Digital ID

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I would like to join hon. Members in really pushing on questions about AI chatbots. Their human-like, assertive nature is filling a gap and many people, including children, are entrusting chatbots with medical opinions, legal advice and emotional support, with fatal consequences and without clear accountability. I know that this has been touched on, but it is really important. Ofcom explicitly includes only user to user or search, so one to one, which is actually where there are some of the most acute harms, is not covered. Will the Minister commit to working with Ofcom on classification, so we can ensure the responsible use of this technology and protect children from the unregulated harms of the growing dependence on chatbots?

[Kanishka Narayan]

Let me be very clear: of course we will. We have already both engaged with Ofcom and commissioned further work on this question, and we will report on that at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I, too, thank the previous ministerial team and welcome the new one—I very much look forward to working together.

Following the roll-out of the Online Safety Act, there is evidence that harmful content is still being algorithmically shown to young children and that artificial intelligence technologies, which have been linked to teenage deaths, are not covered properly in the Act, and concerns have been raised about data protection and inappropriately age-gated educational content. We must get the Act right, so will the Secretary of State consider our calls for a digital Bill of Rights to set the standard, in order that we can truly adapt to this era of technological change?

[Liz Kendall]

We do need to adapt to this age of phenomenal technological development. I have already had a discussion with the chief executive of Ofcom and I intend to meet many other organisations, including those that champion stronger protections for children online. The hon. Lady raises the critical issue that we need to protect people’s privacy, and we need to protect freedom of speech, but we also need to make sure that illegal content, and harmful content for children, is removed. I will leave no stone unturned in delivering on that objective.

Defence and Security

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Two of those rules-based systems are fundamental: the UN charter and the NATO framework and all the articles in it. Those are hugely important rules-based frameworks that we must absolutely adhere to. I wrote many times about the UN Security Council as a lawyer. In my first appearance at the Security Council, I was sitting at the table with a country that was in clear violation of the charter, and I did not feel at all comfortable.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

I have distinct memories of, three years ago, helping my Ukrainian friends and colleagues flee the country as tanks came towards their homes. Since then, people across Harpenden, Berkhamsted and Tring have opened their doors to those from Ukraine, but the hope that they once had has turned to fear of what is happening globally. Can the Prime Minister assure the British people that when he speaks to President Trump, he will push for lasting peace, and highlight the importance of working with our European colleagues?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank, through the hon. Lady, everybody in this country who has opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees. I am very proud of the fact that we have done that, and that the Ukrainian flag flies in so many places across the country. I can reassure her constituents that this announcement today and the approach that we are taking are to ensure that peace continues, but for peace to continue, we have to put ourselves and Ukraine in the strongest possible position, and this is a step along that road.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

Digital services for small businesses are important across the country—north-east, south-east or wherever you are, Mr Speaker. The latest data shows, however, that only around 15% of UK small and medium-sized enterprises use AI, which is well behind other countries, such as Denmark and Finland. Will the Minister commit to publishing a detailed adoption road map that covers, for example, essential upskilling, data centre capacity and tech vouchers, so that small businesses can deploy AI without being locked out by cost and complexity?

[Feryal Clark]

The hon. Member will have seen the AI opportunities action plan, which sets out our aspiration for this country, including the opportunities for small businesses. The fusion of AI across the economy is top of the agenda. In the coming months, she will see more activity on how we will do that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

It was wonderful to visit Milton Keynes and to see the work of a pioneering Labour council. The work the Labour council has led to open up services to the NHS is a real example of the shift to community that the Government are committed to. Milton Keynes shows that when a wonderful MP works with a Labour council and the NHS amazing things can happen.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

With impending decisions on airport expansions across the south of England, communities in my constituency, including Flamstead and Markyate, are very worried, not only because the evidence about economic growth is quite low but because the Climate Change Committee has said that the impact on the climate would be rather large. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will be listening to the Government’s own advisers and will have a UK-wide capacity management framework before any airport expansion?

[Pat McFadden]

There has been a lot of speculation in recent days. I would advise the whole House to not comment on speculation. If there is an announcement to be made, it will be made.

Storm Darragh

Victoria Collins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

I thank the hon. Member for her question, and express sympathy with what her constituents are going through. I am disappointed to hear that constituents face difficulty in connecting to networks. We are trying our best to work with networks on the wider lessons for the future. If she writes to me directly about these matters, we can certainly explore the issue further.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

In Harpenden and Berkhamsted, much of the impact of Storm Darragh was wholly preventable, such as Flamstead village being cut off because Trowley Bottom and Chequer Lane were flooded, as well as the flooding on Station Road in Harpenden, and in Puttenham. Next to the Hospice of St Francis is Shootersway, which has repeatedly flooded, and there are worries about ambulance access. What are the Government doing to work with local authorities, and what is the long-term strategy to prevent repeated damage from storms such as Darragh?

[Ms Oppong-Asare]

We are working with local resilience forums, and we are also carrying out a flood review. As I mentioned, a flood taskforce has been set up and is exploring the issues raised by the hon. Lady.