Digital ID

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Social Media: Non-consensual Sexual Deepfakes

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, and I refer the hon. Lady to my statement, which I think spelled out in detail all the action we are taking.

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

I cannot accept that it is okay for the Government to stay on X now, but I do welcome the strong action they are taking on online violence against women and girls. This is part of a wider problem of violent pornography that normalises and encourages violent sexual fantasies, so does the Secretary of State agree that Ofcom has a duty to act swiftly and firmly?

[Liz Kendall]

One hundred per cent.

Digital ID

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

There will not be surveillance, and we are not proposing that it will be mandatory to access all different types of services. That is just a wrong characterisation of what we are proposing.

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

The current proposal is that digital ID will be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of this Parliament. Concerns have been raised with me by constituents that that makes it de facto mandatory for working-age people. Has the Secretary of State considered simply sticking with it as a voluntary service so that people who wish to can get the benefits of a streamlined ID, and then, when it is bedded in, perhaps looking at whether it is necessary to make it mandatory for right-to-work checks?

[Liz Kendall]

We have considered all those different aspects. It is right for the Prime Minister to say that it should be mandatory for right-to-work checks by the end of the Parliament to prove a person’s right to be here and to work. I also believe that as we develop it and show the benefits for many other aspects of daily life, for which we are not proposing it will be mandatory, people will see the benefits of that. I hope that that will start to shift the debate.

Space Weather

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner, and I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for securing this important debate. Space weather has profound effects on our planet, particularly now that we rely so heavily on technology that can be affected by radiation or changes to the magnetosphere. What is space weather? Basically, it is the sun chucking out gas and particles into space. It varies over time, and has peaks and troughs. We are currently just past the highest peak, but we are still in a very active period.

Three main types of solar weather events affect us on Earth: solar flares, solar energetic particles and coronal mass ejections. Those travel at different speeds, have different make-ups and have different impacts. Essentially, they all sneak past our normal protections—the magnetosphere and our atmosphere—and cause problems for us on Earth. The extra radiation and geomagnetic storms from the events can cause high-frequency radio blackouts and affect all sorts of electronic systems, both in space and on the ground. I also wanted to discuss the Carrington event in 1859, but time is short, so those watching at home will have to google it.

What can we do about the risks of space weather? First, I support the calls of the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley. I asked my friend, astrophysicist Dr Alfredo Carpineti—I always keep a tame astrophysicist on hand—what he thought Parliament needed to know about space weather. He agreed with me that we must continue to invest in the Met Office space weather operations centre, which monitors and forecasts space weather, and promote its work. It has done a great job in reaching the public with its aurora forecasts, and I would love people to know more about the rest of its work.

I have very much enjoyed educating my colleagues about space weather this week. Dr Carpineti told me that we need more research on how the UK would cope with a Carrington-level event and work out how to mitigate the potential impact. Another key research topic is around the degradation of technologies from the continuous stream of particles from space. I am told that that is particularly relevant for British territories and facilities at higher latitudes.

I am very pleased that this debate is taking place, and pleased that I could contribute.

Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence

Lizzi Collinge Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) for securing this important debate.

The question about machine learning tools—AI—and their use in intellectual property is a key test of our time. What we decide to do now will have ramifications culturally, socially and economically long into the future. Large language models, a form of machine learning such as ChatGPT, have already used pirated and copyrighted material without the consent of the people who created it to train their models. It should be self-evident that that is a problem. It is a well-established right that people retain ownership of their work, with limited exceptions for education or critique. We have clear copyright laws. We have collective licensing schemes, yet those have been ridden over roughshod by machine learning developers.

I am not a luddite. I am very excited about the potential for machine learning to make our lives better, just as other technology has done before. The potential for large datasets to identify health concerns and make diagnostics more accurate—with a programme able to predict the folds of proteins, saving scientists time that they can spend on the next thorny issue—is exciting stuff. It is important to remember that technology is morally neutral. The technology itself is not good or bad. It is a tool—nothing more, nothing less—and we as humanity get to decide how we use that tool. To use that tool, we need to understand it, at least in terms of how we interact with it.

For example, we need to know that AI can lie. It will invent things. One of the best examples I have heard was when a large language model tool was asked by a huge “Doctor Who” fan to tell him about “Doctor Who” episodes and it simply made some up—perfectly plausible episodes that did not exist and have never existed. If anyone here is ever tempted to ask ChatGPT, be warned: it might not tell you the truth.

As well as understanding the potential and limitations of the technology itself, it is also important that we create frameworks that align with our values and do not roll over for mega-corporations that really do not care for our values. Meta, which owns Facebook, has argued that individual creative works have no value in themselves as they individually barely affect the performance of large language models. As a Vanity Fair article pointed out, it is a bit like an orchestra arguing that it should not pay an individual musician because the solo bassoon cannot play the whole piece by itself.

If large language model tech as a whole relies on creative works, and it does, then some form of respect for the rights of creatives must be found. We have existing copyright laws. We could simply enforce them and ensure that the tools are there to do so. I urge the Government to treat machine learning for what it is: a tool to be used well or used badly. Let us choose well.