(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID.
It is a pleasure to introduce today’s e-petition debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to open it on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank all the organisations and individuals I have met in preparation for the debate.
Nearly 3 million people have signed today’s petition. It is the fourth most signed petition in the history of parliamentary e-petitions, comparable only to the recent petitions calling for a general election. It is obvious why the plans to bring in digital ID have provoked such outrage: they are fundamentally un-British and they strike at the core political traditions of this country. Colleagues of all parties are opposed to these measures: the Conservatives, the Greens, Reform, Lib Dems, Labour Back Benchers, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, independent MPs and colleagues from Northern Ireland. In fact, even several Ministers in this Government have, in the past, voiced their opposition to compulsory identity documents.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
For the avoidance of doubt, I am on this side of the Westminster Hall Chamber only because it is so packed that this was the only remaining chair. I have not defected to the Labour Party and I never will—nor to anyone else. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this policy was not in Labour’s general election manifesto, so it has absolutely no electoral mandate to extend the surveillance state over the people of this country with this gimmick?
Robbie Moore
I cannot agree enough. It raises the question: who is actually in favour of these proposals, other than the Prime Minister?
Despite the consistent opposition to identity documents, this is not the first time that they have been forced on the British public. The first ID card in this country came during the second world war: police officers could demand of the public that they show their cards and they were subject to six months’ imprisonment if they did not. Despite promises in 1939 that the ID cards would be a temporary wartime measure, they were used throughout the post-war Attlee Government; they were ended only by the Conservatives in 1952. Some 50 years later, no longer fighting German spies but the war on terror, the Blair Government tried to bring ID cards back, and they succeeded. Once again, it took the Conservative Government—this time in coalition with the Lib Dems—to stop them.
Sadly, the Conservatives are not wholly innocent either when it comes to ID. In 2021, the Government introduced the first digital ID in the form of the covid passport, which I proudly voted against. Thankfully, those documents lasted only a short while before restrictions were lifted. That brings us to the modern day and the latest excuse for ID cards: tackling illegal immigration and delivering Government services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. As you may have noticed, there are huge numbers of Members trying to speak. I will have to impose a three-minute speech limit. We will try and get everybody in, but the more interventions there are, the more people simply will not get in. Perhaps you could all bear that in mind, please.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I will keep my intervention very short, Sir Edward. An unheard-of 4,400 of my constituents signed this petition. They are very clear that they do not want the imposition—which is what it will be—of digital ID. As we heard from my hon. Friend’s history lesson, time and again it has been the Conservatives who have said, “No, we do not want this. The British people do not want it.” Is it not time that this Government sat up and listened to the public for a change?
Robbie Moore
That is exactly why this Conservative party is saying no to digital ID once again. The latest guesstimate of how much this is going to cost us all is a whopping £1.8 billion.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
My hon. Friend articulates the case powerfully. I know my constituents will agree that we could be doing much better things with £1.8 billion than wasting it on a project like this.
Robbie Moore
I entirely agree, but here we are with the latest Government excuse to introduce mandatory digital ID. I can just see the communication advisers in No. 10 looking at today’s polling, dusting off the old ID card plan and slapping “Stop the boats” on the cover. There is no doubt in my mind that if the No. 1 issue of today had been tackling potholes, the very same press release would have come out of No. 10 claiming that digital ID is now the essential solution to tackling the national problem of potholes. I say that in jest, but to point out that it seems that any excuse—however unjustified and unevidenced—will do to push policy through.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Robbie Moore
I give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah
There are many who seek the right and the ability to identify themselves, but who do not have it as it stands. We all have constituents who are experiencing that. My Committee has seen evidence that the figure cited by the hon. Gentleman is not recognised by the Secretary of State; it has been put forward by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Secretary of State will be writing to us to set out what costs she envisages and when they will be realised. It is also important to recognise that the level of digital hygiene across Government is not such that it could support a mandatory digital ID scheme, in my view.
Robbie Moore
Therein lies the explanation and the reason why so many Members of this House are opposed to the plans brought forward by the Prime Minister.
Here is the question that the Government hope nobody will ask: if the real target is people who are here illegally, why on earth do 67 million British citizens who already have national insurance numbers, passports, driving licences and birth certificates need to be dragged into a brand-new compulsory database as well? What exactly is it about stopping the crisis of inflatable dinghies in the channel that requires your son, your daughter, your dad or your 90-year-old grandma to hand over their data and facial geometry to the Home Office server?
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
My constituents in Epping Forest are deeply concerned about the prospect of digital ID cards. Many have written and spoken to me, and over 5,600 have signed the petition. Rather than improving the delivery of public services, this scheme risks wasting billions on a complex, intrusive and potentially very insecure system that will not help anyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must now listen, take on board the public concerns and scrap this flawed policy?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is not about stopping the boats at all; it is about more Government and state control.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. The mover of the debate must make progress.
Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)
I will be very brief. My constituency is in rural Wiltshire, where a huge number of residents have taken part in this petition. Does the hon. Member agree that digital exclusion is a reality in areas like mine?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree that digital exclusion is a reality for all.
I ask everyone in this place and those watching at home, no matter their political persuasion, to imagine their worst ever Government: the one that keeps them awake at night and that they would march against in the streets. For many, I am sure that that will be this Government, but for some it may have been previous Governments. This single piece of digital infrastructure will hand that Government, whoever they may be, the key to our life. Once that digital infrastructure is set up, we cannot go back. Once digital ID comes into force, no political party can promise that its intentions will stay good forever. Put simply, an ID card gives the state permanent control, and I say no.
The slippery slope argument is so common in debates about civil liberties that it is almost a cliché, but once the digital identities infrastructure is in place, it will become so much harder for a well-meaning Minister to resist the idea that they can fix areas of public policy by tracking and controlling, at an ever finer level, how a population behaves.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
We have a Government who could not even keep their own Budget under wraps. What hope do they have with our personal data?
Robbie Moore
That is exactly what a constituent of mine emailed me about—a constituent who voted Labour in 2024. They said, “If they can’t even control the leakage from the Government, how on earth can they control our data?”
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Like many Members, I have been inundated with messages. My Hartlepool constituents are hugely concerned. Does the hon. Member agree that part of the problem is that we got an announcement without the detail? I have written to the Minister with a number of questions that my constituents have put to me. Does the hon. Member think that Government Ministers owe our constituents answers about the detail of what they are proposing?
Robbie Moore
I could not agree more, but I suspect that the Minister will come out and reiterate the lines from the Prime Minister that he was given before the debate.
Just look at the social credit system in China. Facial recognition linked to ID penalises people. Blacklisted citizens cannot buy train or plane tickets, book hotels or apply for certain jobs. This Government have already indicated that migration work and renting will be tied to ID, but how long will it be before future Governments push further and accessing state services is brought under the control and monitoring of digital ID?
We are already seeing signs of such a framework in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Online Safety Act 2023 and the One Login system. Combined with a formal digital ID, those frameworks would create a world of control for Whitehall and a soulless dystopia for the rest of us. Together, they replace the honesty and decency of human-to-human interaction with an opaque, mechanical “computer says no” future. The scary truth is that control and ID cards hold an appeal for anyone who has access to power. It takes a conscious effort by every one of us to resist the temptation. Power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if bad employers are not prevented from taking people on without national insurance numbers or passports, they will not stop at taking someone on without digital ID?
Robbie Moore
I agree. The attitude of control strikes at the very heart of our political traditions. We are a representative democracy, not a command-and-control state. A Government exist by the will of the people, not the other way round. Put simply, we are not a “papers, please” society.
One of the most terrifying elements of the Government’s proposals is that these IDs are to be digital. The national database on which our identities are to be held is a true honeypot for hackers all over the world. To those who say that it will be secure, I say, “Name me a company or Government body that has not had a hacking crisis in recent years.” The NHS, the Co-op, Jaguar Land Rover—I could go on. Even Estonia’s Government lost 280,000 digital ID photos in 2021.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that the scheme could put constituents’ most sensitive data into the hands of private, perhaps overseas, individuals who might have neither our constituents’ nor our country’s interests at heart?
Robbie Moore
I completely agree. In the case of One Login, cyber-security specialists were able to infiltrate and potentially alter the underlying code without being noticed by the team working on the project. In fact, the existing system could be compromised as we speak. We are assured by advocates of digital ID that clever technology will protect the data, but as I have outlined, the temptation to further integrate data within the system will be extremely strong. How long before someone suggests that security features be removed to make the system more efficient?
Digital data brings me back to consent. I will finish on this point: digital ID is an ever more intrusive evolution of traditional ID cards—one that promises to be more oppressive. Coupled with the powers of digital databases, increasing widespread facial recognition, digitalised public services and the looming prospect of a central bank’s digital currencies, digital ID threatens to create an all-encompassing digital surveillance state that even George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” could not predict. In every aspect of public life, we give over our data with consent. Yet digital ID turns that notion on its head, insisting that we hand over data to simply function in society, and potentially for reasons to which we cannot consent in advance.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that this is just the latest example of this Labour Government trying to push through something that was not in their manifesto, and that this House must therefore do all it can to stop it becoming a reality?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely agree. Who else but the Prime Minister really wants to drive this through? If the Government expand the scope of digital ID after its initial implementation, I doubt that they will be kind enough to offer an opt-out clause to anyone who has signed up. People up and down the country, 3 million of whom have signed the petition, can see that this scheme is a disaster waiting to happen.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I thank the hon. Member for his excellent speech. Three million signatures! I want to apologise to hon. Members for the fact that there is not enough space in this Chamber for everyone who has turned up. I thank them for turning up, and I think it poses a question for the House to settle in future.
Robbie Moore
I could not agree more. It shows the strength of feeling on this issue. Thousands of people are deeply offended by the intrusion on their civil liberties; thousands are sceptical about whether Whitehall will be able to pull off such a complex scheme; and thousands are digitally excluded, terrified of a “computer says no” future. The Government should give up now, because we on the other side of the debate will never give up.
Whether today’s identity cards are stopped before they are implemented or whether they last a few months, as they did in 2010, or over a decade, as they did in 1939, the British people will fight them, we will stop them and we will overturn them. As I said to the Government on the day they announced this policy, I am not a tin of beans and I do not need a barcode.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. I will have to impose an immediate three-minute limit. The more interventions there are, the fewer Members will get in.
I can see a number of senior Members in the “standing room only” section. If you are standing and want to speak, you must put your hand up. If called, you must come forward to a microphone and try to find a place—I can see Damian Hinds putting his hand up, very helpfully. I call Melanie Onn.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Edward. I will not take up much time.
Over 6,500 of my constituents signed the petition. Clearly, there is a great deal of angst and concern around the proposals, and it is imperative that the Minister address the concerns that have been laid out. While I welcome initiatives to stop illegal working and workforce exploitation, I share some of those legitimate concerns, particularly around the cost of roll-out, the necessity of the legislation, and data security. However, I recognise that we are living in a digital age in which we all give up our personal data to corporations, both domestic and international, with barely a second thought, and without knowing what those who sit behind the corporations will do with our data or likeness.
Can the Minister please offer reassurances that any proposal would present value for money? The total cost of rolling out a national system would be significant, and it is right that we understand how this compares with strengthening the forms of identification that we already have, because they are plentiful.
Melanie Onn
I will not give way—I am sorry.
There is also real interest in how personal data would be protected. Trust is very fragile when it comes to digital systems, so can the Minister give clarity that any digital ID would come with the strongest safeguards, transparent oversight and guarantees that data cannot be misused or accessed without consent?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In the previous year, 100,000 people were claiming asylum. The Labour Government were talking about ID cards to tackle illegal immigration, but they soon started talking about using them to tackle all sorts of other things as well. In time, it became apparent that there was a huge amount of disagreement among Ministers, and that the Government had not really thought it through and did not know the full cost. The year I am talking about is 2003, not 2025.
Eventually, 15,000 ID cards were issued under the previous Labour Government’s plan. However, it ran into massive technical issues and cost over-runs. Eventually, they ditched the idea of cards but kept the overbearing database, which is what we see being resurrected today.
Yes, there are pull factors in illegal immigration, and work is one of them. However, Italy has ID cards. It also has one of the world’s highest rates of illegal arrivals by sea. Here, employers are already obliged to do identity and right-to-work checks. By the way, if someone who is a legally resident person signs up to deliver food and then subcontracts that job to someone here illegally in exchange for cash, I fail to see how an ID card or a digital ID would interfere with that at all.
Ministers say that there would be no penalty for not carrying a card and that there would be no stop and search, but it is very hard to see how digital ID or physical ID cards address illegal immigration unless it is possible to demand the card from somebody in the street or in a workplace. And that is precisely the “papers, please” society that we do not want.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
Over 5,400 of my constituents in Runcorn and Helsby have signed this petition. I have also received many, many emails objecting to it. Does the right hon. Member agree with my constituents who all understand that this new digital ID card will not solve the problem of illegal working in this country?
Damian Hinds
I will add that 4,000 of my constituents have signed this petition. I have also heard directly from hundreds of them by email in response to my own petition. We should listen to all these voices.
A lot has changed since 2003, but not my opposition to digital ID. The Government say that it would be non-compulsory, but in practice it would become so. They already talk about opening bank accounts and accessing childcare or benefits with digital ID; of course, in time there will be many more applications for it. It will be one more thing that we will need a smartphone for. That is bad enough in itself, but if digital ID is to be given to children as young as 13, as the Government are consulting on, that will make things far worse again.
Most of all, the worry is about the concentration of data. Yes, we already have massive databases in the private sector, and we all already have a number for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, NHS numbers and all the rest of it. The big change here is the single index term—the single identifier that links all these databases together. However much the Government say that the main database will be federated and access-limited, that cannot take away from the fact that all the databases will be linked. If they were not all linked, it would not be a digital ID system.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I have scanned the Labour manifesto, in which ID cards do not feature, and I have sought the evidence that ID cards prohibit illegal working, but there is none. Yet we are told that digital ID is the way forward.
