Mandatory Digital ID

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mr Turner. I did not know I was so popular today. I am delighted to see so many colleagues joining us in this short debate. I warmly welcome the Minister to his new role. We were shocked and appalled by his unjustified defenestration at the Scotland Office. We were energetic supporters of the “get Ian a job—any job” campaign, so we are delighted to see him here in his rightful place today. It has to be asked, though: who has he upset in the last few weeks to be landed with this particular poisoned chalice? But here we go again. It has taken 20 years, but ID cards are back, this time in a shiny new digital format, turbocharged by all the new features of modern technology.

Tony Blair famously tried to introduce ID cards back in the 2000s before being forced to abandon them by a fantastic campaign by civil liberty campaigners, Members of this House, and the millions of ordinary UK citizens who simply refused to have ID cards foisted upon them. But they are back. Like a spectre from the political grave, ID cards are with us once again. It is just possible that Tony Blair might reach his ultimate aim and aspiration of getting ID cards back, only this time in the form of his proxy, the current Prime Minister.

I had the misfortune of being around back in the 2000s, along with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is sitting behind me. We were part of the campaign that defeated Tony Blair at that point, and we look forward to defeating him again. The tone of the debate seems eerily familiar. Once again we have a Government earnestly assuring us that digital ID is a benign, benevolent scheme designed purely to make life easier for the general public. They talk about the Tesco clubcard and never having to find your utility bills ever again, as though it is nothing more than a boarding pass. It is a sort of, “Do not worry your silly little heads about this mass data collection or our new-found ability to monitor your every move. We are the UK Government; of course you can trust us.”

Well, we have heard it all before, and we know that this campaign is only going to be ramped up because the concerns remain the same: the threats to our privacy and civil liberties, the risk of mass surveillance, the dangers of Government overreach, and the too real vulnerabilities that come with storing vast quantities of personal data. We have only to look at the newspaper headlines this morning to see the true effects of that particular fear, with the breakdown in Amazon workplaces. Imagine if it were the personal data of everybody across the United Kingdom.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, because it is an issue that the general public are engaging in. He will know that Scotland has its own identity card, known as the Scot card, which is used to store benefits data, debt data, the checks to make sure people can work with vulnerable people, court data and tax data. It is quite incredible. There are real fears that this—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be short.

[Dr Arthur]

Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern of Big Brother Watch that there is a mandatory ID system in Scotland in all but name? Does he share the concerns of my residents that the data could be leaked?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to waste time responding to all that nonsense. It is a voluntary scheme. Does the hon. Member know the difference between voluntary and mandatory? All he needs to do is shake his head or nod. The detail is at hand. This new scheme has been objected to because it is mandatory—one of the few mandatory ID systems anywhere in the world. The Scot card is great. It is up to the individual user what gets put into it and what gets shared.

This new scheme could barely have got off to a worse start. Support for digital ID has collapsed since the public have been able to see the Government’s proposals. The petition calling for the proposals to be scrapped has become one of the fastest growing ever. It is now at almost 3 million signatories, and I am pretty certain that by the time I sit down it will be well over 3 million.

I heard the Minister’s car-crash interview on Radio Scotland. He told us simultaneously that the Government plans were both compulsory and voluntary, and went on to say that apparently digital ID would be “mandatory for some purposes”—a sort of partial compulsion, a digital half-pregnancy. Maybe this is a Schrödinger’s Britcard.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the vast majority of the population across the UK, including in Northern Ireland, clearly see this for what it is—as a breach of their data, as spying on them—and that the mass of the population are now opposed to it?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. As I said, support for it has been plummeting right across the United Kingdom, and I am not surprised.

Let us just dispel the notion that this is voluntary. This is a mandatory scheme. It is compulsory. It is to be compulsory for work, and if it is compulsory for work, it will be mandatory full stop. The only people who will not need one of these Britcards are those who plan never to work, rent a home, have access to public services or take part in normal life.

As we know, all this emerged from our friends in Labour Together. It was they who first proposed it, and it has been adopted by the Labour party. For some reason, they thought they would call it the Britcard—almost immediately alienating most of Scotland and probably about half of Northern Ireland at the same time. Given its recent controversies, it is probably a good idea for the Minister and his Government team to stay as far away from Labour Together as they possibly can.

Let us have a proper look under the bonnet of the great British Britcard. The Government say that it will be free of charge this time around, and available to all citizens and legal residents. So far, so good, but we still do not know its reach. Who will be expected to take one? There are already rumours that 13-year-olds might have to have a Britcard, although that has been disputed by the Government, and we already know that our veterans will be the first of the many digital guinea pigs.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

As a veteran, I was disgusted to see yesterday that veterans are being used as guinea pigs, with a smokescreen, to test this system. Our veterans do everything for us. They are brave people. They should not be the ones on whom this is tested. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Pete Wishart]

I most definitely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absurd and unfair that our veterans are the guinea pigs who will test this out for the Government.

We are told that digital ID is essential to tackling illegal working and illegal migration. When we look at the evidence on mandatory ID across the world, that just does not stack up. Under the Government’s plan, anyone seeking work must prove their right to work through this digital ID, giving the Home Office sweeping new powers over individuals’ daily lives, from employment to housing and basic public services. There is no clear evidence whatsoever, from anywhere mandatory ID is in place, that it reduces illegal working or irregular migration.

