Keir Starmer is expected to announce a compulsory digital ID card for British citizens tomorrow. Thankfully, our Science and Technology spokesperson Victoria Collins has committed the party to opposing it. In a statement she said:
Liberal Democrats cannot support a mandatory digital ID where people are forced to turn over their private data just to go about their daily lives.
People shouldn’t be turned into criminals just because they can’t have a digital ID, or choose not to.
This will be especially worrying to millions of older people, people living in poverty and disabled people – who are more likely to be digitally excluded.
This is something of a relief to me given Lisa Smart’s recent article on this site.
I don’t think that we should change our minds on this. I wrote on Sunday about the packed consultation Lisa and Victoria held at 8 am on Sunday in Bournemouth. While some people happily brandished their Estonian or Belgian ID cards, others highlighted the dangers, ranging from the massive cost (estimated somewhere between £10-19 billion which we don’t have), the problems with government tech systems, the impact on people who are not white being disproportionately asked to produce their ID and the impact on trans people.
For me, the relationship between the citizen and the state is very much that the latter is the servant of the former, not the other way around and the idea of compulsory ID turns that on its head.
I am so profligate with my data, probably irresponsibly so – one look at my social media apps and Apple wallet tells you that. I have so many digital cards from supermarkets but digital id from the state is not the same thing. I can terminate my relationship with Sainsbos or Morrisons whenever I want and pay £1.35 more for my butter if I choose.
I am not up for a huge state database that can identify all the groups at risk of persecution should the bad people get into power. And while we are on the subject of bad people, let’s see if Nigel Farage would actually dismantle a big ID database if it existed if he became PM. I would not hold my breath on that one.
If Putin were to invade Estonia, citizens would soon find out that their much vaunted protections didn’t amount to much and he’d get access to all their personal info. What a useful tool for the despot that could be.
I think we need to look at this from the perspective of the non white person or the trans person to understand the harm it could do. And imagine it in the hands of the worst people.
I am relieved by the party’s opposition to Starmer’s proposal, but I was not reassured by Ed’s answer to my question in the q and a at Conference at all. He seems to think that we could set something up that would empower the citizen. I strongly disagree.
If there was an attempt to change our policy to be happy with a voluntary system of digital ID, I think it would spark a huge debate. It would probably be good for us, because it’s ages since we had a proper big healthy debate about something. But it’s not one I think the proposers of accepting such a system would win. The leadership should remember the rammy over secret courts in the 2010s which united the various factions on economic policy against Nick Clegg’s agreement to the Conservative proposal.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings. You can find her on Bluesky at caronmlindsay.bsky.social
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Sparrows Can't Sing Q&A with Barbara Windsor and Murray Melvin
A bargain at 23 guineas?
20C night
Lessons from 1936 and 2026 for the Liberal Democrats (LDN#211)
Rif Winfield
expats
Peter Martin
Richard Flowers
George Thomas
53 Comments
Ironic that SirEd tells everyone how different we are from Farage and co,then Farage says he also opposed ID cards. Strange times we live in!
Does opposing this makes sense without opposing a range of other regulations that require one to confirm their identity? I understand a lot of this flows from ‘hostile environment’ regulations introduced when May was Home Secretary, but the amount of documents and personal information one has to assemble and hand over when applying for a rental, taking a new job or opening a bank account is off the charts. It’s not just the burden of that which is an issue, but many of these entities (less so the banks) do not have a professional data security set-up that enables them to do this well. I’d much prefer being able to ‘evidence’ who I am in a system like what Lisa Smart was floating in her article, and then drawing on that ‘already evidenced’ ID in these other interactions.
Mandatory digital id? Yep. 10 years ago I’d have said no but the world has changed. It might be against liberal instincts but sadly it’s necessarily. Voluntary digital id would be pointless.
I heartily endorse this nope.
If Farage has opposed it, that’s not a surprise. He claims to be a right-libertarian. He’s not, but he pretends to be.
Serious point though – prepare for Starmer and Mahmood to try to lump us in together and to respond robustly.
I agree, with this nope.
It is the biggest raid on civil liberties, a snooper’s charter, and incredibly invasive.
This will be costly, wont deter people from fleeing from desperate situations, will place everyone as criminals who are just merely to live their lives, and is based on assumptions that the Government of the day will not abuse it or use it for surveillance or political advantages. All Governments can change.
And plus, some people are already frustrated how centrist and fluffy we are on some issues. I think we need to keep the heart and soul of liberalism alive or else whats the point of being the “Liberal” Democrats. We need to keep something that is philosophical depthful.
@Russell – why is it necessary? Even if you ignore the civil liberties concerns, what will it allow you to do that you can’t do already that makes it worth spending billions on?
