Conservative and Unionist Party: a sourced timeline of public activity, with filters by source type and a sidebar of tracked totals

Conservative and Unionist Party

Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

  1. ParliamentJulia Lopez

    Digital ID

    One challenge is that we have had so few of the facts, because this is such a thin plan. The other challenge is that although there are people who support digital identity as a concept, this is about choice and the fact that this Government have no mandate for what they are doing. I do not think that the hon. Member and I are coming from that different a place, in so far as it should be people’s choice whether they have digital identity verification or not. This Government are proposing to rob them of that choice, and that is why the people in this Chamber are united.

    Hansard source

  2. ParliamentJulia Lopez

    Digital ID

    My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he spoke powerfully in his contribution. I am sure that today we will hear no answers from the Minister, because behind this policy sits no plan at all. No Minister has any idea how much it will cost—the OBR reckons it will be £1.8 billion.

    Hansard source

  3. ParliamentJulia Lopez

    Digital ID

    I completely agree. On the one hand, the Government claim there is no money left. On the other hand, they can suddenly find billions for bizarre schemes or the Chagos islands, or create policies on the two-child benefit cap that they could not previously deliver. They are just so intellectually inconsistent. The OBR, as I say, reckons the scheme will cost £1.8 billion. Privately, Ministers are briefing that that is completely inaccurate. We have not even begun scoping it yet. I am told the Treasury and the Cabinet Office are now in a stand-off with one another about who will pay for this dreadful thing. Neither wants it, particularly as the Cabinet Office will then have to make cuts to other, much more effective digital projects, the kinds that would actually deliver better services. No one will answer straight questions about how secure the digital ID will be, or into which areas of our lives it will creep. The Prime Minister tells us that digital ID will be mandatory only for anyone who still wants to work in Labour’s welfare Britain. Yet in the next breath he suggests that childcare, welfare and wider service access will all require it. This is precisely how state overreach begins: with reassurance in one sentence and expansion in the next. It was very interesting to hear hon. Members making points about the police being able to access digital ID, or even about people needing it to go to the cinema. There have been no answers on the robustness of the Government’s cyber-security. This Government could not even keep their own Budget secret, and now they want us to trust them with this new system. Ministers point to Estonia and India as models, yet Estonia has suffered repeated breaches. India’s system, the largest ID system in the world, led to the largest ever data breach in the world, with citizens’ data sold on the dark web for the equivalent of £5 or £6. AI is now giving cyber-attackers the upper hand. We have been given no sense of the extent to which digital ID will stem illegal migration, which was the Prime Minister’s excuse for introducing the idea in the first place. Ministers cannot even give an estimate, and that is for a simple reason: because it will not reduce migration. Can Ministers explain why those who enter the country by dodging the rules will suddenly become models of civic compliance, or why European ID schemes have done so little to stem illegal migration on the continent?

