The Earl of Courtown (Con)

My Lords, this Statement was delivered just one week ago and has already run into some serious difficulty. Reports in the press suggest that both the Health Secretary and the Education Secretary have made it clear that their departments will not provide some of the data required for the scheme. If that is correct, it raises a fundamental question: can this policy get off the ground? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister announced that the Government sought to introduce a digital ID system that would allow individuals to log into the GOV.UK app to verify their identity. He said that “unlike an ordinary login, digital ID will work across different departments … so you can access all of the services you need in one place”. Yet it now appears that health and education—two of the areas where one might reasonably expect such assistance to be most useful—may not be included at all. The Chief Secretary stated that “digital ID will, over time, bring all other public services into one app” on your mobile phone. If that is the ambition, these reports raise serious questions about whether the Government’s own departments are prepared to make that vision a reality. This proposal raises serious questions about accessibility. Noble Lords will know that when government services move online and on to apps, they do not always become simpler or easier to use. Often, the opposite is true. These systems can take years to refine. The user experience can be poor and tasks that were once straightforward become frustratingly complex. Take, for example, the process of verifying an identity with Companies House through the GOV.UK website. What would once have been completed in minutes can now take much longer, as users work their way through help pages, chatbots, online forms and endless CAPTCHA boxes. The current state of the Government’s digital infrastructure does not inspire great confidence that this scheme will deliver the outcomes Ministers promise. If the ambition is to move large parts of the state on to a single digital platform, the issue of digital exclusion cannot be ignored. We can already see this in practice. Many now struggle to use the NHS app. Increasingly, patients must complete online forms or digital triage systems before they can book a GP appointment, resulting in delays in access to care. We on these Benches also harbour concerns as to whether the system will truly remain voluntary. The Chief Secretary said: “For those who really do not wish to, traditional routes will … still be made available”. This assurance ignores that some people will genuinely struggle to use the new system rather than just being refuseniks. It is also unclear what this means in practice. The Chief Secretary did not guarantee that traditional routes will remain available to the same extent that they are today. People will naturally worry that, over time, this could lead to a real-term reduction in those routes, with fewer alternatives for those who cannot or do not wish to use the digital system. I ask the Minister for clarity. Can he confirm that this policy will not result in any reduction in access to public services for those who either cannot or do not wish to use the digital ID system? Can he also confirm that the introduction of this scheme will not lead to any reduction in the availability of existing processes in departments or services that adopt this digital ID route? I turn to the GOV.UK One Login system. How many public services now require systems to use GOV.UK One Login as a mandatory gateway rather than an option? How many of the National Cyber Security Centre’s 39 cyber assessment framework outcomes does One Login currently meet, and which does it not? Can the Minister also say what whistleblowing concerns have been raised since 2022 about security clearances, administrator access, overseas development and undetected red team intrusions? What security incidents have occurred? Has any personal data been compromised? These questions were asked in a UQ in January. I am concerned by the lack of detail in the Minister’s response. I hope the Minister can reply more fully this time. If not, I hope he will write to clarify these points. I appreciate that the Government have opened a public consultation, but these questions are immediately obvious to us—and, I hope, to the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s response.