First Westminster debate on UK digital ID undermined by lack of data, listening
📄 Article Content
# First Westminster debate on UK digital ID undermined by lack of data, listening
Federated architecture reiterated in mostly-pointless posturing exercise
Oct 21, 2025, 4:48 pm EDT | Chris Burt
Categories Biometrics News | Civil / National ID | Government Services
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 civ