Digital ID: Public Consultation

Lord Collins of Highbury Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to respond to last week’s Statement and, indeed, for his personal engagement with us at that time.

The Chief Secretary told the Commons on Tuesday that he was continuing the proud Labour tradition of building public services for the many. He invoked the NHS, the Open University and Sure Start. It was a stirring lineage. But there is history he omitted: Verify, which wasted over £220 million; GOV.UK One Login, for which the Cabinet Office sought up to £400 million; and now this national digital ID, which the OBR estimates will cost £1.8 billion over three years. This, indeed, is Verify 4.0.

The Government have confirmed that possession of a digital identity will not be compulsory. We on these Benches opposed mandatory digital ID at every turn, and I am pleased to say that the Government have listened. My honourable friend Lisa Smart MP pressed the Chief Secretary directly in the Commons last week and received his wholehearted assurance. He continued to claim that using digital ID will be entirely optional. So, I ask the Minister in this House, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in the Bill the Government intend to bring forward later this year? How can we trust any Government on how personal data, once surrendered to the state, will actually be used?

Earlier this month, this House considered an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, tabled by my noble friend Lady Doocey, which sought to prohibit police from using DVLA driving licence images for facial recognition searches. The DVLA holds over 55 million records. Every driver provided their photograph for one purpose only: to hold a driving licence. They did not consent to their image becoming part of what Liberty has rightly described as the largest biometric database for police access ever created in the United Kingdom. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, the Home Office Minister, did not accept the amendment and confirmed at all stages that the express purpose of Clause 138 of the Bill is precisely to permit facial recognition searches of DVLA records. So, within a single parliamentary week, we have a Government launching a national digital identity consultation on the basis of assurances about data use, while declining to place in statute the very protections that would make such assurances meaningful. The question is not whether the Government intend that digital ID will become an instrument of surveillance, but whether a future Government could.

The Chief Secretary said that he wants security at least as strong as online banking. That is the right aspiration, but, as mentioned by the noble Earl, GOV.UK One Login, the umbrella infrastructure for this system, reportedly satisfied only 21 out of 39 security outcomes required by the National Cyber Security Centre. Whistleblowers have described vulnerabilities that allow unauthorised access to sensitive functions without triggering any alert. How can the Government justify launching a national identity solution on a platform that fails to meet nearly half the NCSC’s mandatory security outcomes?

In part two of the Fisher review, published in January, Jonathan Fisher KC warned that AI-driven impersonation at scale is now a defining crime of our age and that we must implement upstream measures—stopping fraud at the point of identity issuance, not reacting after a digital identity has been stolen. If our foundations currently satisfy barely half the required security outcomes, how do we deliver the upstream protection Mr Fisher demands?

Will the Government commission and publish a full NCSC security audit before a single citizen is enrolled? Will they introduce an offence of digital identity theft that they, along with the previous Conservative Government, have so far resisted? The consultation proposes a universal unique identifier to link citizens across every departmental silo. Without strict legal guardrails, that identifier is the functional infrastructure of the national identity register that Parliament voted to abolish in 2011, and it is precisely the centralised data honeypot that hostile state actors would most wish to compromise. We need not mere parliamentary approval for services added to the app, but a statutory prohibition on bulk data matching across departments.

In summary, I put four questions to the Minister. First, will the voluntary character of this scheme be placed in primary legislation, with an explicit prohibition on any future mandatory requirement without a further Act of Parliament? In that context, and as the noble Earl has mentioned, how mindful are the Government of the possible consequences for digital inclusion? Secondly, the Home Office’s assurances on DVLA facial recognition mirrored word for word those given by the previous Government. Before the Minister can confirm the opposite, what statutory purpose limitation on digital identity data will be placed beyond the reach of secondary legislation? Thirdly, will the Government provide a statutory guarantee that the universal unique identifier cannot be used for bulk data matching across departments without primary legislation? Finally, will the Government publish an independently verified cost-benefit analysis before the Bill is introduced, and explain why £1.8 billion would not deliver greater public benefit directed to the NHS and front-line policing, for instance?