Let us be absolutely clear: illegal working does not stop because people are forced to carry digital ID cards; it stops when people are allowed to work legally, contribute to society and live without fear. Big Brother Watch has called mandatory digital ID a “civil liberties nightmare”, and it is absolutely right. Amnesty International warns that such a scheme risks becoming “a honeypot for hackers” and a tool for state surveillance—again, absolutely right.

The UK has never been a nation where it is normal for someone to have to prove who they are when they are not suspected of doing anything wrong. I do not share the concept of being British, but there is something particularly un-British about having to surrender huge amounts of personal data just to access basic services. A “papers, please” culture, even in digital form, seems so alien to this country.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman’s conclusions. Does he agree that, in hindsight, the Scottish Government’s use of a covid passport was a mistake, especially in a way that exposed the Government to criticism from the Information Commissioner about the lack of transparency on how that data was used?

[Pete Wishart]

We are getting a little bit off-track, but I will answer that because the right hon. Gentleman needs an answer: no, I do not think that was a mistake. It was the correct thing to do.

Mandatory digital ID would fundamentally change the trust-based relationship between citizen and state, replacing it with one of constant verification and oversight. Let us not forget about the danger of mission creep. Once this type of infrastructure exists, it rarely stays confined to its original purpose. The Government say that the police will not be able to demand to see a person’s digital ID, but does anyone seriously believe that will not change over time?

This is about not just what this Government might do, but what every future Government might do. We are empowering not just this Labour Government, but every Government that will come after it. Imagine Prime Minister Farage, with all his authoritarian tendencies, with the data of the nation at his fingertips. It scares me half to death and it should scare the whole House half to death.

Then there is the cost. The Government have been very coy about the cost. They are reluctant to give us even a ballpark figure, and they are absolutely right—those prepared to work out an estimate on their behalf have said that, initially, this could cost anything between £1.2 billion and £2 billion. That is a gross underestimate. Laughably, our friends in Labour Together told us that it would be £1.4 million. We need only look at the costs of the physical ID to get a sense of what it will eventually cost. The physical ID would cost £5.4 billion. Some people reckon it would get above £15 billion, possibly to £19 billion or £20 billion.

Digital ID is much more technical and complicated to administer than the physical version. Do the sums work out? How much will this cost? All our constituents should be asking every Member of Parliament whether we should spend billions of pounds on a scheme that nobody wants and that there is no demand for when a cost of living crisis is raging in every single one of our constituencies. Are we seriously going to spend billions of pounds on an unpopular, crackbrained scheme that no one wants or needs?

Then there is what is happening elsewhere. We have heard foreign examples to suggest that this is just business as normal for this Government. They are keen to promote the Estonia scheme. I have had a good look at Estonia. Estonia is 10 times more digitally engaged than the United Kingdom. It is an entirely different nation. But even with all their knowledge, experience and digital systems, there have been catastrophic data leaks, which has led to real problems and issues for the citizenry. Look across Europe: Europe, like Scotland, is developing its own type of digital wallet. That is the right thing to do. People like having these things in a digital wallet. The key difference is that it is not mandatory—we come back to that feature again.

In Scotland, we are developing the ScotAccount, which has proven very popular. I encourage people to use it. There is nothing wrong with having things in a digital wallet. It becomes wrong only when it is made mandatory—when people are expected to carry one even though they do not want to.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

That is the issue, and the Government seem cloth-eared about it. In Scotland, we will have to pass what is called a legislative consent motion to allow this to go through, given our responsibilities for devolved services. We are not going to do that. The Minister will have to decide whether he accepts the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament or whether he will do a Tory and impose it on us anyway. I challenge him to do that in the run-up to the Scottish election, because he will turn this into a nightmare for the Government and a constitutional nightmare for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).

We do not want these things. We think they are thoroughly bad. We saw them off in the 2000s, and we will see them off again. The public hate them, and I believe the petition now has more than 3 million signatures, so we are getting there with the general campaign. I pity the Minister for having to take this through; he would have been much better off had he kept his place in the Scotland Office.

We saw off ID cards in the 2000s. Twenty years on, whether it is plastic cards or digital apps, this is still a data-grabbing, liberty-eroding, multibillion-pound waste of time. We beat them in 2005; and the SNP, with our leadership of the campaign in this Parliament, will ensure that we see them off once again.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

I will have to impose a one-minute time limit on speeches. I call Jo White.

16:45

[Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Turner. Wow, that is a big announcement!

Just over a month ago I visited Tallinn, the capital of Estonia, a country that has been using digital ID for 30 years and a country we can learn from—how it works, how it reaches the digitally excluded and how it protects people’s security. What struck me most was that everyone I spoke to said the same thing: with digital ID, they know exactly what information the Government hold on them, and most importantly, they know who has looked at it and why.

That level of transparency and personal control should be the gold standard, but here it often feels the opposite: social media giants and private companies know more about us than we realise—often more, I would say, than our nearest and dearest. We need to have absolute control.

