Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Westminster Hall

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

Sir Roger, you will not be surprised to hear that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for the way in which he introduced the debate.

I want to start with a couple of anecdotes. Over the weekend, a mum messaged me to say that her daughter was getting bullied at school. She lives in Currie in my constituency. I do not know the details yet—I asked her to email me them—but I can almost guarantee that social media will be involved in some shape or form, because so far, every bullying case that we have dealt with in my office has had a link to social media in some way.

A couple of Sundays ago, I was at St Mungo’s church in Balerno, and a mum was talking to me about her kids and their use of phones. It was a time to reflect, because we have come a long way since the 2024 election. Kids starting any state school in Edinburgh next year will not have access to their mobile phones in school—hopefully, by that time, they will not have social media on their phones anyway. However, we have to accept that it has been a bumpy ride getting this far; there have been a few steps forward and an occasional step backwards. None the less, all progress is progress.

In the time since I was elected, I have spoken to many, many people in my constituency. The vast majority of them were parents, but those parents included GPs, teachers and, in one case, a paediatrician. They all agreed that they were concerned about the harm caused both by smartphones in school and the use of social media. We have had around 600 emails from people, the vast majority supporting some sort of ban. I have also spoken to young people in schools, at Scout meetings and so on, about a ban. All that led me to support a ban in full—the fullest possible ban, actually.

However, I then met the NSPCC, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and the Molly Rose Foundation, and they were very clear about some of the cliff-edge aspects, which other hon. Members have spoken about. I must say that on the day the announcement was made that we were proceeding with a ban, I felt uncertain because of those conversations with the NSPCC and others about what a ban would mean. It was only once I saw that they were supporting it, at least tentatively, that I felt able to support it that day. I welcome the Brianna Ghey Legacy Project also supporting a ban, and I thank Brianna’s fantastic mum, Esther, for all the work she is doing.

I acknowledge the many good points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) on some of the impacts that a ban could have, but there are also more trivial impacts, such as those in Scotland. For example, the Scottish Government understand what young people are thinking by collecting data online via an organisation called Young Scot—everybody in Scotland knows about that organisation—but it will now be much harder to do so without having access to people on social media for that perfectly legitimate reason.

I want to recognise that any ban must only be part of a much broader effort to ensure that young people are as safe as possible online. We know that bans are already in place overseas, but they are not perfect. No matter what restrictions the Government put in place, some children will continue to use restricted platforms, while some services will inevitably fall outside the scope of any ban. Of course, exactly the same arguments were made when the Government put an age limit on accessing pornography and other harmful content online, but we all agreed that putting friction between young people and pornographic websites was entirely legitimate. While I have reservations about this ban and whether it should be complete, I accept that any friction between young people and harmful social media content is a good thing.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point about the issues that were raised with restrictions on pornography. However, does he accept that the difference there was that we were trying to age-verify someone who was over 18 so that they could access pornography, and there was ID available? I grappled with the challenges of age verification some 20 years ago in the mobile sector. Does he agree that we need to have confidence in this? I do not think we are quite there yet when it comes to age-verifying 16-year-olds, who do not have ID.

[Dr Arthur]

Like so many problems in the world, the solution can be found in Scotland. Young people in Scotland can use a Young Scot card to verify that they are 16, but I understand my hon. Friend’s point.

It is critical that, alongside robust age-assurance measures, online platforms be required to be as safe as possible for all users, both young people and adults. A ban cannot be used as an excuse by companies not to comply with their responsibilities, and important questions remain about the scope of the ban and the regulation of high-risk features. In July, I welcomed the Government’s further commitment to require infinite scrolling features to be switched off by default. However, there is more work to be done on location-sharing features for under-16s, as well as further regulation of AI chatbots.

I accept and understand the point that for some people, such as those who are struggling with mental health problems, health problems or perhaps their sexuality, going to social media may be a source of really good information. However, I am also concerned that young people who go to social media for advice on those really sensitive issues might end up interacting with people whose motivations are not good, and I think we have to be very mindful of that.

[Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we think about the online world in the same way as the real world, it is a ludicrous idea that we would deliberately send children to go and interact with strangers—probably adults—in an unsupervised and unregulated environment where we would have no idea what kind of conversations were happening, and that no parent or politician would ever endorse that?

