On September 26, 2025, the United Kingdom’s government reignited a decades-old debate by announcing that all British citizens and permanent residents will soon need a digital ID card to work or rent a home. Prime Minister Keir Starmer, at the Global Progress Action Summit in London, declared, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID. It’s as simple as that.” The measure, he argued, is designed to stem unauthorized immigration and bring order to the country’s border policies—a hot-button issue that has vexed both Labour and Conservative administrations for years.
For many, the announcement felt like déjà vu. The UK hasn’t had compulsory identity cards since shortly after World War II, and previous attempts to revive them have ended in political disaster. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s efforts in the 2000s to launch biometric ID cards were scrapped after fierce public and parliamentary resistance. The current proposal, however, comes at a time of mounting pressure over immigration, with more than 37,000 people crossing the English Channel on small boats last year and over 30,000 already this year, according to the Associated Press.
This time, the government is betting that new technology—and shifting public sentiment—might tip the scales. The digital ID scheme will take the form of a universal identification stored on mobile phones, much like the NHS app or digital IDs already in use across Europe. The card will include a person’s name, date of birth, photo, nationality, and residency status, and will be free to obtain. For those without smartphones, the government promises alternative access. The plan is to have the system in place before the next general election, due by 2029.
Starmer’s government frames the initiative as a two-pronged solution: not only will it make it harder for unauthorized migrants to work illegally, but it will also streamline access to public services like health care, welfare, child care, and even tax records. “Digital ID is an enormous opportunity for the UK… It will also offer ordinary citizens countless benefits,” Starmer said. He added that the measure is key to “defeating the politics of predatory grievance” and showing voters that the immigration system is fair and under control.
But the rollout has been anything but smooth. Critics from across the political spectrum have raised alarms about privacy, government overreach, and the risk of excluding those without digital access. The centrist Liberal Democrats were quick to denounce the plan, declaring on social media, “People shouldn’t be criminalised just because they don’t want to hand over their private data.” Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch echoed these concerns, vowing, “We will not support any system that is mandatory for British people or excludes those of us who choose not to use it from any of the rights of our citizenship.” The far-right Reform UK party, led by Nigel Farage, went further, calling the plan a “cynical ploy” that “will make no difference to illegal immigration, but it will be used to control and penalise the rest of us.”
Yet, despite the uproar, recent polling suggests that a majority of Britons now support the move, perhaps reflecting shifting attitudes in the face of persistent stories about small boat crossings and the shadow economy. A petition opposing the digital ID had gathered 575,000 signatures by the morning after the announcement, but the government appears undeterred. A public consultation is planned to iron out the details, and officials insist the digital ID will not be required for day-to-day activities—only for work, renting a home, or accessing certain public services.
The Conversation highlighted that the digital ID card could replace the patchwork of documents currently used to prove identity, such as driving licenses, national insurance numbers, and utility bills. In theory, this could reduce bureaucracy, fraud, and waiting times when accessing services. Estonia, for example, has run a digital ID system since 2002 with significant reported benefits. Supporters argue that, just as facial recognition has helped secure passports, digital IDs could be the next step in fighting crime and unauthorized immigration.
The shadow economy, which accounts for an estimated 10.8% of the UK’s GDP, is fueled in part by illegal work and accommodation. The government hopes that by requiring digital IDs for employment and renting, it will “cut off access to legitimate work for those entering the country illegally,” as The Conversation noted. Those unable to obtain a digital ID would be forced into the margins, more dependent on organized crime and human traffickers—a risk that civil liberties groups are quick to point out.
But the plan’s universal and mandatory nature is at the heart of the controversy. Many Britons are wary of anything that smacks of a “Papers, please” society, especially given the country’s history. Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London, observed, “There’s always been this feeling that Britain is not a so-called ‘Papers, please’ society, in contrast to continental Europe and other countries where ID cards are very common.” He added, however, that “given one is forced in some ways to prove one’s ID in myriad circumstances… a digital ID card would be quite useful.”
The government insists that people will not have to carry their digital ID or be asked to produce it outside of specific circumstances. But critics remain skeptical, fearing that the requirement could creep into other areas of daily life and create a society divided between the digitally included and excluded. Questions remain about how the system will accommodate those who cannot or do not want to use digital technology, and whether the scheme could inadvertently widen existing social rifts.
Meanwhile, the debate over the digital ID has become a proxy for broader anxieties about immigration, national identity, and the role of technology in public life. The government faces the delicate task of convincing the public that the scheme is about efficiency and fairness—not surveillance or control. With the Labour Party’s annual conference on the horizon and immigration still dominating headlines, the stakes could hardly be higher.
As the UK moves forward with its digital ID plan, it finds itself at a crossroads—balancing the promise of technological innovation and administrative efficiency against the enduring British skepticism of state power. Whether Starmer’s gamble pays off remains to be seen, but the coming months will almost certainly see spirited debate and, perhaps, a new chapter in the country’s ongoing struggle to define itself in a rapidly changing world.
