Digital ID
I call Jeremy Corbyn. Can you come forward to a microphone, please?
5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Order. The Doorkeeper must remove that person from the Public Gallery immediately. [Interruption.] Don’t just stand there!
- Hansard source
Pensioner Poverty
I am very grateful to the Minister to be in receipt of the triple lock, but it is not an effective way of tackling pensioner poverty and it is bankrupting the country. I am sorry not to be party political, but can we not have a consensus between the parties that we should phase out the triple lock, concentrate resources on pensioners in real poverty and have an agreement on dealing with benefits generally to get people back into work? We should work together.
- Hansard source
Restriction of Jury Trials
My maths teacher always required us to show our workings. Last week, the Secretary of State told us that only 3% of prosecutions proceed to jury trials. How can marginally reducing such a small proportion produce the savings that have been identified? Will the Minister publish the modelling?
- Hansard source
Ajax Armoured Vehicle
I very much welcome the cross-party tone that both Front Benches have adopted in these exchanges. This problem reflects a very long-term, systemic problem in MOD defence acquisition. While there are glimmerings of light and some brilliant people in the Department who want to do things differently—the response to Ukraine shows that we can do things differently—there is a need for a big culture change in the MOD to achieve that. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that people involved in defence acquisition are sent on the courses where such lessons are properly learned and that the change in behaviour and attitude actually takes place? If that radical organisational culture transformation is not implemented, no reform will work unless we throw out all the people and start again, and I suggest that is rather impractical. We must change how these people think and operate in order to change the system and avoid things like this happening again.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate on behalf of the nearly 3 million people who signed the petition to stop digital ID. Some 5,300 of them were from my constituency, and I thank them for participating. From the emails that I have received, I am in no doubt that my constituents are opposed to the measure. We all know why this proposal was introduced. It has nothing to do with well-thought-out policy and everything to do with the Prime Minister being in trouble. He saw a policy that, according to his focus groups, enjoyed broad support, so he announced it as Government policy without much thought as to the consequences. Not only did the Prime Minister’s anti-Midas touch annoy a lot of Labour supporters, but for the first time in 15 years it has caused serious scrutiny of such a policy. Mandatory ID, be it physical or digital, fundamentally alters the relationship between the citizen and the state. It changes us from a country where the citizen is at liberty to do whatever he pleases, unless it is prohibited, to one where the citizen needs the permission of the state to do certain things. That is a serious shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the state, and not one that should be rushed through as a gimmick to help this most unpopular of Prime Ministers. The Government claim that digital ID will help crack down on illegal migration and illegal working. Is there anyone on the Labour Benches who seriously believes that nonsense? All employers already have a legal duty to conduct a right-to-work check on people they employ, and those who break the law now will continue to do so. What is lacking is the will of this Government to enforce the existing law and deport illegal migrants. While the Government say that this ID scheme will not be mandatory, it will effectively be compulsory for everyone in the workforce. The Minister responsible for delivering this policy is reported to have told his Cabinet colleagues that digital ID could transform people’s experience of the state, indicating his intention that it would become integrated with all public services. Any expansion of the use of digital ID for other services will see the scheme become mandatory in all but name for all citizens. This policy was not in the Labour party manifesto. It has not been voted for by the British people. It is authoritarian, expensive and un-British, and on behalf of my constituents I shall resist it.
