Digital ID

Josh Simons Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on mandatory digital ID.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)]

Following my appointment as a joint Minister across the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, I would like to respond to Members’ concerns about the digital ID policy. The programme has two core objectives. The first is to transform the state and make it work better for ordinary working people. Too often, accessing public services is harder than it should be. Digital ID will change that, providing the foundation of how we transform public services for everyone.

The new digital ID will be a modern, secure and trusted way for people to prove who they are and to access services across both the public and private sectors. It will be inclusive. We will issue the new digital ID to everyone who wants one and has the right to be in the UK, including the around 10% of UK citizens without traditional forms of ID. That will be transformational for how they access services, and it will unlock Government services that work better for people, saving people time, hassle and money. It will reduce fraud, enable new possibilities for integrated services and make interacting with Government easier for everyone. That is why, by the end of this Parliament, we will design and roll out a digital credential to every eligible UK citizen who wants one—one that is easy to use and unlocks improved public services.

Secondly, we are committed to reducing illegal migration and will be mandating that right-to-work checks are conducted digitally. Currently, employers can carry out checks of over a dozen different forms of ID. For British and Irish citizens, many of those checks are currently paper based. That is confusing, vulnerable to fraud and does not always create a clear record of when and where checks have been carried out.

As the Prime Minister clearly said yesterday, there will be checks, they will be digital and they will be mandatory. Those seeking to work illegally in the United Kingdom will no longer be able to provide fraudulent papers. Information obtained from digital right-to-work checks will be available to help crack down on unscrupulous employers who are undercutting British workers and hiring people without the legal right to work. This is about fairness and ensuring that only those with a genuine right to work in the United Kingdom are able to work in the United Kingdom.

We will be consulting imminently, in a range of ways, on how we design this scheme. We want to hear from people, businesses and stakeholder groups across the United Kingdom about what approach works for them. A new digital ID will put power back in people’s hands, helping to make services more personal, joined up and effective, and ensuring that everyone can access the support that they need, when they need it. It will be—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I assume that the Minister is about to come to a conclusion as he has overrun his two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

I am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am proud that this Labour Government are building this vital public infrastructure to make Government work better for everyone.

[Mike Wood]

The Minister read his speech beautifully, and with a straight face. In September, the Prime Minister tossed this mandatory digital ID on to the table as a classic dead cat distraction, purely to keep Andy Burnham off the front pages as the Labour party conference started. Now it is left to a junior Minister to come to Parliament to explain why the policy that the Prime Minister spent months saying was absolutely vital is being hollowed out.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to his new position last Friday, but I suspect he is quickly learning that the price of his red box is to have to go out on a very thin limb and put his own credibility on the line, only for those higher up in Government to rev the chainsaw, leaving him exposed, with only the flimsiest of pretences to protect his dignity—the pretence that this policy is still a going concern. In less than four months, the policy has gone from dead cat to dead parrot. Like Monty Python’s pet shop owner, the Minister is asking us all to deny what we can see clearly with our own eyes. He does everything short of inviting us to admire its beautiful plumage, but this policy has passed on.

My questions for the Minister are: do the Government still expect digital ID, in this new form, to cost £1.8 billion? Is it going to be mandatory or not? What on earth does the taxpayer get for that money if people do not even have to have it? Above all, when is he going to finally face facts, stop spending billions on this zombie boondoggle that is wandering aimlessly in search of a problem to solve, and save taxpayers’ money? This is a dead policy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Someone’s had their Weetabix.

[Josh Simons]

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman by stepping back for a moment and stating clearly what British citizens and taxpayers will get. Digital IDs will be rolled out for free to everyone who wants one. If anyone does not want one, they do not have to have one. People will be able to use that credential to prove their right to work digitally by the end of this Parliament, which will make it easier for businesses to check people’s right to work and enable tougher enforcement against illegal working. We will harness the potential of this credential to deliver a transformation in digital government and public services.

I, for one, am tired of constituents being frustrated by basic problems caused by a lack of joined-up government that we should have fixed decades ago, and by not having control of their public services at their fingertips. This is free, voluntary digital infrastructure, and a foundation for public service improvement and private sector innovation, that we should have built years ago, as the hon. Gentleman’s predecessors in the last Conservative Government recognised, but of course we did not do it. As the British people know very well, given the way that they passed judgment at the last election, the Conservatives gave up governing this country properly. They gave up on reforming the state and they gave up making government work better for ordinary people. This Government will not do so.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s explanation from the Dispatch Box of the change. We have been here before; we issued identity cards, as they were, when the technology was much older, so I welcome the new approach. We already do many things online that involve the Government and our proving who we are, including tax and the renewal of driving licences. Can he confirm these three points? For this scheme to work, it must not be mandatory; the digital ID must not be a requirement to access a public service; and for those who choose not to, or cannot, have one—including some of the 10% that he mentioned—there need to be really clear and established workarounds, so that they do not see a diminished service.

