Digital ID

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:39

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Monday 13 October.

“I have always believed in giving people power and control over their lives: control over the public services they use and how they access childcare, benefits and housing support; control over their data, and who sees it; and control over the choices they make to rent or buy a home, apply for a job, open a bank account, and much more besides. In the age of the smartphone, we can take this control quite literally into our own hands, but too often it feels like we are at the mercy of a system that does not work for us as well as it should. It is one with endless form filling and bureaucracy just for people to prove who they are, and one where they may need their passport to apply for a job, their national insurance number to pay tax, and their driving licence to buy a pint or a glass of wine—if they are lucky enough to be asked. Most frustratingly of all, they may have to rummage around in a drawer looking for an old electricity bill just to open a bank account, join the library or enrol their children in school. It is time to fix this: to put power back in people’s hands; to get more out of our public services; and to bring the UK into the modern age.

There are three reasons why we want to introduce a new, free digital ID, available to all UK citizens and legal residents above the age of 16. First, it is about giving people greater agency over their lives. In over 15 years as a local MP, I have lost count of the number of people who have come to me because they have struggled to get the public services they need or had to battle for support from different parts of the welfare state. I am sure many honourable Members will know a frustratingly similar story. People are passed from one person to another, and asked to repeat their story and provide basic information time and again. They are made to fit into a system, rather than the system working for them, which ultimately leaves them feeling as though they are a number on a list, not a human being with a life.

Bringing in a new digital ID is about far more than replacing numerous bits of paper just for people to prove who they are. It is about changing the way the state interacts with its citizens through what I like to see as a new digital key that unlocks better, more joined-up and effective public services that actually talk to one another and fit around them. In building our new system, we will learn from the experiences of other countries, some of which have had digital ID for over 20 years. Many show us just how transformative this can be. In Denmark, a graduate applying for jobs has to log into a portal only once, and their ID automatically links to their school records, saving them retyping their qualifications each time. In Finland, a parent can go online to register their children for daycare without uploading a payslip or putting in their salary, and the site automatically calculates the right fee. In Estonia, a digital ID means that when someone has a baby, they do not need to go to a local office to register the birth, sign up for childcare benefits or apply for nursery places. That happens automatically from day one in the hospital, so parents are free to focus on what matters most.

Digital ID has the potential to empower millions of people in that way in the UK, with quick, effective, seamless and secure integration between different government systems. We know that the Tell Us Once service makes the process of registering a death more straightforward, but we should not have to wait until the end of someone’s life to offer them joined-up, personalised support. So our new system will help modernise government services to fit around people’s lives, rather than forcing them to fit into the system.

The second reason for introducing digital ID is to offer people greater security and, actually, greater control over their own data. Other countries that have introduced digital ID find that digitally checked credentials are far more secure than physical documents. They are much less likely to be lost or stolen, they have reduced errors and mistakes, and they have helped crack down on fraudsters who can ruin people’s lives. Privacy and security will be hard-wired into the system from the start. There will be no pooling of people’s private information into a single, central dataset—it will be a federated data system—and user control will be at the heart of our plans. With a digital ID, people may end up having more choice over what they show the world, not less. If they are buying a drink at the bar, instead of showing a physical driving licence revealing their full name and address, they will be able to prove they are over 18 without even showing their exact birthday if they do not want to. We will ensure that our digital ID operates to international best practice standards for data security and privacy, and we are working closely with the National Cyber Security Centre to ensure that it keeps pace with the changing threats we face.

The third and final reason for introducing digital ID is to deliver greater fairness by showing exactly who has the right to work in the UK. Digital ID is not a silver bullet for tackling illegal immigration, but it will be a deterrent to would-be migrants who are considering coming to the UK, alongside all the other action we are taking. Making ID checks both mandatory and digital for all employers will provide us with far more actionable intelligence, so we can move swiftly to identify rogue employers who are not following the rules. Under this Government, illegal working arrests have gone up 50% in the last year. That is progress, but our digital ID will help us to do more. It will be mandatory for right- to-work checks by the end of this Parliament, helping tackle illegal working, cracking down on rogue employers, creating a level playing field for employers which do the right thing, and giving people who do have the right to be here the cast-iron guarantee that this is their country and that they are welcome in the UK.

