Cronyism row around Blair lobbying heats up over digital ID plans linked to Ellison-backed Institute

A government cronyism controversy intensified Thursday after Freedom of Information releases showed Tony Blair privately pressed for engagement with Larry Ellison’s technology groups in relation to Labour’s digital identity plans. The former prime minister met with Technology Secretary Peter Kyle on September 12, 2024 at Blair’s London office and urged Kyle to seek a briefing from the Ellison Institute of Technology (EIT), a research center founded by Ellison and now linked to Blair’s broader technology agenda. Ellison has donated or pledged about £257 million to the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change, and he chairs Oracle, the multinational tech giant with extensive government IT contracts in Britain. Analysts note Oracle already holds or eyes major opportunities tied to any national digital ID program, including a possible role in the envisioned system that would rely on a large Right to Work database.

The documents also show that, in the nine months following Blair’s meeting with Kyle, staff from Oracle and EIT met senior government figures at least 29 times. Those meetings reportedly included Kyle, Health Secretary Wes Streeting, and Chancellor Rachel Reeves, with science minister Lord Vallance also engaging with EIT representatives on multiple occasions. Blair is listed as part of EIT’s faculty of fellows, and the institute’s Oxford campus is slated to open in 2027. Observers say the proximity of Blair to Ellison’s networks has helped shape access to top levels of government, just as the Digital ID policy has drawn fierce scrutiny from civil liberties groups and opposition critics.

In public responses, government officials have stressed that no delivery decisions have been made and that any future ID system would be designed and run by in-house teams, not outsourced to external suppliers. A spokesman for the Tony Blair Institute (TBI) said the collaboration with Oracle is well documented and that the work of Oracle and TBI is not tied to Digital ID; the institute says it engages with multiple technology partners to explore how innovation can support public services. Oracle declined to comment.

The disclosures come as Keir Starmer’s Labour party presses ahead with a plan to require digital identity for work and other transactions, provoking a vigorous debate about privacy and security. Civil liberties groups warn of potential overreach, while supporters argue digital ID could curb fraud and reduce costs. Early estimates put the cost of a national ID database in the range of £150 million to £400 million, and Oracle already has a portfolio of NHS and Home Office technology contracts, with some government documents showing a recent £53 million Home Office assignment. Critics say the close ties between Blair and Ellison’s network raise concerns about potential preferential treatment for a donor-backed entity in a policy area with lucrative commercial implications.

Proponents within Labour argue that Blair’s longstanding involvement with Ellison and his institutions reflects a broader European trend of public-private collaboration in science and technology policy. They point to Ellison’s public calls for data unification to feed AI models and note that the Ellison Institute’s expansion could align with national priorities for digital modernization. Yet opposition voices insist that access to senior ministers through Blair’s channels creates an appearance of influence-peddling at a time when government decisions about how to deliver digital ID are still unresolved. A Conservative Party spokesperson condemned the revelations as evidence that the government must tighten oversight of relationships between senior officials, ministers, and private tech interests, especially as Britain weighs a highly visible and potentially transformative policy.

As the debate continues, Labour’s leadership has defended the policy’s economic promise, arguing that digital IDs could reduce fraud, streamline services, and boost growth. The party has cited international comparisons, including claims that digital ID programs in other countries helped reduce fraud and enable more efficient public services. Skeptics note that real-world implementation will require careful governance, robust privacy protections, and transparent procurement processes, especially when major technology players stand to benefit from the transition. The current disclosures renew questions about how closely policy design and vendor relationships intertwine at the highest levels of government, and they place the focus squarely on the balance between innovation, accountability, and public trust as Britain moves forward with its digital identity ambitions.