[Josh Simons]

I thank my hon. Friend for her constructive question. I will cover each of those three points. First, the digital ID will be free for everyone who wants one. Secondly, access to public services will not be conditional on having one. The Prime Minister has been clear on that, and I can underscore that commitment. Thirdly, it will be rolled out with one of the largest digital inclusion programmes that the UK Government have ever undertaken.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Another day, another U-turn. Have you ever seen a new Government so lacking in conviction? When they announced their plan for change, I do not think anybody in this place realised that it was a plan to change every single one of their policies. This is becoming a shambles.

The Liberal Democrats lack no conviction on this issue—we have been opposed to ID cards for over 20 years. The Minister said repeatedly that digital ID will save people money, but this is a multibillion-pound project, and taxpayers’ money is being spent on it. Will he confirm how much has been spent on the scheme so far, and how much the Government intend to spend on it?

[Josh Simons]

As I have mentioned before to the hon. Gentleman and in the House, the design and delivery of the scheme will be subject to the consultation that we will launch in a few weeks. Choices will be made about the scheme in that consultation. After those choices are made, we will have much more detailed costings available to the House. The crucial thing is this: nations all over the world that have already developed digital ID programmes have realised massive, significant and quantified savings. Let me give an example: India’s digital ID programme has saved an estimated $10 billion per year by ensuring that public resources are accurately targeted at those who are eligible to receive them. That is what this Government will be doing, too.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is really interesting to see the response from Opposition Members. Obviously they never have to wrestle with interacting with the state; perhaps they have people to do that for them.

The Minister will remember that back in October, I asked the Secretary of State to consider making every single element of the digital credential voluntary, so I am glad to see the Government’s position now. I am excited about the potential benefits for those interacting with the state. Will the Minister outline for my constituents some examples of how it could make their life easier?

[Josh Simons]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. To confirm, the digital ID will be free and available to every eligible UK citizen who wants one. The consultation will invite people all over the country to tell us how it could be useful in dealing with the daily struggles that they face. We have a range of use cases available to us. In the decades ahead, every time there is an information boundary problem, every time public services are not properly joined up, and every time citizens of this country are frustrated by the need to chase Government Departments to get them to share information properly, a digital credential that is free for everyone will help to solve that problem.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on his new position, or poisoned chalice, whatever the case may be. Given that the Government have now realised that mandatory ID cards were never going to stop small boat crossings, as they claimed, will the Minister confirm when the Prime Minister will complete his U-turn and abandon this pointless and costly project that the British people do not want?

[Josh Simons]

Digital ID cards will be rolled out by the end of this Parliament, and will be free to everyone who wants one. The Prime Minister was clear that this is a basis for transforming public services, joining up government and making government work better. That is exactly what we are about—building public services that ordinary working people benefit from—and that is what the programme will help us to do.

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Young people in my constituency have long wanted some form of digital ID that allows them to prove their age in a club, pub or shop; it will make their life a lot easier. They are used to using smartphones. I am delighted that the Government have made it clear that the scheme will be voluntary, not mandatory. However, many older people in my constituency do not have a smartphone, and a significant number of them will need to know the Government’s plans, so that they can make sure that they do not lose out.

[Josh Simons]

I thank my fellow Greater Manchester MP for that question. My constituents also want easier access to public services, and they are fed up with having to fight a system that should be working harder for them. That is what this scheme is about—making Government work better for ordinary people.

I can confirm that the roll-out of the digital ID will involve one of the largest digital inclusion drives ever. We will not accept the status quo, in which millions of people in this country are digitally excluded and ID excluded. We will ensure that we go to physical spaces, such as public libraries and post offices, so that everyone can access the benefits of this scheme, if they want to.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister may be aware that there is already a thing called gov.uk. Just last night, I was delighted with the ID check; it connected with my phone digitally, and took a picture of my face beautifully. How will the new, voluntary, dead parrot digital ID scheme differ from what already exists? How will it supersede the wonderful things called national insurance numbers?