- Hansard source
Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing an urgent question on this important matter. Does the Minister agree that it is not only the Jewish community who have been seriously let down by this sequence of events, but all of us in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield and across Birmingham? Does she accept that it is not right to blame the SAG, which will always go—on the whole—with the police evidence that is put before that committee? That might well be an argument for looking again at the structure of how these decisions are taken. Does she also agree that this looks like a maladroit political decision rather than a policy decision, and does she understand that many local people are very disappointed in the role of the police and crime commissioner, who is supposed to stand up for local communities and has not done so in this case?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. “Why are they needed when we already have secure ways to identify ourselves?” “This is being pushed under the façade of security.” “The cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive.” “This system would be incredibly vulnerable to hacking.” Those direct quotes from my constituents get to the heart of the point: unnecessary; overreach; vulnerable; and expensive. Nearly 5,000 people in South Northamptonshire signed the petition to oppose the Government’s plans for digital IDs. This Government really are the living embodiment of the famous phrase: “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.” First, they sold the measure as a means of tackling illegal migration, but that principle has barely been mentioned in recent weeks. Now digital IDs will become the requirement for right to work checks in the UK, which may require children as young as 13 to be involved. Talk about the creeping hand of the state!
- Hansard source
Digital ID
If time permitted, I would happily take an intervention from any Government Member on where it was in the Labour manifesto that such a measure would be included, or if any member of the Government could actually tell us how much the scheme would cost. But I will save them the trouble, because it was not and they do not know. The OBR has said that there has been no specific funding identified for the scheme, and it is forecast to cost £1.8 billion over the next three years. We have a Government drowning in Budget leaks and accidentally releasing prisoners left, right and centre, so how can they be trusted to create a system of ID? Any such system requires absolute buy-in from all our constituents, and we can see that the very reason we are having this debate today is that the Government have not secured that buy-in. This is a really dangerous gimmick from the Government. The devil is in the detail, and without that detail the devil is at play and the British public will pay.
- Hansard source
Welfare Spending: Economic Impact
1. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of future welfare spending on the economy.
- Hansard source
Welfare Spending: Economic Impact
The oldest law in economics is that if we tax something more, we get less of it. The inverse is also true: if we subsidise something more, we get more of it. Why do this Government believe that subsidising unemployment through huge increases to the welfare bill will not lead to more unemployment? Will the Secretary of State accept that those changes disincentivise work, and will he tell the House how much the Budget is expected to increase unemployment?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I congratulate my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend—the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on his excellent speech. I am sure he will be right honourable in no time. Some 4,500 of my constituents signed the petition. I thank not only them, but the 3 million petitioners across the country who have made sure that their voices are heard today. Before I discuss the fundamental issue, I want to address a point made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) and other Government Members. The reality is that no system in the world is secure enough to protect data; my constituency is the home of Jaguar Land Rover, and we have to be honest with our constituents about that. When I was the Minister for Tech and the Digital Economy, I looked at this issue, and I know that our current system is one in which we voluntarily give up our data. The fundamental issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley highlighted, is that consent is being taken away.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point that we have to take into consideration. The Minister will not be able to give anyone the reassurance they deserve, which is why many of our constituents are so upset about this. Let us be very clear about the reason we are here. The fundamental issue is that a beleaguered Prime Minister has rolled out this gimmick as nothing more than a way to stop the boats. The fact of the matter is that since Labour came into government, we have had 62,000 illegal crossings. The ID that we have in place already has not stopped them, and neither will digital ID. This gimmick has not fooled voters, and it did not fool the 3 million people who signed the petition. They can see clearly through it. First and foremost, our constituents require honesty. This will not stop the boats. I also want to address a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) about shops selling illegal vapes. Mechanisms for IDs are already in place, but that is still happening, so digital ID will not stop it either. What he was arguing for, whether he knew it or not, was overarching powers of intervention for the police into the private accounts of private individuals. That is the only way in which they will be able to intervene. What they need to do is investigate, like they always do.