I understand the argument about the data in the pocket, the convenience, everything in one place, and data checks for work and rental accommodation. However, this project is not about holding information about ourselves on our phones for our own convenience. It is about data—big, augmented data from different places and different sources, intersecting someone’s health records with their records in the Department for Work and Pensions, or Home Office records with HMRC or local government, about where we live, where we work and where we are. Mix them together with facial recognition technology, run the algorithms and see what we get.
Of course, this Government would not dream of doing such a thing, but a future one might—indeed, a future one would. Following the passing of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025, academics have shown that aggressive actors will have access to this data and therefore we have to be warned about data theft and identity theft, which are not uncommon today.
Rachael Maskell
I will just press on.
If DWP data and NHS data are in the wrong hands, social security will become insecurity; if Home Office data contains someone’s location, then the ICE teams will find them. This could be our future. Behind our screens, the datasets that researchers use for good will be used by others for ill.
Of course there is interest in digital ID. We see the revolving door of those from the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and people from his former office; there is Larry Ellison of Oracle; after all, he already has 185 contracts with the Government. He recognises the power, the money and the opportunity, which is why we cannot afford to go there.
We have already heard about the scale of the money. However, I must say that the interest in this project will only expose us all to the risks of future Governments and what they might do with our data. It will not then be just about each one of us individually, but about that knowledge being used to determine each one of our futures, including our mortgages, our social security, our health and our economics. Let us not forget that the insurance companies are also eager to lay their hands on this data.
Technology may be agnostic, but it will have behind it people who most certainly are not and will be using its power, augmented for their own gain and opportunity. This House cannot go into this space. Parliament needs to wake up to the reality that it is not about what is on our phone, but about the data behind that and how it will be misused in future. I beg the Government to stop. The fact that this was not in the manifesto is enough to tell us all that it does not have public consent and therefore should not proceed.
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
I call Jeremy Corbyn. Can you come forward to a microphone, please?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Sir Edward. The number of Members here and the demand for the debate show two things: first, it should be held in the main Chamber, not here, and secondly there are massive levels of public concern over the statement made by the Prime Minister. I will refer to two quotes that I have received from constituents and that summarise the situation very well. One states:
“Digital ID is a deeply illiberal idea that threatens privacy, autonomy, and the open society we should be standing for. It risks creating a two-tier Britain, where access to basic services—healthcare, housing, employment, even voting—depends on whether someone has the right app, paperwork, or digital trail.”
The second states that such measures
“entrench a presumption of suspicion, not trust, and put disproportionate burdens on the most vulnerable: migrants, the digitally excluded, the disabled, the elderly, and those without stable housing or documentation.”
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good case. I am utterly opposed to digital ID, as are many of my constituents. One of them has made the point that in fact our great liberty, our great freedom, which is that the state has to prove that a person is guilty of a charge—innocence before guilt—is reversed by this, such that almost everybody on an ID card is assumed to have guilt until they have discharged themselves as innocent. Does that not go against all our freedoms?
Jeremy Corbyn
The right hon. Member makes an important point. The huge number of people who have signed this petition indicates to me that many in this country are deeply concerned about the direction in which we are travelling. ID cards are one thing; restricting jury trials is another. Facial recognition at tube stations and now even in supermarkets is something that people find deeply disturbing. Across the country there is a whole vein of thought where people are feeling a quite reasonable sense of paranoia about the levels of surveillance that they are under at the present time. Members of Parliament would do well to try to understand that.
This attack on civil liberties—that is what it is—means that utterly vast amounts of information on all of us will be stored, as they are already in the health service. Unfortunately, the Government are now making that available to private healthcare interests at the same time. There is a huge issue here about our data, our information and our privacy, which we would do well to remember.
The last point I want to make is that the debate on this issue is being pushed by commercial interests that will make a great deal of money out of providing the necessary technical equipment to set up this surveillance system. They will do very well out of it, and we are being pushed into agreeing it by them. It is time for Members of Parliament to listen to what people are saying, listen to the concerns, have a proper debate in the main Chamber about this and say no to the Government, as we have said no before.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am pleased that through this Westminster Hall debate we are giving much-needed attention to the question of digital ID. Many of my constituents in South Derbyshire contacted me to share their views ahead of the debate. That includes well over 400 comments on a Facebook post in which I asked people for their views on digital ID —good, bad and perceived bad. Although there is a wide variety of opinion, many of my constituents have expressed concerns and it is my responsibility to communicate these here today.
Let me start by recognising that about a third of South Derbyshire constituents who have been in touch on digital ID were supportive, which is almost unique—people rarely contact me to tell me that they are pleased with what I am doing. There are some significant practical advantages: the ability to prove identity quickly for work; the potential to bring together passport, driving licence and national insurance details in a single secure format so that people would not need to faff around with a utility bill to prove their address anymore; and the benefits for people who currently lack traditional forms of ID. As things stand, digital ID would be mandatory only for those accessing work, although I recognise that many constituents have concerns over mission creep, which I will come back to.
Samantha Niblett
I will not, I am afraid. I want to rattle through my speech.
Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands already operate digital ID systems that make everyday tasks simpler and more efficient. For some, digital ID is a natural progression for a modern, digital economy. One constituent told me:
“We already use our phones and banking apps—this would simply streamline it”.
If done well and offered for free, digital ID could make employment checks and even voting more accessible, but it is equally important to reflect that roughly two thirds of responses from my constituents expressed serious concerns. That has unfortunately been intensified by fearmongering, some of which have heard today from certain parliamentary colleagues, but my constituents’ message was clear: we need trust, privacy and inclusion to come first—
Several hon. Members rose—
Samantha Niblett
I will not give way, I am sorry. I am rattling through my speech.
Many fear that digital ID could pave the way, however unintentionally, to increased Government surveillance or the type of social credit-style monitoring that understandably alarms people. Others raise cyber-security concerns. One constituent said:
“If it can be hacked, it will be—and then what happens to our data?”
I am sure lots of tech companies would be delighted to get hold of our NHS data.
South Derbyshire is a rural constituency, and there are significant particularities when it comes to digital access and inclusion. Many older residents have raised concerns about their confidence in getting online and using smartphones. However, on this occasion, digital ID would thankfully be mandatory only for people accessing work.
There are also concerns about costs and priorities. Many people are asking why, at a time of stretched public services, the Government would invest in a new ID system that is mandatory for workers when we already have passports, licences, national insurance numbers and so on for that purpose.
Samantha Niblett
I will not.
The public need to feel confident that digital ID is secure, inclusive and underpinned by strong, transparent safeguards, so I look forward to hearing more from the Government about how they intend to build trust, engage openly with the public and guarantee that no one will be left behind as this technology evolves. It must also have a brilliant user experience.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for the fact that I may not be here for the wind-ups because of the business in the main Chamber.
I begin by restating my firm opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID. I opposed it in this Chamber only a month ago, and the public response has been remarkable. The clip of my speech on social media has now been viewed more than 2.5 million times—not because of any great oratory on my part, but because people across the country are deeply worried about the direction the Government are taking. They are worried about privacy, freedom and the steady expansion of state power without consent.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Gregory Stafford
I am afraid I will not; sorry.
I want to raise a specific issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), but that is often missed in this debate: the provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would mandate the NHS number as a single unique identifier for every child in England—namely ID cards, but on the sly. Ministers have confirmed in the House that that identifier will become mandatory. Wigan is already piloting multi-agency data sharing using it, but Members of this elected Chamber have not been given the evidence, the governance frameworks or the risk assessments that would justify such a change.
The Government have produced no credible reassurance that the NHS number will not become a gateway to expanded datasets or new intrusive linkages. There is no clear plan to prevent accidental disclosures that could put vulnerable children at risk, for example by revealing the address of a family fleeing domestic abuse or exposing confidential adoption records. Those are not theoretical concerns; they have occurred in practice. We have seen the warnings from Wales, where NHS numbers were extracted centrally and sent to local authorities with no direct care relationship with the children concerned. The 2024 consultation was highly critical. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and children’s organisations all warned that such policies risked pushing marginalised families away from healthcare entirely.
Wales’s own child’s rights impact assessment warned of possible breaches of articles 12 and 16 of the UN convention on the rights of the child. It even warned that children could lose their article 24 right to health if families disengaged from GP registration. However, Ministers insist that the NHS number is not sensitive data. The General Medical Council has already rejected that argument. All patient information attracts the common-law duty of confidentiality. There is no such thing as a harmless identifier.
Practically speaking, the Department for Education’s own research warned that mandating NHS numbers would require significant investment, long-term planning and phased roll-out. None of that groundwork has happened. Pilots are under way before Parliament has approved the principle. When trust in Government is already scraping the floor, the worst thing Ministers can do is force through more mandatory digital ID for adults or children, something the public neither asked for nor consented to.
Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition and more than two thirds of my constituents oppose it. Digital ID will not fix illegal migration, but it will supercharge state intrusion. The public deserve clarity, honesty and, above all, consent.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
My assessment is that the most important issue facing this country is inequality. Will mandatory digital ID help to close inequality?
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My Tiverton and Minehead constituency in west Somerset has the lowest social mobility in the whole country. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that mandatory digital ID will give a better quality of life to any of my constituents?
Brian Leishman
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but she needs to exercise just a smidge of patience; I was coming on to that. Introducing digital ID means the likelihood is that millions of people, including those living in poverty, many disabled people and older people, will end up facing digital exclusion. That will add to inequality, and I therefore cannot support the policy.
Inequality is impacting people from all over the UK, and the cost of living crisis is creating deeper poverty for millions of people. The truth is that introducing digital ID is a distraction from what the Government really should be doing. We need to redistribute power, wealth and opportunity to the millions who have been victims of chronic austerity—to those most impacted by the deterioration of public services and by the social cost of political decisions and what they have meant for their communities.
I have said who will not benefit from introducing digital ID, but who will? It is obvious: it will be corporate interests, shareholders and their dividends. Realistically, it could also be a future Government with an ideological agenda of selling data to private capital.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
The Government are consulting on their proposals to implement digital ID, which is important for respecting democracy and hearing the concerns of our constituents. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a consultation needs to be detailed, comprehensive and given proper time, so that the views of our constituents can be properly taken into account?
Brian Leishman
I agree. The minimum baseline of what the Government should be doing is listening to our constituents. After all, whichever party we represent—or do not represent—that is why we are here.
I touched on the possibility of a future Government with an ideological agenda. There is no doubt about it: that would create further inequality. Perhaps they could even be a Government whose reason for being is scapegoating people. Let us not kid ourselves that it is beyond the realms of possibility to have some sort of dystopian future Government in power, one that looks to use such technology for its own end, which is the exclusion of people from services or even—dare I say it—our country. If digital ID is introduced, it will be a big step in that awful direction.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
As someone whose constituency has had reports of Russian spies infiltrating through our harbour, one might think that I would be very much in favour of digital ID. However, it will clearly do nothing about the Russian threat, the small boats crossing the water or fraud in the workplace. I thank the more than 6,000 residents in Torbay who signed the petition: we are in the top 10 of those who object to mandatory digital ID. I hope the Minister will see this massive petition as a red card to these proposals, which did not appear in the Labour party’s manifesto.
The cost of the policy is massive: £1.8 billion, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Previously, when Tony Blair tried to trot this out, it was £4.6 billion—money that we can ill afford. For me, one of the nubs is that, when I go out and knock on doors in Torbay, I am always shocked at how many older folk in my deprived constituency do not have access to a smartphone or even a computer. This is digital exclusion on another scale, as we saw when the Conservatives excluded people for not having appropriate photo ID to vote. I strongly encourage the Minister to think again and reflect.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
Quite apart from the excellent points made by my hon. Friend and by Members on all sides of the Chamber, Singapore has a population that is 10 times smaller than ours, and it took it over 12 years to develop its system. How long would it take us to develop ours: 100 years?
Steve Darling
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.
I will conclude by saying that there are malevolent powers in power across the Atlantic, and many of us are shocked at what we are seeing emanating from the Oval Office. Let us not give a future Government powers that could be ill used.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I think I am the first person to speak today who is a supporter of digital ID. However, I agree with many of the objections raised by some colleagues; they are reasonable arguments and echo what many of my constituents have told me. Simon from Stowmarket wrote to say that he is worried about the state using digital ID to micromanage people’s lives, John from Bury St Edmunds said that digital ID could exclude those without smartphones or a fixed address, and there are many more who are concerned about the security of their data.
Peter Prinsley
I will not just now.
I agree with all those arguments, but why do I support digital ID? Because I believe that those arguments are about the practicalities of how we implement digital ID, as opposed to the principle of whether we should have digital ID in the first place.
It should be entirely possible for a great country like ours to modernise the way in which its citizens interact with the state while preserving civil liberties and privacy. That is entirely the Government’s intention. No one will be stopped in the street and asked for digital ID, data will be stored on personal devices, and it will the individual’s decision to share it or not. There will be alternative routes for those who cannot use smartphones.
Nevertheless, I know some Members will think this is a slippery slope, but that, again, is a practical argument. It is up to us, as legislators and as a Government, to ensure that digital ID is implemented with safeguards against bureaucratic creep. But we should not forgo the incredible benefits of digital ID because of the hypothetical chance that something we are against, and that we can prevent, might happen.