    Hansard source

  4. ParliamentJulia Lopez

    Digital ID

    The hon. Member makes a powerful point. The truth is that channel crossings will continue until the Prime Minister puts in place a real deterrent and accepts that the “smash the gangs” plan is nothing more than a slogan. By pretending that his ID scheme is the answer, he fuels public distrust. When the crossings continue but law-abiding British citizens are allocated a mandatory ID, people will feel, rightly, that it is one rule for them and another for rule breakers—a loss of liberty for everyone because of a group of people who have no right to be here. At least Ministers seem to recognise the emptiness of the migration argument, because none of them seems to use it any more. To add to the despicable dishonesty of the plan, it is now being presented as a benevolent effort to improve online services—no more rummaging for utility bills. The Prime Minister’s chief of staff even insists it will be a matter of choice whether to have a digital ID. How disingenuous! First, to oppose digital ID is not to oppose the modernisation of Government. It is not to oppose great online services for people. It is to say that we do not need a monopolistic Government ID scheme, which is mandated if people are to have those online services, and nobody should be suggesting otherwise. The Association of Digital Verification Professionals has called what Labour inherited from our party “a world-leading model for…data sovereignty” that digitises liberty rather than dilutes it. In government we were able to provide trusted, simple and secure services without everyone being mandated to have a digital identity. Paper options were retained. Nobody was forced down the digital route. Privacy-preserving private identity providers, now absolutely hopping mad about Labour’s plan, are recognised as a way of giving citizens choice when it comes to digital credentials and dispersing central power. Let us turn to the idea of choice and consent. If a Government-issued digital ID is mandatory for anyone wishing to work, then if someone wants a job they have no choice but to have one. At a time when Labour has made it more expensive and much riskier to employ people, they now want to add an extra hoop for everyone to jump through. Never mind the digital divide, either. Thousands of adults do not have smartphones. Labour has deprioritized gigabit rollout; its digital inclusion plan is a £9 million fig leaf. It is not bridging the digital divide, but widening it. Conservatives oppose the Prime Minister’s mandatory ID plan in principle and in practice. It would alter the balance between citizen and state in a way that this Government have no mandate for. Conservatives believe that Government should empower citizens, not the other way round. Before this House takes another step down this path, I ask the Minister to answer the following questions clearly and directly. Will the Government bring this matter before the House for a vote, and when can we expect digital identity legislation to be put before us? How much will this scheme cost? If the true figure is not £1.8 billion, what is it? Are Ministers creating a single centralised database—yes or no? Who will be forced to have a mandatory ID and from what age, because we hear that it could be mandatory from the age of 13? What personal information will be collected? Will biometrics and addresses be included? What security guarantees will the Minister put his name to when it comes to the robustness of this system? Nearly 3 million people want answers to those questions and more. This Government have delivered nothing of what they said they would deliver— growth, political stability, competence—and delivered plenty that they never sought permission for. They are a Government who do not have the competence to run a bath, let alone a secure national identity scheme. It seems that many Labour MPs, including those in this Chamber today, now agree. Every day, they are openly jostling and gossiping about the Prime Minister’s demise. If they had any sense, they would make sure that this scheme dies with the expiry of his leadership and that any of the thrusting leadership contenders make a clear promise not to resurrect it. The Prime Minister’s plan is unimplementable and utterly unloved, and it will be totally useless in delivering against its own objectives. So, before Labour sprays inordinate amounts of political capital and taxpayer cash on this digital ID dodo, it must wake up to that reality.

    Hansard source

  5. ParliamentJulia Lopez

  6. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    Digital ID

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for magnificently introducing this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the more than 4,000 local residents in the Scottish Borders who have signed the petition. This issue cuts to the very heart of the relationship between our constituents and the state. I am completely against digital ID. It is expensive, intrusive and will be completely ineffective. It was not in the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto, so this is not something that anyone has voted for. Putting that to one side, this Labour Government do not seem to understand why digital ID is needed or what it is for. The Prime Minister initially claimed that it was an essential part of cracking down on illegal migration. Illegal migrants are making long, dangerous crossings over the channel; I hardly think the requirement for a digital identification card is going to deter them. Realising that this argument was not persuading anyone, the Government now claim that it is about simplifying access to Government services. Government services do need to be simplified, but we do not need digital ID to achieve that. Whatever the actual reasons behind the policy, we are inevitably going to see mission creep. I was particularly concerned to hear the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), say that the Government are “starting with this issue of right to work check first, but there are loads of other applications for digital ID”. What will be next? Will digital ID be needed to access NHS services, to get a school place for someone’s son or daughter, or even potentially to go to the pub? The policy puts the personal data of all our constituents at risk. It would be a honeypot for cyber criminals and foreign state actors at a time when we are under increasing threat. I implore the Government to, for once, listen to the people and to the genuine and principled concerns of Members across the House. There is no deep need for digital ID. People do not want it and the Government have no mandate to introduce it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and its citizens. We must say no to digital ID. It must be scrapped.

    Hansard source

  7. ParliamentJohn Lamont

  8. ParliamentJohn Lamont

    Digital ID

    On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could you clarify how long the Minister has left to speak? By my understanding, he has until 7.29 pm so as to give the proposer of the motion a minute to respond.

    Hansard source

  9. ParliamentJohn Cooper

    Ajax Armoured Vehicle

    Civilians talk tactics and veterans talk logistics. Although the MAN trucks might not be as sexy as Ajax, their loss, however temporary, will be keenly felt. Can the Minister outline what practical steps are being taken to make sure that the wheels are not coming off—so to speak—any other mission-critical equipment?