The Chief Secretary asked what it is that critics fear from a public consultation. We do not fear the consultation; what we fear is a fourth cycle of the same expensive failure, grand ambitions and insecure foundations—a creeping identifier that becomes the digital spine of state surveillance. But what we fear above all is a system whose data acquires uses never publicly intended by its creators. We have just watched that happen in this very Chamber with the DVLA database of images. We on these Benches will support voluntary, secure, properly costed modernisation of public services, but we will not accept warm ministerial words as a substitute for hard legislative limits. We need a state that is not merely digital by choice today but constitutionally prohibited from becoming compulsory tomorrow. On the evidence of this and last week’s proceedings, we are very far from that guarantee.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is asking me questions to which, as he very well knows, I am not going to give the answer. That is the whole point of the consultation, and across the Chamber, everyone knows this in reality. We want to ensure that the public can access public services in the same secure way as they access many things in today’s society, including banking. Most members of the public assume that there is this great big database; they assume that their data is being used. The reality is that there are these silos. This consultation is not proposing what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl were suggesting. It is not saying, “Let’s create this huge database, which could be vulnerable”. Instead, let us make it easier for the public to access the services that they need.

On the questions about inclusion and accessibility, I met with the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, and his group, and I said that what we want to ensure through this consultation and digital ID system is a much more accessible system. We want a system that is more open to people who have been excluded because they have to produce or send a certain form, ring a certain number, or go through a certain call centre. What we are trying to achieve is greater accessibility.

The question of inclusion also relates to people’s access to the internet. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, is not here, because I also had a meeting with him. There are strong, legitimate concerns, which is why we are conducting this consultation and why we want everyone in this House to participate in and make a contribution to it. The noble Lord made the same point: where there is exclusion, we can use community-based organisations—including post offices and sub-post offices—in a way that will ensure that people can maximise their opportunities to access public services.

The noble Earl asked me about cost, but there is no cost associated with this yet, because the system has not been designed. The system will be designed following the results of the consultation.

The consultation will not be limited to a certain number; it will be open across the board. We also want to establish a panel. Carnegie UK pointed out, in a letter to the Guardian, that a deliberative exercise in democracy—namely, selecting people randomly through postcodes—can produce a much more effective consultation. However, both approaches will be in what we end up designing.

I come back to this fundamental point. This is not only about how people access public services but about how they can determine the use of their data, so that they can set out when they want their data to be used for a particular purpose. For example, there are times when I might need to establish my ID. As I mentioned to the noble Lord, I occasionally go to a club—a dance club, by the way. If I am asked to produce an ID, I do not want to produce my driving licence because it has my name and address as well as my age—believe it or not, they sometimes do ask me my age. If they want to know my age, I am happy to release that data—but not my address or other things. So this is about how we establish that sort of process and about accessing public services.

In this day and age, for every private sector service we use, we expect to be able to access things. Tesco has more data on me than most government departments do, because it knows what time I go shopping, what I buy and what I favour, and it then sends me emails and messages about that. We have to try to turn away from the view that this is a rigid identity card system that will be on a national database. This is about public services, how people access and use them, and how they can control their data more effectively. I reassure the noble Lord on that.

There will be an initial consultation of 12 weeks, but that could be extended with the deliberative process. At the end of that, we will look at the results, and Parliament will be heavily engaged in that. No legislation has been drafted yet, because we want to see the results of the consultation and the scale of the project. I understand everyone’s concerns about cost, as well as some of the problems we have had in the past, but this is an opportunity to respond to people’s needs and to create more effective public services. Most people expect that from the private sector and we should expect it from the public sector too.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, first, I take it from what the Minister has just said about costs that no sum has been earmarked in the current three-year expenditure review for the development of the scheme—can he confirm that? Secondly, will people in Scotland have to access the Government’s proposed ID scheme for those services that have been retained, and a separate ID scheme—namely, the Scotcard—for those services that have been devolved?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We will consult the devolved authorities on this; they will be a major part of the consultation. There is no definite cost for the programme because the design of what we are building has not been decided yet. Noble Lords should not just look at one line item on the shopping bill but rather the whole thing. The issue is that the status quo has costs. I know we often say this, but if we can develop a more efficient digital portal for people to use, it could potentially reduce costs and save the public and the Government money. That has to be a good thing.

If you look at all the private sector services we use that currently have this sort of thing, they are doing it to reduce costs—although they often dress it up as “improving services”. Let us take banking: my accessibility to banking services has improved hugely over the years. I can do many more things online and through apps than I could ever have done before by visiting a local bank. I reassure the noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that this will not be a mandatory system. When we are able to launch it, I suspect that it will be something that people want to use, because it will make their lives easier. That is what we should be doing.

[Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Digital Identity. The Minister said that he will consult widely on this and on what support there might be for it. Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition. If they have not already convinced the Government that they are opposed to it, how will the Government ensure that many of them will have the opportunity to feed the Government their opinion?