The benefits would be incredible. Before entering this place, I was a surgeon for many years, and the biggest problem I faced on a daily basis was accessing basic information about patients, which is stored in piecemeal fashion across myriad organisations. We could use digital ID to create a unified record and give control of it to the patients. That would revolutionise the national health service, and that is just one potential use—I have not mentioned the benefits for other public services and in reducing illegal working. People say that this is hugely expensive; I say that digital ID would pay for itself through reduced fraud. Privacy, inclusivity, civil liberties and a modern, streamlined state—I believe in all those things.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. This Government are trying to create a Big Brother Britain. We had the ramping up of facial recognition and 30 arrests a day for social media posts, and they are getting rid of trial by jury in most cases. We also have children being radicalised in our schools by left-wing teachers. Now this Government are trying to force digital ID on to us all, and the excuse they are using is that it will stop illegal migrants working. If the Prime Minister was really serious about stopping illegal migrants working, he would detain and deport every single illegal migrant that crosses the English channel, but of course he will not. This is a gimmick. It is a pathetic attempt by a weak Prime Minister who has totally lost control.
Over 5,000 of my constituents signed this petition, and they do not want this Government poking their nose into their private lives. My constituents are not illegal migrants. They did not break into this country. They are decent, hard-working people whose fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought in two world wars to secure our freedoms. Every single working person in Ashfield will now be penalised because of the failures of this Government.
No one needs a digital ID to work in this country. They need a national insurance number, backed up by a driving licence, passport or some photo ID. My message to the Government is quite clear: you allow undocumented men into our country with no ID at all; you pick them up and place them in luxury hotels with no ID at all; you then give them a free asylum claim and free legal aid with no ID at all; yet you are ordering my constituents in Ashfield to get digital ID, and then you have the cheek to call us fascists. That is what they do. Just leave my constituents alone and concentrate on clearing up the mess that you lot have created.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
This is a watershed moment for our country, and not a good one. The argument for digital ID is that it will help tackle illegal working, but sadly the evidence does not stack up. Across Europe, nations with long-standing ID card systems—Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece—have not seen reductions in irregular migration as a result of ID cards. In fact, some have larger shadow economies than our own. Estonia, the poster child for digital ID, actually has a bigger underground economy than Britain. Assuming that this new system will somehow suddenly make rogue employers obey the law, when they have ignored the paper checks for some time, is for the birds.
That argument aside, the real fear here is that we will be building an infrastructure that can follow us, link our most sensitive information and expand state control over all our lives. The Minister must understand why people are concerned. This policy does not arrive in a vacuum. It sits alongside a worrying pattern: the accelerated roll-out of facial recognition, attempts to weaken end-to-end encryption, and data laws that strip away privacy protections.
We must remember that Britain has no constitutional right to privacy. Parliament can, in a single vote, grant or remove protections that people in other democracies take for granted. When we think of building a nationwide ID system capable of linking health records, education data, housing history and even information about crimes that people have suffered, we should stop, because once that architecture exists, any future Government could misuse it, and we would have very little power to stop them.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
My constituents in Stratford-on-Avon are deeply concerned as well. Does the hon. Member agree that if millions of people need to rely on a Government-built identity tool to access work and services, the risks of data and privacy breaches and of errors will be considerable?
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree. We have seen the consequences of reckless data sharing already. All too often, migrant victims of domestic abuse, rape and trafficking have been frightened to report crimes because police forces routinely pass on their information to immigration officers. The harm is real: the offenders go unpunished and communities are less safe.
Even if we set aside the civil liberties concerns, there is a basic practical problem here: UK Governments, of all stripes, do not have a good track record of keeping our data safe. The number of serious cyber incidents is rising year on year. Critical institutions from the British Library to the Legal Aid Agency to the One Login platform have already been criticised for major security flaws.
Sarah Edwards
My constituents have also raised concerns, particularly around cyber-security. One of my constituents was told by the DWP that they were defrauding the child benefit system when they were not, because they had had data stolen. I am concerned that our Government systems need to be far better, so that if such a thing happened, someone could demonstrate that they were the genuine holder of that data.
Rebecca Long Bailey
My hon. Friend is spot on, and we all have constituency stories that replicate her experience.
Finally, there is the question of exclusion. As we have heard, millions of people in Britain do not have reliable digital access, and millions more do not have the basic digital skills required to navigate systems like this. Introducing mandatory digital ID risks shutting people out of work, housing, healthcare and public services, so I urge the Minister: for the sake of our rights, our safety and our democracy, drop this plan.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Edward. I am grateful to the Petitions Committee for granting this debate, which could not be more timely. People in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been talking to me about digital ID for months, and more than 5,300 have signed the petition. I want to put their concerns and mine plainly on the record today.
A mandatory digital ID tied to a smartphone is the wrong way to go. It answers none of the real problems that we face and risks creating a whole set of new ones. Let us be clear: Labour never mentioned this in its manifesto—not once.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jury—neither is in the Labour manifesto. There is a whiff of authoritarianism about this Government, is there not?
Alison Griffiths
There is certainly no mandate for either. If a Government wish to change something as fundamental as how we prove who we are, they need to be up front about it; they need to win consent for it. Attacks on our privacy and personal freedom must be debated in depth, not sneaked in through the back door.
Over two thirds of the respondents to my local survey told me they opposed digital ID entirely. Many have little confidence that their personal data will be kept safe. They worry about who will hold their information, what else it could end up being used for and what will happen to those who do not have a smartphone at all.
There is also the basic fairness test. Ofcom believes that about 4.5 million people in the UK do not own a smartphone, and many more struggle with digital access or confidence. We should not be building barriers for people, especially not those who already find public services hard to navigate.
Ministers have said that digital ID will help tackle illegal working and benefit fraud, but we have never been told in clear terms what the new scheme would do that our existing tools cannot already manage. If there are gaps in the system, they should spell them out. I want illegal working to be dealt with, and I want public services that work smoothly, but not at the expense of civil liberties, not by weakening data security, and not by shutting out the very people who need support.
I cannot support a mandatory digital ID scheme. If it comes to a vote, which it should, I will vote against it.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank the petitioner, Mr Sutcliff, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate.
The issue of digital identification has certainly added to my postbag in recent months. Many of my constituents’ concerns are real, legitimate and understandable. They include data security, the cost of the scheme, the potential for infringements of the right to liberty, the creation of a “papers, please” society, the chance of ID theft and fraud, and concerns about accessibility for all, as about 1.5 million people in this country are digitally excluded.
Tony Vaughan
Not at the moment.
Six per cent of the population do not have access to smartphones. Pensioners, the disabled and the homeless could be particularly affected. I believe it is vital that the Minister and the Government listen carefully to those concerns and that they be heard during the public consultation, which will begin in the new year. I will be making my representations; I urge my constituents to do so too.
I want to make two points about why, in principle, I support the idea of digital identification. First, I believe that a digital credential has the potential to make an individual citizen’s day-to-day life easier and more convenient. In a world where we already pay, bank and travel digitally, book and manage GP appointments digitally, file our tax returns digitally and access many public services digitally, the argument for secure, universal digital credentials to replace multiple forms of verification is highly appealing. It would be more secure than many citizens’ existing password systems. My dad would remember his early attempts at passwords, such as “password123”, later improved to “Sausages123” —with a capital S for added security.
The most important point is that I believe that digital ID will strengthen right-to-work checks. One reason why that is important is to fight back against the epidemic of organised crime across our country. I was in one high street in my constituency a couple of weeks ago where three vape and tobacco shops have sprung up over the last few months selling £5 packs of cigarettes, which are obviously illegal. I was told that it takes His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, trading standards and the police to shut one of them down, and that even when they do, it reopens in a few hours.
We should be making it easier for the state immediately to verify a person’s right to work. If the police need to probe someone’s right to work, they have no ability to do so on the spot. We need to make it easier for the state to check someone’s right to work.
Wendy Morton
Does the hon. Gentleman think that mandatory ID would realistically stop these problem shops on the high street?
Tony Vaughan
If it is possible for the police to verify, in that moment, whether a person has a right to work, that will assist. The details are not there, but I am making the point that it is open to consultation. I am not here to defend the position of the Government; I am here to say that, in principle, the position has not been set out, because they are consulting on it.
Let me come back to the point, because it is really important, and the Conservative party is not engaging with it at all. If the police do not have access to right-to-work data in the moment, it makes it harder to close down these entities. No one is explaining that there is a power, because there simply is not.
Martin Wrigley
Is the hon. Member proposing that the police should have the right to demand access to the digital ID to prove right to work on the spot? [Interruption.]
Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)
Order. The Doorkeeper must remove that person from the Public Gallery immediately. [Interruption.] Don’t just stand there!
Martin Wrigley
Perhaps I misunderstood, but I think that the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) has just asked for the police to have the right to demand digital ID on the spot—therefore, “Papers, please.”
Tony Vaughan
I am afraid that that is not the scenario I was setting out. I was trying to be helpful by identifying the fact that, if a vape shop is selling £5 cigarettes, they are obviously unlawful, so there is reason to probe further, but the police do not have the ability to verify right to work. Obviously the state should, in that scenario, where there is already a basis to look further—but I am not trying to say that this scheme is entirely fine.
I started my speech by identifying the legitimate concerns of my constituents and many other people. It is vital that we look at the details of everything that is proposed and ultimately have a consultation that listens to the concerns expressed, so that the policy ends up reflecting the positive benefits that I think we can get from such a system—if we get the details right.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate on behalf of the nearly 3 million people who signed the petition to stop digital ID. Some 5,300 of them were from my constituency, and I thank them for participating. From the emails that I have received, I am in no doubt that my constituents are opposed to the measure.
We all know why this proposal was introduced. It has nothing to do with well-thought-out policy and everything to do with the Prime Minister being in trouble. He saw a policy that, according to his focus groups, enjoyed broad support, so he announced it as Government policy without much thought as to the consequences. Not only did the Prime Minister’s anti-Midas touch annoy a lot of Labour supporters, but for the first time in 15 years it has caused serious scrutiny of such a policy.
Mandatory ID, be it physical or digital, fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. It changes us from a country where the citizen is at liberty to do whatever he pleases, unless it is prohibited, to one where the citizen needs the permission of the state to do certain things. That is a serious shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and not one that should be rushed through as a gimmick to help this most unpopular of Prime Ministers.
The Government claim that digital ID will help crack down on illegal migration and illegal working. Is there anyone on the Labour Benches who seriously believes that nonsense? All employers already have a legal duty to conduct a right-to-work check on people they employ, and those who break the law now will continue to do so. What is lacking is the will of this Government to enforce the existing law and deport illegal migrants.
While the Government say that this ID scheme will not be mandatory, it will effectively be compulsory for everyone in the workforce. The Minister responsible for delivering this policy is reported to have told his Cabinet colleagues that digital ID could transform people’s experience of the state, indicating his intention that it would become integrated with all public services. Any expansion of the use of digital ID for other services will see the scheme become mandatory in all but name for all citizens.
This policy was not in the Labour party manifesto. It has not been voted for by the British people. It is authoritarian, expensive and un-British, and on behalf of my constituents I shall resist it.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
About 5,000 people from my constituency of Ashford have signed this petition. I recognise the benefits that the national digital identity scheme could bring; they have been debated in the media and elsewhere. However, if the Government are to go ahead with the scheme, Ministers must ensure that it is inclusive, secure and useful for everyone. Additionally, if the scheme is to be successful, Ministers will have to respond to the legitimate concerns raised by our constituents.
My constituents have expressed concern that a national digital ID scheme could become a tool for surveillance or a mechanism of state control. In recent years, we have seen an increase in distrust of the Government as an institution. It is important that any digital ID scheme does not further erode trust. Can the Minister reassure the House that if the Government go ahead with digital ID, strict safeguards will be in place? Would my hon. Friend also say what action the Government will take to ensure that digital ID cannot be used to infringe on individual freedoms or civil liberties?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sojan Joseph
I need to carry on; I am sorry.
Constituents have also raised concerns about the security of a national ID scheme. This year, we have seen the impact that cyber-security breaches have had on some well-known brands. My constituents have expressed worry that a similar breach of a national ID database could expose sensitive personal information on a massive scale. Can the Minister reassure me that there will be robust encryption and continuous security monitoring? What actions will be taken to ensure the highest data security standards? Another related concern is the ownership of data. Will the Minister confirm that any scheme will be designed with clear rules and with transparency, so that personal information can never be exploited for commercial or political purposes?
Concerns have been expressed to me that adopting digital ID will lead to digital exclusion. Not everyone has access to a smartphone or reliable internet, especially in some rural parts of my constituency. If digital ID becomes the only option for accessing Government services in the future, what proactive action will be taken to prevent vulnerable groups from becoming marginalised? The Government have an opportunity in this debate to respond to these and other legitimate concerns that our constituents have raised regarding digital ID. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that have been made. I ask him to reassure our constituents that, if digital ID is to go ahead, their concerns will be listened to and addressed.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I cannot tell you how uncomfortable I feel sitting on the Government side of the Chamber, but I could not find a spare seat anywhere else, which is a testament to the fact that this subject is contested extremely passionately and that arguably it needs to be debated in the Chamber.
Digital ID is the biggest step towards a surveillance state that this country has faced in my lifetime. If any Government want access to every detail of our lives, they are the ones who should be feared. We live in a country where the state cannot even run a basic IT system without losing data or leaking personal details. Digital ID will not last a week before a mountain of sensitive personal data is left at a bus stop in Kent again.
I do not trust any Government. I certainly do not trust this Government. Let us remember: once the Government get a new power, they never give it back. It expands and evolves. Digital ID will not stop at proving who we are. It will creep into travel, banking, housing, benefits and even voting. Today, it is voluntary; tomorrow, it will be required for security reasons. The day after that, we will not be able to access basic services without it—all for our own good, remember.
Britain is supposed to be a country in which the Government serve the people, not the other way around. It is a country built on privacy, liberty and trust. British people just want the Government to leave them alone and get out of their lives—to build a business, raise a family and live in peace. Digital ID treats every citizen as a suspect. It assumes that the state has the right to look over our shoulders. We defend against it by severely limiting the power of the state, not radically expanding it. Abolishing jury trials, cancelling elections, implementing facial recognition—and now this. This incoming dystopian future must be resisted.
