronouns where applicable, this issue would be much easier to resolve.

Your birth sex, if recorded male or female as normal, (or with any genetic outliers or anomalies as necessary) can never be inaccurate. You may not consider yourself male or female but that does not change reality.
The dishonesty arises when someone is called female or male when they are not. "Legal" sex change is a misnomer, or at least a separate issue. We know it's not factually true but it is accepted as a legal fiction.
Actual change of sex is simply not possible. If a person says they are not a biological male (or female) but are in fact the opposite sex we will pander to their wishes and treat them as they wish to be treated. That does not alter the facts.

I'm tired of GRC/GRR sex being described as 'legal sex'. Apart from being an actual thing, biological sex is a strong legal concept, supported by a raft of case law (long story short: it's your birth registration). It can be made a sensitive field, to be deployed only when relevant. But I think it would be helpful to people who have modified their physical appearance (whether they have a GRC or not) to have an optional trans marker, to avoid challenges due to them superficially not looking quite the thing for their sex. A gender identity field is of no conceivable use.

For the same reason that religion and belief are protected.

It is wrong for an employer to say "I won't employ any Buddhists."
It is wrong for an employer to say "I won't employ any vegans".
It is wrong for an employer to say "I won't employ any men who wear skirts".

People have the right to their religion, their beliefs, and their chosen "gender" (whatever they mean by that term), without being discriminated against in employment, public life, services, etc.

They don't have the right to claim to be the opposite sex, or to lie about their sex in situations where sex matters.

In that case, it's covered by the 'religion / belief' category. No separate category needed.

I'm in favour of leaving the anti-discrimination provision in place, for tactical reasons.

Firstly, it's an opportunity to keep mentioning that it is a belief (also shared by some non-trans people) and therefore Art 9 ECHR forbids the punishment of people who refuse to pretend to share that belief.

Second, ideally eventually no-one will be permitted to conceal their sex, claim cross-sex sex-based rights, or carry out 'sex-change' treatments on young people. In that situation, trans people will have nothing left but anti-discrimination law, plus such social pleasantries as the rest of us are willing to grant. It's a harmless sop, and preferable to looking as if we've ground them utterly into dust.

The SC judgment made it clear that its sex that matters, not GR or GRC, that means that most, if not all, employers will need to know sex of their employees.

These ID will have to go back to the orginal birth certificate for british born people, but how will they get the information for foreign born people?

I think, in the rush to introduce the ID, theyll ignore sex completely and just use it as a NI number, age verification and maybe access to the NHS, but even then, i cant see A&E using it.

I've just thought of another advantage to this system. (Not gender related.)

If the plan is to have people's fingerprints linked to their ID (which is common in other countries) it should be possible on most smartphones to sign into the app using your thumbprint, which must match the thumbprint they have on record for you. That would effectively create an unfakeable ID.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation!

Surely though the UK just needs to create an interoperable card with the equivalent right to work, available to Irish citizens.

Third party apps can only use the thumbprint system to verify that your thumbprint matches one stored on the phone.

They don't have any access to the actual stored thumbprint (either to read it or to write it).

(Similarly with facial recognition.)

I don't understand why anyone objects to the idea of ID cards, digital or otherwise. Except if you're a criminal, terrorist, in the country illegally and suchlike. If you otherwise object, then I take it you also refuse to have a driving licence, passport, bank accounts etc, you know all those things that require proof of identity by giving personal details, photo, date of birth etc? Would appreciate an answer to this.

Surely this is grievance manufacture. After all, residents of NI can only apply for a UK driving licence as they are ineligible for a ROI licence. The licence has a very prominent 'UK' in the top left-hand corner. Or don't NI residents who identify as Irish drive?

If you trust this government not to use it to track and monitor your ever movement and to be able to keep all that data safe when they cant keep our child benefit claim info safe then more fool you.
Its going to have links to all your info and medical records all on 1 handy easily hacked database with links to the dvla, hmrc, nhs records just for starters.
Would you be happy to have all that info in the hands of a labour or reform government? Because I don't

Would you be happy to have all that info in the hands of a labour or reform government? Because I don't.

Not really, and I'd apply that to any adminstration, of any party. But, in the real world, I kinda think that ship has sailed. Like VAR in football, whether you like it or not, it's here to stay (I'm not particularly a big football fan). It's not going to go away, so we have to find the best way of dealing with it.

And I think women should be able to use rape crisis centres without having the creepy bloke in charge speculate on whether they orgasmed while they were being attacked.

Actually it ought to be mandatory for all jobs to prevent hiring faux women (who cannot get pregnant) in order to make up quotas. If a company says it has 40% female staff, those staff should ALL be biological WOMEN.

Hey! My "legal" weight is as valid as my actual weight. I got a certificate and everything. Says I'm 8st so I definitely am.

Link to UK Government & Parliament Petition
”Do not introduce Digital ID cards”

please sign and share
currently standing at 2,663,430

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194