E-petition debate relating to digital ID - Monday 8 December 2025.

Order. Order. Robbie Moore to move the motion.

Thank you, Sir Edward, and it is a pleasure to introduce today's e-petition debate under your chairmanship. I beg to move that this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to the introduction of mandatory digital ID cards. It is a pleasure to open the debate today on behalf of the Petitions Committee and can I thank all organizations and individuals that I have met with in preparation for the debate.

Sir Edward, nearly three million people have signed today's petition. It is the fourth most signed petition in the history of parliamentary e-petitions, comparable only to the recent petitions calling for a general election. It is obvious why the plans to bring in digital ID have provoked such an outrage. They are fundamentally un-British and strike at the core political traditions in this country.

There are colleagues from all parties opposed to these measures: the Conservatives, the Greens, Reform, Lib Dems, Labour backbenches, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, Independent MPs, and colleagues from Northern Ireland. In fact, even several ministers in this government have in the past voiced their opposition to compulsory identity documents, and I will give way.

Thank you for the voice of doubt. I'm only on this side of the House because it's Westminster Hall, so packed. It's the only remaining chair. I have not defected to the Labour Party and never will, or to anyone else. Very quickly, can he confirm this was not in Labour's general election manifesto?

So they have absolutely no electoral mandate to extend, extend the surveillance state over the people of this country with this gimmick.

Sir Edward, I could not agree with my right honourable friend enough. So that begs the question, who actually is in favour of these proposals, other than the Prime Minister himself? Despite the consistent opposition to identity documents, this is not the first time that they have been forced on the British public. The first ID card in this country came during the Second World War, with cards that could be demanded from the public by a police officer, subject to six months' imprisonment if not shown. Despite promises at the time in 1939 that the ID cards would be a temporary wartime measure, they were still used throughout post-war Attlee governments and only ended, Sir Edward, by the Conservatives in 1952.

50 years later, no longer fighting German spies, but the war, war on terror, the Blair government tried and succeeded in bringing in ID cards back. Only once again, it took the Conservative government, this time in coalition with the Lib Dems, to stop them. Sadly, the Conservatives are unfortunately not wholly innocent when it comes to ID either. In 2021, the government introduced the first digital ID in the form of COVID passports, something that I proudly voted against. Thankfully, these documents only lasted a short while before restrictions were lifted, which finally brings us on to the modern day and the latest excuse for ID cards: tackling illegal immigration and delivering on government services. And I, I will give way to the...

Order. Can I just say that you may have noticed there's a huge number of people trying to speak and I'm going to have to impose a three-minute limit and we'll try and get everybody in. But of course, the more interventions there are, some people will simply not get in. So perhaps you can all bear that in mind, please. Thank you. Okay, carry on.

Thank you, Sir Edward. I will keep my intervention very, very short because, um, there were 4,400 of my constituents signed this petition, which is really quite unheard of for that number, and I think they are very, very clear. They do not want the imposition, because that's what this will be, of, of digital ID. And as we've heard from the history lesson, you know, time and time again, it's the Conservatives that that have come and said, "No, we do not want this." The British people do not want it. Isn't it time that this government actually sat, sat up and listened to the public for a change? And Sir Edward, that is exactly why this Conservative government, this Conservative party is saying no to digital ID once again. And the latest guesstimate of how much this is going to cost us all, a whopping £1.8 billion pounds.

I, I will give way to the member so powerfully articulated. I know my constituents will agree with him that there are much, much better things that we could be doing with £1.8 billion pounds than wasting on a project like this. And I entirely agree, Sir Edward, but here we are with the latest government's excuse to introduce mandatory digital ID.

You can just see communication advisors in Number 10, looking at today's polling, dusting off the old ID card plan and slapping "Stop the Votes" on the cover. Indeed, there is no doubt in my mind that had the number one issue of today been tackling potholes, the very same press release would have come out of Number 10 claiming digital ID was now the essential reason for tackling the national problem of potholes. So I say this in jest, but just to point out that it seems any excuse will do, however unjustified and unevidenced, just to push policy through. And I will give way to the Chair of the Select Committee.

Thank you very much. Thank you greatly for, for giving way, and I want to say that, um, there are many, um, who do seek, uh, to, the right, the ability to identify themselves, who do not have that as it stands, and I think we all have constituents in our, in our, who, who are experiencing that. My committee has seen evidence, uh, though that the, um, one point, the, the figure that has been quoted by the honourable gentleman is not recognised by the Secretary of State, uh, for. So it's not recognised by the Secretary of State. It has been put forward by the OBR, and she will be, uh, writing to us to set out what costs she sees and when they will be, uh, realised. Um, it's also very important to recognise that the level of digital hygiene across government is not such as could support, in my view, a digital ID scheme which is mandatory. And Sir Edward, there lies all of the explanations and the reasoning as to why there are so many in this House that are opposed to the plans that have been brought forward by the Prime Minister. But here's the question they hope that nobody will ask: If the real target is people who are here illegally, then why on earth does 67 million British citizens, who already have national insurance numbers, passports, driving licences, and birth certificates, need to be dragged into a brand new compulsory database as well? What exactly is it about stopping the crisis of inflatable dinghies in the Channel that requires your son, your daughter, your dad, your 90-year-old grandma to hand over her data and facial geometry to the Home Office server? And I will give way.

I'm grateful to my honourable friend for giving way. My constituents in Epping Forest are deeply concerned about the prospect of digital ID cards. Many have written and spoken to me, and over 5,600 have signed the petition. Rather than improving the delivery of public services, this scheme actually risks wasting billions on a complex, intrusive, and potentially very insecure system that will not help anyone. Does my honourable friend agree with me that the Labour government must listen now, take on board the public concerns, and scrap this flawed policy?

And my honourable friend makes an absolute point, because the reason is this is not about stopping the boats at all. This is about more government state control.

Will he give way? I will give way, and then I'm going to make some progress.

Order. The mover must make progress. All right.

I will be very brief. Will the honourable member agree with me, coming from one of the constituencies in rural Wiltshire, where a huge number of residents have been part of this petition, that digital exclusion is a reality in areas like mine?

Digital exclusion is a reality for all. So I ask, ask everyone in this place and those that are watching at home, no matter your political persuasion, imagine your worst ever government. No one that keeps you awake at night. One that you would march in the streets for. To many, I am sure it will be this government, but to some, it may have been previous. This single piece of digital infrastructure hands them, whoever they may be, the key to your life.

And once that digital infrastructure is set up, we cannot go back. Once digital ID comes into force, no political party can promise its intentions will stay good forever. Put simply, an ID card gives the state permanent control. And I say no. Now, the slippery slope argument is, uh, is, is one so common in debates around civil liberties. It's almost a cliché. But once we have the digital identity infrastructure in place, it will become so much harder for a well-meaning minister to resist the idea that they can fix areas of public policy by tracking and controlling, at an ever finer level, how a population behaves. And I will give way.

I'm grateful for giving way. We have a government that couldn't even keep their own budgets under wraps. What hope have they got with our personal data?

And Sir Edward, that is exactly what a constituent of mine emailed me about. How, and they were a constituent that voted Labour in 2024, and have said to me, if they can't even control the leakage from the government, how on earth can they control our data? And I will give way, and that will be the final intervention for the time being.

Extremely grateful to the honourable John for giving way. I, like many, have been absolutely inundated by heartfelt constituents who are hugely concerned about this. Does he agree with me that part of the problem here is that we've got an announcement without the detail? I've written to the minister with a number of questions put to me by constituents. Do you think government ministers owe our constituents answers on the details of what they're actually proposing?

I couldn't agree with the honourable member enough, and I suspect, uh, the minister will be coming out reiterating lines that he was given from the Prime Minister before this, uh, debate. And just look at the social credit system in China. Facial recognition linked to ID penalises people. Blacklisted citizens cannot buy train or plane tickets, book hotels, or apply for certain jobs. This government has already indicated that migration, work, and renting will be tied to ID. But how long will it be before future governments push further, and accessing state services is brought under the control and monitoring of digital ID? We are already seeing signs of this framework within the School and Children's Well-being Bill, the Online Safety Act, and the One Login system. Combined with a formal digital ID, these frameworks would create a world of control for Whitehall and a soulless dystopia for the rest of us. Together, they replace the honesty, uh, of decency of human-to-human interaction with opaque, mechanical, "computer says no" futures. The scary truth is that the appeal of control and ID cards lies within anyone who has access to power, and it takes conscious effort in every one of us to resist this temptation. Power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. And I will give way.

I'm very grateful to the honourable for giving way. Wouldn't he agree that if, uh, bad employers are not, uh, are not prevented from taking people on with national insurance numbers, or if they don't have their passports, they're not going to stop, uh, at taking someone on with, without digital ID?

I agree with the honourable member in the points that he is making. The attitude of control strikes at the very heart of our political traditions. We are a representative democracy, not a command and control state. Government exists by the will of the people, not the other way round. Put simply, we are not a "papers please" society.

One of the most terrifying elements of the government's proposals is that these IDs are to be digital. The national database that our identities are to be held on is a true honeypot for hackers all over the world. And to those that say it would be secure, I say to you: name me a company, a government body that hasn't had a hacking crisis in recent years. The NHS, the Co-op, Jaguar Land Rover, I could go on. Even Estonia's government lost 280,000 digital ID photos in 2021.

And I will give way.

I thank him for giving way. Um, does he share my concerns that this scheme could put constituents' most sensitive data into the hands of private, perhaps overseas, individuals who may have neither our constituents' nor our country's interests at heart? Again, and I could completely agree with the honourable member. Indeed, as, um, the case of One Login, a cyber security specialist we were able to, who were able to infiltrate and potentially alter the underlying code, uh, without being noticed by the team that they were working on the project. In fact, the existing system could be compromised as we speak. We are assured by advocates of digital ID that clever technology will protect the data. But as I've outlined already, there is temptation to further integrate data within the system will be extremely strong. So therefore, how will it be that someone suggests security features are removed to make a system more efficient? Digital data brings me back to consent. And on this point, I would like to finish. Sir Edward, digital ID is an ever more intrusive evolution of traditional ID cards, one that promises to be more oppressive. Coupled with the powers of digital databases, increasing widespread facial recognition, digitalised public services, and the looming prospect of central bank digital currencies, digital ID threatens to create an all-encompassing digital surveillance state that even George Orwell's 1984 could not predict. In every aspect of public life, we give over our data with consent. Yet digital ID turns that notion on its head, insisting that we hand over data to simply function in society, and potentially for reasons we cannot consent to in advance.

Final intervention. Yeah.

One friend is making a fantastic speech, but does he agree with me that this is just the latest example of this Labour government trying to push through something that was not in their manifesto, and therefore this House must do all it can to stop it from being a reality?

Again, I absolutely agree with my honourable friend. And therefore, who else other than the Prime Minister is really wanting to drive this through?

I doubt if the government expand the scope of digital ID after their initial implementation, they will be kind enough to offer an opt-out clause to anyone who has signed up. People up and down the country, three million who have signed today's petition, can see that this scheme is a disaster waiting to happen.

I will give way to the Chair of the Petitions Committee, and then that will be...

As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I'd like to thank the honourable member for making an excellent speech. Three million signatures. I want to apologise to everyone here for there not being enough space in here for the number of members who've turned up. I thank them for turning up. I think it poses a question for the House. We resettle in the future...

And I couldn't agree more with that point. It just shows the strength of feeling on this issue. There are thousands deeply offended by the intrusion on their civil liberties, thousands sceptical that Whitehall will be able to pull off such a complex scheme, and thousands who are digitally excluded, terrified of a "computer says no" future. So the government should give up now, because those on this side of the debate will never give up.

Whether today's identity cards are stopped before they are implemented, the last few months, as they were in the last few months of 2010, or over a decade ago, as they were in 1939. The British people will fight them. We will stop them, and we will overturn them. Sir Edward, as I said to the government, uh, on the day that they announced this policy, I am not a tin of beans and I do not need a barcode.

The question is that this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID. As I've said, I've got to impose now an immediate three-minute limit. The more interventions, the less people will get in. Uh, I can see a number of senior people in the standing room only section. If you want to speak and you're standing, you must put your hand up, and if called, you must come forward to a microphone and try and find a place. Yeah, I can see Damian Hinds putting his hand up very helpfully. So, we'll start then with Melanie Onn.

Thank you very much. I won't take a very much time today. Um, I just wanted to say that, um, over six and a half thousand of my constituents signed the petition. There is clearly, um, a great deal of angst and concern, uh, behind the proposals, and it is imperative that the minister today, um, addresses, uh, the number of concerns that have already been laid out. While I do welcome initiatives to stop illegal working and workforce exploitation, I do share some of those legitimate concerns, particularly around the costs of roll-out, the necessity of this legislation, and data security. Although I do absolutely recognise that we are living in a digital age where we all give up our personal data to corporations, both domestic and international, with barely a second thought, unknowing about those who sit behind them or what they will do with our data or our likeness. But today, can the minister please offer reassurances that any proposal would present value for money? The total cost of rolling out a national system would be significant, and it's right that we understand how this compares with strengthening the forms of identification that we already have, because they are plentiful. There is also real interest. I won't give way. Sorry. Um, there is real interest in how personal data would be protected. Trust is very fragile when it comes to digital systems. So, can my honourable friend give clarity that any digital ID would come with the strongest safeguards, transparent oversight, and guarantees that data cannot be misused or accessed without consent? Thank you.

Hind.

Thank you very much, Sir Edward. In the previous year, there were 100,000 people claiming asylum. The Labour government was talking about ID cards to tackle illegal, illegal immigration. But soon they started talking about the ID cards to tackle all sorts of other things as well. In time, it became apparent there was a huge amount of disagreement among ministers. They hadn't really thought it through, and they didn't know the full cost. She said, "The year I'm talking about was 2003, not 2025." Um, eventually, 15,000 ID cards were issued under the previous Labour government's plan. They ran into massive technical issues and cost overruns. Eventually, they ditched the idea of cards but kept the, uh, overbearing database, which is what we see, uh, resurrected before us today. Yes, there are pull factors in illegal immigration, and work is one of them. But Italy has ID cards. It also has one of the highest rates of illegal arrivals by sea in the world. And here, employers are obliged already to do identity and right-to-work checks. And by the way, if you sign up as a legally resident person to deliver food and then subcontract that job to somebody here illegally for cash, and fail to see how an ID card or a digital ID, uh, interferes with that at all. Now, ministers say there would be no penalty for not carrying a card. There will be no stop and search. But it's very hard to see how digital ID or physical ID cards address illegal immigration unless it is possible to demand the card from somebody who you find in the street or in a workplace. And that is precisely the "papers please" society that we do not want.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Over 5,400 of my constituents in Runcorn and Helsby have objected, have signed this petition, and I've had many, many emails objecting to it. And on that particular point, would the member agree with my constituents who all see, who all understand that this new digital ID card will not solve the problem of illegal working in this country?

