House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim McMahon (Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. While the approved mileage allowance payment rates have not changed since 2011, I recognise that motoring costs have evolved significantly, and it is an important issue for many people who claim motoring expenses. We are, therefore, looking at the issue and will consider the matter further in the usual way, as part of a future fiscal event. Through steps such as freezing fuel duty, we are taking wider action in the meantime to ensure that people pay the lowest price possible at the pump, whether or not they use the approved mileage allowance payment.
Jim McMahon
I thank the Chancellor for that response; I welcome it, and so will millions of working people. This has been a long-standing campaign for Unison, and I am grateful to it and the RAC Foundation for taking on this case and to the Mirror for the coverage it has given to the campaign. The 45p a mile rate, set 15 years ago, is nowhere near the true cost of running a vehicle today, which was recently assessed at 67p a mile—and that was before fuel costs rocketed in the last week. Gemma, a social worker for over two decades, travels around 400 miles a month for work, which means she is paying over £1,000 a year just to do her job and care for other people. Gemma and the millions of working people like her will welcome the Chancellor’s statement today, but can this work be expedited, given the cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
I genuinely thank my hon. Friend for all he has done to draw attention to this important issue. I am also grateful for representations from the trade union Unison, given that this particularly affects low-paid workers, including care workers like Gemma. We have a standard Treasury policy of keeping all taxes under review ahead of fiscal events, but as I say, this is one area that I will be keeping a very close interest in.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Chancellor will review mileage rates, but with her fuel duty freeze coming to an end in September and the next fiscal event not happening until later in the year, will she commit to review that decision at the end of this parliamentary Session if petrol prices are significantly higher than they are today, for the sake of people’s cost of living?
Rachel Reeves
The price of petrol today is 8p per litre lower than if I had followed the plans that were left to me by the previous Conservative Government. From April, it will be 11p per litre lower. Of course, we keep these things under review, but oil prices today are 24% lower than they were yesterday, so things are very volatile at the moment. That is why, as I said yesterday, the most important thing we can do to address the cost of living challenges people face is to de-escalate the conflict in the middle east, which is exactly what this Government are attempting to do.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
On business rates, the Government have announced a support package for all businesses worth £4.3 billion over the next three years. We have introduced permanently lower multipliers for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, including those on the high street. In addition, every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new bill from April. The Government will also bring forward a high streets strategy later this year.
Sir Ashley Fox
Many retail, hospitality and tourism businesses in my constituency traditionally give young people their first job, but with the Chancellor’s jobs tax, the unemployment rights Act and now huge increases in rates, many of those businesses are struggling to survive, so they just cannot afford to take on those young people. Does the Minister accept that his Government are the reason that youth unemployment is now higher in the UK than in the EU for the first time since records began?
Dan Tomlinson
One reason we have a challenge with youth participation in the labour market is the broken welfare system and the broken support system that we inherited from the previous Government. The proportion of young adults who are not in education, employment or training is broadly unchanged since the general election. It is too high, and it has to come down. That is why we are reforming our system and providing more support through actions such as our jobs guarantee. That is the right approach, as is the approach we are taking on business rates.
Wendy Chamberlain
I recently hosted a hospitality roundtable in North East Fife. In an area that boasts such attractions as St Andrews and the East Neuk, one would expect to find an industry in rude health, but that was not the case. Indeed, one business could not attend because it was taking difficult decisions in relation to the business that day. The Minister has outlined a number of things that are in the purview of the devolved Government, and I will be taking those up with the Scottish Government. As a Scottish MP and a Scot representing Scottish businesses, however, I am looking for things that the Government can do on a UK level. The Liberal Democrats have been proposing an emergency VAT cut for hospitality businesses for some time, so why will the Government not consider that?
Dan Tomlinson
Business rates are a devolved matter. The changes that we have announced and the support that we have put in will have consequentials for funding for the Scottish Government. VAT is a broad-based tax that raises a significant amount of revenue for the Treasury. That is important in ensuring that we can manage our public finances and bring in the revenue to be able to get borrowing down, which this Government are doing and previous Governments failed to do. When the Liberal Democrats last had the chance, their choice was to put up VAT rather than cut it.
Dr Chambers
Many businesses in Winchester that I speak to on a regular basis talk about higher energy costs and national insurance rises, and many bring up the increased red tape that has resulted from the Conservatives’ failed Brexit project. Businesses in Winchester say that they want growth, not continued red tape. About two weeks ago, I spoke to one such business, RJM International, located just off the high street. For some reason, the Government refuse to even consider reducing trade barriers to the EU by having a bespoke customs union, but industry wants it and the public are increasingly supportive. Why will the Government not even assess the economic case for a customs union and why are they clinging to a failed ideology at the expense of growing our economy?
Dan Tomlinson
This Government are fully committed to resetting our relationship with the European Union. As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, the previous Government did as much as they could to damage that relationship, damage our productivity and damage our working relationship with our nearest partners. We are seeking to change that: we are negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement; we are looking at electricity and energy; and we are looking at what more we can do to deepen our trading relationship, which will be good for productivity and jobs. People said that we could not make progress with both the EU and the United States, but we did not have to choose: instead, we are making progress with trading partners across the world.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Property valuations in York are particularly high, making it very difficult for businesses, not least this year and certainly over the next three years. Will the Minister say exactly when he will launch his consultations on pubs, on hotels, on business rates and on high streets? Would he be willing to come and meet businesses in York to hear why they are struggling with the decisions made by this Government?
Dan Tomlinson
We will be working across Government on the high streets strategy. Treasury Ministers will be working with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Business and Trade. We will make progress on that in the coming weeks, with the strategy to report by the end of the year. We are in the process of working on the details of plans for the review of the pubs and hotels valuation methodology, and I will be happy to engage with my hon. Friend and Members from across the House to get that on a firmer footing for the future.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
The Government’s business rate relief package for pubs has been hugely welcome, but other high street businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors are struggling. Will the Minister consider increasing the small business rate relief threshold to encourage growth and hiring? Over half the high street small businesses surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses said that they would be in position to invest in or grow their businesses if the threshold were increased.
Dan Tomlinson
Around one in three businesses continue to benefit from the small business rates relief and do not pay any business rates at all, with an additional 85,000 benefiting from reduced relief as that is tapered away. At the Budget, we also announced changes to small business rates relief so that we can provide an additional two years of support for those businesses seeking to expand into a second property, to support those businesses to grow and to support their communities and jobs.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Traders like Sukibinder Singh, who owns Little Italy in Dudley, tell me how low footfall, empty shops and shoplifting are putting people off coming to the town centre. Will my hon. Friend set out what action he is taking on business rates and targeted reliefs to help bricks-and-mortar businesses to compete and prosper?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for her representation of Little Italy in her fantastic constituency. We are working on the high streets strategy. She is right to highlight that with long-term trends, whether the impact of the pandemic or of the shift to online retail, we need to look at this as a whole. On taxation and business rates in particular, we have for the first time provided a wedge in the tax system so that the rate that online giants pay for their warehouses is a third higher than the rate paid by the smallest businesses on the high street. There is a significantly higher multiplier for the larger businesses on my hon. Friend’s high street than for the smaller ones, but we will keep looking at the issue and at what more we can do to support businesses across the tax system.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but the Federation of Small Businesses is warning that they will face a cost cliff edge in April because of the cumulative impact of all the new taxes and responsibilities put on them at the same time. During the course of the Finance Bill, we Liberal Democrats have repeatedly called for an assessment of the cumulative impact of taxes on hospitality and small businesses, including business rates. When the Government bring forward their high streets strategy, will it include an assessment of the cumulative impact of all tax changes—yes or no?
Dan Tomlinson
When we bring forward the high streets strategy, it will look in the round at what more we can do on regulation, licensing and the decisions that are made in the Treasury to continue to support small businesses and those on our high streets. That is incredibly important, and we will continue to look at that closely.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, the Government are introducing a strong, new community right to buy. That will empower communities to take ownership of and protect local assets. Alongside those new powers, the Pride in Place programme will provide up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 neighbourhoods, enabling local people to choose to fund a range of activities, including developing or restoring important community assets.
Preet Kaur Gill
After 14 years of Conservative austerity, many communities like mine have seen the assets that matter most to them hollowed out. I welcome the Government’s community right to buy, because putting local people in control of local assets is simply common sense. In my constituency, Woodgate and Bartley Green will receive £20 million through Pride in Place funding over the next decade thanks to this Government. Does the Minister agree that tackling barriers such as access to finance will help communities to take ownership of local assets and rebuild neighbourhoods?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Pride in Place funding can be used for communities to take ownership of and support local assets, from youth centres to libraries and cultural venues. I am very glad to hear that the funding will make such a positive difference to her constituents in Woodgate and Bartley Green, and I am proud that this Government are putting people in control of what happens in their local area.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
Across my constituency, there are three things that small villages tend to have: a pub, a church and a village hall. The community asset policy will support community ownership of the pubs, but I am hearing from those who run large faith buildings that they are deeply concerned about the changes to VAT relief on listed buildings. Will the Minister agree to meet me and others who are literally trying to repair the church roof to discuss that uncertainty?