I will be holding my own protest against this creeping move towards George Orwell’s “Animal Farm”. I will simply not comply. I will not be downloading a digital ID and I urge other MPs to commit to doing the same. The solution is obvious: I will just have to reinvest in a Nokia—I preferred the simplicity of that anyway. The sound people of Great Yarmouth do not want digital ID.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my fellow member of the Petitions Committee, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), on introducing the debate.
I want to address the 5,092 people from Sunderland Central who signed the petition. I hear and respect their concerns, and that means no mandatory digital ID. While I recognise that there is scope for the use of digital credentials to improve the services that citizens receive from the state—and personally I may well apply for a digital credential on an optional basis, and would expect it to make my life easier and more secure than the myriad of current different logins and documents—this debate is not about those of us who would choose that path. It is about those who hold strong and sincere beliefs against mandatory digital ID.
Fundamentally, I believe in government by consent. On digital credentials, that means that there must be no mandatory requirement—whether explicit or de facto—to apply for digital credentials, and that access routes to employment and public services must be maintained for all British citizens. I believe that the legitimate aims of the Government—making services work better, reducing cost and tackling illegal working—can be met by an approach that sees digital credentials used optionally by people who choose to do so, while maintaining alternative routes for citizens who choose not to.
The Home Affairs Committee has an open inquiry about the potential uses of digital ID. We recently heard evidence from tech advocates such as the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and techUK. The views that they expressed to the Committee further strengthened mine. As techUK said:
“We need to meet UK citizens—UK populations—where they are and where they feel comfortable”.
I agree. There are huge upsides for a digitally enabled society, one in which everyone feels able to participate and has a sense of agency and safety. I believe that many people will choose to take up digital credentials if they are introduced carefully, with the right design safeguards and process. We should do that by having a gradual introduction and demonstrating the benefits, while being explicit that this will always be an optional opt-in process.
I really hope—and I think I believe—that there has been significant reflection from the Government on the manner in which the announcement was made in September. Those of us who believe in modernising and digitising the state need to do so with care, consent and respect for those who hold significant concerns. I hope that the consultation that will take place in the new year, and which I am sure that the Minister will talk about, will be done in that spirit.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for magnificently introducing this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the more than 4,000 local residents in the Scottish Borders who have signed the petition.
This issue cuts to the very heart of the relationship between our constituents and the state. I am completely against digital ID. It is expensive, intrusive and will be completely ineffective. It was not in the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto, so this is not something that anyone has voted for. Putting that to one side, this Labour Government do not seem to understand why digital ID is needed or what it is for. The Prime Minister initially claimed that it was an essential part of cracking down on illegal migration. Illegal migrants are making long, dangerous crossings over the channel; I hardly think the requirement for a digital identification card is going to deter them. Realising that this argument was not persuading anyone, the Government now claim that it is about simplifying access to Government services. Government services do need to be simplified, but we do not need digital ID to achieve that.
Whatever the actual reasons behind the policy, we are inevitably going to see mission creep. I was particularly concerned to hear the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), say that the Government are
“starting with this issue of right to work check first, but there are loads of other applications for digital ID”.
What will be next? Will digital ID be needed to access NHS services, to get a school place for someone’s son or daughter, or even potentially to go to the pub?
The policy puts the personal data of all our constituents at risk. It would be a honeypot for cyber criminals and foreign state actors at a time when we are under increasing threat. I implore the Government to, for once, listen to the people and to the genuine and principled concerns of Members across the House. There is no deep need for digital ID. People do not want it and the Government have no mandate to introduce it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and its citizens. We must say no to digital ID. It must be scrapped.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I am here because I have been contacted by countless residents who are deeply concerned about the Government’s announcement on the introduction of digital ID to provide the right to work—that was a mouthful. Their concerns are legitimate, reasonable and deserve to be heard in this place.
My constituents have raised a number of issues. First and foremost is privacy and data security; residents have referred to recent hacks at M&S and Land Rover. The question is simple: if cyber systems have been hacked before, why should constituents trust that their most sensitive personal information will be safe? They ask whether the Government can truly guarantee resilience against cyber-attacks, system failures or misuse of personal data.
Mr Alaba
I am sorry, but I will carry on.
There is also a question of practicality. In reality, will digital ID prevent employers from hiring individuals who do not have the right to work, or will it simply introduce another layer of bureaucracy without addressing the roots of the problem?
Many constituents are concerned about inclusion. What happens to those who struggle with digital technology or do not have access to a smartphone? Will they be able to rely on their passport or driver’s licence? We must not leave behind people who, through no fault of their own, cannot immediately sign up for digital ID, or let that prevent their right to work. Ultimately, constituents have a right to know that their information will be safe, protected and free from unnecessary intervention or misuse.
I do, however, recognise that digital ID could bring real benefits if it is implemented properly, safely and transparently. A well-designed national digital identification system has the potential to enhance security, reduce fraud and streamline how citizens interact with public services. It could consolidate the right to work, healthcare, immigration status and other essential services into a single secure and accessible platform, reducing paperwork and improving efficiency. Law enforcement could benefit from quicker, more reliable identification processes, helping to curb illegal employment. It could provide a form of identification to those who currently lack traditional documents, empowering disadvantaged or marginalised groups—I have to emphasise that, because I think it has been missed in this debate.
I am not opposed to digital ID in principle. It could be an asset for the future, but it has to be done right. If digital ID for the right to work is to be introduced, it must be implemented safely, fairly and transparently, so that the benefits that it promises can be felt by everyone in our society without compromising the rights and protections that our constituents rightly expect. I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised by residents in my constituency and across the country.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Thank you for your excellent chairing, Sir Edward. I hope the Government have been given serious pause by the 2.9 million signatures on this petition, over 5,000 of which were from constituents in Brighton Pavilion. So many people are right to be so concerned, because such a scheme carries extreme risks to our privacy.
If this scheme is introduced, it seems impossible that we can be protected from any future Government who are determined to utterly disregard a lot more of our basic human rights. This iteration of digital ID could, through a unique identification number, link our most sensitive biometric information to our names, ages, nationalities, addresses, medical information and housing and criminal histories, enabling a detailed profile worthy of the Chinese Government to be put together, which utterly undermines not only our right to privacy, but many other things. We ought to be protected from the state having access to and control over all that information.
I hope that the Minister understands that private citizens are already starting to gain perspective on how unsafe our data is in the hands of private companies. The reaction to digital ID shows that we are now very concerned about the difference when a state has access to all that information and what a future state might do. We have already seen issues of data sharing between police forces and immigration enforcement. Migrants have been scared to come forward and report basic crimes around their right to safety because of that kind of overreach. The eVisa scheme has caused awful failures—people stranded at airports; people losing job opportunities because of the failures of the basic IT—but this is far more serious than that.
Right hon. and hon. Members owe it to our constituents to protect them from not just this Government, but what all future Governments might do. Combined with the recent clampdown on protest rights, the proposed removal of trial by jury and the capacity of the state to track and identify us through facial recognition, this adds up to a toolkit for authoritarians that we must not give away. It must be stopped. It is a house of dynamite.
Tom Gordon
Will the hon. Lady comment on the polling around digital ID? This summer, there was net support: over 30%. When the Government announced that they were picking it up, that collapsed to minus 14%. Will she give her thoughts on why that might be?
Siân Berry
People might have heard the Government claiming that other countries have had digital ID for many years and then heard about the security flaws in the Estonian system or the hackers in Estonia, India, Norway and Poland who have created enormous data breaches. I have dwelled a lot on state power, but let us not forget that creating such a database is an enormous risk. All the eggs are in one basket when it comes to criminally inclined people who would take our data and hurt us that way.
I was wrapping up when I was intervened on, and I will try not to use too much more time. The risk management calculations here are so clear. The consequences of things going wrong—whether it is state intrusion, criminals taking away the data, errors or data theft, so that people lose their identities to somebody else—become much higher when something like this, where everything is linked together, is created. I said that it was a house of dynamite and a toolkit for authoritarians. It is hugely expensive, and I hope the Minister will clarify the final cost. According to the OBR, £1.8 billion is only the beginning of the cost.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?
Siân Berry
I cannot.
This is the expensive leopards-eating-faces party of policies. It must be stopped. It is too risky to go ahead with. The Government need to answer so many questions to make anybody happy with it.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Hon. Members should note that, in the interests of time, I do not intend to take any interventions.
I have had hundreds of emails from constituents about digital ID. Some are entirely supportive, some are completely against it, but most lie somewhere in between. Many who fall in that category are hesitant because they are uncertain why digital ID is being introduced, what it will look like, when they will use it, how information will be stored and how their data will be protected. I know that colleagues and the Minister have been working hard on developing the framework for what the roll-out of digital ID will look like. However, my inbox reflects a broader point.
Since the announcement of digital ID in late September, there has been much misinformation and a lack of information, which has led to two things. First, people are left without a clear understanding of how digital ID will be used and why such modernisation is important. Secondly and more worryingly, some people have been left fearing the worst: that digital ID will be used for surveillance, tracking and authoritarian crackdown rather than the positive case, as the Government suggest, for enabling people to start work more quickly, for better control of our borders, and for people’s own convenience. My 18-year-old son shares my youthful looks, so he is glad of his digital proof of age because it lets him go to the pub now that he is at university without any issues. And my younger son would have welcomed digital ID this weekend when he was turned away from a cinema because he could not prove that he was over 15.
However, if the implementation of digital IDs is to be effective and well received, I ask the Minister to provide assurances to my constituents in Amber Valley that the concerns that have been raised today, particularly surrounding data protection and security, will be addressed. I welcome the fact that the Government’s announcement made it clear that there would be public consultation on digital ID, so please can the Minister today confirm when the consultation will be open and how people can take part, so that my constituents in Amber Valley can make their views heard on this incredibly important matter?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
“Why are they needed when we already have secure ways to identify ourselves?”
“This is being pushed under the façade of security.”
“The cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive.”
“This system would be incredibly vulnerable to hacking.”
Those direct quotes from my constituents get to the heart of the point: unnecessary; overreach; vulnerable; and expensive. Nearly 5,000 people in South Northamptonshire signed the petition to oppose the Government’s plans for digital IDs. This Government really are the living embodiment of the famous phrase:
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.”
First, they sold the measure as a means of tackling illegal migration, but that principle has barely been mentioned in recent weeks. Now digital IDs will become the requirement for right to work checks in the UK, which may require children as young as 13 to be involved. Talk about the creeping hand of the state!
Sarah Bool
If time permitted, I would happily take an intervention from any Government Member on where it was in the Labour manifesto that such a measure would be included, or if any member of the Government could actually tell us how much the scheme would cost. But I will save them the trouble, because it was not and they do not know.
The OBR has said that there has been no specific funding identified for the scheme, and it is forecast to cost £1.8 billion over the next three years. We have a Government drowning in Budget leaks and accidentally releasing prisoners left, right and centre, so how can they be trusted to create a system of ID? Any such system requires absolute buy-in from all our constituents, and we can see that the very reason we are having this debate today is that the Government have not secured that buy-in. This is a really dangerous gimmick from the Government. The devil is in the detail, and without that detail the devil is at play and the British public will pay.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. As we rightly modernise the way people interact with public services, introducing a new digital credential offers real opportunity. I can envisage it making everyday tasks much more convenient, whether that is proving your age, opening a bank account or completing right-to-work checks, and I can see it doing so in a more tailored and personalised way. I can also see there being quicker remedies if things go wrong, with the possibility of current credentials being lost or stolen. If we had a digital credential, it could be revoked and reissued more quickly.
I would, however, like to raise two concerns that have come through quite strongly from my constituents. The first is about the security of data that people will be required to share. One constituent told me that they are fearful of their data being put at risk, particularly through the creation of a honeypot for hackers and foreign adversaries. My constituents rightly want to know that only essential information would be shared in each transaction; that data would be encrypted and securely stored; and that the system will be able to keep pace with the many evolving cyber-threats out there.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
I will make progress.
People are right to be cautious about handing over their personal data, and they are right to expect a firm commitment that Government will do everything in their power to protect them. Can the Minister provide some reassurance on that point?
Secondly, I have heard from people who believe that introducing digital credentials is the right step, but who are concerned that their elderly relatives, people with disabilities or people without smartphone access, for whatever reason, will not be able to participate. Can the Minister also provide some reassurance that no one, regardless of whether they own a smartphone or have internet access, will be left behind in this scheme?
I know that other countries have rolled out digital credentials very successfully. Estonia’s model is very interesting; users still have a lot of control over their data, and they can see what it is being used for and who has accessed it. As we look at our options, I hope that we will learn from what works in other countries and ensure that we put the same protections in place so that people can remain in control of their personal data as best they can.
I know that we have a long way to go with the consultation, but I really welcome the fact that it is happening. I encourage my constituents to feed in their concerns, and it is really important that this policy lands in the right place. I welcome the Minister’s feedback on the points that I have raised about data privacy and security, as well as digital inclusion.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend—the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on his excellent speech. I am sure he will be right honourable in no time.
Some 4,500 of my constituents signed the petition. I thank not only them, but the 3 million petitioners across the country who have made sure that their voices are heard today. Before I discuss the fundamental issue, I want to address a point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and other Government Members.
The reality is that no system in the world is secure enough to protect data; my constituency is the home of Jaguar Land Rover, and we have to be honest with our constituents about that. When I was the Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy, I looked at this issue, and I know that our current system is one in which we voluntarily give up our data. The fundamental issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley highlighted, is that consent is being taken away.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, but are we not at risk of ignoring another threat: the Government themselves? It has not been that long since the Police Service of Northern Ireland published the data of every serving officer and member of staff, as a result of which people had to leave their homes. Once we allow the state to aggregate our data, is that sort of thing not inevitable?
Saqib Bhatti
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point that we have to take into consideration. The Minister will not be able to give anyone the reassurance they deserve, which is why many of our constituents are so upset about this.
