From Blair to Starmer: The return of the Digital ID nobody asked for

As many will be aware by now, on 26 September, the government announced plans to introduce a Digital ID. This has been proposed before, originally formulated by the Blair government back in 2006, though it saw little success. Recently, however, the former PM has taken to heavy lobbying for another attempt, proposing Digital ID to the last Conservative government under Rishi Sunak, who rejected it outright.

Despite criticism across the board, including from Starmer’s Labour Party, it seems that Blair’s push has finally succeeded. Following Digital ID’s summer rebrand – implemented by the think tank Labour Together – it is now being sold as the answer to illegal immigration and clunky bureaucracy, with the notable change of making it a requirement to hold a job.

Labour argue they would profit from the scheme through taxation, helping recoup an estimated £1 billion upfront and £100 million in annual running costs

Labour says this program will crack down on the unregulated ‘shadow economy’, an area of the job market comprised of illegal workers, marked by unstable employment, a lack of workers’ rights, and a loss of taxable income. It is unclear what will happen to these workers if Labour’s plan succeeds – maybe they would be deported under the 1 in 1 out program, or placed in migrant hotels. This would reinforce controversial schemes that go to great expense in ostracising people through unnecessary bureaucracy – many who wish, and are eligible to, legitimately work and participate in the country.

Regardless of its effect, it is clear that the Labour government is proposing this as a knee-jerk reaction to Reform’s increase in popularity. Labour argue they would profit from the scheme through taxation, helping recoup an estimated £1 billion upfront and £100 million in annual running costs, according to the TBI thinktank. However, the current Digital ID proposal would utilise the same information currently valid for job applications. This makes it unclear how it would stop employers from taking part in the shadow economy, rendering any hopes for a net financial gain a ludicrous proposition.

This comes at a time of budget cuts, under a government with a record-high debt of £2.9 trillion that borrowed £146.3 billion in the last full financial year – a figure only beaten during Covid and the 2008 financial crash. It is very hard to justify such an expensive proposal.

It is clear that, once implemented, MPs would find no end of applications. While it is impossible to know whether this will be a benefit in the long term, concerns expressed by the public, as well as human rights groups such as Amnesty International have been consistently ignored

The financial picture only gets worse when one considers whether these estimates are accurate – a known government issue in the age of HS2 chaos. When a National ID scheme was last introduced by Tony Blair in 2006, it used physical IDs and did not require the same digital infrastructure necessary today. By the time his scheme was scrapped by the coalition government in 2010, it had cost the government £4.6 billion (£7.2 adjusted for inflation) to produce only 15,000 voluntary physical IDs. Given this context, it is fair to expect that the current estimates may eventually be seen as wildly inaccurate.

Moreover, both the original use cases and the current plans outlined by Starmer’s government are much greater than what is solely referenced in speeches. It is clear that, once implemented, MPs would find no end of applications. While it is impossible to know whether this will be a benefit in the long term, concerns expressed by the public, as well as human rights groups such as Amnesty International, have been consistently ignored.

Regardless of intention, it is clear that the potential for ‘function creep’ should be considered – especially in the modern age. Distrust of the government is only on the rise, especially with Starmer’s approach to the right to protest. Another 66 people were arrested over peaceful protests for Palestine Action just 2 days after the scheme was announced, followed by another 500 at the start of October over a demonstration in Trafalgar Square. This is leading some to worry that Digital IDs could be used as a backdoor for further steps towards a “papers, please” surveillance state.

The ID scheme has already raised concerns about the population’s digital divide, as 26% struggle to afford communications services, and around 8.5 million adults continue to lack digital skills essential for the modern world

The government’s security proposals do seem thought out, at least, as they intend for all data to be encrypted and stored on devices rather than on centralised servers. Assuming proper implementation, this should reduce the damage of a potential hack by interfering, malicious actors.

Unfortunately, however, their track record for digital infrastructure makes this a big assumption. A Cabinet Office review shows there have been eight major government hacks in recent years, many of which leaked sensitive information. Notably, in 2023, tens of thousands of digital records for the Metropolitan and Greater Manchester police forces were leaked due to ransomware attacks. Recurring events like these mean that the government has a long way to go in persuading the public to trust them with their data.

The ID scheme has already raised concerns over the population’s digital divide, as 26% struggle to afford communications services, and around 8.5 million adults continue to lack digital skills essential for the modern world. This leaves marginalised groups at risk of being functionally ‘locked out’ of important parts of society. This has been discussed among government officials and is clear in reports, but no official statement has been made.

All in all, it seems that Starmer’s government is intent on spending an exorbitant amount of money on failing to solve what, for them, amounts to a tax issue, with the sole result of alienating voters who are unable to or justifiably don’t want to keep up with this drastic change.