[Josh Simons]

I am delighted that the hon. Member is so pleased with gov.uk. I am sure that he will be equally delighted when we roll out the simple, easy-to-use and effective digital ID, which will help him to access a whole range of public services through gov.uk that he cannot currently access. In the coming weeks, we will show him more about how we might do that, and I am sure that he will be thrilled.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

This is a mess. Increasing surveillance, Department for Work and Pensions powers to snoop on bank accounts, the removal of trials by jury, postponing elections and clamping down on peaceful protest—the public are starting to become very angry about these encroachments on our fundamental freedoms and creeping state control. It is all inherently un-British. I know that this is not my hon. Friend’s fault, but can he convey to whoever is behind this farce that they are doing this Government no favours at all? It is time to scrap this costly project altogether.

[Josh Simons]

I too believe in freedom. Any good digital system must be trusted; if it is not trusted, it does not work. That point will be at the heart of the consultation that we will publish in a few weeks. The system that we build will give citizens more control and information about how their data is used and who accesses it. It will be decentralised, with strong firewalls between data sets, so that there is no central data storage, beyond data that the Government already hold. It will hold the minimum possible data needed to serve ordinary people better.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

I must congratulate the Minister on doing an excellent job as a human shield for the Prime Minister. He says that this scheme will bring down the number of people crossing the channel on boats, but that is clearly a farce. You have just said that you will be able to access—

[Charlie Dewhirst]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that once he has rolled out this digital ID scheme, we will be able to access certain things that we cannot currently access. Can he list exactly what services we will be able to access?

[Josh Simons]

Let me restate for the hon. Gentleman the argument that connects digital ID to small boat crossings. We are using digital right-to-work checks, which will enable an audit of where those checks have happened, so that we can toughen up our enforcement against illegal working. That will bring this country in line with international peers, such as France and Germany, and reduce the pull factors. The use cases for this system, and how it will join up Government, are matters that will be subject to the consultation, so I invite him to make a submission to the consultation and tell us where exactly it can be useful.

Let me give one example. When somebody has a baby, they have to apply for childcare repeatedly, and have to remind the Government of what they are doing. The Government already know that information, so people should not have to do that. Tired working parents should not have to fight the Government to get things that they are entitled to, and we will ensure that they do not have to.

[Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome this revision to the Government’s policy—the removal of the mandatory element of this scheme. There is some benefit in looking at more advanced digital public services, but that is not the same as ID. When we came to government, the Prime Minister gave a speech outside Downing Street, in which he promised two things; the first was to “tread more lightly” on people’s lives, and the second was to be a Government of service. On a range of issues, including checking bank accounts to see what people are selling on eBay or Etsy, the Government appear to be intruding on people’s everyday lives in a way that is overbearing, so I ask that this be the moment when we go back to those founding principles that the Prime Minister set out on coming into government, and make sure that those principles cut across all Government policy.

[Josh Simons]

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that people trust any digital product and system that this Government build. Trust has to be at the heart of everything we do. We will put trust at the heart of the consultation that will be published in a few weeks, and we will explain more about how we will do that. To be really clear, though, the reason why the digital ID connects public services is that at the moment, there is no mechanism for the Government to join up public services based on what an individual wants. If somebody wants to share information across Government services to get something—their childcare, for instance—they should be able to do so, having given consent. That is what this digital ID will unlock.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am struggling to get too excited about the change from mandatory to voluntary, because we all know that a voluntary scheme is just a mandatory scheme for slow learners, which is possibly what commends it to the Government. The Minister has said that he cannot yet tell us the cost of the scheme because he has not done the design work, but it is a matter of record that the Government have had a write-round, asking Departments to offer up savings to pay for it. Would it not have made sense to do the design work, have a budget, and then ask for the savings?

[Josh Simons]

I, for one, want to hear from people before key digital products are designed. Good product design is based on what is useful for people, which is why we will have a major consultation in coming weeks, in which we will get out across the country, engage with people, and get them engaging with digital government. That way, we can learn exactly how to build this system in a way that ensures that it is trusted, useful and secure.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Given that we are all employers, I am slightly surprised that some people think that all you need to do to employ someone is know their national insurance number; that seems a little bit odd. I have been there, checking people’s passports to onboard them, and as a relatively new Member of Parliament, I do not really know what a fake or tampered-with passport looks like. Also, asking people whose families have lived in this country for many generations for their passport can lead to them feeling insulted and undervalued, so I welcome the fact that ID is moving online. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to outlining the cost of this scheme in due course, but when he does so, will he also outline the benefits, in terms of both value and the provision of slicker Government services to our residents?