I also, 4,000 of my constituents have signed this petition. I've also heard direct from hundreds of them by email or my own petition, and we should listen to their voices. A lot has changed since 2003, but not my opposition to digital ID. They say non-compulsive, but in practice, it would become so. We already talk about opening bank accounts, accessing child care or benefits. Of course, in time, there will be many more applications. It will be one more thing you need a smartphone for. That is bad enough in itself, but if it's actually to be given to children as young as 13, as the government is consulting on, that makes it far worse. Again, most of all, the worry is about the concentration of data. Yes, we do already have massive databases in the private sector. Already we have HMRC numbers, NHS numbers, and all the rest of it. The big change here is the single index term, the single identifier that links all these databases together. However much they say the database will be federated and access limited, that cannot take away from the fact that they will all be linked. If they weren't all linked, it wouldn't be a digital ID system.

Rachel Maclean.

Thank you, Sir Edward. Manifesto where ID cards don't feature. Sort the evidence how ID cards prohibit illegal working. There is none. And yet we are told that this is the way forward. I get the data in the pocket, the convenience, everything in one place, data checks for work and rental accommodation. But this project is not about holding information about yourself on your phone for the gain of convenience. It's about data, big data, augmented data from different places, different sources. Intersect your health records with the DWP or the Home Office, with HMRC, local government, where you live, where you work, where you are, and mix them together with facial recognition technology. Run the algorithms and see what you get. Of course, this government wouldn't dream of such a thing, but a future one might, and a future one would. The data, uh, the, the data use and access act analysis by academics show that aggressive actors will have access, and therefore we have to be warned about data and identity theft, which is not uncommon today.

I'm, I'm going to just press on the DWP and NHS data in the wrong hands, and social security will become insecurity. Home Office data with your location and the ICE teams will find you. This could be our future. And behind our screens, the data sets that researchers will use for good, others will use for ill. Of course, there is interest. The revolving doors we're seeing between the Tony Blair Institute and, uh, and people from his former office, and of course, Larry Ellison and his interest in Oracle. After all, he already has 185 contracts with government, and he recognises the power, the money, and the opportunity. And that's why we cannot afford to go there. Of course, the money is at scale, and we've already heard about this. But I have to say that the interest in this project will only expose us all to the risks of future governments and what they may do with our data. And of course, it will not just be about each of us, but that knowledge then being used to determine each of us and our futures, our mortgages, our social security, our health, our economics. And of course, let's not forget the insurance companies are also eager to lay their hands on that data. Also, technology may be agnostic, but will have people behind it who most certainly are not, using its power augmented for their own gain and opportunity. Therefore, this House cannot go into this place, and Parliament needs to wake up to the reality. It's not about what's on our phone. It's that data behind it, and how that will be misused in the future. So, I beg, stop. Not in the manifesto is enough to tell us all that it is not with public consent, and therefore should not proceed.

Jeremy Corbyn, can you come forward to a microphone please?

Thank you very much, Sir Edward, and thank you for calling me to speak in this debate. And I think the numbers of members here and the demand for this debate shows two things: one is it should be held in the main chamber, not here, and secondly, that there is massive levels of public concern over the statement made by the Prime Minister. If I could just make, refer to two quotes that I've received from my constituents, which I think summarise it very well. "Digital ID is a deeply illiberal idea that threatens privacy, autonomy, and the open access we should be standing for. It risks creating a two-tier Britain where access to basic services, healthcare, housing, employment, even voting, depends on whether someone has the right app, paperwork, or digital trail." The second one: "They entrench the presumption of suspicion, not trust, and put disproportionate burdens on the most vulnerable: migrants, the digitally excluded, the disabled, the elderly, and those without stable housing or documentation." Yes.

He's making a very good case. I am utterly opposed to this, as are many of my constituents. But one of them has made this point to me: that in actual fact, our great liberty, our great freedom, that the state has to prove you guilty before you are, have to make a charge. So, innocence before guilt. This reverses that, such that almost everybody on an ID card is assumed to have guilt until they have discharged themselves as innocent. Doesn't that break against all our freedoms?

I, I thank the member for the intervention. I think he's making an important point there, because the huge numbers that have signed his petition indicate to me that there are many in this country that are deeply concerned of the direction of travel in which we're going. ID cards is one thing. Restricting jury trial is another. Facial recognition at tube stations and now even in supermarkets is something that people find deeply disturbing. There's a whole vein of thought across the country where people are feeling a quite reasonable sense of paranoia about the levels of surveillance under which they're under at the present time. And I think members of Parliament should, would do well to try and understand that. That this attack on civil liberties, and that's what it is, means that vast amounts of information, utterly vast amounts of information on all of us will be stored, as they are already within the health service, which unfortunately the government is now making available to private healthcare interests at the same time. So there's a huge issue here about our data, our information, and our privacy, which I think we would do well to remember. The last point I want to make is the last point I want to make is this: this debate is being pushed by commercial interests. Commercial interests who will make a great deal of money out of, uh, providing the necessary technical equipment to set up this surveillance system that will do very well out of it, and we are being pushed into agreeing it by them. I think it's time for members of Parliament to say, listen to what people are saying, listen to the concerns, have a proper debate on the chamber, in the chamber about this, and say no to the government, as we've said no before.

Thank you, Speaker. Right, too...

attention to the question of digital ID through this Westminster Hall debate. Many of my constituents in South Dasher have contacted me to share their views ahead of today's debate, including well over 400 comments shared to a Facebook post where I asked them for their views, good, bad, and perceived bad. Whilst there is a wide variety of opinion, many of my constituents have expressed concerns, and I feel that it's my responsibility to communicate these here today. So, let me start by recognising that around a third of, of South Dasher constituents who've been in touch on digital ID were supportive, which is quite unique. People rarely contact me to tell me they are pleased with what I'm doing. Uh, there are some significant practical advantages: is the ability to prove identity quickly for work, the potential to bring together passports, driving licence, and national insurance details in a single, secure format. So, you wouldn't need to rummage around with a utility bill to prove your address anymore. And the benefits for people who currently lack traditional forms of ID. At the digital, as the digital ID currently stands, this would only be mandatory for those accessing work. Although I recognise that many constituents have concerns over mission creep, which I will come back to. Estonia, I won't give way. I'm afraid I want to rattle through. Estonia, Denmark, Belgium, Germany, and the Netherlands already operate digital ID systems that make everyday tasks simpler and more efficient. For some, digital ID is a natural progression for a modern digital economy. One constituent told me, "We already use our phones and banking apps. That would simply streamline it." If done well, an offer of free, digital ID could make employment checks and even voting more accessible. But it is equally important to reflect that roughly two-thirds of my, of responses from my constituents expressed serious concerns, unfortunately intensified by fear-mongering, we've heard some of that today by some of my parliamentary colleagues. Um, but the, my constituents' message was clear: we need trust, privacy, and inclusion to come first.

I will not give way. I'm sorry, I'm rattling through. Many fear that digital ID could pave the way, however unintentionally, to increased government surveillance or the type of social credit-style monitoring that understandably alarms people. Others raised cyber security concerns, and one constituent puts it: "If it can be hacked, it will be, and then what happens to our data?" I'm sure lots of, uh, tech companies will be delighted to get hold of our NHS data. South Darbasha is a rural constituency with significant differences in digital access and inclusion, and many older residents have raised concerns about confidence getting online or using smartphones. But again, at this time, thankfully, digital ID would only be mandatory for people accessing work. And then there are also concerns about cost and priorities. Many asking why, in a time of stretched public services, government would invest in a new ID ID system that's mandatory for workers when we already have passports, licences, national insurance numbers, etc., for this purpose. Um, the public need to feel that confident. I will not, that digital ID is secure, inclusive, and underpinned by strong, transparent safeguards. So I look forward to hearing more from government about how it intends to build the trust, engage openly with the public, and guarantee that no one will be left behind as this technology evolves, and it must have a brilliant user experience. Thank you.

Uh, Gregory Stafford, and after that, I shall call Steve Darling.

Thank you.

Gregory Stafford to serve under your chairmanship, and apologies that due to business in the main Chamber, I may not be here for the wind-ups. Let me begin by restating my firm opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID. I opposed it in this Chamber only a month ago, and the public response has been remarkable. The clip of my speech on social media has now been viewed over two and a half million times, not because of any great oratory on my part, but because people across the country are deeply worried about the direction the government is taking, worried about privacy, about freedom, and about the steady expansion of state power without consent.

Will you?

I, I, I'm afraid I won't. Sorry. Today I want to raise a specific issue that was touched on by my honourable friend, the Member for Ilkley and Keighley, but is often missed in this debate, namely the provisions in the Children's Well-being and Schools Bill, which would mandate the NHS number as a single unique identifier for every child in England, namely ID cards, but on the sly. Ministers have confirmed in the House that this identifier will become mandatory. Wigan is already piloting multi-agency data sharing using it, yet members of this elected Chamber have not been given the evidence, the governance framework, or the risk assessments that would justify such a change. The government has produced no credible reassurance that the NHS number will not become a, a gateway to expanded data sets or new intrusive linkages. No clear plan to prevent accidental disclosures that could put vulnerable children at risk, from revealing the address of a family fleeing domestic abuse, for example, or to exposing confidential adoption records. These are not theoretical concerns. They have occurred in practice. We have seen the warnings from Wales. Their NHS numbers were extracted centrally and sent to local authorities with no direct care relationship to the children concerned. The 2024 consultation was highly critical. The BMA, the Royal College of GPs, and children's organisations all warned that such policies risk pushing marginalised families away from healthcare entirely. Wales's own child rights impact assessment warned of possible breaches of articles 12 and 16 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and even warned that children could lose their article 24 right to health if families disengage from GP registration. Yet ministers insist that the NHS number is not sensitive data. The General Medical Council has already rejected that argument. All patient information attracts the common law duty of confidentiality. There is no such thing as a harmless identifier. Even practically, the Department for Education's own research warned that mandating NHS numbers will require significant investment, long-term planning, and phased roll-out. None of that groundwork has happened. Pilots are underway before Parliament has approved the principle. When trusting government is already scraping the floor, Sir Edward, the worst thing ministers could do is force through more mandatory digital ID for adults or for children, something the public neither asked for nor consented to. Nearly three million people have signed the petition. Over two-thirds of my constituents oppose it. Digital ID won't fix illegal migration, but it will supercharge state intrusion. The public deserve clarity, honesty, and above all, consent.

Brian Leech, then after him, Steve Darling.

Thank you, Sir. My assessment is that the most important issue facing this country is inequality. So I ask, will mandatory digital ID help close inequality? Because...

Absolutely. On that point, I represent the constituency which has the lowest social mobility in the whole of the country, in Minehead in West Somerset. Can I ask the honourable member if, if mandatory digital ID will give any better quality of life to any of my constituents at all?

Thank you very much, the honourable lady. Uh, I have a lot of time for the honourable lady, but she needs to exercise just a smidge of patience. I was coming on to that. By introducing digital ID, then the likelihood is that millions of people, those living in poverty, many disabled people, and older people will end up facing digital exclusion, that's adding to inequality. Therefore, I cannot support the policy because inequality is something that is impacting people from all over the UK. The cost of living crisis is creating deeper poverty for millions of people. The truth is that introducing digital ID is a distraction from what the government really should be doing. We need to redistribute power, wealth, and opportunity to the millions that have been the victims of chronic austerity. Those most impacted at the deterioration of public services and the social cost of political decisions and what they've meant for their communities. Sir Edward, I have said who won't benefit from introducing digital ID, but who will benefit? It's obvious. Of course, it will be corporate interests, shareholders, and their dividends. It could also be, realistically, a future government with an ideological agenda of selling data to private capital.

My honourable friend, please give way.

I will. I thank the honourable friend for giving way. The government is consulting on its proposals to implement digital ID, and that's important in order to respect democracy and to hear the concerns of our constituents. Does my honourable friend agree that such a consultation needs to be detailed and comprehensive, and given proper time, so that the views of our constituents can properly be taken into account?

Thanks very much to the honourable gentleman. I completely agree. I think it's absolutely the, the very baseline minimum that the government should be doing is listening to our constituents, as after all, whatever party we represent or we don't represent, that's why we're here. A future government with an ideological agenda is what I was touching on there. And there's no doubt about it that will create further inequality, or perhaps even a government that reason for being is a scapegoating of people. Let's not kid ourselves on, Sir Edward, that is beyond the realms of possibility of us having some sort of dystopian future government in power, one that looks to use such technology for its own end, to exclude people from services, or even dare I say, from our country. And if digital ID is introduced, then it's a big step in that awful direction.

Darling.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Coming from a constituency that...

Um, had reports of Russian spies infiltrating through our harbour, you would have thought that I would be very much in favour of digital ID, but clearly it will do nothing about the Russian threat. It will do nothing about the small boats across the water, and it will do nothing about fraud in the workplace. I would like to thank, um, the more than 6,000 residents of Torbay. We're in the top 10 of those who objected to mandatory digital ID. And I hope the minister will see this massive petition as a red card to these proposals that did not appear in the Labour Party's manifesto.

The impact of the cost is massive, £1.8 billion pounds, according to the OBR. Previously, when Tony Blair tried to trot this out, it was £4.6 billion pounds, money we can ill afford. The C, one of the key nubs to me is when I go out knocking, door knocking on doors in Torbay, I am always shocked how many older folk in my deprived constituency do not have access to a smartphone or even a computer. This is digital exclusion on another scale, as we've seen by the Conservative did by excluding people for not having appropriate photo ID to vote. So I would strongly encourage the minister to think again, and also reflect on how, as other colleagues have already alluded to.

Will the honourable member give way? I'm happy to give way.

Thank the honourable member for giving way. Quite apart from the excellent points made by himself and, um, by, by members right across the hall, Singapore has a population 10 times smaller than ours. It took them over 12 years to develop their system. How long would it take us to develop ours? A hundred years. My good friend makes a very powerful point. I'd just like to conclude on how, um, there are malevolent powers in power across the Atlantic, and many of us are shocked at what we're seeing emanating from the Oval Office. Let's not give a future government powers that could be ill-used. Thank you, Chair.

Here, Peter Prentis.

Thank you. It's a pleasure, Chair. Let me start by saying that I think I'm the first person here who's actually a supporter of digital ID.

However, I, I do agree with many of the objections raised by some colleagues. They are reasonable arguments and echo what many of my constituents have been telling me. Simon from Stowmarket wrote to say he's worried about the state using digital ID to micromanage people's lives. Uh, and, and John from Bury St. Edmunds says digital ID could exclude those without smartphones or a fixed address, and there are many more concerned about the security of their data. And I, I may not, just presently, but I do agree with all of this. But why do I support digital ID? Because I believe these arguments are about the practicalities of how we implement digital ID, as opposed to the principle of whether we should have a digital ID in the first place. It should be entirely possible for a great country like ours to modernise the way in which its citizens interact with the state, whilst preserving civil liberties and privacy. And that is entirely the government's intention. No one will be, no one will be stopped in the street and asked for digital ID. Data will be stored on personal devices, and it will be the individual's decision to share this or not. There will be alternative routes for those who cannot use smartphones. Nevertheless, I know some members will think this is a slippery slope, but that again is a practical argument. It's up to us, the legislators, and as a government, to ensure that digital ID is implemented with safeguards against bureaucratic creep. But we should not forego the incredible benefits of digital ID because of the hypothetical chance that something we are against and can prevent might happen. And colleagues, those benefits would be incredible. Before entering this place, I was a surgeon for many years. The biggest problem I faced on a daily basis was accessing basic information about the patients.