This morning, I tried to log in to GOV.UK on a personal matter but was kicked out eight times. My digital understanding is pretty good, so that worried me greatly. I knew that this was coming up, so I wanted to draw the Minister’s attention to this issue. We have been talking about sovereignty and keeping all our information in one place. So far, the experience of GP services has been that we do not have exclusive access to our data because it is farmed out somewhere else. Has that been considered? How will we ensure, eventually, that any ID information is sovereign and held in this country under our Government or whatever system we set up?

Finally, there has been lots of evidence of discrimination, particularly against Black and Asian men and Muslim women. I hope that the Government will seriously consider that aspect as well.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

On the noble Baroness’s last point, how we look at inclusion and accessibility is really important in tackling those issues of discrimination. It is very important that the consultation looks at that. The noble Earl also raised a question about the NHS app which I did not explicitly address. That has developed very strongly, and it is very clear that that will continue. This will not be part of the NHS; it has never been planned that way. It is also about people having confidence that their medical records are kept absolutely secure, which is fundamental.

This is about a tool to access a range of services. I hear the noble Baroness. The noble Earl raised OneLogin. There are issues about that. There are different forms of identifiers. Digital ID could provide a consistent identifier that could be used across all Governments, so instead of having to produce hard copies and photocopies, we just have that one ID on an app. We are using it in the private sector, in banking in particular but in other services too. I think the consultation will produce a clear idea of what people’s needs are and how the Government should respond. My right honourable friend Darren Jones is absolutely right; this is about putting our public services on a 21st-century footing.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

I very much welcome the deliberative aspect of this consultation. It is good to see the Government doing that, and I hope it goes into other areas. I want to associate myself with many of the questions that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked. Hopefully over this consultation period they will all be answered. I have two concerns. First, who is going to build this? Who is going to have access? Is this another gig for Palantir? That is my real question. Secondly, we have so many very good ID firms in the private sector here in the UK—it is something we excel at—but can the noble Lord say a little more about what they are going to do behind the ID? It seems to be all about the ID, but it is what happens at the other end that is the exciting bit, were he able to describe it.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I cannot be too prescriptive, but I can reassure the noble Baroness on her first point; a number of noble Lords have raised this issue. This will be a sovereign-based scheme. We will develop it in-house through government services. It will not be contracted out. On her other point on how this will develop, I think it will be led by people, not the Government. People will be demanding these things. No one has asked this specific question, but many parents want their children to have age identification. The noble Baroness has raised questions in other debates about how children are accessing things now. If they were required to have this, it may be a solution. I am not saying it is, but it is something that we would want to see as part of the consultation. The deliberative process, which is part of the consultation, will be a random selection of people, but it will be a much more intense consultation with those people, better identifying what their needs are.

I cannot answer many of the questions that noble Lords have because we want to see what the consultation comes up with, but we know what people are generally seeking here. If legislation is required, we will debate what should be in a Bill and so on, but I am confident that the consultation will result in the better policy outcome that we all desire.

[Lord Kempsell (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his update. First, can I take him back to a slightly more fundamental question that we are yet to address in this exchange? Why do the Government feel it is necessary at all to have a consultation, given the visceral public reaction to the proposal to introduce digital ID in the first place? That in itself seems like a pretty convincing consultation. We all know that the Government have stepped back politically from their original plan on digital ID and wound back to this position because of that reaction. Secondly, on the form of the consultation, the 100-person panel sounds very novel. Can the Minister give any assurances on the control over spending in that process and whether it will be value for money compared with other forms of consultation? Lastly, digital ID is one of a large number of policies that the Government seem determined to introduce despite the fact that it was not in the Labour Party’s manifesto at the last general election. Can he account for that fact and explain why the Government are determined to bring it forward when there is no mandate for them to do so?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I keep coming back to the point that when we are looking at public services and people’s access to them, there is a solution here that most people would be very happy about—but we will not determine that unless we have a fuller consultation.

On the value-for-money element, the deliberative process will be through a process called sortation and a random postcode lottery. That is a way of selecting individuals in which everyone is given an equal chance to be invited and no individual can buy their way in or simply turn up to an event. But that does not stop everyone else participating in the wider consultation, so I think we have the best of all worlds. It will result in more effective consultation but also more cost-effective consultation.

I come back to the point that this Government are determined to listen and better understand the needs of the public in relation to the services they provide. I think that is across all parties. No Government want to end up with the situation the noble Baroness described where you spend hours trying to get on to a public service and are constantly kicked out or rejected. This is about making the process easier. No matter what other people say this is about, I assure the noble Lord that it is about that.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I endorse what my noble friend has said; I hope we all give this a great deal of support. Does he agree with me that it is a great pity that the pilot scheme abolished by the coalition Government in 2010 was not allowed to run? All the indications are that it was very popular with those who used it.