Let us be very clear about the reason we are here. The fundamental issue is that a beleaguered Prime Minister has rolled out this gimmick as nothing more than a way to stop the boats. The fact of the matter is that since Labour came into government, we have had 62,000 illegal crossings. The ID that we have in place already has not stopped them, and neither will digital ID. This gimmick has not fooled voters, and it did not fool the 3 million people who signed the petition. They can see clearly through it. First and foremost, our constituents require honesty. This will not stop the boats.
I also want to address a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about shops selling illegal vapes. Mechanisms for IDs are already in place, but that is still happening, so digital ID will not stop it either. What he was arguing for, whether he knew it or not, was overarching powers of intervention for the police into the private accounts of private individuals. That is the only way in which they will be able to intervene. What they need to do is investigate, like they always do.
Tony Vaughan
My specific example was about where an individual has a £5 packet of cigarettes that is obviously unlawful. The police have no power at all to demand right-to-work checks in that situation. Why do the Opposition oppose that principle?
Saqib Bhatti
Let me address that point. The problem that the hon. Gentleman poses will not be solved by digital ID—I fundamentally disagree with him about that—because HMRC already has the powers to investigate people selling illegal cigarettes, as do the police. That is why the Government have lauded the fact that there were raids just a few months ago, and closures of some of these shops. He is creating a straw-man argument that is not solved by digital ID.
Let us be under no illusion about this proposal. It opens the door to tyranny, whether it is tyranny today or tyranny tomorrow. The Minister cannot confirm that a future Government—a future Labour Government, perhaps, if that is even possible—will not take advantage of digital ID.
Saqib Bhatti
I am going to make some progress, if that is okay.
I and others have made the point that digital ID would fundamentally reframe the relationship between the individual and the state. It would turn us into a “papers, please” society. Responsibility for proving that someone was guilty would be shifted away from the state, and individuals would, in essence, be required to prove that they were innocent.
I visited Estonia when I was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy. I saw the system there, and I came away with a conclusion very different from the one that others have reached. The Estonians’ system works for them because they have the Russians on their border.
Saqib Bhatti
I will not take any more interventions.
If Estonia were invaded, the Estonians might have to pick up sticks and move all their records over. That is why digital ID works for them, even though they have one of the largest black economies in the world and have had quite significant data breaches. Our economy and society are much more complex than Estonia’s. Mandatory digital ID does not work for our economy and our society.
Time and again, I am asked what this Government stand for. The last few weeks and months have been telling, with the cutting of jury trials, the introduction of a mandatory digital ID and the arrest of comedians for errant tweets. I ask the Minister: why are this Government so afraid of British citizens living their lives freely and in liberty?
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
Like many Members who have spoken today, I have received a lot of representations from constituents to speak in opposition to digital ID. It would have been easy enough, given my own personal level of comfort with digital ID, to have let today’s debate pass me by. As my constituents will know, this is a point of personal conviction for me, rather than a blind defence of something. As they will also know from the events of this past week, as well as from my travails against the imposition of imaginary geographies on Cornwall’s devolved governance, I have no problem speaking up against policies without a predefined mandate.
[Gill Furniss in the Chair]
However, we do have a mandate to improve our public services, to increase digitalisation and to deliver the best outcomes for our constituents. We also have a mandate to make decisions that are not necessarily the easy option, but the right option. That is the courage of a serious Labour Government—not necessarily to do what is easy, but to do what is right and what will clearly contribute to our much-needed mission of national renewal.
We cannot have a debate about digital ID without beginning from a common factual base, so let me bust some myths from the outset. The scheme will be voluntary, it will be free, it will not require some form of card and it will be secure. Above all, it will make the lives of people in our country easier.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman says that this system will be free. I believe the OBR says that it will cost the taxpayer £1.8 billion; I do not believe that that is free.
Noah Law
I will turn the question back on the hon. Gentleman. What is the cost of not doing this? What is the cost of inaction? I have heard very little today from Opposition Members about how much a digital ID scheme will alleviate the costs currently associated with some processes, but I would welcome such input.
On a personal level, I have lived in a country with a digital ID system that works well, is widely supported and has had very few issues. Just because I can log in here on my phone does not mean that there is some pesky Finn from the Suojelupoliisi out there logging in to watch my every move. That is not quite how these things work in practice. I know some people might well find this difficult to believe, given the dystopian way of the world today, but this scheme is no conspiracy.
Caroline Voaden
Many of my constituents have raised concerns about cyber-security risks. Centralising so much information in one place creates an attractive target for hackers and hostile actors. Does the hon. Member agree that Government systems are not immune from such risks?
Luke Myer
Although I appreciate the merits of the scheme, as my hon. Friend has set out, surely the fundamental question facing us today is one of public consent. Some 4,800 of my constituents have signed this petition. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a scheme cannot be introduced without clear consent from the public?
Noah Law
I wholeheartedly agree. That is why it is important that in the months ahead and through the consultation, this scheme is introduced on a voluntary basis, just as we have set out, and remains that way. I know some might find this difficult to believe, but this really is no conspiracy. If we are not concerned about the huge threats involving the vast amount of personal data that is held by private companies—they must, of course, be regulated too—why is this scheme such a cause for concern? Although I appreciate that two wrongs do not necessarily make a right, and that many of my constituents no doubt long for an analogue world—as do I, on occasion—that is not the world we live in.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of the 4,000 people from my constituency who have signed the e-petition. They are deeply alarmed by the Government’s plans to introduce mandatory digital ID. They would rather see action on the issues that really matter: they want our NHS fixed, the cost of living crisis addressed and public services improved. At a time when GP waiting times are still sky-high, social care is in crisis and our NHS is stretched beyond breaking point, it is extraordinary that the Government are prioritising an enormous centralised database of everyone’s personal information.
For decades, the British public has consistently rejected mandatory ID schemes, and with good reason. In an increasingly tech-driven world, the Government must work to empower individuals and give us more control over our own data and privacy, rather than empowering the state to gather, centralise and exploit ever more information. Handing over unprecedented volumes of personal data is a recipe for intrusion and future abuse. Criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers—those that the Government claim to be targeting—would continue to bypass the rules. It is simply naive to suggest that mandatory digital ID is the fix to tackle the shadow economy. As we know, 5% of the UK population does not have internet access and there is a real risk of digital exclusion, which will hit older people, disabled people and those on low incomes.
I also have concerns about how a mandatory digital system could lead to profiling and the real risk of function creep. Although the Government may try to reassure us that this scheme is limited in scope, the technology could have the capacity to fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and the state.
Last year, in his first speech to the British public, the Prime Minister promised that the Government would tread “lightly” on our lives. It is hard to think of a proposal that contradicts that promise more starkly than a mandatory digital ID scheme. I urge the Government to scrap this ill-judged plan and turn their attention to the reforms that will genuinely improve lives. Mandatory digital ID will not fix our public services, get our economy going again or address the real challenges facing the country.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
There is a reason why millions of people have signed this petition, making it the fourth largest in the history of this place. At the heart of this debate is an attack on our most fundamental and protected of rights: our freedom. We live in a free country, and we do not need a nanny state indirectly spying on its citizens.
A compulsory digital ID or a national ID card scheme is not a small administrative tweak that will make lives slightly easier for people; it is a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. Like many others in this place, I have serious concerns about what that means for civil liberties, for privacy and for equality in this country. No Government should ever hold a master key to every part of a citizen’s life, and we cannot pretend that such power could never fall into dangerous hands.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as usual. Does he agree, from the clear argument across the Chamber, that constituents are overwhelmingly unconvinced by the proposed benefits of this scheme and overwhelmingly concerned by the disbenefits; and that therefore the Minister should commit today to ensuring that at the end of the consultation, the Government have the option of not taking this any further?
Imran Hussain
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is a reason why millions have signed this petition. The Minister should commit to scrapping it today, but I am not sure he will.
As is the case for many hon. Members, thousands of my constituents have quite rightly signed this petition because they know that they are already at the sharp end of state systems that do not always treat them fairly. Black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, migrants, older and disabled people, those on low incomes and those who are digitally excluded—these are the people who will feel the impact first if we rush headlong into a digital ID system without thinking through the consequences.
We have already seen how data can be misused, both in our country and across the world. In the wrong circumstances, information given in good faith to access childcare, education, healthcare or support can end up being misused. Frankly, trust in our institutions has been eroding for years now.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a passionate, excellent speech. Talking of trust in the Government, we have just seen the BBC documentary on the Camelford water poisoning scandal in my constituency—a potential Government cover-up. How on earth can my constituents trust the Government with all their important data? Does he agree that this is the wrong priority? The Government hope to save half a billion pounds with the family farm tax, yet they are prepared to splash £2 billion on this—something that, it seems from this debate, none of our constituents actually want.
Imran Hussain
I have already said that I believe the policy should be scrapped. The hon. Member has his own reasons, and I have outlined mine. One thing we are both agreed on is that trust in institutions is eroding, and families do not feel they can engage even with basic services. If we create a centralised digital identity system, we risk increasing that harm and mistrust. As the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we risk creating a two-tier system.
It is completely absurd that the Government are going above and beyond to connect information that is siloed for very good reason. Governments do not need the ability to casually track their citizens, but that is what the policy will effectively do. We have heard much today—we have been told that this is about efficiency and modernisation—but we must ask: at what cost?
Once the infrastructure for mass identification is built, the pressure to expand its use grows over time. What starts as a way to prove a person’s identity quickly becomes a tool to track where people go, what they access and even who they are with. That is a road that we should be wary of travelling down.
The UK has rightly rejected national ID schemes under successive Governments in the past, so again I urge this Government to announce concrete measures—actually, I want them to scrap this scheme today, because I am afraid that it is another one on which they will eventually have to do a U-turn. Three million people have signed a petition, and I think the Minister should announce the scrapping of this dangerous scheme. We should be investing in digital inclusion, strengthening existing verification systems and putting strict limits on data sharing, not introducing the scheme before us today.
Time not permitting any further comment, I want to put on record today my position. Hon. Members may already have gathered what that position may be, but just to be absolutely clear, I stand with the constituents of Bradford East, as I always do, and I will be opposing this dangerous policy.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I thank the almost 3 million people who have signed this petition, and in particular those in the Public Gallery who have managed to stay for the whole debate—well done. In my constituency, 5,166 signed it. That is an unprecedented number in Aberdeenshire North and Moray East. Every week I meet my team, as so many other hon. Members probably do, and I ask, “What is the biggest thing in my inbox this week?” This is it: digital ID is the No. 1 thing in my inbox.
I will not repeat everything that has been said so far in this superb debate, but I want to amplify a couple of points. Many Labour Back Benchers have referred to digital ID schemes in other countries, and we have heard some references to others. I will mention a few: India, Estonia and Australia. The point about those countries is that they asked for a mandate from the electorate before they introduced the scheme. That has not occurred here. This policy was not mentioned in the Labour party’s manifesto.
I want to draw out further a couple of those examples. In India, the scheme resulted in technical failures and exclusionary practices, whereby people were excluded from public services by the thousand. Estonia has been mentioned by some hon. Members; in 2021, 300,000 identity photographs were stolen there. I am sure the Minister heard me when I said that—300,000. This is not about dealing with little problems and sorting out tweaks here and there. It is about a fundamental flaw in the proposal.
I am old enough—as are some others in this Chamber today—to remember when there were two channels on the TV. They might remember a programme called “The Prisoner”, filmed in the beautiful port of Portmeirion, and the late, great Patrick McGoohan saying, “I am not a number.” He was Number Six in the programme, which I did not understand when I watched it as a wee boy. Later on, when I read George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four”, I understood exactly what was going on there.
Labour has no mandate for this proposal. The OBR estimate of £1.8 billion was queried by the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), and she was right, because £1.8 billion will not do it. When I worked in the health service, IT projects were commonly regarded as the graveyard of many careers, and £1.8 billion will not touch the sides on this one. Will the Minister address that in his speech, please?
I am speaking on behalf of my party and my colleagues here in Westminster. We do not support this.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The hon. Member is speaking on behalf of his party, but also from a devolved nation point of view. Does he agree that this is one of those unusual circumstances in which this Government have managed to unite every party in Northern Ireland on a single issue, and in opposition to the proposal?
Seamus Logan
I have remarked on the breadth of the parties speaking out against this. My party does not support it. We do not think that it will address the issues; indeed, we think that it will cause more problems than it solves. And we do not think that that amount of money will do it. That will double in size. I therefore oppose this proposal and so do my colleagues.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Ms Furniss. The historian AJP Taylor said:
“Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state…He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission.”
Sounds great, does it not? Yet the world wars that followed changed all that. By the second world war, we had a national identity card—as has been mentioned—and that requirement only ended in 1952. However, individual registration numbers remained, and do so to this day, for national insurance and the NHS. When the NHS was being formed, many people said, “Oh no—not the socialist state that is taking over all our lives.” Yet so many of us depend on it to this day.
It would be wholly wrong to claim that there has been no need for the state to provide a system to verify a citizen’s identity, either for national security or for the right to access public services. If someone had asked me 20 years ago, the last time a national identity service was being properly considered, I would have had my doubts as to whether it was really necessary.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Member give way?
Kevin Bonavia
I will not, I am afraid.
I am now convinced that it is necessary. Why is that? It is because today, identity checks are not a novelty; they are a necessity across all our lives. Why is it that a company such as Amazon can do far better handling our data than the national health service? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), a respected doctor, explained how we cannot, as individuals, access the services that we need.
Why is this seen as so un-British? Is it not British to be ambitious for our people? If we think that other countries can do it, but we cannot because we are so rubbish at such things, why should we not discuss that?
Kevin Bonavia
I am afraid I will not.
