Digital ID: Labour’s Big Gamble on Immigration Control

By Wali Khan -

In an unexpected twist, the Labour Party has announced plans for a mandatory digital ID card. Every adult in the UK would be required to have one, with the stated goal of tackling illegal work. Under the plan, employers would need to use the system to confirm whether someone has the right to work, and landlords could be required to check tenants have the right to rent.

Ministers insist that this won’t be a card you have to carry everywhere, nor will you be asked to show it on demand. But in practice, it is mandatory because without one, you wouldn’t legally be able to work.

This feels like another case of Labour chasing Reform’s agenda instead of shaping their own. Ever since coming into power, they’ve leaned into Reform’s territory on immigration, and the digital ID plan looks like more of the same.

The idea is to clamp down on the shadow economy by making it harder for undocumented workers to slip through the system. But here’s the problem: employers are already required to do Right to Work checks, and it’s already illegal to hire someone without one of these checks. If employers knowingly take that risk now, why would digital ID suddenly change their behaviour?

Labour’s argument is that physical documents can be forged more easily, and digital ID will close that loophole. But there’s no reliable data showing how much illegal work actually depends on forged documents versus employers simply turning a blind eye. If the main problem is employers who don’t care about immigration status, a shinier verification system won’t fix that.

And then there’s the price tag. Rolling out a nationwide digital ID scheme won’t come cheap. When the extent of the positive impact is completely unknown - for all we know it could be minuscule - the question is: is this really worth the cost?

Civil liberties and the slippery slope

Critics call this a serious threat to civil liberties, a potential slippery slope into a dystopian future. Their fear is that once such a system exists, a future government could restrict access to services with the click of a button. Imagine it expands to more than simply right to work or right to rent. Let’s say you need to show your digital ID to receive healthcare. Then imagine a leader with authoritarian tendencies is elected and decides that anyone critical of them should no longer be able to access the NHS. Many believe the introduction of digital ID could make that sort of control possible and also easier.

Personally, I find this argument overstated. The government already holds our likeness through passports and driving licences. It already has the power to freeze bank accounts or restrict travel. A digital ID might make things faster, but it isn’t some brand-new tool of repression. Most of our personal data is already collated somewhere - whether by social media platforms, shopping apps, or the state itself.

Look at the United States, often described as “the land of the free.” There’s no universal digital ID system, yet Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) still manages to track, detain and deport thousands, including people with legal status or pending asylum claims. Donald Trump even floated the idea of targeting American citizens he labelled “Homegrowns.”

The point is this: authoritarian governments don’t need a digital ID to flex their muscles. The real safeguard is preventing people with those instincts from coming to power in the first place because enforcement power doesn’t depend on the digitization of ID - it depends on political will and agency powers.

For me, the biggest flaw in Labour’s plan is who it risks leaving behind: the poor and the elderly. Many don’t have access to the right technology, or struggle with digital systems. Unless alternative options are watertight, this scheme could alienate exactly the people who already feel excluded.

Unsurprisingly, the public backlash has been fierce. What happens next will say a lot about Labour’s political instincts. Will they sell the idea convincingly? Will they adapt it in response to concerns? Or will they quietly drop it altogether?

Only time will tell.

In Summary

Pros

• Could reduce forged-document fraud in hiring.
• May simplify access to some public services.
• Brings the UK closer in line with digital ID systems used across Europe.

Cons

• Mandatory in practice.
• Expensive to roll out and maintain.
• Unclear how much it will really cut illegal working.
• Risks excluding poorer and older people who aren’t digitally literate.
• Raises civil liberties and surveillance concerns.