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

It is interesting that my hon. Friend talks about the Estonian experience, as I often hear my constituents’ frustration that they do not know what the Government are doing with their data, and how they even have trouble accessing it. Does my hon. Friend think that a scheme like Estonia’s would help the citizen to be in charge?

[Jo White]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

From the moment we are born, the state begins to gather data: our birth is registered; the NHS stores our health records; we are issued with national insurance and NHS numbers; and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tracks us. By having a digital ID, we can see the information the state holds on us, who has been accessing it and why. We can even determine that other people cannot see our data. It is about us having control over our own data.

It is also about security, because the way it is divided and split up means there is absolute security as nobody can see data from one Department to another. It is about people having personal control, which is what people in my constituency are calling for.

16:47

[David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)]

In view of the time limits, I will focus solely on the scandalously insecure One Login procedure. I will be writing to ask the National Audit Office to investigate because, apart from the strategic weakness of having a single login, the Government’s handling has been a disaster.

As early as 2022, the information assurance team responsible for ensuring the security of the system raised concerns that it was being developed on unsecured workstations, by contractors in Romania who did not have security clearance. When it ran a red-team operation to see how secure it was, they broke into the system easily. They would have been able to install malware, and they were not even detected by the people running the system.

What will happen when this system comes into effect is that the entire population’s entire data will be open to malevolent actors—foreign nations, ransomware criminals, malevolent hackers and even their own personal or political enemies. As a result, this will be worse than the Horizon scandal.

16:49

[Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. For reasons of timing, I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White) said about the important change in the relationship between citizen and state that could come from digital ID—putting the citizen in charge rather than the state knowing too much about us without our knowing what they know.

However, there is another reason why we might want a free, digital, Government-backed ID: £11 billion is lost each year to fraud, and ID theft costs us about £2 billion a year. People need to prove who they are at each and every moment. For too many people, that involves a passport or driver’s licence, which is not affordable for many. Having an ID that allows us to prove who we are could be more secure. We will also need it to show that we can work—there has been a 40% increase in illegal working—and to prove our age, including for the big changes made by the Online Safety Act 2023.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend raises the Online Safety Act. Some of my constituents have raised concerns about identity checks to access material online. Would it not have been far easier to prove one’s age online safely and securely if we already had a digital ID, and would that not have helped us to introduce safer checks online?

[Emily Darlington]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. All the complaints I have received are about people giving their information to third-party verifiers. If they had a free, digital, Government-backed ID, they could have proved their age to access any over-18 content. People are also concerned that those who should not be accessing the NHS are doing so. The reality is that if there were a Government-backed digital ID, it would be clear whether a person can access the NHS.

I have come up with a list that debunks what the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) said, and I am happy to pass it to him afterwards. I think we need to add a few scientific facts, but I do not have time.

[Jo White]

I would like to hear some of my hon. Friend’s list, please.

[Emily Darlington]

I am happy to go through it. First, it is not about centralising data. Rather, digital ID allows the citizen to access federated data. The data stays in the individual Departments; it does not stay on a card—this is not about a card. Digital ID adds a level of security to Government datasets. There is no travel or location data. There is no access to external providers. It uses sovereign tech that allows citizens to know what the Government hold and who is accessing it. There is no new data that the Government do not already hold, and a single login is actually better for a person to prove who they are with a digital ID.

[David Davis]

Why do the Government’s cyber experts disagree?

[Emily Darlington]

I think the right hon. Member will find there is a split in the community because there is a lack of detail.

[David Davis]

No.

[Emily Darlington]

I agree, but there is a lack of detail. When we are at the beginning of the conversation and going out to consultation, which is exactly what we are doing, we have to ask the public what they want. Do they want either of the two scenarios that my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw and I presented, or do they not want access to their Government data in a way that enables them to know what is happening, and so that they can prove who they are without having to pay for a passport or driver’s licence?

16:52

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

We should start not by asking what the Government can do, but what the Government should do. Mandatory ID cards are an overreach and far above what any Government should be doing. I have reached out to my South Shropshire constituents with a survey to ask for their views, and they are strongly against it. Among the points they have raised is digital exclusion.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions digital exclusion. Some 28% of people over the age of 75 do not have a smartphone. How are they going to access digital ID?

[Stuart Anderson]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. That has been a concern in South Shropshire, where I have huge areas that do not have high-speed connectivity. A lot of elderly people are not able to use an iPhone or computer, so they feel that they will be digitally excluded. Whether it is mandatory or voluntary, it is still—

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member join me in condemning the people who are spreading fear about digital exclusion? The Government have been very clear: if this goes ahead, there will be a hard-copy alternative for people who are not on the internet.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member has just highlighted the confusion around this. If the Government are considering hard copies, the costs could be into the billions of pounds, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned. There is no money, and there is not a problem in this area, so why create a problem, spending billions of pounds that the country does not have on something that no Government should be doing?

On the subject of digital exclusion, a large percentage of my population is not connected or does not use IT. My concern is whether the digitally-excluded pensioners in South Shropshire will be hounded by the police. Will the police be chasing them around, asking them to sign up? Will people find that they cannot get a job unless they have digital ID? There are huge concerns about this. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads, but the scheme is being rolled out to stop illegal immigration. It is a dead cat story, and no Government should be looking to do this.