I welcome the Government giving us an opportunity for a national debate through this consultation. It is time that we have this debate. I am so pleased that so many Members are here today and that so many people have signed this petition. It is right to look at their concerns. There are legitimate concerns about whether ID should be mandatory and, if so, in what circumstances, and about those people who cannot access this system and whether the proposed scheme can really make the improvements that we hope it will.
Digital ID is not a panacea. I say to anybody who claims it will be a panacea for ending illegal immigration that it will not be. But will it be better? That is the question before us. We must not talk about a dystopian future when so many of our neighbours are already going through the process. Why do we not learn from our neighbours and think the best of our country, rather than talking it down—as we have heard so much in this debate? I ask the Minister to answer those questions today.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. It was Harry Willcock, a Liberal party activist, who started the successful campaign to get rid of physical ID cards. After being stopped and asked for his cards by the police, he threw his papers on the floor and said, “I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing.” That is because as Liberals we believe that the state exists to empower its citizens rather than endlessly monitor them. What we have before us today is yet another example of this Labour Government announcing a grand, attention-grabbing idea without really having a plan for how to do it.
The proposal for a mandatory digital ID system is set to drain at least £1.9 billion from the public purse—and if history tells us anything about major Government projects, it is that that figure is likely to rise substantially. At a time when every pound counts, it is astonishing that Ministers believe that this is the right priority. The reality is that this digital ID proposal risks becoming an enormously expensive distraction, absorbing money, time and political energy that should instead be directed towards the things that people actually rely on: police on our streets, timely NHS care, functioning local services and funding border security.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
In respect of the figures, the last time this was tried it was said that it would cost the Government £5.4 billion. Then, when independent organisations came to look at the actual figures, some said that it would cost up to £19 billion. Does the hon. Member agree that inflation goes up, not down?
David Chadwick
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to question whether or not this is a good use of Government time and money. The 4,500 constituents of mine who have signed this petition would much rather the Government spent their time and money on trying to fix other data governance issues. For example, one big data governance issue in Wales is that, when patients go over the border to Hereford, they often cannot retrieve their health data. It would be much better if the Government prioritised spending money on that.
Some 75 years on from Harry Willcock saying that he was a Liberal and against this sort of thing, I reiterate the same principle. I am a Liberal, and we remain against this sort of thing.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on digital identity, and in the past I have audited algorithms and processes that developed identification systems. With that in mind, I worry about a couple of issues. Before the Government announced their digital ID policy, 30% of people were in favour of digital identification, but that dropped, which is interesting. There has been an issue with scaremongering and arguing to extremes, particularly from the party that brought in voter ID when it was in government, which I find very interesting. I do, however, agree that it should not be mandatory, but we need to de-couple that argument from right-to-work checks in particular, as I remind Members that they are already mandatory.
For a digital ID scheme to work, we need to have trust in it; we need to have control, and we need to have choice. I therefore ask that the scheme not be mandatory. People should have the choice of whether to use it or not. I believe that a well-designed system would offer benefits; people will see that for themselves, and they may then make their own choices. I agree with other Members on that.
Dr Gardner
I will, as the hon. Gentleman has been trying to intervene for the whole debate.
Martin Wrigley
The hon. Lady is very kind. Is she aware that the Government papers also describe using digital ID for the right to rent as well as for the right to work?
Dr Gardner
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I recently applied for a mortgage, and I received a link via email to a provider that requested that I upload my bank statements, my utility bills, and copies of my passport and driving licence—I am lucky enough to have those two pieces of photo ID. I trusted that it was a registered provider, but I did have a slight worry about scamming. When I applied for a car loan, I did so on paper, and I had to provide three bank statements, several utility bills, and copies of my driving licence and passport. It got so ridiculous that I asked whether the company wanted to know my bra size as well.
I was very concerned about ID theft in those processes, hence I am a proponent of secure digital ID and digital wallets, which would give me control over how I share my data. Having all my credentials, including Government-minted credentials such as my driving licence, in my digital wallet would allow me to send a one-time-only link to providers, which would allow them to view my data but prevent them from downloading it. There are ways of designing such a system, and I ask the Minister to think about how to integrate that level of choice in the platform that is developed. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) outlined how citizens would be able to see who is asking for their data and would even be able to control who can access it. They would know what data has been asked for and why, and they can then give the thumbs up. How we implement the digital ID system is really important.
We already have the digital identity and attributes trust framework, which is delivered by 43 private providers, with 11,000 members of staff. We should not argue to these extremes, and we should not scaremonger. We should have a calm consultation and debate on how digital ID could improve people’s lives by making them safer and more secure. I look forward to hearing the Minister deal with all the issues that have been rightly raised.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Some 4,497 of my constituents signed the petition, and I thank the many who took the time to write to me to explain their concerns. They believe that a mandatory digital ID threatens our right to privacy while doing nothing to address the Government’s stated aims of immigration enforcement. The huge response to the petition should give the Government pause for thought. It is not too late to listen to the concerns and to think again.
We operate in a world in which ownership, control and manipulation of data is central to our lives. A real concern is that mission creep will lead to more and more online actions requiring a check, creating a digital treasure trove about each and every one of us that could be misused by the state and other actors. As one constituent put it:
“Do we want every single thing we attempt to do to require a check that ‘yes, you are a British citizen, let me just link this to you as well’?”
Many constituents pointed out that documentation is already required to work legally, but that is flouted by those operating in the dark economy. My constituents do not believe that a new ID system will solve the issue. They see it as a distraction or a diversion of money and effort from the real solution, which is better investment in enforcement. I agree: an ID scheme would cost billions, which is money that could be better spent on processing centres to clear the asylum backlog. That would do far more to restore public trust in the immigration system, if that is the issue, and still leave money to fix the public services so damaged by the previous Conservative Government.
My constituents are also concerned about the safety of our data, especially with a rushed implementation. If we create a platform that stores millions of people’s personal ID, we create a target for those who would illegally access and misuse that data. One constituent urged me to vote against digital IDs until the Government can
“show that the data of its citizens, who it claims to represent, will be safe”.
I doubt that any such guarantee will be forthcoming.
Many were concerned that the work would be outsourced to a third-party company. When we interact with a commercial service, we make a choice; mandatory ID would give up that choice. With more time, I could talk about the worries for the digitally excluded, who already face higher costs for commercial services. Will they now also miss out on Government support and services?
Digital tools should empower individuals, not give Government more control. A mandatory ID scheme in which people have no choice is totally at odds with Britain’s long history as a liberal democracy.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The scale of the response to this petition—almost 3 million people—should cause us all to pause. This rash proposal has clearly touched a deep-seated opposition among our constituents to anyone interfering with their personal data and personal details. Almost 5,000 of my constituents are among that number, and I well understand and support their opposition.
Yes, digital ID might be convenient and it might be expedient for some people to have all their data in one location that they can share, but the key issue here is that the Government are choosing—without a mandate—to make it mandatory. It would be a different matter if the Government were coming to this House to say, “We are going to provide a facility whereby, if you wish, you can have the convenience of this: if you want to take the risk of being hacked, we will provide the facility,” but when they say to the citizen, “You must,” or, “We will impose,” they have crossed a line that no self-respecting Government should cross and that no self-respecting people should tolerate.
That, for me, is the critical component: this is a Government who think they know better and who will impose it, and we will be left with no choice as citizens. That is so illiberal, so fundamentally an assault on our personal freedoms, that no one in this House should be entertaining it, least of all the Government.
Mr Mohindra
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an excellent contribution, as always. If this is such an important issue, why was it not in the governing party’s manifesto at the last general election?
Jim Allister
That is a question that I obviously cannot answer, and it is one that I doubt the Minister will answer, but it is well posed. Why, oh why, if the Government were going to impinge on the personal liberties of their citizens, would they not, in asking for their votes, tell them that that was their agenda?
Jamie Stone
As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I must of course be fair minded and impartial at all times, but the hon. and learned Member might be acquainted with the fact that I represent the most remote mainland constituency in the whole of the UK. Let me just put this point: we do know what digital exclusion is.
Jim Allister
As I represent North Antrim, I know of many parts of my constituency where people cannot get the digital connections that are supposedly promised, and I know what digital exclusion is in that regard as well. This proposition is flawed no matter which way we look at it, but most fundamentally flawed in the compulsion that it brings.
The final point that I want to make to the Minister is this: whatever happens on this subject—I trust the idea will be ditched in its entirety—and whatever the ultimate outcome is, it has to be a nationwide outcome. Too often, I have seen differences of treatment in my part of the United Kingdom that add to the already obnoxious situation in which we are partitioned by an Irish sea border. We do not want to be partitioned by a digital border as well.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the more than 4,200 people in my constituency who signed the petition opposing digital ID. I very much share the concerns that many of my constituents have raised with me. The Government’s intention to roll out a mandatory digital identification scheme is a serious mistake; it will prove expensive and intrusive, and it will ultimately not move the dial on the key challenges that we face as a country.
We have repeatedly been told that this scheme will help to tackle illegal immigration. Frankly, I find that insulting to the intelligence of the British public. Channel crossings will not be stopped by a QR code on a smartphone. I only wish it were that easy. They will, however, be stopped when the Government have the courage to implement real deterrents and confront the lawyers and activist judges who continue to undermine our borders and throw obstacles in the way of every attempt to tackle this crisis.
The British public have always rejected the idea of ID cards, and I believe they are right to do so. We are not a nation of “papers, please”, in which people must prove their identity simply to access everyday services or interact with the state, yet we risk creating exactly that kind of society under this policy. We must remember that we are here today as representatives of the British people; we must listen and proceed with caution when nearly 3 million of them feel so strongly about an issue that they sign a petition.
Let us also not forget that this issue was never put before the public in a manifesto. If the Prime Minister wanted a mandate for such a fundamental change to the relationship between citizen and state as that which would come with digital ID, he should have had the courage to ask for one at the ballot box.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken today to send the Government a very simple message: mandatory digital ID is not needed to deliver excellent online public services. We already have quick, simple digital applications for passports, driving licences, and right-to-work checks. Those do not require a single state-mandated digital identity card, nor should they.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I want to begin by thanking the 4,337 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who have expressed their opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID cards. The British public, including my constituents, are concerned not only by the principle of mandatory digital IDs, but by the manner in which the Government have attempted to introduce them: without a timeline, without a clear financial cost, without a plan and without a mandate.
When the Government first briefed their intention to pursue mandatory digital ID, my inbox was inundated with concerns. Because of the clear salience of the issue, I launched a survey asking my constituents for their views. I am grateful for the hundreds of responses, more than three quarters of which were opposed to a mandatory ID scheme.
The truth is that this petition should never have been necessary. A policy of this magnitude, with profound implications for civil liberties and for the relationship between citizen and state, ought to have appeared in a party’s manifesto. I am also deeply concerned by the Government’s so-called justification that this will solve the small boats crisis. Before the election, Labour promised it had a plan to smash the gangs, stop the boats and tackle illegal migration. We can all see how that plan is going, so how would this policy make any difference? Is it not just another cynical attempt to distract from the failure of this Government to address illegal migration? If the Minister has confidence in the proposal, can they clearly set out how much the Government expect illegal crossings to fall as a result and what cost they expect the taxpayer, our constituents, to bear?
Time is short, but I want to raise one further concern: rural communities that remain digitally isolated would face significant challenges under these plans. I have spoken many times about the digital exclusion facing so many in Chester South and Eddisbury. Progress was being made under the previous Conservative Government, but I am concerned that Ministers are now pushing ahead with a digital ID scheme without first ensuring digital connectivity, which risks leaving rural communities even further behind.
Mr Mohindra
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution, as always. One issue that I recently learned about in the Chamber is that the roll-out of gigabit broadband throughout the country has been delayed by a further two years from 2030 to 2032. Does she share my concerns that the void between the proposed digital inclusion and the constituents who do not have access to gigabit or wi-fi signals will be an even more manifest issue?
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. The money that will be spent on mandatory ID needs to be spent on ensuring that all our constituents are connected. The £9.5 million strategy to tackle digital exclusion is inadequate.
To conclude, this policy is an attempt to distract from the Government’s failures and has absolutely no mandate. I therefore stand with the many thousands across Chester South and Eddisbury in opposing any plans to introduce mandatory digital ID.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. More than 3 million people—a figure similar to the population of Wales—have signed this petition opposing the Government’s plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID scheme, including nearly 3,500 of my constituents.
My constituents have frequently raised valid concerns about the introduction of this type of scheme. One of those concerns is about data privacy, because a large database of private and sensitive information could be vulnerable to data breaches, hacking and other criminal activity. The hacking of the Legal Aid Agency is a recent example.
Increased state surveillance is another concern. Constituents are worried about the creation of detailed, individual profiles and about the sharing of information across state services. Digital exclusion is also a concern, especially in a rural constituency such as mine. Nobody should be unfairly disadvantaged by the state due to being without access to digital technology or the means to navigate it.
What I hear most, however, is that people are struggling to heat their homes and put food on their tables. None the less, the Government want to spend billions on identification schemes.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
When the last ID card scheme was cancelled by the Liberal Democrats in coalition in 2010, it had already cost £4.6 billion. Does the hon. Member share my view that the £1.8 billion cost associated with digital IDs could be much better spent?
Llinos Medi
I totally agree. I was previously the leader of a local authority, so I know that our public services are on their knees after 14 years of austerity. This money needs to go back into public services, instead of a digital ID scheme, and serve the people of this country.
The scheme was first framed as a way of combating illegal working, so it would apply only to workers. Then it was framed as a scheme to streamline services and potentially be applicable to people as young as 13. Will the Government set out what problem the digital ID will actually solve? As we have heard in this debate, nobody seems to know.
Given that the Government cannot provide a convincing argument for a costly, intrusive and unpopular scheme, they would do well to listen to the millions of people who have made their views known and focus instead on the real issues that matter to people. Plaid Cymru opposes the proposal to introduce digital ID.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Thank you for saving me until last, Ms Furniss. With Christmas around the corner, the squats from bobbing will come in very handy.
