Labour's digital ID plan prompts backlash over privacy and immigration controls

Labour leader Keir Starmer on Friday outlined a plan to make digital ID cards mandatory for every adult by the end of this Parliament, part of a broader bid to curb illegal immigration and modernize public services. The proposal would require workers in the United Kingdom to carry a digital ID stored on their smartphones, which could be requested as proof of identity and right to work.

Under the plan, the digital ID would be the authoritative proof of identity and residency status in the United Kingdom, including name, date of birth, and a photo as well as information on nationality and residency status. Mock-ups shown by Labour depict a secure, smartphone-based credential that could be accessed when needed by employers or government bodies. The government said the ID would be the basis for a range of public-service reforms, while stressing that the immediate aim is to reduce illegal work and improve verification processes.

During a conference of progressive leaders, Starmer argued that the policy would be a straightforward step to ensure legal work and reduce the shadow economy. "Let me spell it out: you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID," he said. "It's as simple as that because decent, pragmatic, fair-minded people, they want us to tackle the issues that they see around them." He added that it was not compassionate left-wing politics to rely on labor that exploits foreign workers and undercuts wages.

Civil liberty campaigners have railed against the scheme, with Opposition to Digital ID campaigns gathering momentum on social media and in public petitions. A petition titled "Do not introduce digital ID cards" has gathered more than 1.5 million signatures, a number that has prompted calls for parliamentary debate under existing rules that trigger a response when petitions reach 100,000 signatures. The petition’s surge followed the announcement and drew attention to concerns about mass surveillance and data centralization in a country with a history of public service reform debates.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, told the Daily Express that the measure would become a "means of controlling the population, of telling us what we can do or say, or even tracking where we go and what we spend." He said the proposal was "un-British" and contrasted it with experiences in some European neighbours where he argued that ID checks had not resolved migration issues. Farage cited the pandemic-era vaccine ID as an example of costs and inconvenience without curbing spread.

Helen Whately, shadow pensions secretary for Labour, cautioned that the plan would not automatically prevent illegal working. Speaking on Sky News, she argued that many workers in the grey economy are paid in cash and may not be properly identified even with a formal ID scheme, noting that the policy should not be framed as a remedy for all forms of non-compliance. Reform UK and some Conservative figures described the plan as a gimmick or cynical ploy to shift focus from broader immigration challenges, while Liberal Democrats signaled strong opposition.

The policy has also drawn scholarly comment from the Tony Blair Institute. Alexander Iosad argued that digital IDs could serve as a gateway to demonstrating state support and enabling more centralized storage of information about a person. He said the moment presented an opportunity to deliver a broader set of public-service reforms, so long as the state balanced security with civil-liberties protections. Iosad cautioned that success would depend on public confidence and safeguards that prevent data misuse while still enabling legitimate verification.

Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the Prime Minister, framed the argument in terms of future governance. He told the Global Progress Action summit in London that a functioning digital ID system could become the bedrock of the modern state and enable significant public-service reform, provided there is broad public buy-in and robust protections. His comments underscored the government’s intent to use digital IDs beyond mere work eligibility, potentially expanding their role in services and residency verification over time.

The petition drive highlighted the degree of public interest and concern around the idea. As petitions gain momentum, they attract scrutiny from lawmakers who must weigh security, privacy, and civil liberties against the potential efficiency gains of digitized identity checks. The debate continues to unfold as practitioners and policymakers evaluate how digital IDs would be implemented, funded, and monitored, including what rights individuals would retain over their personal data and how oversight would be structured.