For our new ID to be both effective and fair, it must be genuinely inclusive. That is non-negotiable for the Government, and for me personally. Currently, around one in 10 UK adults does not have a passport or a driver’s licence to prove their identity, and around 1.5 million people do not have a smartphone, laptop or tablet, or are digitally excluded for another reason. We are already making progress with our digital inclusion action plan. We will continue to work closely with all the relevant organisations to understand the barriers to inclusion and how they can be overcome, so we bring everyone into the system. I want to hear directly from honourable Members across the House about these matters, and from those in the digital identity sector who have so much experience to learn from. We will consider physical alternatives to the virtual document and face-to-face support for those who need it, such as the 5% of UK households which do not have home internet access. Ultimately, however, we want Britain to be a country where everybody has the digital skills and access to be part of the modern world, including through our new digital ID to unlock more effective services and support.

To conclude, we will launch a full consultation on our plans by the end of this year, including with parliamentarians, the devolved Administrations and members of the public. Legislation informed by that process will follow shortly afterwards. I know that honourable Members will have many questions and I look forward to taking them, but let me just say this. Some 92% of people over 16 already have a smartphone. Many of us already use digital credentials held in our phone wallets, from tickets to events and online banking to storing boarding passes. People should expect the same service from the Government. Indeed, we should be criticised if we are not modernising our services to make them easier and more convenient for the public. Years from now, when we look back, I believe that having your ID on your phone will feel like second nature, putting more power directly into people’s hands and giving them more control over how they interact with government and the whole range of services. That is something worth striving for. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, we unequivocally oppose the Government’s dangerous mandatory digital ID policy, both in principle and in practice. If it is allowed to become legislation, the electorate risks being subjected to an extraordinary expansion of state power, one that comes not only at the expense of personal freedom but at great cost to the taxpayer.

Before I outline our objections to this proposal, it is important to understand the wider context in which this policy has been announced. Over this Government’s year in power, an estimated 50,000 people have entered the country on small boats, the largest recorded number to date, but the Secretary of State has claimed that digital IDs will deter these illegal migrants. Where is the evidence for this claim? Criminal gangs and illegal workers already operate outside formal employment and taxation systems. They do not care about paperwork or credentials. They work illegally, beyond the reach of existing regulation. They subvert existing national insurance requirements. Why would we expect digital ID to be different? To suggest that digital ID would somehow deter these operations is untested, unfounded and too optimistic to be convincing.

We are concerned, too, about the vast scope of this programme. The Government have claimed that digital IDs will result in “more joined-up” public services, saving people time from having to restate personal details to multiple departments. Here the Government seem to me to conflate separate issues: more effective public services and curbing illegal migration. They promise an end to bureaucracy while simultaneously constructing one of the most intrusive systems of state surveillance in our nation’s history. This is vast in its objectives, slight in its detail and, frankly, creepy in its reach into our privacy. Better online services do not require a centralised identity regime. We already have mechanisms such as right-to-work checks and DBS verification. These have all been designed with consent and privacy in mind, with nobody forced to pursue the digital route. The Government’s policy would herald an end to that freedom.

This policy was not even in the Government’s manifesto. There is no democratic mandate for digital ID, nor is there any appetite for it. In fact, over 2.8 million people have already signed a petition opposing it.

If, all of that said, the Government go ahead with this policy, we urge them to mitigate the risks and the costs in three ways. First, can they please ensure that the system is designed as a decentralised tool, using the blockchain to give citizens privacy and security? Secondly, to ensure some adherence to their stated goals, we urge the Government to adopt an agile approach of test and iterate rather than a build-once model. Thirdly, can the Government clarify and limit the stated goals? The current scope is simply too broad to be realistic.

Digital IDs fundamentally shift the burden of proof from government to citizens. In a free democracy, it is the state, not citizens, that must justify its actions. Under this scheme, one’s ability to rent, open a bank account or even order a drink would be conditional on the possession of government-issued digital ID. When the ability to work is conditioned on digital, state-approved credentials, meaningful consent ceases to exist. The choice between non-participation and never being able to work again is no choice at all. Last week, the Foreign Secretary proposed issuing digital IDs for those as young as 13. Once implemented, this policy will further infringe on people’s lives. Today, it is to determine the right to work; tomorrow, it could be to determine the right to vote or to travel.