    Hansard source

  10. ParliamentJames Wild

    The Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. As the Minister said, this statutory instrument clears up a couple of errors, one of which happened on our watch, as he pointed out—fair cop; we plead guilty to that one. The other part of the instrument corrects a previous error by reinstating the 14% import duty for fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes. There is no impact assessment for the instrument because, as the explanatory memorandum says, the impact on the private and public sector is expected to be minimal, but I did get the House of Commons Library to do a bit of research for me. According to HMRC’s trade tariff tool, the incorrectly applied 0% tariff on jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes appeared on July 2025, and the UK imported roughly £3.2 million of such products in 2024. I am keen to understand from the Minister how the error occurred. Was it simply human error? What measures are in place to prevent slightly more important tariff codes being incorrectly entered, with the impact that that could have? Tariffs are taxes, of course, with higher prices passed on to consumers. We have just had a Budget that increased taxes on incomes, savings and employment, and that introduced a new tourist tax and a taxi tax. We now have another one: the marmalade tax. Marmalade makers in Peru will be giving the Minister a Paddington stare after this. On basmati rice, as the Minister said, this was an error made by the previous Conservative Government. The Library was unable to find any data on the volume imported, so how much does he expect the new £25 a tonne rate—the rate that should have been in place—to raise in the years to come? If he does not have those figures at his fingertips, perhaps he will write to me. To conclude, higher import tariffs mean higher prices for consumers. There can be good reasons for them, such as ensuring a level playing field for our domestic producers, but it does seem that this Government have yet to come across a tax they do not like—even on marmalade.

    Hansard source

  11. ParliamentJames Wild

    Restriction of Jury Trials

    There is capacity for almost 2,000 more court sitting days that are not being used for rape or other trials at the moment. Why is the Justice Secretary not prioritising funding those days to help reduce the backlog, rather than trying to scrap jury trials?

    Hansard source

  12. ParliamentJames Cartlidge

    Ajax Armoured Vehicle

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the latest developments concerning Ajax and other Army vehicles.

    Hansard source

  13. ParliamentJames Cartlidge

    Ajax Armoured Vehicle

    Thank you for granting this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I state how shocking it was to hear of the Army exercise that took place on 22 November that resulted in more than 30 casualties among soldiers operating Ajax? There have been reports of symptoms ranging from sickness to hearing loss. As the Minister said, the priority must be the safety of our personnel, and we wish all those affected a swift recovery. This matter is particularly disturbing for me, as the renewed incidents with noise and vibrations sound strikingly similar to the problems that I was assured had been resolved when I was the Minister for Defence Procurement. In the Defence Committee, the Minister confirmed that he received similar assurances when he agreed to announce that Ajax had reached the key milestone of initial operating capability on 6 November. The Minister and I may have our political differences, but may I suggest that we have something in common on this issue? We have both been misled about the viability of the Ajax programme. After all, it is not just about the recurrence of extremely worrying noise and vibration problems; over the weekend, we have seen reports of serious allegations from anonymous General Dynamics employees suggesting systemic flaws with the Ajax platform. That includes a disgraceful incident in which a General Dynamics employee publicly belittled the injured soldiers. That is utterly unacceptable. Given all that, and contrary to assurances given to and accepted in good faith by successive Ministers, including myself, surely the only possible conclusion is that the Ajax vehicle is fundamentally flawed. Does the Minister agree that the manufacturer, General Dynamics, must have been aware of that for years and must be held to account? As such, remembering that the procurement reform I launched in February 2024 stressed the need for a second opinion, will he bring in a completely independent organisation or company steeped in engineering excellence—from outside the Ministry of Defence, with no skin in the game—to pronounce on the one question that we all need answered: is Ajax viable without a fundamental redesign? If not, how much more will it cost to remedy? On a personal note, I imagine that the Minister is as furious as I am at having been repeatedly given what now turn out to be false assurances by those responsible for the Ajax programme. Surely he is now left with a binary choice: fix it, or fail it.

    Hansard source

  14. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Welfare Spending: Economic Impact

    In the Budget last month, the Chancellor put up taxes in order to spend £16 billion more on welfare. The Government chose to make working people worse off in order to spend more on benefits. The sickness benefit bill is now set to skyrocket to more than £100 billion by the end of this decade. The Secretary of State likes to blame us, but his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), cancelled our reforms, and Labour Back Benchers stymied the Government’s. Working people are saying to me, “Why bother? I’d be better off on benefits.” The country cannot afford that. The Secretary of State must know this—he is no fool—so when is he going to come up with some welfare savings?

