Mandatory Digital ID

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. As I said, support for it has been plummeting right across the United Kingdom, and I am not surprised.

Let us just dispel the notion that this is voluntary. This is a mandatory scheme. It is compulsory. It is to be compulsory for work, and if it is compulsory for work, it will be mandatory full stop. The only people who will not need one of these Britcards are those who plan never to work, rent a home, have access to public services or take part in normal life.

As we know, all this emerged from our friends in Labour Together. It was they who first proposed it, and it has been adopted by the Labour party. For some reason, they thought they would call it the Britcard—almost immediately alienating most of Scotland and probably about half of Northern Ireland at the same time. Given its recent controversies, it is probably a good idea for the Minister and his Government team to stay as far away from Labour Together as they possibly can.

Let us have a proper look under the bonnet of the great British Britcard. The Government say that it will be free of charge this time around, and available to all citizens and legal residents. So far, so good, but we still do not know its reach. Who will be expected to take one? There are already rumours that 13-year-olds might have to have a Britcard, although that has been disputed by the Government, and we already know that our veterans will be the first of the many digital guinea pigs.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

As a veteran, I was disgusted to see yesterday that veterans are being used as guinea pigs, with a smokescreen, to test this system. Our veterans do everything for us. They are brave people. They should not be the ones on whom this is tested. Does the hon. Member agree?

[Pete Wishart]

I most definitely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absurd and unfair that our veterans are the guinea pigs who will test this out for the Government.

We are told that digital ID is essential to tackling illegal working and illegal migration. When we look at the evidence on mandatory ID across the world, that just does not stack up. Under the Government’s plan, anyone seeking work must prove their right to work through this digital ID, giving the Home Office sweeping new powers over individuals’ daily lives, from employment to housing and basic public services. There is no clear evidence whatsoever, from anywhere mandatory ID is in place, that it reduces illegal working or irregular migration.

Let us be absolutely clear: illegal working does not stop because people are forced to carry digital ID cards; it stops when people are allowed to work legally, contribute to society and live without fear. Big Brother Watch has called mandatory digital ID a “civil liberties nightmare”, and it is absolutely right. Amnesty International warns that such a scheme risks becoming “a honeypot for hackers” and a tool for state surveillance—again, absolutely right.

The UK has never been a nation where it is normal for someone to have to prove who they are when they are not suspected of doing anything wrong. I do not share the concept of being British, but there is something particularly un-British about having to surrender huge amounts of personal data just to access basic services. A “papers, please” culture, even in digital form, seems so alien to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

We should start not by asking what the Government can do, but what the Government should do. Mandatory ID cards are an overreach and far above what any Government should be doing. I have reached out to my South Shropshire constituents with a survey to ask for their views, and they are strongly against it. Among the points they have raised is digital exclusion.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentions digital exclusion. Some 28% of people over the age of 75 do not have a smartphone. How are they going to access digital ID?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I recently conducted a local survey after being contacted by hundreds of constituents about this digital ID issue. The results were clear. Over two thirds of respondents opposed the introduction of mandatory digital ID, with the majority of them being “strongly” against it. Over 80% of respondents said that they believed such a system would infringe on personal privacy and do little to tackle illegal migration. Around 30% of respondents supported some form of digital identification, often for specific limited purposes. However, even among that group, most respondents said that they did not believe it would meaningfully address illegal migration or illegal working.

[Stuart Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the way this idea was launched is a complete smokescreen and did not reveal the real reason for digital ID? The real reason is to gain control over the British people.

[Gregory Stafford]

I agree with my hon. Friend. At a time when trust in Government is so low—I think that it was about 12% in the last poll—it is totally wrong for the Government to introduce such a reckless policy, which fundamentally affects personal freedom and privacy without a clear case, clear cost or, most importantly, clear consent, because it was not in the manifesto. My constituents feel that this decision is being forced on them without consultation, without explanation and without consent.

Like many others, I have deep concerns about privacy, data security and Government overreach. People are rightly worried that digital ID could pave the way for intrusion into areas such as banking, health records or even social credit-style monitoring.

Other Members have raised the issues around digital exclusion, which I entirely agree with, and most importantly the cost of the scheme. We must oppose digital ID every time that it comes in front of us. As has already been said, 3 million people have signed a public petition opposing digital ID. The message from my constituents and from the wider public is simple: the proposal is unwanted, unjustified and unwise. The Government should stop, listen and think again. My constituents demand transparency, safeguards and solid evidence that any proposed system will genuinely solve real problems without sacrificing privacy, liberty or fairness.

