Earlier this week, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, gave a speech in Dover. His subject, at least officially, was legal immigration. In reality, he seemed to be conducting an experiment, in order to find out how many times he could say “small boats”, before people either told him to shut up, or punched him in the face. His speech was litter with those two words, as was every answer he gave to every question he was asked.

Part of his fixation with diminutive marine craft, is the need to placate the right wing of his party – those people who insist that Johnny Foreigner is coming to steal both our jobs and our welfare benefits. But rather than join in with demonising people, Mr Sunak could resurrect a seventeen-year-old act of Parliament. If he were to reintroduce the National identity Card scheme, a law could be passed to make it illegal to work with out one. Right-wingers would be pleased about that, and sensible people would be pleased by the other benefits of ID cards.

Permit me, dear reader, to remind you of the salient facts. In 2003, the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett, proved that nobody is wrong all of the time, when he announced that the Government would, subject to Parliament’s approval, introduce national identity cards. Parliament duly obliged, and the National Identity Cards Act was signed into law in 2006. However, partly for reasons of pleasing naysayers, and partly to save money, the coalition government of 2010-15 repealed it in 2011.

This idea had originally been proposed by Blunkett in 2001, in the wake of the September 11th attacks. He believed that a compulsory ID card for all would reduce the likelihood of further terrorist atrocities. His cabinet colleagues didn’t share this view, so rejected the idea. But as 2002 went by, worries about benefit fraud and similar offences increased. Eventually, the Government returned to the idea of some form of ID card. Finally in 2003, the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, had Blunkett make the announcement.

In order to make it sound less sinister, the Government referred to “National Entitlement Cards”. However, as everyone insisted on calling them “Identity Cards”, the euphemism was dropped. But the Government’s sales technique didn’t improve. Time and time again, ministers appeared on radio and television, insisting that these little cards were a panacea, which would rid us of the twin plagues of crime and terrorism for all time.

Opponents of the scheme would howl about the immediate destruction of civil liberties. Rather than saving Mankind, or at least the British part of it, ID cards would enslave us all. Big Brother would, indeed, be watching us, just as George Orwell had predicted. Ironic really, given the facts that Orwell’s real surname was Blair, and the British public was obsessed with watching the voyeuristic television programme, Big Brother.

Even after the scheme became law, the acrimony surrounding it continued. The Conservative MP, and future Brexit Secretary, David Davis, went so far as to trigger a by-election on the issue, which he duly won.

Eventually, the civil libertarians and the economists brought about the end of the project. The Cameron/Clegg coalition repealed the act, and that was that.

We should all have identity cards. But the Blair Government was wrong to fixate on the prevention of terrorism. They wouldn’t have helped, and to claim otherwise is fatuous. Citizens of those countries who have a similar scheme but have still suffered from terrorist attacks will tel you that. However, they would have helped, and would still help, to speed up many needlessly long-winded processes, such as: benefit claims, criminal record checks, the finding of health records, the finding of tax records, reference checks for moving house, opening bank accounts, and a whole host of other things. So many organisations require photo ID, or proof of age. But blind people, for obvious reasons, aren’t issued with driving licences, and most people are, quite understandably, reluctant to carry their passports around with them, assuming that they even have one, and no-one with any sense would be carrying their birth certificate around with them.

As I said earlier, it could be made illegal to employ someone who doesn’t have either a National Identity Card, or in the case of an immigrant, an appropriate visa in their passport, granting them the right to work in the UK. This would help to reduce opportunities for people smugglers, as well as possibly silencing the Daily Mail’s less intelligent readers.

Those who belly-ache about the State intruding into our lives don’t convince me. The louder they shout about “Big Brother”, the more one wonders what they have to hide?

Some people suggest that we should have digital ID cards on hour smart phones. I’m not sure that I’d go that far. At least, not yet. I wouldn’t be comfortable with the idea of making those people who don’t want, or can’t use, smart phones have them. Although, the Estonians have made a great success of going almost completely digital, so it might be worth the Government finding out how they did it.

As I have said, a whole host of processes could, and almost certainly would, take less time if all of the relevant information were in one place. It happens in other countries, so there’s no need for it not to happen here. Perhaps the British government should realise that exceptionalism is foolish, and admit that maybe, just maybe, instant of vilifying him, we should accept that from time to time, Johnny Foreigner might actually be able to teach us a thing or two?