First Westminster debate on UK digital ID undermined by lack of data, listening

The UK government’s plan to introduce a national digital ID and require its verification for all employment was debated by Members of Parliament for the first time on Tuesday.

Scottish National Party (SNP) First Minister John Swinney has threatened to block the introduction of the national digital ID in Scotland with devolved powers. The SNP brought forward the topic for debate, and led the questioning.

Just prior to the debate, an official Parliamentary document indicated the type of digital identity system the government has in mind, but also identified many of the objections that were raised in the debate.

A research briefing from the House of Commons Library on “Digital ID in the UK” breaks down what is digital ID is and its potential positive and negative impacts, and summarizes the debate around them. The paper suggests that the national digital ID will be decentralized, and avoid the creation of a new national database. It also reviews the concerns shared by groups like Privacy International and Big Brother Watch.

Minister of State for Digital Government and Data Ian Murray stated clearly at the end of the days’ debate the government’s plan is for a federated system.

The positions laid out before and after the announcement by stakeholders from civil society and the digital identity industry are acknowledged in the report, along with the efforts in countries around the world to formulate what good digital ID means.

Mock, contradict, repeat

“Don’t you worry your silly little heads about this massive data collection, or our newfound ability to monitor your every move,” SNP MP Pete Wishart said in mock imitation of the Starmer government to kick off the debate.

Threats to privacy and civil liberties, the risk of mass surveillance and government overreach will all accompany the introduction of digital ID, he says.

Asked from across the aisle if he shares concerns voiced by Big Brother Watch that the “ScotCard” is a mandatory scheme in all but name, Wishart insisted that Scotland’s digital ID is voluntary.

ID data is already as good as breached. Britain’s veterans are being used as guinea pigs. And the 3 million signatories to the petition calling for the plan to be abandoned represent a clear majority of UK citizens, Wishart stated. People will have to surrender huge amounts of personal data to access basic public services.

The fundamental relationship between the state and citizens is altered if individuals must prove their rights, rather than the state taking the burden of proof when they are denied.

An expensive new program has no place in the priorities of people handling a cost of living crisis.

Worries were expressed about a government led by Nigel Farage, and influenced by his “authoritarian tendencies,” as one MP said, gaining greater control over citizens through digital ID.

Previous debates about the digital identity options provided by the private sector through the DIATF did not include any mention of a competing scheme from the public sector, another pointed out.

“Estonia is ten times more digitally engaged than the United Kingdom” and has still suffered data breaches, Wishart says.

Labour MPs pushed back, suggesting that the UK can adopt Estonia’s model to increase transparency into and control over how ID data is used.

But the UK government’s track record of IT failures has already extended to the security of the One Login system.

“This is not about centralizing data. Digital ID allows a citizen to access the federated data. The data stays in the individual departments, it does not stay on a card,” said Labour MP Emily Darlington.

Several MPs followed by repeating minutes later that the system proposed is based on a centralized database of sensitive personal information.

No new data will be collected by the government, Darlington insists.  She also acknowledged a lack of detail in the proposal so far, saying it will emerge from the consultation process.

While waiting for the many answers Labour has not yet furnished, many opposition MPs spent the debate asking questions which have already been answered, or rejecting those answers with vague claims or anecdotes.

The general impression created by the debate is that the opposition believes digital ID cannot possibly help with the UK’s problems, the government cannot afford it and always fails in digital programs. The government believes that in the debate, as stated by Murray: “all we’ve heard is the myths.”

Article Topics

BritCard  |  digital ID  |  digital wallets  |  GOV.UK Wallet  |  government services  |  Scotland  |  UK digital ID