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this scheme is operated by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, so I am happy to ask colleagues in that Department to come back to him.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Michael Wheeler (Worsley and Eccles) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
Stability is the most important thing that we can do to get interest rates and inflation down, and tackling the cost of living—especially given the global headwinds—is my top priority. At the Budget, we took money off energy bills and froze prescription charges and train fares. The Government’s cheaper fuel finder scheme is now online, and it shows petrol prices at forecourts across the country. Yesterday, some petrol retailers charged almost 180p per litre, while others were charging less than 130p per litre. This Government will not tolerate price gouging, and I will be meeting with petrol retailers this week to raise concerns and to get prices down at the pumps for all our constituents.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The Trussell Trust’s recent “Hunger in the UK” report highlights the startling reality of food insecurity. It has found that rates are higher for private renters in receipt of housing benefit, either through local housing allowance or through the housing element of universal credit. Private renters on the lowest incomes cannot keep up with the rising cost of living, and maintaining the freeze on local housing allowance risks driving even more people into hunger and homelessness, because private renters receiving LHA will likely see an average shortfall of £243 a month. The Government have taken meaningful steps towards tackling food insecurity, but will the Chancellor build on this by lifting the freeze on local housing allowance?
Rachel Reeves
The Renters’ Rights Act 2025, which will come into force in the next month or so, will make a big difference to my hon. Friend’s constituents and to all our constituents who are contending with living in the private rented sector—particularly with issues such as evictions, but also with mid-term rent increases. At the same time, we have put £39 billion into our social and affordable homes programme so that more people can get a council house or a social home rather than living in the private rented sector. We are also getting rid of the two-child limit, which the Trussell Trust says will reduce demand for food banks.
Michael Wheeler
While cost of living pressures are affecting people across my constituency of Worsley and Eccles, young families face a perfect storm. Whether it is housing costs, expensive childcare or student loans, many young families are struggling, and research shows that the cost of living crisis is holding people back from even starting a family. Will the Chancellor outline what measures the Government are taking to alleviate the financial burdens on young families, in addition to their welcome moves to expand free childcare?
Rachel Reeves
We absolutely recognise the pressures facing families. Bringing stability back to the economy is the No. 1 thing that we can do for working families. There have been six cuts in interest rates since the general election, which has seen the average cost of servicing a mortgage come down by about £1,300 a year. The Renters’ Rights Act will come into force shortly to give greater rights to people in the private rented sector. The free childcare offer, which is now fully funded, ensures that parents with children aged between nine months and five years get free childcare if they are in work. From next month, the end of the two-child benefit limit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Richard from Beverley tells me that he paid £304 for his last tank of heating oil, yet if he orders it again now—and he needs to do so within four weeks—it will cost him £862. Families across rural areas such as Beverley and Holderness rely on heating oil to keep warm, yet because they are off-grid, they get no protection from the energy price cap. Some 1.5 million people across the country are affected, so what steps can the Chancellor take to alleviate the situation for rural families such as Richard’s, who are facing a huge spike in the cost of living through no fault of their own?
Rachel Reeves
First, everybody gets support with their electricity bill, regardless of how they heat their home. However, I do recognise the unique issues around heating oil; we had representations from the Labour group of rural MPs over the weekend, and my colleague the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is going to meet all MPs with an interest in this area tomorrow. I very much urge the right hon. Gentleman to come to that meeting, but the most important thing this Government are doing is trying to de-escalate the crisis in the middle east, because that is the way to get prices down for all our constituents, whether for heating oil or at the pumps.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Inflation might be lower than projected, but prices are still rising. Fuel prices at the pumps might be lower than the Tories promised, but they are still higher than they were, and energy costs are still not down to what the Government promised in their manifesto. Will the Chancellor recognise that families are really struggling at the moment and put in an emergency package of measures to support them through the cost of living crisis?
Rachel Reeves
In April, people will get £150 off their energy bills and prescription charges in England will be frozen as will rail fares. At the same time, we are getting rid of the two-child benefit cap, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, but the most important thing we can do for the price of petrol, diesel and heating oil is de-escalate the conflict in the middle east and get vessels moving again through the strait of Hormuz. That is why this Government are putting such efforts into de-escalating this crisis.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The level of poverty that 14 million people in the UK face is not inevitable; it is the result of political choices, and it damages our economy, costing around £75 billion each year. Will my right hon. Friend consider equalising capital gains tax with income tax and introducing a 2% wealth tax on assets over £10 million to lift people out of poverty and strengthen public finances?
Rachel Reeves
In my first Budget, I changed a number of taxes to ensure that the wealthiest are paying their fair share. We increased capital gains tax, reduced the number of tax loopholes, introduced VAT and business rates on private schools, extended the energy profits levy and got rid of the exemptions for private equity. In the Budget last year, I did more than any Chancellor has ever done to take children out of poverty. In the course of this Parliament alone, more than half a million children will be lifted out of poverty. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has delivered that.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
With tensions in the middle east pushing up global oil and gas prices again, households are understandably worried that yet another international crisis will mean higher energy bills and a higher cost of living at home. In my South Cambridgeshire constituency, like in others we have heard about today, many rural and semi-rural households have to use oil for heating, and they have seen prices double over the past week. I have heard that the Chancellor is considering measures to support them. Will she support the Liberal Democrats’ call to zero rate VAT on heating oil for three months for all those residential homes, and will she consider other measures to protect them from massive spikes in their bills?
Rachel Reeves
There are two things going on with heating oil. First, we have the conflict in the middle east, which we are trying to de-escalate, and secondly, we have price gouging. The way to deal with that is to ensure that customers are treated fairly and companies are not ripping off their customers. That is why we have asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look at the issues around heating oil, but we have to get to the root of the problem, which is that vessels are not flowing through the strait of Hormuz, and some businesses are using this crisis as an opportunity to rip off consumers. Rather than throwing public money at something when that is not the solution, let us deal with price gouging and getting the oil flowing.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Chancellor promised in her first Budget that she would not extend the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it
“would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.]
In her second Budget, the Chancellor broke her promise with a £23 billion tax rise, bringing a million more people into paying higher rate tax. When people are set to struggle with the cost of living over this Parliament, why are the Government choosing to make their lives harder?
Rachel Reeves
Some people have short memories, haven’t they, Mr Speaker? I remember the Conservatives freezing those thresholds on a number of occasions. We said in our manifesto that we would not increase the headline rates of national insurance, VAT and income tax that working people pay, but I did say clearly at the Budget last year that we would have to ask everyone to make a greater contribution, because of the downgrade in productivity, which is a result of the mismanagement of the economy by the last Government over 14 failed years.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the spring forecast last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor showed that we have the right economic plan. Our plan has lowered inflation, borrowing, debt and debt interest payments. Our approach means that investment is up, helping to create the conditions for growth across the UK. Our firm approach to public spending is helping to keep public finances on a sustainable path.
John Glen
Given that the Chancellor has pencilled in 0.3% real-terms growth in public spending in 2029-30, and assuming that health spending is at its historical average, the special educational needs and disabilities spend is as per the proposals, and defence is at 3%, that will leave a 2.5% real-terms cut in unprotected Departments. What plans do the Chancellor and Chief Secretary to the Treasury have to fill that £13 billion gap in the 2029-30 envelope?
James Murray
If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the plans that we set out through our spending review, he will be clear that we are increasing spending by £50 billion a year by 2028-29 compared with the previous Government’s plans. At the same time, we are ensuring that taxpayers get value for money. We are making £3.9 billion of efficiency savings by 2029-30, rising to £5 billion by 2030-31.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Government’s spending plans look very, very iffy. The Minister has a chance of fitting in with the Chancellor’s fiscal rules—if there is no further downgrade on economic growth, which seems unlikely; if the Government have the backbone to rein in public spending and to increase taxes in the last years of the Parliament, which seems very unlikely; if the Government do not have to step in with any significant energy support because no money has been set aside; and if the Government can get £4.8 billion in salary sacrifice in 2029-30 revenues, which the industry says is a pipe dream. So here is another “if”. If the Minister’s spending plans start to fall apart, will he prioritise cuts in public spending over tax increases?
James Murray
I will give the hon. Gentleman an “if”. If he were honest and remembered his time in Liz Truss’s Government, he might not have the gall to make comments like that across the Dispatch Box—
Mr Speaker
Order. All Members are honest. Please think about what you are saying. You cannot individually attack a Member for not being honest. We are all honourable Members, as you well know. I call the honourable Minister.
James Murray
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I apologise unreservedly for the implication about the hon. Gentleman: I know that he is a very decent and honourable man, and I withdraw that comment. He may have unintentionally misled the House by failing to declare his part in the Liz Truss Government and the impact that that had on public spending. As he will know, we have stuck to the fiscal rules that this Chancellor introduced at the beginning of this Government in every fiscal event that we have had. Those fiscal rules are ironclad. We have sustainable plans for public spending, and we are ensuring that we are managing the economy in a way that the hon. Gentleman’s party could only dream of.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
We became inured to the presence of food banks under Tory Governments over the last 14 years, but we should always remember that despite the incredible work done by those who run them, food banks should not need to exist, and this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. That is why we have extended free school meals to children in families receiving universal credit and removed the two-child limit, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and—according to the Trussell Trust, as the Chancellor said earlier—will significantly reduce the number of families using food banks.
Catherine West
Does the Minister agree that everyone—including financial institutions such as the mutual sector, which often outperforms the private banking sector in access to finance and branch closure issues—needs to play their part in helping families and households at this critical juncture?
Lucy Rigby
As my hon. Friend knows, we are a strong supporter of the mutual sector, for exactly the reasons that she has given. As part of our financial inclusion strategy, we are backing the sector with initiatives such as the new £30 million credit union transformation fund and reform of the common bond, which I look forward to introducing shortly.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the work of the food banks, not only in my constituency but across the United Kingdom, in stepping up to plug gaps for families? Does she accept that urgent improvements in respect of benefit transitions and deductions are needed to prevent households from being pushed abruptly into crisis?