I have major concerns, and so do my constituents. I am worried about the security of the scheme. Look at China and Russia: we have continual cyber-attacks on the UK, as we have just seen with Jaguar Land Rover. With the advancement of AI, if we believe we can keep our data safe, why have spreadsheets been emailed to the Taliban? Mistakes happen, but imagine having the whole country’s data. It was done by a civil servant, and it is a disgrace it happened under whoever’s watch. We should not be joking about things like data going to the Taliban. This is a major issue. It is the start of an authoritarian Government, and I do not believe we should have any involvement with it. It should be cancelled straightaway.

16:55

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

The public did not vote for this, and the country cannot afford it. When we look at the Government’s stated purpose, there is also no evidence behind it. If we are looking to scrutinise the grey economy, employers are ignoring the documentation whether it is digital or paper. Of course, we have to come down on employers that exploit labour and do not pay their taxes, but this scheme will simply not achieve the aims that have been presented.

When I meet digital experts and academics in my constituency who deal with encryption and the risk of data leakage, they say that 12,400 data breaches have happened in the last year—those figures are from the Information Commissioner’s Office. We know that there is no security. One thing the scheme has achieved is to unite my constituents. I am glad that the Government will consult, but this is not the way forward.

16:57

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. There is no doubt that this is a contentious issue for many, but the position of me and my party is clear. It is one of opposition at every stage. The intention of these online IDs is blurry, and it is completely the wrong approach to the issues that the Government claim the cards will target.

I have received hundreds of emails over the last month showing clear opposition to the introduction of these cards. Many have stated that digital ID schemes threaten to undo the tradition of British liberty and replace it with a bureaucratic checkpoint culture that completely undermines the democratic process. It is not just the older generations who object; the younger ones have also contacted me to object. They say, “We are private citizens, and this system of digital ID is oppressive.” Furthermore, there is the danger of potential cyber-hacking.

I am proud to be able to say to my constituents that I have stood against this draconian plan at every stage. I can look them in the face and say that my party and I have no plans to support this scheme—we never will—and the quicker the Minister catches on, the better.

16:58

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Ind)]

The No. 1 issue facing this country is inequality. Civil liberties will potentially be infringed by the collection of private data. Millions of older people, people living in poverty and many disabled people will face digital exclusion. Of course, big tech corporations and their shareholders will be the real beneficiaries of the policy. There will be more inequality at home, and more taxpayers’ money going abroad.

However, the SNP’s hypocrisy on digital ID is frankly staggering. It wants Scotland to forget about the £7 million of taxpayers’ money spent on a covid vaccine passport that breached data privacy laws. Unlike the SNP, I have been and will continue to be consistent in my opposition to mandatory digital ID.

16:58

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this debate. This is one of the most controversial and divisive issues currently supported by the Government, who have form. I am here on behalf of my constituents, as nearly 100 have written to me opposing the scheme, and nearly 4,000 have signed the e-petition.

We have heard the risks and the issues around data privacy, surveillance culture, user profiling, exclusion, focus creep and scope creep. Having worked in the IT industry for over 20 years, as well as in the cyber-security industry, I can say that there is no safe system at the moment. Relying on third-party software, owned by foreign states or companies—

[Emily Darlington]

Is the hon. Member aware of the Government’s statements that the system would be held internally and use sovereign tech?

[Iqbal Mohamed]

I am, but that will not solve the issue.

[David Davis]

The tech has already been abroad. It has already been in Romania, and it is quite possible that malware is already inside it.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

One of the reasons for proposing the scheme was to give citizens and residents of the UK easy access to Government and public services. We have been crying out for joined-up government for decades, under the previous Government and the Labour Government before them. Our systems across Government Departments are islands of automation. They are separate—they do not connect; they do not talk to each other. Before this ID could be effective, we would need a fully integrated, safe, joined-up Government system with systems that talked to each other. There are people working in the NHS who have multiple log-ins to do their normal job. That is the environment that we are in.

My constituents and millions across this country are opposed to the scheme because they see the breach of their civil liberties but do not see the benefits of the scheme. The Government have not articulated them or the use cases. I asked the Secretary of State in the Chamber about what use cases the Government want to introduce the scheme for, about whether the prerequisites to deliver those use cases have been met, and about how the public can have guarantees about security, privacy and breach concerns before they are required, compulsorily, to sign up to the scheme.

The scheme needs detailed review. The pilots and previous attempts to implement such schemes have failed. They have exposed our country to third-party risks. Our data is already out there, and we cannot introduce a system that will make the rest of the data, which is not out there, easily accessible to those criminals.

17:02

[Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)]

The Government say that digital ID will eradicate illegal workers in the UK. It will not. Mandatory digital ID will not stop any more unscrupulous employers than does the check for the right to work in the UK, which is already in place. It is a vanity project that will cost the taxpayer billions of pounds and will not achieve the desired outcomes.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour needs to wake up? This scheme could put our personal data at risk, while costing taxpayers billions and doing little to restore public trust in the immigration service.