This is stored in piecemeal fashion across myriads of organisations. Now, we could use digital ID to create a unified record and give this to the patients to control. I think this would revolutionise the National Health Service. And this is just one potential use. I have, I haven't mentioned the benefits for other public services and in reducing illegal working. People say this is hugely expensive. I say that digital ID would pay for itself by reduced fraud, privacy, inclusivity, civil liberties in a modern, streamlined state. I believe in all of those things. Thank you.

This government are trying to create a, a Big Brother. We have the ramping up of facial recognition. We've got 30 arrests a day for social media posts. We're getting rid of trial by jury in most cases. And we've also got children being radicalised in our schools by left-wing teachers. And now this government are trying to force digital ID onto us all. And the excuse that they're using, Sir Edward, is that it will stop illegal migrants from working. Now, if the Prime Minister was really serious about stopping illegal migrants from working, then he would detain and deport every single illegal migrant that crosses the English Channel. But of course, he won't. This is a gimmick. It's a pathetic attempt by a weak Prime Minister who has lost total control. Over 5,000 of my constituents signed this petition, and they do not want this government poking their noses into their private lives. My constituents are not illegal migrants. They did not break into this country. They are decent, hardworking people whose fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers fought in two world wars to secure our freedoms. And every single working person in Ashfield is now going to be penalised because of the failures of this government. You don't need a digital ID to work in this country. You need a national insurance number, backed up with a driving licence, a passport, or some photo ID. And my message to the government, Sir Edward, is quite clear: You allow undocumented men into our country with no ID at all. You pick them up and place them in luxury hotels with no ID at all. You then give them a free asylum claim and free legal aid with no ID at all. Yet you are ordering my constituents in Ashfield to get digital ID, and then you have the cheek to call us fascists. That's what they do. So just leave my constituents alone and concentrate on clearing up the mess that you lot created. It's not a good one. Now, the arguments for this are that it will help tackle illegal working, but sadly the evidence doesn't stack up. Across Europe, nations with long-standing ID card systems, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Greece, haven't seen reductions in irregular migration as a result of ID cards. In fact, some have larger shadow economies than our own. Now, Estonia, the poster child of digital ID, actually has a bigger underground economy than Britain. So, assuming that this new system will somehow suddenly make rogue employers obey the law when they've ignored the paper checks for some time is just for the birds. Now, the real fear here is that, that argument aside, we'll actually be building an infrastructure that can follow us, link our most sensitive information, and expand state control over all of our lives. And the minister must understand why people are concerned. This doesn't arrive in a vacuum. It sits alongside a worrying pattern: the accelerated roll-out of facial recognition, attempts to weaken end-to-end encryption, and data laws that strip away privacy protections. And we must remember Britain has no constitutional right to privacy. Parliament can, in a single vote, grant or remove protections that people in other democracies take for granted. So when we think of building a nationwide ID system capable of linking health records, education data, housing history, even information about crimes that people have suffered, we should stop. Because once that architecture exists, any future government could misuse it, and we would have very little power to stop them. Now, we've already... Yes, I will give way.

Thank you. My constituents in Stratford are deeply concerned as well. Millions of people would need to rely on a government-built identity tool to access work and services. Does the honourable member accept that the risks of data and privacy breaches and errors remain considerable?

Yes, I completely agree with the honourable lady. We've already seen the consequences of reckless data sharing already. Migrant victims of domestic abuse, rape, and trafficking have all too often been frightened to report crimes because police forces routinely pass their information on to immigration officers. The harm is real.

The offenders go unpunished and communities are less safe. And even if we set aside the civil liberties concerns, there's a basic practical problem here. UK governments of all stripes don't have a good track record of keeping our data safe. Serious cyber incidents arising year on year. Critical institutions from the British Library to the legal aid agency to the one login platform have already been criticized for major security flaws.

And then there's the Yes. very quickly. Yes. >> I thank the member for giving way. And my constituents have also raised some concerns particularly around cyber security. But one of the examples that I have is that one of my members was told by the DWP that they were defrauding the sister for child benefit when they were not because they had had data stolen. And so I'm concerned that potentially our current government systems need to be far better so that you could demonstrate if such a thing happened that you were the genuine holder of that data. Thank you. >> The honorable lady is spot on. We've all got constituency stories that replicate her experience.

Now, finally, there's the question of exclusion. As we've heard, millions of people in Britain don't have reliable digital access. Millions more don't have the basic digital skills required to navigate systems like this. So, introducing mandatory digital ID risks shutting people out of work, out of housing, out of health care, and out of public services. So today I urge the minister for the sake of our rights, our safety and our democracy, drop this plan.

>> Mr. Griffith, >> thank you, sir. Edwards, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, and I'm grateful to the petitions committee for granting this debate. It could not be more timely. People in Bogner Regis and Little Hampton have been talking to me about digital ID for months now and indeed over 5,300 have signed this petition. So I want to put their concerns and mine plainly on the record today. A mandatory digital ID tied to a smartphone is the wrong way to go. It answers none of the real problems we face and risks creating a whole set of new ones. Let's be clear, Labour never mentioned this in their manifesto, not once.

>> Will she give way? >> I will give way briefly. >> I thank my honorable friend for giving way. Um, mandatory digital ID, abandoning trial by jewelry, neither of them in the manifesto. There's a whiff of authoritarianism about this government, isn't there?

>> There's certainly no mandate for either. If a government wishes to change something as fundamental as how we prove who we are, they need to be upfront about it. They need to win consent for it. Attacks on our privacy and personal freedom must be debated in depth, not sneaked in through the back door. I put out a local survey. Over twothirds told me they oppose digital ID entirely. Many have little confidence that their personal data would be kept safe. They worry about who holds their information, what else it could end up being used for, and what happens to those who do not have a smartphone at all.

There is also the basic fairness test. Offcom believes about 4 and a half million people in the UK do not own a smartphone. Many more struggle with digital access or confidence. We should not be building barriers for people, especially not those who already find public services hard to navigate. Ministers have said digital ID will help tackle illegal working and benefit fraud. But we've never been told in clear terms what this new scheme would do to our existing that our existing tools cannot already manage. If there are gaps in this system, then spell them out. I want illegal working dealt with and I want public services that work smoothly, but not at the expense of civil liberties, not by weakening data security and not by shutting out the very people who need support. So, Sir Edward, I cannot support a mandatory digital ID scheme. If it comes to a vote, which it should, I will vote against it.

Thank you, sir Edward. It's a privilege to serve under petition, Mr. Sliff, and the honorable member for Keely and Elkley for opening this debate. Uh the issue of digital identification has certainly added to my post bag in recent months. Many of my constituents concerns are real, legitimate, and understandable. issues like data security, the cost of the scheme, the potential for infringement, so the right to liberty, the creation of a papers please society, the chances of ID theft and fraud, concerns as the accessibility for all as we have a 1.5 billion who are digitally excluded in this country. 6% of the population uh I I won't at the moment 6% of the population do not have access to smartphones. Pensioners, the disabled, the homeless could be particularly um affected. Um, I believe it's vital that the minister and the government listen carefully to these concerns and that they are heard during the public consultation which I know begins in the new year. I'll be making my representations and I would urge my constituents to do so.

But I do want to make two points about why I do in principle support the idea of digital identification. F first of all, I believe that a digital credential does have the potential for making an individual citizen's day-to-day life easier and more convenient. In a world where we already pay digitally, bank digitally, travel digitally, book and manage GP appointments digitally, file our tax returns digitally, and access many public service digitally. The argument for secure universal digital credentials to replace multiple forms of verification is highly appealing uh and more secure than many citizens existing password systems. Uh my dad would remember his early attempts at passwords such as password one two three later improved to sausages 123 with a capital S for added security.

I'll just press on with this point but that my important point I think the most important point here is that um uh that that digital ID will I I do believe that digital ID will strengthen right to work checks. One reason why this is important is to fight back against the epidemic of organized crime we're seeing across our country. I was in one high street in my constituency a couple of weeks ago where three vape and tobacco shops has sprung up over the last few months selling£5 packets of cigarettes which are obviously illegal. And I was told that it takes HMRC, trading standards, and uh the police to shut one of these down. And even when they do that, it reopens in a few hours. And even so, so we should be making it easier for the state to immediately verify a person's right to work, especially where there are reasons where where if the police need to probe the right to work, they have no ability to do that on the spot. And we need to be making it easier for the state to check rights to work at present.

>> Forgiving way. Um, does he realistically think that mandatory ID would stop these problem shops on the high street? >> Yeah, if it's possible for the police to to verify whether a person has access right to work in that moment, that will assist. The details are not there, but I'm making the point that that it's it's being open to consultation. I'm not here to defend the position of the government. I'm here to say that in principle I I the position has not been set out because they are consulting on it. But but to come back to this point because it's really really important and it's not being engaged with at all by the party opposite. If the police do not have access to right to work data at the moment, it makes it harder to close down these entities and nobody's nobody nobody's explained that there is a power because there simply isn't.

>> Thank the honorable member. I thank the honorable member for giving way. >> Is he proposing that the police have the right to demand the access? >> We don't want this and we will not comply. Is he proposing that the police have right to demand access to the digital ID to prove right to work on the spot? >> The people say no. >> The messenger must remove this person immediately. Don't just stand there. I must have misunderstood. I think he just asked for the police to have the right to demand the digital ID on the spot. Therefore, papers, please. >> Yeah. trying to be by identifying the fact that if you have a basing cigarettes obviously unlawful there is reason to pro further but the police don't have the ability to verify right to work obviously the state should in that scenario where there's already a basis to look further but look I'm not I'm not trying to say that this scheme is is is entirely fine I've started off this speech by identifying the legitimate concerns of my constituents and whoever uh many other people and it is vital that we look at the details of everything that is proposed so that ultimately we have a consultation that's listened to concerns that have been expressed so the policy ends up reflecting the positive benefits that I think we can get from a system if we can get the details right.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Chairmanship, and I thank my honorable friend for introducing this debate today on behalf of the nearly 3 million people who signed the petition to stop digital ID. 5,300 people were from my constituency in Bridgewater, and I thank them for participating. I am in no doubt from the emails that I've received that my constituents are opposed to this measure. We all know why this was introduced. It has nothing to do with wellthoughtout policy and everything to do with a prime minister in trouble.

>> He saw a policy that was that according to his focus groups enjoyed broad support. So he announced it as government policy without much thought as to the consequences. Not only did the prime minister's anti-midas touch alloy a lot of labor supporters, but the for the first time in 15 years, it caused there to be serious scrutiny of this policy. Mandatory ID, be it physical or digital, fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. It changes us from a country where the citizen is at liberty to do whatever he pleases unless it is prohibited to one where the citizen needs permission of the state to do certain things.

>> This is a serious shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state and not one that should be rushed through as a gimmick to help this most unpopular of prime ministers. Here, here, here.

>> The government claims that digital ID will help crack down on illegal migration and illegal working. Is there anyone on the labor benches who seriously believes this nonsense?

>> There is already a legal duty on all employers to conduct a right to work check on people they employ, and those that break the law now will continue to do so. What is lacking is the will of this government to enforce the existing law and deport illegal migrants.

>> While the government says this ID scheme won't be mandatory, it will effectively be compulsory for everyone in the workforce. The minister responsible for delivering this policy is reported as telling his cabinet colleagues that digital ID can transform people's experience of the state indicating his intention that it would become integrated with all public services.

>> Any kind of expansion of the use of digital ID for other services will see this scheme become mandatory for all citizens in all but name.

>> Sir Edward, this policy was not in the Labour Party. manifesto. It has not been voted by the British people. It is authoritarian, expensive, and unbritish. And on behalf of my constituents, I shall resist it.

>> Joseph, thank you. Around 5,000 people have signed this petition from my constituency of Ashford. Um I have heard many u recognize the benefits that the national digital ID identity scheme could bring that's been uh debated over media and elsewhere. However, if the government is going to go ahead with the national digital identity scheme, ministers must ensure that it is inclusive, secure and useful for everyone. Additionally, if the scheme is to be successful, ministers will have to respond to the legitimate concerns that have been raised by our constituents. Uh my constituents have expressed their concern that a national digital ID scheme could become a tool for surveillance uh or a mechanism of state control. In recent years, we have seen an increase in distrust of government as an institution. Um it is important that any digital ID scheme does not further erode trust. Can the minister therefore reassure the house that if the government goes ahead with the digital ID, there will be a strict safeguard in place. Can my honorable friend also say what action the government will take to ensure that digital ID cannot be used to infringe on individual freedoms or civil liberties. I need to carry on. I'm sorry. constituents have also raised concerns about the security of a national ID scheme. This year we have seen the impact that cyber security breaches have had on some well-known brands. Uh my constituents have expressed their worry that a similar breach of a national ID database could expose sensitive personal information on a massive scale. What reassurance will my honorable friend give that robust encryption and continuous security monitoring will be followed and what action will be taken to ensure that there will be the highest data security standards. Another related concern is the ownership of the data. Can my honorable friend confirm that any scheme will be designed with a clear rules and transparency so that personal information can never be exploited for commercial or political purposes. One final point I would like to raise in the time I have available is that concerns that has been expressed to me that adopting digital ID will lead to digital exclusion. Not everyone has access to smartphone or reliable internet especially in some rural parts of my constituency. If digital ID become the only option for accessing government services in the future, what proactive action will be taken to prevent vulnerable groups from becoming marginalized? The government has an opportunity in this debate to respond to this and other legitimate concerns our constituents have raised regarding digital ID. I look forward to the minister's response to the points that have been made and to reassure our constituents that if digital ID is to go ahead, their concerns will be listened to and addressed.