Lucy Rigby
As I have said, food banks should not need to exist, which is why this Government are committed to ending mass dependence on food parcels. I have also mentioned the importance of lifting the two-child limit on universal credit, which will result in the largest expected reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament since records began.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Payments of both the basic pension and the new state pension will increase by 4.8% in April, in just a few weeks’ time, boosting pensioners’ incomes by up to £575 a year. The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 over the current Parliament, reflecting this Government’s commitment to the triple lock for its duration.
Nick Smith
That is great news. Our pensioners deserve the best support, and will be glad of the extra income. I will shortly be organising events in my constituency promoting pension credit take-up. Some of my pensioner constituents, however, have lost money to the Safe Hands funeral scheme when trying to prepare for the worst of times. Will the Minister please meet me to discuss their case?
Torsten Bell
I am glad to hear that my hon. Friend is organising events to drive pension credit take-up, as he did last year. I know that Members on both sides of the House will be doing that throughout the year.
On my hon. Friend’s question about the failure of Safe Hands, he is a powerful advocate for his constituents. He will know that the Serious Fraud Office has recently announced that two individuals have been charged in relation to the case, and there are live criminal proceedings ongoing, but I know that my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary, who is responsible for this matter, is always happy to meet him.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Nearly half a million pensioners living abroad will miss out on the state pension increase because we do not have reciprocal agreements with countries such as Canada and Australia. Several former Bath constituents have raised this issue with me. What discussions has the Minister had with departmental colleagues to rectify this injustice?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member will know that it is a long-standing Government policy that the uprating of pensions is prioritised for residents in the UK, not least because the uprating levels reflect the path of earnings and prices in the UK. She will know that that was the Government’s policy under the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition Government, and it remains the case today.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
Thanks to this Government’s policies on pensions, which actively disincentivise saving into private pension schemes, people will increasingly rely on the support of the state. This is not sustainable. I asked the Minister about this yesterday, and he dodged the question, so I will ask him again: will the Government cancel pension fund mandation and abandon salary sacrifice caps—yes or no?
Torsten Bell
This Government have set out our policy. On the question of salary sacrifice, any responsible Government should look at the effectiveness of all tax reliefs. If salary sacrifice for pensions had not been reformed, the cost would have risen to £8 billion over the course of this Parliament. That is the cost of the entire Royal Air Force. If the Conservative party wants to be treated like a serious party that is committed to fiscal discipline, as it claims to be, it is time to grow up.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
The Government recognise the important contribution that hospitality businesses make to communities across the UK, including in Northern Ireland. Reducing VAT rates, or applying different VAT rates within the UK, would add complexity and come at a significant cost to the Exchequer.
Claire Hanna
As well as the business pressures, a majority of households in Northern Ireland and many businesses use heating oil as their main heating source, so they are particularly exposed to shocks such as that which we are experiencing due to the wrong-headed conflict in the middle east, and they are not protected by the energy price cap. The Stormont Executive have failed to regulate in this area, or to make any meaningful progress towards a transition to sustainable and secure energy. What interventions against extreme price fluctuations can the Treasury make for those not on the grid?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank the hon. Member for her representation of her constituents. The Chancellor has already said today, as she said yesterday, that we understand that there are particular pressures facing households that use heating oil for their heating. A meeting has been arranged for tomorrow with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, which I hope the hon. Member will be able attend to discuss this issue in more detail. We are also going to be in conversations with the Competition and Markets Authority to make sure that we have a fair market that provides a fair price for her constituents.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I support the call for a cut in VAT for the hospitality sector from the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna). She is right to say that oil prices are rising sharply. The fuel price at the pumps is rocketing, and families are struggling with the cost of living. In Northern Ireland, 60% of homes rely on heating oil. What steps will the Treasury take to cut fuel duty and remove VAT on domestic heating oil? Will it finally recognise the damage being done by the Energy Secretary’s net zero zeal in blocking further oil and gas licensing in the North sea?
Dan Tomlinson
We have made sure to freeze fuel duty since we have been in office. That has saved the average driver 8p per litre at the pump, and it will rise to 11p when the increase does not go ahead in a few weeks’ time.
If heating oil is an issue that affects the hon. Lady’s constituents, I hope she will be able to attend tomorrow’s meeting. We are looking very closely at this issue, and at the changes that we can see in oil and gas prices at the moment. As the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), said yesterday, it is too early to tell how things will pan out. We have seen significant increases, and today we have seen decreases. We will keep looking closely at what we can do.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
A number of hospitality businesses in my constituency have raised with me that the UK rate of VAT is much higher than it is in France and Germany. Will my hon. Friend ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to model the impact of VAT cuts, as studies have previously suggested that cuts—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but this question should be about Northern Ireland.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I thank the Minister for his response. I have to declare an interest because I started a parliamentary petition exactly on a VAT cut for hospitality in Northern Ireland, the reason being that we have the Republic of Ireland with its very competitive VAT rate right up against us. Businesses saw the official Government response, because that petition got over 10,000 signatures, and they felt very despondent. I am sure that Treasury Ministers and the Chancellor will want to join me in trying to do everything we can to protect our hospitality sector. The Minister says this is complex to do, but would he agree with me that it is worth revisiting that idea?
Dan Tomlinson
This is a complex change to implement, but the Government’s position is that it is right to have the same rate of VAT across our country. During the pandemic, there was a cut—a temporary cut—to the rate of VAT and that came at the significant cost of £8 billion. We have to make sure that we can raise revenue from across the country in a fair and consistent way to support the public finances.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility set out its updated forecast for the UK economy, including for unemployment to peak this year before falling in each and every year thereafter. Longer-term problems for young people have been building in our labour market for far too long, with employment rates that are too low and levels of those not in education, employment or training soaring in the last Parliament. We will not allow a generation of young people to be left behind, which is why the Government have committed £820 million for the youth guarantee, strengthening employment support and guaranteeing jobs for the long-term unemployed.
Freddie van Mierlo
I first entered the job market in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and it was a difficult time for young people, yet today they face even more difficult and uncertain times. The Chancellor’s jobs tax is bearing down on opportunities, and AI is making this worse by potentially pulling up the ladder on graduate jobs that previously included things such as note taking and supporting senior employees in meetings. Will the Chancellor correct course on the unemployment of young people and do more to support their career progress?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member’s phrasing of his question was very telling about the challenges we all face in our labour market, because while we have seen more jobs created over the last year, there is a longer-term challenge with youth unemployment. If we look at the last Government, we never saw youth employment rates recover to the level seen under the previous Labour Government after the financial crisis, which was exactly the experience he mentioned.
It is important that we grapple with that long-term challenge, and there is the newer challenge with the huge increase in NEET rates in the last Parliament specifically. We absolutely need to focus on both of those, which is why we are focusing apprenticeship funding on young people in particular, why we are introducing the youth guarantee, and why we have the independent review led by Alan Milburn to focus on the root causes of these challenges.
Brian Mathew
The Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions have made it more expensive for employers to take on staff, particularly in the hospitality sector, which employs a high proportion of young people and part-time workers. Does the Minister agree that these changes have made it more difficult for young people in Melksham and Devizes and across the country to get a foot on the career ladder and start their working lives?
Torsten Bell
I think all of us recognise that our hospitality and retail sectors have had a difficult time in recent years. For retail, that goes back before the pandemic, with the growth of online shopping. The squeeze on energy costs in the outrun of the pandemic has squeezed how much people are spending on hospitality.
Specifically on the hon. Member’s question about national insurance, I am sure he is aware that those under the age of 21 and on youth apprenticeships are exempt from national insurance entirely. I would gently point out that the youth employment pattern we see in the labour market long predates the changes to national insurance last year.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I am glad that the Government are introducing things like the youth guarantee and working to help those who are not in education, employment or training. However, as the hon. Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) highlighted, AI is also an increasing concern. Businesses I have spoken to are concerned about the number of people they will not be employing in the future. The Minister has hinted that the Government are looking at this systemically. What conversations is he having across Government and, crucially, with businesses so that we can plan for what could be a real crisis in the future?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend has rightly been raising this issue for some time, predating the election. I will take the two parts of her question in turn. The impact of AI is something that is being looked at across countries—there is a unit inside Government looking at exactly that. More importantly, though, she mentions the crisis happening now, with some young people unable to get the job opportunities that we all want them to have, which they have not had for some time. We will bring forward further measures to strengthen the youth guarantee, which is an important measure to increase the employment support available to our young people and to ensure that a job guarantee is there for those who are long-term unemployed.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
The unemployment situation in my constituency and across the Yorkshire coalfield is becoming a crisis. There are 1,980 people out of work in my constituency and 70 job vacancies—that is almost 30 unemployed people pursuing every single job. No Labour Minister would ever say that employment is a price worth paying, but will the Minister tell the House that he will equally prioritise tackling unemployment and reassuring the bond markets?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend and I have discussed these issues on many occasions, particularly as they are specific to his constituency and other coalfield communities. There are challenges, particularly with youth employment, which goes back to the last decade in particular, and we absolutely need to prioritise that. However, I would also say a word of warning on the view of the overall labour market. Looking at the employment level last year, which was around 75%, there have been only two years in peacetime in the past 100 years when Britain has had a higher employment rate. I think we should be a bit careful about talking down the resilience of the UK economy or, as in this case, the resilience of the labour market. We have had only two years in the past 100 in peacetime when Britain has had a higher employment rate than last year.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
Last month, The Times reported that the Government may drop their pledge on minimum wage equalisation over fears of youth joblessness, and the BBC reports that the Government are considering a delay. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered any such delay or policy changes, and if so, what decision has been reached?