    Hansard source

  15. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Unemployment Levels

    I was sorry that the Secretary of State could not answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) earlier. Fortunately, there are people who can help. For instance, UKHospitality has told us that 100,000 people will lose their jobs because of the Budget. That is on top of the 150,000 jobs already lost since Labour came to power. At this rate, there will be queues forming outside jobcentres. Can she tell me what preparations the Government are making to cope with the influx of benefit claimants from all these job losses?

    Hansard source

  16. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Unemployment Levels

    Businesses are cutting jobs at the fastest rate since the pandemic and unemployment has gone up every month under this Government, but clearly they are not ready to deal with the consequences. The number of jobcentre work coaches has actually fallen since they took over. No doubt the Minister will proudly tell us that they have just announced millions of pounds of spending on Government-created jobs for young people, but may I ask her to reflect for a moment? After hiking taxes on businesses so that they cannot afford to employ young people, the Government are spending a load of that tax on state-subsidised jobs for the same young people. Some are calling this the economics of the madhouse, but I simply call it Labour economics. Does the Minister not agree that the Government should get out of the way and reduce the burden on businesses so that they can create jobs, opportunities and economic growth?

    Hansard source

  17. ParliamentHelen Whately

    Child Poverty Strategy

    I will start with something we can all agree on: none of us wants to see children grow up in poverty. We all know something of what that looks like: some hon. Members have lived it themselves; for others, it is part of the bread and butter of constituency work. Even in the wealthiest constituencies there are pockets of poverty, where children spend months living in bed and breakfasts, their meals coming from the local food bank, not knowing when they will have a bed in a room they can call their own and worrying about their mum—and it is usually their mum—and how she will pay the bills. None of that helps kids to succeed in life. Of course this Government should be working on how to improve the lives of children, as we did before them, but nothing I have heard from the Secretary of State today—however well intentioned—gives me any confidence that they are going to fix the problem. Last week, the Prime Minister grabbed the headlines by saying that the Government will change how supermarkets display baby formula and give customers loyalty points—hardly the groundbreaking fix for child poverty that we have been promised. At the Budget, the Government crowed about how they will lift so many children out of relative poverty by lifting the two-child cap, and that will, of course, help with the stats on that one metric, just like the free taxpayer-funded breakfasts. However, ditching the two-child benefit cap will raise taxes on working people, including those on the poverty line, and disincentivise work. For a measure that the Prime Minister now speaks about with such pride, I am surprised that it took the Government 18 months to bring it in. In that time, the Prime Minister and Chancellor rejected many demands from their Back Benchers to lift the cap, arguing that the policy was unaffordable; in fact, the Prime Minister was so committed to the cap that he removed the Whip from the brave Labour rebels who voted to lift it. But then, as rivals for the Labour leadership circled, the cap indeed went. Chopping and changing policy based on political pressure is no way to govern, and it is certainly no way to solve child poverty. There is a way to boost the prospects of the country’s children. It is through plentiful, well-paid jobs. That way people can provide for themselves and their families, pay their rent or mortgage, do their weekly food shop and afford school uniforms for their kids. The Centre for Social Justice found that children in workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived. Under this Government, the number of children growing up in workless households has seen the fastest increase on record, rising to 1.5 million children. Contrast that to our record, which saw the number of children in workless households—[Laughter.] Labour Members can laugh, but honestly they should listen to what makes a difference to children’s lives. Contrast that to our record, which saw the number of children in workless households decrease year on year from 2014. With unemployment now going up month on month, the number of children in workless households is sadly likely to keep going up. There is something even more fundamental that helps to stave off poverty. It is the family. Some 44% of children in lone-parent households live in poverty, compared with 25% of children who live in households with a couple. Strong, working families raise children who are less likely to be in poverty—it is as simple as that. Yet the Government’s poverty strategy ignores that fact entirely. Rather than tackling the root causes of poverty, the strategy concerns itself with vouchers for formula milk. How many children will be brought out of poverty thanks to those vouchers? Why is there nothing in the strategy on parenting skills, which we know are key determinants of child outcomes? Why do the Government insist on using the misleading metric of relative poverty instead of measures that reflect real living standards? With Labour’s Budget slapping thousands of pounds of extra taxes on hard-working and hard-up families, how many families are going to be plunged into poverty because of their tax rises? How many more households will now be eligible for universal credit? If the Government truly believe that lifting the two-child benefit cap is essential to reducing poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it, and why did he remove the Whip from his own MPs who voted for it? Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us the real reason. Was it actually about the Prime Minister saving his own skin? I know that the Government are well meaning, but this strategy is all wrong. Tackling poverty is about decent jobs, lower taxes and a stable foundation for every child. Throwing money at the problem to improve the statistics is not the answer, and they will certainly not lift children out of poverty by making the whole country poorer. The policies in the strategy and the Budget risk trapping families in long-term dependency instead of lifting them out of it. This strategy is so far from the bold action that Labour is making it out to be and that this country needs to break the cycle of worklessness for families on benefits, give children the best start in life and give taxpayers a fair deal—fair to those who pay in, as well as those who get help. The fact is—