The proposal to introduce digital ID represents one of the most significant changes to the relationship between the individual and the state in modern British history. The measure cannot be taken lightly; nor can it be brushed aside as a simple matter of convenience or administrative efficiency.
Britain already operates with a substantial set of identification systems—birth certificate, passport, driving licence, national insurance number, NHS number and the electoral register—none of which is optional in practice for law-abiding citizens. The Government’s own digital ID webpage confirms that none of those existing documents will be replaced by the new proposal, which creates a logical fallacy: if digital ID is optional and does not replace any of the existing documents, it cannot simplify the existing system.
It is also written in the very first paragraph of the digital ID webpage that the data held on digital ID will be limited to four pieces of information: name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photograph. What does that tell us? It tells us that it is not a system really built to simplify domestic life; it is a system built to manage immigration status. Here we have another logical fallacy, because this does nothing to tackle the root cause of the immigration crisis, or anything to strengthen or enforce any of the right-to-work restrictions already in place.
I would add a third logical fallacy, which was somewhat innocently referred to earlier: if digital ID is optional, it can serve no purpose in a “papers, please” scenario. Thankfully, that is probably the better of the two scenarios, despite the cost of nearly £2 billion.
Britain operates on a simple democratic logic: we are born free, and the state may intrude only where necessary, proportionate and agreed by the public. Digital ID risks inverting that principle. I will point out that there was no mandate for this in the Labour manifesto.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman and I represent different political traditions, but I am glad to know that we are bound together by a shared sense of what a liberal society looks like. The only purpose of having an ID of this kind—a mandatory ID—is to enable people to ask for it. When we enable the conditions to be asked to prove our identity in society, we swiftly move from the freedoms he talks about to a permissions-based society, which should concern us all. Does he share that concern?
James McMurdock
That is a good point very well made, and it brings me to another point, which has not been raised in this debate: although the Government state that digital ID is optional—at least, at this stage—for the taxpayer, the cost is not optional. If they go ahead with it, we are all paying for it whether we like it or not, and whether we use it or not.
Even if the intentions today are benign, the power created has the potential to long outlive those who introduced it. I am of the view, therefore, that digital ID offers only the potential to inconvenience law-abiding citizens, while also creating the foundations for a powerful new mechanism capable of controlling banking, travel, property ownership, employment, public services, and daily activity into a single, state-managed system. Even if one trusted today’s Government, and many do not, no Government should ever have that level of centralised control over their citizens’ private lives.
The Government’s own website already suggests that digital ID would introduce access to social services, we have mission creep already, whether we like it or not. The digital ID webpage also states that the digital ID will be free. Of course, that is not entirely true, because the cost is £1.8 billion. In addition to the above we have the inevitable security risks and the fact that millions of people will struggle with digital access.
The Government talk liberal, but act authoritarian. Prison sentences for bad language and the proposal to reduce an eight-centuries-old right to jury trials are only two examples of this. Coupled with the digital ID white elephant, it paints an unpretty picture. I am against this measure.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss.
I do not know how the Government can go ahead with this scheme, when there is strong cross-party consensus that it is ill thought out. MPs from across the House and from basically all the parties have presented not only their legitimate concerns, but those of thousands of their constituents. Almost 3 million people have signed the petition, and that number of people who are concerned does not include those who are digitally excluded because it is an e-petition.
Victoria Collins
This debate has shown a clear consensus that this is not the right scheme. We are pushing back on the fact that this is essentially a mandatory digital ID for anyone who wants to work in this country. What choice or control is left in that scenario?
As Liberal Democrats, we believe in upholding freedom. This digital ID erodes long-held civil liberties, and the seemingly changing use of immigration enforcement and the slippery slope does not uphold freedom. As Liberal Democrats, we believe in individuals having more control, as do many of our supporters. This does not give individuals more control; indeed, it gives the Government more control.
We have heard loud and clear across the Chamber today about the attack on civil liberties. The Government said that this is not about checking papers, but that is exactly what is being introduced. They talked about the right to work and someone needing to check papers, so it is about checking papers. The Resolution Foundation says that 91% of the working-age population will be employed at some point in their life. This is essentially mandatory for the whole population.
The slippery slope—the mission creep—has been mentioned today. The right to rent has been mentioned in Government papers. I am sure that what the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) said came from a good place, but the fact that we are talking about whether the police can check these things shows that there is a slippery slope before digital ID has even been implemented.
Whether digital ID will be for 13-year-olds has been discussed. There is a terrible hypocrisy in the fact that there is a massive discussion nationally about the impact of smartphones on young people, yet the Government are saying, “Actually, we should give them all digital ID,” when it is clear that that ID will be on a smartphone.
Civil liberties are important. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about a two-tier Britain. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said that some will use digital ID for good and some will use it for ill. The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) talked about the many countries in which digital ID has not helped to tackle illegal immigration. So what is it for? Leon from Tring in my constituency says:
“The idea of a ‘Papers Please’ Britain is appalling.”
He says it insults our history and undermines civil society. Claude from Markyate says it is a curb on our freedom and privacy. How exactly will this system stop illegal working? How can the Minister guarantee that it will not undermine fundamental freedoms under this Government or the next? He cannot. Once Pandora’s box has been opened, it cannot be closed again.
Digital inclusion is so important to so many citizens. As hon. Members across the House have said, it is not only about having the choice not to be online; it is about skills. Access to telecoms has been mentioned: in my constituency, just 30 miles from London, we have some of the worst data access in the country. Of course, there is also the cost. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) tabled an amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill for the right to non-digital ID. The Government rejected that amendment because, as the Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), assured us, people would be able to use physical ID “in every circumstance”. Where is that option in this scheme, under which people have to have digital ID to work? Where is the choice in that? Where is the alternative “in every circumstance” that does not require digital ID?
The hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) talked about inequality. That is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) asked the important question about how the scheme will help her constituents, who are some of the most digitally excluded in the country. The hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) talked about how it will impact BAME communities. All of those are essential questions that raise the big question: why are the Government pushing ahead with it?
It is such a shame that the Government have undermined and halted progress on e-government, which could be improving our public services. Today’s debate and the cross-party consensus that this proposal has eroded trust are fundamentally important. We have seen flip-flopping and retrofitting of a policy that was first announced as being about immigration, and then suddenly in the Chamber came out as “Oh, no: this is about improving public services.” No one is buying it. That is why almost 3 million people have signed this petition; that is why we are all here today; and that is why there were not enough seats in this Chamber. People realise that this is a retrofitted policy undermining any progress on online government.
A quite important point is that we already have voluntary online services that need improving. They are not doing very well. The gov.uk wallet definitely needs improving, and the gov.uk One Login—a voluntary system at the moment—has many flaws. Should we not be spending money on that? The Government have already invested £100 million in it. There are systems that need improving; the Government should do that, rather than spend £1.8 billion on a system that clearly does not have the support of our citizens or many MPs across the House.
I respect the efforts of the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) and many others to talk about service improvement, but we can modernise without mandating, and that is essentially what this is. What are the Government doing to improve systems such as the Government One Login? Why are the Government conflating digital ID and e-services? That will not improve our public services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) highlighted, this is the “anti-Midas touch”. I am so angry about that, because the Government have undermined progress in improving our services and increasing trust in them, which are both so important.
This debate has highlighted the importance of trust in data. Cyber incidents have increased by 50% since last year. A 2025 Department for Science, Innovation and Technology survey highlighted that almost 300,000 British businesses have been victims of cyber-crime in the past 12 months. The Legal Aid Agency has had cyber leaks, the armed forces have been affected, and as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, police in Northern Ireland had their personal details released. How can we trust the Government with our data at this point?
One of my constituents, Jamie, from Wheathampstead says:
“My concern is with the broader principle of trust. I simply do not have confidence that any government, now or in the future would implement digital IDs in a way that is safe, proportionate and free from mission creep”.
That reflects the Government’s track record in oversight and protecting their own systems as critical national infrastructure. Yet as I understand it, public administration is not within the scope of the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill. Given the Government’s proposals on digital ID, that is quite an oversight.
A cost of £1.8 billion has been projected. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) and many others said that this figure will rise. As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) mentioned, this comes at a time when our public services are breaking and when a Budget has just asked many people to pay more in tax, pushing up that bill by £67 billion in the next several years. With around 10 million taxpaying families paying more, how can the Government justify this £1.8 billion cost when their IT projects have already cost the taxpayer more than £31 billion overall? This will just add to that.
All this is to say nothing about the impact on business costs. Who will pay for smartphones for those who need them? Who will pay for data for those who need it? And who will pay when citizens cannot work because this failed system does not work for them?
That brings me to my final questions and closing remarks. Will the Minister set out the data security protocols that would apply to this system, including whether a digital ID would be treated as part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure? Will he look at publishing a digital exclusion impact assessment before any further steps are taken? Can he clarify the status of the gov.uk One Login and confirm how much of taxpayers’ money has already been spent on that?
The Government have no mandate for these proposals. Across this Chamber today, we have seen Members of different parties and from across the UK speak up, and nearly 3 million people signed the petition—as I said, that is just those who are able to sign it. At a time when millions are struggling with the cost of living crisis, £1.8 billion being spent on digital ID cards is wasteful and indefensible. That money should be spent on fixing GP waiting lists, not funding Blair-era fantasies.
Digital ID is not about empowerment in this sense, but about control. Today, we have heard about the end of end-to-end encryption and the end of trial by jury, and this is the worrying next step. Mandatory digital ID crosses a red line and hands the state more power over citizens while stripping people of their freedoms and choice. That is something that the Liberal Democrats cannot and will not accept.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his powerful introduction —he is certainly no tin of beans. He highlighted that this debate has united every party in this Chamber, including the Labour party against the Labour leadership. I commend hon. Members for the powerful contributions that they have made. I have to confess that I disagree with nothing that was said by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), which is a unique thing—people will fear a coalition again. I even have some admiration for the glorious fence-sitting of some of the Labour MPs who still harbour some ambitions under this Government.
We are here because so many of our fellow citizens are demanding that the Government abandon their dodgy plan for mandatory digital ID. This is one of the best-supported petitions ever—nearly 3 million people are asking, very simply, for their relationship with the state not to be fundamentally rewritten without their consent. At the instigation of no one—apart from, perhaps, Tony Blair—the Prime Minister sprung his sneaky ID scheme on us in September in what by now has become a familiar pattern. A gaping hole emerges in Labour’s handling of an issue—in this case on migration, but it could equally be justice or the economy—at the same time as they are running some kind of personnel meltdown, such as a Deputy Prime Minister ducking tax or a Chancellor leaking a Budget. And voilà: out shoots from Downing Street some cack-handed policy announcement to get us all talking about something else.
Before we know it, we are hurtling toward mandatory ID, fewer jury trials, a horrible menu of new taxes on working people, and, who knows, maybe soon our return to a customs union on whose rules we will have zero say. That is why today we find ourselves debating the imposition of a mandatory ID, despite it being a platform on which no Labour MP in this Chamber was honest enough to stand, and a hapless Minister is left to field questions about the dead cat that his leader just threw on to the table, which is now getting smellier.
Dr Gardner
I acknowledge the strength of feeling from the people who signed the petition, but I have a genuine concern that we are not giving the correct level of information for people to say no to. Conflating digital IDs with issues such as jury trials and taxation is doing people no favours; we need to have a calm, rational debate about this one issue so that we can have a reasoned outcome.
Julia Lopez
One challenge is that we have had so few of the facts, because this is such a thin plan. The other challenge is that although there are people who support digital identity as a concept, this is about choice and the fact that this Government have no mandate for what they are doing. I do not think that the hon. Member and I are coming from that different a place, in so far as it should be people’s choice whether they have digital identity verification or not. This Government are proposing to rob them of that choice, and that is why the people in this Chamber are united.
Saqib Bhatti
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; she is being ever so generous. It is not us scaremongering, or 3 million people being conspiracists; the fact is that the Prime Minister rolled out this scheme to deal with an issue that it will not solve, and everyone can see through that.
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he spoke powerfully in his contribution. I am sure that today we will hear no answers from the Minister, because behind this policy sits no plan at all. No Minister has any idea how much it will cost—the OBR reckons it will be £1.8 billion.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the thousands of people across Bromley and Biggin Hill who signed the petition that at a time of rising taxation and spiralling debt, the fact that the Government cannot even tell us how much this wretched device will cost exemplifies their irresponsible approach to our economy?
Julia Lopez
I completely agree. On the one hand, the Government claim there is no money left. On the other hand, they can suddenly find billions for bizarre schemes or the Chagos islands, or create policies on the two-child benefit cap that they could not previously deliver. They are just so intellectually inconsistent.
The OBR, as I say, reckons the scheme will cost £1.8 billion. Privately, Ministers are briefing that that is completely inaccurate. We have not even begun scoping it yet. I am told the Treasury and the Cabinet Office are now in a stand-off with one another about who will pay for this dreadful thing. Neither wants it, particularly as the Cabinet Office will then have to make cuts to other, much more effective digital projects, the kinds that would actually deliver better services.
No one will answer straight questions about how secure the digital ID will be, or into which areas of our lives it will creep. The Prime Minister tells us that digital ID will be mandatory only for anyone who still wants to work in Labour’s welfare Britain. Yet in the next breath he suggests that childcare, welfare and wider service access will all require it. This is precisely how state overreach begins: with reassurance in one sentence and expansion in the next.
It was very interesting to hear hon. Members making points about the police being able to access digital ID, or even about people needing it to go to the cinema. There have been no answers on the robustness of the Government’s cyber-security. This Government could not even keep their own Budget secret, and now they want us to trust them with this new system. Ministers point to Estonia and India as models, yet Estonia has suffered repeated breaches. India’s system, the largest ID system in the world, led to the largest ever data breach in the world, with citizens’ data sold on the dark web for the equivalent of £5 or £6. AI is now giving cyber-attackers the upper hand.
