Progressives in Parliament: Digital ID with Jake Richards MP

In the first event of our new Progressives in Parliament series, Progressive Britain hosted a panel discussing the feasibility and potential benefits of introducing digital ID in the House of Commons on Tuesday evening. Our audience heard from Jake Richards MP, Emma Thwaites of the Open Data Institute, Casey Calista of Labour Digital, and Alexander Iosad of the Tony Blair Institute.  

Throughout the New Labour era, the Party was increasingly bogged down in debate around the necessity and feasibility of physical ID cards, particularly around questions of deterring crime and terrorism. However, the debate precedes this era and is a rare instance of a rather technocratic policy having salience in the public consciousness. For instance, a proposed European physical ID scheme features in an episode of Yes Minister where it is framed as political suicide for Jim Hacker due to stereotypical English sensibilities around Europe and ‘Big Brother’. 

Technology has developed by leaps and bounds since these debates as universal ID proposals have moved from analogue to digital. However, the fundamental issue of trust in government and any collaboration with the private sector remains. Participants argued that at the heart of winning trust must be  clear communication as to what digital ID is and most importantly what it is not.  

Casey Calista highlighted three interconnected challenges that proponents face in communicating the need for digital ID to combat a general lack of understanding about what it entails amongst the wider public. In an information space saturated with conspiracy theories, especially those featuring omnipotent governments such as the 15-minute city conspiracy, it must be clearly communicated that individuals retain ownership of their data and exercise sovereign control over who else can access it.  

Another concern is that digital ID will be met with hostility by minority communities, further exacerbating disenfranchisement and political apathy. For example, fears need to be allayed that digital ID will not impact an individual’s access to the NHS or a family’s access to social housing.  

Underpinning these two challenges is a general communicative problem of effectively informing the public about the upsides of digital ID, such as the opportunities for efficiency gains in public services discussed by other members of the panel at length.  

However, communicating effectively is irrelevant if the UK cannot put into place the technological infrastructure to make digital ID functional and able to facilitate desperately needed improvements to public services, as argued by Emma Thwaites.  

Furthermore, Alexander Iosad noted that, typical of the previous 14 years of Tory failure, the UK attempted to introduce various digital identity systems, not a digital ID system, with varying degrees of success and general frustration all-round. Whilst other OECD countries have implemented a form of digital ID system, the UK has been left behind aimlessly grasping at individual schemes such as the digital Veteran Card and cumbersome digital verification systems leaving users with an ever-expanding list of passwords to remember.  

Whilst the panel recognised that there are challenges to be overcome, they also highlighted that there are reasons to be optimistic about the potential for digital ID and how it can contribute to achieving the goals of Labour’s mission-driven government.  

Rather than exacerbating disenfranchisement and disinformation, Jake Richards argued that a coherent and accountable government digital ID system would in fact serve the Labour government’s agenda to re-empower citizens through access to and control over their data.  

Alongside Iosad, Richards highlighted how a singular digital ID would mean easier access for citizens to public services, easing processes such as applying for a new driving licence, or booking a GP appointment. Streamlining these processes would clarify to citizens how to access the full range of public services and help instill public trust in the government’s responses to their welfare needs.  

Digital ID would also be a tool to reinvigorate the relationship between government and those who feel left behind and disenfranchised. Helping to alleviate crucial hours spent navigating the complex and messy web of benefit guidance to ensure that all citizens can quickly understand their benefit and pension entitlements could ease increasing political apathy.   

Whilst this single digital process would be helpful for citizens, it would also support the public sector, diverting time and resources away from processing lengthy and cumbersome paperwork and towards offering the best face to face services for the public. Digital ID would be a simple manoeuvre to improve processing times and overall government efficiency, helping save crucial funds which could be invested elsewhere. 

There are also important concerns over data privacy and accountability that the government must take seriously. Safeguarding how sensitive data is handled and passed between departments and how this information is accessed by citizens need to be a priority for any digital ID system which retains public trust. 

Nonetheless, digital ID can bring together public service reform, citizen empowerment, and access to public services, providing a framework for the Labour Government’s reform agenda. As our panel discussion showed all these positives are futile without a comprehensive communication strategy which brings the public along.  

At Progressive Britain, we look forward to seeing how the Labour Government approaches this debate and more broadly how it can use digital reform to empower citizens across the country. 

For more information and to receive updates on upcoming Progressive Britain events including our Progressives in Parliament series, subscribe to our mailing list by clicking on the link here.   

The post Progressives in Parliament: Digital ID with Jake Richards MP appeared first on Progressive Britain.