Digital IDs are accompanied by a litany of practical problems and challenges, not least the enormous and real cybersecurity risk. The UK’s own sign-on system was breached only months ago during testing. The National Cyber Security Centre is yet to endorse the scheme. Further, 8.5 million adults lack the requisite digital skills to make use of these IDs, and many do not own a smartphone or have reliable internet access. Labour’s digital inclusion action plan is currently inadequate for the need and does not account for the structural barriers that vulnerable individuals face.

Finally, this presumably comes at a considerable cost to the taxpayer. Perhaps when he speaks, the Minister could give us some estimate of the likely costs for hardware, software, development and the operation of the system. The Government’s proposal for digital IDs is costly, controlling and risky. We do not think it will stop the boats and we do not think it will streamline services without very significant, and as yet unknowable, investment and programme delivery. Instead, we are concerned that it represents an illegitimate state encroachment on people’s privacy that they themselves are forced to fund. We are deeply alarmed.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the introduction of compulsory digital ID represents another fundamental error by this Government. The Liberal Democrats strongly oppose this proposal, which is a serious threat to privacy, civil liberties and social inclusion. We thank the Minister for bringing the Secretary of State’s Statement to this House today, but my disappointment and opposition to the Government’s plan more than mirrors that of my honourable friend Victoria Collins in the Commons yesterday.

The core issue here is not technology but freedom. The Government insist this scheme is non-compulsory, yet concurrently confirm that it will be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. This is mandatory digital ID in all but name, especially for working-age people. As my party leader Sir Ed Davey has stated, we cannot and will not support a system where citizens are forced to hand over private data simply to participate in everyday life. This is state overreach, plain and simple.

The Secretary of State quoted Finland and the ability of parents to register for daycare, but I think the Secretary of State needs to do a bit more research. That is a voluntary scheme, not a compulsory one. We have already seen the clear danger of mission creep. My honourable friend Victoria Collins rightly warned that the mere discussion of extending this scheme to 13 to 16 year-olds is sinister, unnecessary and a clear step towards state overreach. Where does this stop?

The Secretary of State sought to frame this as merely a digital key to unlock better services. This dangerously conflates genuine and desirable public service reform with a highly intrusive mandate. First, the claim that this will deliver fairness and security by tackling illegal migration is nothing more than a multibillion-pound gimmick. The Secretary of State suggests that it will deter illegal working, yet, as my colleagues have pointed out, rogue employers who operate cash-in-hand schemes will not look at ID on a phone. Mandatory digital ID for British citizens will not stop illegal migrants working in the black economy.

Secondly, the claim that the system will be free is disingenuous. As my honourable friend Max Wilkinson, our home affairs spokesman, demanded, the Government must come clean on the costs and publish a full impact assessment. Estimates suggest that creating this system will cost between £1 billion and £2 billion, with annual running costs of £100 million pounds. This is completely the wrong priority at a time when public services are crumbling.

Thirdly, the promise of inclusion rings hollow. This mandatory system risks entrenching discrimination against the millions of vulnerable people, such as older people and those on low incomes, who lack foundational digital skills, a smartphone or internet access.

The greatest concern is the Government’s insistence on building this mandatory system on GOV.UK’s One Login, a platform with security failures that have been repeatedly and publicly criticised, including in my own correspondence and meetings with government. There are significant concerns about One Login’s security. The Government claim that One Login adheres to the highest security standards. Despite this commitment, as of late 2024 and early 2025, the system was still not fully compliant. A GovAssure assessment found that One Login was meeting only about 21 of the 39 required outcomes in the NCSC cyber assessment framework. The GOV.UK One Login programme has told me that it is committed to achieving full compliance with the cyber assessment framework by 21 March 2026, yet officials have informed me that 500 services across 87 departments are already currently in scope for the One Login project.

