MPs Push Back on Digital ID; Consultation Ahead
High-Level Summary
Westminster Hall debated e‑petition 730194 on digital ID, signed by nearly 3 million people. Most speakers from multiple parties opposed a mandatory scheme on grounds of civil liberties, cost, cyber‑security and digital exclusion, while some supported an optional digital credential to modernise services. The Minister, Josh Simons, set principles for an inclusive, secure and useful national digital credential, stating there would be no centralised database, no police stop‑and‑check, and that Parliament would vote after a full consultation in the new year. The motion that the House had considered the petition was agreed without a division; no policy change was decided.
Detailed Summary
E‑petition 730194: Digital ID (Westminster Hall)
Robbie Moore opened the debate for the Petitions Committee, noting: “Nearly 3 million people have signed today’s petition” [ref: a1.2/4]. Due to the high turnout, the Chair imposed a strict limit: “there are huge numbers of Members trying to speak” [ref: a2.1/1]. Opponents highlighted cost, frequently citing an Office for Budget Responsibility estimate, with Moore saying, “The latest guesstimate of how much this is going to cost us all is a whopping £1.8 billion” [ref: a2.3/1]. Chi Onwurah clarified the provenance of that figure, saying “it has been put forward by the Office for Budget Responsibility” [ref: a2.8/1]. Members also warned about digital exclusion—“I absolutely agree that digital exclusion is a reality for all” [ref: a3.6/1]—and objected to a “papers, please” culture: “we are not a ‘papers, please’ society” [ref: a4.5/1]. Cyber‑security risks were emphasised, with one Member describing a national database as “a true honeypot for hackers” [ref: a4.5/2]. Several argued there was no electoral mandate, with one stating, “ID cards do not feature” in the Labour manifesto [ref: a8.0/1].
Some Members supported a voluntary, privacy‑preserving digital credential to simplify interactions with the state. Peter Prinsley argued safeguards can protect liberties: “No one will be stopped in the street and asked for digital ID” [ref: a14.1/3]. Tony Vaughan said, “We should be making it easier for the state immediately to verify a person’s right to work” [ref: a17.2/5]. Noah Law stated: “The scheme will be voluntary, it will be free, it will not require some form of card and it will be secure” [ref: a29.0/4].
Responding, the Minister, Josh Simons, set three principles—inclusive, secure and useful—and made specific assurances. He said, “We are not creating a centralised master database” and that the system would be federated [ref: a51.1/2]. He also said, “Nobody will be stopped and asked for this new digital credential by the police. No card, no papers, no police” [ref: a52.2/1], and that “There will be legislation establishing the credential, on which Parliament will vote” [ref: a52.5/5]. He confirmed consultation plans—“The consultation, which will be launched in the new year, will be a major public undertaking” [ref: a52.5/7]—and rejected social‑credit comparisons: “We will never have a social credit system” [ref: a52.5/6]. The debate concluded with the standard resolution: “Question put and agreed to” [ref: a54.0/4]; “Resolved, That this House has considered e‑petition 730194 relating to digital ID” [ref: a54.0/6]. Detailed costs, any bill timetable, and the precise scope beyond the consultation were not stated in the transcript.