[Josh Simons]

We absolutely will outline those benefits. I would just underscore that countries all over the world have introduced a digital ID scheme to better join up public services. In India, that has saved an estimated $10 billion every single year; those are savings that this country deserves and wants, and that is what we will deliver.

[Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

One of the reasons for the massive public opposition to mandatory ID is that it is seen to be an infringement of civil liberties and individual freedom. Will the Minister give an assurance that the digital ID database will not be made available to the police for the use of live facial recognition?

[Josh Simons]

The digital ID database will be based on the principle of data minimisation. The minimum possible data that the Government already have will be stored about every individual citizen, so that we can do what we need to do, which is join up public services better.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Government have dropped the plans for mandatory digital ID; it was always clear that the British public would heavily reject that idea, and it is our duty as Members to jealously guard our constituents’ civil liberties. Will the Minister convey the lessons learned from this decision to his colleagues across Government, and persuade them to drop proposals to erode the right to a jury trial and restrict the right to protest against animal testing?

[Josh Simons]

I will feed those comments back to the relevant Secretary of State.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

Many of my constituents will be watching these proceedings agog, because this is just another example of the chaotic approach to policymaking by this Government. Given the contentious nature of this issue, why did the Government not consult before announcing the proposals, and why did they not consult before then reversing on the policy in the next instance?

[Josh Simons]

We announced the intention to roll out digital ID cards, and I have clarified today that those will be free for anyone who wants one. We will consult on how to make that maximally useful for every British person who wants a Government who work better for them. That is what we will do.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I agree with the Minister that where we can digitise processes, it can release huge savings to the public purse —he has cited India’s £10 billion a year. The Government are now moving from a mandatory process to a voluntary process on the right to work, and everything was voluntary beforehand. Does the Department have any modelling that it can share—perhaps he can announce it today—on what the voluntary uptake will need to be in order to release the savings he cited against the projected cost of the service that he is putting together? He also says that although there will not be a mandatory element on digital ID for right-to-work checks, there will be a new digital right-to-work check. Can he say more about what that will be? Will that system be developed alongside the digital ID system or after it, once he is aware of the size of the market?

[Josh Simons]

I thank my hon. Friend for what I think were three questions, all of which I will try to answer. Our job in building this voluntary scheme, where people can get an ID if they want one, is to make it useful and effective. It is on us to figure out how to do that, and that is what we will be doing. The consultation will have more information about the modelling that he is after, and that will be published in the coming weeks. Once we have made the design choices about how to make the system maximally useful for people, further costs will then be published for the House. On the third question, the digital right-to-work checking system will be developed alongside the digital ID programme.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

I feel for colleagues on the Labour Benches, forced to defend U-turn after U-turn on their own Prime Minister’s policies. Ministers were reportedly told to find savings in their Departments to fund the £1.8 billion scheme. Will the Minister confirm that, as the scheme will no longer be mandatory, Departments will no longer have to make these cuts and public services will be ringfenced?

[Josh Simons]

The digital ID scheme will be funded within existing settlements and conversations about that are ongoing.

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for coming here today to talk to us about the revised policy.

[Paulette Hamilton]

Well, okay; I apologise. But the Minister is here today and he has given us the revised policy, with which I am delighted. I am so pleased that the Minister and the Government have decided not to make it a mandatory scheme. I have had an overwhelming number of complaints in my constituency. Going forward, areas like mine have a very high level of digital exclusion. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will ensure that they bring constituents and residents along with them in this consultation phase, so that people do not feel they have been left behind and then start to object because they feel it will go from voluntary back to mandatory?

[Josh Simons]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the consultation will involve going right across the country to the places where people live, to listen, to engage and to build a consensus on the scheme’s design. I should also underscore that the status quo is that we are not making enough effort to reach people who are digitally excluded and ID-excluded. This programme will involve one of the biggest digital inclusion drives in the history of the Government, to reach those people so that they can access services. I, for one, am proud of that.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I wanted to come here today and say that I was delighted to hear that this scheme will now be voluntary, not mandatory. Frankly, I am completely confused by the farce that we have got here today. The scheme will not be free, because we know it will cost the taxpayer. I do not think we should be saying it is free. We are told it will now be voluntary, but the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions that we will have a mandatory digital scheme. May I just point out to the Minister that no constituent has ever come to me and said, “Our public services are poor quality; it would be so much better if we had a mandatory digital scheme that would improve them”? Can he please make it clear? The Prime Minister says that digital checks will be mandatory. While the digital scheme might be voluntary, if the checks are mandatory, is that not just a mandatory scheme by the back door?