>> Robert Low, >> thank you, CHAIRMAN. I I can't tell you how uncomfortable I feel sitting this side of the chamber. Um but it is testament to the fact that this is an extremely passionate subject which does arguably need to be heard in the chamber. A digital ID is the biggest step towards a surveillance state this country has ever faced in my lifetime. If any government wants access to every detail of your life, they are the ones who should be feared. We live in a country where the state can't even run a basic IT system without losing data or leaking personal details. It won't last a week before a mountain of sensitive personal data is left at a bus stop in Kent again. I do not trust any government. I certainly do not trust this government. And let us remember once government gets a new power, it never gives it back. It expands and evolves. Digital ID will not stop at proving who you are. It will creep into travel, banking, housing, benefits, even voting. Today, it's voluntary. Tomorrow, it will be required for security reasons. The day after that, you won't be able to access basic services without it. All for your own good. Remember, Britain is supposed to be a country where the government serves the people, not the other way round. A country built on privacy, liberty, and trust. British people just want the government to leave them alone and get get out of their lives, to build a business, raise a family, and live in peace. Digital ID treats every citizen as a suspect. It assumes that the state has the right to look over your shoulder. You defend it by severely limiting the power of the state, not radically expanding it. Abolishing jury trials, cancelling elections, implementing facial recognition, and now this, this incoming dystopian future must be resisted. I will be holding my own protest against this creeping move towards George's animal farm. I will simply not comply. I will not be downloading a digital ID. I urge other MPs to commit to do the same. The solution is obvious. I'll just have to reinvest in a Nokia. I prefer preferred the simplicity of it. Anyway, >> the sound people of great Yarmouth do not want digital ID. Thank you, >> Louis Atinson. I congratulate member for Keley for introducing this I want to directly address the 5,092 signatures of the petition from Sunderland Central today. I hear and respect your concerns and that means no mandatory digital ID. While there I recognize there is scope for use of digital credentials to improve the services that citizens uh receive from the state and I personally may well apply for a digital credential on an optional basis and I would expect it to make my life easier and more secure than a myriad of current different login and uh documents. This debate is not about those of us who would choose that path. It's about those who hold sincerely held and strong beliefs against digital mandatory digital ID. Fundamentally, I believe in government by consent. And on digital credentials, I mean that there must be no mandatory whether be explicit or de facto requirement 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, 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 do so. In the home affairs select committee, we've opened an inquiry at the moment about the potential uses of digital ID on a from a home affairs perspective. And we recently heard evidence from tech advocates like uh the Tony Blair Institute and indeed TechUK and their views that they expressed to us further strengthened mine. TechUK said we need to meet UK citizens, UK populations where they are and where they feel comfortable with. I agree. While there are huge upsides for a digitally enabled society, one where everyone feels able to participate, who 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. But we do that by having a gradual introduction, demonstrating benefits while being explicit that this will always be an optional optin 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 modernizing and digitizing the state need to do so with care and with consent and with respect for those who hold significant concerns. I hope that the consultation that I'm sure the minister will talk about that will take place in the new year will be done so in that spirit. Thank you. here. >> Thank you. Friend for Keley and I for moving this petition on behalf of the petitions committee and for doing so uh so magnificently and for the more than 4,000 local residents in the Scottish borders who have signed this petition. This is an issue which cuts to the very heart of the relationship between our constituents and the state. I am completely against digital ID. It is expensive. It is intrusive and it will be completely ineffective. This was not in the Labour Party's 2024 election manifesto. So, this is not something that anyone has voted for. Putting that to one side, this Labor government do not seem to understand why it is needed or what it is for. The prime minister initially claimed this was an essential part of cracking down on illegal migration. But illegal migrants are making long, dangerous crossings over the channel. I hardly think the requirement for a digital identification card is going to deter them.

>> Realizing that argument was not persuading anyone, the government now claims it is about simplifying access to government services. Government services do not need sorry do need to be simplified, but we do not need digital ID to achieve that. But whatever the actual reasons behind this policy, inevitably we're going to see mission creep. I was particularly concerned to hear the Minister for Children and Families, the honorable member for White Haven in Workington say that government is, and I quote, starting with this issue of right to work checks, but there are loads of other applications for digital ID. So Edward, what will be next? To access NHS services, to get a school place for your son or daughter, or even potentially to go to the pub. This policy puts the personal data of all our constituents at risk. It would be a honeypot for cyber criminals and foreign state actors at a time when we are under increasing threat.

>> Sir Edward, I would implore this government for once to listen to the people. Listen to the genuine and principal concerns of people across this house today. There is no de need for digital ID. People don't want it and the government has no mandate to introduce it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and its citizens. We must say no to digital ID. It must be scrapped.

>> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Um, I'm here today because I've been contacted by countless residents who are deeply concerned about the government's announcement on the introduction of digital ID to provide the right to work. That was a mouthful. Anyway, their concerns are legitimate. They're reasonable and they deserve to be heard in this place. My constituents have raised a number of issues. First and foremost is privacy and data security. Residents have referred to recent attacks with uh M&S and Land Rover. Their question is simple. If cyber systems have been hacked before, why should they just trust? Why should they trust their most sensitive personal information will be safe? They ask whether the government can truly guarantee resilience against cyber attacks, system failures, or misuse of personal data.

>> I'm sorry, I'm going to sort of carry on. There is also a question of practicality. Will digital ID in reality prevent employers from hiring individuals who do not have the right to work? or would it simply introduce another layer of bureaucracy without addressing the roots of the problem? Finally, many constituents are concerned about inclusion, too. What happens to those who struggle with digital technology or do not have access to a smartphone? Will they be able to stay? Will they be able to rely on their passports or driver's licenses? We must not leave people behind who, through no fault of their own, cannot immediately sign up for digital ID to prevent their right to work. Ultimately, constituents have a right to know that their information will be safe, protected, and free from unnecessary intervention or misuse. Mr. Chairman, I do, however, recognize that digital ID could bring real benefits if it is implemented properly, safely, and transparently. A well-designed national digital identifi identification system has the potential to enhance security, reduce fraud, and streamline the way citizens interact with public services. It could consolidate right to work, healthcare, imig immigration status, and other essential services into a single secure and accessible platform. Reducing paperwork and improving efficiency. Law enforcement could benefit from quicker, more reliable identification processes, helping to curb illegal um employment. And it could provide a form of identification to those who currently lack traditional documents, empowering disadvantaged or marginalized groups. And I have to sort of emphasize that empowering disadvantaged and marginalized groups which is something that I think has been missed a little bit today. So I'm not opposed to digital ID in principle. It could be an asset for the future. But it has to be done right. If digital ID for the right to work is to be introduced. It must be implemented safely, fairly, and transparently so that the benefits it promises can be felt by everyone in our society without without compromising the rights and protections that our constituents rightly expect. Therefore, I urge the minister to listen carefully to the concerns raised by residents in my constituency and across the country. Thank you, John Barrett.

>> Thank you, Edward, and for your excellent hearing this afternoon. Um, I hope the government has been given serious ports by the 2.9 million signatures on this petition, over 5,000 of which are in Brighton Pavilion. Um, so many people are right to be so concerned because such a scheme carries extreme risks to our privacy. Indeed, if this goes ahead and is successfully introduced, it seems impossible that we can be protected from any future government that is determined to utterly disregard a lot more of our basic human rights. This iteration of digital ID could link our most sensitive biometric information through a unique identification number to our names, ages, nationality, address, our medical, education, housing, and criminal histories. enabling a detailed profile to be put together worthy of the Chinese government which utterly undermines not only our right to privacy but but many other things from which we ought to be protected in terms of the state having access to all of this and control over all of this. I hope that the minister understands that we're starting to gain a real perspective already as private citizens of how unsafe our data is in the hands of private companies. But I think the reaction to this also shows how we are very very concerned now with the the fact of a the difference there is when a state has access to all of this and what a future state might do. We've already seen um issues of data sharing between police forces and immigration enforcement that have seen um migrants scared to come forwards and report basic crimes around their right to safety because of this kind of overreach. We've seen the e visa scheme causing awful um failures, people stranded at airports, people losing job opportunities because of the failures within the basic IT it. But this is far more serious than that. I think as honorable and right honorable members, we owe it to our constituents to protect them from not just this government, but also from what all future governments might do. Combined with the recent clampdown on protest rights, the proposed removal of trial by jury, um the capacity of the state to track and identify us through facial recognition. All of this adds up to a toolkit for authoritarians. We must not give away. It must be stopped. It is a house of dynamite, a toolkit for authoritarians. I will give way.

>> Thank the honorable lady giving way. I just wondered if she might be able to comment on um the polling around this. In the summer, there was actually a net support for digital ID over 30%. When the government announced this, that it was picking it up. It collapsed to a negative 14%. I wonder if she might um give me her thoughts on why that might be.

>> I thank I thank the honorable member for for his intervention. I mean, one of the things people might have looked into, they might have heard the government claiming that that other countries have had digital ID for many years and then heard about the the security flaws in the Estonian system, the hackers in Estonia, um, India, Norway, and Poland who've created enormous data breaches. Let us not forget, I've I've dwelled a lot on state power here, but let us not forget that creating such a database is an enormous risk. it's all the eggs in one basket when it comes to much more um criminally inclined people who would take our data and hurt it that way. Um I was I was wrapping up when I was intervening on and I will try not to use too much more time but it is incredibly important we don't build something where the consequence the risk benefits um the risk management calculations on this are so clear the consequences of things going wrong whether it's state intrusion whether it's criminals taking away the data um whether it's you know errors or data theft so that you you lose your identity to somebody else the consequences of that become so much higher when you've created something like this where everything is linked together. Um I said it was a house of dynamite. I said it was a toolkit for authoritarians. It's hugely expensive and I hope the minister will um clarify the the final cost. 1.8 billion is clearly only the beginning cost according to the OBR. Um but it is I cannot um it is the expensive um leopards eating faces party of policies. It must be stopped. It is too risky to go ahead with and the government um needs to answer so many questions to make anybody happy with it.

>> Lindsay Farnsworth. >> Thank you, Chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Uh Sir Edward uh and members um should note I don't intend to take any interventions in the interest of time this afternoon. Uh chair, I've had hundreds of emails from constituents about digital ID. Some are entirely supportive, some are completely against it, but most uh lie somewhere in between. Many who fall in this category are hesitant because they are uncertain about why digital ID is being introduced, what it will look like, when they will use it, how information will be stored, and how their data will be protected. I know that colleagues and the minister have been working hard on developing a framework for what ro the roll out of digital ID will look like. However, my inbox uh reflects a broader point. Since the announcement of digital ID in late September, there has been much misinformation and a lack of information leading to two things. Firstly, people are left without a clear understanding of how digital ID will be used and why this modernization is important. Secondly, and more worryingly, some people have let been left fearing the worst that digital ID will be used for surveillance, tracking an authoritarian crackdown rather than the positive case as the government suggests for enabling uh people to start work more quickly and having better control of our borders and for people's own convenience. Now, chair, my 18-year-old son uh shares my youthful looks. So, he's glad um of his digital proof of age um because it lets him go to the pub now that he's in at university without any issues. And my younger son would have welcomed digital ID this weekend when he was turned away from a cinema because he couldn't prove that he was over 15. However, the imple implementation of digital IDs is to be effective and well, if it is to be effective and wellreceived, I would ask the min minister to provide assurances to my constituents in Amber Valley that the concerns that have been raised today, particularly surrounding data protection and security uh will be addressed. Uh and chair I welcome the fact that the government's announcement made clear that there would be public consultation on digital ID. So please can the minister today confirm when this consultation will be open and how people can take part so that my constituents in Amber Valley can make their views heard on this incredibly important matter.

>> Sarah, thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Why are they needed when we already have secure ways to identify ourselves? This is being pushed under the facade of security. The cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive. This system would be incredibly vulnerable to hacking. These direct quotes from my constituents get to the heart of the point. This is unnecessary. It's overreach, vulnerable, and expensive.

>> Nearly 5,000 people in Southampton share signed this petition to oppose the government plans for digital IDs. Now this government really is the living embodiment of that famous phrase those are my principles and if you don't like them well I have others. Firstly they sold this as a means of tackling illegal migration. Now that principle has barely been re 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 have be involved. talk about the creeping hand of the state.

>> If time permitted, uh I would happily take an intervention uh from any member on the uh on the other side uh where it was in the Labor manifesto that uh that this would be included or if any member of the government could actually tell us how much this scheme would cost. But I'll also save them the trouble because it didn't and they don't know. The OBR have said that there has been no specific funding identified for this and it is forecast to cost 1.8 billion pounds over the next three years. We've got a government drowning in the amount of budget leaks and accidentally policing prisoners left, right, and center. So, how can it be trusted to create a system of ID?

>> Yes, >> any such system requires absolute buyin from all of our constituents. And we can see that the very reason we are having this debate today is because they haven't secured that buyin. 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.

>> Nora Kirk Smith. >> Thank you, chair. >> It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. As we rightly modernize the way that people interact with public services, introducing a new digital credential, I believe, offers real opportunity. I can envision it making everyday tasks much more convenient. whether that's proving your age, opening a bank account, or completing right to work checks. And I can see it doing that in a more tailored and personalized way. Um, I can also see there being quicker remedies if things go um wrong. And uh the possibility of uh current digital credentials being lost or stolen. Um if we had a digital credential would mean that it could be revoked and and reissued more quickly. Um I would however like to raise two concerns that have come through from my constituents quite strongly. The first is about the security of data that people will will be required to share. I quote one constituent who told me that they're um very fearful about the fact um that their data would be put at risk. Uh the the risk they they highlight in particular is of uh of creating this honeypot for uh for hackers and for foreign um adversaries. My constituents rightly want to know I think that the essential information um uh that only the essential information would be shared for each transaction. Uh that data would be encrypted. I'll uh I'll make progress and securely stored and that the system will be able to keep pace with the many and the evolving um cyber threats out there. So people are right uh to be cautious about handing over their personal data. I think and they're right to expect a firm commitment from government uh that we'll do everything in our power to protect them. So I would ask the minister for his reassurance on that um point. Um but I've also heard um secondly um concerns from people who believe that while introducing digital credentials is the right step. Um they're concerned that their elderly relatives um or that people with disabilities or people without smartphone access for whatever reason uh won't be able to participate. And I would also welcome the minister's reassurances uh that no one regardless of whether or not they uh own a smartphone or have internet access will be uh left behind in this scheme. I know that other countries have um rolled out digital credentials very successfully. I think the model of Estonia is a very interesting one uh where users have a lot of control over their data still. They can see what it's being used for. They can see who has accessed it. I hope that as we look at our options, we will learn from what works in other countries and we will make sure that we put those same protections in place so that people can remain in control of their personal data um as best possible. Um I know we've got a long way to go in terms of the consultation. and I really welcome the fact that that is um that is happening. I would encourage my constituents to feed in their concerns. Um and it's really important that this this lands in the right place, but I'd welcome the minister's feedback on those points I raised about data privacy and security and also about digital inclusion in particular. Thank >> you. Honorable friend for Keatley and ILP, I'm sure it'd be right honorable in no time uh whatsoever on an excellent speech uh that he gave. Um and 4 and a half thousand uh constituents of mine signed uh the petition uh and I thank all of them uh especially uh the 3 million across the country who made sure that their voice is heard today. There is a fundamental issue here. But before I address that, I just want to address the point the the lady uh before me, the honorable lady before me made and a number of me members opposite. There is no system in the world that will be secure enough to protect uh data. I'm my constituency is the home of Jaguar Land Rover. The reality is and we have to be honest with our constituents about that. Uh and we live in a current system and I say this to the former uh tech minister, the former minister of tech and digital economy that looked at this. There we live in a current system where there is a voluntary system. So we voluntarily give our data up. The fundamental issue is here is that consent is being taken away. A point that was made by my honorable friend uh for Keith. Yes, I'll >> be he makes an important point here. But are we not at risk of ignoring another threat and that is from the government itself. It's not that long since the police service of Northern Ireland published the data of every service officer and member of staff. People had to leave their homes as a result of that once you allow the state to aggregate your data. Is that sort of thing not inevitable?