There are other criticisms that I could make, but essentially the foundations of the digital ID scheme are extremely unsafe, to say the least. To press ahead with a mandatory digital ID system, described as a honeypot for hackers, based on a platform exhibiting such systemic vulnerabilities is not only reckless but risks catastrophic data breaches, identity theft and mass impersonation fraud. Concentrating the data of the entire population fundamentally concentrates the risk.

The Secretary of State must listen to the millions of citizens who have signed the petition against this policy. We on these Benches urge the Government to scrap this costly, intrusive and technologically unreliable scheme and instead focus on delivering voluntary, privacy-preserving digital public services that earn the public’s trust rather than demanding compliance.

[The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Vallance of Balham) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for the points that they have raised with the Government. Unsurprisingly, I have no doubt that this is an area in which there will be strong interest across the House. I remind the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Hague, that the:

“Arguments against digital ID are paper thin”.


I shall address the concerns that have been raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. In the context of the Data (Use and Access) Act, we were clear that the services under that legislation were not mandatory, nor were they ever designed to be, and they cover many of the areas that have been discussed so far. This new national digital ID will be required, specifically and only, for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. It is a very narrow use for a very specific purpose.

However, we have always believed and continue to believe that there are huge upsides for a digitally enabled society, one where everyone feels able to participate, everyone feels a sense of agency and everyone’s lives are made easier by a digital key that indeed unlocks access to services—something that is a big upside to a digitally enabled society. Those businesses that enable this, as we have seen in other countries that have introduced a digital ID, and the services that those businesses provide will have an important role to play.

We expect the digital identity market to be able to build on the national digital pass and offer value-added services for individuals and businesses. In countries where digital ID is well established, the private sector has built a wide range of services around it, making everyday tasks such as open banking, renting a flat and applying for a mortgage faster, simpler and more secure, but that is not a mandatory use of this. The required use is for the right to work.

I turn to the subject of illegal migration, a problem that obviously has grown enormously over the past 10 to 15 years. I absolutely agree that there is no silver bullet to solving illegal migration, but ensuring that there is a single digital system to prove that you have a right to work will simplify the process and drive up compliance, making it easier for businesses and providing the Home Office—this is an important point—with an overview of employers conducting checks that they can use to audit those suspected of hiring illegally. It will be possible for it to see where there are a large number of employees but only two or three who have been checked for work. Ultimately, it should be easier for honest, legitimate employers to get started and much harder for those employing illegally.

The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said that this was an invasion of privacy and civil liberties. I do not agree, and I think those countries that have introduced it would not agree. Digital identities preserve and increase privacy by limiting the information that individuals have to share when proving something about themselves. The credentials in play here are name, date of birth, information on nationality or residency status, and a photo. That is what you need for a right-to-work check, and the display may be as simple as a yes or no, with none of the information shared with the third party. We will ensure that strict safeguards are in place to prevent illegal tracking or misuse of data by the Government or anyone else.

On the point that has been raised about how this actually works and whether we end up with a big target —a honeypot—this will be a federated system, as it has rightly been pointed out that it should be, not a single repository, increasing security and not creating a honeypot of data.

A question was asked about those aged 13 and upwards. This is a system designed for 16 year-olds and above. As part of the consultation, there will be consultation about younger age groups and whether there may be utility for them. Any use of personal data will continue to be regulated by the independent Information Commissioner’s Office, and our consultation, which will be launched later this year, will consider whether further safeguards will be needed or appropriate.

The question of cost was raised. While I cannot give exact details of the cost, I can say that it will be met within the existing SR budget over the SR period.

OneLogin was raised. Indeed there were problems at the beginning, and that is not unusual with a system as it is getting set up. Those problems date from 2023 and have been resolved, and the National Cyber Security Centre is working hand in hand to get the OneLogin system to the place where it needs to be. The National Cyber Security Centre will be central to getting this system set up as well.

Finally, I want to talk about digital inclusion, a key point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and an area that is increasingly important for the times we live in. That is why this Government have made digital inclusion a priority. We set out a range of first steps in the Digital Inclusion Action Plan, published in February this year, and are working across government to improve inclusion. We know that those who do not own or cannot afford a smartphone, do not already have photo ID or have additional accessibility requirements will require special attention. One in 10 people already struggles to prove their identity and access the service that they have a right to because they lack a photo ID. This scheme is an opportunity to get them a free digital credential that proves their identity and helps them to access those services.

