To ask the First Minister, regarding the potential impact on marginalised communities and public services in Scotland, what the Scottish Government’s response is to UK Government proposals to introduce a mandatory digital ID scheme. (S6F-04356)

I do not support the introduction of a mandatory digital ID scheme by the United Kingdom Government. People must be able to access public services through the channel that works for them. That might be a digital route, face-to-face services or another method. We are engaging regularly with the UK Government to obtain further detail beyond the announced use, which is right-to-work checks, and to further understand the implications of the proposed digital ID system for Scotland and our communities.

It is wrong to force people to share their data simply in order to go about their daily life. Keir Starmer’s proposal serves as another distraction from the very real issues that the UK faces. Does the First Minister share my concern about the security of people’s personal data and how the UK Government may seek to use it, as well as the barriers that will be put in the way of vulnerable people who already experience digital exclusion?

Mr MacDonald raises important issues about digital exclusion. Many of the proposals, which could have an effect on some of the most vulnerable in our society—particularly people with disabilities and, in some circumstances, older people—have to be entirely considered as part of the exercise. The use of digital access to public services is appropriate in many circumstances, when individuals are willing to participate in that, but we must act to avoid digital exclusion in all circumstances.

I agree with the First Minister’s stance on the issue. I say gently to him that he would have more credibility on those issues had he not been such an evangelist for the Scottish National Party’s hated named person policy, which was struck down by the courts for being an infringement of personal privacy.

What does the First Minister think is the worst aspect of the proposal? Is it the likely extortionate costs, the inevitable failure of the information technology systems, the risk of a data breach or the affront to civil liberty?

Those issues have to be looked at as part of the consideration of the ID cards proposition. I note that, prior to the Prime Minister’s announcement, in the early summer, net support in opinion polls for digital ID cards stood at 35 per cent. After the Prime Minister announced the proposal, it fell to minus 14 per cent. It seems to be the case that whatever the Prime Minister touches turns to dust.

In a Scottish Government document from 2021 entitled “A Changing Nation: How Scotland will Thrive in a Digital World”, we were told that the Government would introduce a digital identity service that would apparently be “trusted and secure” and would enable users

“to prove who they are, and that they are eligible for a service.”

Now that the First Minister is apparently against such intrusion into our lives, can we assume that those plans will not reappear?

There is a fundamental difference here, which is about the opportunity to access public services through digital means if individuals wish to do so. That is different from the mandatory proposition that is being advanced by the United Kingdom Government, which is, as my colleague Gordon MacDonald indicated, a distraction from the real difficulties that the Government faces. [ Interruption .]

Let us hear one another.