Digital ID

Noah Law Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

[Noah Law]

The hon. Member makes an important point that such systems are by no means immune, but I argue that the systems that we have in place at the minute are hardly secure.

[Caroline Voaden]

Exactly, and why would this be better?

[Noah Law]

This scheme presents a much better opportunity to ensure that we have the correct security procedures in place, versus some of our current insecure measures.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Noah Law]

If there is so much consensus among MPs and constituents, why is it that the members of the public who were more supportive of digital ID were more likely to be Liberal Democrat voters, at least when they were polled some time back?

[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.