[Josh Simons]

I think I understood the hon. Member’s question, so let me have a crack at answering it. I will address the second part of her question first. The constituents who email her, who will find this scheme useful, are asking for more joined-up public services. They are asking not to have to fight the Government to get things that they are entitled to, which is what this scheme will deliver. On the first part of her question, there is a distinction between digitising the right-to-work checks so that we can toughen up illegal labour market enforcement, which is what the Prime Minister underscored yesterday, and the digital ID, which will be free and voluntary for anyone who wants it.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

As someone who supports modernising and digitising the state, but who spoke against mandatory digital ID, I welcome the Minister’s sensible approach and his engagement over recent months. My constituents are really concerned about illegal working. Does he agree that the current and largely paper-based system of right-to-work checks is totally unfit for purpose and open to fraud, and will he outline how this scheme will help crack down on illegal working in a way that the Conservative party totally failed to do over 14 years in power?

[Josh Simons]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a powerful advocate on this issue. The purposes of the scheme are twofold. First, digitising right-to-work checks will help us toughen up illegal labour market enforcement, making it easier for businesses to check people’s right to work and for individuals to prove their right to work. Secondly, this is about the future of digital government; it is about making our Government work better for ordinary people, and the digital ID scheme is a foundational piece of infrastructure that will help us do that in the decades ahead. The Labour party has a long history of building public goods and public infrastructure, and I am proud that we are doing that for the future.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

This Government seem intent on fundamentally changing the relationship between the state and its citizens without our consent, from jury trials to digital ID. Although there was some relief at first, I fear that once it is introduced the Labour Government will make it mandatory at a later stage or do so surreptitiously. I gently point out to the Minister that there is no such thing as “free”. Taxpayers are already paying for this policy; indeed, they are also paying for a new Minister to deliver it. Can he please confirm that no foreign companies, particularly Chinese companies, will have any access to our data and that this will involve British companies delivering a so-called digital card for British people? When will his constituents and mine have a chance to tell the British Government that they do not want this?

[Josh Simons]

I can confirm three things in response to the different elements of the hon. Lady’s question. First, she mentions consent. The system itself will be based on consent; it will ask people for their consent in how their data is shared and used, and she will see more about that in the coming weeks. Secondly, there will be strong safeguards on how data is used in the future implementation of the scheme in the legislation that we will bring forward. Thirdly, she may know that I believe strongly in this country’s sovereignty. British sovereignty will be at the heart of the scheme, and British tech companies will be supported by it, so foreign companies will not be subject to procurement in the usual way.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Nail bars, car washes and barbers are all business types that are known to have higher than average numbers of illegal workers, and for which right-to-work checks are variable. The 83% increase in illegal working arrests that was announced this week is welcome, but can the Minister please outline how digital ID will make right-to-work checks more robust?

[Josh Simons]

Digitising right-to-work checks means two things. First, it will be easier for businesses to check people’s right to work and for citizens to prove their right to work, adding simplicity to the system and taking away the paper-based documents that can often open the way for fraud. Secondly, and crucially, it will allow a record of businesses that have conducted checks. That is the basis of tougher enforcement, which is the ultimate goal: tougher enforcement against those who hire people illegally, which undermines British workers and produces a pull factor that keeps illegal migration coming. That is what we are committed to solving, and why digitising right-to-work checks matters.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

This has been a costly shambles, and my constituents see it as an attack on their fundamental freedoms and privacy, so I am glad that the Government have done another U-turn. Will the Minister guarantee, however, that this so-called voluntary scheme is not suddenly going to turn into a mandatory scheme at a later date? Will he absolutely guarantee the British people that that will not happen in the future?

[Josh Simons]

As I said to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), there will be strong safeguards in the legislation about how the scheme is used over time, and the hon. Member will be able to scrutinise them. He should feed in his thoughts about how that legislation should be structured to the consultation, which will open in a few weeks’ time.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

When we look at the popular things that this Labour Government have done since coming to power—and I am talking about raising the minimum wage, raising the living wage and abolishing the two-child cap—we see that these decisions are rooted in Labour party values. Eroding civil liberties, as seen in the proposals for jury trials and for digital ID, is not in keeping with Labour party values, and nor is it necessary or, indeed, popular. Will the Minister feed my thoughts back to the leadership at Cabinet level?