>> Well, I think I think my friend makes an uh makes a very valid point and I think we have to take that into consideration. Minister won't be able to give anyone that satisfaction uh that they deserve. That's why many of our constituents are so uh upset about it. But let's be very very clear about this. The reason we're here, the fundamental issue has been that there was a belleaguered prime minister who rolled this out as nothing more than a gimmick to in in a way to stop the boats. But the fact of the matter is since uh the party opposite came into government, we've had 62,000 uh illegal crossings and there is already ID uh in place. None of that stopped it. Digital ID won't do that. And it and that gimmick has not fooled voters. It did not fool the 3 million people who have signed this petition. They they can see clearly uh through this. So what we require first and foremost is honesty. That's what our constituents uh require because it won't uh uh stop the boat. Um and the the the member for folks in high made a point which I did want to address which he said about uh these uh these shops selling illegal vapes etc. Look there's there's IDs and uh mechanisms in place already and it's happening. Digital ID won't stop that. What he was arguing for uh whether he knew it or not was that the police can have overarching intervention into private accounts and the private individuals. I'll happily take an intervention if he wants to into into those. That's the only way that he will be able that that the police will be able to uh intervene and do that. What they need to do is investigate like they always do.

>> I'm grateful for the honorable member for giving way. My my specific example was where you have a£5 packet of cigarettes. It's obviously unlawful and the police have no power at all to demand right to work checks in that situation. Why is the party opposite opposing that as a principle? As a principle.

>> Well, let me let me let me address that point. But the problem he poses is not solved by digital ID. And and I I fundamentally disagree with him on that because when those people sell those illegal cigarettes, HMRC already have the power to investigate as do the police. Which is why which is why the government was lording the fact that there were raids uh just a few months ago and closing down those shops. So he's he's creating he's creating a straw man argument that doesn't is not sold by digital it. So Edward, let's be under no illusion about this. This opens the door to tyranny. This is that this is whether it's tyranny today or tyranny tomorrow. The minister cannot confirm that a future government won't take advantage of this. A future Labor government perhaps if if that is even possible. Um and the re the reality of this it reframes it reframes the relationship between the individual and the state as a a point that has already been made by a number of uh members. I'm going to make some progress if if it's okay. Um the uh the already been made that it fundamentally reframes the relationship between the individual and the state. We this turns us into a papers please society. It ensures that the individual has to prove their innocence. They have to prove why they are not on the responsibility shifted away from the state to prove why that individual needs to uh why that individual in essence is innocent until uh proven guilty. Sir Edward I went to Estonia. I was the minister of tech and digital economy. I saw their systems and I have to say I came away with a very very different conclusion. Their system works for them because they have the Russians on their border. They may uh in this in the situation of an invasion, they may have to pick up sticks and move over. I won't take any more interventions that they they have to pick up sticks and move all their records over. That's why digital ID works for them. Even though they have one of the largest black economies in the world, even though they've had data breaches and it's been uh uh and been quite significant uh in the way that they do it. We have a much more complex economy. We have a much more complex society. Digital mandatory digital ID doesn't work for them. And I'll finish on this point. Time and time again I'm asked what this government stands for. The last few last few weeks and months have been absolutely telling. The cutting of jury trials, the introduction of mandatory digital ID, the arresting of comedians for errant tweets. Why is this government I asked this minister why is this government so afraid of the British citizen and the British individual making uh living their lives freely and with liberty? Yeah, >> no law.

>> Thank you, sir. Like many, I will have received um many representations from constituents here to speak in opposition to digital ID. And it'd be easy enough given my own personal level of comfort with digital ID to let uh today's debate pass us by. As constituents will know, this is a point of personal conviction for me rather than some pure blind defense of something. And as constituents will also know from the events of this past week, as well as my travails against having imaginary geographies imposed on Cornwall's devolved governance, I have no bother speaking up against policies without a predefined mandate. But we do have a mandate to improve our public services to increase digitalization and ensure that they get the best delivery outcomes for our constituents. And we also have a mandate to make decisions which are not necessarily the easy option but the right option. And that is the courage of a serious Labor government. Not to necessarily do what is easy but what is right and will clearly contribute to our muchneeded mission of national renewal. But 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 also be secure and above all it will make the lives of people in our country easier.

>> Will the honorable give way? >> I will give way on that.

>> Thank you my honorable uh friend for giving weight. He says this will be free. I believe the OBR says this will cost 1 8 billion pounds to the taxpayer. I don't believe that is free.

>> I would put the question back to the honorable gentleman. What is the cost of not doing this? What is the cost of inaction? And I've heard very little from the opposite benches today as to how much the costs associated with some of the processes that this will alleviate um are costing us today. So I would welcome that input from members opposite as well. Um but on a personal level uh madam chair having having previously lived in a country with uh a digital ID system that works well is widely supported and has had very few issues. Um, and just because I can log here on my log in here on my phone doesn't mean there's some pesky fin from the soil poles out there logging in to watch my every move. That's not quite how these things work in practice. I know it might well be difficult to believe for some given the dystopian way of the world today. But this scheme is no conspiracy.

>> Surely I will give way. >> I thank the honorable member for giving way. You know, many of my constituents have raised concerns about cyber security risks and um centralizing so much information in one place does create an attractive target.

for hackers and hostile actors. So would the honorable member agree with me that government systems are not immune from such risks?

Um, my honorable the honorable member makes a very important point that such systems are by no means immune. Um, but I would argue as well that that the systems that we have in place at the minute are hardly secure. And as as I as I will come on to later in my speech, this this presents a much better opportunity uh for ensuring that we have the correct security procedures in place visav some of the unsecure measures that we have right now.

I will give one way one more time. Friend for giving way. And while I appreciate the merits of the scheme as he has set out, surely the fundamental question facing us today is one of public consent. At 4,800 of my constituents have signed this petition today. Doesn't he agree with me that such a scheme cannot be introduced unless there is clear consent from the public?

I wholeheartedly agree with my honorable friend and that is why it's important now that in the steps in the months ahead in the steps of this consultation that we ensure that this scheme is introduced on just as we've set out a voluntary basis um and that it should remain that way and um and I know it might be difficult to believe for some but this really is no conspiracy if the if we are concerned as as threatening about if we're not concerned about the vast threats of the vast personal data that are held by private companies which must too of course be regulated then then why is this such a cause of concern I ask and whilst I appreciate in that regard that two wrongs don't necessarily make a right and that many of my constituents no doubt long for an an analog world as do I on occasion that is not the world we live in.

>> Right, no law. He was here.

>> Oh. Oh, see where are we? Liz.

>> Jarvis.

>> Liz Jarvis, please.

>> Thank you, Madame Chair.

>> It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship and I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of the 4,000 people from my constituency who has signed this 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 do matter. They want our NHS fixed, the cost of living crisis addressed, and improved public services. 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 is prioritizing an enormous centralized 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, giving us more control over our own data and privacy, not empower the state to gather, centralize, and exploit even ever more information. Handing over unprecedented volumes of personal data is a recipe for intrusion and future abuse. Criminal gangs and unscrupulous employers, those the government claims 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. And as we know, 5% of the UK population does not have internet access, and there is a real risk of digital exclusion that 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. While the government may try to reassure us that this scheme is limited in scope, this technology could have the capacity to fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and state. Last year, in his f 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 contra contradicts that promise more starkly than a mandatory digital ID scheme. I urge the government to scrap this ill-judged plan and turn its attention to the reforms that will genuinely improve lives. Mandatory digital ID won't fix our public services, will not get our economy going again, and will not address the real challenges facing the country.

Saying, >> "Thank you, Madame Chair. There's a reason millions of people have signed this petition today, making it the fourth largest in the history of this place. Because at the heart of this debate today is an attack on our most fundamental and protected of rights, our freedom. We live in a free country and we do not need a nanny state indirectly spying on its citizens. Madame Chair, the idea of a compulsory digital ID or a national ID card scheme is not a small administrative tweak that will make life slightly easier for people. It's a fundamental shift in the relationship between the citizen and the state. And I have very serious concerns, like many others in this place, about what that means for civil liberties, for privacy, equality in this country."

>> Because Madame Chair, Madame Chair, no government should ever hold a master key to every part of a citizen's life. And we cannot pretend such power could never fall into dangerous hands.

I will do. >> Thank my honorable friend for giving way. He's making a very powerful speech, as usual. I just wondered whether he agreed with me from the clear way of argument across the chamber today that our constituents are overwhelmingly unconvinced about the benefits proposed from this scheme and are overwhelmingly concerned about the potential disbenefits, and whether therefore the minister should commit today to ensuring that the consultation does have an option at the end of it whereby the government doesn't take this any further. I mean, it's absolute right. There's a reason millions have signed. The minister minister should actually commit a scrapping this today, actually, but I'm not sure he will do. But like many other honorable members, thousands of my constituents have quite rightly signed this petition because they know they're already at the sharp end of state systems that do not always treat them fairly. BAM communities, migrants, older people, disabled people, those on low incomes, those who are digitally excluded. These are people who feel the impact first if we rush headlong into a digital ID system without thinking through the consequences. We have already seen how data can be misused both in our country and across the world. Under the wrong circumstances, information given in good faith to access child care, education, health care, support can end up being misused. And frankly, trust in our institutions is I has been eroding for years now.

>> The honorable member give way on that.

>> Of course I will.

>> I thank the honorable member for giving way on what's a really passionate and excellent speech. Talking of trust in the government, we've just seen the BBC documentary of the Camelford water poisoning scandal in my constituency. A potential government cover-up. How on earth can my constituents trust the government with all of their important data? Does my does the honorable member agree that this is the wrong priority? Half a billion pounds has been saved with the family farm tax, and yet they're prepared to splash 2 billion pounds on this that none of our constituents, it seems from this debate, actually want.

>> I thank the honorable gentleman. Look, I've already said that I believe this should be scrapped. I mean, he has his own reasons. I have outlined my own reasons. But one thing we have both agreed on is trust in institutions is eroding, and families do not feel uh that they can engage even as we stand with basic services. So we now create a c if we create a centralized digital identity system, we risk increasing that harm and mistrust, and like honorable members before me have said, we risk creating a two-tier system. Madame Chair, it is completely absurd that the government is going above and beyond to connect together information that is siloed for very good reason. Governments governments do not need the ability to casually track their citizens. This is what this policy is effectively doing. And we've heard much today. We've been told that this is about efficiency and modernization. But we must ask, at what cost? Once you build the infrastructure for mass identification, the pressure to expand its use grows over time. What starts as a way to prove who you are quickly becomes a tool to track where you go, what you access, and who you are even with. That is a road we should be very wary of traveling down. And the UK, quite rightly, has rejected national ID schemes under successive governments in the past. So again, I urge the government to announce concrete measures. I actually want them to scrap this today because I'm afraid it's another one where eventually they will have to do a U-turn. 3 million people have signed a petition, and I think the minister should announce scrapping this scheme, which is dangerous. Instead, what we should be investing in is digital inclusion, strengthening existing verification systems, and putting strict limits on data sharing. Not this scheme before us today. So, time not permitting, uh m Madame Chair, um, I want to put on record my position today. Um, honorable members may have already gathered what that position may be, but just to be absolutely clear, I stand with the constituents of Bradford East, as I always do, and I will be opposing this dangerous policy.

>> Sheamus Logan.

>> Thank you, Chair. To serve under you. And I want to thank the almost 3 million people who signed this petition, in particular those who have managed to stay for the whole debate. Well done. 5,166 in my constituency. That's an unprecedented number in Uber North and Murray East. Every week I meet with my team, as so many of you probably do as well, and I ask the question, what's the biggest thing in the inbox this week? This is it. Digital ID in my inbox. The number one thing. Now, I'm not going to repeat everything that's been said in this superb debate so far. But I do want to amplify a couple of points. Many Labour back ventures and ministers uh uh referred to digital ID schemes in other countries, and we've heard some reference to to others. I'll mention a couple: India, Estonia, Australia. The point about those countries was that they asked for a mandate from the electorate before they introduced the scheme. This has not occurred. This wasn't mentioned in the Labour Party's uh manifesto. And drawing out a couple of those examples further, in India, the scheme resulted in technical failures and exclusionary practices where people were excluded from public services by the thousand. Estonia has been mentioned by some honorable members. In 2021, 300,000 identity photographs were stolen in Estonia. Now, I'm sure the minister heard me when I said that. 300,000. This is not about dealing with little problems and sorting out little tweaks here and there. This is about a fundamental flaw in the proposal. Now, I'm old enough, and there are some people in the chamber today who are old enough, to remember when there were two channels on the TV, and you might remember a program called The Prisoner, filmed in the beautiful port of Port Marian, and the late great Patrick McGoohan saying, "I am not a number." He was number six in the program. "I am not a number." I didn't understand that program when I watched it when I was a wee boy, and later on, when I read George Orwell's 1984, then I understood exactly what was going on there. So Labour have no mandate for these proposals. The OB OBR estimate of 1.8 million was queried by the chair of the select committee, which was quite right, because 1.8 billion, I should say, 1.8 billion will not do it. When I worked in the health service, IT projects were commonly regarded as the graveyard of many careers. So 1.8 billion won't touch the sides on this one, minister, and I want you to address that in your wind-up, please. So I speak on behalf of my party and my colleagues here in Westminster. We don't support this. We don't think I will I will give way.

>> Member speaking on behalf of his party, but also from a devolved nation's point of view. But the member also agree it's one of those unique circumstances where this government has managed to unite every party in Northern Ireland on a single issue, and that's an opposition to this proposal.

I thank the honorable member for his intervention, and I did remark on the breadth of the parties who were speaking out against this. But we don't support this. We don't think it will address the issues. Indeed, we think it will cause more problems than it will solve, and we don't think that amount of money will do it. It will double in in size. So, uh, I I oppose this uh proposal, and so do my colleagues. Thank you.

>> Kevin Bernovia.

>> Uh, thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair today. Historian Taylor said, um, "Until August 1914, a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state. He could travel abroad or leave his country forever without a passport or any sort of official permission." Sounds great, doesn't it? Yet, the world wars that followed changed all of that. By the Second World War, we had a national identity card, as has been said, and that requirement ended in 1952. But individual registration numbers remained, and do so to this day for national insurance and the NHS. When the NHS was being formed, a lot of people said, "Oh no, not the socialist state that's taking over all our lives." And yet so many of us depend on it to this day. And it would be wholly wrong to claim there's been no need for the state to hold and provide a system to verify a citizen's identity, either for national security or for the right to access public services. If you'd asked me 20 years ago the last time a national identity service was being properly considered, I would have had my doubts about it as to whether it was really necessary. But now I weren't, I'm afraid. But now I'm convinced um that it is. And why is that? It's because today identity checks aren't a no novelty. They're a necessity across all our lives. Why is it that a company like Amazon can do far better handling our data than the National Health Service? My honorable friend, the member for Barry St. Edmunds, uh, a respected doctor himself, explained the issue about how we cannot as an individual access the services that we need to. And why, why is it so un-British? Is it not British to be ambitious for our people? And and if we think, oh, look, you know, other countries could do it, but we can't because we're so rubbish at it. Is it not the case? Why, why should we not try? And I'm afraid I won't. Um, why should we not discuss? So I welcome the government's opportunity of giving us a national debate through this consultation. It is time, and I'm that we do have this debate. I'm so pleased that people are so many members are here today. So many people have signed that petition, and it is right to look at those concerns. There are legitimate ones there about whether it should be mandatory, and if so, in which circumstances, about those people who can't access this system, about about whether it can really make those improvements that we hope it will. And when we talk about um about it's not a panacea, anybody who claims it's a panacea about ending illegal recreation, it won't. But will it be better? That is the question before us. Can it be better? We must sit back and not talk about a dystopian future when so many of our neighbors already going through it. Why can't we learn from our neighbors and think the best for our country rather than talking it down, as we've heard so much in this debate. So I ask the minister to answer those questions before us today. Thank you, Madam Chair.

