Bradley has confirmed he is "wholly opposed" to the Government's plans to introduce Mandatory Digital ID.
The Mandatory Digital ID is a cynical gimmick to distract from Government scandals. It will take years and do nothing to stop an urgent immigration crisis that needs fixing now. By linking migration policy to mandatory national ID, the Prime Minister is fuelling conspiracy theories and distrust of government.
Bradley opposes mandatory national ID cards - in principle and in practice. The Conservative Party will instead bring forward a hard-edged derivable plan to secure our borders and continue the work Conservatives did in government to deliver excellent online services – without making digital ID mandatory.
Bradley said:
"I am firmly opposed to the introduction of mandatory digital ID which I believe poses a potential threat to the fundamental freedoms of the British public and would fail to address issues including illegal immigration and right-to-work in the UK.
The UK has long been a global beacon of civil liberties, and the autonomy of the individual. The introduction of a digital ID is the thin end of the wedge which could start a more rapid erosion of civil liberties all under the guise of public safety and national security.
Digital ID would place burdensome and unnecessary obligations on law-abiding citizens to prove who they are, their right to be here, and it would fundamentally alter the relationship between the individual and the state. It would risk turning us into a checkpoint society with wide-reaching implications and would leave us within reach of becoming an even more-surveilled nation than we already are.
Assertions that this poses no threat to law-abiding citizens reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the wider principles underpinning individual liberty.
I reject the notion that a digital ID will sufficiently address illegal migration and unlawful employment. Presenting accredited and recognised ID is already compulsory in order to secure employment in the UK.
Businesses willing to hire individuals without valid right-to-work documents or those already exploiting forced labour will not be sufficiently deterred and government already has powers to sanction companies found guilty of hiring workers illegally by imposing penalties including unlimited fines, a custodial jail sentence and disqualification of company directors.
The greatest problem that the government faces is the identification of those who are here illegally, however the Home Office is already aware of the individuals who have travelled to our country illegally, or at least one would hope so, given that they house them in hotels and provide them with a weekly allowance.
If the Government cannot effectively monitor those they have already processed and are accommodating, the creation of a digital ID will make no difference at all other than allowing an ever watchful eye of the state to be cast over the law-abiding majority.
The government continues to allow tens of thousands of people to cross the channel, with statistics for this year alone reaching above 30,000 already having set a dangerous precedent.
The only way to address this urgent situation and effectively deter such illegal activity is by removing taxpayer-funded benefits and enforcing strict consequences, including indefinite deportation for asylum claims based on deception or fraudulent documents.
Furthermore, there must be a robust tracing mechanism, supported by sophisticated biometric systems upon arrival, to tackle repeat offenders. Shamefully, in its Asylum and Borders Bill, the government abandoned biological age checks of those arriving illegally into our country.
The previous Conservative government rightly implemented such a deterrent through the Rwanda scheme; a policy that this government hastily dismantled without providing a viable alternative. Their continued failure to establish an effective strategy continues to cost the British taxpayer billions.
The risk of digital ID unnecessarily imposing on the everyday lives of hard-working, law-abiding citizens cannot be ignored. The introduction of mandatory identity cards would be detrimental to privacy and individual liberty and would require undue intrusion by the state.
We are already witnessing the troubling shift towards policies that threaten the fundamental freedom of expression that is deeply embedded in our legal system, such as the Online Safety Act. I have strong concerns that a digital ID could easily evolve from a tool of verification to an instrument of surveillance, used to monitor free speech as well as control access to services.
Previous research undertaken for the Cabinet Office found that nine in ten people already hold a valid and recognisable form of photographic identification, and the previous Conservative government had ruled out the introduction of compulsory digital ID cards due to being a waste of money and unnecessarily intrusion. The Conservative Party has again reaffirmed its opposition to digital ID.
Civil liberties group Big Brother Watch claims that 63% of the public do not trust the government to keep data secure and we don’t know whether the database behind any form of digital ID would be controlled directly by the government or whether this would be outsourced to a private company.
Both scenarios should raise serious concerns. The UK has already fallen victim to multiple strategic cyber-attacks in recent years. From unauthorised access to HMRC accounts in June 2025 to the Ministry of Defence veterans’ data breach in May 2024, critical systems have been repeatedly compromised.
We have also seen increasingly high-profile cyber-attacks and data breaches within the private sector including at the Co-Op, M&S and Jaguar Land Rover all within recent months.
At a time when our nation is becoming an increasingly attractive target for cybercriminals, the creation of a centralised database containing all citizens’ sensitive data would present an irresistible target. A single breach could endanger millions of people across the country and leave the nation’s defences exposed to extortion.
This is not to say that all forms of digital ID are inherently problematic. Integrating driving licenses into the NHS app, for instance, could improve patient verification, reduce administrative burdens and increase safeguarding, provided it is introduced with high standards of security.
However, this must not be to the detriment of citizens who are digitally excluded, don’t have a smart phone, or who do not wish to participate.
It is a direct violation of the respect owed to the public for the Prime Minister to have announced this without any public consultation, no Parliamentary scrutiny and without a prior manifesto commitment.
I remain firmly opposed to the creation of a centralised, mandatory digital ID scheme that would impose unnecessarily on the lives of the British public whilst failing to achieve its intended goal of curbing illegal migration and unlawful employment. I will be opposing the introduction of a digital ID scheme in Parliament, and will vote against it.
Should the Government insist on pursuing a policy of digital identity cards, then it is critical that the system be optional, with citizens having to opt-in rather than opt-out, and the Government must take steps to ensure that there is no detrimental impact to citizens who choose to not participate.
I will continue to follow this issue closely."