[Josh Simons]

Of course.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

My constituents are opposed to digital ID, and I welcome the Minister’s U-turn—I look forward to him being given responsibility for jury trials as well. The problem is that digital ID will have no effect on illegal working or illegal migration, because employers that ignore the system at the moment will continue to ignore the new system. The real problem is that the Government are not deporting those illegal migrants they catch.

[Josh Simons]

The digital ID scheme and toughening up illegal labour market enforcement are part of a suite of measures that this Government are delivering to crack down on illegal migration. Other measures include, for example, extending right-to-work checks to cover businesses hiring in the gig economy and zero-hours workers in construction, food delivery, beauty salons and so on. This is all about reducing incentives for illegal migration, and it will change irregular migrants’ perceptions of the toughness of the UK labour market enforcement regime, which the hon. Member’s party failed to do for 14 years.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his announcement about the changes to digital ID. As a neighbouring MP, he will know that I recently held a public meeting in Leigh and Atherton, and there was overwhelming agreement that this should not be mandatory, so the decision will be welcomed by many. However, can he set out how the wider digitisation of public services will benefit my constituents, particularly in streamlining support for parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities?

[Josh Simons]

I commend my hon. Friend for the public meeting she held—my constituents reported back that it was a robust but constructive conversation, which, as she knows, conversations always are in Wigan—and I can set out the wider benefits. When someone has a baby, they should be able to access the childcare they need without having to tell the Government repeatedly the same information that we already know about them. When we tell our constituents that that does not already happen, they think it probably should already happen. We will make sure that it does happen so that people are saved time, money and hassle.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

We know that the Prime Minister was warned many times that voters would not believe the claim that introducing mandatory digital ID was about stopping illegal immigration, but he decided to push on regardless. Does the Minister think it was credible to argue that 67 million people—law-abiding citizens who already have passports, national insurance numbers and driving licences—should be placed into a brand-new compulsory database to stop illegal immigration, or does he accept that this is just another example of the Prime Minister treating the public as fools?

[Josh Simons]

About 25% of UK citizens do not have a passport, and 15% of people have never had a passport. There are millions of people right across this country who are currently digitally excluded, which affects their capacity to access vital services in the public sector and the private sector. I want those people to be part of our public services and our economy just like everyone else, and we will make every effort to reach them.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

My constituents are sick to the back teeth of people getting away with working illegally while they play by the rules. The previous Government, despite the incredible hindsight the Conservatives now seem to have about their time in office, utterly failed to put in place a robust system of right-to-work checks, which was a gift to rogue employers and criminal gangs. Does the Minister agree that it is high time we brought in digital right-to-work checks to crack down on the scourge of illegal working that the Conservative party left to fester?

[Josh Simons]

I wholeheartedly agree. Toughening up our illegal labour market enforcement regime, and using digital right-to-work checks to do that, is a vital part of delivering this Government’s central priority to crack down on illegal migration.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

When the Prime Minister first announced digital ID, it was to stop illegal working. It took most of us about a minute to work out that that was total nonsense. Flapping in the wind, the Government are now desperately trying to sell the benefits of limiting liberty and freedom for all our constituents. One thing the Government have failed to tell us is how much this will cost. Nothing in life is free; there is a cost to this. Do the Government dispute the £1.8 billion estimate that has been provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility?

[Josh Simons]

The hon. Gentleman talks about flapping in the wind. He might have noticed that one person will be flapping in the wind: the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who I believe has just been sacked by the Leader of the Opposition for secret plots to defect to another Opposition party. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman wants to ask him whether he is flapping in the wind.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Constituents who write to me about their battles with Government Departments overwhelmingly complain about delays, such as the typical 15-week wait for mandatory reconsideration. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the Minister spoke of talking to people first. Does the Minister not think that if the Government really believed in that, he would not be standing there defending their 13th U-turn?

[Josh Simons]

Talking and listening to people is what I believe in. That is why we will be launching a major public consultation and will be out across the country talking to people about their frustrations with the public services that the Conservative party left to rot for 14 years. We will build the public goods and the digital infrastructure we need to fix them.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

The Minister talks about mandatory right-to-work checks in a way that implies it is always the worker who is the bad faith actor in the relationship. Will he explain how mandatory right-to-work checks will be used to check employers, who are often the guilty party for employing people illegally? Will he outline what other agencies will have access to the database in a passive way—that is, without having been asked to provide an individual’s ID—to work out what is going on?

