Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce
a distributed digital identification protocol for the United
Kingdom.
(Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on
the Order Paper and declare my technology interests as set out in
the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport () (Con)
My Lords, in 2020, the Government committed to creating a
framework of standards, governance and legislation to enable a UK
digital identity market. The DCMS published a draft trust
framework in February this year setting out the Government’s
vision for the rules governing the future use of digital
identities. A next iteration is expected to be published this
summer and we are expecting to consult on digital identity
legislation during this year.
(Con)
My Lords, which specific sectors do the Government believe are
best to run proofs of concepts in when it comes to digital ID?
Further, does my noble friend agree with the analysis from
McKinsey that suggests an additional 13% in UK GDP if we get
digital identity effectively deployed? That is a prize certainly
worth prioritising.
(Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that this is a prize
worth prioritising—although I cannot comment on the specific
McKinsey data. On his question about areas for pilots, we are
working with a number of sectors and are eager to look into
pilots in healthcare, tourism, housing, conveyancing and
insurance—but all of this is of course subject to spending review
outcomes.
(Lab) [V]
It is increasingly important for all of us as citizens to be able
to simply and securely verify our identity to others and,
likewise, that we can always have confidence that the person with
whom we are engaged in a transaction is who they say they are.
Yet there have been 11 wasted years since the Government scrapped
the previous proposals for a secure identity system. Why has
there been that waste of time? Can the Minister assure us, the
public, that our personal identity data will be secure and not
exploited for profit by these new private sector solutions?
(Con)
I cannot comment on the delay to which the noble Lord refers.
What I can say is that we are working at pace and have made
considerable progress since our response to the call for evidence
in September. As he is aware—the clue is in the name—a
fundamental of the “trust framework” is that citizens can trust
how their digital ID will be used.
(Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, identity theft is a major, growing crime in this
country and many people, particularly the elderly, are commonly
relieved of their life savings. In the digital, financial and
communications world, we all use fingerprint, facial and iris
recognition applications to access our personal and financial
information. They also safeguard travellers at airports. Unique
DNA data has revolutionised crime investigation, resulting in
serious historical crimes being detected. Does the noble Baroness
agree that proof of identity brings welcome security to most
people living in the modern world? However, for it to be trusted,
we need to capture this biometric data, verify its authenticity
and digitise it securely.
(Con)
I absolutely agree that a secure and trusted digital ID framework
can help reduce data breaches, identity fraud and some of the
problems to which the noble Lord referred.
(Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as chair of the Proof
of Age Standards Scheme board. I congratulate my noble friend and
welcome the moves that the Government are making in this
direction. However, mindful of the fact that digital identity
verification is fiendishly complicated, I urge the Government to
consult as widely as they can, to embrace the consequences for
rural as well as urban areas and to ensure that any such
framework is fit for purpose and will, as my noble friend says,
be used safely and appropriately.
(Con)
My noble friend makes an important point on which I absolutely
agree. That is why we have taken this very transparent approach
with the publication of the trust framework alpha. A second
iteration will be published this summer and then, as I mentioned,
further work towards legislation later this year.
(LD)
My Lords, the Government Digital Service is hiring a new head of
design with the statement:
“Our vision is that citizens will be able to use one login for
all government services.”
But we have already spent £200 million on Verify without notable
success. Despite what seemed to be the intention in the call for
evidence response of creating an open marketplace for verifiable
credentials, are the Government really planning to reinvent
Verify?
(Con)
We are not planning to reinvent anything. We will continue to run
the Verify system, plan for its retirement and the offboarding of
services, while working closely with departments, including my
own, to develop a viable long-term digital identity solution for
all government, which will be called “One Login for Government”.
(Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Holmes on his
persistence on this important subject. Does the Minister agree
that we have to introduce a unified digital ID protocol for many
reasons, not least the IT benefits for people’s well-being, which
will require building equal digital opportunities, widespread
digital literacy and strong digital security? For this to
succeed, the Government need to introduce their own digital ID
protocol as soon as possible and use that opportunity to consider
launching further widespread digital literacy education
campaigns.
(Con)
I thank my noble friend for highlighting another opportunity for
digital ID. The Government are committed to realising the
benefits of these technologies, albeit without creating ID cards.
My honourable friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure and
the Parliamentary Secretary at the Cabinet Office are working
closely together, as both the trust framework and the single
sign-on system for government are needed, so that users can
control their data in line with the principles that we published
in our response to the 2019 call for evidence.
(CB)
My Lords, anonymity online has encouraged people to say things
that are rude, hurtful, untrue and, sometimes, murderous. This
does huge damage to society and individuals, so could the
Minister undertake that any move towards a distributed digital
identity protocol would include an examination of how it might be
used to prevent people hiding behind pseudonyms on social media?
(Con)
The noble Baroness will know that issues around anonymity on
social media are extremely complex. She rightly raises instances
where anonymity is abused, but we also know that some people use
anonymity and pseudonyms for their own protection. I will take
her remarks back to the department.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, , on pursuing this issue so doggedly, and I
challenge the Minister’s assertion that the Government are moving
at pace on this. But it is crucial that our economy and public
services move with the times. Bodies such as the Financial Action
Task Force acknowledge the existence of risks if digital ID is
not properly implemented. So how do the Government intend to
strike the right balance between risk and reward in this
important area?
(Con)
The noble Lord raises an important question. It will be through
the transparency that I mentioned earlier, with the publication
of the trust framework alpha and a second iteration, a beta
version, which will be tested before going live.
(LD)
The Minister rightly stresses the importance of building public
trust in all this. Given increasing concerns about the partisan
fashion of so many recent public appointments, what are the
Government doing to build broad support for forthcoming key
appointments in this field, such as the new Information
Commissioner, the new chair of the board at the Centre for Data
Ethics and Innovation, and others?
(Con)
I absolutely do not accept the noble Lord’s assertion about the
political complexion of recent appointments. All go through the
public appointments process and are entirely transparent.
(CB)
My Lords, live automated recognition technology is currently on
trial by the police, under the supervision and care of the
Surveillance Commissioner. Is it envisaged that digitised
identity will similarly be subject to the remit of the
commissioner, or will they be run as completely separate issues
of digitisation?
(Con)
I welcome the noble and learned Lord to his place and thank him
for his question. My understanding is that there will be a need
for co-operation between different regulatory authorities. As he
will be aware, we have not yet established the governance
structure for digital identity—but if there is further
information to share, I will write to the noble and learned Lord.