Horseracing

Stuart Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for the horseracing industry.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank hon. Members for attending the debate—I know it is a Thursday, but people have shuffled their diaries to attend because of the industry’s importance to all our constituencies and to the country.

Racing is, after football, the second most watched sport in the country. About 6 million people attend the races every year, among them people of all ages, 40% of whom are women. Contrary to myth, racing is a cross-class sport—not that we want to use this debate to define working people. British racing is without doubt an international success story. Four of the top 10 races in the world are held here, which is more than in any other country. We have the best bloodstock; our races attract the best horses; and Britain has some of the finest trainers and horses, including modern legends such as Frankel and Enable.

Racing, like all sports, is a business and it brings huge economic benefits. The industry is estimated to generate £4.1 billion in direct, indirect and associated expenditure every year. About 85,000 people are employed at race- courses, training yards and breeding operations, and in the betting industry. In Newmarket, racing brings in more than 7,000 jobs and generates hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the local economy.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. I am delighted to have Ludlow racecourse in my constituency and, if he ever gets the chance, I would welcome him to Eyton races—a great day out. He made an important point about the local economy, so does he agree that the lack of a clear way forward and support from the Government at this stage is creating uncertainty in horseracing?

[Nick Timothy]

I am sure all hon. Members would look forward to a trip to Ludlow to experience the racing. If I am honest—I say this as a Conservative—this issue has dragged on for a while. I will turn to some questions for the Minister shortly, but time is of the essence.

As so often with Britain, part of the draw, especially for international investors, traders and spectators, is our history and tradition. Racing in this country dates back more than three centuries, and thoroughbred racing was first created here. The association with royalty, which continues with His Majesty the King, only adds to the prestige—I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), the most ardent monarchist in the House of Commons.

That success story, however, is strangely neglected. To those who do not know the industry, it can sometimes appear to be something of a caricature, with horses selling for millions of pounds, breeders paying hundreds of thousands for a particular stallion to cover a mare, and aristocrats and royals being prominent in their patronage. But the reality of racing, unfortunately, is that its future is far more precarious.

Many breeders and trainers operate on tight margins and, as many hon. Members present will affirm, any conversation with them turns quickly to prize money. A horse that wins a top-tier British race increases its future breeding value, but the immediate return is limited compared with in Australia, Ireland and France, where racing benefits from Government support, or in Japan and the United States, where there is simply more money around.

The prize fund for the Dubai Turf, for example, is £4.5 million, and for the All-Star Mile in Australia it is £2.7 million. The Queen Anne Stakes in Ascot, which is a fair equivalent, offers £600,000, and the same is true for the less famous races. At an average of £16,000 to be divided by all placed horses, prize money across the board is much lower here than in competitor markets. Lower down the pyramid, most races pay less than £5,000 to the winner. Owner expenditure far outstrips the total prize money up for grabs in British racing. That is down to how the industry is funded.

In Japan and Hong Kong, where betting is generally banned, there are exceptions for horseracing and some other sports, because they are seen as being run efficiently and by Government Departments. That means proportionately more bets are placed on horseracing than elsewhere, and in both places the industry controls the gambling. In France, prize money is underwritten by the Pari Mutuel Urbain, which enjoys a monopoly on betting. In Australia, where prize money has almost doubled in a decade, it is funded mostly through a betting tax. In Ireland, more than two thirds of prize money comes directly from the Irish Government.

Our system is different. Here the funds come from media rights, executive contributions from racecourses, owners’ entry fees, and the betting levy—a 10% tax on bookmakers’ profits from bets placed on races staged in Britain. Around a third of prize money comes from the levy, but income is falling. Over the past two years, the industry estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen by over £1.5 billion and could be as low as £7 billion this year. The Horserace Betting Levy Board says

“falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health”,

and I agree.

Nobody expects us to adopt a Japanese or French model, but I ask the Minister how things might be changed so that we can put racing on a sustainable footing and make sure that we retain our position as the best place in the world to breed, train and race horses. First, does the Minister agree with all hon. Members present—this is probably the easiest of my questions— that the British horseracing industry is an undoubted international success story, a source of British soft power around the world, and home to many vital community assets in regional towns here, and that we must therefore do everything in our power to make sure it continues to prosper?

Secondly, will the Minister confirm today that the Government will not go back to square one and will instead pick up where their predecessors left off? In May, the British Horseracing Authority agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the levy should be increased to 11.5% to create a growth fund to market and promote British racing at home and abroad, and to hold an independent review of the racing funding model.