[Josh Simons]

There was quite a lot in the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will do my level best to answer it. Digital right-to-work checks will make it easier for those who have a digital ID to prove their right to work. Crucially, it will make it easier for employers to check people’s right to work. That will benefit our economy. When a digital right-to-work check is done, it creates a record. That is a key piece of information that this Government will use, alongside the other ways we are toughening up our illegal working regime, to ensure we are enforcing against employers who are undercutting British workers by hiring people illegally.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call John Lamont. [Interruption.]

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Oh! Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We do not want digital ID. It will cost billions of pounds and it should be scrapped completely. Despite what the Minister said, I am concerned that digital ID will not be technically compulsory, but people will be blocked from accessing services if they do not have it. In response to other questions, the Minister alluded to childcare. Can he confirm whether accessing childcare will be dependent on having a digital ID card?

[Josh Simons]

I think the hon. Gentleman was lost for a moment there as he was contemplating the implosion of his shadow Cabinet once again, which I can wholly understand. Details of how the scheme will be used will come after the consultation. I invite him to tell us, in the consultation, how he thinks it could be useful for him to access childcare if he so needs and chooses.

[Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)]

Does the Minister accept that announcing mandatory digital ID, only to then retreat to voluntary digital ID, has merely created an expensive and chaotic shambles? Will he rule out unequivocally that this retreat is not a trojan horse for compulsory digital ID being imposed on the public at a later date—yes or no?

[Josh Simons]

I am glad the hon. Member is smiling about the potential new colleague she may obtain in the coming days. We on the Labour Benches have a proud history of building public goods that help us to serve people better: the NHS, social housing, the welfare state. This piece of digital infrastructure will serve working people across the country for decades to come and make government work better for them. I am proud that we are building digital public goods.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

The Minister has been consistent this morning both in his defence of the indefensible and in avoiding putting a price on this scheme. He did not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson), who asked whether the Government dispute the £1.8 billion figure from the OBR. If he will not give an overall ballpark figure of what the Treasury has sanctioned for this scheme, will he at least tell us what the consultation he is hiding behind will cost?

[Josh Simons]

Members will see more details about the costings in a very few weeks in the consultation. To be very clear: no, this Government do not recognise the figures in the OBR’s estimate, because the crucial design choices about how to make the scheme work for ordinary people will be made after the consultation and after we have talked to the public.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

For the final question, I call Jim Shannon.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Hopefully there will be easier questions for the Minister to answer in the time to come. This is issue is very important to my constituents; I get hundreds of emails about it. The response to the proposal of digital ID has been swift and intense, and the feelings on all sides of the community have not diminished in any way. The general public seek assurance that their autonomy, in so far as it does not harm anyone else, is a foundational principle in our democracy. How do the Government intend to rebuild the trust that has quite clearly been lost?

[Josh Simons]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Trust is vital—digital tools work only when they are trusted. In the consultation that we will publish in the coming weeks, Members will see that trust is at the heart of how we build the system for working people.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords]

Josh Simons Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow that great contribution from the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), much of which I will echo. Like him, before I was elected to this place I worked a lot with data—understanding it, using it, deploying it—in tech companies, academia and then politics. I am a huge supporter of the Secretary of State’s and the Minister’s agenda, and broadly of the enormous potential for data and data-driven tools such as AI and machine learning, because they can drive productivity growth, boost earnings and, crucially, save constituents’ time and money—whether it is registering the birth of children, kids going through school, accessing a GP or entering the workplace.

I would like to underscore a few aspects of the Bill that have not been spoken much about, but I would also like to make a wider argument about the importance of this agenda and about going further in some areas in the years to come, particularly in the connection between data and risk. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will forgive a slight and quick diversion.

The word “data” has its roots in the word for “fact”, but in the world of machine learning and AI it means something broader—the information we choose to record about our world to analyse and use to make decisions. Data began as demographic information, because a state that wanted to build an army or fight wars wanted to know what kinds of people comprised its populace. Now we collect data about driving, sleep and clicks online to help us navigate or get fitter, but also to push us mindless advertising. What data we collect depends on what we want to use data for, and that requires constant judgments about risk: where we are willing to take risks, how much risk and what kinds of risks.

In many ways, we have become a society and a country too averse to risk—to failure. We create new regulators and give them enormous discretion because we want to minimise risk. We create new tsars for this, that and the other, and give them broad powers because we want to minimise risk. The effect is that we avoid failures on 1,000 small things, but we also lose the opportunity to maximise our output and our success, because success requires risk, and data often forces us to make clear and confident judgments about risk.

