On October 10, 2025, the UK government ignited a heated national debate by announcing plans to consult on including children as young as 13 in its forthcoming digital ID scheme. This controversial proposal, originally set to require all individuals over 16 to hold a digital ID by 2029, now faces intense scrutiny as officials weigh whether younger teens—who can legally work part-time in some regions—should also be required to participate.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer, speaking during an official visit to India, defended the expansion of digital ID requirements, describing them as "measures necessary to grip illegal migration." According to STV News, Starmer stated, "We have made a commitment to do whatever we can to stop people arriving illegally in the United Kingdom. One of the issues is the ability people have to work illegally in our economy. We have to do something about that. We can’t shirk that or duck that." He added that a national debate is needed, and expressed confidence that as people learn more about the benefits, they will see digital ID as a tool to make life easier.
The government’s stated rationale is straightforward: since UK law allows children to work part-time from the age of 14—and from 13 in some local council areas—employers will need to check digital IDs as part of mandatory "Right to Work" checks. As a government spokesperson explained, "Children can work part-time from the age of 14. In some local council areas, this is from the age of 13. So, we need to consult on whether it should be offered to those aged 13 and over." The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology echoed this, noting that with young teenagers already entering the workforce, the policy must consider their inclusion.
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has emerged as one of the government’s most vocal defenders of the plan. Speaking to LBC, Cooper argued, "Everybody has forms of digital ID, don’t they… We all have different ways of having to prove who we are. 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. 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."
Under the proposed scheme, digital ID—also dubbed the "Brit Card"—would be available for free to all UK citizens and legal residents, but it would only be mandatory for those seeking employment. For students, pensioners, and others not entering the workforce, participation would remain optional, according to BBC News. The government has also clarified that it will not be a criminal offense to lack a digital ID, and police cannot demand to see it during stop and search operations.
Despite these assurances, the proposal has sparked a wave of backlash from across the political spectrum and civil society. Nearly three million people have signed a petition demanding the policy be scrapped, with many expressing deep concerns about privacy, surveillance, and the potential for "mission creep." Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch has been especially critical, with director Silkie Carlo telling ITV News, "The prospects of enrolling even children into this sprawling biometric ID system are sinister, unjustified and prompt the chilling question of just what Starmer’s government think the digital ID will be used for in the future. 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." Carlo further warned, "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."
Political opposition has been fierce and varied. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch dismissed digital ID as a "desperate gimmick that will do nothing to stop the boats," while Reform UK leader Nigel Farage claimed it "will make no difference to illegal immigration." The Liberal Democrats, for their part, have consistently opposed mandatory digital ID, with science and technology spokesperson Victoria Collins stating, "It is frankly sinister, unnecessary, and a clear step towards state overreach." She added, "This is proof that the Liberal Democrats were absolutely right to warn about mission creep. The Government is already plotting to drag teenagers into a mandatory digital ID scheme before it’s even off the ground."
Green Party leader Zack Polanski has also raised concerns about discrimination and civil rights, warning at the party’s annual conference, “From terrorist proscription against protesters, to banning journalists from their conference, to diving into a rushed, evidence-free plan for DigitalIDs that are likely to discriminate against minorities. The alarm bells of authoritarianism are ringing loud and clear.”
Public opinion has shifted rapidly since the announcement. According to polling cited by The Evening Standard, support for digital ID among Britons fell from 53% in June 2025 to just 31% in October, while opposition grew to 45%. The polling also revealed that political affiliation strongly influences attitudes: those who support Prime Minister Starmer are more likely to back the scheme, while opposition voters are increasingly against it. Among 2024 Reform and Conservative voters, support has flipped to majority opposition since June.
Supporters of the scheme point to international examples, noting that digital ID systems already exist in countries such as Estonia, Denmark, Spain, Canada, and Japan. The European Union is rolling out its Digital Identity (eID) Wallet by the end of 2026, and similar systems are being piloted in Norway, Iceland, and Ukraine. During his trip to India, Prime Minister Starmer praised the country’s Aadhaar system—a vast digital ID infrastructure that includes biometric data—as a "massive success," suggesting that the UK could adopt similar technology for banking and public services. However, Downing Street has since clarified that Britain’s approach would not necessarily mimic India’s biometric data usage and would be managed by the public sector.
Critics remain unconvinced, questioning both the necessity and effectiveness of the digital ID scheme. Some argue that employers willing to hire undocumented workers will simply continue to do so off the books, and that hackers could potentially find ways to circumvent the system, allowing asylum seekers to obtain fraudulent IDs. The government, however, has insisted that robust cybersecurity measures will be in place to prevent such abuses.
Beyond the immediate debate over illegal migration, the government has emphasized the broader benefits of digital ID. Officials claim it will streamline access to government services such as benefits and tax records, eliminating the need for multiple logins or physical documents. Yet, civil liberties advocates warn that this convenience comes at the cost of privacy and could pave the way for an "Orwellian" system of surveillance and control.
With nearly three million signatures on the petition and a growing chorus of critics from all corners of British society, the fate of the digital ID scheme—and the inclusion of children as young as 13—remains uncertain. As the government launches its consultation and the public debate intensifies, the UK finds itself at a crossroads: balancing the promise of technological efficiency and security with the enduring values of privacy and civil liberty.
