Done right, digital IDs can save lives

Sir Keir Starmer has a challenge to convince people over digital ID plans (Image: The Guardian)

If we're to treat survey results as gospel, I find myself in the minority on a big debate. It appears I am one of the very few in support of a 'digital ID'. It had taken me a while to come to this conclusion as, since the idea was explored under Tony Blair's government in 2005, I really wasn't sure what the point of the concept was. But 18 years later, I feel that an identification of some digital kind is necessary, and potentially lifesaving, as I'll explain here.

The digital ID has been brought into the British political limelight again thanks to Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He wants to bring them in on a mandatory basis, as a way of proving we have a right to work in the UK. It forms part of his cunning plan to halt illegal migration and illegal labour - similar schemes are already in place abroad and are said to be doing well. According to a government press release on the announcement, once developed further, the ID can be used for people "to apply for services like driving licences, childcare and welfare, while streamlining access to tax records."

It's an idea that's splitting Labour Party MPs and public support is low, many suggesting their freedoms 'are being compromised' as a result - some go as far as saying the move to 'dystopian,' 'any excuse for the government to snoop on our business and our data.' Millions have signed a petition against the move.

In contrast to those who have those strong-held beliefs, I am more than content to have my data shared. Believe it or not, we are all content to having our data shared too. Whether it's your search engine history, online shopping orders, outdoor CCTV, your phone calls and messages, your driving, I could go on - government-funded security services know what you're up to. And long may that continue, actually. As technologies advance and the use of artificial intelligence (AI) is on the rise, we need to know whether we're being protected and been kept an eye on against threats. The threat of physical terrorist or cyber-attacks are real too, the number of terror-related arrests have risen in the year ending 30th September 2024 compared to the previous year - thanks to the snooping, one can argue.

Successive governments are learning from atrocities committed by the IRA during the 1970s, 80s and 90s, as well as lessons from the 7/7 bombings 20 years ago. And after 9/11, international security agencies come together and share intelligence of possible suspects. And even though Britain is no longer part of the European Union, there is an EU-UK Security of Information Agreement which allows shared intelligence to continue between the UK and the continent. Certainly, things can improve further to prevent more isolates cases like the attack in Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation Synagogue in Manchester on 2nd October 2025, in addition to combatting various gang cultures in urban areas.

But as daunting or invasive being snooped sounds, it is, overall, a good thing. 99.99% of us are kosher, and our online and offline records are squeaky clean, and who we interact with are also squeaky clean. Yet, there is always the one chance where something - no matter how innocent or unlikely - can go awry, and there is no better protector than those we pay our taxes to, to do their jobs to protect us. And just because we're seen as good and proper today, it doesn't stop us from heading a way towards crime and wider disruption tomorrow.

Now, this is where I put a dampener on our Prime Minister. Unfortunately, Starmer's ID plans are misguided and won't help him achieve what he wants to achieve. Sure, it's a great ambition to get rid of exploitative labour and make sure those who work in the UK have the right paperwork to do just that. But you can see what will happen. While it will be 'mandatory' for all Britons to hold a digital ID, it is a person's choice as to whether they use them. So those who illegally hire staff, or illegal migrants - many of whom won't have phones coming into the UK - can still be untraceable, making the whole move counterproductive. If the government can't sufficiently punish people who fail to pay the TV licence, there is no guarantee officials will be as savvy to spot those who provide illegal labour. 

More efficiency is needed from the Home Office. This government department basing itself in Kent or the wider coast need to administer new arrivals better, to ensure that their identities are recognised and checked. Migrants need their health records developed and updated to NHS standard, and upon receiving their basic information of names and dates of birth, officials need to liaise with the authorities in the respective countries, to understand why they have left and what laws they are said to have broken, regardless of how draconian or minor they may be. And it is health and crime that should be at the heart of any decent digital ID scheme - and prioritising in these areas could save UK individuals and businesses a whole load of money.

NHS England has gone through a significant technological drive, to ensure robust data sharing between trusts - and once fully implemented and used properly, has the potential to increase our chances of living longer. This should go further because if, for example, I, a Welsh resident, went to England and got knocked unconscious by a car, my life could be in greater danger, not by the car but the treatment by paramedics who may not know my medical history that may be the difference of me living and dying, especially if no one I know well are around me at that moment. As it is a devolved matter, NHS organisations in England and Wales don't share data with each other. Shared data - whether through a mobile app or via the NHS - should see what I need and mustn't have, and then appropriate care is undertaken.

On security, who doesn't want their history on their fingertips? If someone is hired in a sector when a clean criminal record is integral to that hiring process, applying for an enhanced DBS can take weeks to process and cost businesses - or in some cases, individuals - up to £49.50 each time. These alone are a big strain on resources, considering when thousands are processed every day. Having this on an ID can mean those jobseekers can start that job much earlier, same applies to speeding up visa application outcomes.

I get it: the sound of surveillance is discomforting. People can cry "1984" by George Orwell all they want, but it is being done for our best interest. Even once the digital ID is rolled out, we'll still be able to live our lives as normal. The viral AI-animated video of what it 'could do' is wildly exaggerated and will never happen, certainly not under any current party political leadership. Well, Reform UK might if it wants to follow the United States in militarising cities or monitor social media activity as a way of deciding international student visa applications. Aside from that, let's relax and see IDs as a good thing, rather than it restricting.