← Back to Westminster Hall Debates
Digital ID
08 December 2025
Lead MP
Robbie Moore
Keighley and Ilkley
Con
Responding Minister
Josh Simons
Tags
EconomyTaxationScotlandWales
Word Count: 28514
Other Contributors: 60
At a Glance
Robbie Moore raised concerns about digital id in Westminster Hall. A government minister responded.
Key Requests to Government:
The Government should abandon the plans for digital ID as it is unnecessary and costly, with an estimated cost of £1.8 billion. The proposal does not address illegal immigration effectively but imposes a new compulsory database on law-abiding citizens.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Nearly 3 million people have signed today’s petition, making it the fourth most signed petition in parliamentary history. The plan for digital ID has sparked outrage as it is seen as un-British and a threat to political traditions. The proposal lacks electoral mandate and faces opposition from across parties including Conservatives, Labour Back Benchers, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Greens, Reform, Lib Dems, and independent MPs.
Alison Griffiths
Con
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton
A mandatory digital ID tied to a smartphone is the wrong way to go. It does not address real problems, risks creating new ones, lacks mandate from Labour's manifesto, and faces opposition in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton.
Aphra Brandreth
Con
Chester South and Eddisbury
The British public, including her constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury, are concerned about the principle of mandatory digital IDs and the manner in which the Government have attempted to introduce them. A survey conducted by the MP found that more than three-quarters of respondents were opposed to a mandatory ID scheme. Expressed concerns about the implementation of a mandatory digital ID scheme, highlighting issues around consent and choice.
Ben Maguire
LD
North Cornwall
The hon. Member is making a passionate speech. The Family Farm Tax could save half a billion pounds, yet the Government are prepared to spend £2 billion on this scheme that none of our constituents actually want.
Bradley Thomas
Con
Bromsgrove
Questions whether the Government is being authoritarian with plans for mandatory digital ID and abandoning trial by jury, neither of which are in Labour's manifesto.
Brian Leishman
Lab
Alloa and Grangemouth
Argues that mandatory digital ID will exacerbate inequality by adding to digital exclusion faced by people living in poverty, disabled individuals, and older people.
Brian Mathew
LD
Melksham and Devizes
Points out that Singapore's smaller population took 12 years to develop its digital ID system, raising questions about the feasibility of a similar timeline for the UK.
Tewkesbury
Expressed concern about the scheme potentially putting sensitive data in the hands of private entities with no regard for constituents' interests.
She raised concerns about cyber-security risks and centralising information, arguing that Government systems are not immune to such threats but the current measures are insecure.
Chris Hinchliff
Lab
North East Hertfordshire
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Constituents are overwhelmingly unconvinced by the proposed benefits of this scheme and concerned about its disbenefits; therefore, the Minister should commit to ensuring that at the end of the consultation, the Government have the option of not taking it further.
Claire Young
LD
Thornbury and Yate
4,497 constituents signed the petition against mandatory digital ID due to privacy concerns and fears about misuse by the state. The MP argued that investment in enforcement would better address immigration issues and restore public trust.
Chi Onwurah
Lab
Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West
Highlighted that some constituents seek the ability to identify themselves but lack necessary documentation. Questioned the accuracy of cost estimates provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Damian Hinds
Con
East Hampshire
In 2003, Labour proposed ID cards to tackle illegal immigration but faced technical issues and cost over-runs. Damian warns that digital IDs may become compulsory in practice, leading to a 'papers, please' society.
Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe
Critiqued the proposal as an expensive distraction that could drain £1.9 billion from the public purse at a time when funds are needed elsewhere such as for NHS care.
Al Pinkerton
LD
Surrey Heath
The hon. Member's concerns about digital ID align with a liberal society, highlighting that it enables conditions for permissions-based society and creates foundations for state control over private lives.
Expressed concern that people are not given enough information to make an informed decision about digital ID.
Kieran Mullan
Con
Bexhill and Battle
Agreed with Robbie Moore's argument against spending £1.8 billion on digital ID, stating that resources could be better utilised elsewhere.
Neil Hudson
Con
Epping Forest
Expressed concern among his Epping Forest constituents regarding digital ID cards and argued that the policy risks wasting billions on an insecure system.
Gideon Amos
LD
Taunton and Wellington
Agreed that employers not complying with national insurance numbers or passports would similarly ignore digital ID requirements.
Greg Smith
Con
Mid Buckinghamshire
Critiqued the Government's ability to manage sensitive data.