Torsten Bell
I want to offer my condolences to the hon. Gentleman for the recent loss of his father. It is something we all have to face at some point in our lives, but it is a lot to deal with. All our thoughts are with him at this time.
In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, no, there is no change in Government policy. Our view is that we should see alignment of the national minimum wage and national living wage rates, but that should happen in the right way, which is with the guidance of the Low Pay Commission, which will continue to play an important role.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)
The conflict in the middle east affects all of us, and I understand the anxiety felt by families and businesses. Rapid de-escalation in the middle east is the best way to protect businesses and working people from rising costs, which is why I continue to work closely with G7 colleagues to call for immediate de-escalation and to guarantee the security of vessels moving through the strait of Hormuz. I am clear-eyed about the situation we face. I will be both responsive to a changing world and responsible in the national interest to protect public finances and to help families and businesses with the cost of living.
Daniel Francis
I thank my right hon. Friend for her comments and support and echo what she has said about the situation in the middle east. The charity Shelter has long campaigned for people with no fixed address to be able to access bank accounts, including without ID. Which groups of people might benefit the most from the leadership shown by the Labour Government and from banks on this issue?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for all the excellent work that she has done to take this agenda forward. The lack of a bank account does make it harder for people to secure stable employment and stable housing. That is why our financial inclusion strategy secured a commitment from the major banks to work with Shelter directly to make it easier for people without standard ID to access a bank account. This partnership with Shelter will particularly help to break the cycle of homelessness and support people to rebuild their lives, which we all want to see.
Sir Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
For every single year of the last Conservative Government, we froze fuel duty, and we did so to stand up for hard-working families. Given that petrol prices are surging at the pumps, why has the right hon. Lady chosen now to put up fuel duty?
Rachel Reeves
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the plans that we inherited from the previous Government would have seen fuel duty go up just a few months after the general election. We did not think that was the right approach, so we reversed the Conservative plans that we inherited to freeze fuel duty and to keep the 5p discount introduced during the pandemic. In April this year, under the plans that I inherited, fuel duty would have gone up again, but we do not think that is the right thing to do. Therefore, in a staggered approach from the autumn this year, the 5p cut introduced during the pandemic will begin to be unwound. At the same time, we have just introduced the cheaper fuel finder, which yesterday showed the divergence in prices paid by customers on petrol forecourts. Some paid 130p a litre and others 180p per litre, so it is really important that people use that cheaper fuel finder to shop around. I shall be meeting petrol retailers later this week to make it clear that we will not accept price gouging.
Sir Mel Stride
Given the rapidly rising cost of oil and gas, why does the right hon. Lady believe that it is better to import it than to extract it from the North sea?
Rachel Reeves
The price of oil and gas is particularly volatile at the moment, given the conflict in the middle east. My understanding, as we came into the Chamber today, was that prices of oil were down by something like 25% on the day. The most important thing that all of us can do to deal with what is happening to prices at the moment is to support de-escalation. That is the Labour party’s policy, but I am not sure what the policy of the Conservative party is. None the less, that is the best way to get down both the price of petrol at the pumps and of heating oil. The North sea will play an important part of our energy mix for many years to come, which is why I met North sea oil and gas companies just last week to talk about what more they can do and how we can help.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
Many Back Benchers did not get in earlier, so, please, it would help me if we could try to speed up.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)
I thank my hon. Friend for his representations on this matter here today and over many months, and in Westminster Hall just a few weeks ago. The rural fuel duty relief scheme does provide that 5p discount and it will benefit his constituents on the islands and in the communities he represents. We will of course keep all our taxes under review. I will be happy to meet him to talk about this one.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
In times of crisis, the UK Government have often had to spend more on energy support for households and small businesses than other comparable countries, because our energy market is so broken. Hospitality and small businesses tell me that some suppliers simply refuse to supply hospitality businesses at all. If the Government are determined to refuse Liberal Democrat calls for an emergency VAT cut, can I please ask them whether, at the very least, they will consider our call to instruct the Competition and Markets Authority to investigate bad practices in the energy market affecting hospitality and small businesses, so that we can drive down bills through greater competition?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The hon. Lady is right to talk about the long-term answer here, which is more domestic energy security. That is why we are getting on with building nuclear power—whether it is in Wylfa, Suffolk or Somerset. On her specific question, the Chancellor and Ministers have been very clear with the CMA that, particularly at times such as these, we need to ensure that no companies are taking advantage of customers—whether they are customers filling up their domestic heating oil or hospitality businesses.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
Rachel Reeves
I am proud to be the Labour Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Just last week we announced a £1 billion helicopter deal with Leonardo, based in Yeovil, just down the road from my hon. Friend. Yesterday I confirmed to the House that the Ministry of Defence has access to the special reserve. That means that the added costs of deploying additional capabilities in the middle east will be funded entirely by the Treasury special reserve.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the important issues with heating oil that his constituents are facing. I very much hope that he will be able to attend the meeting tomorrow. There are two key issues: making sure that vessels can again flow through the strait of Hormuz, which requires a de-escalation of the crisis; and stopping the price gouging that some businesses are engaged in at the moment. That is why I have asked the CMA to look at that too.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the important work of Co-operative Care Colne Valley, which is an excellent example of how co-operatives can deliver high-quality community-owned care for elderly and disabled people. His constituency is home to a number of other fantastic co-operatives, including the Green Valley Grocer and the Handmade Bakery. The Government are committed to doubling the size of the co-ops and mutuals sector, exactly because we recognise the very positive role that it plays.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
Businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and indeed across the country, can know that, whatever instability we face in the world in the months and weeks ahead, the Government have done the right thing for the economy by bringing down inflation, interest rates, borrowing, debt and debt costs. All that puts us in the strongest possible position to be resilient going into the future.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
Lucy Rigby
I know how passionate my hon. Friend is about the Government’s priority to get more first-time buyers on to the housing ladder. As he and I have discussed before, people looking to buy a home can build their credit history through rent payments by using third-party services that report these things to credit reference agencies. I think that he and I would agree that better awareness of such services and the mortgages available that take account of tenants’ rental payments would be a good thing.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Rachel Reeves
While only 4% of people in Great Britain use heating oil, I recognise that this is a particular issue for many constituents, and in Northern Ireland the figure is more than 60%. I am keen for the hon. Gentleman to take these issues to the meeting with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury tomorrow. We are working closely with the Competition and Markets Authority to stop price gouging. There is no reason why a company should be charging twice as much as it was for heating oil; we need to put a stop to those practices.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The junction of Surrey Road and Prince of Wales Road; Wimborne Road, between Kinson library and Bear Cross; and Hankinson Road, around Winton rec—these are some of the more than 35 roads in Bournemouth West where residents have told me potholes are out of control. Lib Dem-led Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has been given £7.5 million to maintain our roads and fix potholes. I will be writing to BCP council later today, but in the meantime, will the Minister join me in urging it to get its act together and finally fix our roads?
James Murray
As my hon. Friend makes clear, we need to ensure that our extra funding for local roads maintenance is spent effectively, and that local residents can hold councils like Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole to account. The Liberal Democrats have typically not been shy about mentioning potholes in their leaflets; now is their time to deliver.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Rachel Reeves
Alongside the Budget last year, we published the new North sea oil and gas strategy, which, for example, allows tie-backs, so that more use can be made of existing fields. The previous Government brought in the energy profits levy when energy companies’ profits went through the roof after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. That is still in place, so that when prices are high, we can bring money in to help people with their bills.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s work to get the Leonardo helicopters contract over the line, as that will help protect defence jobs right across Dorset, Somerset and the wider south-west. Will the Treasury and Ministers continue to work with the Ministry of Defence to secure investment in the defence sector in Dorset and across the west country?
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the Leonardo contract at Yeovil, which supports many thousands of jobs in Somerset, and indeed Dorset. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war; that has enabled us to support this investment and many others.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his second question, and his enthusiastic volume of questions today. The Government balance the needs of public services with tax revenues. I gently point out that Liberal Democrat Members come to the House day in, day out, and call for more spending—we have heard that happen today—but then oppose every single tax rise or tax change required to make that happen. That is not what serious politics looks like. We need to take tax seriously, and it is time for some serious politics from the Liberal Democrats.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
The loan charge was a scandal that affected tens of thousands of people across this country, some of whom were on very low pay and not given a choice by their employers. At the last Budget, the Government put forward changes. What assessment has the Minister made of how those changes will impact people at the lowest end, including social care workers across the country?
Dan Tomlinson
I thank my hon. Friend for the question, and for the representation she has provided for her constituents and, through her work on the loan charge and taxpayer fairness all-party parliamentary group, for many across the country who have been affected by the loan charge. At the Budget, we made the decision to write off £5,000 from the liabilities of everyone who has been affected by the loan charge, so about a third of those affected will have their liabilities written off entirely. I look forward to continuing to engage with her and Members across the House on this important issue.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Following on from that last question, the loan charge and taxpayer fairness APPG, which I co-chair, wrote to Ministers on 1 July, 22 September and 25 November last year, with questions about the 2005 preferential deal with the large banks. Does the Minister feel that it is acceptable that we have not had a reply to those letters? When will we get one?