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Let me address that point. The problem that the hon. Gentleman poses will not be solved by digital ID—I fundamentally disagree with him about that—because HMRC already has the powers to investigate people selling illegal cigarettes, as do the police. That is why the Government have lauded the fact that there were raids just a few months ago, and closures of some of these shops. He is creating a straw-man argument that is not solved by digital ID. Let us be under no illusion about this proposal. It opens the door to tyranny, whether it is tyranny today or tyranny tomorrow. The Minister cannot confirm that a future Government—a future Labour Government, perhaps, if that is even possible—will not take advantage of digital ID.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I am going to make some progress, if that is okay. I and others have made the point that digital ID would fundamentally reframe the relationship between the individual and the state. It would turn us into a “papers, please” society. Responsibility for proving that someone was guilty would be shifted away from the state, and individuals would, in essence, be required to prove that they were innocent. I visited Estonia when I was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Tech and the Digital Economy. I saw the system there, and I came away with a conclusion very different from the one that others have reached. The Estonians’ system works for them because they have the Russians on their border.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I will not take any more interventions. If Estonia were invaded, the Estonians might have to pick up sticks and move all their records over. That is why digital ID works for them, even though they have one of the largest black economies in the world and have had quite significant data breaches. Our economy and society are much more complex than Estonia’s. Mandatory digital ID does not work for our economy and our society. Time and again, I am asked what this Government stand for. The last few weeks and months have been telling, with the cutting of jury trials, the introduction of a mandatory digital ID and the arrest of comedians for errant tweets. I ask the Minister: why are this Government so afraid of British citizens living their lives freely and in liberty?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; she is being ever so generous. It is not us scaremongering, or 3 million people being conspiracists; the fact is that the Prime Minister rolled out this scheme to deal with an issue that it will not solve, and everyone can see through that.
- Hansard source
Restriction of Jury Trials
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice if he will make a statement on the accuracy of data used to justify the restriction of jury trials in relation to rape victim attrition rates and magistrates court capacity.
- Hansard source
Restriction of Jury Trials
The Government are slashing jury trials under false pretences. Last week, the Justice Secretary suggested that 60% of those who report being raped are now pulling out of cases because of court delays, but Home Office statistics show that this year, only 9% of rape cases were abandoned after a charge was brought. Although that is not good enough, the fact is that the figure is down, and the number of victim-based prosecutions is near its peak. In some parts of the country, the backlog is far lower, and rape cases are rightly being prioritised. The Justice Secretary’s plans will do next to nothing to cut backlogs for rape victims, but his claims are certain to further erode women’s confidence in the justice system. That was not the only claim that did not stack up. The Justice Secretary said that he will divert cases to the magistrates courts because they “do not currently have a backlog”—[Official Report, 2 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 806.] but as of September, there is a backlog—or open caseload, as the Minister now calls it—of 361,000 cases, up 25% on this Government’s watch. He claimed that scrapping juries will cut trial times by 20%, but Sir Brian Leveson’s own review found that figure to be “highly uncertain”, stating that “further detailed analysis” was required. There are still reams of unanswered questions. The Justice Secretary will not let the Crown courts sit around the clock, when today, 63 courtrooms sit completely empty. He will not rule out applying these changes to those who are already in the court backlog, and he will not publish modelling showing that victims of rape will wait less time, or indeed any modelling whatsoever. Unless the Minister can answer those questions today, we can only conclude that the Government simply do not know. If they want to make a major change to our constitution—something that we have enjoyed for 800 years—they should do so on the basis of facts, not baseless claims. The plan is already unravelling, as did the last such attempt 20 years ago. I say to the Minister that it is not too late to avoid a humiliating defeat.