We have been given no sense of the extent to which digital ID will stem illegal migration, which was the Prime Minister’s excuse for introducing the idea in the first place. Ministers cannot even give an estimate, and that is for a simple reason: because it will not reduce migration. Can Ministers explain why those who enter the country by dodging the rules will suddenly become models of civic compliance, or why European ID schemes have done so little to stem illegal migration on the continent?
Mr Adnan Hussain
On the topic of migration, does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s claim that digital ID will curb immigration is made a farce by the Afghan data loss, a catastrophic failure of data security that ended up expanding resettlement on a large scale, which shows exactly why centralising identity data can backfire?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. The truth is that channel crossings will continue until the Prime Minister puts in place a real deterrent and accepts that the “smash the gangs” plan is nothing more than a slogan. By pretending that his ID scheme is the answer, he fuels public distrust. When the crossings continue but law-abiding British citizens are allocated a mandatory ID, people will feel, rightly, that it is one rule for them and another for rule breakers—a loss of liberty for everyone because of a group of people who have no right to be here.
At least Ministers seem to recognise the emptiness of the migration argument, because none of them seems to use it any more. To add to the despicable dishonesty of the plan, it is now being presented as a benevolent effort to improve online services—no more rummaging for utility bills. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff even insists it will be a matter of choice whether to have a digital ID. How disingenuous! First, to oppose digital ID is not to oppose the modernisation of Government. It is not to oppose great online services for people. It is to say that we do not need a monopolistic Government ID scheme, which is mandated if people are to have those online services, and nobody should be suggesting otherwise.
The Association of Digital Verification Professionals has called what Labour inherited from our party
“a world-leading model for…data sovereignty”
that digitises liberty rather than dilutes it. In government we were able to provide trusted, simple and secure services without everyone being mandated to have a digital identity. Paper options were retained. Nobody was forced down the digital route. Privacy-preserving private identity providers, now absolutely hopping mad about Labour’s plan, are recognised as a way of giving citizens choice when it comes to digital credentials and dispersing central power.
Let us turn to the idea of choice and consent. If a Government-issued digital ID is mandatory for anyone wishing to work, then if someone wants a job they have no choice but to have one. At a time when Labour has made it more expensive and much riskier to employ people, they now want to add an extra hoop for everyone to jump through. Never mind the digital divide, either. Thousands of adults do not have smartphones. Labour has deprioritized gigabit rollout; its digital inclusion plan is a £9 million fig leaf. It is not bridging the digital divide, but widening it.
Conservatives oppose the Prime Minister’s mandatory ID plan in principle and in practice. It would alter the balance between citizen and state in a way that this Government have no mandate for. Conservatives believe that Government should empower citizens, not the other way round.
Before this House takes another step down this path, I ask the Minister to answer the following questions clearly and directly. Will the Government bring this matter before the House for a vote, and when can we expect digital identity legislation to be put before us? How much will this scheme cost? If the true figure is not £1.8 billion, what is it? Are Ministers creating a single centralised database—yes or no? Who will be forced to have a mandatory ID and from what age, because we hear that it could be mandatory from the age of 13? What personal information will be collected? Will biometrics and addresses be included? What security guarantees will the Minister put his name to when it comes to the robustness of this system? Nearly 3 million people want answers to those questions and more.
This Government have delivered nothing of what they said they would deliver— growth, political stability, competence—and delivered plenty that they never sought permission for. They are a Government who do not have the competence to run a bath, let alone a secure national identity scheme. It seems that many Labour MPs, including those in this Chamber today, now agree. Every day, they are openly jostling and gossiping about the Prime Minister’s demise. If they had any sense, they would make sure that this scheme dies with the expiry of his leadership and that any of the thrusting leadership contenders make a clear promise not to resurrect it.
The Prime Minister’s plan is unimplementable and utterly unloved, and it will be totally useless in delivering against its own objectives. So, before Labour sprays inordinate amounts of political capital and taxpayer cash on this digital ID dodo, it must wake up to that reality.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate today; I hope that it is the first of many such debates to come, including in the main Chamber. Also, I apologise to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for briefly having to step out of Westminster Hall during her speech. I will check the record and make sure that I am across all of what she said.
I thank hon. Members from all parties for the thoughtful and respectful manner in which they have spoken in this debate. I will refer to some of the contributions during my speech. However, I will not take interventions, as I have limited time, and a lot of important questions have been asked, which I will endeavour to answer.
Josh Simons
I am told that I have 11 minutes.
I want to do three things today, as I endeavour not to be hapless: first, to explain why we want to build this new national digital credential and the principles that will guide us as we do so; secondly, to debunk some of the nonsense and myths surrounding this debate; and thirdly, to make some commitments regarding how I as the Minister and we as a Government will work with Members and their constituents going forward.
Let me start by saying why we are introducing this scheme. So often, my constituents in Makerfield, in Wigan, come to me with stories about how they have to fight against the system to do things that should be easy: dealing with the social care system or the special educational needs and disabilities system, registering for a school place, or ordering a new bin; paying taxes, or accessing benefits; opening a bank account, or buying a home. When millions of working people feel exhausted by making their household finances work, or by dealing with antisocial behaviour in their town, the last thing they need is to feel that they are being passed from agency to agency, from call centre to call centre, and from one form to the next.
It does not have to be that way. All over the world, countries have introduced national digital credentials that give people more control over their public services, ensuring that everyone can access those services more easily. It puts the state in someone’s pocket, as with everything else that we do online: banking, shopping, organising community events and supporting our kids at school. Although the Government Digital Service has done phenomenal work over the last decade, the UK needs a step change to make the state and public services work harder for people and fit around them, instead of forcing people to fit around those services.
Labour Governments have a proud history of transforming our state and making it serve ordinary people. After the second world war, the Government built new public services such as the NHS from the ground up. Harold Wilson grasped the white heat of technology to modernise the state. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown brought public services into the 21st century. Now we are doing the same, building the digital foundation of the British state and public services for decades to come.
I am proud that we are building this vital public good for our country, not outsourcing it and not leaving it to private companies. Done right, it can leave a legacy of which we will be proud in the years ahead—but doing it right, as several hon. Members have said, is vital, and my job is to make sure that we do it right. That is why, since becoming the responsible junior Minister, I have introduced three clear principles that will guide the system we build.
The first principle is “inclusive”. We will leave no person and no place behind. This is a public good, so it must be universally accessible. The people most excluded from our society, whether digitally or because they have not had a passport, are those we will work hardest to reach. We are under no illusions: this is a great challenge. It will take a lot of hard work and a massive digital inclusion drive. But do not forget that the status quo—
Josh Simons
I will not. I have loads more to cover.
Millions of people right now are digitally excluded. That is not a status quo that we are prepared to accept. We will need help to meet this challenge. Civil society, businesses, trade unions and community groups across the UK will be our partners. That is why we are consulting on how to do this. If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable—people experiencing homelessness, the elderly and people with special needs, but also veterans and people without access to the internet. This programme will empower them, because we will invest resources to reach and to include them. They will not be left behind any more.
Our second principle is “secure”.
Josh Simons
He will not.
We are working with the UK’s leading national security experts, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to build a system with cutting-edge protections against cyber-attacks and identity fraud. Let me be specific: we are not creating a centralised master database.
John Lamont
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could you clarify how long the Minister has left to speak? By my understanding, he has until 7.29 pm so as to give the proposer of the motion a minute to respond.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
We are running quite well at the moment. We will be finishing completely at 7.30 pm, but the Member who moved the motion wants a minute to wind up, which he has a right to do. So the Minister has a bit longer should he need it.
Josh Simons
I was told that I have 11 minutes, and I have about 10 more minutes of my speech. I will not be taking interventions, so the hon. Member can sit down and stop asking.
If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable: those experiencing homelessness, who are currently left behind. We will not accept the status quo. That point leads me on to the second principle. The National Cyber Security Centre will work closely with us to implement cutting-edge protections against cyber-attacks and identity fraud. I want to be specific about what exactly that means.
We are not, as many Members have asked, creating a centralised master database. The new system will be federated. Specifically, that means that there will be strict legal firewalls on what information can be shared where and a strong principle of data minimisation. People will have more control over their data in this system than they have now, because people will be able actively to control what information is shared about them and by whom. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, in other countries around the world, such as Finland or Estonia, citizens are massively more empowered to control their data. Their consent is placed at the centre of the system—[Interruption.]
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister has every right to speak, just as everyone else has had the right to speak. He does not have to take interventions.
Josh Simons
Those countries are placing their citizens’ consent at the centre of the system, and that is what we will build here in the UK.
That takes me to our third principle: it will be useful. I want to build a credential that our constituents want to have because having it makes their lives easier. In our economy and our society, technology has dramatically improved how we go about our daily life. I want Government to have the tools to move at the same pace. Whether it is applying for a new passport, accessing support for your children or proving who you are for a job, the state should be working as hard as possible to make these things easy for you, not making you do the hard work.
Our consultation will give the public the opportunity to have their say about how they would like to be able to use this credential, and what kind of future public services they would like to see. I want to build a system that helps people with the daily struggles they tell us about, not the system that Whitehall thinks is best.
There is also a lot of nonsense flying about in this debate, some myths that we have failed to rebut and some outright lies, so following a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), the second thing that I would like to do this evening is briefly debunk some of those myths.
First, this programme will involve a massive digital inclusion drive, rejecting the status quo in which millions are excluded both digitally and from having IDs, and investing resources and time to ensure that everyone can access the online world and digital public services through post offices and libraries—physical spaces in communities up and down the United Kingdom.
Josh Simons
Secondly, nobody will be stopped and asked for this new digital credential by the police. No card, no papers, no police.
Seamus Logan
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Is it in order for the Minister to indicate that contributions in this debate contained lies?
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I have to say that I could not hear him say that, mainly because everyone else was making so much noise, like now. [Interruption.] I did not hear him say that.
Josh Simons
To clarify, I was not saying that contributions from other Members were lies. I was saying that there are lies out there in the country about this system. I would like to put that on the record.
We want a system that people want to use to make their lives easier, so that they no longer have to fill out forms multiple times or fight against agencies to transfer information.
Thirdly, as I have said, there is—and there will be—no centralised master database. The new system will be federated, meaning that data will stay where it already is, stored securely and separately, using only the minimum data necessary for ID verification and information sharing. Privacy-preserving questions and answers will be communicated across datasets, with strict firewalls between them enshrined in law, and only where people consent, so people will control what data is shared and where, as they do in other countries, with more control than they have now.
Fourthly, this system will be a public good. I want to build this system because it will benefit ordinary people, not because I am under the grip of some international elite or globalist diktat, as someone said earlier, which is quite the antisemitic trope to throw at a Jewish Minister. Yesterday, I was in the pub in Hindley, talking to a bloke who was trying to transfer basic information from Bolton council to Wigan council. I want that to be easier—to make the state work harder for him, not the other way around. That is why we are doing this.
Fifthly, there will be legislation establishing the credential, on which Parliament will vote. Parliament will control what this credential can be used for. We will establish a clear legal framework to prevent scope creep. Our goal is to make life easier for people and give people more security and control over their data than they have now. That is the test I will set.
Sixthly and finally, we are a proud liberal parliamentary democracy. We will never have a social credit system. We will not be tracking anyone’s life. Existing data protection laws will apply. Someone’s use of gambling sites will not be allowed to impact their entitlement to healthcare, nor will their speeding ticket affect who they can marry, as in China—a country with no elections, no Parliament and no rule of law. I wrote a book about making sure that democracy controls data, not the other way around. That is what I intend to do.
I will end by making a few promises to Members in the Chamber and to anyone in the public who is watching. The consultation, which will be launched in the new year, will be a major public undertaking. I am determined that we will engage in a different way. I will be travelling up and down the country to listen to people and hear how they want this credential to work and how they think it can make their lives easier.
As with all public goods, we cannot build this or roll it out alone. We want to work with communities, not do this to communities—working arm in arm with grassroots groups, digital inclusion organisations, local authorities, combined authorities, mayors, civil society, trade unions and businesses small and large across the United Kingdom. If Members, their constituents or their organisations are in any of those camps and would like to get involved, I encourage them to get in touch.
I understand the anxiety of many hon. Members in this Chamber and of many members of the public. In fact, I share some of those anxieties. I know that it is my job, and the job of the Government, to persuade. Liberal parliamentary democracies around the world have or are developing a national digital credential. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India—the list goes on. We will take a principled approach to building this new system. “Inclusive”, “secure” and “useful”: these principles are non-negotiable, and how we apply them will be led by our major public consultation next year.
My background is in technology and AI. Part of why I came into politics is that so often the way ordinary people encounter technologies is determined solely by private imperatives and not the public good. I do not want the future of our state and economy to be driven by a desire to addict our children to TikTok videos or pornography. I want it to be driven by a willingness to roll up our sleeves and do the hard graft of building infrastructure that will last for generations. That is what a new national digital credential is: a vital public good. I am proud that this Government will build it.
Robbie Moore
There we have it. This is how the Government of the day is going to be engaging with people—stating from the Dispatch Box that they are willing to listen, yet not taking one intervention. May I remind the Minister that Members of Parliament in this House have been elected to represent their constituents? Three million people have signed this petition. Not to have taken one intervention when dealing with matters that have been brought to this House is not only embarrassing for the Minister, but completely discourteous to the Members of Parliament in this Chamber. What a disgrace!
Colleagues have spoken, and I thank Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents. I also thank the 3 million people who signed the petition, because they have demonstrated that digital ID is not something that they want this country to move forward with. It is expensive, it is unwanted and it is intrusive. It was not included in the Labour party manifesto. It was not promoted as something that would be brought forward by this Government.
The voice of this Chamber has been heard. It is just incredibly disappointing that the Minister did not have the courtesy to reflect that in his remarks.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID.