The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has made the case for a ‘superapp’ (Image: Thomas Kronsteiner / Yui Mok)
Britain is in danger of becoming a “surveillance state” if digital IDs are rolled out, a former Conservative party chairman warned as Tony Blair’s think tank pushed for their introduction.
Sir Keir Starmer is widely expected back digital IDs in a bid to crack down on illegal working and the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has called for a new “superapp”. It claims this could close loopholes exploited by trafficking gangs, cut down on identity fraud and help people with everyday tasks, such as reporting potholes or missed bin collections.
Get the latest politics news – straight from our team in Westminster and more
Invalid email
You agree you are 18 or over. We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and third parties based on our knowledge of you. You can unsubscribe at any time. More Info.
However, there is intense concern and a petition against digital ID cards has won more than 112,000 signatures.
Sir Jake Berry, a former Conservative chairman who now supports Reform UK, said: “This policy is not about border security. It is about expanding state power and quietly removing the freedoms we cherish as Britons.
“The British state consistently rewards incompetence and cannot be trusted to manage the personal data of every citizen in one central database.
“A country where every action and decision is tracked is not the Britain we know. We must reject this surveillance state before it is too late.”
Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Reform UK, also voiced opposition, saying: “Big Government cannot be trusted with digital IDs. Through the implementation of the Online Safety Act which is having a chilling effect on free speech, the Government has already proven that they cannot be trusted with these sorts of powers.
“We all want Government to use technology to deliver better & faster public services. That does not need digital IDs, just competence.”
The Tony Blair Institute has released research which claims when people were shown the potential impact of digital ID 62% supported the idea with just 19% opposed.
Alexander Iosad, director of government innovation at the think tank, said: “After years of decline in public services, Britons are looking for common sense solutions to make the state work for them.
“They don’t want to spend hours navigating opaque systems or wrangling paperwork just to get the services they are entitled to.”
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey has also signalled he may not oppose proposals to bring in digital ID, telling his party he did not “think we should be against increasing people’s freedom to life”.
A UK Government spokesperson said: “We are committed to using tech to make it easier for people to interact with the state, learning from other countries on how best to deliver this for citizens. Millions of Britons already use digital services through e-visas and the NHS app – and we’ll be introducing [the] ‘GOVUK Wallet’ in the coming months, allowing users to securely store Government-issued documents on their phone and use them easily when needed.
“We will look at any serious proposals that would help people access public services, including digital ID.”
Tony Blair slammed for turning UK into ‘surveillance state’ with digital ID cards plot
Tony Blair has faced renewed criticism over his long-standing support for digital identity cards, as Britain’s debate over privacy, surveillance and the role of technology in everyday life continues to divide opinion.
The former prime minister has been one of the most prominent advocates of a national digital ID system. His position has attracted criticism from civil liberties campaigners, who argue that expanding digital identification could increase the amount of personal information held or connected by the state and create new risks for privacy.
However, describing Blair himself as having turned Britain into a “surveillance state” would go beyond the evidence. Blair is not the current prime minister and does not control the government’s digital ID programme. Indeed, the government proposal associated with Keir Starmer was later substantially changed and, according to the House of Commons Library, the digital ID programme was cancelled by Andy Burnham’s government in July 2026.
The controversy nevertheless has a long history, because Blair’s government attempted to introduce identity cards more than two decades ago.
Blair’s original ID card plan
During Blair’s premiership, the Labour government pursued a national identity card scheme, arguing that a secure identity system could help tackle terrorism, fraud and illegal immigration.
The Identity Cards Act 2006 created the legal framework for the scheme, but it faced sustained criticism from civil liberties organisations and sections of the public.
The coalition government that came to power in 2010 subsequently repealed the legislation.
Liberty, one of the organisations that opposed the earlier scheme, says the 2006 Identity Cards Act cost more than £4.6 billion before the programme was abandoned. The organisation now argues that any future digital ID system should have strict limits on data collection, tracking and state access.
The failure of that earlier project is an important part of the current argument.
Supporters of digital ID see modern technology as fundamentally different from the physical identity-card proposal of the 2000s. Critics, meanwhile, argue that digital systems could potentially have a much wider impact because information can be connected, processed and shared electronically.
Blair’s renewed support
Blair returned to the issue in January 2025, when he called for the government to introduce a universal digital ID system.
In an interview with The Times, he argued that digital identification could help people interact with government more easily, tackle benefit fraud and establish whether people were entitled to work or claim particular services.
He also argued that the public’s attitude towards digital identification had changed since the controversy surrounding his government’s original identity-card plans.
Blair acknowledged that privacy would be a central issue. He framed the debate as a question of how much privacy people might be prepared to exchange for greater efficiency from public services.
His position was therefore not that digital ID should simply be imposed without safeguards. Rather, he has consistently argued that technology can give individuals easier access to services while allowing government to verify information more efficiently.
That distinction matters when assessing the “surveillance state” criticism.
Why critics remain concerned
Civil liberties organisations take a different view.