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID. It is a pleasure to introduce today’s e-petition debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to open it on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank all the organisations and individuals I have met in preparation for the debate. Nearly 3 million people have signed today’s petition. It is the fourth most signed petition in the history of parliamentary e-petitions, comparable only to the recent petitions calling for a general election. It is obvious why the plans to bring in digital ID have provoked such outrage: they are fundamentally un-British and they strike at the core political traditions of this country. Colleagues of all parties are opposed to these measures: the Conservatives, the Greens, Reform, Lib Dems, Labour Back Benchers, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, independent MPs and colleagues from Northern Ireland. In fact, even several Ministers in this Government have, in the past, voiced their opposition to compulsory identity documents.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I cannot agree enough. It raises the question: who is actually in favour of these proposals, other than the Prime Minister? Despite the consistent opposition to identity documents, this is not the first time that they have been forced on the British public. The first ID card in this country came during the second world war: police officers could demand of the public that they show their cards and they were subject to six months’ imprisonment if they did not. Despite promises in 1939 that the ID cards would be a temporary wartime measure, they were used throughout the post-war Attlee Government; they were ended only by the Conservatives in 1952. Some 50 years later, no longer fighting German spies but the war on terror, the Blair Government tried to bring ID cards back, and they succeeded. Once again, it took the Conservative Government—this time in coalition with the Lib Dems—to stop them. Sadly, the Conservatives are not wholly innocent either when it comes to ID. In 2021, the Government introduced the first digital ID in the form of the covid passport, which I proudly voted against. Thankfully, those documents lasted only a short while before restrictions were lifted. That brings us to the modern day and the latest excuse for ID cards: tackling illegal immigration and delivering Government services.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
That is exactly why this Conservative party is saying no to digital ID once again. The latest guesstimate of how much this is going to cost us all is a whopping £1.8 billion.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I entirely agree, but here we are with the latest Government excuse to introduce mandatory digital ID. I can just see the communication advisers in No. 10 looking at today’s polling, dusting off the old ID card plan and slapping “Stop the boats” on the cover. There is no doubt in my mind that if the No. 1 issue of today had been tackling potholes, the very same press release would have come out of No. 10 claiming that digital ID is now the essential solution to tackling the national problem of potholes. I say that in jest, but to point out that it seems that any excuse—however unjustified and unevidenced—will do to push policy through.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Therein lies the explanation and the reason why so many Members of this House are opposed to the plans brought forward by the Prime Minister. Here is the question that the Government hope nobody will ask: if the real target is people who are here illegally, why on earth do 67 million British citizens who already have national insurance numbers, passports, driving licences and birth certificates need to be dragged into a brand-new compulsory database as well? What exactly is it about stopping the crisis of inflatable dinghies in the channel that requires your son, your daughter, your dad or your 90-year-old grandma to hand over their data and facial geometry to the Home Office server?
- Hansard source
Digital ID
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is not about stopping the boats at all; it is about more Government and state control.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I absolutely agree that digital exclusion is a reality for all. I ask everyone in this place and those watching at home, no matter their political persuasion, to imagine their worst ever Government: the one that keeps them awake at night and that they would march against in the streets. For many, I am sure that that will be this Government, but for some it may have been previous Governments. This single piece of digital infrastructure will hand that Government, whoever they may be, the key to our life. Once that digital infrastructure is set up, we cannot go back. Once digital ID comes into force, no political party can promise that its intentions will stay good forever. Put simply, an ID card gives the state permanent control, and I say no. The slippery slope argument is so common in debates about civil liberties that it is almost a cliché, but once the digital identities infrastructure is in place, it will become so much harder for a well-meaning Minister to resist the idea that they can fix areas of public policy by tracking and controlling, at an ever finer level, how a population behaves.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
That is exactly what a constituent of mine emailed me about—a constituent who voted Labour in 2024. They said, “If they can’t even control the leakage from the Government, how on earth can they control our data?”
