Samantha Niblett

I am pleased that through this Westminster Hall debate we are giving much-needed attention to the question of digital ID. Many of my constituents in South Derbyshire contacted me to share their views ahead of the debate. That includes well over 400 comments on a Facebook post in which I asked people for their views on digital ID —good, bad and perceived bad. Although there is a wide variety of opinion, many of my constituents have expressed concerns and it is my responsibility to communicate these here today. Let me start by recognising that about a third of South Derbyshire constituents who have been in touch on digital ID were supportive, which is almost unique—people rarely contact me to tell me that they are pleased with what I am doing. There are some significant practical advantages: the ability to prove identity quickly for work; the potential to bring together passport, driving licence and national insurance details in a single secure format so that people would not need to faff around with a utility bill to prove their address anymore; and the benefits for people who currently lack traditional forms of ID. As things stand, digital ID would be mandatory only for those accessing work, although I recognise that many constituents have concerns over mission creep, which I will come back to.