In a move that has sparked heated debate across the United Kingdom, the government’s proposed digital ID scheme could soon require children as young as 13 to sign up, marking a significant expansion of digital identification in British society. Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced the controversial policy in September 2025, aiming to launch it by 2029, with the stated goal of curbing illegal migration and modernizing public services. But the plan has rapidly become a lightning rod for public concern, with nearly 3 million people signing a petition to scrap it—an outcry that has guaranteed parliamentary debate and deepened scrutiny of the scheme’s scope and implications.
At the heart of the controversy lies the government’s consultation on whether digital IDs should be mandatory for teenagers aged 13 and above. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology explained that the consultation is necessary because young teens can legally work part-time from the age of 14, and in some council areas, even from 13. As such, employers would be required to check every new hire’s digital ID as part of Right to Work checks. However, the government has clarified that it will not be a criminal offense to lack a digital ID, and police will not be able to demand to see it during stop and search procedures.
The digital ID scheme, often referred to as the “Brit Card,” will not involve a physical card. Instead, it will be managed through an app-based system, similar to the NHS app or online banking services. This app will store crucial personal information, including citizenship or residency status, name, age, and photographs. The government insists that the system will be secure and that the introduction of digital IDs will help reduce bureaucracy, prevent fraud, and make it easier for people to access government services, such as benefits or tax records, without juggling multiple logins or physical documents.
Prime Minister Starmer, defending the policy during an official visit to India, underscored its necessity in tackling illegal migration. “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,” Starmer stated, according to ITV News. He called for a “national debate” on digital ID, expressing confidence that, as the benefits become clear, public support will grow: “The more people see the benefits that come with this, the more—as has happened in other countries—people say 'that will make my life easier.'”
Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper has been a prominent defender of the scheme, particularly regarding its extension to young teens. In a recent interview with LBC, Cooper remarked, “Everybody has forms of digital ID, don’t they, now?” and pointed out that many 13-year-olds are already familiar with digital identification through various online platforms. She argued for a standardized approach, saying, “I do think 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.” Cooper’s stance is that extending digital ID to young people is simply a logical next step in a world where digital verification is increasingly commonplace.
Supporters of the policy draw on examples from across Europe, where digital and physical ID cards are standard. The Tony Blair Institute, led by the former prime minister, has described digital IDs as “common-sense solutions” to a state that many Britons feel is no longer fit for purpose. Veteran security journalist and Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate Edward Lucas, who has experienced Estonia’s digital ID system firsthand, called it a “tool of digital empowerment” compared to the UK’s “broken ID system.” Dr. Alex Hardy of Liverpool University, an expert on European ID schemes, noted that while digital IDs will not “necessarily turn Britain into a police state,” if implemented transparently and efficiently, they could help modernize the British state.
However, the scheme’s critics are numerous and vocal, spanning the political spectrum and civil society. Privacy campaigners like Akiko Hart, director of Liberty, warn that “decades of data scandals and faulty programs suggest the government can’t be trusted here.” Silkie Carlo, director of Big Brother Watch, went further, telling ITV News, “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 also highlighted parental concerns, especially as many are already wary of children using smartphones: “It is shocking that the government is considering enrolling children into this digital ID app.”
Political opposition is not limited to privacy advocates. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch described the digital ID plan as a “desperate gimmick that will do nothing to stop the boats,” while Reform UK leader Nigel Farage declared it “will make no difference to illegal immigration.” The Liberal Democrats have also voiced strong objections, stating they would not support a system where people are “forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives.” Critics argue that determined employers will continue to pay undocumented workers cash in hand, and some warn that hackers may eventually find ways to subvert the system, further undermining its effectiveness.
Even within the Labour Party, dissent is evident. One Labour MP reportedly complained, “No.10’s reverse Midas touch has tainted it for another five years,” reflecting internal skepticism about both the policy’s merits and the government’s ability to implement it safely and responsibly. The government’s track record on IT projects and data security has been a recurring theme among those wary of the digital ID rollout.
Polling prior to the latest announcement suggested the British public was cautiously supportive of a digital ID scheme, but the rapid growth of the opposition petition and the intensity of the current debate signal deep unease about the direction and execution of the policy. Concerns about privacy, data security, and the risk of excluding vulnerable youth who lack access to technology are now front and center in public discourse.
As the government moves forward with its consultation, the future of digital ID in the UK remains uncertain. Ministers insist that robust cyber security measures will be in place and that holding a digital ID will not be mandatory for everyone—students, pensioners, and those not seeking work can opt out. Yet, questions linger about the true scope of the scheme and its long-term implications for civil liberties and social inclusion.
The coming months will be pivotal as Parliament debates the petition and the government seeks to convince a skeptical public. The digital ID debate has become a litmus test for the balance between innovation, security, and privacy in a rapidly changing world. As both advocates and critics make their voices heard, the UK’s path forward will reveal much about its values and its vision for the digital age.
