Mandatory Digital ID: Balancing Control, Security, and Freedom in the UK

The UK Government has a plan to introduce a new, free digital ID for citizens and legal residents over 16. Proponents argue the system will give people greater control over their lives and data, modernising public services to be more effective and joined-up, while increasing security and tackling fraud. A key focus is making the ID mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of the Parliament. Opposition raises serious concerns about erosion of civil liberties, risks of exclusion for the digitally vulnerable, potential data breaches, and the estimated high cost of up to £2 billion.

Key Takeaways

• The Digital ID is proposed to simplify interactions with public services, allowing people to prove who they are without constant form-filling or rummaging for old documents.
• The system is designed to be a federated data system, meaning private information will not be pooled into a single, central dataset, with user control at the heart of the plan. People will be able to see who accesses their data.
• While using the digital ID for accessing most services will be voluntary, it is planned to be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament.
• The government is committed to digital inclusion, noting that currently about one in 10 UK adults lack a passport or driving licence, and about 1.5 million people lack a smartphone or are digitally excluded. They are considering physical alternatives and face-to-face support.
• Opponents describe the mandatory requirement for work as "mandatory ID in all but name" and express concern that centralising data concentrates risk, making it a "honeypot for hackers".

Discussion: To what extent can a system remain genuinely voluntary and empowering if participation is required for fundamental economic activities like working?

Source: Digital ID
Volume 773: debated on Monday 13 October 2025

Transcript

Amy: 0:03

Hello and welcome again to the Bench Report, where we discuss recent debates and briefings from the benches of the UK Parliament. A new topic every episode. You're listening to Amy and Ivan. Today we're looking into that really intense parliamentary session on the government's proposed new UK digital ID system. It's being pitched as a modern necessity, but honestly, it stirred up a massive debate about state power, security, and whether it's truly voluntary.

Ivan: 0:30

That's right. The Secretary of State, Liz Kendall, really championed it. Her argument was that this puts control back in citizens' hands. Getting rid of all that paperwork hassle, you know.

Amy: 0:40

Like rummaging for old utility bills just to prove you live somewhere.

Ivan: 0:43

Exactly. She called it a digital key. The idea is it unlocks smoother, more connected public services.

Amy: 0:49

And she pointed to other countries, didn't she? Denmark, Finland.

Ivan: 0:52

Yes. Denmark for job applications linking automatically to school records. Finland, where they can calculate daycare fees without you needing to submit pay slips.

Amy: 1:00

And Estonia, too, I think. With automatic baby registration and benefits, it sounds incredibly efficient on paper.

Ivan: 1:07

It does. But that kind of efficiency relies heavily on security and trust. That was her second main point. Security and privacy. The claim is that digitally checked credentials are much harder to fake than physical documents.

Amy: 1:21

Okay, and how are they planning to secure it? Because that's a huge concern.

Ivan: 1:25

Well, she emphasized security being hardwired in. And importantly, she mentioned it uses a federated data system, so no single giant central database holding everything. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Amy: 1:36

Right. Federated data. The idea is information is spread out, supposedly making it safer if one part is breached. But hang on. Isn't this built on the existing one login system, the government's main sign-in system?

Ivan: 1:50

Yes, that's the plan, building on one login.

Amy: 1:52

But didn't that system itself suffer a breach back in March? That doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it, if the foundation is shaky?

Ivan: 1:58

That's a point the opposition hammered home. It definitely raises questions about vulnerability, even with a federated approach.

Amy: 2:05

And this leads us to the third pillar, the one causing the most friction. Fairness and tackling illegal working.

Ivan: 2:12

Yes. And this is the crux of it. The plan is to make this digital ID mandatory for all employers when they perform right-to-work checks.

Amy: 2:21

Mandatory for employers.

Ivan: 2:22

By the end of this Parliament, that's the goal.

Amy: 2:24

So let's be clear. The government says getting the ID is optional for an individual.

Ivan: 2:29

Correct. Optional to obtain.

Amy: 2:31

But if every employer must use it to check your right to work, then if you want a job, you effectively have to get one. It feels well mandatory in practice, doesn't it?

Ivan: 2:41

Trevor Burrus That's exactly the argument from the opposition benches. Conservatives, Lib Dems, others. They label the whole thing a cynical mess. Strong words. They argue it fundamentally shifts the power balance between the citizen and the state. And their biggest fear seems to be mission creep. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

Amy: 2:57

Meaning it starts with work checks, but where does it end?

Ivan: 3:00

Trevor Burrus, Jr. Precisely. Could it extend to banking, travel? There was even a suggestion mentioned in the debate about potentially extending it down to 13-year-olds eventually.

Amy: 3:09

Wow. Okay, and what about the security risk beyond the one login issue?

Ivan: 3:13

Opponents worry that even a federated system becomes a huge, uh tempting target for hackers if it holds identity data for millions, a sort of honeypot.

Amy: 3:24

A prime target. And the cost. This wasn't in the governing party's manifesto, was it?

Ivan: 3:28

No, it wasn't. And the projected costs are staggering. Estimates are between one and two billion pounds just to build it.

Amy: 3:35

Billion with a B.

Ivan: 3:37

Yes. Plus potentially a hundred million dollars a year to run. Yet when asked directly in Parliament for a cost estimate.

Amy: 3:43

Let me guess, no figure was given.

Ivan: 3:45

The Secretary of State declined, saying the final cost depends on the design and build after the consultation. That lack of transparency on such a huge project is understandably a major point of contention.

Amy: 3:57

So were there any reassurances given on the civil liberties front?

Ivan: 4:01

There were. Explicit confirmation was given that the system will not be used to track your location, your spending habits, or what you do on social media.

Amy: 4:08

That's significant. And what about penalties for individuals?

Ivan: 4:11

Crucially, the Secretary of State confirmed there will be no sanction or penalty for an individual citizen who refuses to get the digital ID. The penalties are only for employers who failed to conduct the required checks.

Amy: 4:24

Okay. And who's actually building this thing? Is it being outsourced?

Ivan: 4:28

No, another clarification was that it will be designed and built in-house by the government, building on that one login system. Right. So ruling out big tech firms, which was another worry raised.

Amy: 4:39

Right. So bringing it all together for you listening, the fundamental question seems to be this Is this digital ID system a necessary step into the modern age? Something that will genuinely make interacting with the state easier and reduce fraud, like we see elsewhere.

Ivan: 4:54

Or does making it essential for employment fundamentally alter the relationship between you and the state here in the UK, creating a de facto national ID card, regardless of the safeguards promised?

Amy: 5:05

That's the tension at the heart of it. Definitely something to consider. As always, find us on social media at BenchReport UK. Get in touch with any topic important to you. Remember, politics is everyone's business. Take care.