[Dr Arthur]

I absolutely agree. Of course, the vast majority of people who go online to seek help in that way do find it, but there is a small minority of often very vulnerable young people who we should all be concerned about, and we have a duty to protect them.

Both the Mental Health Foundation and the NSPCC identified AI chatbots as a clear ongoing risk to child safety. I am a member of the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group, and I pay tribute to the important work that it carries out. I was therefore deeply concerned by the recent report from the Centre for Countering Digital Hate, which found that ChatGPT will provide vulnerable people with restrictive diet plans or advice on how to hide eating disorders from their families within 20 minutes of a conversation starting. Tests found that simple prompts such as, “This is for a presentation,” or, “It’s help for a friend,” allowed users to circumvent the very weak barriers in place inside ChatGPT. Clearly, the Government should act on this issue.

Even more concerning was the finding that little progress has been made in addressing eating disorder-related content on AI interfaces since a similar study was conducted in 2023—almost three years ago. Alongside numerous other examples, this demonstrates that online services cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. We have to ensure we can trust Ofcom to regulate in this area—we are not quite there yet.

This cannot be acceptable. Advice on sustaining eating disorders, as well as advice on suicide, self-harm or other substance abuse should not be readily available to young people. To create a safer environment, the Government must continue to take action to push online and AI services into effective regulation. Self-regulation will not work.

Time and again platforms have demonstrated that they will not place our children’s safety before their profit. While I welcome the proposed plan, I hope that it is not an end point but a starting point for a conversation about how best to ensure that the online world is as safe as possible for everyone who wishes to use it.

I want to go back to the cliff-edge point that was made earlier. I am really concerned that when this ban goes live people will suddenly lose access to services they have relied on. It would be good to hear how the Government will manage the transition so that it is not a cliff edge but a soft entry into what will hopefully be a safer world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank all hon. Members in this Chamber; I found myself nodding along extensively during other Members’ contributions.

I absolutely support banning children from accessing harmful social media. The Liberal Democrats have long called for decisive action in this space. The Government joined us in those calls earlier this year, announcing proposals for a social media ban, but it has been many months since the initial announcement, and we are still not entirely sure what to expect. That uncertainty over what a possible ban will look like may be driving many of the concerns of those who signed this petition. What we know so far is that the Government have plans for an Australian-style ban; not only is that vague, but the Liberal Democrats have concerns that an Australian-style ban will ultimately fail in its role to reduce the harms faced by children online.

As we have heard from other hon. Members, after a few months of the Australian ban, early data suggests that it has had a limited impact on prohibiting young people from accessing social media. On top of that, the Molly Rose Foundation found that among children aged 12 to 15 who had social media accounts before the ban came in, more than half said that the ban had made no difference to their online safety. I would add that, while my children are too old to be affected by the ban, I was often a very busy and tired single mother while they were being raised and using social media, and I totally understand the points being made about the possible unfairness and social justice issues with a blanket ban.

This is important because, as we know, the message of this petition is not that children should keep access to harmful content; it is that a ban could cut young people off from safe spaces. For vulnerable children, online communities can often be a lifeline. A blanket ban risks cutting children off from that support. If the Australian evidence is anything to go by, the Government’s proposals could take away those positives without making the online world any safer.

A few weeks ago, I met pupils from a local primary school, Peasedown St John, here in Parliament, and they shared similar concerns. In the Q&A session with a class of six and seven-year-olds, the first question was: “Are you going to ban social media?” When I asked what they thought, they told me, in six and seven-year-old terms, that they wanted inappropriate content restricted, but that they still wanted to use educational platforms. Even at that age, they recognise that different platforms carry different levels of harm, and I must admit that I agree with them.

This is exactly the nuanced approach the Liberal Democrats have been calling for. Unlike an Australia-style ban, the Liberal Democrats would assess and regulate platforms based on the harms they cause, with film-style age ratings reflecting that harm. Platforms that cause the most harm would be closed to children—but, if a tech company did the work to redesign the platform, removing addictive algorithms and harmful content, that form of social media could possibly be accessible. Unlike a fixed ban, that would give tech companies a reason to change. It would preserve safe spaces for young people to talk online and make safety part of the design of these platforms rather than an afterthought.

