Nadia on... digital ID

In my twelve years as a Labour Party member and knocking on doors across our city, and indeed this country, not a single person has ever told me that what they really need to improve their lives is mandatory digital ID. This is what I told the government in Parliament last month, when I raised my serious concerns about the proposal. 

There are many reasons why a mandatory digital ID is a policy we shouldn’t pursue: it’s divisive, expensive, introduces data security risks and undermines our civil rights. Many constituents have written to me, opposing the idea for similar reasons. Yet what I find the most baffling is the government’s determination to force it through now – at a time when people are struggling with the cost of living crisis and failing public services. The billions that would be required to roll out the policy would be far better spent investing into our communities, ending child poverty, or tackling the housing crisis.

The government first framed the digital ID policy around tackling “illegal” migration and irregular working. It’s unlikely it would be effective in relation to either issue as you already need a national security number in order to work in the UK – which you can only get if you have a right to work – and black market employers who pay people in cash won’t suddenly start asking people for digital ID. 

Then there’s the dangerous myth that some migrants are ‘not in the system’, and are abusing our laws or public services. We already collect asylum seekers’ fingerprints and face scans to receive a registration card, and foreign nationals already have a digital ID – the e-visa. But crucially, this narrative frames those without a settled status as an invisible threat, as though it is foreign nationals who have broken our society, instead of the failures of previous governments, austerity, and ballooning wealth inequality. It justifies more surveillance, despite evidence proving otherwise.

Now ministers are championing other, future use cases of the digital ID, such as helping renters to prove their identity to landlords, improving access to welfare and other benefits, or making it easier for parents to apply for free childcare. While these may sound like sensible reforms in the modern age, my concern is that people may not be able to opt out of such a system. While it’s true that much of our world has been digitised, it’s not mandatory for people to share their data online. Yet if digital IDs become a requirement to work – the first stage under the current proposals – they will effectively become mandatory for everyone of working age.

Another worry is the likely negative impact this policy would have on digitally excluded groups, such as those on low-income and the elderly, when accessing services or looking for employment. Almost 4.5 million adults in the UK do not own a smartphone and 11 million adults lack the essential digital skills needed to complete basic tasks such as setting up an email account.

Once a system like this exists, it would be very easy to expand. We could find ourselves moving towards a society where individuals must ‘show their papers’ for everything. That is not what the current proposals entail, but once the scheme exists, this government, or any future government, could further expand it. There would be a fundamental shift in the relationship between individuals and the state, which risks undermining the fundamental right to privacy.

People are also right to be concerned about both the security and the privacy risks that digital ID policy could create. Any large-scale identity system is vulnerable to hackers or cyberattacks. The government says it has ruled out storing digital ID data in a single, centralised database – an approach that campaign groups like Big Brother Watch have warned would be a “honeypot for hackers" – but even the federated system being proposed wouldn’t be immune to breaches. 

Then there’s the issue of privacy, which is all about how that data could be used or shared. There would be nothing to stop future governments from centralising the system later, linking it with other databases or expanding the digital ID system in a way which shuts people out of services and increases discrimination. Frankly, I worry what would happen to such a system under a possible future Reform-led government. Can you imagine giving that sort of power to politicians who openly voice their disdain for minority groups or their political opponents?

I believe that introducing mandatory digital ID cards is a serious political miscalculation by the government. With only 31% of the public supporting it, the policy risks alienating voters and handing figures like Nigel Farage an easy opportunity to posture as defenders of civil liberties (which clearly, they’re not). By pushing ahead, despite clear public opposition, the government will once again erode trust with voters, as it did with cuts to the winter fuel allowance and disability benefits. We can’t risk wasting precious political capital or public money, which could instead be used to tackle record levels of inequality, collapsing public services, and runaway climate breakdown.

When the last Labour government attempted this policy under Tony Blair, it collapsed due to widespread backlash over costs and concerns about civil liberties. Nearly two decades later, digital ID cards remain just as unpopular. The government must read the room or it will commit yet another act of political self-sabotage.

nadiawhittome.org