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I could not agree more, but I suspect that the Minister will come out and reiterate the lines from the Prime Minister that he was given before the debate. Just look at the social credit system in China. Facial recognition linked to ID penalises people. Blacklisted citizens cannot buy train or plane tickets, book hotels or apply for certain jobs. This Government have already indicated that migration work and renting will be tied to ID, but how long will it be before future Governments push further and accessing state services is brought under the control and monitoring of digital ID? We are already seeing signs of such a framework in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Online Safety Act 2023 and the One Login system. Combined with a formal digital ID, those frameworks would create a world of control for Whitehall and a soulless dystopia for the rest of us. Together, they replace the honesty and decency of human-to-human interaction with an opaque, mechanical “computer says no” future. The scary truth is that control and ID cards hold an appeal for anyone who has access to power. It takes a conscious effort by every one of us to resist the temptation. Power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I agree. The attitude of control strikes at the very heart of our political traditions. We are a representative democracy, not a command-and-control state. A Government exist by the will of the people, not the other way round. Put simply, we are not a “papers, please” society. One of the most terrifying elements of the Government’s proposals is that these IDs are to be digital. The national database on which our identities are to be held is a true honeypot for hackers all over the world. To those who say that it will be secure, I say, “Name me a company or Government body that has not had a hacking crisis in recent years.” The NHS, the Co-op, Jaguar Land Rover—I could go on. Even Estonia’s Government lost 280,000 digital ID photos in 2021.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I completely agree. In the case of One Login, cyber-security specialists were able to infiltrate and potentially alter the underlying code without being noticed by the team working on the project. In fact, the existing system could be compromised as we speak. We are assured by advocates of digital ID that clever technology will protect the data, but as I have outlined, the temptation to further integrate data within the system will be extremely strong. How long before someone suggests that security features be removed to make the system more efficient? Digital data brings me back to consent. I will finish on this point: digital ID is an ever more intrusive evolution of traditional ID cards—one that promises to be more oppressive. Coupled with the powers of digital databases, increasing widespread facial recognition, digitalised public services and the looming prospect of a central bank’s digital currencies, digital ID threatens to create an all-encompassing digital surveillance state that even George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” could not predict. In every aspect of public life, we give over our data with consent. Yet digital ID turns that notion on its head, insisting that we hand over data to simply function in society, and potentially for reasons to which we cannot consent in advance.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I absolutely agree. Who else but the Prime Minister really wants to drive this through? If the Government expand the scope of digital ID after its initial implementation, I doubt that they will be kind enough to offer an opt-out clause to anyone who has signed up. People up and down the country, 3 million of whom have signed the petition, can see that this scheme is a disaster waiting to happen.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
I could not agree more. It shows the strength of feeling on this issue. Thousands of people are deeply offended by the intrusion on their civil liberties; thousands are sceptical about whether Whitehall will be able to pull off such a complex scheme; and thousands are digitally excluded, terrified of a “computer says no” future. The Government should give up now, because we on the other side of the debate will never give up. Whether today’s identity cards are stopped before they are implemented or whether they last a few months, as they did in 2010, or over a decade, as they did in 1939, the British people will fight them, we will stop them and we will overturn them. As I said to the Government on the day they announced this policy, I am not a tin of beans and I do not need a barcode.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
There we have it. This is how the Government of the day is going to be engaging with people—stating from the Dispatch Box that they are willing to listen, yet not taking one intervention. May I remind the Minister that Members of Parliament in this House have been elected to represent their constituents? Three million people have signed this petition. Not to have taken one intervention when dealing with matters that have been brought to this House is not only embarrassing for the Minister, but completely discourteous to the Members of Parliament in this Chamber. What a disgrace! Colleagues have spoken, and I thank Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents. I also thank the 3 million people who signed the petition, because they have demonstrated that digital ID is not something that they want this country to move forward with. It is expensive, it is unwanted and it is intrusive. It was not included in the Labour party manifesto. It was not promoted as something that would be brought forward by this Government. The voice of this Chamber has been heard. It is just incredibly disappointing that the Minister did not have the courtesy to reflect that in his remarks. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID.