Imran Hussain
Lab
Bradford East
Talked about how the scheme will impact BAME communities.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
The Member highlighted the lack of a mandate for mandatory digital ID, arguing it is an illiberal infringement on personal freedoms. He questioned why such a significant issue was not in the governing party's manifesto.
John Lamont
Con
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk
Opposes the introduction of digital ID, arguing it is expensive, intrusive, ineffective, and not supported by constituents. Raises concerns about mission creep and potential misuse of personal data. Asked if the Minister could give way, and was told no.
Replied that he would not take interventions and continued his speech on the digital ID programme.
Kevin Bonavia
Lab
Stevenage
Discussed the historical context of identity verification and supported a national debate on digital ID. He acknowledged concerns about data handling but argued for an ambitious approach to improve public services.
Aylesbury
Welcomed the opportunity for modernising public services with a digital credential, but raised concerns about data security and ensuring no one is left behind due to lack of smartphone access.
Lee Anderson
Reform
Ashfield
Critiques government's push for digital ID, citing overreach of state powers and concerns about data privacy. Mentions 5,000 constituent signatures against the policy.
Amber Valley
Reported constituents' mixed views on digital ID with concerns over privacy and security risks, emphasising need for public consultation to address these issues.
Liz Jarvis
LD
Eastleigh
She welcomed the opportunity to speak on behalf of 4,000 constituents who are alarmed by the Government's plans for mandatory digital ID. She highlighted concerns about data privacy, exclusion risks, and potential profiling issues.
Llinos Medi
PC
Ynys Môn
More than 3 million people have signed this petition opposing the Government’s plan to introduce a mandatory digital ID scheme, including nearly 3,500 of her constituents. Llinos Medi highlighted concerns about data privacy and increased state surveillance.
Luke Myer
Lab
Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland
Raises a specific issue regarding the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which mandates NHS numbers for children in England, highlighting the lack of evidence and risk assessments. He agreed with his hon. Friend's stance on public consent for the scheme, noting 4,800 of his constituents signed a petition against it.
Mark Francois
Con
Rayleigh and Wickford
Clarified that his support for the debate is unrelated to party allegiance and questioned whether Labour has an electoral mandate for digital ID.
Martin Wrigley
Lab
Constituency Not Provided
Questions Tony Vaughan's proposal regarding police access to digital IDs on the spot.
Questioned the claim that digital ID would curb immigration, citing the Afghan data loss incident as evidence of why centralising identity data can backfire.
Bayo Alaba
Lab
Southend East and Rochford
Highlights the privacy and security concerns of constituents regarding digital ID systems. Questions practicality, inclusion for those without access to technology, and calls for safe implementation with transparency.
Jonathan Brash
Lab
Hartlepool
Asked if the announcement was premature and lacking in detail, agreeing with the lead MP that constituents deserve more information.
Louie French
Con
Old Bexley and Sidcup
Suggested that this was an example of pushing through manifesto-unrelated policies, urging the House to prevent its implementation.
Will Forster
LD
Woking
He questioned whether the digital ID system costing taxpayers £1.8 billion could be considered free, challenging Labour's stance on costs associated with inaction.
Noah Law
Lab
St Austell and Newquay
Commented on the varying constituent opinions regarding digital ID, highlighting uncertainty about its purpose and implementation details. Requested assurances from the Minister on data protection measures. Like many Members, he received representations from constituents opposing digital ID. He argued the scheme would be voluntary, free, secure, and make lives easier, stating it is not a conspiracy but rather an opportunity to improve security procedures.
Peter Fortune
Con
Bromley and Biggin Hill
Asked about the cost implications of the digital ID system, noting that the Government's inability to provide this information exemplifies their irresponsible approach to public finances.
Peter Prinsley
Lab
Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket
Supports digital ID but acknowledges concerns about data security, inclusivity, and privacy. Highlights potential benefits such as improved patient record access in the NHS.
Rachael Maskell
Lab/Co-op
York Central
There is concern about the concentration of data and future misuse by aggressive actors. Rachael highlights risks associated with linking different datasets under a single identifier and warns about potential threats to individual rights.
Rachel Gilmour
Con
Tiverton and Minehead
Questions if mandatory digital ID will benefit constituents in her constituency with the lowest social mobility, expressing concern over potential digital exclusion. Asked how the scheme will help her constituents, who are among the most digitally excluded in the country.
