Liz Jarvis
Main Page: Liz Jarvis (Liberal Democrat - Eastleigh)Department Debates - View all Liz Jarvis's debates with the Cabinet Office
(1 day, 23 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead 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
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.