    Hansard source

  18. ParliamentHarriet Cross

    Unemployment Levels

    2. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

    Hansard source

  19. ParliamentHarriet Cross

    Unemployment Levels

    As I am sure the Minister and the rest of the Front-Bench team know, we are seeing huge redundancies and mass unemployment within the oil and gas sector increasing every week. When did any of the Front-Bench DWP team last meet the oil and gas sector to discuss that?

    Hansard source

  20. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Digital ID

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I apologise for the fact that I may not be here for the wind-ups because of the business in the main Chamber. I begin by restating my firm opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID. I opposed it in this Chamber only a month ago, and the public response has been remarkable. The clip of my speech on social media has now been viewed more than 2.5 million times—not because of any great oratory on my part, but because people across the country are deeply worried about the direction the Government are taking. They are worried about privacy, freedom and the steady expansion of state power without consent.

    Hansard source

  21. ParliamentGregory Stafford

    Digital ID

    I am afraid I will not; sorry. I want to raise a specific issue that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), but that is often missed in this debate: the provisions in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that would mandate the NHS number as a single unique identifier for every child in England—namely ID cards, but on the sly. Ministers have confirmed in the House that that identifier will become mandatory. Wigan is already piloting multi-agency data sharing using it, but Members of this elected Chamber have not been given the evidence, the governance frameworks or the risk assessments that would justify such a change. The Government have produced no credible reassurance that the NHS number will not become a gateway to expanded datasets or new intrusive linkages. There is no clear plan to prevent accidental disclosures that could put vulnerable children at risk, for example by revealing the address of a family fleeing domestic abuse or exposing confidential adoption records. Those are not theoretical concerns; they have occurred in practice. We have seen the warnings from Wales, where NHS numbers were extracted centrally and sent to local authorities with no direct care relationship with the children concerned. The 2024 consultation was highly critical. The British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners and children’s organisations all warned that such policies risked pushing marginalised families away from healthcare entirely. Wales’s own child’s rights impact assessment warned of possible breaches of articles 12 and 16 of the UN convention on the rights of the child. It even warned that children could lose their article 24 right to health if families disengaged from GP registration. However, Ministers insist that the NHS number is not sensitive data. The General Medical Council has already rejected that argument. All patient information attracts the common-law duty of confidentiality. There is no such thing as a harmless identifier. Practically speaking, the Department for Education’s own research warned that mandating NHS numbers would require significant investment, long-term planning and phased roll-out. None of that groundwork has happened. Pilots are under way before Parliament has approved the principle. When trust in Government is already scraping the floor, the worst thing Ministers can do is force through more mandatory digital ID for adults or children, something the public neither asked for nor consented to. Nearly 3 million people have signed the petition and more than two thirds of my constituents oppose it. Digital ID will not fix illegal migration, but it will supercharge state intrusion. The public deserve clarity, honesty and, above all, consent.

    Hansard source

  22. ParliamentGreg Smith

    Digital ID

    We have a Government who could not even keep their own Budget under wraps. What hope do they have with our personal data?

