Digital ID

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

[Martin Wrigley]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[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.]

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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!

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

China Spying Case

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

As far as I can remember, the Attorney General told the House of Lords yesterday that 3 September was when he was informed that there were evidential difficulties with the case. The key point is that he had no power to intervene, because of the memorandum between the Attorney General’s Office and the CPS. The Attorney General does not get involved in evidential sufficiency.

[Alex Burghart]

Ministers do get involved; it is their job to be involved. Ministers represent the Government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are entirely powerless in this instance—they are not.

A fifth example is that yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat. On 16 October 2025, Ken McCallum said:

“Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes they do every day.”

How on earth did the Cabinet Secretary not know that? This issue is of paramount importance. There are many other such examples.

The Government have an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but on their position as it stands. Will the Minister tell us what the material difference is between “a range of threats” and “an active security threat”? The deputy National Security Adviser was keen to make that point yesterday. Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government believe that China is an active security threat? If not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It is time for the Government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here.

I know that the Government will protest their innocence and claim that it is all the fault of the CPS, or the last Government, or the legislation, just as they have tried to do for weeks, but such pleas and protests are no good reason for them to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers. This House has a right to see under the bonnet when the safety and privacy of its Members may have been compromised. This House has a right to know the Government’s real position and the Government’s real agenda. If this Government have nothing to hide, they should hide nothing from this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow]

Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

[Tony Vaughan]

Will the right hon. and learned Member give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

No, I will not—too short of time.

There was nothing to prevent that because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the Government were not prepared to change their approach. It is a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Member for Torfaen to say to me, “Back in 2021, the policy of the Government was not to describe China as an enemy,” but at that time, we had not had the spying, the intimidation, and the direct targeting of this institution and the democratic assembly of our people that we have now seen by 2025. Things have moved on, and it was incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their approach, which was that they would not describe a duck as a duck. The witness was prepared to say, “It has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a bill—but we are not prepared to call it a duck.”

Are you telling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside No. 10 and said, “We have a policy problem. It is a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it?”? Is he saying that that was never discussed with the National Security Adviser, that the DNSA never raised that with any relevant Minister? The Attorney General, when he met on 3 September, said, “Well, I couldn’t intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence.” That is perfectly true; he cannot intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, “What do you need? Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require?” But nothing was said. Nothing was said on 3 September because “nothing” was the policy of the Government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope straight into the pan where no doubt many of the, not inaptly named, mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide.

There is extraordinary cheek in the right hon. Gentleman, who came to this House four or five years ago with his Humble Address when he asked for legal advice—advice on the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in with the Berlaymont—to be disclosed for all to see, now saying that we should not see the truth of what in reality the Government were saying and doing at the time.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck, and when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is almost certainly a complete crock of old—

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

The wording in that statement was put in there to provide wider context of the situation, but as I have said many times, and I will keep saying it, that wording is provided independently by the DNSA without any involvement from Ministers or political advisers.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Were you in at the beginning?

[Tony Vaughan]

No.

[Mr Speaker]

Don’t bother wasting my time then.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

On 14 May, the Government announced the launch of new thematic campuses in Aberdeen and Manchester and the closure of 11 buildings, and reaffirmed the commitment on relocating 50% of senior roles outside London, which I just mentioned. The hon. Lady says these are vast commitments, but I think we need to go faster. Reform of the state is essential, and those commitments will not be the end of civil service and state reform.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

[Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to improve relations with the EU.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tony Vaughan]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for his answer. Given that he leads on UK-EU relations, will he outline how the Cabinet Office will ensure that the new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will reduce the level of checks on goods at both the Eurotunnel terminal in Folkstone, in my constituency, and the Port of Dover, and improve the flow of trade? What steps are being taken to further break down barriers to trade in goods with the EU?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. and learned Friend is a powerful advocate for his constituents in Folkestone and Hythe. The SPS agreement will remove routine border checks and certification, including for goods travelling through Folkestone and the Port of Dover. It will mean that fresh produce will hit supermarket shelves more quickly, with less paperwork and fewer costs.

EU Trading Relationship

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to you, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on calling this important debate, which I am pleased about; as Members of Parliament, it is not often that we get a chance to speak so clearly about what we do to represent our constituents’ interests and the British interest.

