Labour digital ID plan described as bedrock of modern state as petition passes 1.3 million

A plan by Labour to require digital identity cards for workers in the United Kingdom has moved from policy talk toward a high-profile proposal as a petition opposing the plan climbs beyond 1.3 million signatures. One of Prime Minister Keir Starmer's closest aides described the digital ID as the bedrock of the modern state, arguing it would help curb illegal immigration and lay the groundwork for broader public service reform.

Under the plans, workers would store a digital ID on their smartphones, which would be the authoritative proof of identity and residency status in the UK. The ID would include a holder's name, date of birth, and a photo, along with information on nationality and residency status. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the PM, has said the policy is the one thing he most wants to achieve in his Cabinet Office role. At the Global Progress Action Summit in London, Sir Keir Starmer pressed the case for digital IDs, saying the immigration system must be fair. He told delegates, "Let me spell it out, you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID," adding that it is "as simple as that" and that, if implemented successfully, the system could become "the bedrock of the modern state" and enable ``really quite exciting public service reform in the future.''

A petition against the introduction of digital ID cards had surpassed 1 million signatures, with organizers updating the count as the online drive continued. By late evening, supporters of the measure had argued that a robust digital ID could crack down on illegal work and reduce reliance on the shadow economy, though critics warned about privacy and state overreach. Shadow pensions secretary Helen Whately, appearing on Sky News, suggested the plan would not automatically prevent illegal working, saying, "We’re hearing about people working in the grey economy [where jobs are hidden from the state] being paid in cash, being often paid well below the minimum wage. This is not about law-abiding employees failing to be able to identify whether people’s ID is legal or not, they’re not even checking ID."

At the event and in follow-up interviews, Starmer argued that progressive politicians had been "squeamish" in the past about stating obvious truths. He asserted that immigration reform is not a matter of compassion if it relies on exploiting foreign workers or undercutting fair wages and stressed the need for clear identification. "For too many years, it's been too easy for people to come here, slip into the shadow economy and remain here illegally because, frankly, we have been squeamish about saying things that are clearly true," he said. "It's not compassionate Left-wing politics to rely on labour that exploits foreign workers and undercuts fair wages." The summit provided a platform for a range of perspectives on how digital IDs might fit into broader state capacity and public service modernization.

Reform UK slammed the plan as a cynical ploy designed to fool voters into thinking something meaningful is being done about immigration. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch dismissed the policy as a gimmick that would do nothing to stop boat crossings. The Liberal Democrats said they would fight tooth and nail against what they called nonsensical plans. The policy’s advocates countered by pointing to its potential to deter illegal work and to simplify identity verification across public services.

The policy has drawn commentary from think-tank circles associated with former prime minister Tony Blair. Alexander Iosad of the Tony Blair Institute said digital IDs should be viewed as a gateway to showing the state is on the side of citizens and that the opportunity to implement such a system should not be missed. He argued that while the aim is to combat illegal migration and criminal activity, the design should also consider the benefits of centralized identity data in delivering public services. "This is the moment of opportunity to deliver it – it must not be missed," Iosad said. The idea of digital IDs is not new in British politics; Blair-era conversations and iterations of the plan have resurfaced in discussions about how to balance security, efficiency, and privacy.

Policy observers note that the plan would require careful implementation to avoid disadvantaging vulnerable groups or creating new privacy challenges. Civil liberties groups and some opposition voices have warned that expanding the state’s reach into everyday work and residency verification could lead to surveillance risks and civil rights concerns if not accompanied by robust protections, oversight, and sunset clauses. Supporters say the approach could streamline hiring, reduce illegal labor, and enable more consistent eligibility checks for benefits and services.

As Labour and its allies pursue a wider debate about the future of work and public services, the digital ID proposal remains a focal point of contention. Proponents argue that a clear, verifiable national identity system could anchor reforms across health, education, welfare, and border controls, while opponents warn that any such system must be built with strong privacy safeguards and clear limits on data sharing. The coming months are expected to reveal how the policy evolves, including whether it advances beyond discussion into formal policy proposals and legislative commitments.