- Hansard source
NEET Young People
Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, it has come to light that benefits have been extended for the parents of teenagers with disabilities or illnesses. Although on the face of it that may seem kind and compassionate, it is also contradictory. Parents and carers are no longer required to ensure that their teenagers are attending an educational setting at all to receive additional child benefit, which means that young people living with neurodivergent conditions such as ADHD are being enabled to stay at home and out of education, training or even work. This flies directly in the face of the Prime Minister’s words after the Budget: “if you’re not given the support you need…or if you are simply written off because you’re neurodivergent or disabled, then it can trap you in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades.” May I ask the Secretary of State how extending access to benefits for conditions such as ADHD in teenagers before coming up with a plan to ensure that young people remain in full-time education and training delivers on the Prime Minister’s point?
- Hansard source
Ajax Armoured Vehicle
Given the issues surrounding Ajax and the operational gap that this leaves in the Army, is the Minister confident that no capability and usability issues with Boxer or the Project Hunter alternative individual weapon system will come out of the woodwork? On Friday I met representatives of a local defence business who shared some of their concerns with me.
- Hansard source
Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support
I am pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate on statutory support for self-employed adoptive parents. Self-employed adopters are currently excluded from any statutory parental pay. For far too long, this exclusion has been overlooked as too niche a problem, but in fact it exposes a much deeper inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works—one that affects not only adoptive families but the wider functioning of the adoption system in England. This debate comes at an especially challenging time for adopted children and adoptive families. Demand for post-adoption support is rising, including for mental health services, therapeutic help and emotional support, while the availability of those services has become more uncertain, uneven and under-resourced. A recent investigation by the BBC uncovered systemic issues within post-adoption support, highlighting challenges I will cover later in my speech, and which we will no doubt hear about from other Members. First, though, I would like to address the issue that has led to this debate. There is currently a deep inconsistency in the way our parental leave and pay system works for adoptive families. At present, employed birth parents can access statutory maternity leave and pay; self-employed birth parents can access maternity allowance, which is equivalent to maternity pay; and employed adopters can access statutory adoption leave and pay. Self-employed adopters, however, cannot access any form of statutory adoption leave or pay. The consequence is that self-employed adoptive parents face a uniquely disadvantaged position, with no statutory mechanism enabling them to take time away from work to support a child entering their family—a child who we know is more than likely to have experienced trauma, loss or disruption. Self-employment now makes up a large part of the workforce, with around 4.4 million people working for themselves across the UK. It is estimated that self-employed adopters make up 10% of adopters annually; given that just over 3,000 adoptions took place last year, that means that hundreds of families a year are being left with no statutory financial support at the moment that they take legal and parental responsibility for a child. It is important to be clear about what adoption pay is actually for and why it exists. Unlike maternity provision, which has historically been justified by the Government on health and recovery grounds, statutory adoption pay exists for a different purpose altogether. In 2022, the previous Government stated in a written answer that statutory adoption pay is essential to the success of an adoption placement in order that an adopter can take time off work to care for and, most importantly, to bond with their child.
- Hansard source
Self-employed Adoptive Parents: Statutory Support
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and particularly for highlighting the case in Northern Ireland. Parental leave and shared parental leave for adopters was something that the previous Government fought hard to bring in, so I agree that that is something that should apply across all our isles. Ultimately, though, that will be for the Minister to talk about; I am guessing it is probably a devolved issue, but no doubt it will come up in his remarks a bit later. As I was saying, in 2022 the previous Government stated that it is essential to the success of an adoption placement that the adopter takes time off work in order to care for and bond with their child. That principle must be fairly applied regardless of whether a parent is employed or self-employed. For self-employed adoptive families, the negative consequences of this disparity are clear. Evidence gathered by Home for Good and Adoption UK through the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence found that 60% of self-employed adopters reported that the absence of financial support directly limited the amount of leave they could take at the start of adoption, and in some cases it prevented them from taking leave altogether following the adoption. In