>> David Chadwick.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It was Harry Wilcox, a Liberal Party activist, who started the successful campaign to get rid of physical uh ID cards. After being stopped and asked for his cards uh by the police, he threw his papers on the floor and he said, "I am a liberal and I am against this kind of thing." And that's because, as liberals, we believe that the state exists to empower its citizens rather than endlessly monitoring them.

>> And what we have today before us today is yet another example of this Labour government announcing a grand, attention-grabbing idea without really having a plan for how to do it. The proposal for a mandatory digital ID system is set to drain at least 1.9 billion from the public purse. And if history tells us anything about major government IT projects, it's that that figure is likely to rise substantially. And at a time when every pound counts, it's astonishing that ministers believe this should be uh the right priority. The reality is that this digital ID proposal risks becoming an enormously expensive distraction, absorbing money, time, and political energy that should instead be directed towards the things that people actually rely on: police on our streets, timely NHS care, functioning local services, and um funding border security.

>> Oh, sorry. In respect of the figures, the last time this was tried, it was said that 5.4 billion pounds is what it will cost the government. And then when independents came in to look at the actual figures, some of them said it will cost up to 19 billion pounds. Inflation goes up, not down. Would the member agree?

Yes, it's quite right to question whether or not this is a good use of government time and money. The 4,500 constituents of mine who who have signed this petition today uh would much rather that the government spent its time and money on trying to fix other data governance issues. Uh, one of the big data governance issues that we experience in Wales is that our patients who go over the border to Hereford uh often can't retrieve their health data um from the other side of the border. That would be a much better priority for the government to spend money on um rather than this. Uh, so 75 years on from from Harry Wilcock um saying that uh he is a liberal and against this kind of thing, I want to reiterate the same principle. I'm a liberal, and we remain against this kind of thing.

>> Dr. Allison Gardner.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. It's very much so under your chairship, and I will say at the outset that I am the chair of the digital identity agud audited um algorithms and systems which developed identification systems. Um, so I I with that in mind, I I do worry on a couple of issues. Firstly, it was interesting for me to note that before the announcement was made, um, it people were 30% um in favor of digital identification, and that dropped. And I think there is some issue there with the level of scaremongering and arguing to extremes that have have occurred, particularly from the government who brought in voter ID, which I find very interesting. Um, I do however agree that it should not be mandatory, and I do think we need to um decouple that argument, um, particularly with right to work checks, which I will remind people are actually mandatory anyway for a digital IT scheme to to work. We need to have trust in it. We need to have control, and we need to have choice. Therefore, I would ask that it would not be mandatory, that people have the choice whether to use it or not. I do personally believe a well-designed system would actually offer this the benefits, and people will see for themselves and make their own choice. So I do agree with that one. I will to my honorable friend who's been trying the whole debate to to intervene.

>> My honorable friend is very kind. Is she aware that the government papers also described using this digital ID for the right to rent as well as the right to work?

Thank the honorable member for his intervention. Um, you raise an interesting point. Um, I have recently applied for a mortgage, and I received through the my email a link to a provider which requests me to upload my bank statements, my utility bills, copies of my passport, copies of my um um driving license, because I'm lucky enough to have those two latter pie pieces of photo ID. um I trusted that they were a registered provider, and I did have slight worries about scamming when I actually um applied for a car loan for a car. I did this in a paper format, and I had to provide three bank statements, so several utility bills, again, copies of my driving license and of my um um passport. It got so ridiculous, I did offer whether you wanted to know my bra size as well, and I was very concerned about ID theft with that process. So hence, I am a proponent of making sure that we have secure digit digital ID and digital wallets that allows me the control as to how I share that data with me. But one example would be that in my digital wallet, I have all of these um credentials in there, including government government-minted credentials such as my driving license. I can send a one-time only link to these providers. They can't download my data. They can view it, and then and that is done. So, so there are ways of designing the system, and I would ask the minister to think about how we could integrate that level of choice within the platform that we developed. And my honorable friend um I believe from Ellsbury outlined how it is within that platform that it citizens can actually see who is trying to ask for their data and actually could even have the level of control of saying yes, you can access it. They will know what data has been asked for, why it's been asked, and they can give the heads up. So it's how you implement these system is really important. Um, and I will point out that we already have the digital identity and attribute trust framework. We have 43 um private providers um having with 11,000 members of staff who provide this system already. So I would try for us not to try and argue to these extremes, not to scaremonger, and have a calm consultation and debate about how this could actually improve people's lives, make it safer, and make it more secure, and actually deal with all the issues that have been quite rightfully raised today. Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to serve on your chairship. 4,497 of my Thorn constituents signed this petition, and I would like to thank the many who took the time to write to me to explain their concerns. They believe that mandatory digital ID threatens our right to privacy while doing nothing to address the government's stated aims of immigration enforcement. The huge response to this petition should really give the government pause for thought.

>> It is not too late to listen to those concerns and think again. We're operating in a world where ownership, control, and manipulation of data is central to our lives. There is a real concern that Mission Creek will lead to more and more online actions requiring a check, creating a digital treasure trove about each and every one of us that would could be misused by the state and other actors. As one constituent put it, "Do we want every single thing we attempt to do to acquire check that yes, you are a British citizen? Let me just link this to you as well." Many constituents have pointed out that there is already a requirement for documentation to work legally, but this is flouted by those operating in the dark economy. They do not believe that a new ID system will solve this issue, seeing it as a distraction, a diversion of money and effort from the real solution, which is better investment into enforcement. I agree this scheme would cost billions, and that money could be better spent on processing centers to clear the asylum backlog, which would do far more if the issue is restoring public trust in the immigration system, and it would still leave money to fix the public services so damaged by the last Conservative government. My constituents are also concerned about the safety of their data, especially with a rushed implementation. When you create a platform that stores millions of people's personal ID, you create a target for those who would illegally access and misuse that data. One constituent urged me to vote against digital IDs until the government can, I quote, show that the data of its citizens who it claims to represent will be safe. I doubt that any such guarantee will be forthcoming. Many were concerned that the work would be outsourced to a third-party company. When you interact with a commercial service, you make a choice. Mandatory ID would give up that choice. With more time, I could talk about the worries about the digitally excluded, who are already facing high costs of commercial conser services. Will they now also miss out on government support and services? To conclude, digital tools should empower individuals, not give government more control. A mandatory ID scheme where people have no choice is totally at odds with Britain's long history as a liberal democracy. The scale of the response to this petition of almost 3 million pounds of almost 3 million people should cause us all to pause, because it's quite clear that this rash proposal has touched a deep-seated opposition amongst our constituents as to anyone deeming to interfere with their personal data and their personal uh details, and 5,000 almost of my constituents in North Antrim are amongst that number, and I well understand and support their opposition. Now, yes, it might be convenient. It might be uh expedient for some to have all their data at one location that they can share. But the key issue here is that the government is choosing without a mandate to make that mandatory. Be a different matter if the government was coming to this house and saying, "We're going to provide a facility whereby if you wish, you can have the convenience of that."

>> Yep.

>> If you want to take the risk of being hacked, we will provide the data. But when they say, when they say to the citizen, "You must," "We will impose," then they've crossed a line that no self-respecting government should cross, and that no self-respecting people should tolerate. And that, for me, is the critical component here, that this is a government that thinks that it knows better, that it will impose, and we will be left with no choice as citizens. That is so illiberal, so fundamentally an assault upon our personal freedoms, that I think no one in this house should be entertaining it, least of all the government. Yes.

The honorable gentleman is making an excellent contribution, as always. Does he agree with me though that if this was such an important issue, why was it not in the manifesto at last general election of the governing party?

>> Obviously, it's a question I can't answer. It's one I doubt if the minister will answer, but it's a question well posed. Why or why? If you're going to impinge upon the personal liberties of your citizens, would you not in asking for their votes tell them that that's your agenda?

>> Yes. I thank the honorable member for giving away. Of course, as chair of committee, I must be fair-minded and impartial at all times. But the member might be acquainted with the fact that I represent the most remote mainland constituency in the whole of the UK. And just let me put this point. We do know what digital exclusion is.

>> And representing a constituency in North Antrim, uh, I know many parts of my constituency where you kind of get the digital connections that are supposedly promised, and I know what digital exclusion is in that regard as well. So this is a proposition so flawed, no matter which way you look at it, but most fundamentally flawed in the compulsion that it brings. The final point I wanted to make to the minister is this. Whatever happens on this subject matter, and I trust it is ditched in its entirety, but whatever the ultimate outcome is, it has to be a nationwide outcome, because too often I've seen in my part of the United Kingdom differences of treatment which add to the already obnoxious situation where we're partitioned by an Irish Sea border. We don't want partitioned on a digital border as well.

>> Rebecca Paul.

>> Thank you. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Madam Chair. I'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak today on behalf of more than 4,200 people in my Rygate constituency who signed the petition opposing digital ID. And I very much share the concerns so many of my constituents have raised with me. The government's intention to roll out a mandatory digital identification scheme is a serious mistake. It will prove expensive, intrusive, and will ultimately not move the dial on the key challenges we face as a country. We've repeatedly been told that this scheme will help tackle illegal immigration. Frankly, I find that insulting to the intelligence of the British public. Channel crossings will not be stopped by a QR code on a smartphone. I only wish it were that easy. They will, however, be stopped when the government has the courage to implement real deterrence and confront the lawyers and activist judges who continue to undermine our borders and throw obstacles in the way of every attempt to tackle this crisis. The British public has always rejected the idea of ID cards, and I believe they are right to do so. We are not a nation of "papers, please" in which people must prove their identity simply to access everyday services or interact with the state. Yet under this policy, we risk creating exactly that kind of society. We must remember today that we are here as representatives of the British people. We must listen and proceed with caution when nearly 3 million of them feel so strongly on an issue issue that they sign a petition. And let's not forget this was never put before the public in a manifesto. If the Prime Minister wanted a mandate for such a fundamental change to the relationship between citizen and state, as would come with digital ID, he should have had the courage to ask for one at the ballot box.

>> Colleagues from across the house have spoken today to send the government a very simple message: mandatory digital ID isn't needed to deliver excellent online public services. We already have quick, simple digital applications for passports, driving licenses, and right to work checks. These don't require a single state-mandated digital identity card, and nor should they. Thank you.

>> Oh, sorry. Ahead of myself. Afra. Thank you.

>> Pleasure to serve under.

>> I want to begin by thanking the 4,37 constituents from Chester South and Edbury who have expressed their opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID cards. The British public, including my constituents, are concerned not only by the principle of mandatory digital ID, but also by the manner in which the government has attempted to introduce them without a timeline, without a clear financial cost, without a plan, and without a mandate. When the government first briefed its intention to pursue mandatory digital ID, my inbox was inundated with concerns. And because of the clear salience of this issue, I launched a survey asking my constituents for their views. And I'm grateful for the hundreds of responses, over three-quarters of which were opposed to a mandatory ID scheme. The truth is, Madam Chair, that this petition should never have been necessary. A policy of this magnitude with profound implications for civil liberties and for the relationship between citizen and state ought to have appeared in a party's manifesto. Madame Chair, I'm also deeply concerned by the government's so-called justification suggesting it will solve the small boats crisis. But before the election, Labour promised it had a plan to smash the gangs, stop the boats, and tackle illegal migration. We can all see how that plan is going. So, how would this make any difference? It is not is it not just another cynical attempt to distract from the failure of this government to address illegal migration? So if the minister has confidence in this prop proposal, can they set up clearly how much the government expects illegal crossings to fall as a result, and what cost they expect the taxpayer, our constituents, to be expected to bear? Madame Chair, I know time is short, but I wanted to raise one further concern. Rural communities that remain digitally isolated would face significant challenges under these plans. I've spoken many times about the digital exclusion facing my so many in Chester South and Edbury. Progress was being made under the previous Conservative government, but I am concerned that ministers are now pushing ahead with a digital ID scheme without first ensuring digital connectivity, risking leaving rural communities even further behind.

>> I will give way.

>> My honorable friend is making an excellent contribution, as always. Um, one of the issues that I learned recently in the chamber that the roll-out of gigabit broadband throughout the country has been delayed by a further two years, from 2030 to 2032. Does she share my concerns that actually this means that the void between digital inclusion that has been proposed on the one hand is going to be even more manifesto of an issue for those constituents that don't have access to digital gigabit or um Wi-Fi signals?

>> Thank you. The honorable member makes such an important point, and this money that will be spent on mandatory ID needs to be spent on actually ensuring that all of our constituents are connected. The 9 million pound strategy to tackle digital exclusion is inadequate, in my view. But in closing, Madame Chair, this policy is an attempt to distract from this government's failures and has absolutely no mandate. So I therefore stand with the many thousands across Chester South and Edbury in opposing any plans to introduce mandatory digital ID.

>> Less madam chair, it's a pleasure to serve under your chair ship. Almost 3 million people have signed this petition opposing the government's plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID scheme. 3 million people, that's around the population of Wales. That includes nearly 3,500 of my constituents on anism. Those constituents have frequently raised valid concerns over the introduction of this type of scheme. Data privacy is one of them. A large database of private and sensitive um um information can be vulnerable to data breaches, hacking, and other criminal activities. The hacking of the legal aid agency is a region's example of this. Increased state surveillance is another worry. Constituents are worried about the creation of detailed individual profiles and the sharing of the information across the state services. Digital exclusion is also a concern, especially on a rural constituency like mine. Nobody should be unfairly disadvantaged by the state due to being without access or the means to navigate the digital technology. But what I hear most is what where people are struggling to heat their homes and put food on their tables. And here we have a government wanting to spend billions on identification schemes. It's

>> Yes, of course. I

>> when the uh the last ID card scheme was cancelled by the Liberal Democrats in coalition in 2010, it had already cost 4.6 billion pounds. Does she share my view that the additional 1.8 billion cost associated with digital ID would be money that could be so much better spent?

>> Yeah. Yes, I totally agree. And as a previous leader to a local authority, our public spe public services are on their knees after 14 years of austerity. This money needs to go back to public services and serve the people of this country instead of this digital ID scheme. The scheme was first framed as a way of combating illegal working and would only apply to workers. Then it was a scheme that would streamline services and potentially be applicable to people and as young people as young as 13 years old. So will the government actually set out what problem the digital ID is going to solve? Because as we've all heard in this debate today, nobody really seems to know. When the government can't provide a convincing arguments for this costly, intrusive, and unpopular scheme, it would do well to listen to the millions of people who have made their views known and focus instead on the real issues that matter to people. Ply opposed this proposal to introduce a digital ID.

>> Name is Mike Murdoch. Thank you very much, uh, Madame, uh, Chair, and uh, thank you for saving me till last. With Christmas just around the corner, the uh, the squats have come in uh, very handy.