We will deliver a comprehensive inclusion programme, including face-to-face support to ensure that everyone eligible is able to access the new digital pass and benefit from it if they want to, including those using it for right-to-work checks—the only required need for this. It will provide targeted support to those who currently struggle to engage with digital services, including options for a digitally enabled physical alternative for those without a smartphone or who may experience data poverty, such as those unable to afford data use on their phone.

We have already started to engage with a range of expert organisations and community groups, including the Digital Inclusion Action Committee, and we look forward to continuing to do so throughout the credential’s design and development—a process that, as the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, has pointed out, must be done in an agile way and will require both external input and government technical need.

This is an important development that, although with a narrow requirement, has a broad use that I think many people already take advantage of in different forms in this country. Digital ID will make life easier for people.

18:58

[Lord Spellar (Lab)]

My Lords, underpinning any individual ID scheme has to be an individual ID number. Other countries normally seem to base that on date of birth plus a scheme of other numbers. Can the Minister make clear to us whether we have decided what our system will be? How far have they advanced in developing it, and when is it likely to be rolled out?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his question. The consultation will start later this year. It will be very broad, and we welcome input from many groups. We know that this is not straight- forward; it will require considerable thought about how to get it exactly right. The answer is that we do not yet have a view on exactly how the system will be designed. That will be part of the consultation process. It will not be done overnight, and it will require us to come back to this House on many occasions. It will have great public input and technical input as we design it.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am very sceptical about mandatory digital ID. Can the Minister tell us how many people at the moment do not even have a mobile phone, never name all the extra that is needed? When the Government talk about inclusion, this is one of the most exclusive kinds of suggestions. It was not even in the manifesto. If by any chance this actually did go through and become law, can the Minister give an absolute commitment that it would apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that the Government would not listen to those people who say that, somehow, mandatory digital ID in Northern Ireland would be contrary to the Belfast/Good Friday agreement?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her point. In terms of digital inclusion, we know, of course, that not everyone has a mobile phone. The vast majority do: I think 92% of people do. Some people already use an equivalent to some sort of digital ID in banking and other areas, but there are people who do not. That is why we are so keen to make sure that we have a digital inclusion stream right from the very beginning, to try to identify the needs of those individuals and how we deal with people who do not have a smartphone. There will, of course, be no requirement to have a smartphone. There will be a workaround for those who do not, which will enable them to have a physical manifestation of something that has a digital imprint.

In terms of the very important question about Northern Ireland, I can guarantee that this will apply to everyone eligible to work in the UK. It will take full account of the Northern Ireland situation, and indeed those from the island of Ireland who are eligible to work in the UK will be eligible to be part of this as well.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

I confess that I am slightly confused. The Minister rightly referred to the Data (Use and Access) Act, and we spent a lot of time then discussing the introduction of digital verification services. At the time, those were described as having pretty much the same benefits as are described in this Oral Statement. In fact, the description is uncannily similar. Can the Minister please explain the additional benefits this digital ID will bring and why and how those benefits justify the £1 billion to £2 billion cost?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The new part, as I have said, is exactly about the right to work and the ability to have identity related to the right to work. That will form a platform for digital ID and the ability to use that in other ways for the services described in the Data (Use and Access) Act.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord may have seen an article in Computer Weekly in June in which the headline talked about the eVisa system as being “error-prone” and “anxiety-inducing”. Among the cases in this extensive report was a doctor with indefinite leave to remain who had been here for 20 years but could not travel to a medical conference because the IT error meant that they could not link their official identity documents to their visa account. The report also talked about a woman they called Athena who had to take a month off work because she was so stressed by the fact that the Home Office computer could not match the name on her passport to the name on her account, despite the fact that her name, which had never changed, was the same on her passport, her eVisa account and her biometric residence permit. Can the Minister tell me why the noble Lord or this House should have any expectation that we would not see the same situation with this proposal?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I am certainly not going to stand here and say that it is going to be absolutely error-free, because nothing is. I am not going to say that it is easy, because it is not. But there is a big gain at the end of this. It is not as though this has not been done elsewhere. It is not as though there are not ways in which countries have got this to work very effectively. Certainly, if you were to speak to anyone from Estonia, they would think we were mad not to have it already.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I chair the Digital Inclusion Action Committee. I do that not because I am a digital expert like the two Front-Bench people opposite and my noble friend, but because I know and have worked throughout my life on social exclusion. I know that we can do this. If either of the two Front-Benchers opposite, or anyone else, wants to come with me to a hub, I would love to take them to see it. The hub is doing this now with people who never thought they would get near it but now have digital devices that we organised for them, free. They learn to use them properly and are properly supported. Next week is Digital Inclusion Action Week and I hope that some Members will take care of that.