Salford
Questions effectiveness of digital ID in reducing illegal working and expresses fears regarding expanded state control over citizens' lives and potential misuse by future governments.
Robbie Moore
Lab
Wolverhampton South-West
Critiques the Minister for not taking interventions, highlighting that three million people have signed a petition against digital ID.
Robin Swann
UUP
South Antrim
This is one of those unusual circumstances in which every party in Northern Ireland has united against the proposal.
Rupert Lowe
Ind
Great Yarmouth
Rupert Lowe expressed deep distrust towards the Government's intentions with a digital ID scheme, warning against the expansion of state surveillance and control. He called for resistance to this initiative.
Samantha Niblett
Lab
South Derbyshire
Over 400 constituents expressed views on digital ID; about a third were supportive while two-thirds had serious concerns. Samantha highlighted practical advantages but also raised fears of increased surveillance and cyber-security issues.
Saqib Bhatti
Con
Meriden and Solihull East
Discussed the insecurity of any system for protecting personal data, highlighted that consent was being taken away by the Government's scheme, and argued that digital ID would not solve illegal crossings or stop shops selling illegal vapes. Asked Kevin Bonavia about his perspective on digital ID being mandatory and its impact on illegal immigration. Agreed with the lead MP, stating that the Prime Minister rolled out the scheme for a problem it cannot solve and questioned its necessity at a time of economic challenges.
Sarah Bool
Con
South Northamptonshire
Cited direct quotes from constituents opposing the scheme due to unnecessary surveillance, high costs, vulnerability to hacking, and lack of support in Labour manifesto. Criticised the scheme as an overreach by the state. Asked if the Minister would give way.
Sarah Gibson
LD
Chippenham
Acknowledged the reality of digital exclusion in rural areas like Chippenham, supporting concerns about digital ID implementation.
Sarah Pochin
Reform
Runcorn and Helsby
Over 5,400 constituents signed the petition against digital ID cards. Sarah seeks confirmation that these new IDs will not solve illegal working issues in the country.
Seamus Logan
SNP
Aberdeenshire North and Moray East
The digital ID policy was not mentioned in the Labour party’s manifesto, and the Government estimate of £1.8 billion will be insufficient for this project.
Chingford and Woodford Green
The right hon. Member argued that digital ID reverses the presumption of innocence for people on an ID card, assuming guilt until they have discharged themselves as innocent.
Sojan Joseph
Lab
Ashford
Sojan Joseph raised concerns about security, inclusivity, and the potential for state control through a national digital ID scheme. He asked for assurances on data protection measures and transparency in personal information usage.
Torbay
Notes that his constituency signed the petition against mandatory digital ID, highlighting concerns over the £1.8 billion cost and digital exclusion of older folk who lack smartphone access.
Tom Gordon
LD
Harrogate and Knaresborough
Tom Gordon acknowledged constituents' concerns about digital exclusion, particularly in rural areas, and the potential loss of access to government services for those without reliable internet or smartphones. Asked Siân Berry about polling results indicating initial public support but a drop after Government announcement.
Tony Vaughan
Lab
Folkestone and Hythe
Supports digital identification in principle but raises concerns about data security, cost, civil liberties infringement, accessibility for digitally excluded people, and potential for ID theft. Emphasises the importance of right-to-work checks.
Harpenden and Berkhamsted
MPs from across the House have raised concerns about digital ID; almost 3 million people have signed a petition against it. The scheme is seen as ill thought out, eroding civil liberties and giving more control to the Government.
Warinder Juss
Lab
Wolverhampton West
Considers that a comprehensive and detailed consultation on digital ID is necessary to respect democracy and consider constituent views properly.
Wendy Morton
Con
Aldridge-Brownhills
Noted that 4,400 of her constituents signed the petition and expressed support for Conservative opposition to mandatory digital ID.
Government Response
Josh Simons
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office
Government Response
Explained the reasons for introducing the national digital credential scheme to improve public service access. Stated that it will be built as a vital public good by the government, not outsourced to private companies. Introduced three guiding principles to ensure the system is done right. Discussed the principles of the digital ID programme including inclusivity, security with federated data systems and user control over personal information, and rejected myths about a centralised database or police involvement.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About Westminster Hall Debates
Westminster Hall debates are a chance for MPs to raise important issues affecting their constituents and get a response from a government minister. Unlike Prime Minister's Questions, these debates are more in-depth and collaborative. The MP who secured the debate speaks first, other MPs can contribute, and a minister responds with the government's position.