A Win for Freedom, A Win for Common Sense: Why Digital ID Had to Go

Shortly after coming to power, Andy Burnham announced that his new government would scrap the controversial Digital ID policy proposed by his predecessor. Burnham argued that the money needed for the scheme would be better spent elsewhere, particularly on tackling the cost of living. The House of Commons Library has since put the estimated cost of the programme at around £1.8 billion over three years.

I see this change of direction as a victory for common-sense politics. Not because Digital ID itself is necessarily a bad idea, but because the idea of a compulsory national system was never strong enough to justify the cost or the impact it could have on the freedom and individual liberty of British citizens.

When Digital ID was first proposed, the reasoning seemed fairly reasonable on the surface. It was intended to help crack down on illegal working while making government services easier to access. But employers are already expected to check whether somebody has the right to work in the UK. Existing Home Office systems include online Right to Work checks for migrants and digital verification for eligible British and Irish citizens. So, before requiring millions of law-abiding people to participate in a new system, surely the government needed to show why the systems already in place were not enough. That case was never made convincingly. The Home Affairs Committee described the original mandatory proposal as rushed and poorly thought through, while an e-petition opposing mandatory Digital ID attracted almost three million signatures.

Nobody disputes that illegal working and fraud should be tackled. The disagreement is over whether giving the state greater reach over the wider population is the necessary or proportionate way of doing it. Making government services more convenient is a perfectly reasonable goal, but convenience alone does not mean everybody should be forced to use the same system.

There are countries where Digital ID has worked well. Estonia is probably the most obvious example. Its Digital Identity System allows people to access public services online and has become part of everyday life. That shows that Digital ID can have genuine benefits. But Estonia's success does not automatically mean Britain needs a compulsory system. If Digital ID genuinely makes people's lives easier, people should be willing to use it without being forced to.

My other concern was what the infrastructure might be used for years down the line. This is often called 'function creep': when a system gradually becomes required for more purposes than it was originally created for. The House of Commons Library's briefing on Digital ID lists function creep, surveillance, and exclusion among the concerns raised around Digital ID. That does not mean a British Digital ID would inevitably become some dystopian surveillance system. But governments change and policies expand. Once the infrastructure exists, future governments have the option of extending its use. For me, that is a good reason to keep participation voluntary and put clear limits in place from the beginning. There is also the issue of digital exclusion. This is not just hypothetical. The government has acknowledged that around 1.5 million people in the UK are digitally excluded. Older people, those with limited digital skills, and some disabled people can face particular difficulties accessing services online.

That does not mean we should hold back digital services or reject new technology. It means non-digital alternatives still matter. A voluntary Digital ID gives people another choice. A compulsory Digital ID takes one away. Technology should make people's lives easier, not force everybody into the same way of interacting with the state.

Politics has become too comfortable with the idea that every problem needs another government solution. Sometimes intervention is necessary, but creating another scheme, spending more money, or giving the state another power should not be the automatic answer. Common-sense politics should ask: is intervention actually needed? Is it proportionate? Is there a simpler way of achieving the same goal?

The government can still modernise public services, tackle fraud, and crack down on illegal working. Britain already uses digital immigration status, online Right to Work checks, and private digital verification services. Work on GOV.UK One Login and the GOV.UK Wallet can also continue without the cancelled national scheme.

There is also nothing wrong with politicians changing their minds. Governments get things wrong. When they do, I would much rather they admit it and change direction than carry on with a bad policy simply because they are frightened of being accused of a U-turn. If Digital ID is genuinely useful, let people choose it. Make it quicker and easier for those who want it while keeping practical alternatives for those who do not. The government should have enough confidence in the technology to let it succeed on its own merits. Ultimately, the government exists to serve the individual, not the other way around. Common-sense politics does not mean rejecting technology or opposing change. It means knowing where to draw the line. Scrapping the compulsory national Digital ID scheme was not a retreat from the future. It was a recognition that modernisation and individual liberty do not have to be opposites.