The reality is that, for many people who are socially excluded, the Government’s proposals will make a huge difference. If you are homeless, you frequently cannot get into a hostel because they cannot work out who you are. You cannot get benefits because you have no means—you have not got an address, so you cannot get the benefit. You cannot get a bank account. We are working with the banks to change that. We are working not just with the excluded but with the industry, with the not-for-profit organisations involved and with local government. There is enormous enthusiasm for this. I have met people whose lives have been changed. They want to know that they have the Government on their side and do not have to rely on everything else that is produced in America. We do not have any security of digital ID. We are all using iPads and iPhones now and they are controlled in America by people such as Elon Musk, who could not care less about your well-being and what happens to you. Let us make this secure, so that people here can have confidence that their digital ID is protected and they do not have to rely on people outside who do not care about them.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that powerful and informed statement. I am sure that my noble friend’s offer for people to come and visit will be taken up, and I certainly would like to accept that offer myself at some point.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as I currently chair the Proof of Age Standards Scheme, which is, as it says on the tin, to prove the ages of young people who want to go out for a drink at night, engage in nighttime activity or go to the cinema. We are seeking to move from a purely physical card to a digital one, so I echo the confusion expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. Where are we with digital ID? If it is going to be for only one purpose—the right to work—you are excluding from activities those young people who currently are willing to buy either a physical card or a digital card for a very modest sum. They will be excluded from this free scheme because it is only for the right to work.

I can quite see where the Government are coming from, because there is a category of people who cannot prove their identity or their age because they do not drive, so do not have a driving licence, and do not travel so do not have a passport. But there is a bit of confusion at the moment in the Government’s thinking between proof of age, age verification and digital ID. If that could be clarified as soon as possible, it would be extremely helpful.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Let me just try to be clear about a point that I think is important. The required element of this is the bit to do with the right to work. The notion that this is available for all sorts of other things which people can choose to be part of or not is completely separate. The same structure will be used, but the only mandatory part is that, to have the ability and right to work, you will have to show this. The noble Baroness is quite right, of course, that there are lots of things that people want to use this for now. That is why work is going ahead already on the digital wallet and the ability to use those things. They are, of course, separate from a requirement to have this for the right to work.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, has careful consideration been given to the circumstances on the island of Ireland, where there is quite a lot of cross-border working, both from south to north and north to south? The Government should also be mindful of the Good Friday agreement. Many people, including me, see their identity as Irish and would not want a digital ID issued by the British Government. Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what discussions have taken place with the Irish Government regarding this particular issue and the method of implementation? Have all those issues regarding identity and nationality been fully considered?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

We are, of course, fully committed to everything in the Good Friday agreement. My colleague, the Minister for Digital Government and Data, was in Northern Ireland just last week. He had meetings with the Deputy Speaker, Northern Ireland’s Community Minister and the Finance Minister. Engagement with the Irish Government is planned as well. This will be done in close collaboration, recognising exactly the point about the desire of people either to have or not to have something linked to this. Of course, Ireland is introducing its own digital ID scheme as part of the EU. We intend to stay very close on this and make sure we do this in partnership.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the exchange so far. I have an open mind on this. My noble friend Lord Camrose raised some important questions about cost, security and utility. It struck me that it would be premature, before those questions had been fully explored, to come to a conclusion that this is something that should be opposed in principle. I note that in a recent opinion poll some 57% of the public were in favour of ID. The highest level of support actually came from people who voted Conservative.

