Digital ID

I recognise that the question of digital IDs divides opinion. The Liberal Democrats have historically opposed the introduction of identity cards, due to concerns over cost, necessity, and threats to privacy. The Government’s chaotic announcement of a plan to introduce mandatory digital ID for everyone in the UK is symptomatic of poor policy, planning and communication. My party and I are completely opposed to the imposition of a compulsory scheme. It would be costly and unpopular, with no clear or predictable solution to the issues it claims to address. This looks like a knee-jerk response to the rise of Reform and a desire to appear tough on illegal immigration. We need only look to Italy, which has government-issued ID, to see that such measures have not resolved the challenges around immigration there. Instead, the Government should focus on clearing the asylum backlog and enabling those who want to work to do so, rather than leaving people languishing in hotels.

Beyond its ineffectiveness, a mandatory system raises serious concerns about civil liberties and data protection. It would fundamentally alter the relationship between the state and the citizen by requiring everyone to possess identification, creating the risk that those who do not comply could be criminalised. It also demands a high level of trust in the Government’s ability to store and safeguard our data, which is sorely lacking after debacles such as the Afghanistan leaks and the Windrush scandal.

I am, however, happy to have a conversation about a voluntary approach that genuinely serves the public interest. When I was knocking on doors during the general election, I met many people who felt locked out of democracy because they lacked the physical ID now required to vote. In many ways, we already share significant amounts of personal data with private companies when we use our phones, shop online or access services. If carefully designed, with robust privacy protections, transparent governance and strict limits on data use, a voluntary and decentralised digital ID could make some interactions with government and public services simpler and more secure.

Any such system must be strictly voluntary, decentralised and subject to the highest standards of data protection, with clear safeguards against mission creep or abuse. The case for digital IDs must be made openly, with full public consultation and independent oversight to protect civil liberties. None of that has been evident in the Government’s current approach.

In the meantime, ministers should prioritise the issues that directly affect people’s daily lives: fixing the health and care crisis, tackling the sewage scandal and addressing the cost of living, rather than diverting resources into a major new IT programme without clear evidence of benefit.