Councillors Condemn ‘Misinformation’ About Digital ID Plan

Newport councillors have clashed over UK Government’s digital ID proposals, with Labour dismissing “misinformation” concerns raised by Conservative members.

Labour councillors in Newport have strongly rejected claims made by their Conservative counterparts regarding the UK Government’s proposed digital ID system, dismissing them as “misinformation” during a heated council meeting on Tuesday.

The dispute arose after Conservative Councillors Ray Mogford and Will Routley tabled a motion asking the city council to formally oppose Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s digital ID proposals, which the government says would help tackle illegal working. The Conservative motion claimed the policy would potentially “risk criminalising millions of people” who don’t sign up, cost £4.6 billion, and raise “significant privacy and civil liberties concerns.”

Council Leader Dimitri Batrouni acknowledged that digital ID was “an important debate” and that “people are concerned” about the proposed policy. However, he challenged the Conservative claims, emphasizing that the system would not be mandatory for general use and disputed suggestions it would “criminalise” non-participants.

“This motion represents a failure to understand how systems work now,” Batrouni said, pointing out that “all our personal data is in the cloud now” and that social media companies already “scrape” and “sell” users’ information. “They track everything we do,” he added.

The controversy reflects broader national concerns, with a petition to the UK Parliament opposing digital ID having garnered nearly three million signatures. The petition is scheduled for debate in the House of Commons in early December. In Newport alone, figures indicate that approximately 10,000 residents have signed this petition.

Labour Councillor Emma Stowell-Corten dismissed claims about the system’s cost and scope, stating the digital ID would contain “nothing more than what’s already on your passport.” She characterized the £4.6 billion cost estimate as outdated, referring to it as “a throwback to a Tony Blair-era proposal scrapped 15 years ago.” Stowell-Corten added she would request additional training for councillors on identifying misinformation.

Deputy Council Leader Deb Davies suggested that Newport residents would “expect us to focus on issues we can actually influence,” recommending instead that the council participate in the UK Government’s consultation planned for the new year. “If we want the public to trust us, we have to be very careful with what’s put on the record,” she cautioned.

The tone grew more confrontational when Labour Councillor Stephen Cocks branded the Conservative motion “ridiculous” and a “cheap attempt to score a few political points.”

In defense of his motion, Councillor Mogford maintained there are “legitimate concerns” and “speculation” surrounding digital ID implementation, arguing these concerns “far outweigh” any potential benefits of the scheme.

According to official statements, the UK Government has indicated that digital ID, if approved, will be “mandatory as a means of proving your right to work” and will “in time make it simpler to apply for services like driving licences, childcare and welfare, while streamlining access to tax records.”

Conservative group leader Matthew Evans questioned the policy’s origin, noting it was “unusual” for the UK Government to pursue a policy not featured in last year’s Labour Party manifesto. “To me there are far too many questions and not enough actual answers as to how it’s going to improve our lives,” he said.

Councillor Routley defended his motion by stating he was “speaking on behalf of Newportonians who are against this” proposal.

The debate concluded with councillors rejecting the original motion and instead backing a Labour amendment that expressed support for the digital ID plans while calling on the UK Government to address concerns about misinformation surrounding the initiative.

The Newport dispute highlights the growing national conversation about digital identity, data privacy, and government oversight in an increasingly digital society.