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree. Many of my local residents are still digitally excluded. Lack of mobile signal and in many places no fast internet access means that digital-only solutions leave too many people out in the cold.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the very idea of “Ihre Papiere, bitte” is not something that my constituents, or the British people more broadly, will stand for? That explains this cross-party opposition—which I, as a true Liberal, fully endorse.

[Martin Wrigley]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The elderly, the disabled and those on low incomes are most likely to be adversely affected by this policy. The Government published a digital inclusion action plan in February 2025, but I hear from constituents that, seven months on, they have seen little or no improvement.

It appears that digital ID will be required not just for accessing employment but as a proof of right to rent, which risks placing additional burdens on people already marginalised in society. Mandatory digital ID also brings a deep unease about the growing relationship between the Government and large tech companies such as Palantir, Apple and Google. As a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, I have raised concerns about those relationships and have yet to receive satisfactory answers. Knowing that the Government are willing for those companies to hold and have access to such sensitive data is worrying. I will continue to push for answers and will oppose mandatory ID cards.

17:04

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I have serious concerns about digital ID, based on civil liberties, data security and practical delivery. First, on civil liberties, we should remember that although we may live in a benign social democracy today, that cannot be guaranteed in the future. When bestowing new powers on Government, MPs have a responsibility to think about how those powers could be used. Secondly, on data security, when the Government centralise vast amounts of personal data, they create a target for hackers and cyber criminals.

Thirdly, there are the practicalities. One argument that the Government have advanced for digital ID is that it will help to crack down on illegal working. However, there are already requirements on employers to check that applicants have a right to work in the UK. Why would an employer who did not carry out a right-to-work check for, say, a passport, suddenly carry out such a check for digital ID?

17:04

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Digital IDs are nothing short of a direct attack on our freedoms and I am utterly opposed to them. The claim that they will help to tackle illegal immigration is utter nonsense. If the Government were serious about that, the Prime Minister would strengthen border security, crack down on smugglers and traffickers, and invest in real enforcement. Quite frankly, digital IDs will not stop a single boat and they will not stop the endless cycle of people illegally entering the UK, mostly of working age, who do not want to work and will not work.

Digital IDs are not wanted by the people in my constituency of Upper Bann—they feel that it is “Big Brother is watching you” on steroids. At the end of the day, who pays for digital IDs but the ordinary people here in the United Kingdom? We have rejected digital IDs before and we will absolutely reject them again.

17:05

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

When the Prime Minister unveiled this plan at the Global Progress Action Summit 2025, he referred to digital ID only as a tool for right-to-work checks; there was no mention of any linkage to public services. Within a matter of weeks, though, digital ID appears to have encompassed a disturbingly large part of people’s lives.

I was astounded to see the Secretary of State for Scotland on the BBC defending the sudden push for “Britcards” by comparing them to boarding passes, train tickets and Tesco clubcards, which are on many phones already. Every one of those things is available in physical form and a Tesco clubcard is clearly optional. That cannot be said for this “Britcard” scheme.

Ministers have repeatedly said that the scheme is not mandatory, yet the Prime Minister said it was mandatory for work purposes. He explicitly said:

“Let me spell it out: you will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have a digital ID.”

Surely, in anyone’s books that is mandatory.

One of the most glaring issues is the fact that digital ID is a rewiring of the relationship between citizen and state, and is being done without a democratic mandate. A “Britcard” is not wanted and is not needed. It is a waste of public money and should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

17:06

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I recently conducted a local survey after being contacted by hundreds of constituents about this digital ID issue. The results were clear. Over two thirds of respondents opposed the introduction of mandatory digital ID, with the majority of them being “strongly” against it. Over 80% of respondents said that they believed such a system would infringe on personal privacy and do little to tackle illegal migration. Around 30% of respondents supported some form of digital identification, often for specific limited purposes. However, even among that group, most respondents said that they did not believe it would meaningfully address illegal migration or illegal working.

[Stuart Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way this idea was launched is a complete smokescreen and did not reveal the real reason for digital ID? The real reason is to gain control over the British people.

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when trust in Government is so low—I think that it was about 12% in the last poll—it is totally wrong for the Government to introduce such a reckless policy, which fundamentally affects personal freedom and privacy without a clear case, clear cost or, most importantly, clear consent, because it was not in the manifesto. My constituents feel that this decision is being forced on them without consultation, without explanation and without consent.

Like many others, I have deep concerns about privacy, data security and Government overreach. People are rightly worried that digital ID could pave the way for intrusion into areas such as banking, health records or even social credit-style monitoring.

Other Members have raised the issues around digital exclusion, which I entirely agree with, and most importantly the cost of the scheme. We must oppose digital ID every time that it comes in front of us. As has already been said, 3 million people have signed a public petition opposing digital ID. The message from my constituents and from the wider public is simple: the proposal is unwanted, unjustified and unwise. The Government should stop, listen and think again. My constituents demand transparency, safeguards and solid evidence that any proposed system will genuinely solve real problems without sacrificing privacy, liberty or fairness.