Dan Tomlinson
The letters that were sent will receive a reply very shortly. A decision was made that in the run-up to the announcement of the independent loan charge review, it would not be appropriate for the Government to set out in detail their views on a live issue that an independent reviewer was looking at. That review was published alongside the Budget. I apologise for the fact that the response has not come in the weeks since; it will be with the hon. Member and the APPG very shortly.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, I held an emergency cost of living summit in Blackpool, after record numbers of families, particularly single mums, contacted us in food crisis. They could not access the council’s discretionary fund. Will the Minister outline how the new crisis and resilience fund will ensure that families in my constituency can get the support that they need, especially over the weekend?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right to point to the crisis and resilience fund as an important lifeline for families across this country. We work with local authorities to make sure that the funding gets to the frontline, because local councils best understand where the most acute pressures are in their areas. I am, however, happy to discuss this with him later.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Heat batteries are the only clean heat technology certified by the microgeneration certification scheme that is excluded from VAT relief under the energy-saving materials framework. This penalises smaller homes and lower-income households that cannot accommodate a heat pump. Will the Chancellor commit to removing that anomaly, and meet me and representatives of the UK heat battery industry to discuss it?
Dan Tomlinson
The Government regularly assess whether to add energy-saving materials, including heat batteries, to the list of items covered by the current VAT relief, which is set to continue until March 2027. Any decisions would have to be announced by the Chancellor at a fiscal event, but I am happy to discuss the matter.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Given the global situation, what discussions has the Chancellor had with Cabinet colleagues on helping to keep industrial energy costs manageable? Will she work with colleagues to bring in the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which would cut manufacturing energy costs by 25%, as soon as possible?
Rachel Reeves
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the energy-intensive industries, and for manufacturing more widely. The supercharger is being extended from April this year. That will help 500 of the most energy-intensive businesses, and increase their discount from 60% to 90%—and next year, the BIC scheme comes in. Given what is happening in the middle east, we will continue to look closely at what we can do to help our energy-intensive industries.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Over 50% of properties in the Scottish Borders are not on the mains gas grid and are completely dependent on heating oil. They are being hammered by the increase to the price of heating oil over the last week or so, and they need to see concrete action from this Government to stop the excessive prices and the profiteering. What are the Government going to do?
Rachel Reeves
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are trying to de-escalate the conflict in the middle east, because if we can get vessels moving again through the strait of Hormuz, we will deal with a lot of these problems. I am working closely with both Lloyd’s of London—I met its representatives yesterday—and my G7 colleagues to ensure that those vessels can get moving again. At the same time, I think that everybody has heard the stories in this Chamber and from our constituents about the problems of price gouging. We have to address that, and I have asked the CMA to look at it. Members across the House will have a chance tomorrow to set out their case to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in more detail, so that we have all the information needed to make the case.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme are sick and tired of poor-quality, dangerous roads. The county council has resources from this Government, and must stop being missing in action. What message does the Minister have for Staffordshire county council?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is right that we need councils across the country to use the extra funding that the Government have made available for local road maintenance to fill those potholes. Councils will have to publish their data online, so that local people can monitor, through a traffic light system available on gov.uk, how their council is performing.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Every year, the UK loses £33.4 billion in tax revenue, as multinational corporations and the super-rich choose tax havens over tax payments. However, the UN tax convention has the potential to solve this problem, so will the Minister show leadership, not ambivalence, and commit to securing an ambitious UN tax convention in this Parliament?
Dan Tomlinson
I am always happy to show leadership, and this Government—and, I may say, previous Governments—have worked hard with international partners, both in the OECD and the UN, to do all we can to reduce tax avoidance and evasion by multinational companies. We continue to work with our partners in the UK and abroad to clamp down on tax dodging.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituent in Rochdale, Louise Marshall, wrote to me this weekend because she is worried sick about the massive price rise she is facing for heating oil. Can the Chancellor assure me, notwithstanding the meeting we are all going to have with the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that we can be absolutely crystal clear that under this Government, we will not tolerate price gouging or war profiteering from oil companies that try to rip off their customers?
Rachel Reeves
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The price gouging that we see is totally unacceptable, which is why we have already asked the Competition and Markets Authority to look at this. Whether we are talking about petrol at the pumps or heating oil, there is no excuse for any business to use this as an opportunity to rip off customers.
Sir Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
One of the things that makes our economy less resilient is high levels of debt. The Chancellor and I have both followed fiscal rules that allowed us to claim that debt was falling, when in fact it continued to rise, both in absolute terms and as a proportion of GDP. Does she think it is time to consider a new fiscal rule that actually reduces debt—for example, a rule that public spending will not increase faster than economic growth?
Rachel Reeves
Debt is lower in every year of the forecast that I published last week than it was in the plans that I set out in the Budget just back in November. The fiscal rules that I introduced in the October after I became Chancellor said, first of all, that we had to balance day-to-day spending with tax receipts, and that is important. They also stated that, subject to getting debt down as a share of GDP, we could invest in the things that can actually grow the economy. The right hon. Gentleman and I both know that growth is the best way to ensure that our public finances are sustainable, and that we improve living standards for working people.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Government’s new industrial strategy has signposted a path to further economic growth and prosperity. There are certain regions of the UK that can play a significant role in this growth, so would Treasury Ministers consider working with the Department for Business and Trade to make Cornwall an industrial strategy zone?
Rachel Reeves
In the Budget last year, we introduced the Kernow growth fund to support the Cornish economy because of its specific strengths around critical minerals, defence and clean energy. The National Wealth Fund and the wider Government will do everything we can to unlock the huge opportunities that we know exist in Cornwall.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Given the recent Institute for Fiscal Studies report that says that the Treasury’s excessively narrow focus on fiscal rules leads to dysfunctional policy making, and given recent global events showing the uncertainty of fiscal forecasting, does the Chancellor recognise that it is time to move to a more flexible and strategic approach to fiscal rule-making and fiscal policymaking?
Rachel Reeves
I totally reject the premise of that question. The fiscal rules that I introduced as Chancellor have unlocked £120 billion for capital investment. We will be spending £50 billion more on day-to-day spending by the end of this Parliament, but at the same time, we are bringing debt down, bringing the deficit down, bringing inflation down, and bringing interest rates down for all our constituents. Economic stability is the way to grow our economy and make working people in all our constituencies better off, and if we forget that, it is ordinary working people who pay the price.
Digital ID: Public Consultation
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Today the Government are launching a national conversation on how we will build and use digital ID as the means to access public services digitally on a mobile phone or computer.
Public services are meant to be there at the most important moments of your life: free childcare hours to help your children get a good start in life, getting your passport to go on your first holiday, passing your driving test and getting your first driving licence, asking for help if you lose your job, or receiving your state pension in retirement. But today, as the House knows, it is often too hard for people to get what they need when they need it. The current legacy system of call centres, paperwork and the need for people to tell their story multiple times to different parts of Government, with hours on hold and not knowing where they are in the process, is not good enough. I want to change that, and this Government will.
In its place, we will build a truly modern Britain where public services work for the citizen, through new digital public services that come together on the gov.uk app, so that help is there when people need it most. To do that, Government need to build the foundations for these new modern public services, and that is exactly what this digital ID system is for. It will be free to access for anyone who wishes to use it, and it will be built on three core principles. First, it must be useful. It needs to be easier than the old telephone and paper-based systems. Secondly, it must be secure. People will have more control over what data they share, and we expect nothing less than the level of security protections provided by banks for online banking services. Thirdly, it must be for everyone. We will not leave people behind, and the Government will help those who are less confident with technology or do not have other forms of ID, such as a passport.
With a digital ID, citizens will be able to log in to the gov.uk app and then, crucially, prove who they are. But unlike an ordinary login, the digital ID will work across different Departments and services, bringing those all together in one place in the gov.uk app, so that the public can access all the services they need in one place. This is different from building one giant Government IT system—that is not what we are doing. Services will remain on separate IT systems in their relevant Departments, and the NHS app and citizens’ health data will always remain separate, but the gov.uk app and digital ID will, over time, bring all other public services into one app on mobile phones—the front door to modern public services.
This will not be a new experience for citizens. The public already use these systems every day, from banking to shopping. Other countries are already far ahead of us, from Denmark and Estonia to Australia and India. Britain is having to catch up.
It is an issue of convenience and efficiency, but it is also one of fairness and equality. We all know who the status quo often favours: those with the resources, the headspace, and perhaps the pointy elbows or the pushiness to get themselves to the front of the queue or allow them to play the system. But public services are meant to be there when people need them most, and how the legacy system has sometimes treated people in these stressful or difficult situations is quite frankly an outrage, piling them up with bureaucracy and leaving them without the help they need.
Who is it who struggles to fill in the forms correctly or lacks the form of ID required? Who are the one in seven people across the UK who do not have a passport? They are often the strivers who are juggling work and caring responsibilities. This Government believe that everybody deserves a fair shot, and it is up to Government to give people support and a leg-up when they need it.
Today we are launching this national conversation to discuss how we will build and use a digital ID. We want to know where frustrations exist with the current legacy system and which services could be made easier via the gov.uk app. Later today, I will share a prototype of how a digital ID could work that shows how “government by app” could become a reality, joining up different Departments and services so that the public do not have to do the work themselves.
In the initial stages, the digital ID system will start by making it easier to complete simple administrative tasks, such as proving one’s right to work when starting a job. Other tasks, such as paying car tax, ordering a passport or sorting childcare entitlements, could become part of the same app. I understand that the idea of a digital ID has sparked significant public interest, so I have instructed my Department to ensure that this consultation goes further than any other that the Government have done before.