Our job as Members of Parliament is to keep our country strong and secure, with a strong economy and strong defence, and to provide opportunity to everyone, not least our young people. That is what this debate is about: promoting the British interest. That lies at the heart of why we need to get a better deal from the European Union that gets growth for our country in the swiftest way possible, at a time when this Government are so committed to growth, by lowering the barriers and removing the red tape that have come out of the hopeless deal patched together so feebly by the last Government.

As has been said, we especially need to lower the barriers for small and medium-sized firms, which have been hit the hardest. I think of the specialist wine importer in my constituency that has to pay an extra £160 for every shipment.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Following the Tory Brexit deal, we have seen lorries backing up from Dover, through my constituency and deep into Kent now that we have customs and immigration checks. Does my hon. Friend agree that a deal to eliminate barriers on food and drink being exported to the EU would help to reduce friction at Dover and throughout our road network?

[Ben Coleman]

I absolutely agree. We need a veterinary agreement to improve the situation in our country. I agree with the proposal to allow British bands and creatives to tour more easily and that we should have more mutual recognition of professional qualifications to support our service industries. We should be as ambitious as we can. We should therefore start talking about a deal to end regulatory divergence, so that companies do not have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on two sets of standards and two sets of testing regimes.

The situation we face as a result of the deal that the Conservative Government negotiated is not patriotism: it is self-sabotage, and we need to do something about it. Part of that is about us needing to do more to give opportunity to our young people, which is why I support having a controlled youth visa scheme that provides just that opportunity.

Finally, I turn to defence, which some of my colleagues have mentioned. The UK has a huge role to play in the defence of our continent; I do not think any European countries doubt that. It is clearly in all our interests across Europe for the UK and the European Union to sign a new security agreement. We need stronger defence and new jobs in the UK and right across the continent, and that is why our Government must be absolutely clear with some other countries in the European Union. Defence and security co-operation are too fundamental to dealing with the challenges that our countries face, and they must be decoupled from other political negotiations. They are too important to be tied to debates about fishing rights or quotas.

We need cool-headed, determined and ambitious negotiations with the European Union that back Britain. In that way, we can get the better deal that my constituents in Chelsea and Fulham and the British people deserve.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Member talks about panic. The only panic is for people who know that his policy would be to charge them for using the NHS. What he should say to the people of Clacton—when he finally finds Clacton—is that they should vote Labour because we are stabilising the economy and boosting their jobs.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

Q12.   Many of my constituents are expressing their frustration at the net migration figures, which quadrupled—increasing by nearly 1 million—under the last Tory Government. Unbelievably, the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has admitted that her party is proud of their open borders experiment on Britain. Will the Prime Minister explain what he is doing to bring those numbers back under control?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for raising that point. We know that the Leader of the Opposition lobbied personally to remove annual limits on student and work visas. The shadow Foreign Secretary still thinks that the Conservatives have a great record on immigration, forgetting that they quadrupled it and that it reached almost 1 million a year. Our Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will give stronger powers than ever to tackle people smugglers. We have already removed 16,000 people who have no right to be here. The question for the Opposition is this: will they walk into the Lobby with us next week to secure our borders?

G20 and COP29 Summits

Tony Vaughan Excerpts

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very pleased that, at the Budget, we put £5 billion over the next two years into farming and food sustainability, which is hugely important to support our farmers. The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed the money allocated to deal with flooding, a constant cause of problems for farmers, and the money put into dealing with the outbreak of disease, which is devastating for so many farmers. He will also know that in an average case of parents wanting to pass on a farm to one of their children, by the time the various assessments are made, it is only those valued above £3 million that will be affected by this, despite the fear-mongering from Opposition Members. That means that the vast majority of farms and farmers will be totally unaffected, as I know the hon. Gentleman appreciates.

[Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about the late Lord Prescott?

Now that the Prime Minister has met the Chinese President, does he believe that we are in a better position to advance UK interests, and to challenge China on important issues such as human rights, than we were in the last six years, in which no UK Prime Minister could even have those conversations, because they did not go to China?

[The Prime Minister]

That is an important point. This is about getting the balance right. That is why I took a pragmatic approach in the interests of this country, in order to further our interests, and decided to have frank discussions where they are necessary. I believe it is better that we meet and engage than that we are absent from the international stage.