17:09

[David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

At a time when public trust in politics is low and confidence in Government competence is falling, I cannot think of a worse idea than a mandatory and highly expensive digital ID scheme, which inevitably will have to be delivered by private sector consultants. Of course, citizens should benefit from digital innovation, but between them the UK Government and the Welsh Government still struggle to transfer patient data from Hereford to Brecon. That is what my constituents want—they want their hospital records to be able to come back from Hereford. With that low level of capability, why would anyone believe that this Government can securely and effectively deliver a national ID system?

17:09

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I have three key questions. Will ID cards reduce illegal work? Probably not. Secondly, what price are we willing to pay for convenience? This seems a very high one. Thirdly, should we wonder when a prominent advocate of digital ID receives large donations from silicon valley, which has already shown a blasé attitude to personal data?

Meanwhile, we are looking at high opportunity costs; potential hacks and attacks on our personal data; and a card that starts out voluntary but rapidly becomes mandatory in all but name. Above all, there is the question of trust: a future Government could easily repurpose a digital ID scheme as a tool of surveillance or control. That is precisely why this country abandoned compulsory ID cards in 1952. The Liberal Democrats believe that technology should serve citizens, not monitor them.

17:11

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this lively debate and eloquently sharing his views and concerns.

As Liberal Democrats, we hold a fundamental principle: freedoms belong to citizens by right. The Secretary of State spoke repeatedly about

“giving people power and control”.—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 87.]

But I ask the Minister—control over what and whom? This essentially mandatory digital ID for every person with the right to work in this country does not leave much choice or control.

My constituent Julie, from Harpenden, does not have a phone; she does not want one. That is her choice, but she has written to me deeply concerned that she will be excluded from society because of this digital ID policy. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), cited that 93% of the population have a smartphone, as if that justified digital ID. That statistic means that approximately 4.5 million people—just like Julie—will not gain control but lose it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) rightly pushed for during debate on the data Bill, people must have the right to a non-digital identification. That includes the right to work with non-digital ID. Where is the fairness for people such as Julie in this mandatory system? That is before we consider the 8.5 million people working in the UK who lack even the most basic digital skills. Leon, who works in IT in Tring, sees this reality every day. He has written to me saying that many of his colleagues struggle with basic smartphone tasks—a digital ID will force them to navigate an entirely new system on top of that. What are the Government’s plans to upskill millions of workers, or will this yet again be another burden dumped on businesses?

Speaking of cost, experts are clear that the proposal will cost taxpayers billions, behind a trail of failed Government IT projects. Ask European citizens in the UK who have been plagued by the e-visa app’s failures, which have resulted in people being wrongly denied work, housing, education and welfare. Analysis commissioned by the Liberal Democrats shows that, of 24 major Whitehall schemes currently under way, two are already rated as undeliverable and 16 are facing significant issues. From NHS patient records to digital tax systems, the total cost of those failed or delayed projects already stands at more than £31 billion.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

I have just come from a meeting with WASPI women here in Parliament who are asking for £3 billion in compensation, which they are rightly owed. The Government have said that they do not have that money—they have actually taken that group to court—yet here we are: they have pulled £2 billion out of the hat. Does my hon. Friend agree that the priorities are really wrong here?

[Victoria Collins]

Absolutely, and I was about to say that while frontline services are crumbling and people are needing those billions of pounds, we are seeing here is billions being spent, millions being excluded and freedoms eroded—and for what? How much taxpayer money are the Government prepared to waste on this scheme, for which they have no mandate and no public support? While those frontline services are bursting at the seams, the Government have squandered the opportunity to use technology to improve services by instead undermining trust, seemingly flip-flopping on this patchwork policy.

On 26 September, the Prime Minister announced digital ID with promises to control borders and tackle irregular migration. Last week, that narrative had all but vanished, with a shift to talking about anything from handling daycare to buying a drink. The Secretary of State herself admitted that digital ID would not be the “silver bullet” to end migration as initially promised; as the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) highlighted, as did many others, we know it will not solve the problem. Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary defended extending digital ID to 13-year-olds—something that the Government have still not ruled out.

Why are this Government so determined to press ahead? I support improving digital services on a voluntary basis, but we can modernise without mandating and must leave room for non-digital choice. Allegedly, this is about easier access to Government services, but surely we should be working on improving what we already have.

The gov.uk One Login, the voluntary gateway to digital Government, needs much improvement. As the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) highlighted, there are many concerns about security as well. Should we not fix those services, rather than create new ones?

17:15

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for securing this timely and important debate, as well as his characteristically forceful and measured speech. It has been a fun debate with lots of contributions. I am sure there will be plenty more opportunities going forward, but I want to draw out a few particularly powerful contributions.

First, my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the issues around the prevalence of digital exclusion and the use of the veteran card. Secondly, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) rightly pointed out the issues that the gov.uk One Login has had. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) pointed out the problem of the prevalence of digital poverty among the elderly. Finally, the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed), who always speaks with great wisdom in these debates, spoke about the issue of multiple NHS logins.

This plan will make Government-issued digital ID compulsory to access work. Ignore the piffle—this is de facto mandatory. Given the contentious history of mandatory ID schemes in this country, one might have expected a policy of such weighty constitutional importance to appear in the Government’s manifesto, but it was conspicuously absent—like most current Government policy.