Also a big No.
I expect that The Greens, The SNP, Plaid & The New Left Party will also oppose this. The Tories might jump either way.
Good job we are clear on this. I was getting ready to resign if Ed Davey’s comments on changing our position were acted upon seriously. No ID card of any sort, ever, if we are a liberal party. (And my first comment, I feel that strongly).
Labour proves it is undemocratic, not progressive in any way.
I have blogged on this subject here: https://peterblack.blogspot.com/2025/09/why-liberal-democrats-must-oppose-id.html. The 24 questions at the end from 2004 are still relevant to this subject.
I disagree with Caron Lindsay and with our Science and Technology spokesperson Victoria Collins. I think our party is stuck in the wrong position on this issue.
As India has show, secure digital ID makes many services more efficient. I think it will also be helpful in making it harder for those who have no right to be in Britain to work, lease property, etc.
@Mohammed Amin
All workplaces have to by law carry out right to work checks. This is just a massive white elephant dressed up in borrowed robes of security, trampling over liberty while pretending to guard it. This is going to be so costly and for little reward. If bad workplaces are not going to carry out checks now which they are legally meant to do then they are certainly not going to bother do it for this.
And I dont think those fleeing on boats first thing that comes to their mind is “oh do they have ID cards”. Id rather the money be spent on dealing with the backlog and sorting out with maned staff.
And Governments can change and without commenting some countries I know some countries its been fine but some countries have used this to persecute minorities, voter suppression. Look at America and their ID card laws. We cant pretend we have this “British excemptionalism” anymore. We live in different climates. Governments can come and go and some Governments have bad intentions.
Mohammed you make your point with your usual clarity and politeness. My question is this – statutory and mandatory digital ID in the hands of a Labour government, however authoritarian. How would such a thing be in the hands of a Reform government? I don’t trust those cruel xenophobes with my digital liberty or yours, and never, ever will.
Whatever the merits and demerits of digital ID, it’s not a rational argument to refuse do do something because a future (Reform/authoritarian) Government might misuse it.
I mean, for goodness sake, we already have a police force and an army. Imagine what a future authoritarian Government might decide to use the army for if it was so inclined! You could do a lot worse with an army than you could with digital ID! But I bet no-one is going to argue for disbanding the army just to avoid the risk of a future Reform Government using the army to persecute people- because if something is useful, then we use it. We don’t generally refuse to have useful things because of hypothetical future risks. Rather, we look to put in legal safeguards to prevent abuses of power.
Besides, refusing to introduce digital ID now actually gives very little protection against a future authoritarian Government – because such a Government is likely to be perfectly capable of introducing digital ID itself if it wants to.
Let’s argue the case for/against digital ID on the merits/demerits of having digital ID, not on hypothetical scaremongering about future Governments.
I understand that objection to the introduction of compulsory ID cards has previously come from within the Home Office. The fear has been that this measure would expose the number of people working illegally which could be politically embarrassing for the Government.
Fair point in broad terms Simon, and its not my default argument style, but i think it has merit in this case. I genuinely think Nigel Farage would sleep soundly after completely gutting our protective institutions in ways that the worst Labour or Tory government would not, even though he is oppoding them now. He is motivated by one thing only – what makes him popular. A Reform government is a real prospect – I’m not scaremongering, I’m scared.
“This is going to be so costly and for little reward. If bad workplaces are not going to carry out checks now which they are legally meant to do then they are certainly not going to bother do it for this.”
Indeed – and Starmer is talking about digital ID for over 30 million people.
@Daniel Carr
“Does opposing this makes sense without opposing a range of other regulations that require one to confirm their identity?”
However these ‘other regulations’ pertain to different organisations.
There is a risk that forcing people to use the same identity via a digital Id card for all these organisations would make it easier for cyber criminals and others with ill intent to gather more data about any one person.
Especially when the person may be communicating with all these organisations using a mobile phone – a device easily lost or stolen, probably not password-protected (with a decent quality password)
I am old and long retired. My medical records which are the business of the NHS are not the business of the DWP which is responsible for my state pension. I still drive. My driving licence is the business of DVLA, not the NHS (unless there is an issue over my fitness to drive) or DWP. If I need some identification I do use my driving licence which has my name, address and photo on it and has been routinely accepted as suitable id.
“This is going to be so costly and for little reward. If bad workplaces are not going to carry out checks now which they are legally meant to do then they are certainly not going to bother do it for this.”
Indeed – but only if we choose not to enforce the law with the utmost vigour.
Having carried ID for 60 years I have no problem with this.
I hope that most of us will be signing & promoting the Official Petition against ID cards, its up to 801,000 now.
I have not commented here before but I wanted to congratulate how civil people are in their discussions here.