As part of the public consultation, which is live right now, we will invite a representative sample of the public at large—from all walks of life and all parts of the country—to form a people’s panel. [Interruption.] That deliberative democracy process will build on our experience of supporting Parliament’s citizens assembly on net zero in the previous Parliament. Working with over 100 citizens, we will debate the difficult questions, find ways forward and build a system that can secure the trust and support of everyone. [Interruption.] To those Members chuntering from a sedentary position about having a conversation with the public, I say, “What do you fear?” This Government are very happy to talk to the public about what we are doing, and I look forward to talking to hon. Members’ constituents if they are selected to be part of the process.
I understand that this will not be for everyone. I hope that the services we build will be so good that most people will wish to use them, but for those who do not, I want to make sure that help is on hand in their local community. That is why the roll-out of the digital ID will be accompanied by a digital inclusion drive to help people to access and use the services. I do not come to Parliament today with preconceived answers, and we will of course need to ensure that any future scheme is value for money, but I am interested to hear ideas about how we might use the people and buildings we already support through public expenditure to help local communities. We could use local post offices and postal workers, or libraries and jobcentres, to ensure that the majority of people can, if they need to, access digital assistance to use these services. For those who really do not wish to, traditional routes will of course still be made available.
As right hon. and hon. Members from across the House know, by the end of this Parliament, digital checks to verify someone’s right to work will be mandatory when they start a new job. It is currently a legal requirement for employers to check that a new employee has a legal right to work in the United Kingdom, but the often paper-based approach of photocopying or scanning a passport or utility bills, without further checks, is vulnerable to fraud and does not create a clear record for enforcement agents of when and where checks have been carried out. That is why the Prime Minister has asked for those existing checks to be conducted digitally by the end of this Parliament. It will still be the employer’s responsibility, but employees will be able to choose between using their Government digital ID—as we are setting out today—and using a passport, e-visa or other alternative method. It will be easier and quicker for individuals to demonstrate their right to work. For businesses, it will streamline and reduce the cost of compliance reporting. For the Home Office, it will create a digital audit trail of where checks have been carried out, to support enforcement where checks have not been carried out and to deter those who think that it is too easy to work illegally in the United Kingdom.
This is quite a technical consultation, but it is also a deeply political one. When the public voted for change they also voted for better public services. That is what Labour Governments at their best are all about: building new and innovative public services to support opportunity for all, rather than for just the privileged few—from the NHS in the 1940s, to the Open University in the 1960s and Sure Start centres in the 2000s. Today we are continuing that proud Labour tradition by building modern, digital public services that extend opportunity and support for people when they need it. This stands in stark contrast to political parties that wish to conserve the unacceptable status quo, or that offer to tear everything down and leave people on their own.
We want people across Britain to want this system, we want them to be part of it, and we want them to have the opportunity to shape it. This consultation is that opportunity. I look forward to the involvement of Members from across the House and of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons) for his work on this issue to date, and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), for all the work that he will now do to make this a reality—for which I will take the credit if it goes well, and he the blame if it goes wrong. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing a short time ago.
It is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into
“a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”.
Today, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his Department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential, and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory—even for babies. However, after months of insisting that the scheme was indispensable, the Government are now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting that it might just help to reduce hold times in Government call centres.
This great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of, “Well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy.” The public know snake oil when they are offered it. We should not be surprised, because this never was a thought-through policy; it was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ID file on the shelf, hoping for a Government desperate enough to pick it up, and last September they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference—look how that turned out—the Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea of how it would work, what it would cost or what the consequences would be.
After one of the Government’s many U-turns, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now assures us that this digital ID will not become compulsory. Nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is. We know how this story goes. At first, it is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then, you discover you need it to open a bank account and see your GP. Before long, your phone battery dies while you are in the queue at Costa, and you are essentially a non-person: “Sorry, sir, no flat white for you. Computer says you no longer exist.” It is no wonder that even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline.
Of course, the Government tell us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same Government who cannot even keep their own Budget secret. How much confidence can the public really have that their personal data will not be misused, when the Minister who was responsible for the scheme this time last week had to resign following reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation?
In November, the Office for Budget Responsibility put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, which is more than the cost of building and operating a new Type 45 destroyer—and nearly as dangerous if not used properly. The OBR did not change that figure in last week’s projections, so we can assume that £1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system. Society functions without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. Before we rush headlong into constructing the world’s most elaborate digital clipboard, the Government should recognise some serious concerns. If their system fails, it will be expensive; if it is hacked, it will be dangerous; and if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires us to take all three risks?
Until the Government can answer that question convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way that they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes: with deep suspicion, a modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs—in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the Government’s cloud.
Darren Jones
I enjoyed the hon. Member’s response to the statement, and I thank him for lifting our spirit with it. Let me say two things to him gently. First, I am very confident that, because the public do their banking and shopping online in a quick and convenient way, the fact that the Government are saying, “You should be able to access public services in that way,” will seem perfectly sensible and pragmatic. If Conservative Members want to say that the status quo is the best we have to offer and we should not even try to make it better, then all luck to them. Secondly, I genuinely do not think that I heard—not for the want of trying—a single question in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, so I have nothing further to add.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s decision to remove the mandatory element of digital ID, so that we can all focus on the benefits that easier access to public services should deliver for everyone. Usefulness, security and inclusivity are good principles, and I urge my constituents to take part in the consultation in any way they can. The Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, which I chair, has heard really worrying evidence of lax data practices across Government, persistent IT failures and lock-in to expensive proprietary systems. Digital ID will be built in-house, as I understand it, by the Government Digital Service in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. Can my right hon. Friend commit that it will not be built on bad data and bad data practices?
Darren Jones
I thank my hon. Friend for her question; the Government look forward to working with her and her Select Committee as we develop these policies. She is absolutely right. We are focusing on building the app and the login system with digital ID, but the big prize in the years ahead is when we can get the old services off the old computers, into the app and working well. I do not underestimate the challenge of that process, but it presents an opportunity for investment and reform that will modernise those systems, deal with those legacy issues around security and the quality of data, and ultimately provide better services to the public. It will take a number of years to do, but I am confident that in the end, it is the only viable route to modern public services in our country.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Let us be clear about why we are here. Following collapsing public support, strong opposition from the Liberal Democrats, a petition signed by nearly 3 million people—including over 5,000 of my constituents—and significant unease expressed by Labour MPs, the Government had no choice but to step back from a mandatory scheme. But in the spirit of being a constructive Liberal Opposition, we have some suggestions for the Government if they want this scheme to have any level of public support whatsoever.
First, any digital ID scheme must never be mandatory. People should not be forced to turn over their data simply to go about their daily lives. We cannot and should not turn people into criminals just because someone is unable or unwilling to obtain one. Any scheme must genuinely assure privacy, with very clear legal limits and strong technical protections to prevent misuse or surveillance. Individuals must retain ownership and control of their own data. The data must not be reused, sold or accessed beyond its original purpose.
The Government should also give assurance on the decentralisation of any register. A single point of failure puts the personal details of millions at risk, which is unacceptable. Any scheme must also have a clearly defined purpose set out in law. We could not support a system that extends into different parts of our lives over time, without clear and unequivocal democratic approval.
Robust safeguards are vital. Yes, it is about what this Government want to do, but it is also about what a potential future Government may wish to do with the power such a scheme would present. Can the Chief Secretary confirm that a digital ID scheme will never be mandatory, either for employment or to secure a home in the UK?
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Lady and her colleagues for their engagement with the Government on this issue; we look forward to continuing to work with them on this. The good news is that on each of the principles she sets out, the Government agree wholeheartedly. I hope that means we will get the support of the Liberal Democrats, and we look forward to delivering these great reforms to public services together for the public.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I hope to move on at 1.30 pm, because many Members wish to speak in the next debate, so if we could speed up questions and answers, that would be excellent. Ian Lavery will give a good example of a speedy question.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The general public need to be on board with this or it will be a complete and utter failure. When it comes to the most deprived and those who lack the technological abilities to access these systems, what is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure he can bring people onside, so that this scheme can be a success?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right to call out the challenge of digital inclusion. We see in the private sector lots of services becoming digital but very little help for the public if they cannot use them. The great opportunity of this programme, as I said in my statement, is that if we can create opportunities in people’s local communities—whether in post offices, libraries, GP surgeries or jobcentres—so that there is someone nearby who can help them if they want help to use these digital systems, that would be a huge advancement on digital inclusion. I hope this programme will help deliver those outcomes.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Before I purchase something at the supermarket, I want to know what the price is. The Minister seems to be lacking clarity on how much this is going to cost. Can he give that clarity?
Darren Jones
The consultation asks many questions about how we should build, implement and roll out this system. I am absolutely happy to tell the House that as of today, we do not know the answer. I would rather be honest with the House, as opposed to announcing a budget for something that then gets massively out of control in years ahead, as was often the case under the previous Government. I look forward to coming back to the House with updated figures after the consultation.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
The state holds vast amounts of data on all of us from the moment we are born, some of which we never see, are never able to correct and never know who has been looking at it. Does the Minister agree that digital ID provides the opportunity for residents in my constituency and beyond to take back control over their personal data?