Earlier this year, I stood across the Dispatch Box from the previous Minister, debating the digital verification system brought in by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025. That scheme created a trust framework for a register of approved providers of digital identity verification services. Building on the competitive ecosystem established by the last Government, private sector companies are already providing right to rent, right to work and many other identity checks.

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

Talking about the difference between the public and private sectors, does my hon. Friend agree that it is deeply concerning that, at a time of rising taxation and increasing Government debt, this Government cannot even tell us how much a digital ID scheme would cost?

[Dr Spencer]

The point is that we have a sector that is already developing voluntary ID schemes. It is now being let down by the Government, who are bringing in their own mandatory scheme. Not once in the course of previous debates did the Minister mention that the Government intend to launch their own mandatory digital ID system for the right to work or anything else, but the concerns with this policy go beyond questions of democratic legitimacy.

The National Audit Office’s report on Government cyber-resilience, published early this year, contains a number of concerning findings about serious gaps in cyber-security amongst Government Departments and public sector bodies. One of the most concerning is that the Cabinet Office does not have a strategy for how Government organisations could become cyber-resilient by 2030.

There is no current plan to secure the Government’s cyber-resilience over the very same timeframe that this mandatory Government-run identity scheme, which will host the data of every working person in the UK, will be rolled out. We are yet to hear from the Government a clear timescale for bringing their cyber-security and resilience Bill forwards.

Digital inclusion remains a challenge for many across this country and impacts vulnerable groups, such as those on low incomes and those with disabilities, the most. The Government’s policy of making digital ID mandatory to access work flies in the face of digital inclusion. The consideration given to digital exclusion being, “Well, we are going to consult on what to do,” as an afterthought is frankly shameful.

Digital inclusion was at the heart of the previous Government’s levelling-up ambitions. The Government published their own digital inclusion plan in February, which will be implemented over several years. Why not concentrate on putting that plan into effect, rather than diverting resources towards their own costly digital identity programme? Universal digital inclusion and robust cyber-security must be conditions precedent to any Government-run ID scheme. At the moment, we have neither.

We are left with a number of pressing questions. Why was this flagship policy not part of the Government’s election manifesto last year? Why has it been brought forward now? Why should it be mandatory rather than optional? Why are the Government pursuing a costly, Government-run ID scheme when the private sector infrastructure for digital ID services exists already? What is the Government’s plan to keep citizens’ data secure? Can the Minister guarantee that no one lawfully eligible to work will be excluded from employment by this scheme?

17:20

[The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) for his speech. It was a very good speech, but suffered from the big disadvantage of none of it being actually accurate in terms of what the policy is and what digital ID is supposed to be about.

Let me start by saying—I mean this seriously and I mean it passionately in my defence of Parliament and Government—that it is okay to debate these things. There is a huge number of people in Westminster Hall today who want to debate this subject. An hour may not be enough, and no doubt we will come back to these issues on several occasions. But there is something that is really important. There is a real task for us all to do as custodians of democracy, which is to have this debate from the perspective of the facts that are out there and not to peddle myths.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said clearly in an intervention that all we have heard is the myths. I hope I can bust some of those myths to give comfort to some of our constituents that this scheme is not what is being portrayed by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire and what we have heard in many of the contributions. We have a real responsibility to make sure that we have proper debates—with the facts, not with what we read on social media.

[Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)]

The Minister says that we are “custodians of democracy”. On the back of that, and in the light of his comments, I ask this: will the Government commit to a direct vote in the House, a free vote on the digital ID scheme before it is rolled out and becomes mandatory in any form? The public and their elected representatives deserve clarity and choice.

[Ian Murray]

A full consultation will be launched by the end of this year. There are two options that the Government could have taken. We could have started from the position of a fully fledged programme, a fully fledged policy, and then taken that out to consultation; or we could take the approach that we are doing at the moment, which is to go out to consultation after we have had some initial consultation with people, so that the formal consultation is shaped by people’s views and the concerns that they raise.

I will give two examples, which are from the island of Ireland and from Northern Ireland and in terms of the common travel area and the Good Friday agreement. These are things that have to be resolved. We now know they are big issues, and that will go into the consultation to try to resolve them. We cannot have it both ways. We have chosen to take this particular approach in order to develop a consultation—

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me make some progress and I will give way. I want to read Members this paragraph:

“We will develop and establish a trusted and secure service for users to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service. Users will be able to store their information and choose to share it when applying to public services. This will improve a user’s access to services by providing a safe and secure way to prove their identity, while reducing time and cost for the public sector. Additionally, we will develop an inclusive approach for all users to ensure that…services are available for”

all, particularly those who are digitally excluded. That is from the Scottish Government in 2021. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire’s own party as the Scottish Government is developing this; it is actually SNP policy.