While we are considering safe spaces, I appreciated the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) that there has been a deterioration in alternative spaces—practical, real-life spaces—for young people to go to over the past 10 or 20 years. I notice that the excellent campaign group Make Space for Girls has been making the point that specifically for young women and girls—particularly as the nights draw in—it is unclear where they will be going to spend their time. The hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Sam Carling) also made the point that rural communities particularly face this challenge. As someone who represents a semi-rural community, I know that many young people simply do not have anywhere to go if they are not going to be on their phones. I am not saying that that makes it right that they are on their phones, but it poses a challenge when that phone use is suddenly cut off.

The Liberal Democrats are also clear that protecting children online should not come at the expense of privacy. Several constituents have asked me to attend this debate; again, they are not in favour of children accessing harmful content, but their concern is that a ban may effectively require a form of digital ID to be enforceable. The Liberal Democrats have always criticised plans for mandatory digital ID, and we will properly scrutinise any regulation of social media to make sure both that it is effective and that it safeguards personal privacy.

I am wholeheartedly in support of a ban on harmful social media, but I think that this debate has allowed us to raise important questions about what a ban should look like. I will therefore finish with a few questions for the Minister. Do the Government believe that the best way forward is still a harms-based approach to banning social media? Can we still expect to see a ban by spring 2027? If so, could the Minister lay out exactly what we can expect to see, and confirm that any regulation will always prioritise privacy and that the House will have the opportunity to scrutinise any proposals?

[Dr Arthur]

Surely any legislation should prioritise the safety of children rather than privacy?

[Anna Sabine]

The hon. Member is absolutely right—that was poorly worded. I should have said, “Alongside the safety of children, we should be prioritising privacy.” I thank him for allowing me to make that clarification.

Finally, on 8 September, the Government also announced legislation to enforce device and app-level restrictions to stop children taking and sharing nude photos of themselves. Could the Minister tell us when we will see that come into force?

The Liberal Democrats want to protect young people from online harm. We believe that the only way to do that successfully is through a harms-based ban on social media. I hope that the Government will today agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Mine too, Mrs Hobhouse. It was such an engaging conversation that we were trying to have with each other, so I do apologise.

I suppose the simple answer to the question is, “We don’t quite know yet, but probably not.” And this is the answer to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), in terms of time. When we announced we were going forward with the ban, we had to have a legislative vehicle to put this through. The difficulty with that is this: we took the powers, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026, to put the regulations through. That means that we can do it quickly, and that is why we can make the commitment to do it this side of the end of the year. That then means that we have to make a whole body of potential legislation, in statutory instruments, in one go in December, which is not an easy feat if we want to get this right. I think the discussion about what the way back looks like will have to be a future discussion, probably alongside the features and functions part of the debate later on, after spring next year, when this is being implemented. That is not entirely settled yet, but given what we have to try to achieve by December, it is probably the only way to be able to put that in place.

[Dr Arthur]

I am just trying to get the sequencing right in my head. The Government are going to put regulations before Parliament before the end of the year. We all welcome that. Will it include Ofcom’s thinking about individual platforms, or do we have to wait for that? If we have to wait, when will we hear from Ofcom on that point?

[Ian Murray]

Let me go through the timeline, because it is really important. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act gives us the power to make the regulations. We will make the regulations in December this year. These will come into effect in late spring, and by the time they come into effect, Ofcom will have to have done the work in terms of implementing the regulations, bringing the platforms that are in scope into scope and then starting to enforce what needs to be done. But there will have to be an implementation period after Ofcom has developed the guidance and what must be done on enforcement, so the day from which under-16s will no longer be able to access social media will be in late spring. Between December and late spring, Ofcom will develop the guidance required to implement the regulations. Throughout that process, we will be working on the features and functions, which relate to things like the stranger communications that I have already laid out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury spoke about her own daughter and about a phone being on her Christmas list. I think the 116,000 responses to the consultation were just parents crying out for the necessary tools. The Labour party conference had many panels on online safety, and the example that was always used was alcohol licensing. Many of us will have a bottle of alcohol in the house; we know that under-18s are not allowed to drink it, but that does not stop some of them doing so. The tools cannot be foolproof, but they give parents the ability to say, “That is harmful to your health. It is harmful to children, and there are laws in place to say you can access that only when you are over the age of 18.” That gives parents the ability to draw a line in the sand, and I think a lot of them are crying out for the tools to help make those decisions.