Darren Jones
My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is very difficult today to get information out of the public sector because it is often paper-based or on IT systems that we cannot access. With digital ID and the gov.uk app, citizens will have more control and more insight into how their data is being used and for what purposes in the future, which will mean they feel more in control of which data they are sharing with the public sector.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
When asked by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) whether he could guarantee that a digital identity requirement would never become mandatory, the Minister said he wholeheartedly agreed, but is it not the case that the original scheme that the Government were minded to put forward was mandatory, so how much faith can we put in that assurance?
Darren Jones
First, the Prime Minister’s announcement was that it should be mandatory for digital verification of ID. This scheme enables that, but there are other routes available to people if they wish to follow them. The other commitment I can give the right hon. Member is that I suspect it will be on the face of the Bill that we will bring to the House later this year.
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
Many people still have to repeatedly prove who they are to different parts of Government. Does the Chief Secretary agree that a trusted digital identity system could make public services simpler and more secure for citizens, while protecting privacy?
Darren Jones
That is exactly our ambition. We will all have constituents who struggle to get in touch with the right people with the right information and the right ability to make a decision when they are trying to access support or information. This will make it much easier for people to do without having to think about different telephone numbers, different logins, and different codes. It will be simple, on their phone and there for them when they need it most.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I commend the Minister for admitting that he does not know how much this is going to cost, but it is almost six months since this became Government policy, and now he has decided that it is time to consult the public. Can he tell the House how much it has cost us so far?
Darren Jones
Any costs incurred so far have been purely for civil servants to pull together the consultation and for the Department to hold discussions and roundtables with stakeholders. Government will need spending authority from Parliament to start this scheme being built, and that will be part of the Bill that will come to the House later this year.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
I am the mother of teenagers, and they cannot believe how difficult it is to access their data and interact with public services. They call it “cringe”, a bit like the response from the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood). If we are to be a modern, digital Britain, embracing AI and building an innovation-based economy, is it not right that our public services are also built in that frame and put us in the driving seat?
Darren Jones
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have to remember that taxpayers pay for these public services, but they have nowhere else to go, unlike in the private sector, where they can go to someone else if they are getting a rubbish service. It is a requirement for all of us in this House to make sure we are using taxpayers’ money effectively to build effective modern public services, and that is what this Government will be doing.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I am almost speechless! This House is the properly accountable people’s panel, not some collection of stooges and trustees selected by the Minister. In any event, it is no good him telling us it is asleep—this parrot is dead, killed by lack of trust in the Government after the whole saga of Labour Together, isn’t it?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the clarification that participation in the scheme will not be compulsory to access public services. Will he say a little more about how he will persuade people that this tool will make their everyday lives easier? Will he also say what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations to ensure the same opportunities apply across the UK, and explain how my constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire South will participate in the people’s panel?
Darren Jones
As the House would expect, I have been engaging with the First Ministers and Deputy First Ministers of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the scheme. We have made an open invitation that, should they wish to bring devolved services into the app in the future, they are more than welcome to do so. In the past, we have seen examples of choices made by devolved Governments that we would rather avoid, if we can. For example, the Scottish Government decided not to be a part of the development of the NHS app in England, which resulted in a worse service for people in Scotland than in England. Ultimately, we want the system to be so useful and so effective that people will want to use it because it will be so easy that the alternatives are not attractive.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
It seems that even in the middle of an existing cost of living crisis, with another one looming, the Government have decided to plough ahead with a digital ID scheme that few folks actually want. Having committed so much money to the scheme already, and with the price of heating oil, gas, electricity and fuel soaring yet again, does the Minister believe that spending even more money on this unpopular idea is suddenly going to make it popular?
Darren Jones
There is a little irony in the SNP advising the Labour Government that we should spend more taxpayers’ money on worse public services, which is exactly what the SNP has been doing for the last 20 years in Scotland. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman being part of this process so that we can show him how it can be done.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for announcing that there will be a public consultation, as I know that my constituents value having the opportunity to have their say. As the mum to an 18-year-old, in the last two weeks, I have heard—I kid you not—“Mum, where do I get my national insurance number? Mum, I need to tax my car. Where do I get my MOT certificate? Mum?” And that is before we even start talking about what she is going to do when she enters the world of full-time work and becomes a homeowner. May I thank the Minister for proposing that we give people access to the data that is already held about them in a far more convenient way that matches our lives in the 21st century?
Darren Jones
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The good news is that there will be a “Dear Colleagues” letter coming out later today that will invite all hon. Members, on a cross-party basis, to hold a constituency event on digital ID so that they can submit those views to the consultation.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The Minister mentioned that there is no set budget, so is this a blank cheque for Government spending? What will be the end point? Is this a white elephant, a black hole or just another project that will fall by the wayside? Why are the Government having a people’s panel when we have Parliament, and when people across the county are saying that they do not want digital ID?
Darren Jones
The consultation is open to anyone and everyone, whatever view they hold, so I encourage the hon. Lady to invite her constituents to take part. She asked about the cost of the scheme. As I have said, the Bill will come to the House later this year. A money resolution will be required, for the Government to spend money on the scheme. Future costs will be subject to the next spending review in 2027.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I welcome the change to not demand a digital ID, and I welcome the focus of the work: listening to the public about how Government platforms can be made useful, relevant and efficient for residents. What checks will be carried out to hold the spend accountable and ensure that the services being delivered are relevant to residents in the UK?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is right that the grand idea is not just to improve public services, but to reduce cost by taking a more digital approach to delivery. At the moment, every call to a call centre or form that is filled out and passed from one person to another, is an additional cost to the taxpayer and money that is not spent on the help and support they need. Of course, the normal checks and balances will be in place, subject to the next spending review, and Treasury business case approval will be required for each service that is being onboarded to the app in the years ahead.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the more than 6,000 residents who signed a petition against mandatory digital ID. The scheme that has been outlined will inevitably save the Government billions of pounds, so will they commit to investing that money in bobbies on the beat to tackle antisocial behaviour in town centres such as Torquay and Paignton?
Darren Jones
There have been some estimates that if we are able to harness the full benefit of the gov.uk app and improve the productivity of customer services across Government, we could save tens of billions of pounds every single year. That is tens of billions of pounds of money that is being spent right now on poor public services that can be reinvested into the frontline to support people, or even given back to taxpayers in the years ahead.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Before entering the House, I worked in tech building products to streamline ID checks, improving user interface and user experience in the process. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that will be the case with a digital ID? Does he further agree that making funded hours of childcare more accessible will be an important use case to explore?
Darren Jones
Childcare is a great example. To claim a 20% reduction in childcare fees, people must log into the HMRC website every three months, calculate the figure for 80% of the fees, do the card transaction themselves, find the nursery provider and send the money. On top of that, they get a form from the council every quarter with a code they must fill out—crazy. The whole point of gov.uk and digital ID is to make things like that quicker and easier for members of the public at home, so that the user experience is as good in the public sector as it is in the private sector.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The public want faster, better public services, but the existing gov.uk app works very well—I suspect most of us use it. That is a massive difference from what the public do not want, which is a digital identity card system. The first mistake that the Minister has made is calling this statement “Digital ID”. Can the Minister be honest with this House and the British people: is this about improving the gov.uk app as it currently exists or is it about a digital identity card system through the back door?
Darren Jones
As I said in my statement, if people want to use online services, they can log into some websites in some Departments independently, but they must log into each one differently, as they do not talk to each other. The difference between one login and digital ID is that by proving who they are in the app, we can plumb those services into one place, so there is a front door to those services. I am confident that the public would expect that and would want to be able to vote for that in the future, in contrast to privatising the NHS, which they definitely will not vote for.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
In Europe today, it is possible to have a prescription issued in Tallinn, Estonia, and have it fulfilled in Lisbon, Portugal, but in my constituency, my local hospital cannot even send a prescription to a local pharmacy. May I urge my right hon. Friend to look carefully at what works in Europe, avoid reinventing the wheel and seriously consider interoperability with the EU’s identification framework?
Darren Jones
We are already in discussions with the European Commission on shared standards, primarily because in Northern Ireland, subject to the Good Friday agreement, members of the public can have an Irish passport or a British passport and still work in the United Kingdom. To honour that commitment, we will be building the system to recognise an Irish passport as well as a British passport, and in doing so meet the equivalence of standards with the European Union more widely.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My long experience is that the Scottish Government are quite prepared to ignore consultations, especially on the views of my constituents. Will the Minister set out how this system will work if the Scottish Government do not co-operate in it and instead use it to try to take forward their independence agenda?
Darren Jones
As I have said to the House, I have been in touch with Ministers in the Scottish Government just this morning to extend an invitation to them to be part of this modernising approach to public services in the future, and I hope that they will welcome that. Of course, I hope more deeply that there will be a Labour Government in Scotland who will, of course, say that this is the right thing to do, showing that two Labour Governments can deliver better outcomes for the public. We should continue to hold the Scottish Government to account for poor public services, and encourage them to follow our way and deliver change for the public.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I welcome the Government’s announcement that they have listened to the concerns of the Liberal Democrats and the public about the mandatory system, but the loss of trust resulting from these flip-flopping policies has caused much damage. There remains a question about whether connected systems and better services can be accessed through one login, which is the case in France. Why are the Government not focused on fixing one login, which they spent £100 million on last year? If they do put this system in place, what support will there be for individuals and businesses, which seem to be carrying the burden of this digital ID?
