On Friday, September 26, 2025, Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer unveiled a sweeping new policy: by 2029, the United Kingdom will introduce a mandatory digital ID system for all individuals working in the country. The announcement, made at a conference of centre-left leaders in London and during Labour’s annual gathering in Liverpool, has ignited a fierce national debate about privacy, immigration, and the very nature of state control in modern Britain.
The government’s stated aim is clear: the digital ID will serve as proof of a person’s right to work in the UK, with the intention of making it harder for migrants to obtain illegal employment. Ministers have emphasized that, at least initially, the ID will be required solely for employment verification, but there’s notable potential for its use to expand in the future—possibly granting access to public services and forming what some officials describe as “the bedrock of the modern state.”
Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister Darren Jones, who is spearheading the initiative, told the Global Progress Action summit, “If we get this digital ID system working and the public being with us, that will be the bedrock of the modern state and will allow for really quite exciting public service reform in the future.” According to BBC reporting, Jones’ remarks have fueled both anticipation and anxiety about the broader ambitions behind the policy.
The government envisions the digital ID as a modern, mobile-based solution. Rather than a physical card, the ID would be stored on a smartphone, much like a contactless payment card or the NHS app. Crucially, officials stress that people will not be required to carry it at all times or be asked to produce it in everyday situations. The hope is that this digital approach will streamline employment checks and curb illegal working, a persistent challenge in the UK’s immigration system.
Sir Keir Starmer, defending the plan on BBC’s “Sunday With Laura Kuenssberg,” explained, “You must have ID, mandatory digital ID, in order to work, because we have to stop illegal working. If you look at any of the raids – we’ve massively increased the number of raids on working premises – it is absolutely clear that people are working illegally.” He added that the new system would enable “automatic collection” of employment data, allowing the government to better enforce existing rules and identify those without the legal right to work.
Starmer further argued that one of the main reasons migrants make the perilous journey through France to reach the UK is the relative ease of finding illegal work here compared to other countries. “Decent, pragmatic, fair-minded people, they want us to tackle the issues that they see around them,” he told the conference, positioning the digital ID as a tool to restore public confidence in the fairness of the immigration system.
Yet, this ambitious policy has met with a surge of public resistance. Within days of the announcement, a petition demanding the government scrap the digital ID plans surpassed 2.1 million signatures. The petitioners, echoing widespread concerns, called the proposal “a step towards mass surveillance and digital control,” and insisted, “no one should be forced to register with a state-controlled ID system.” Such a massive show of opposition guarantees the policy will be subject to parliamentary debate, and possibly much more.
Critics from across the political spectrum have voiced their objections. Labour backbencher Bell Ribeiro-Addy argued the backlash “shows people do not understand the purpose of the move” and questioned its effectiveness: “How will this stop people working in the shadow economy?” According to ChronicleLive, she cast doubt on whether determined employers who already flout the law would actually require or check digital IDs.
From the right, opposition has been even more strident. Reform UK leader Nigel Farage derided the policy as “an anti-British card,” declaring in the Express, “The Labour Government’s plan to impose digital ID cards on all adults will do nothing to combat illegal immigration. But it will give the state more power to control the British people.” The Conservatives have dismissed the proposal as a “gimmick” unlikely to reduce illegal immigration, while the Liberal Democrats have promised to fight it “tooth and nail.” Reform UK, for its part, has branded the plan a “cynical ploy” designed to “fool” voters into believing decisive action is being taken on immigration.
Amidst this storm of criticism, the government has sought to allay fears about privacy and data security. Attorney General Lord Richard Hermer—a former opponent of digital IDs when Tony Blair proposed a similar system in the early 2000s—has become an unlikely advocate. Speaking at a fringe event organized by the Institute for Public Policy Research and Amnesty International, Hermer said, “Look, I remember being bitterly opposed to them when Tony Blair sought to introduce them but I think the world has moved on. The grounds on which I opposed them quite a long time ago – the world is a different place. Our notions of privacy are entirely different. If I’m looking at what is on my phone and what, despite all the time I try to get the cookies off, what various vendors have by way of information about me, that is going to be vastly more than probably we’re going to have as a Government.”
Hermer’s remarks, reported by NationalWorld, suggest that digital IDs will “probably” hold much less personal information than the average online cookie collected by websites and apps. The government’s top legal advisor’s change in stance is emblematic of the broader shift in attitudes toward privacy in the digital age—though whether the public will be reassured remains to be seen.
Despite reassurances, many remain unconvinced. Detractors argue that even if the initial rollout is limited to employment verification, the infrastructure could easily be repurposed for wider surveillance or control. “There is scope for its use to be widened in future to access public services,” ministers have acknowledged, stoking fears that today’s employment check could become tomorrow’s all-encompassing digital pass.
Meanwhile, supporters within the government maintain that such a system is necessary to bring the UK in line with other advanced economies and to address longstanding weaknesses in immigration enforcement. They point to the system’s potential for efficiency, fairness, and modernisation—if, and only if, public trust can be secured.
As Labour’s conference in Liverpool continues, the digital ID debate shows no sign of abating. With millions already mobilized against the plan, and with opposition parties gearing up for a protracted fight, the government faces a formidable challenge: persuading a skeptical public that digital identification is a step forward, not a step toward a surveillance state.
For now, the fate of the UK’s digital ID scheme hangs in the balance, emblematic of the broader struggle to reconcile security, privacy, and trust in a rapidly changing world.