practical terms, that means returning to work within days or weeks of placement, despite being advised by professionals that it is best for them to take time off work to be able to support their child once they are placed. One self-employed adopter summed up the pressure, saying: “We have been through two separate adoptions. The second time I had no choice but to keep working. I sometimes took my son with me. It was very hard.” The APPG’s research also found that around two thirds—63%—of prospective self-employed adopters said that the lack of statutory provision played a major role in delaying or preventing them from proceeding with adoption in the first place. Nearly half of self-employed adopters said that it prevented them from adopting again, while others explained that they could not consider adopting their child’s sibling because the financial impact of taking extended time away from work was simply too great. As a result, children are being unnecessarily separated from their siblings. One family said: “We have already been approached to adopt another sibling and had to say no because there was no financial package available to help.” Further research from the APPG found that the majority—59%—of self-employed adopters reported stopping work altogether for a period once a child was placed with them. They did so not as a lifestyle choice, but because the intensity of needs made continued self-employment impossible. For many families, the absence of statutory provision creates profound pressure at precisely the moment the emotional and practical demands of adoption are at their highest. As one parent explained: “Not having an equivalent to maternity allowance meant the pressure on us was increased, at a time when the pressure on our family was already very high. We didn’t have access to the kind of mental or financial ‘breather’ that a secure income for a set period might have given us. Inevitably it made the whole early placement period more stressful.” That strain is reflected in reported anxiety levels among prospective self-employed adopters, who on average rated their financial worry during the adoption process a seven out of 10. Established self-employed adopters also report elevated anxiety, rating it a six out of 10, showing that stress does not end once placement is secured but often continues long afterwards in the absence of statutory support. Those findings must be understood within the broader context of adoption pressures; it is not just about parental leave. As of September this year, 2,940 children with a placement order were waiting to be matched with an adoptive family in England, and average waiting times from entering care to placement with a family exceeded 20 months. If Government policy is deterring capable families from coming forward to adopt, this does not only disadvantage adopters themselves but, most importantly, directly affects the life prospects of children, who remain in temporary care arrangements for longer than necessary. That is in part because the system has made permanency through adoption unaffordable for too many who would otherwise open their home. As I said at the start, the lack of statutory support for self-employed adopters cannot be considered in isolation from the adoption system as a whole. I am concerned that adoption is still treated as something that ends at placement, rather than as a responsibility that continues for a lifetime. Nearly all adoptive families say that more must be done to ensure that children feel safe and secure as they grow up, and over half report that support drops away once the adoption order is made. There is cross-party recognition that adoption cannot be treated as a single moment in a child’s life. It is not simply a legal process that ends with an order; it is the beginning of a lifelong journey for both the child and the family that welcomes them. When we reduce adoption to a one-off placement, we overlook the ongoing needs that often emerge long after the order is made. If we are serious about giving adopted children the best possible start, we must be honest about the nature of adoption itself. It is a lifelong commitment that requires consistent, compassionate and accessible support. Families should not have to fight for the help that allows their children to flourish. Adoption should be backed by a commitment from all of us to stand with these families not just at the beginning but throughout the years that follow. Current practice too often fails adopted families at moments of vulnerability. Many adoptive parents report long waits for mental health services, difficulty accessing meaningful support, inconsistent local authority approaches and a lack of trauma-informed provision in schools. We need an adoption system that sticks with adopted children and their families over the long term and is flexible and responsive to their changing needs as they face challenges across these areas. These problems affect all adopters, employed and self-employed alike, but their financial impact is unevenly distributed. All of that is being compounded by the sudden and unexpected changes to the adoption and special guardianship support fund announced in April, which significantly reduced the post-adoption support many adoptive families reply on, including families in my constituency, contributing to a growing sense of uncertainty and a weakening of trust towards the system. For families who cannot afford private help, the situation becomes even more difficult, and the financial strain quickly grows. Many simply have no way to cover the costs of therapy on their own. For the self-employed, the pressure is even greater because this