The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has put a lot of thought into what is happening on offline activities at the same time. We cannot have a situation in which the online world is restricted for under-16s but there is nothing for the offline world. We have put over £500 million into the Youth Matters fund to refurbish or build 250 new facilities, as well as a £22.5 million investment over three years to support up to 400 schools to provide youth-tailored enrichment schemes. We have made a major investment in the Youth Matters national youth strategy, a 10-year plan to ensure that every young person has somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares. I think part of having someone who cares is about the ability to open up to someone who is not a parent, which allows a young person to have some of the difficult conversations that they may have sought to have online.

We heard about the nine-point plan of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who is no longer in her place. She has been right at the forefront in trying to see what a way back looks like and what it needs to be effective. I encourage Members to look at that nine-point plan and see the neuroscience event tomorrow that my hon. Friend will be part of as a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

My constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), demonstrated what is in his own inbox, which is probably a demonstration of what all our inboxes looked like around the country following the consultation. He highlighted a number of civil society organisations that have very strong views on this issue, one way or the other: they either support or do not support the ban, or they may reluctantly support a ban because something needs to be done. The challenge that the Government face in developing these regulations can be seen not only from this afternoon’s debate, but from what has been said by all the civil society organisations out there. I pay tribute to them all; many of them, such as the Molly Rose Foundation, have been set up on the back of tragedy and in horrendous circumstances. There is no one solution that they are proposing, and it is therefore the Government’s responsibility to find the best way forward that keeps children safe online and has the maximum benefit.

I will finish by mentioning a few more of my hon. Friends who raised some really good questions. We heard about international comparisons and the EU KIDS Act from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). We are basing all our evidence on international comparisons. Of course, we have the Australia model, which we talk about a lot, but the Canada model is currently being developed, and there is also the EU KIDS Act, which I was in Brussels talking about just last month. Those international comparisons will certainly affect what we think about, and the Council of Europe is right on this issue. I sat on the Council of Europe many years ago, and it will do a lot of great work in developing both the right of the child and the human right of access and protection from harm, including the protection of children from harm.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), who is a fantastic resource on this issue, and I thank him for how he has been able to help us develop some of these regulations. Being online has huge benefits for young people, such as the ability to learn the guitar, like my hon. Friend—perhaps he should have given us a little song this afternoon to see whether his YouTube tutorials actually worked.

We often get questions like that—what will people do if they want to try to learn to play the guitar? Again, I emphasise that we are not banning people from being online, and we are not banning children from being online. Logged-out features can be used. If online platforms such as YouTube want to come forward with a new or redesigned platform that complies with the regulations, and wish to test whether they could be removed from scope, it is up to them to do so. In fact, we have been crying out for platforms to do that for many years. We have ended up in this position because they have not complied or had any intent to comply. They must comply with the regulations that are put in place.

I will finish with why we are doing this. I talked about the grieving families. I have a whole folder of their stories in front of me, and the harm is there for all to see. There are extreme cases of child sexual exploitation, children who have had to be taken into safeguarding because of their online experiences, or children who have died. Some of the stories are unpalatable, if we think about our own children; the Government have a responsibility to act.

As the Secretary of State said in the House on introducing the under-16 ban, social media companies have not done enough to keep children safe online. The Ofcom analysis shows that they are still not doing enough. The Government have to step in. We do not want to ban people from doing things. We do not want to ban under-16s from being on social media, but that is the only way in which we can protect children from its harms. We are determined to ensure that children have an enriched experience online, and that media literacy and the education system allow them that experience, but also that they have an enriched experience offline. I think the Secretary of State describes it as giving children their childhood back, which is a really good way of putting it.

Let the message today to Leo and all the petitioners be a really positive one: we hear their concerns, but we back parents, we believe in young people and we are determined to make the online world work better for them. That is the task we have to do between now and December, and it is the responsibility of not just the Government, but all Members. I re-emphasise what the Secretary of State has set as the benchmark: we have to be able to look those grieving families in the eye and say that we have done all we possibly can to make the online world a safer place, so that other people’s children do not end up like their children did. If we can achieve that, we will have achieved something not just for this generation, but for future generations as well.