Liberty says the government’s later digital ID proposals raised concerns because they could involve a unique identifier linking information across different areas of government.
The organisation has warned about the possibility of connections between information relating to areas such as health, housing, immigration status and income. It has also raised concerns about the potential recording of when, where and why a digital ID is used.
Those concerns go beyond the basic question of whether people should have an electronic way of proving their identity.
The central issue is what happens after such an infrastructure exists.
A digital credential can be designed simply as a convenient method of authentication. But critics argue that, if the system becomes integrated with more government services over time, its practical importance could expand considerably.
That is why privacy advocates have focused on safeguards, limits on data sharing and alternatives for people who do not want to use a digital system.
The Starmer government’s digital ID proposal
The debate intensified after Keir Starmer’s government announced plans for a national digital ID scheme in September 2025.
The original proposal envisaged digital ID becoming mandatory for proving the right to work by the end of the parliamentary term.
The government said the scheme would help people access public services while also making it harder for people without the legal right to work in Britain to obtain employment.
The announcement immediately generated political controversy.
An e-petition opposing digital ID attracted almost three million signatures, according to the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee.
Following the backlash, the government abandoned the mandatory element. Digital right-to-work checks could still become mandatory, but workers would not necessarily have to use a digital ID to prove their status.
That represented a substantial change from the original proposal.
Parliament raises questions about trust
The Home Affairs Committee subsequently examined the government’s approach.
Its May 2026 report said the original announcement had been made without sufficient policy development or public consultation. The committee argued that this contributed to public concern and damaged confidence in the project.
At the same time, the committee did not reject digital identification as a concept.
It said digital ID could have potential benefits, including improving access to public services, but argued that ministers needed to establish clear objectives, provide stronger safeguards and explain the costs and expected benefits of the system.
That position illustrates why the debate cannot easily be divided into supporters of technology and opponents of technology.
The disagreement is also about implementation, privacy protections, governance and the boundaries of state power.
The Tony Blair Institute’s position
Blair’s own think tank has continued to advocate digital ID.
The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change published a detailed argument in favour of digital identification in October 2025, describing it as potentially important to modernising government and making public services easier to access.
The institute argued that a digital ID could allow people to prove who they are and verify relevant personal information when accessing services.
But the institute also became critical of the government’s implementation process.
In March 2026, the Tony Blair Institute warned that the digital ID programme could not become another failed government IT project. It called for ministers to avoid excessive bureaucracy, overspending and poor delivery if they wanted to establish public trust.
This is significant because it shows that support for digital ID does not necessarily mean support for every government proposal surrounding it.
The Blair Institute wanted the concept to succeed, but argued that delivery and public confidence were essential.
From compulsory ID to cancellation
The political story changed again after the mandatory element was abandoned.
The House of Commons Library records that the government launched a consultation in March 2026 after moving away from compulsory digital ID.
It then announced in July 2026 that the digital ID programme would be cancelled.
The Guardian reported that Andy Burnham’s government intended to scrap the scheme as part of a wider change in priorities.
As a result, the current situation is considerably different from the one envisaged when Starmer first announced the proposal.
The controversy surrounding Blair therefore concerns both his historical record and his continuing advocacy of the technology rather than an active Blair government project.
The surveillance question
The phrase “surveillance state” carries a specific political and civil-liberties meaning.
Critics use it to describe a situation in which governments can monitor individuals extensively through interconnected databases, identification systems, cameras or other technologies.
Blair has advocated not only digital identification but also wider use of technology in policing. In 2025 he argued for expanding live facial-recognition technology, saying it could help police identify serious offenders. Civil liberties campaigners have warned that technologies of this kind could increase state surveillance.
The disagreement therefore extends beyond ID cards.
It concerns how far governments should be able to use technology to identify individuals, prevent fraud, enforce immigration rules, investigate crime and deliver public services.
Supporters emphasise efficiency, security and convenience.
Critics emphasise privacy, proportionality, cybersecurity and the possibility that systems created for one purpose could eventually be used for others.
A debate that has not disappeared
Although the government’s latest digital ID programme was cancelled, the underlying technological debate is unlikely to disappear.
People increasingly use smartphones, biometric passports, online banking, digital health records and other electronic services to establish identity.
The question for policymakers is therefore not simply whether identification should become digital. It is also who controls the information, what information is collected, how long it is retained, when it can be shared and whether people have meaningful alternatives.
For Blair, digital ID remains part of his broader argument that government should make much greater use of technology.
For civil liberties groups, the same technology raises fundamental questions about privacy and the balance between individuals and the state.
The historical record provides evidence for both sides of the discussion: Blair’s original identity-card programme was abandoned after major opposition, while his current institute continues to argue that digital identity could improve government services.
What happens next will depend less on Blair’s original proposal than on the safeguards, legislation and technological choices made by future governments.
The debate over digital ID has therefore evolved from a simple argument about identity cards into a much broader question about Britain’s digital future — and where the boundary between convenience, security and personal privacy should be drawn.