burden arrives at the same time as the lack of statutory pay, leaving them with fewer options and even less stability. For self-employed adopters, the impact is even heavier, because any time taken away from work to help support children can immediately affect their income. When post-adoption support is withdrawn, they cannot rely on payroll to cushion the loss. Instead, they absorb it through missed work, reduced earnings and unpaid days spent trying to manage crises on their own. Self-employed adopters are navigating a range of interconnected pressures that overlap, intensify each other and shape every part of their experience. Local authority practice reflects the same fragmentation. Support for self-employed adopters varies wildly depending on where families live. Freedom of information requests reveal that one third of councils have no policy in place at all to support self-employed adopters, and the remaining councils referred to using a means-tested approach to assessing the need for financial help. In those council areas, 90% of adopters were not informed that local support might be available. This produces an arbitrary system in which families adopting can experience different outcomes depending on postcode rather than need. This Adjournment debate follows a recent Westminster Hall debate brought about by an e-petition on maternity and paternity pay, where Members, including me, explicitly raised the position of self-employed adoptive families. The Government have indicated that a review of parental leave and pay is under way and that the issues raised through the recent parliamentary debate will inform this process. If that review is to be taken seriously by adoptive families, it must look properly at the position of self-employed adopters, rather than letting their needs disappear into maternity and paternity reform more generally. Clarity is essential. Adoption pay cannot be an optional extra. It ensures that adopters can establish stability, attachment and routine with a child who may have experienced disruption, neglect or loss. It enables parents to be present, rather than forced to divide their attention between the urgent demands of work and the equally urgent demands of care. I know that the Minister cares deeply about these issues, which is why this debate is a good opportunity to raise them. First, will the review formally assess the position of self-employed adopters as a distinct category within the parental leave and pay review? Secondly, will the Government evaluate the introduction of a statutory entitlement equivalent to maternity allowance for self-employed adopters? Thirdly, can he provide an indication of the timescale for publication of the review’s findings? Finally, I urge the Government to reverse their disastrous decision to reduce the funding available through the adoption and special guardianship support fund. Policy choices must support adoption and adoptive families. Enterprise and self-employment should also be encouraged. Self-employed adoptive families should not be penalised. The removal of avoidable barriers to adoption, while enabling business to flourish, must be a priority.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the more than 4,200 people in my constituency who signed the petition opposing digital ID. I very much share the concerns that many of my constituents have raised with me. The Government’s intention to roll out a mandatory digital identification scheme is a serious mistake; it will prove expensive and intrusive, and it will ultimately not move the dial on the key challenges that we face as a country. We have repeatedly been told that this scheme will help to tackle illegal immigration. Frankly, I find that insulting to the intelligence of the British public. Channel crossings will not be stopped by a QR code on a smartphone. I only wish it were that easy. They will, however, be stopped when the Government have the courage to implement real deterrents and confront the lawyers and activist judges who continue to undermine our borders and throw obstacles in the way of every attempt to tackle this crisis. The British public have always rejected the idea of ID cards, and I believe they are right to do so. We are not a nation of “papers, please”, in which people must prove their identity simply to access everyday services or interact with the state, yet we risk creating exactly that kind of society under this policy. We must remember that we are here today as representatives of the British people; we must listen and proceed with caution when nearly 3 million of them feel so strongly about an issue that they sign a petition. Let us also not forget that this issue was never put before the public in a manifesto. If the Prime Minister wanted a mandate for such a fundamental change to the relationship between citizen and state as that which would come with digital ID, he should have had the courage to ask for one at the ballot box. Hon. Members from both sides of the House have spoken today to send the Government a very simple message: mandatory digital ID is not needed to deliver excellent online public services. We already have quick, simple digital applications for passports, driving licences, and right-to-work checks. Those do not require a single state-mandated digital identity card, nor should they.
- Hansard source
Digital ID
Does my hon. Friend agree with me and the thousands of people across Bromley and Biggin Hill who signed the petition that at a time of rising taxation and spiralling debt, the fact that the Government cannot even tell us how much this wretched device will cost exemplifies their irresponsible approach to our economy?