On the point about the driving licence, as a non-driver and non-car owner, I resent the fact that I have to use a driving licence as a form of ID because it is the only ID that is practically acceptable. There is a government consultation at the moment about mandatory eye tests, which presumably I shall have to go through in order to get a driving licence—which I will never use—because it is the only acceptable ID. This will surely be very popular with many people. We cannot allow the nay-sayers or pressure groups to get in the way of making progress.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I agree with my noble friend. When we all sit down and have a sensible discussion about this and try to take the partisan politics away, we will reach a much better consensus. This consultation enables us to do that.

At the outset, we have to put at the forefront of our thoughts the needs of the public in how they access services. My noble friend is right—driving licences have become the de facto ID. The fact is that the driving licence, as I said in my opening remarks, has data that I do not want handed out easily. That is why I think this solution will benefit the public and get cross-party support.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, in applauding the Government’s commitment in this Statement to deliberative democracy. That is an innovative step forward, but I am sure the Minister will want this Statement to be accurate, so I point out that it says:

“This will not be a new experience for citizens. The public already use these systems every day, from banking to shopping”.


More than 15% of Britons do not do online shopping and more than 12% do not do online banking, despite the fact that banks have been closing branches wholesale and trying very hard to force people online, whether they like it or not. Does the Minister agree that the way this Statement is phrased is really over-egging the pudding?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I do not agree at all. I think that 14% of people do not have some of the things that the noble Baroness referred to, but the world is changing very fast and if we are to address financial exclusion, inclusion and accessibility, this process can address many of those concerns. As I said, there are community organisations and community services. For example, many people use their post office, and we want to ensure they have that choice. We are moving into a world, as she rightly said, where banks are determining how they will provide services and Tesco is determining what I can buy or what I should buy using data supplied to it. The world is changing and it is about time that, first, the state caught up in provision of public services and, secondly, the public can determine what data is used for what purpose. That is why this is a good idea.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend’s points about the consultation process; there is a great deal to consult about. As one Tesco consumer to another, can my noble friend confirm that, almost irrespective of the consultation, the Government are determined to allow an individual, if they wish, to delete their digital ID? If there is any more that the Minister can say about the circumstances in which a digital ID might be withdrawn from an individual by the state, I would be grateful to hear his thoughts.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

Let me address the first question. This is not a mandatory scheme and, certainly, if people have a digital ID, they can say they do not want it. I do not anticipate any circumstances where a Government would want to take away something that lets people access public services, but I hope the consultation will result in a much more open and transparent debate so that we focus much more on the needs of the public rather than what we think a Government might do.

[Lord Mackinlay of Richborough (Con)]

My Lords, as ever with many big government ideas, there is a solution that is yet to find a problem.

I am yet to hear a ministerial Statement on the very serious data events that happened at Companies House over the last week. I have not heard a Statement from Ministers at the other end, and I do not believe I have heard one in this House.

What happened last week was probably the most serious data breach to hit Companies House in a generation. I am in practice as a chartered accountant, and let me advise the House and the Minister on what happened. If one were logged in to Companies House with one’s personal online registration, one could then find a backdoor route very simply to access any company record in the UK, change directors’ details, find their personal address, file company accounts and file new confirmation statements. This is serious stuff and it is why, me included, we have serious concerns about big government attempts at managing data, because it generally goes wrong. Where a poste restante email address is used, which is very commonplace within practices, those practices are going to have to trawl through all the companies registered with them. Many in the profession are asking: will the Government reimburse the practices which will have to spend many hundreds, if not thousands, of hours making sure that the Companies House foul-up has not affected their clients?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows that I cannot possibly answer on his latter point, but I certainly will ensure that he gets a response about it. It is interesting that he was, I think, making the case for what we are proposing. The problem is that different government departments have different portals, different IDs, different ways of getting in and different ways of controlling the data. We want a much more secure digital ID that people will have confidence in. This is not about collecting new data, and it is not a big idea that we will have this central database of everything; this is about how people access public services. At the moment, if you want to get in through Companies House, the noble Lord described something that digital ID may resolve. But other departments have different schemes. Everyone has a story about being locked out of these services because they do not have the right identification or ID, and this is a solution that will help the public. That is what we should be talking about, rather than seeing this as being about big government. It is about delivering public services and not about big government.