Let me just bust some of the myths. This is not a Brit card. I know that members of the SNP like to call it a Brit card, because that is what gives them traction in the way in which they constitutionally do these things, but it is not a Brit card. And let me just deal with the issue about compulsion and mandation, because everyone stands up and calls this mandatory digital ID. It is not mandatory. That is the wrong thing to say to our constituents. It is not compulsory in this country to have a passport, but one is mandatory to travel. If someone wants to travel on a flight, even an internal flight, in this country, they require that ID to be able to travel. It is not compulsory to hold a passport, but it is mandatory to use one for travel. It is exactly the same in this particular instance. It is not compulsory to have one. People will not be asked to show it; they will not be asked to produce it. There is a whole host of use cases that would be voluntary—

[Graham Leadbitter]

The Prime Minister said that this was mandatory if people wanted to work in the UK, so for every single person who wants to work in the UK it is mandatory. Is that not pretty much a compulsory ID card?

[Ian Murray]

No, it is not. I cannot remember which hon. Gentleman made the point about over-75s not being digitally excluded. I do not know many over-75s who are looking for work, so if they do not want to have this, they do not need to have it. And for people who are particularly challenged in terms of mental capacity or otherwise, there will be a different system—

[Peter Fortune]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me finish the first point. There will be available a system that is non-digital for people to use in those particular circumstances. In terms of the way the law works now, it is illegal for an employer to employ someone who does not have the right to work in this country. There is already a process for people to use passports or driving licences to prove their identification. If the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) wants his passport or driving licence held in some dusty filing cabinet and photocopied 400 times, rather than just proving his right to work in this country on his digital ID, I would suggest that that is less secure than having it on a smartphone.

[Jim Shannon]

How will the Minister and the Government react to the united political opposition from both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, nationalist and Unionist, to the ID card? How can the Minister and the Government pursue something that is so unanimously opposed by everyone in Northern Ireland?

[Ian Murray]

Let me address that point directly. I have already been to Northern Ireland and spoken to all parties in the Northern Ireland Executive, and I have also been to the Republic to speak to the Irish Government about the processes that they have. In fact, they are about to introduce a similar scheme, because all EU countries have to have a scheme up and running by 2026. We fully understand the Good Friday agreement, the common travel area and nationality in Northern Ireland—that people can be British, Irish or both—and that will all have to be built into the system. As a Government, we have taken on board those legitimate concerns—not the myths. I have heard them directly from all parties in Northern Ireland, and we will ensure that those are resolved as part of the process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in the consultation to make sure that those are resolved.

[Martin Wrigley]

It is not much of a consultation if the Government have already said, very vocally, that they are going to do it. It is really a question of how hard they want to beat people.

[Ian Murray]

Of course it is a consultation. It is about how we get this right, what it looks like, how it is built, how federated data is secured, how we deal with digital inclusion and how we deal with the issues in Northern Ireland. That is what the consultation is about. It is about the Government learning from that. [Interruption.] Liberal Democrat Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but their own leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), said on 21 September that “times have changed”, and that he had been impressed by a visit to Estonia, where a liberal Government had brought in digital ID. He said that if a system was

“giving individuals power to access public services”,

he could be in favour. Four days later, he said that

“the Liberal Democrats will fight against it tooth and nail”.

It is the same hypocrisy as the Scottish National party; it was their policy five days before they came out against it.

[Victoria Collins]

I would just highlight that what was stated was about the system being voluntary and about choice. We are saying that a mandatory system is a problem. Do this Government want to grow this economy or not? Do they want to give people who want to work a real choice? I do not see that at all.

[Ian Murray]

This is about reconnecting citizens with Government. Everyone will have constituents coming to every one of their surgeries with a form they cannot fill out, a piece of maladministration in public services, something they cannot access or a difficulty in getting access to benefits. There are still people in this country who are entitled to huge parts of the benefit system but do not claim. There are people who will need this for verification of identity and their age in buying alcohol—all those things that are a big inconvenience for people. This is about reconnecting citizens with Government—modernising government, as we have heard from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). It is about making sure that the Government can be effective and can be in the digital age with a digital population. This happens in many other countries around the world. I do not have time to run through all of them now, but hon. Members can look them up.

Let me take on two issues before I finish. The first is data and security. This is a federated data system, so I say to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) that his idea of bringing it all together in one database is the wrong option. The data does not move; it sits with the Government Department, and the digital ID system, or whatever system is used, goes into those datasets and brings out affirmative or otherwise—

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Will the Minister give way?

[Ian Murray]

I do not have time.

The system brings out affirmative or otherwise information in relation to the specific information that the system requires. Having one central database is the wrong approach; there would be security issues. The dataset is federated, and does not move from the home Departments. The system reaches in to get the data it requires and bring it into what it needs to do to answer the questions.

I fully understand the points made about digital inclusion; we all do. Governments have been talking about digital inclusion for far too long, and this is an opportunity to sort it once and for all. Where digital ID has been introduced, those in the most deprived communities, furthest away from Government services, have got the best access to them. Those who would not have had access before and geographically isolated communities, like those represented in Scotland by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire, have been connected the quickest and have had the greatest use from the connection to Government services.

The myths about digital inclusion, about safety and security, about the ID being called a Britcard, and about it being mandatory are not the case in terms of the policy. I look forward to everyone inputting into the consultation and the Government bringing forward the legislation in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.

17:30

Sitting adjourned.