    Hansard source

  23. ParliamentGareth Bacon

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    It is a privilege to present some of the Opposition’s final words on what I am sure the Minister will agree has been an extensive effort on both sides of the House to debate, scrutinise and amend the Bill. In the light of that, I particularly wish to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for his efforts; he has worked tirelessly to push the Government to make this Bill fit for purpose. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who has made invaluable contributions throughout the whole process, both in this place and in Committee. Finally, I congratulate the Minister on seeing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill through its parliamentary journey, although I am hesitant to pour too much praise on many of the aspects of the Bill itself. When we last came to this House to consider the Lords message a couple of weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner outlined the Opposition’s key concerns regarding the Bill, not least that it fails to satisfy the three tests that we have consistently used to judge how it could help to unlock the housing market, make the necessary reforms to administrative and bureaucratic burdens, and create a dual incentive for communities and developers to embrace more homes and infrastructure. As will now be abundantly clear to the Minister, it is the continued position of His Majesty’s Opposition that the Bill fails on all three counts. His boss, the Secretary of State, knows this, having admitted today that the Government will need a sharp increase in their current run rate if they are to meet the target of 1.5 million homes that they promised in their manifesto—a target that, according to his Department’s own figures, they are currently missing by a long way. Some improvements to the Bill have been made during the parliamentary process, including the Government’s concession on Lords amendment 33, which we are discussing today. We are grateful that the Government have moved on this question, and we will not seek to divide the House on it this evening.

    Hansard source

  24. ParliamentGareth Bacon

    Planning and Infrastructure Bill

    No I do not—not fully; I will return to that answer in more detail in a couple of moments. As a prime example of what more could have been done, the Bill could have addressed the democratic deficit it creates. It strips powers away from elected councillors and gifts them to unelected planning officers, as well as giving more powers to the Secretary of State. That, of course, is just the tip of the iceberg when we consider the clear contempt shown for local democracy as the Government prepare to cancel yet another round of local elections. The Bill also fails to support both those building and buying homes—no amount of centralisation in the Bill will counter the Chancellor’s failure to meaningfully support growth and cut costs. This is despite clear warnings from the Home Builders Federation that the Government must provide help for first-time buyers and reduce taxes on new homes if they are to achieve anything close to the tally of 1.3 million homes by the end of the decade that was predicted by the Office for Budget Responsibility in March. Let me turn to nature—something I know many MPs have received emails about. The Bill still lacks the clarity and the answers that nature lovers seek to legitimate questions about how we reconcile the delivery of new homes and infrastructure with the need to protect our natural environment. This is most evident when we consider the Government’s focus on removing legal protections on green-belt land. Ripping up the green belt is not the answer, which is why my colleagues and I have called for the swifter redevelopment of brownfield sites. This is not least because, according to CPRE, in a substantial number of local authorities there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. This is something that the Bill and this Government have failed to explore. Across two Secretaries of State, several junior Ministers and almost a year of parliamentary time, the Government have pushed these measures through using their majority, but without using their common sense. Many provisions in the Bill still leave the market, home buyers, developers and local communities wanting. The triple blow—with a Chancellor running our economy into the ground while hiking taxes and a Government cutting demand-side policies to support first-time buyers—has left the country without a clear pathway to the lofty promise of 1.5 million homes. Don’t just take my word for it: throughout this process, the OBR, the Home Builders Federation, the National Federation of Builders, Britain Remade, the Countryside Alliance, Professor Paul Cheshire, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, and many more industry experts and organisations, have raised concerns, either about the Bill or about the Government’s ability to meet their housing target more widely. The Government had the chance to fix this Bill, to support infrastructure projects, to back community voices and to deliver the homes that the British people need, but they have not done so. The Housing Minister recently declined to rule out further planning legislation in this Parliament. If that comes to pass, let us hope that next time, he and his colleagues listen to industry, the voices in this House and our local communities, and do what he knows to be right.

    Hansard source

  25. ParliamentDr Neil Hudson

    Digital ID

    My constituents in Epping Forest are deeply concerned about the prospect of digital ID cards. Many have written and spoken to me, and over 5,600 have signed the petition. Rather than improving the delivery of public services, this scheme risks wasting billions on a complex, intrusive and potentially very insecure system that will not help anyone. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must now listen, take on board the public concerns and scrap this flawed policy?

