The likelihood that it will become tied to your bank account, credit file, etc in a way which isn't currently possible with physical forms of id such as passports and driving licences.
I’m pretty sure UK security services can link bank accounts to you already. Hell, credit score companies like Experian already do it.
This is beneficial for public services and companies that need to identify you. Having a single ID for a person is a huge improvement. As an example, when we got married, my wife was simultaneously both her maiden name and my surname. There is absolutely no link between passport, birth certificate, driving license, etc.
You have to go around to all these different organisations and have them update the details. They all have different requirements for updating the name.
Having a single consistent mechanism for referring to a person in systems seems hugely beneficial for both the organisation and the person.
How isn’t that currently possible? In America, your bank is already required to keep a semi-permanent record of your state issued identification for anti-money laundering/terrorism financing reasons.
I can see concerns about it becoming a widely used form of SSO, potentially even mandated, and that destroying privacy. However, banks and credit are cases where you already do not have that privacy, so they don’t seem like a very compelling example to point to.
The bank can, will and do report transactions to the government as well as annual interest etc to hmrc - as far as I am aware they use national insurance numbers in those reportings.
That didn't really clear anything to me. These things are already connected. "The likelihood" is just handwavy concern but it doesn't tell me anything about why is this a concern for this system specifically. I still don't see what makes this system different.
