There is no constitutional or legal barrier preventing the creation of an identity card in the United Kingdom, whether digital or otherwise.
If such a system were to be introduced, it would logically fall under the UK Data Act 2025, adopted on 19 June 2025, which establishes the legal framework for digital identity services in the country. This Act, known as the DUAA, is overseen by a newly formed body called the Information Commission — a name confusingly similar to the existing Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The new Commission has regulatory powers comparable to those of Ofcom or the Competition and Markets Authority.
Oversight of the Commission lies with the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT), currently Liz Kendall MP, who holds significant authority to guide and direct its work. Should a UK digital ID be created, it would therefore fall to her department to design and implement it — a formidable challenge, technically intricate, politically sensitive, and costly. Her record in delivering complex public projects is mixed, though not without successes during her time as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Estimates for such a project range from £400 million to £1 billion, depending on whose figures one believes.
The Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology (CFIT), a government-backed organisation that includes major players in the legal and banking sectors, argues that a digital ID could help reduce the UK’s £6.8 billion annual cost of fraud and cut compliance costs by £1.7 billion. These savings would clearly benefit the financial and legal industries, as well as companies already developing digital ID services. But what tangible benefits would such a system bring to the British people, who are, in theory, its primary beneficiaries?
The motivation behind this project is clear: immigration. It is a pressing issue across Europe, and the UK is no exception. The Prime Minister himself acknowledged during his recent trip to India that the driving motive behind a digital ID is to regulate and control immigration, the right of residence, and the authorisation to work in the UK.
In this framework, the advantages a digital ID might offer to citizens come second. The project risks being launched for the wrong reasons—immigration control first, public benefit second — when the order should surely be reversed. Some will argue that curbing immigration is itself a benefit to the British people, a view certainly shared by Mr Farage. Yet Labour may not realise that it is laying the groundwork for Reform UK to later use these same tools to pursue far harsher immigration policies.
A national digital ID therefore carries serious political risks, in addition to the technical and financial ones. Other dangers — identity theft, privacy breaches, and misuse of personal data — are already well documented. Even India’s impressive Aadhaar system has suffered major data leaks.
One question must remain foremost in the minds of peers and parliamentarians: to whom does this project truly bring benefit? Adding another layer of bureaucracy for citizens, at a time of heavy public borrowing — £81.1 billion in the year to August and £145 billion projected for the current fiscal year — may not be the wisest use of taxpayers’ money.
That said, digital identity systems can work well when designed with clarity and restraint. The Philippines, with its 115.8 million citizens, developed its PHILSYS blockchain-based service, including a digital ID, for about USD 22.4 million. Estonia, a pioneer in e-governance, uses blockchain to secure citizens’ records, with its digital ID forming the backbone of efficient access to government services.
No doubt Ms Kendall and her team will study such precedents before attempting to reinvent the wheel. Perhaps it would be simpler — and cheaper — to expand GOV.UK One Login, tedious enough to set up as it already is, to include a secure digital identity. Personally, I struggle to see why the existing passport, already digital with its biometric chip, cannot be extended to fulfil that role. Perhaps someone would care to explain it to me.
* Christian de Vartavan is an eminent scholar and now CEO of a London blockchain consulting company and Associate, APPG AI, House of Lords.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Michael Meadowcroft: A Liberal of Intellectual Rigour and Uncommon Integrity
Debt-ridden graduates claim they are seen as cash cows
Why non-fiction books need their indexes
Changes in status: Local Elections wrap up
Hywel
paul barker
Peter Chambers
Mark Valladares
Mark Smulian
12 Comments
To clear up an apparent misunderstanding. The Information Commission is the Information Commissioners Office renamed, see Schedule 14 0f DUAA. The first Chair of the Information Commission will be the existing Information Commissioner.
The Information Commission is indeed a successor body to the Information Commissioner’s Office, but it is not simply a renaming — it is a new statutory entity created by the DUAA.
The exact legislative language confirming this appears in the Act itself:Section 117 —“A body corporate called the Information Commission is established.”
Section 118(1) —“The office of Information Commissioner is abolished.”
However, the current Information Commissioner becomes the first Chair of the new Commission by operation of the transitional provision
Further to avoid wheel reinvention, it is worth looking at the experience in Denmark with the evolution through NemID (EasyID) to current MitID (MyID) that was a joint venture between Government and major financial institutions. From initially fraud and impersonation avoidance, it now provides a well appreciated citizen gateway, although still with occasional issues!
“The Centre for Finance, Innovation and Technology (CFIT), a government-backed organisation that includes major players in the legal and banking sectors, argues that a digital ID could help reduce the UK’s £6.8 billion annual cost of fraud and cut compliance costs by £1.7 billion.”
A digital ID which can be used to access any/all bank(s) where I have assets? Thanks but no thanks – bad idea.
@Noncomformistradical
The government is trying to skip a step by introducing digital IDs before introducing digital ID cards. I can understand that some would have concerns about a digital ID on a smartphone as opposed to a stand-alone card with a chip. It also assumes everyone has access to a phone with an internet connection. If the digital ID system was to be used more widely it would be better to start with the ID cards and leave the purely digital ID as optional. As happens with debit cards.
If the digital ID is to be used for its propper purpose (fast and secure access to government digital services) then having it only available on digital devices makes perfect sense. If it were really about clamping down on illegal migrants as the goverment pretends, or increasing ‘Papers Please’ stops as some here fear, a card would be an obvious requirement.
@Peter Davies
I don’t need – or want – a digital Id which gives access to all the government services. Once the bad guys know one’s digital id (through theft of the device holding it) they can get into ALL the services an individual uses – that is a bad idea and I don’t think the givernment is taking the risk anywhere near seriously enough.
@NonconformistRadical: If you don’t want to use the digital services then you shouln’t need a digital ID. We need to make sure they don’t remove the analogue services for people who don’t want to use the digital ones. “Once the bad guys know one’s digital id (through theft of the device holding it) ” Generally that only works if they have your face or fingerprints. It would generally be easier to fool a real government official to get access to your personal data. Do you know how easy it always was to get someone elses duplicate birth certificate?
Please note that the overall responsibility for the Digital ID has now been moved to Cabinet Office : https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-10-23/hcws981
@Peter Davies
“Generally that only works if they have your face or fingerprints.”
Which might be on your smartphone – if you have one – along with the digital id?
If you gave them long enough, they might be able to generate a mock up of your index finger from your phone case but I can’t see their being able to do so before you get your phone deactivated. Despite appearances, few people have their faces physically attached to their phones so replicating that would be even harder. In practice, the first thing a phone snatcher does is power it off to prevent tracking. I hope though that they will allow the option of other digital devices than phones as I can use my computer without reading glasses and I never feel like accessing government services when outside my home.
A new article in Computer Weekly reveals that the project of a digital ID has been kept secret for months by the Prime Minister:
https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Computer-Weekly-Editors-Blog/Who-knew-How-Starmer-kept-his-digital-ID-plan-secret-for-months