    Hansard source

  26. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Restriction of Jury Trials

    I congratulate the Minister on both her passion and her ability to get so many words into Hansard in her responses on an urgent question. However, one bit of detail that we are missing—and she is now being asked about this for the fifth time—is an impact assessment. She has said again that the impact assessment will be brought forward at the appropriate time. The question was: has it been written already and she is keeping hold of it, or has it not been written but will be brought forward at the appropriate time? I would appreciate clarity on that, with a simple yes or no.

    Hansard source

  27. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Employment Rights Bill

    Does the hon. Lady agree that it would have been helpful if an impact assessment had been carried out, so that everyone could see exactly what the impact of removing the cap would be?

    Hansard source

  28. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I have talked about roads and bridges throughout the duration of the Bill. We have now reached the end of the long road that was, of course, embarked on by Baroness May in 2018 with the independent Wessely report, which was the foundation of this legislation. It constitutes a cross-party, cross-departmental look at how we can improve the lives of people with the most serious mental health issues. I was pleased to hear the Minister start to talk about the difference between mental health and mental wellbeing. That is fundamental when it comes to dealing with our policies and how we will take the country forward, because while not everyone has a serious mental health problem, everyone has problems with their mental wellbeing. Ensuring that we have that distinction worked out will be vital to providing the right support for the right people in the right place, and, ultimately, that is what the Bill is dedicated to doing. I have talked in the House about why that is so important. This Bill, above all others, deals with the most vulnerable people in society—those who are seriously mentally unwell—so I am pleased that we have reached a stage at which we can take it forward and put it into law. I was also pleased to hear the Minister comment on the amendment from the other place, and the concerns raised by Baroness Berridge. I understand the points that he has tried to make and the clarifications that the Government have tried to introduce in relation to the amendment. He has said that he will look at the code of conduct in respect of the seriously difficult positions in which mental health professionals might find themselves during an evening of dealing with a parent who is contesting with a child the question of who is to be the nominated person. I am glad that the Government are looking at the code of practice, and we will not be dividing the House tonight. That being said, as with the 10-year plan that the Government have brought forward, there is a synergy here. The synergy is this: Members on both sides of the House agree with the thrust of the 10-year plan and this Bill, but the problem is that there is no delivery chapter. That was the Opposition’s concern when the Government were taking the Bill forward. As the Minister conceded in Committee, it will be a challenge, but without a delivery plan it becomes very difficult.

    Hansard source

  29. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, but he has also missed the point. He gives me the opportunity to point out that one way in which the previous Government dealt with this issue was by bringing forward the mental health investment standard, under which the proportion of spending on mental health had to mirror the spending on physical conditions. That was starting to lead to real change. Alas, under this Government, there is a concern that the standard has not been met. We know that the proportion of mental health spending has fallen under this Government, according to the written ministerial statement that they put out. That leads me on nicely to the point that I wanted to raise: how will we fund the models that are coming forward? That is the crux of the matter that people outside the House will be looking at; it is a direct question, and it is the only one that I have in this debate. We on this side of the House have raised this issue in the debates we have had on both palliative care and mental health, and I raised it with the Minister only last week. The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), has raised this question again and again. Are the Government committed to the investment standard or not? Is it something that they have dropped? The House and the wider public need to know, so that we can plan for service provision. If the Government are dropping it, that is on them, and they need to explain the reasons why they are doing so. Maybe there is alternative investment, but as a starting point, the investment standard will be crucial in dealing with the mental health challenge, which is growing despite the pandemic and all the investment that has already gone in.

    Hansard source

  30. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for stepping in on that basis. We have had plenty of chances to debate this Bill, both in Committee and many times in the mental health debates that I am partial to. We could go through why the last Government changed the interventions of NHS England and brought in integrated care boards to allow for a joined-up structure to be put in place. We now see a new iteration coming forward but, yet again, we do not know how much it will to cost to get rid of NHS England. We do not know the redundancy packages for the ICBs and how much they will cost. That is fundamental. One thing we do know is that, as the chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has said, the change to the investment standard alone will cost the sector £300 million. That is investment that could have made a difference to mental health provision. I do not want to get into the heated politics any further, and I do not want to delay the House any further this evening, but the Government’s position on the mental health investment standard is crucial when it comes to delivering this Bill. I thank the Minister for his constructive approach, and for the way in which he has taken ideas forward and looked through the Bill in fine detail. I know he cares deeply about getting this right, as do many Members of this House. It is imperative to ensure that compassionate, modern care is delivered to those who need it most when it comes to dealing with serious mental health conditions.