The topic of this Bill is an opportunity to begin to shift our culture in our economy and, crucially, in our state too, but also for politicians like us in this House to be clear about where we welcome and embrace risk and where we do not, and to take responsibility as elected Members for failure. I will focus on two areas in this Bill where I believe data is forcing to the surface different appetites for and judgments about risk: healthcare and social media.

Briefly, I will say something about copyright, which has been well covered in powerful contributions by others. I am pleased that the Secretary of State said that he is looking at this area in the AI consultation, and I look forward to hearing more about the details of that consultation and what comes from it. We should be optimistic. It is possible to do what others have argued for and place our creative industries on a secure and stable footing, while also ensuring that AI is unlocked in this country. I hope that the Secretary of State will hear the powerful contributions of my colleagues today.

The two examples I will focus on are those that matter to many of the working people in my constituency of Makerfield. As the Secretary of State said, data is at the heart of how this Government must break through barriers and inertia to deliver for working people. That is why I am so glad that this Bill is not about killer robots or space-age AI, but is focused on the transformation of Government and services that impact my constituents every day.

The first example is healthcare, and this is an area where we should embrace more risk. Systematising the collection and recording of data in healthcare unlocks the possibility of using data to spot patterns, of contacting people ahead of time—instead of fining them if they miss their appointment, as they do in my borough of Wigan—and of saving people time that they do not have. To unleash the full potential of data in healthcare, we need to be confident about building population-level datasets controlled and owned by the public, anonymised through tools such as encryption, and then using those datasets not just for academic research, but to improve services and delivery. This Bill takes initial steps in that direction, which I welcome. In Greater Manchester, my constituents benefit already from a shared patient care record between primary and secondary care, and a data science platform that brings in data across local hospitals. Patients already feel the benefit of that every day.

In healthcare, we can go further and faster. We must be cautious about inadvertently slipping into risk aversion, caution and stagnation, particularly in relation to concerns about privacy. For much of the past 20 years and the period I have been involved in this debate, debates about data have been dominated by concerns about privacy, but whose interests does the privacy lobby serve? Often, think-tanks and NGOs fight in the name of working people to stop data being used to do things that working people want done. There is a lot of good evidence that the public are relaxed about population-level anonymised data being used to save them time and money and improve the services they use, especially in healthcare.

Does the elderly woman I saw in my constituency surgery last week, who has been struggling to see her GP for weeks now, care if her data sits in an anonymised database and is used to unlock more facetime for her GP to see patients and to make it faster for her to get an appointment? I do not think she does. I therefore welcome the changes in this Bill to the EU’s sprawling GDPR framework. If one of Brexit’s much-famed opportunities is to lead the way in diffusing the collection and use of data, we should embrace it wholeheartedly, subject to the data adequacy requirement. More generally in healthcare, we must ensure that we do not inadvertently build barriers that block the collection and use of data controlled by those accountable to the public for the public good, where data can drive better outcomes and improve experiences.

The second case I will consider is social media. Social media collects data about our unthinking scrolling to build highly optimised engagement algorithms that rake in advertising revenue. That contributes little to growth, national security or, indeed, the welfare of humanity. The digital verification market that this Bill creates will be vital. Digital age verification is central to protecting our children, especially once the Online Safety Act 2023 is in force. I want my young kids to grow up in a country that protects them from harmful content, such as sexualised violence, and from spending hours mindlessly scrolling through content, wasting their time and corroding their minds.

I also welcome the Bill’s provision to allow researchers to access online safety data held by technology companies, and I hope that we will continue to deepen those provisions. This is one area where I actually think we should be more worried about risk—a rare exception to my general view that we have become too risk-averse—because it is about the minds and character of our citizens and the strength of our democracy. At present, the information environment of our nation is being polluted, sometimes deliberately and often by foreign adversaries. Governments communicate with citizens, and citizens with each other, in spaces designed to drive them apart. As we have seen in past months, knowing what is circulating online, and how, is in the public interest.

I hope that the Bill is just the beginning of our Government using every possible lever to rebuild the fabric of trust in government, politics and each other in this new digital environment. Historically, states collected data to wage wars and raise taxes. This Government should harness data to put money in the pockets of working people, to make public services more efficient and easier to access, and—crucially—to rebuild our public realm and restore trust in our great democracy.