My question to the Minister is about the consultation process mentioned in the Statement, which is due to begin at the end of the year. Can he tell the House when that consultation will end? What form will it take? Will it be an attempt to have a wide debate throughout the country, with documents being produced for public consumption? What exactly is the shape of the consultation? Presumably the Government will be in favour of the proposal, but what might be available to those who take a different view from the Government on it and may want some resources to campaign against it?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for those observations. The consultation needs to be inclusive, involve various groups, and give everybody a chance to input into this from societal and technical aspects. The aim is to have a very widespread consultation to make sure we get the right input from all parts of society. We have talked about those who may feel excluded already. The intention is to have a consultation that really helps shape this. It is not a consultation just to say we have done one; it is one that will help shape this from every angle. We look forward to input from across the House and beyond.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

Can my noble friend the Minister tell the House how the Government plan to address the arguments that will be made against these proposals, in particular in relation to concerns about individual privacy?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The argument about individual privacy is an interesting one, because digital ID is a way of increasing privacy. At the moment when you show a form of ID, it includes all sorts of information that the person who sees it does not need to know and should not necessarily know. A digital ID gives the chance to show simply that you meet the requirements that are needed without disclosing any more information whatever. There are arguments that need to be well rehearsed and described, as part of the consultation, as to why this will not be a sudden increase in exposing your information to others. It is a way of protecting it, owing it and having agency over what you do with it.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome this initiative and I have listened with interest to the two opposition spokespersons. In 2010 and 2011, they abandoned the work that had been done, and we have fallen so far behind. We have seen people come into the country and work unregistered—not paying tax and not being part of society in the fullest sense. If a digital system had been operating, even the old-fashioned ID system, then we would have had a much bigger income coming into the country and a much better state of affairs than we have at the moment. We would have deterred people from coming here, which is one of the major factors behind it. I hope we will move quickly on that part of the exercise. I welcome the second part to extend it over a wider front too.

On cost, I hope the Government will be innovative and will not think simply in old public service terms: “This department is doing this, and that department is doing that”. I hope we can create an umbrella organisation that will be made up of Governments, local authorities and charities, involve the private sector and extend this to citizens. We should give them an incentive to join—as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, talking about the rights of young people to go out and drink—and cover issues such as that within the ID system. We should try to have a completely new structure compared with what we had in the past.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his comments on migration. I agree that this is one way in which one can detect whether illegal employment is going on. It will be a deterrent, because the ease with which people can be employed here is part of the reason why it is an attractive place to come. On the way we go about doing this, in addition to the points he has raised, it is worth looking at what has happened in other countries, where businesses became very involved, saying, “Once this has been set up, how do we also start being a part of creating services that allow people to do things more easily?” I expect that to be a major part of this. We already have business sectors beginning to think about how they can use this approach to provide better services, better link-up and better access. That private sector involvement will be important for the uses that people want. They are not mandatory uses but ones that make life easier for people.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, I have just been at the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, so it is reassuring to hear that there will be close co-ordination and co-operation on this issue. I also welcome the response on social exclusion and those issues, although, in my experience, increasingly low-paid workers need to have a mobile phone because that is the way you get the job and carry out the work. I have heard about the benefits to business of the mandatory requirement in respect of digital ID and the right to work, but I would be very grateful if my noble friend the Minister could say, in lay person’s language, what the benefit is to the average worker.

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

The benefit to the average worker is that they are being employed by an honest company, in the right way, and they are not having their jobs taken by people who should not be working. This should be a very easy, quick thing to do. It should be very easy for the person wanting a job and for the company, and it will exclude people who do not have a right to work.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, further to the answer the Minister gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and me on Northern Ireland, I think more would be helpful. Every time a Minister in different places and parts of the United Kingdom says anything about this issue, something slightly different comes out. Could the Minister look carefully at this and perhaps write a letter to me and to the noble Baroness and put it in the Library, specifically on how this be implemented in Northern Ireland if it should become law?

[Lord Vallance of Balham (Lab)]

Yes.