Digital ID Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Digital ID

Lewis Atkinson Excerpts
Monday 8th December 2025

(1 day, 22 hours ago)

Westminster Hall
Read Full debate Read 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

Lewis Atkinson Portrait Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

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.