I wanted to say that I personally find the system worrying in the sense that I suspect Labour would not make such a system in-house, and I am particularly sceptical of such a database being run by a private company. This is not because I am opposed to private companies handling such data normally, but in this case it would be mandatory and I am all too aware of how much government regulators have struggled to hold other such private companies to account.
If we have not been able to regulate water companies to a decent standard and I do not expect to have any more success in the digital space.
Thank you for reading have a nice day.
The petition against just passed a Million signatures, with very little publicity that I can see.
Occasionally, the LDs say they are pro-EU. Yet there seems to be scant awareness of the actual politics and societies of European countries.
More than half the countries in the EU plus EEA have compulsory ID. Many are now digitalising.
I’ve carried ID for the last twenty years. And now have digital ID on top of that. Extremely useful and facilitates interaction with the state.
If an authoritarian regime comes to power, there are always ways and means of repression. The only way to avoid that is to dismantle the state bureacracy entirely. Anarchy does have some drawbacks though.
I am very relieved by the party’s stance on this.
It is one of our touchstone issues.
Is anyone in this country claiming that the bigger the databank the better the life of the millions on it? NHS England, which mercifully is about to depart this world, is fraught with duplications and potential errors. As ever, to find the reasons for the creation of monster databases the best advice is follow the money i.e. ask who is making a profit out of it.
I mentioned in my post above the ease with which a mobile phone could be lost or stolen.
From https://inews.co.uk/news/three-problems-starmers-new-digital-id-create-3939887
‘Jen Ellis, a cyber security expert who sits on the Cabinet Office’s Government Cyber Advisory Board, told The i Paper: “I think it is potentially the case digital wallets made phone theft even more attractive than it had been previously.
Can I ask why one of our MPs has started a petition against the proposals, this is idiotic. There is already a Petition which should reach 1.5 Million signature at about 11pm. Creating another , tiny petition will just confuse things & make Our Party look opportunist or daft.
@Paul Barker
To collect data?
Will the gender marker on one of these things be “biological sex” or the gender on one’s birth certificate or GRC? It was (pre the transphobic supreme court judgement) possible to change gender markers on passport and driving licence with a supporting doctor’s letter.
Asking for a friend.
I agree with Paul Barker. Sign the parliamentary petition which has now already reached over 1.6million!
Paul W says, “It is one of our touchstone issues.”
And yet key European allies have compulsory ID and are digitalising and they are arguably freer societies than ours.
You are allowed to look beyond the confines of the
village. And realise that all the fears are unrealistic.
I support an introduction of ID cards if it is like the systems they have in other European countries. One of the reasons for having internal controls is for when external border controls are difficult. Which is true on the continent, and is now true in the UK too. Times change. I disagree with party policy.
The problem will be the implication of the policy: creating the technical infrastructure and registering all the people. I expect them to screw it up.
So now we have an Official Libdem petition against ID cards. Why ? there is already a huge national Petition now heading for 1.8 Million signatures, why detract from that with our piddling little imitation ? Lets drop this & get behind the Big one.
SimonR talks about the hypothetical risk of a Reform government. Farage has boasted that he would deport 600,000 people during the course of such a government. Would having ID cards make it easier to do that? Hmm…
Will those who support ID cards please tell me what penalties they would support for those people who refuse on principle to have one. Will they be dragged down to the police station to be photographed and recorded against their will? Will they be denied the right to vote? Access to health care? Imprisonment? Let’s be clear there will be people in Britain who will never accept ID cards. Why are you proposing to criminalise otherwise law abiding citizens?
The official petition now has getting on towards 2.3 million signatures.
The penalty for anyone who refuses to have an ID card would be that they deprive themselves of any public services covered by the card.
@ Nom de Plume
So, no vote, no health care, no phone access, no bus pass, no job, no pension etc. And you would be happy with this? With the number of signatures on the petition at around 2.3 million what percentage of those signatures who refuse to partake would it take to make the scheme unworkable? This might become one of the biggest acts of civil disobedience in British history. I think those who support this scheme may have seriously underestimated the degree of anger many of us feel over this proposal.
It is how it works in the EU. Britain now needs it too. It is not the apocalypse.
@Nom de Plume @Kevin Hawkins – start by looking at what Labour are actually saying about Digital ID. Firstly, it’s only mandatory for ‘right to work’ checks and optional for anyone else. Secondly, you don’t need to carry it with you or even keep the app installed at any time.
So unless the Government introduces fines, the ‘penalty’ will be the inability to get a job, but you will still be able to access other services. It can’t be used for ‘papers please’ spot checks.
It’s stated primary purpose is to crack down on people working illegally, but we already have a ‘right to work’ check system, and we have spent money introducing eVisas which do the same thing for migrants. The Government says “This will stop those with no right to be here from being able to find work”, and by that measure it *will* fail because those working illegally aren’t submitting to checks – the problem is lack of a enforcement.
So we will have to get the details and photos (verified?) of a minimum of a workforce of 34 million people into a brand new system in short order at a cost the Government hasn’t disclosed, for a stated purpose they will fail at.
Of course there is the risk of ‘mission creep’ and the temptation for future Governments to extend it until it becomes mandatory for everyone will be high, but we can reject Labour’s plans as presented on a simple value for money basis.
@ Nick The ‘papers please’ argument is a red hearing. The only time I have been asked for my ‘papers’ in the EU was when crossing the border into Germany. In the case where there is illegal immigration and work what is needed is photo identification of who is allowed to be here. Notably for enforcement, regardless of whether someone is carrying a card or not. Anyone who has a passport already has an ID card. It may be that the Government plans to expand this database to a greater number of people, perhaps to the entire population. An electronic ID has other uses, as seen in the EU, and the system might be expanded at some time. I have no objections. At some point you need to get serious about illegal immigration. If you don’t you end up with the chaotic and ridiculous situation like you have in the US where you have the police rounding up random groups of people on the suspicion of being illegal immigrants.
red herring
“It is how it works in the EU. Britain now needs it too. It is not the apocalypse.”
Not the whole of the EU. Ireland doesn’t have ID cards. Digital or otherwise.
It is curious, though, that most Lib Dems are so pro the EU but so anti ID cards.
Ireland is an island. I can not think of any other exceptions.
@ Nick The ‘papers please’ argument is a red hearing. (sic)
The “papers please” argument is absolutely NOT a read herring with the likes of Trump and Farage waiting to use these totalitarian powers.
And if you trust Farage not to abuse ID cards if we are unfortunate enough to allow him to get into power I have several bridges to sell you.
Last time I looked Britain was an island too.
@ Tony. Britain is only just an island. It can be easily reached by small boat from France. I don’t know if illegal immigrants have tried to cross the Irish Sea in a small boat.
@Tristan. I am not sure in which way you imagine ID cards will be abused by Farage. They are a confirmation of what rights you have. Not a limitation on your freedom.
@Nom de Plume – ID Cards are a tool, to be used however any majority Government of the day decides to use them.
Regarding getting serious about illegal immigration, how does Digital ID stop illegal immigration and working when eVisas haven’t?
@Nick. You have not yet said exactly what you fear from ID cards. They are like passports except for domestic use. The government already has a lot of information about you.
eVisas are for those who are here legally, as you yourself state. Compulsory ID cards help government agencies identify who have a right to be here or work here. It helps in finding and controlling illegal activity because there is a visual record of who is a citizen. In the UK if you do not have a driving license or passport it is possible to be anonymous. Illegal immigrants try to do this as well. ID cards address this issue.
The argument against digital ID cards seems to centre on the possibility of data breaches affecting our privacy and the possibility of our everyday freedoms: employment, housing, even healthcare being curtailed by diktat of government.
However, Govt can do all that now if it wants to. We have numbers on our driving licences, NHS numbers, NI numbers, various taxation numbers, and passport numbers. Possibly there are more which I don’t know about. Education, criminal records perhaps?
There’s more danger from data breaches in all these separate systems which have arisen in various ad-hoc ways, than there is in having one up-to date digital ID.
So I see it as more of a ‘tidying up’ scheme than the introduction of anything new or radical. The danger is that there won’t be any tidying up, and the ID number will be yet another number to add to the list.
It could work fine if done properly though, but, even so, it won’t work in the way that Starmer is claiming on illegal employment. Employers already know that they aren’t supposed to employ workers with no questions asked and by paying cash-in-hand. The introduction of ID cards won’t stop that.
My worry about Id cards – is the potential for central government to gather together all the data different government departments hold about me.
e.g. my medical records are not the business of any government department except the NHS and possibly DVLA if there was a medical issue over my driving.
But also the use of one id reference for all the data the government holds makes it less work for the bad guys to get it all.
@Peter Martin ”data breeches”
The issue to me is that these and misuse of access are going happen, the question is how to minimise and mitigate matters. Having multiple separate systems, limits the damage that can done. The problem with digital ID aka national identity card, is it will be tempting to make it a master from which all other systems take data. Making it both a more attractive target but also easier to falsify (Exhibit A: Post Office Horizon Ssystem).
We should also be concerned about legitimate access, particularly as it will almost certainly be hosted by a US corporation, who is subject to the Cloud Act, the Whitehouse and US business considerations as to who’s data that actually is, hence expect it to be released to “selected third-parties”.