>> Uh, so look, the proposal to introduce digital ID represents one of the most significant changes to the relationship between the individual and the state in modern British history. This measure cannot be taken lightly, nor can it be brushed aside as a simple matter of convenience or administrative efficiency. Britain already operates with a substantial set of identification systems: birth certificate, passport, driving license, national insurance number, NHS number, the electoral register. None of which are optional in practice for law-abiding citizens. The government's own digital ID web page confirms none of these existing documents will be replaced by this new proposal. This therefore creates a logical fallacy. If this is an optional, uh, if this is optional and does not replace any of the existing documents, it cannot simplify the existing system. It is also written plainly in the very first paragraph of the digital ID web page that the data held on digital ID will be limited to four pieces of information: name, date of birth, nationality or residency status, and a photograph. So what does that tell us? This tells us this is not a system really built to simplify domestic life. This is a system built to manage immigration status. So here we have another logical fallacy, because this does nothing to tackle the root cause of the immigration crisis, nor does it do anything to strengthen or enforce any of the right to work restrictions already in place. And I would I would add a third logical fallacy in so much as the gentleman somewhat innocently referenced earlier. Um, if this is optional, then it can serve no purpose in the "papers, please" scenario. And frankly, that's probably the better of the two, despite the nearly two billion cost. Britain operates on a simple democratic logic. We are born free, and the state may intrude only where necessary, proportionate, and agreed by the public. Digital uh ID risks inverting this principle, and I will point out there was no mandate for this in the Labour manifesto. Give way.

>> I would be happy to. I'm very grateful to the honorable gentleman for giving way. He and I represent different political traditions, but I'm very glad to know that we're bound together by a shared sense of what a liberal society looks like. The only purpose of having an ID of this kind of mandatory ID is to enable people to ask for it, and when you enable all the conditions to ask you to prove your identity in society, then you swiftly move from the freedoms he talks about to a permissions-based society. That should concern us all. Does he share my concern?

>> A very, a very good point, very well made. Uh, and that that brings us to another point that we've another point on this that actually hasn't been raised today, which is while while the government opposite states this is uh optional, at least at this stage, of course, for the taxpayer, the cost isn't optional. So if they go ahead for it, we're all paying for it, whether we like it or not, and whether we use it or not. Even if the intentions today are benign, the power created has the potential to long outlive those who introduce it. I'm a view, I'm the view of the view therefore that digital ID offers only the potential to inconvenience law-abiding citizens while also creating the foundations for a powerful powerful new mechanism capable of controlling banking, travel, property ownership, employment, public services, and daily activity into a single state-managed system. Even if one trusts the government, uh, the modern, uh, today's government, and many do not, no government should ever have this level of centralized control over its citizens' private lives. The government's own website already suggests digital ID would introduce access to social services. So we have mission creep already, whether we like it or not. The digital ID web page also states the digital ID will be free. Of course, this is not entirely true, because the cost is 1.8 billion pounds. In addition to the above, we have the inevitable security risks. In addition to the above, millions of people in this country will struggle with digital access. In conclusion, in conclusion, uh, uh, Madam Chair, uh, the government talks liberal but acts authoritarian. Prison sentences for bad language and the proposal to reduce an 8th-century-old right to jury trials being only two such examples. Couple this with digital ID, white elephant that use, uh, that now paints a rather unpretty picture. Thank you. I am against this.

>> Victoria Collins winding up for the Liberal Democrats. Thank you.

>> Thank you, Madam Chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I I do not know how the government can go ahead with this scheme with so much cross-party consensus about this ill-thought-out scheme, as MPs across the house and basically all of the parties have presented something legitimate concerns not only from their uh themselves as MPs but their constituents, and thousands of constituents indeed, almost three million have signed that petition, and that is not those who are digitally excluded, because this is an e-petition. Um, but as Liberal Democrats, I will give Thank giving way.

Um, if there is so much consensus as she outlines among MPs and constituents, why is it then that among those uh members of the public more supportive, they were more likely to be Liberal Democrat uh voters, at least when pled uh some time back.

>> Well, I I think what has been presented here clearly is the fact that there is consensus about the fact that this is not the right scheme. And what we're putting forward, or what we're pushing back on, is this is essentially a mandatory digital ID for anyone who wants to work in this country. This is essentially a mandatory digital ID. And where is the what is left for choice or control in that scenario? As Liberal Democrats, we believe that this is about holding up that freedom. And this digital ID essentially erodes long-held civil liberties. um and in this seemingly changing use of immigration enforcement and the slippery slope does not uphold them. And this, we believe as Liberal Democrats, and many of our supporters do, in individuals having more control. But this does not give individuals more control, but indeed gives the government more control. That question about attack on civil liberties has been loud and clear across the chamber today. Um, and when it comes to the fact they said this is not about checking papers, this is exactly what was introduced. It was talked about. This is the right to work, and that someone needs to check your papers. So saying that it's not about checking papers is actually not the case. The Resolution Foundation says that 91% of the working-age employ um uh working-age population be employed at some point in their life. This is essentially mandatory for the whole population. There's also been a slippery slope that's been mentioned today, that mission creep, whether it's the right to rent that's been mentioned in government papers, and I'm sure that the member for Folkston in high came from a good place, but the fact that actually talking about the police could check these is showing there is a slippery slope before it's even been implemented. Um, there's uh, there's also, of course, that discussion about whether this is for 13-year-olds, and I think there is a terrible hypocrisy that there is a massive discussion nationally about the impact of smartphones on young people, and yet in this room, or the government is saying on the other hand, well, actually, we should all give them digital ID, and it's been very clear um that that is on a smartphone. Um, but that question of civil liberties is really important. Whether it was the member for Islington North talked about aity of Britain. The member for Winchester said that some will use this for good, some will use this for ill. And the member for Salford also talked about many countries where digital ideas not help to tackle that question of illegal immigration. So what is this for? Now, Leon from Trim in my constituency has said, "The idea of a papers please Britain is absolutely appalling and insults our history and undermines civil society." Claude from Market says, "This is a curb on our freedom of privacy." So how exactly does this system stop illegal working? How can the minister guarantee that this will not undermine fundamental freedoms in this government or or the next? They cannot. Once this Pandora's box has been opened, it cannot be closed again. Um, digital inclusion. Now, that is so important to so many citizens, and and we have across this house, not only is it about those who have the choice to not um want to be online, but there is skills, there's also the access to telecoms. It's been mentioned here in my constituency, just 30 miles from London, we also have some of the worst uh data access in the country as well um um and of course, there is the cost. Now, but when it comes to that digital exclusion, what's very important is that the member, liberal democrat member for North Norfolk also um in the data bill, put forward an amendment for the right to non-digital ID. The government rejected that amendment because the member for Rhondda and Ogmore assured us that people would be able to use physical.

ID in every circumstance now. Where, where is the option for in this where you have to have it to work, essentially? Where is the choice in that? Where is the alternative of every circumstance where you won't, won't have to have a digital ID?

Uh, I think also the member for Lower Gowermouth talked about inequality. That's very important. The member for Tiverton and Minehead asked the important question: "How will this help her constituents, who are some of the most digitally excluded in the country?" And the member for Bradford East talked about how this will impact BME, BME communities. These are all essential questions which really beg the big question: why are the government pushing ahead with this?

When it comes to e-government, what I think is such a shame is that the government have undermined and halted progress in what could be improving our public services. The debate here and the cross-party consensus about how this has eroded trust is really fundamentally important. This flip-flopping and retrofitting of a policy that was announced because it was about immigration and then suddenly came out in the chamber saying, "Oh no, this is about improving public service." No one is buying that. That is why almost three million people have signed this petition. That is why we are all here today. That's why there weren't enough seats in this chamber because people realize that this is some kind of retrofitting policy which is actually undermining any progress when it comes to online government.

But also, what's quite important is we already have uh voluntary online services which need improving. They're not doing very well when it came to uh, so the Government.uk uh wallet. Uh, that definitely needs improving. The Government.uk One Login, which is a voluntary assistant at the moment, has had many flaws in it. Shouldn't we be spending money on that? The government has already invested £100 million pounds in that. Um, but what, you know, that is there are systems that need improving rather than spending that £1.8 billion on a system which clearly does not have the support of uh, our citizens and many uh, MPs across the House. And I know I, I, um, I respect the efforts for like members of the member for South Arbiter about improving uh, um, services and many others who have talked about that, but we can modernize without mandating, and this is essentially what this is. Um, and so really, what's important is what is the government doing about, um, improving systems like the Government One Login, and why are the government conflating digital ID with e-services? It's not going to help improve our public services. Um, and I think it's important to note, the member for Harrogate and Nesborough and Bridgewwater highlighted that this is that anti-ID is such is what I am so angry about because you've undermined progress in what could be improving our services and trust in that, which is so important.

And when it comes to trust, um, I mean, it's been, I think the whole debate, uh, um, highlights that trust in data is very, very important. Um, cyber incidents have increased 50% from last year. Um, a 2025D survey highlighted that almost 3,000 British businesses have been victims of cyber crime in the last 12 months. Um, we've had the Legal Aid Agency had cyber, um, leaks. We've had the armed forces. The member for Orkney and Shetland talked about how the police in Northern Ireland, their personal details were released. How can we, um, trust the government with our data at this point? Um, and one of my constituents, Jamie from Wheaton, said he highlights that he said, "Well, my concern is that broader principle and trust. I simply do not have confidence that any government now or in the future would implement digital ID in a safe, proportionate way and free from mission creep." So, given the track record and the government's oversight to protect its own citizens' uh systems as critical national infrastructure, and in the cyber resilience bill, what's also important about VAS is that actually, um, my understanding is currently the, uh, public administration is not in the scope of the cyber security and resilience bill, given their proposals on digital ID. I think that's quite an oversight.

Um, and cost. We come on to cost. Um, £1.8, 8 billion pounds, that's projected. I mean, the member for Brecon and Usk said this may go up. Many said this will probably go up. And as the member for East mentioned, what is so important at a time when our public services are breaking, when a budget has just asked so many people to pay more on their taxes, to put up that bill by £67 million pound, billion pounds in the next several years. And those 10 million uh, taxpaying families who are paying more, how can you justify this cost of £1.8, 8 billion currently when you have government IT projects that have cost the taxpayer more than £31 billion overall, and this will just add to that? And that's not to talk as well about the impact on business costs, and who will pay for the smartphones for those who need it? Who will pay for the data for those who need it? And who's going to pay when there are citizens who cannot work because this failed system doesn't work for them?

And so, this brings me to my final questions and my closing remarks. But can the minister set out data security protocols that would, that would apply to this system, including whether digital ID would be treated as part of the UK's critical national infrastructure? Will the minister look at publishing a digital exclusion impact before any further steps are taken? Um, and can the minister clarify the status of the One Government Login, confirming how much taxpayers' money's already been spent on this? The government have no mandate for these proposals. Across the House, we, across this chamber today, we have seen that members of different parties, and the UK has spoken up with nearly three million people signing this. As I said, those are those who can sign it. At a time when millions are struggling with the cost of living crisis, £1.8 billion on digital ID cards is wasteful and indefensible. And that money should be spent on fixing GP waiting lists, not funding Blair-era fantasies.

"Digital ID is about empowerment, is not about empowerment in this sense, but about control. We've had today talk about the end-to-end encryption, the end of trial by jury. This is the worrying next step. Mandatory digital ID crosses that red line and hands the state more power over citizens while stripping people of their freedoms and choice. And this is something that the Liberal Democrats cannot and will not accept."

Minister Julia Lopez.

"Thank you, Miss Feness. It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, and I commend my honorable friend for Keighley and Ilkley for his very powerful introduction. He is certainly no can of beans, but he uniquely highlights that this debate has united every party in this room, including the Labour Party, against the Labour leadership. And I commend honorable members for the powerful contributions that they have made. I have to confess, uh, I, I disagree with nothing that the Liberal Democrat spokesman said today, which is a unique, uh, a unique thing. I, you know, people will fear a coalition again. Um, and I, even I have some admiration for the glorious fence-sitting of some of the Labour MPs who still harbor some ambitions under this government. But we are here because so many, we are here because so many of our f- fellow citizens are demanding that the government abandons its dodgy plan for mandatory digital ID. It's one of the best supported petitions ever. Nearly three million people asking very simply for their relationship with the state not to be fundamentally rewritten without their consent. At the instigation of no one apart from perhaps Tony Blair, the Prime Minister sprung his sneaky ID scheme in September in what, by now, has become a very familiar pattern. A gaping hole emerges in Labour's handling of an issue. In this case, on migration, but it could equally be justice or the economy. At the same time as running some kind of personnel meltdown, a deputy prime minister ducking tax or a chancellor leaking a budget. And voila, out shoots from Downing Street some ham-fisted policy announcement to get us all talking about something else. And before we know it, we're hurtling towards mandatory ID, fewer jury trials, a horrible menu of new taxes on working people. And who knows, maybe soon a return to a customs union on whose rules we will have zero say. Which is why today we find ourselves debating the imposition of a mandatory ID despite it being a platform on which no Labour MP in this room was honest enough to stand. And a hapless minister left a field questions, left, he's left a field questions about the dead cat that his leader just threw onto the table, which is now getting smellier and smellier. I'm sure."

"Oh, I shall certainly take the upgrade."

"Um, I do have a genuine concern that, and, and acknowledge the strength of feeling from the people who signed the petition, but we're not giving that correct level of information that people can say that they're saying no to. And conflating, um, the digital ID with issues such as jury trials and taxation is doing them no favors. We need to have a calm, rational debate about this one issue so that we can actually have a reasoned outcome."

"The challenge is we had so few of the facts because this is such a, a thin plan. And the other challenge is that there are people who support digital identity as a concept. It's about choice. It's about the fact that this government has no mandate for what it's doing. I don't think that the honorable lady and I are in that different place in so far as it, it should be people's choice as to whether they have a digital identity verification or not, and this government is proposing to rob them of that choice. And that is where the people in this room are united."

"Certainly."

"I'd like the way, ever so generous, isn't it? The fact that it's not us scaremongering, it's not the three million people, uh, being conspiracists. The fact that the Prime Minister rolled this out to, to deal with an issue which it won't solve, and everyone can see through it."

"My honorable friend is absolutely right, and he spoke so powerfully in his contribution earlier today. And I'm sure today we shall hear no answers from the minister because behind this policy sits no plan at all. No minister has any idea how much it will cost. The OBR reckons it's £1.8 billion."

"Will my honorable friend give way?"

"Certainly. I, I thank my honorable friend for giving way. Does, does she agree with me and the thousands of people across Bromley and Penge and Hill that have signed this petition that at a time of rising taxation and spiraling debt, the fact that the government can't even tell us how much this wretched device would cost exemplifies their irresponsible approach to our economy?"