Mandatory Digital ID

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mr Turner. I did not know I was so popular today. I am delighted to see so many colleagues joining us in this short debate. I warmly welcome the Minister to his new role. We were shocked and appalled by his unjustified defenestration at the Scotland Office. We were energetic supporters of the “get Ian a job—any job” campaign, so we are delighted to see him here in his rightful place today. It has to be asked, though: who has he upset in the last few weeks to be landed with this particular poisoned chalice? But here we go again. It has taken 20 years, but ID cards are back, this time in a shiny new digital format, turbocharged by all the new features of modern technology.

Tony Blair famously tried to introduce ID cards back in the 2000s before being forced to abandon them by a fantastic campaign by civil liberty campaigners, Members of this House, and the millions of ordinary UK citizens who simply refused to have ID cards foisted upon them. But they are back. Like a spectre from the political grave, ID cards are with us once again. It is just possible that Tony Blair might reach his ultimate aim and aspiration of getting ID cards back, only this time in the form of his proxy, the current Prime Minister.

I had the misfortune of being around back in the 2000s, along with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is sitting behind me. We were part of the campaign that defeated Tony Blair at that point, and we look forward to defeating him again. The tone of the debate seems eerily familiar. Once again we have a Government earnestly assuring us that digital ID is a benign, benevolent scheme designed purely to make life easier for the general public. They talk about the Tesco clubcard and never having to find your utility bills ever again, as though it is nothing more than a boarding pass. It is a sort of, “Do not worry your silly little heads about this mass data collection or our new-found ability to monitor your every move. We are the UK Government; of course you can trust us.”

Well, we have heard it all before, and we know that this campaign is only going to be ramped up because the concerns remain the same: the threats to our privacy and civil liberties, the risk of mass surveillance, the dangers of Government overreach, and the too real vulnerabilities that come with storing vast quantities of personal data. We have only to look at the newspaper headlines this morning to see the true effects of that particular fear, with the breakdown in Amazon workplaces. Imagine if it were the personal data of everybody across the United Kingdom.

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

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate, because it is an issue that the general public are engaging in. He will know that Scotland has its own identity card, known as the Scot card, which is used to store benefits data, debt data, the checks to make sure people can work with vulnerable people, court data and tax data. It is quite incredible. There are real fears that this—

[Karl Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions must be short.

[Dr Arthur]

Does the hon. Gentleman share the concern of Big Brother Watch that there is a mandatory ID system in Scotland in all but name? Does he share the concerns of my residents that the data could be leaked?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to waste time responding to all that nonsense. It is a voluntary scheme. Does the hon. Member know the difference between voluntary and mandatory? All he needs to do is shake his head or nod. The detail is at hand. This new scheme has been objected to because it is mandatory—one of the few mandatory ID systems anywhere in the world. The Scot card is great. It is up to the individual user what gets put into it and what gets shared.

This new scheme could barely have got off to a worse start. Support for digital ID has collapsed since the public have been able to see the Government’s proposals. The petition calling for the proposals to be scrapped has become one of the fastest growing ever. It is now at almost 3 million signatories, and I am pretty certain that by the time I sit down it will be well over 3 million.

I heard the Minister’s car-crash interview on Radio Scotland. He told us simultaneously that the Government plans were both compulsory and voluntary, and went on to say that apparently digital ID would be “mandatory for some purposes”—a sort of partial compulsion, a digital half-pregnancy. Maybe this is a Schrödinger’s Britcard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

We are getting a little bit off-track, but I will answer that because the right hon. Gentleman needs an answer: no, I do not think that was a mistake. It was the correct thing to do.

Mandatory digital ID would fundamentally change the trust-based relationship between citizen and state, replacing it with one of constant verification and oversight. Let us not forget about the danger of mission creep. Once this type of infrastructure exists, it rarely stays confined to its original purpose. The Government say that the police will not be able to demand to see a person’s digital ID, but does anyone seriously believe that will not change over time?

This is about not just what this Government might do, but what every future Government might do. We are empowering not just this Labour Government, but every Government that will come after it. Imagine Prime Minister Farage, with all his authoritarian tendencies, with the data of the nation at his fingertips. It scares me half to death and it should scare the whole House half to death.

