Labour MPs Warn Digital ID Scheme Risks Cost and Support

Published: 14 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

The Government risks losing public support over its proposals for digital IDs, Labour MPs have warned, raising concerns over both civil liberties and the potential cost of implementing such a system.

Nadia Whittome, Richard Burgon, Charlotte Nichols, and Stella Creasy questioned the necessity of digital IDs, asking whether public funds could be better spent on more pressing issues.

Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the IDs would only be mandatory for employers conducting right-to-work checks, as part of the Government’s plan to clamp down on illegal employment. For the wider public, participation would remain voluntary, potentially offering smoother access to certain public services.

“The police will never demand to see these IDs,” Ms Kendall emphasised, adding that the system had been informed by experiences in countries like Estonia and Denmark, which allow citizens to “tell their story once” when interacting with government services.

A consultation is set to begin before the end of the year, and any system developed will be built “in-house,” Ms Kendall confirmed. She highlighted the potential benefits, suggesting that digital IDs could make government services more responsive to citizens’ needs rather than forcing people to adapt to fragmented bureaucracies.

Despite these assurances, Labour MPs expressed deep scepticism. Ms Whittome (Nottingham East) warned that the scheme risked “burning through political capital,” pointing out that none of her constituents had ever cited mandatory digital ID as a priority. “It won’t tackle irregular working, it undermines civil liberties, it’s divisive among the public, and it won’t make a difference to people’s lives,” she said.

Mr Burgon (Leeds East) raised concerns over data security and potential involvement of foreign tech companies, describing the scheme as both a threat to civil liberties and a likely waste of public money. He suggested that funds would be better allocated to tackling the cost-of-living crisis.

Ms Nichols (Warrington North) reported receiving numerous constituent inquiries expressing scepticism that digital IDs would significantly address illegal immigration. She urged Ms Kendall to provide concrete examples of public utility.

In response, Ms Kendall said that while participation would be voluntary, the IDs could offer important future benefits in accessing services, and a full consultation on detailed proposals would follow.

Questions about the scheme’s cost were met with limited clarity. Ms Creasy (Walthamstow) cited estimates ranging from £1 billion to £2 billion to establish the system, with annual running costs around £100 million. She warned that potential data breaches could have severe economic consequences, equating to 1.1% of GDP. Ms Kendall stressed that eventual costs would depend on the system’s design and potential savings from reduced fraud and improved service efficiency.

Conservative voices criticised the plan for potentially shifting the balance of power between the citizen and the state. Shadow science, innovation, and technology secretary Julia Lopez claimed that Labour’s proposals risked creating “a honeypot for hackers” while fuelling fears of a two-tier society.

Ms Kendall responded lightly to the criticism, noting with humour: “Well, that is definitely the first time I’ve been called a ‘big fat socialist’.”

The debate highlights the growing tensions in Parliament over digital ID policy, weighing civil liberty concerns against the Government’s ambitions to modernise public service delivery. With a consultation imminent, the coming months will be crucial in determining whether digital IDs become a cornerstone of Britain’s public administration or a political liability.