"Completely agree. And on the one hand, this government's claiming there's no money left. On the other hand, it can suddenly find, uh, billions for the bizarre schemes or, or chaos islands or, or suddenly it can create policies that it, it couldn't previously, uh, deliver on, on two-child benefit cap. It's just so intellectually inconsistent. And, uh, the OB, as I say, reckons this will cost £1 billion pounds, and privately ministers are briefing that that's completely inaccurate. We haven't even begun scoping it yet. I'm told the Treasury and the Department are now in a standoff with one another about who's going to pay for this dreadful thing. Neither wants it, particularly as the department will then have to make cuts to other much more effective digital product projects, the kinds that would actually deliver better services. No one will answer straight questions about how secure it will be or into which areas of lives of our lives it will creep. The Prime Minister tells us that digital ID will only be mandatory for anyone who still wants to work in Labour's welfare Britain. And yet, in the next breath, he suggests childcare, welfare, wider service access will all require it. This is precisely how state overreach begins with reassurance in one sentence and expansion in the next. And it's very interesting to hear some honorable members debate today and, and add points about, uh, the police being able to access this or even needing it to go to the cinema. There have been no answers on the robustness of the government's cyber security. This government could not even keep its own budget secret, and now it wants to trust it, us to trust it with this new system. Ministers point to Estonia and India as models. Yet Estonia has suffered repeated breaches. India's system, the largest ID system in the world, led to the largest ever data breach in the world, with citizens' data sold on the dark web for the equivalent of £5 or £6. And AI is now giving those cyber attackers the upper hand. And of course, we've been given no sense of the extent to which digital ID will stem illegal migration, which was the Prime Minister's excuse for introducing the idea ID idea in the first place. Ministers cannot even give an estimate, and that's for a simple reason because it will not reduce migration unless ministers can explain why those who enter the country by dodging the rules will suddenly become models of civic compliance, or why European ID schemes have done so little to stem illegal migration on the continent."

"Give way."

"Certainly."

"On the topic of migration, does the member agree that the government's claim that digital ID will curb immigration is made a farce by the Afghan data loss? A catastrophic failure of, uh, state data security that ended up expanding resettlement on a large scale, and which shows exactly why centralizing identity data can backfire."

"He makes a very powerful point. And the truth is that Channel crossings are going to continue until the Prime Minister puts in place a real deterrent and accepts that his 'smash the gangs' plan is nothing more than a slogan. By pretending that his ID scheme is the answer, he is fueling public distrust. And when the crossings continue, but law-abiding British citizens are allocated a mandatory ID, people will feel rightly that it's one rule for them and another rule for law, rule-breakers. Losing liberty for everyone because a group of people who have no right to be here. At least ministers seem to recognize the emptiness of that migration argument because none of them seems to use it anymore. To add to the despicable dishonesty of this plan, it is now being presented as a benevolent effort to improve online services. No more rummaging for utility bills. The Prime Minister's Chief of Staff even insists it will be a matter of choice whether to have a digital ID or not. How disingenuous. First, to oppose digital ID is not to oppose the modernization of government. It is not to oppose great online services for people. It is to say that you do not need a monopolistic government ID scheme which is mandated to be able to have those online services, and nobody should be suggesting otherwise. The Association of Digital Verification Professionals has called what Labour inherited from our party a world-leading model for data sovereignty that digitized liberty rather than diluted it. In government, we were able to provide trusted, simple, and secure services without everyone being mandated to have a digital identity. Paper options retained. Nobody forced down the digital route, and privacy-preserving private identity providers now absolutely hopping mad about Labour's plan, recognized as a way of giving citizens choice when it comes to digital credentials and is dispersing central power. And let's turn to this idea of choice of consent. If a government-issued digital ID is mandatory for anyone wishing to work, then if you want a job, you have no choice. At a time when Labour have made it more expensive and much riskier to employ people, they now want to add an extra hoop for everyone to jump through. Never mind the digital divide either. Thousands of adults do not have smartphones. Labour has deprioritized gigabit rollout. Their digital inclusion plan is a £9 million pound fig leaf. They are not bridging a divide. They are widening it. Conservatives oppose the Prime Minister's mandatory ID plan in principle and in practice. It would alter the balance between citizen and state in a way that this government has no mandate for. Conservatives believe government should empower citizens, not the other way round. So, before this House takes another step down this path, I ask the minister to answer the following questions clearly and directly. Will the government be bringing this matter before the House for a vote? And when can we expect digital identity legislation to be put before us? How much will this scheme cost? If it's not £1.8, 8 billion, what is the true figure? Are ministers creating a single centralized database? Yes or no? Who will be forced to have a mandatory ID and from what age? Because we hear it could be 13. What personal information will be collected? Will biometrics and addresses be included? And what security guarantees would the minister put his name to when it comes to the robustness of this system? Mr. Vaness, nearly 3 million people want answers to these questions and more. This government has delivered nothing of what it said it would: growth, political stability, competence, and plenty that it never sought permission for. It is a government that has not the competence to run a bath, let alone a, a secure national identity scheme. And it seems many Labour MPs now agree, including those in this chamber. Every day they are openly jostling and gossiping about the Prime Minister's demise. If they had any sense, they would make sure that this scheme dies with the expiry of his leadership, and that any of the thrusting leadership contenders make a clear promise not to resurrect it. The Prime Minister's plan is unimplementable, utterly unloved, and will be totally useless in delivering, delivering against its own objectives. So, before Labour sprays inordinate amounts of political capital and taxpayer cash on this digital ID dodo, it must wake up to this reality."

Minister Simons.

"Thank you, Madame Chair. It's a pleasure to serve under your chair. Uh, can I first thank the honorable member for Keighley and Ilkley for bringing this important debate today, the first of many, to hope, many to come, I hope, and including future debates in the chamber.

Uh, can I apologize also to the member for Chester South and Edbury for having to step out briefly during her, uh, speech. I will check the record and make sure I'm across all of what she said. Uh, can I also thank honorable members from all sides for the thoughtful and respectful manner in which they've spoken in this debate? I will reference some of the contributions during my speech, but I won't take interventions as I've got limited time and a lot of important questions which I will endeavor to answer. I've got 11 minutes, I'm told. And to close, I want to do three things, uh, as I endeavor not to be hapless. First, to explain why we want to build this new national digital credential and the principles that will guide us as we do so. Second, to debunk some of the nonsense and myths surrounding this debate. And third, to make some commitments about how I, as the minister, and we as a government will work with you and your constituents going forward.

So, let me start with why we're doing this. So often, my constituents in Makerfield in Wigan come to me with stories about how they have to fight against the system to do things that should be easy. The social care or send system, registering for a school place or ordering a new bin, paying taxes or accessing benefits, opening a bank account or buying a home. When millions of working people feel exhausted by making their household finances work or dealing with antisocial behavior in their town, the last thing they need is to feel passed from agency to agency, call center to call center, and from one form to the next. It does not have to be this way. All over the world, countries have introduced national digital credentials that give people more control over their public services and ensure that everyone can access those services more easily. It puts the state in your pocket, like everything else we do online: banking, shopping, organizing community events, supporting our kids at school. And while the Government Digital Service has done phenomenal work over the last decade, the UK needs a step change to make the state and public services work harder for you, to fit around you instead of forcing you to fit around them. Labour governments have a proud history of transforming our state and making it serve ordinary people. After the Second World War, the government built new public services like the NHS from the ground up. Harold Wilson grasped the right heat of technology to modernize the state. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown brought public services into the 21st century. Now we are doing the same, building the digital foundation of the British state and public services for decades to come. And I'm proud that we're building this vital public good for our country, not outsourcing it and not leaving it to private companies. Done right, it can leave a legacy we will be proud of in the years ahead. But done right, as several members have said, is vital. And my job is to make sure that we do do it right. And that's why since becoming the minister, junior minister responsible for this, I've introduced three clear principles that will guide the system we build.

First, inclusive. We will leave no person and no place behind. This is a public good, so it must be universally accessible. The people most excluded from our society, whether digitally or because they've not had a passport, are those we will work hardest to reach. We are under no illusions that this is a great challenge. It will take a lot of hard work and a massive digital inclusion drive. But don't forget that the status quo..."

"I will not."

"I will not. I've got loads more to cover. Millions of people, millions of people right now are digitally excluded, and that is not a status quo that we are prepared to accept. We will need help to meet this challenge. Civil society, businesses, trade unions, and community groups across the UK will be our partners, and that is why we are consulting on how to do this. If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable. People experiencing homelessness, the elderly, people with special needs, but also veterans or people without access to the internet. This program will empower them because we will invest resources to reach and to include them. They will not be left behind any more.

Our second principle, secure. He will not. We are working with the UK's leading national security experts, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to build a system with cutting-edge protections against cyber attacks and identity fraud. But let me be specific.

"We are not creating a centralized master database."

"I will not accept that."

"Told you will not."

"Go on then."

"Chair, clarify the minister has to speak because, by my understanding, he has to speak until 19:29 to give the proposer of the motion one minute to respond. Could the chair clarify please?"

"Well, yeah, we are, we're running quite well at the moment. So, we are, we will be finishing completely at 7:30, but the minister who brought it forward is wanting to wind up, which he has a right to do of one minute. So you have got a bit longer if you need that."

"I was told by the chair I have 11 minutes and I've got..."

"About 10 more minutes to speech and I will not be taking intervention. So you can sit down and stop asking. If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable people, those experiencing homelessness who are currently left behind. We will not accept that status quo. And this leads me to the second principle, which is that the National Cyber Security Centre will work with us closely to implement cutting-edge protections against cyber attacks and identity fraud. And I want to be specific about what exactly that means. We are not, as many members have asked, creating a centralized master database. The new system will be federated. Specifically, here's what that means: There will be strict legal firewalls about what information can be shared where, and a strong principle of data minimization. People will have more control over their data in this system than they have now, because people will be able to actively control what information is shared about them and by whom. As the member for St. Austell and Newquay said, in other countries around the world, like Finland or Estonia, citizens are massively more empowered to control their data, and their consent is placed at the center."

"He will not."

"Of the system, and that..."

"The right to speak, like everyone else has been given the right to speak. He does not have to take interventions. That is not something that needs to be done."

"Placing their consent at the center of the system, and that is what we will build here in the UK. That takes me to our third principle. It will be useful. I want to build a credential that our constituents want to have because having it makes their lives easier in our economy and our society. Technology has dramatically improved how we go about our daily lives. I want government to have the tools to move at the same pace. Whether it's applying for a new passport, accessing support for your children, or proving who you are for a job, the state should be working as hard as possible to make these things easy for you, not making you do the hard work. Our consultation will give the public the opportunity to have their say about how they'd like to be able to use this credential and what kind of future public services they would like to see. I want to build a system that helps people with the daily struggles they tell us about, and not the system that Whitehall thinks is best.

Now, there's also a lot of nonsense flying about in this debate. Some myths that we have failed to rebut, and some outright lies. So, following a letter from the member for Keighley, the second thing I would like to do this evening is briefly debunk some of those myths.

First, this program will involve a massive digital inclusion drive, rejecting the status quo where millions are excluded digitally and excluded from having IDs, investing resources and time to ensure everyone can access the online world and digital public services through post offices and libraries, physical spaces in communities up and down the United Kingdom.

Second, nobody will be stopped and asked for this new digital credential by the police. No card, no papers, no police."

"Go ahead."

"Chair. Is it an order for the minister to indicate that contributions in this debate contained lies?"

"I have to say, I couldn't hear him say that, mainly because everyone else was making so much noise, like now. I did not hear him say..."

"I wasn't saying that contributions from other members were lies. I was saying there are lies out there in the country about this system, and I'd like to put that on record."

"We want a system that people want to use to make their lives easier so they no longer have to fill forms multiple times or fight against agencies to transfer information. Third, as I've said, there is and there will be no centralized master database created. The new system will be federated, meaning data will stay where it already is, stored securely and separately, only using the minimum data necessary for ID verification and information sharing. Privacy-preserving questions and answers will be communicated across data sets with strict firewalls between them enshrined in law, and only where people consent. So people will control what data is shared and where, like they do in other countries, more control than they have now. Fourth, this system will be a public good. I want to build this system because it will benefit ordinary people, not because I'm under the grip of some international elite or a globalist dictat, as someone said earlier, which is quite an anti-Semitic trope to throw at a Jewish minister. Yesterday, I was in the pub in Hindley talking to a bloke who was trying to transfer basic information from Bolton Council to Wigan Council. I want that to be easier, to make the state work harder for him, and not the other way around. That is why we're doing it. Fifth, there will be legislation establishing the credential on which Parliament will vote. Parliament will control what this credential can be used for. We will establish a clear legal framework to prevent scope creep. Our goal is to make life easier for people and give people more security and control over the data than they have now. That is the test I will set. Sixth and finally, we are a proud liberal parliamentary democracy. We will never have a social credit system. We will not be tracking anyone's life. Existing data protection laws will apply. Your use of gambling sites won't be allowed to impact your entitlement to healthcare, or your speeding ticket affect who you can marry, as in China, a country with no elections, no parliament, and no rule of law. I wrote a book about making sure that democracy controls data and not the other way around. That is what I intend to do.

Thirdly and finally tonight, I want to end by making a few promises to members in this room and to anyone in the public who is watching. The consultation, which will be launched in the new year, will be a major public undertaking. I am determined that we will engage in a different kind of way. I will be traveling up and down the country to listen to people and to hear how they want this credential to work and how they think it can make their lives easier. As with all public goods, we cannot build or roll this out alone. We want to work with communities, not do this to communities. Working arm-in-arm with grassroots groups, digital inclusion organizations, local authorities, combined authorities, mayors, civil society, trade unions, businesses, small and large, across the United Kingdom. If you or your organization or your constituents are in any of those camps and would like to get involved, I would encourage you to get in touch.

Chair, I understand the anxiety of many honorable members in this room and many members of the public. In fact, I share some of those anxieties. I know that it's my job and the government's job to persuade. Liberal parliamentary democracies around the world have or are developing a national digital credential. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India, the list goes on. We will take a principled approach to building this new system: inclusive, secure, and useful. These principles are non-negotiable, and how we apply them will be led by our major public consultation next year. Chair, my background is in technology and AI. Part of why I came into politics is that so often the way ordinary people encounter technologies is determined solely by private imperatives and not the public good. I do not want the future of our state and our economy to be driven by a desire to addict our children to TikTok videos or pornography, but by a willingness to roll up our sleeves and do the hard graft of building infrastructure that will last for generations. That is what a new national digital credential is: a vital public good. And I am proud that this government will build it. I've got Robbie Mart. Robbie Mart, wind up please."

"Thank you, Madam Chairman. And there we have it. This is how the government of the day is going to be engaging with people, stating from the dispatch box that they are willing to listen, but yet not take one intervention. And may I remind the minister, that members of parliament in this House have been elected to represent their constituents and over nearly 3 million petitioners who have signed this petition, and not to have taken one intervention dealing with the matters that they have brought to them in this House is not only embarrassing for the minister but completely discourteous to the members of parliament in this chamber."

"What a disgrace."

"Colleagues have spoken, and I want to thank members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents, and I want to thank the three million people who have signed this petition because they have demonstrated that this is not something that they want this country to move forward with. It is expensive. It is unwanted, and it is intrusive. And, Madame, um, Chairman, this is not something that was included within the Labour Party manifesto. It is not something that was promoted that, that would be brought forward by this government. The voice of this chamber has been heard. It's just incredibly disappointing that the minister did not have the courtesy to reflect that in his remarks."

"Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Well done. Well done."

"Right. So the question is that this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID. As many as are of the opinion say I."

"I."

"Of the contrary. I think the eyes have it. Order. Order. The sitting stands adjourned."