A reader BTL has asked what happened during the statement on the digital ID scheme last night. It took place quite late, after the blog had closed. But this is what PA Media filed on it.
The government risks losing support over its proposals for digital IDs, Labour MPs have said, as they raised concerns about the impact on civil liberties and the cost.
Nadia Whittome, Richard Burgon, Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasy all questioned how necessary the IDs were, and whether the Government could spend the money better.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the digital IDs would only be mandatory for employers to see on right-to-work checks, as the government bids to clamp down on illegal working.
However, Kendall added that for those who wanted to, it could improve access to public services.
Meanwhile, individuals would not face sanctions, only employers, and the police would never demand to see the IDs, Kendall said.
She said the government had learned from countries such as Estonia and Denmark who had used the IDs already, and allowed people to “tell their story once” when dealing with public services.
A consultation will begin before the end of the year, MPs heard, as they were told any system would be built “in house”.
Kendall said: “When you look across other countries and what they’re doing, it really has made government fit around people, rather than make people fit into government and its different services, and I think that’s a huge benefit.”
However, Whittome (Nottingham East) warned the government risked “burning through political capital”.
She said: “I don’t know how many doors I’ve knocked on in my 12 years as a Labour member, but I do know that not a single person has ever told me that what they really need to improve their lives, their community, this country is mandatory digital ID.
“It won’t tackle irregular working, it undermines civil liberties, it’s divisive among the public and it won’t make a difference to people’s lives.
“So I ask the secretary of state, why are we doing it? Why are we burning political capital and public money on this, instead of focusing on the issues that are really are impacting our constituents.
“I worry that this is yet another huge mistake.”
Her party colleague Burgon (Leeds East) said: “Given the serious threats that digital ID poses to civil liberties, our data security and a risk of data being handed over to US tech giants, I’m firmly opposed to digital ID.
“However, isn’t it also a really big waste of money, and shouldn’t the Government be instead focusing on what is the number one priority for people across the country, which is tackling the cost-of-living crisis, and wouldn’t the money from this better be pushed into that, while safeguarding civil liberties?”
Nichols (Warrington North) said: “I’ve been contacted by a large volume of constituents in recent weeks whose healthy scepticism that digital ID will make a material difference in tackling illegal immigration, I share.”
Creasy said she had seen figures of it costing £1bn to £2bn to establish the scheme, then an ongoing £100m a year to run it.
She also said the cost of a data breach could amount to 1.1% of GDP.
Creasy said: “[Kendall] said this would be free. Ultimately, the taxpayer will have to pay for it.”
Comment ×