    Hansard source

  31. ParliamentDr Luke Evans

    Mental Health Bill [Lords]

    I appreciate that the Minister cannot commit to a financial spending envelope now, but is it not the case that the mental health investment standard is something that the Government could commit to?

    Hansard source

  32. ParliamentDr Kieran Mullan

    Digital ID

    My hon. Friend articulates the case powerfully. I know my constituents will agree that we could be doing much better things with £1.8 billion than wasting it on a project like this.

    Hansard source

  33. ParliamentDamian Hinds

    Digital ID

    In the previous year, 100,000 people were claiming asylum. The Labour Government were talking about ID cards to tackle illegal immigration, but they soon started talking about using them to tackle all sorts of other things as well. In time, it became apparent that there was a huge amount of disagreement among Ministers, and that the Government had not really thought it through and did not know the full cost. The year I am talking about is 2003, not 2025. Eventually, 15,000 ID cards were issued under the previous Labour Government’s plan. However, it ran into massive technical issues and cost over-runs. Eventually, they ditched the idea of cards but kept the overbearing database, which is what we see being resurrected today. Yes, there are pull factors in illegal immigration, and work is one of them. However, Italy has ID cards. It also has one of the world’s highest rates of illegal arrivals by sea. Here, employers are already obliged to do identity and right-to-work checks. By the way, if someone who is a legally resident person signs up to deliver food and then subcontracts that job to someone here illegally in exchange for cash, I fail to see how an ID card or a digital ID would interfere with that at all. Ministers say that there would be no penalty for not carrying a card and that there would be no stop and search, but it is very hard to see how digital ID or physical ID cards address illegal immigration unless it is possible to demand the card from somebody in the street or in a workplace. And that is precisely the “papers, please” society that we do not want.

    Hansard source

  34. ParliamentDamian Hinds

    Digital ID

    I will add that 4,000 of my constituents have signed this petition. I have also heard directly from hundreds of them by email in response to my own petition. We should listen to all these voices. A lot has changed since 2003, but not my opposition to digital ID. The Government say that it would be non-compulsory, but in practice it would become so. They already talk about opening bank accounts and accessing childcare or benefits with digital ID; of course, in time there will be many more applications for it. It will be one more thing that we will need a smartphone for. That is bad enough in itself, but if digital ID is to be given to children as young as 13, as the Government are consulting on, that will make things far worse again. Most of all, the worry is about the concentration of data. Yes, we already have massive databases in the private sector, and we all already have a number for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, NHS numbers and all the rest of it. The big change here is the single index term—the single identifier that links all these databases together. However much the Government say that the main database will be federated and access-limited, that cannot take away from the fact that all the databases will be linked. If they were not all linked, it would not be a digital ID system.

    Hansard source

  35. ParliamentDamian Hinds

  36. ParliamentDamian Hinds

  37. ParliamentDamian Hinds

    Skills England

    9. What recent progress Skills England has made on its priorities.

    Hansard source

  38. ParliamentDamian Hinds

    Skills England

    It really is not ideal to have the body responsible for upholding standards in qualifications inside a Department that will be judged on how many people it gets through to passing those qualifications. It was not ideal when it was at the Department for Education; it is even less ideal now that it is at the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Minister give a commitment that once Skills England is up and running, he will make it independent from Government, with a guaranteed voice for industry, and will he set that out in statute?

    Hansard source

  39. ParliamentDame Karen Bradley

    Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

    I would be grateful if the Minister could share any correspondence she has with the Committee because we are keen to get full transparency on this issue. Does the Minister share my incredulity that a decision that was so sensitive appears to have been taken on the basis of a single unminuted Zoom call between a West Midlands police officer and officers from Amsterdam, and that the exercise in social media scraping led the police to believe that a match that had never taken place could be cited in the evidence for the decision to ban the away fans?

    Hansard source

  40. ParliamentDame Harriett Baldwin

    Child Poverty Strategy

    Last year, the Secretary of State, her Front-Bench colleagues and pretty much everyone behind her voted against lifting the two-child benefit cap—[Hon. Members: “No, we didn’t.”] Those who rebelled had the Whip withdrawn. What would she say to those rebels now? What has changed since that vote last year?

    Hansard source