On October 10, 2025, the UK government set off a political firestorm by announcing a consultation on whether children as young as 13 should be included in the country’s new digital ID scheme. The proposal, which comes on the heels of a petition signed by nearly three million citizens, has ignited a fierce national debate about privacy, security, and the future of identification in Britain.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour government had already revealed plans to introduce a UK-wide digital ID system before 2029. Initially, the scheme was to be available for free to all citizens and legal residents aged 16 and over. But with the latest announcement, the age threshold could drop to 13, pending the outcome of a public consultation. The government’s official response to the petition confirmed that “the consultation will also consider whether to include children aged 13 years old and older.”
The digital ID, officials stress, won’t be a physical card but a secure digital identity. “It will not be compulsory to obtain a digital ID but it will be mandatory for some applications,” the government stated, outlining that the system aims to streamline access to government services, improve efficiencies, and help tackle illegal migration. Over time, the hope is that people will use their digital ID to access everything from banking to education to benefits, making life “easier and more secure.”
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has been front and center defending the proposal. Speaking to LBC, she remarked, “Everybody has forms of digital ID, don’t they, now? I mean, we all have different ways of having to prove who we are.” She went on: “Lots of 13-year-olds already do [have a form of digital ID], and what the department is going to be consulting on is exactly how that should be taken forward.” Cooper insisted, “I do think that this is the right way forward, to have this standardised process now, and it’s something that we had been already setting out for people who come to work from abroad.”
Foreign Secretary Cooper’s defense comes as the government faces mounting criticism from civil liberties advocates, parents, and even some Labour supporters. The petition that triggered the parliamentary debate warns that a national digital ID system “would be a step towards mass surveillance and digital control.”
Big Brother Watch, a prominent civil liberties group, hasn’t minced words. Director Silkie Carlo described the scheme as “Orwellian” and took particular issue with the idea of enrolling teenagers. “The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric ID system is sinister, unjustified and prompts the chilling question of just what Starmer’s government think the digital ID will be used for in the future,” Carlo said, according to BBC. She added, “At a time when parents are taking a critical view of whether children should have smartphones, it is shocking that the government is considering enrolling children into this digital ID app. We now know that digital IDs could be used for everything from tax and benefits to banking and education—it has all the hallmarks of a sprawling national database that Britain has long rejected.”
Public skepticism is widespread and vocal. One citizen, Rory, told The Guardian, “This issue was not given to the electorate in the mandate and is being addressed in a parliamentary recess. It does not sit well with me. I did not vote for this.” He continued, “Countries such as France already operate with digital identification systems, yet still face challenges with irregular or unauthorised crossings. Introducing a digital ID does not in itself close borders or prevent determined illegal entry. There is a danger of such a system evolving into a form of mass surveillance or being misused for state control. The requirement for everyone to register with a state-controlled digital identity raises serious questions over data security, privacy and oversight.”
Another critic was even blunter, calling the plan an “absolutely terrible idea.” They argued, “Holding all your information in one place is a hacker’s dream. We already have countless ways we can provide our identity—passports, driving licences and so on. There is absolutely no need for this, and it’s just so the government can try to gain control over illegal working in this country. It makes me absolutely livid that they expect us to put our data at risk to try to control an issue that they are unable to solve. I will absolutely not be signing up to this.”
Despite the backlash, Labour ministers are pushing forward, convinced of the digital ID’s necessity. The Prime Minister himself has pointed to international examples to bolster his case. During a recent trip to India, Starmer praised the country’s Aadhaar digital ID system as a “massive success.” India’s Aadhaar, which includes biometric data, is far more comprehensive than what’s currently proposed for the UK. Starmer suggested that Britain could eventually use similar technology for services like banking, but No 10 was quick to clarify that the UK’s system would not necessarily copy India’s biometric approach and would remain in the public sector’s hands.
“Ministers must make the case for the huge benefits the scheme could offer,” Starmer said, highlighting how digital IDs could make everyday transactions smoother and more secure. He also pointed to other nations—Estonia, Denmark, Spain, Canada, Australia, and Japan—as examples of countries where digital ID systems are already in use. The European Union, too, is rolling out its Digital Identity Wallet, which all member states must implement by the end of 2026. Non-EU countries like Norway, Iceland, and Ukraine are also piloting similar schemes.
Yet, the UK’s digital ID proposal is not without its unique challenges. The government has repeatedly emphasized that the system will be “run by the public sector” and that biometric data collection is not necessarily part of the plan. Still, the specter of mass data collection and the potential for function creep—where a system designed for one purpose ends up being used for many others—remains a central concern for critics.
Adding to the controversy is the issue of consent and autonomy for young people. While Cooper and others argue that many 13-year-olds already possess some form of digital identification (think school systems, social media, and online banking for teens), the idea of a standardised, government-issued digital ID for minors is a major leap. The government maintains that it will be consulting widely on the age threshold and the scope of the scheme, but for many, the reassurance rings hollow.
Supporters of the scheme point to the potential benefits: easier access to public services, reduced bureaucracy, and improved security for online transactions. They argue that, in an increasingly digital world, a unified and secure form of identification is not just inevitable but essential. But opponents counter that the risks—data breaches, hacking, surveillance, and the erosion of privacy—far outweigh the rewards, especially for vulnerable groups like teenagers.
As MPs prepare to debate the petition in Parliament over the coming weeks, the government’s digital ID plan stands at a crossroads. The outcome of the consultation, and the public’s response to it, will shape not just the future of identification in Britain but the balance between convenience and privacy for years to come.
For now, the UK finds itself wrestling with a dilemma at the heart of the digital age: how to harness technology for the public good without sacrificing the individual freedoms that define a democratic society.