Then there is the cost. The Government have been very coy about the cost. They are reluctant to give us even a ballpark figure, and they are absolutely right—those prepared to work out an estimate on their behalf have said that, initially, this could cost anything between £1.2 billion and £2 billion. That is a gross underestimate. Laughably, our friends in Labour Together told us that it would be £1.4 million. We need only look at the costs of the physical ID to get a sense of what it will eventually cost. The physical ID would cost £5.4 billion. Some people reckon it would get above £15 billion, possibly to £19 billion or £20 billion.

Digital ID is much more technical and complicated to administer than the physical version. Do the sums work out? How much will this cost? All our constituents should be asking every Member of Parliament whether we should spend billions of pounds on a scheme that nobody wants and that there is no demand for when a cost of living crisis is raging in every single one of our constituencies. Are we seriously going to spend billions of pounds on an unpopular, crackbrained scheme that no one wants or needs?

Then there is what is happening elsewhere. We have heard foreign examples to suggest that this is just business as normal for this Government. They are keen to promote the Estonia scheme. I have had a good look at Estonia. Estonia is 10 times more digitally engaged than the United Kingdom. It is an entirely different nation. But even with all their knowledge, experience and digital systems, there have been catastrophic data leaks, which has led to real problems and issues for the citizenry. Look across Europe: Europe, like Scotland, is developing its own type of digital wallet. That is the right thing to do. People like having these things in a digital wallet. The key difference is that it is not mandatory—we come back to that feature again.

In Scotland, we are developing the ScotAccount, which has proven very popular. I encourage people to use it. There is nothing wrong with having things in a digital wallet. It becomes wrong only when it is made mandatory—when people are expected to carry one even though they do not want to.

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.

That is the issue, and the Government seem cloth-eared about it. In Scotland, we will have to pass what is called a legislative consent motion to allow this to go through, given our responsibilities for devolved services. We are not going to do that. The Minister will have to decide whether he accepts the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament or whether he will do a Tory and impose it on us anyway. I challenge him to do that in the run-up to the Scottish election, because he will turn this into a nightmare for the Government and a constitutional nightmare for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).

We do not want these things. We think they are thoroughly bad. We saw them off in the 2000s, and we will see them off again. The public hate them, and I believe the petition now has more than 3 million signatures, so we are getting there with the general campaign. I pity the Minister for having to take this through; he would have been much better off had he kept his place in the Scotland Office.

We saw off ID cards in the 2000s. Twenty years on, whether it is plastic cards or digital apps, this is still a data-grabbing, liberty-eroding, multibillion-pound waste of time. We beat them in 2005; and the SNP, with our leadership of the campaign in this Parliament, will ensure that we see them off once again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point. That has been a concern in South Shropshire, where I have huge areas that do not have high-speed connectivity. A lot of elderly people are not able to use an iPhone or computer, so they feel that they will be digitally excluded. Whether it is mandatory or voluntary, it is still—

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Member join me in condemning the people who are spreading fear about digital exclusion? The Government have been very clear: if this goes ahead, there will be a hard-copy alternative for people who are not on the internet.

[Stuart Anderson]

The hon. Member has just highlighted the confusion around this. If the Government are considering hard copies, the costs could be into the billions of pounds, as the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned. There is no money, and there is not a problem in this area, so why create a problem, spending billions of pounds that the country does not have on something that no Government should be doing?

On the subject of digital exclusion, a large percentage of my population is not connected or does not use IT. My concern is whether the digitally-excluded pensioners in South Shropshire will be hounded by the police. Will the police be chasing them around, asking them to sign up? Will people find that they cannot get a job unless they have digital ID? There are huge concerns about this. [Interruption.] Members can shake their heads, but the scheme is being rolled out to stop illegal immigration. It is a dead cat story, and no Government should be looking to do this.

I have major concerns, and so do my constituents. I am worried about the security of the scheme. Look at China and Russia: we have continual cyber-attacks on the UK, as we have just seen with Jaguar Land Rover. With the advancement of AI, if we believe we can keep our data safe, why have spreadsheets been emailed to the Taliban? Mistakes happen, but imagine having the whole country’s data. It was done by a civil servant, and it is a disgrace it happened under whoever’s watch. We should not be joking about things like data going to the Taliban. This is a major issue. It is the start of an authoritarian Government, and I do not believe we should have any involvement with it. It should be cancelled straightaway.