Listen to the article
Amid growing public concern, the UK government is defending its digital ID program against what Technology Secretary Liz Kendall calls “misinformation” and “scaremongering.” Speaking in Parliament on Monday, Kendall characterized the digital ID as a “digital key that unlocks better, more joined-up and effective public services,” attempting to reframe the narrative around a policy that has faced mounting criticism.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced last month that mandatory digital ID would be implemented before the next general election, positioning it as a tool to combat illegal migration and modernize government functions. However, public support has plummeted dramatically since the announcement, with a More in Common poll showing net support falling from 35 percent in June to negative 14 percent following Starmer’s declaration.
“There’s a lot of misinformation out there about this. This isn’t about surveillance, it’s not about a police state,” Kendall told MPs in response to concerns raised by Independent MP Adnan Hussain, who suggested the system would “create an infrastructure for surveillance and control.”
The government’s messaging struggles have been compounded by the spread of false information. The BBC recently had to apologize after its comedy show “Have I Got News For You” incorrectly claimed that a company owned by Euan Blair, son of former prime minister Tony Blair, had received a government contract to develop the digital ID system. The government has since clarified that development will be conducted in-house.
More than 2.8 million people have signed a petition opposing the digital ID scheme, expressing fears it would lead to “mass surveillance and digital control.” Monday’s parliamentary session marked the first opportunity for MPs to debate the proposal since Starmer’s announcement during recess.
Kendall has pointed to international examples like Estonia and India where similar systems have been implemented, arguing that in “many other countries where this has been used, it has been about making the government and the state more effective and efficient, and giving you greater control over your data.” She suggested that the UK can benefit from being a later adopter, stating they “can learn from their experience when things have gone wrong, how they’ve improved their security.”
When pressed about constituent concerns regarding data security and service tracking, Kendall dismissed what she called “scaremongering,” stating that international examples show such systems “really has made government fit around people, rather than make people fit into government and its different services.”
Cost questions remained unanswered during the session, with Kendall unable to provide specific figures, stating that “the eventual cost of this will depend on the design and build, which is what we’re consulting on.”
Even among government supporters, questions persist. Chi Onwurah, chair of the Science Innovation and Technology committee, expressed that while the government is “absolutely right to champion access to a consistent, trusted digital ID,” making it “mandatory for everyone seeking work is poking a stick in the eye of all those with security, privacy and or government capacity concerns.”
Starmer himself acknowledged last week that the government needs to better articulate the benefits of the system following widespread criticism of how the policy had been communicated to the public.
The controversial rollout highlights the challenges governments face when implementing large-scale digital infrastructure projects, particularly those touching on sensitive areas like identity and data privacy. With public trust already wavering and opposition organizing, the Starmer government faces a significant challenge in turning the tide of public opinion before implementation begins.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
As someone who follows mining and energy news, I’m interested to see how this digital ID program could impact those sectors in terms of things like regulatory compliance and data sharing. Curious to hear more perspectives on the potential industry implications.
The digital ID seems like a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. I’m curious to learn more about the potential benefits in terms of public services, as well as the privacy risks that need to be addressed.
Good point. Effective public services and data protection don’t have to be mutually exclusive. Striking the right balance will be key.
While the government’s messaging about the digital ID seems aimed at reassuring the public, the sharp drop in support is telling. They’ll need to do more to address the genuine privacy worries people have about this program.
Interesting to see the government addressing misinformation around the digital ID program. While concerns around privacy and surveillance are valid, it’s important to understand the full context and intended benefits of the initiative.
Agreed, a balanced perspective is needed here. The government should be transparent about the program’s goals and safeguards to build public trust.
This digital ID debate highlights the ongoing challenges governments face in modernizing systems while addressing public concerns. I hope the UK can find a solution that enhances public services without compromising civil liberties.
Agreed, it’s a delicate balance. Transparency and inclusive stakeholder engagement will be crucial for the government to navigate this issue effectively.
As someone with an interest in mining and energy, I wonder how this digital ID could impact things like supply chain traceability and data sharing between companies and regulators in those sectors. Lots of interesting implications to consider.