ANDY Burnham will scrap Keir Starmer’s flagship digital ID programme when he takes office on Monday.
The soon-to-be prime minister's team described the move as a “reset of priorities”, with money earmarked for implementing digital ID redirected to more “tangible” improvements to people’s lives.
A spokesperson for Burnham said his UK Government would “put its focus where people need it right now”.
They added: “That means all the time and resource that was going to be spent on a national ID scheme will go instead to where it’s most needed, such as helping with the cost of living.”
The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) estimated last November that the programme would cost £1.8 billion over three years.
Downing Street rejected this figure, but the UK Government did not provide an estimate of its own, which a parliamentary committed noted earlier this year left open the possibility it could cost more.
Starmer announced plans to introduce digital ID ahead of last year’s Labour conference, saying it would be mandatory for right-to-work checks as part of a crackdown on illegal immigration.
The plans have been heavily criticised by campaigners since they were revealed with the SNP saying they would block the “ludicrous” proposal.
Ministers expected the programme to go further, becoming the “bedrock of the modern state” in a system of “government by app”.
But support for digital ID collapsed after Starmer announced the plans, and the UK Government later said it would be voluntary for right-to-work checks.
Jack Coulson, head of advocacy at Big Brother Watch, welcomed the decision, saying the public had been “clear that they do not want mandatory ID”.
He said: “The Government backing down shows what campaigns like Big Brother Watch’s can achieve”
“But the dangers of a ‘papers please’ society have not gone away. Big Brother Watch is concerned that the Government’s approach to social media restrictions will lead to a de facto mandatory ID regime for the internet.
“If this is a signal, it is a positive one, but we must all keep a wary eye on Tony Blair’s former ID card minister.”
The decision marks the first major break from Starmer's policies that Burnham has confirmed before becoming prime minister.
He is expected to provide further detail of his plans on Monday after visiting the Palace to “kiss hands” with the King and formally take over as prime minister.
Reports have suggested he could be preparing to break with another of Starmer’s policies and approve further oil and gas drilling in the North Sea.
Labour’s 2024 manifesto, which Burnham said he would honour, said the party would not issue new North Sea licences, arguing they would “not take a penny off bills” or improve energy security while accelerating climate change.
But the incoming prime minister is said to be “open-minded” about the policy.
He could claim not to be breaking the manifesto pledge by approving projects at the Jackdaw and Rosebank fields, where licences have already been granted, while still not issuing any new licences.
Tessa Khan, executive director at Uplift, commented: "It would be a terrible look if the first thing Andy Burnham does is cave to the demands of oil and gas profiteers.
“He's promising change and an end to unfairness, but this would deliver more of the same broken energy system that's made oil giants obscenely rich while families struggle with soaring bills.
“It’s naive to think that new drilling would stem the decline in oil and gas jobs, which have more than halved over the past decade, despite hundreds of new licences and new fields. Oil companies aren’t investing in clean energy, which would provide work for future generations – they just want to make as much money as they can and then quit.
“And when parts of the country are literally on fire, including in his back yard, approving a project the size of Rosebank would be completely reckless. New drilling isn’t compatible with a safe climate, especially when firefighters, farmers and health workers are already struggling to cope with extreme weather.
“Burnham has a clear choice: protect oil company profits, or protect people from rising bills and a worsening climate crisis – and back jobs that have a future. That should be an easy choice for anyone listening to the public."
