UK government to expand digital ID despite scrapping Britcard scheme

Digital verification services and the centralised portal GOV.UK are expected to form the backbone of the UK government’s future identity strategy, despite skepticism and mounting concerns over privacy and security.

Andy Burnham, [1] the UK Prime Minister, has announced [2] the cancellation of the national digital ID initiative established by his predecessor, Keir Starmer. A spokesperson for Burnham indicated that this decision aims to enable the government to redirect time and resources toward other pressing issues, specifically highlighting [3] the cost of living in remarks made to The Guardian. “One of the first things this government will do is put its focus where people need it right now creating breathing space and delivering change they can feel in their everyday lives. That means all the time and resource that was going to be spent on a national ID scheme will go instead to where it’s most needed, such as helping with the cost of living. This government is determined to bring power back to communities, instead of hoarding it in Whitehall. We will work every day to lift this country back up to where it belongs with growth in every postcode, and hope in every heart,” said the spokesperson.

Early indicators regarding speech and privacy suggest a direction that does not ease governmental control. Burhnam appears unlikely to dismantle the framework established by Keir Starmer. The remaining question is to what extent he will advance this position, Andy Burnham [4] was a junior Home Office minister responsible for guiding former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s identity cards legislation through Parliament. After the 2005 general election, Burnham was designated [5] as a Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, with a focus on overseeing [6] the Identity Cards Act 2006 initiative. When asked by [7] former MP Lynne Jones on whether a privacy impact assessment has been conducted for the proposed national identity scheme and if a statement will be issued regarding this matter Andy Burnham said, “The government have carefully considered the privacy implications of the national identity scheme. The national identity register will hold only that information which is listed in Schedule 1 of the Identity Cards Act 2006. A significant amount of the information listed in Schedule 1 is already held on the passport database. For example, most of the information contained within paragraphs one, five and seven are held on the passport database which is administered by the Identity and Passport Service.”

When asked by [8] Romford MP Andrew Rosindell about the estimate costs associated with implementing voluntary and mandatory identity cards by 2011, Andy Burnham replied saying, “The latest cost estimates are set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment which was published in May 2005. The current best estimate for the average annual operating costs of issuing passports and identity cards to British citizens is £584 million per annum. Section 37 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 sets out that a report detailing estimated expenditure must be placed before Parliament every six months. The first report is due by 30 September 2006.”

In 2008, Andy Burnham [9] who was the Culture Secretary at the time, introduced a plan that resembles a foundational framework for current regulations. The central premise [10] was that online content should adhere to the same regulatory standards as television. He proposed that taste and decency regulations be extended to the internet, along with cinema-style age ratings and warning labels for materials containing sex, violence, or strong language. Additionally, he suggested implementing alerts for viral content and “child-safe” packages at the internet service provider level. In an interview with The Times in April 2025, [11] he expressed support for regulating social media for teenagers, stating that if a ban is not appropriate, alternative measures should be implemented. “It’s clear that from a mental health point of view this is harmful. Why are we equivocating? If it’s not a ban it needs to be something. We’ve got to start to think differently about tech,” said Burnham. Before taking office, it was confirmed that the digital ID programme for all adults will be discontinued. The funds initially allocated for this initiative will be redirected to address cost-of-living issues, which has been framed as a shift in priorities.

The Office for Budget Responsibility [12] estimated the programme’s cost at £1.8 billion over three years, a figure that Downing Street has dismissed without providing an alternative estimate. On the surface, this development may be perceived as a win for those who prioritise privacy. The interpretation falters due to one main factor. The opposition was not against the concept of identity infrastructure as a principle, when asked [13] in September 2025 about his support for Starmer’s digital ID initiatives, Burnham responded with “not now”, citing tactical reasons for his stance. He referenced the period from 2005 to 2010, cautioning against a situation where significant time investment does not yield results, citing the previous ID card scheme as an example that consumed considerable attention without delivering. This reflects concerns about political return on investment rather than a genuine commitment to civil liberties.

The individual in question previously promoted compulsory ID cards as a significant advancement and continues to assert that the rationale for them remains strong. Before his tenure, mandatory right-to-work checks had already been transitioned to a voluntary basis, suggesting that the recent announcement was partly a move to discontinue funding for a programme that had already lost its relevance. Moreover, eliminating a work-linked BritCard diverges significantly from the stance against requiring ID for internet access. Digital ID refers [14] to various methods used to verify, track, and monitor an individual's identity and information through digital technologies. Governments worldwide are implementing these systems in diverse ways, which may include features such as single sign-on capabilities for government services, facial recognition technology, or mandatory digital identity cards.

Burnham's team [15] announced that he plans to proceed with initiatives requiring individuals to undergo digital ID verification to post on social media platforms. A spokesperson for Burnham stated that he is dedicated to ensuring the safety of children online and has openly supported the implementation of age restrictions for minors using social media. A government has the option to forgo the implementation of a digital ID card and garner public support and instead establish a more significant system of a control mechanism that governs individuals’ online speech while presenting this shift as a step back from previous measures.

Enforcing a ban on individuals under 16 years of age necessitates verifying the age of all users, which inherently involves confirming their identities. The ID that was initially deemed unnecessary may ultimately become a requisite for online access. Age verification methods and social media identification [16] processes could compromise more of an individual's privacy than a typical right-to-work card, as they associate a person's name with their online expressions rather than their employment status. Privacy advocates and child safety experts caution that [17] the implementation of age verification may lead to an increase in digital identification and surveillance that extends beyond minors.

Charles Hymas who [18] is the Home Affairs Editor for the Telegraph, warns the UK government’s proposal to impose [19] a social media ban for individuals under 16 may face a decline in public backing if it necessitates the implementation of digital ID checks for enforcement. “The regulator Ofcom is examining what types of technology it will require the social media companies to use to enforce their age checks. It is harder to verify the ages of under-16s than under-18s because at least 10% do not have passports, which is why Ofcom is looking at digital ID schemes as well as facial age estimation, which uses AI to assess someone’s age, credit cards, open banking and phone company age checks,” said Hymas. Alex Bogdan, [20] the Ipsos’s research director said, “The key challenge for Westminster and regulatory bodies moving forward will be less about convincing the public of the ban’s intent, but rather to ease concerns about how the age-verification infrastructure will impact the wider public in order to maintain support and momentum.”

The UK government is still rolling out [21] the GOV.UK One Login which allows people to create a digital identity, sign in using their email, password then verify themselves by scanning their photo ID and face via [22] the GOV.UK ID Check app. Centralised digital ID systems collect and store personal data from individuals in a single repository, making them attractive targets for cyberattacks and heightening the risk of data breaches. Additionally, the implementation of these systems may enable increased surveillance and tracking of individuals, leading to potential threats to personal privacy and freedoms.

In a blog written by Rachel for LightAware, [23] digital ID is happening by the back door; she argues that amid fears of security breaches and apprehension regarding government control, the general public is increasingly aware of the implications of digital exclusion. The initiative is marketed as a means of enhancing access to government services; however, participation in society appears to mandate a digital ID. “As far as the digitally excluded are concerned, very little has changed. Digital ID checks will be conducted online by 2029. Several digital identity-related systems and pilots are actively in use or rolling out. Generally these build on the GOV.UK One Login platform and the emerging GOV.UK Wallet app for storing digital credentials. All of these examples represent a creeping digital ID infrastructure, even if not overtly a single national card,” said Rachel.

View Full Writing