Darren Jones
Digital ID is the premium option of one login. In many ways, one login is a great system, but it still has lots of challenges, not least because we cannot pull all these systems together into one place for citizens. That is what digital ID enables us to do, because people can prove authentically that they are who they say they are and are not just logging in with someone else’s details. That is what makes the scheme much more exciting for public service reform in the future.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
My constituents have been incredibly vocal in telling me that they do not want this. Frankly, because trust in the Government has eroded so much, this scheme is dead in the water. If the Government go ahead with it, what will they do to ensure that there is no single depository containing the data of millions of citizens that could present a single point of failure from a security perspective?
Darren Jones
I can confirm that the Government will not be doing any such thing.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
My constituency led the way on this issue, with more than 7,000 people signing the e-petition against digital ID cards. The public see this scheme for what it is—a gateway to unprecedented state surveillance—and they do not want to be part of it. They see it as a waste of money and effort to create a 100-strong citizens assembly that is not even democratically accountable. Will the Chief Secretary be honest with the public and admit that if this digital ID plan is implemented, the slippery slope is greased with expansion tracking and repurposing?
Darren Jones
The hon. Lady is wrong. I look forward to bringing provisions in the Bill later this year to prove that case.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Can the Chief Secretary tell us what happens if the 100-person panel concludes that the scheme will not have the trust, confidence and support of people? Can he confirm that digital efficiencies such as using emails, not letters, and automatically chasing up medicals in the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will not be delayed for this project?
Darren Jones
The outcomes of the deliberative democracy process will form a legal part of the consultation, so it will feed into the consultation in the normal way. This is the first time that Government have done that. I recognise that it is a bit of an innovation and a risk, but I am so confident we will get members of the panel to a place where they think it is a perfectly sensible thing to do that I think it will be a useful process. Other colleagues may wish to consider it for other policy areas in the future. It will take some time over the next few years to legislate, build the login and integrate it into the app, so we will come back to the hon. Lady’s question on future services towards the back end of this Parliament.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Consistent polling has found that the public are not interested in digital ID and remain deeply concerned about the implications for their privacy. They have a sustained lack of trust in this Government to run the scheme. That is especially the case given the fact that this Government have sold out our NHS to Palantir and handed almost £700 million in taxpayer cash to Peter Thiel, as well as—potentially—the data of our patients. What is the Chief Secretary doing to uncouple our Government services from Palantir? Will he commit that no public money will go to Palantir to run this digital ID scheme?
Darren Jones
I am happy to confirm that the digital ID scheme and its build in the gov.uk app will be built as a sovereign capability within Government and within the UK. It will not be outsourced to a foreign company.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
May I thank the Chief Secretary for his inclusion of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in the work so far and for his removal of the mandatory nature of digital ID? That is what caused so many of my residents in Newton Abbot to write to me and complain about it. Will he commit to continue to involve the Committee as this situation evolves and as the system is implemented?
Darren Jones
Members of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee know that I look forward to working with them and other Members on how we might legislate more innovatively through the Bill coming later this year, so that quicker digital transformation of public services is enabled through appropriate checks and balances in the House, without having to return to an enormous piece of primary legislation or have repeated Bills. I look forward to the Committee being a part of that when we legislate later this year.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I suspect that my constituents will have at least these three concerns: that the digital ID scheme will become mandatory by stealth; that it will be vulnerable to IT failures; and that it will be in danger of malevolent hacking. Are those not real concerns? How will they be addressed? Will this proposal be China-proofed?
Darren Jones
On the question of mandation, I expect it will be on the front of the Bill coming to the House later this year that it is not mandatory. Should any Government in the future wish to change that, they will need to come back to this House to change the law in order to do so. That is the right and proper thing.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to have concerns, as we should in relation to any modern services, about cyber-security, hacking and the confidentiality and security of people’s data. That is precisely why we are building this in-house—in Government—with the National Cyber Security Centre as a sovereign capability to ensure that we are not reliant on external companies, whether they are in the UK or abroad, to cover those bases for us.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
My constituents are overwhelmingly against digital ID, and that appears to be the national consensus. Does the Chief Secretary agree that asking 100 members of the public to legitimise an already bad idea initially espoused by Tony Blair is a waste of time, resources and money? When will the Government go back to addressing issues that really matter to the public, such as the cost of living crisis?
Darren Jones
It is not for me to advise other Members on how to please their constituents, but if the hon. Gentleman asked his constituents, “Would you like better public services that are easier to use?”, they would probably say, “Yes.”
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is a clear and growing concern across the United Kingdom, including with myself and my constituents, regarding digital ID. The general public seek firm assurances about their personal autonomy. The Chief Secretary is a very honourable man and very much liked in this Chamber, but he will know—as you know, Mr Speaker—that Revelation in the Holy Bible refers to the mark of the beast and 666. Is it the mark of the beast that we are looking at, or is it George Orwell’s 1984? I ask that question because 1.5 million people in Northern Ireland—74% of its population—have said that they do not want digital ID. If we do not want it and the people of the United Kingdom do not want it, for goodness’ sake do away with it.
Mr Speaker
Mr Shannon, you kept saying “you”. Am I the devil, or is it the Chief Secretary? [Laughter.]
Darren Jones
May I suggest some of the gospels that might be a little more uplifting for the hon. Gentleman to read, as opposed to the section on Armageddon at the end? I reassure him that the gov.uk app and the digital ID login will be optional. Members of the public can choose to use it if they wish to; if they do not want to, that is entirely up to them. As I have said repeatedly to this House, I am very confident that we will build public services that are quick, easy and simple to use. That will be welcomed by people across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Points of Order
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), visited my constituency last week on 6 March. He did not make me aware of his visit to my constituency, as is the convention of this House, as he will know as an experienced Member of the Commons. As such, I would be grateful if you provided me with advice on preventing such discourtesy and disrespect from taking place in the future.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I reiterate—[Interruption.] I am dealing with a Member. I reiterate that I do not care whether it is Ministers, shadow Ministers or Back Benchers, the courtesy is that you must let the Member know before you get to their constituency, unless your visit is on private business. Show courtesy to each other. The public out there expect us to follow the rules, and the rules should be adhered to.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Government brought a statement to the House entitled “Protecting What Matters”. One might think that that could be preserving historic buildings or endangered wildlife, or simply affirming the importance of our Christian heritage. In fact, the statement was about defining anti-Muslim hostility. I am not going to debate that, but I seek your advice on whether a title of that kind is misleading—it cannot possibly have been deceptive, but it is certainly confusing. Is it fair to Members to entitle statements in a way that gives them no chance to anticipate what is going to be debated and prepare accordingly?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member is always here, so he should not have to worry about the titles. In fairness, I take that on board. The fact is that the Government are in charge of the titles of their ministerial statements. They have full responsibility; I have no responsibility for that. That is certainly on the record. I expect those on the Front Bench to have taken it on board that titles should be understandable and not misleading.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not know that point of order was going to be raised until I heard it, but I myself noticed, a little bit earlier, that there was a statement entitled “Pensions Update” that was really all about the WASPI women. I for one was misled into thinking that it was some routine, general statement about pensions. It would have been perfectly possible for the Government to have made it explicit that it was about the WASPI women, in which case it is likely that more Members would have been present.
Mr Speaker
I do not disagree, but I know that the right hon. Member has a sneaking understanding of what happens in government and how Governments might try to get away with things. He is another Member who is always around, as well. What I will say is that it would be much easier if the Government were to be very explicit and open, so that all Back Benchers from all parts of the House know what is going to happen. I will also say that if Members spent more time in the Chamber, they would not have to worry.
Domestic Abuse (Pets)
Tuesday 10th March 2026
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Domestic Abuse (Pets) Bill 2024-26 View all Domestic Abuse (Pets) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the application of non-molestation orders and occupation orders to behaviour relating to pets; to amend definitions of controlling or coercive behaviour and economic abuse to include behaviour relating to pets; to extend the application of Domestic Abuse Protection Orders to pets; and for connected purposes.
Britain prides itself on being a nation of animal lovers. Indeed, the annual PDSA animal wellbeing report found that 51% of UK adults own a pet of some type, with 28% owning a dog and 24% owning a cat. While owning a pet brings joy and companionship to many, Britain’s high levels of pet ownership also mean that animals are too often subject to violence within the home, or are used as tools of coercion and control. However, this known reality is not currently reflected in family and domestic violence law in England and Wales.
At the moment, pets do not receive any meaningful legal protection or consideration in domestic abuse cases. This leaves many victims afraid to leave abusive situations due to concerns about their animals’ safety. Abusers can also retain legal ownership of pets, with limited legal mechanisms to transfer custody to survivors. This Bill, which is also known as Ruby’s law, seeks to change that by explicitly incorporating pets into family law protections such as non-molestation and occupation orders.
I am proud that this Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls and providing meaningful support to victims of domestic violence and abuse. Such efforts can only be strengthened by recognising the clear link between domestic violence and violence against pets. The statistics are stark: the Dogs Trust has found that 97% of domestic abuse professionals have dealt with cases where pets are harmed as part of coercive control by abusers. This involves controlling access to food, veterinary care and formal ownership rights, often preventing victims from seeking safety in a refuge or adequately caring for their pets. Another study by Dr Mary Wakeham found that in 88% of households experiencing domestic abuse, the abuser also abused pets. In most cases, this involved physical violence against pets as a form of control—pets are kicked, hit, thrown, or even poisoned. In 12% of cases, the abuser ends up killing the animal.
This accompanying animal abuse has a significant impact on survivors and their families. Victims often exhibit lasting psychological trauma as a result of witnessing or fearing harm to their pets. The emotional toll on children can also be particularly stark—studies show that 88% of children in abusive households have witnessed pet abuse. This often results in the children developing post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, or other behavioural issues.
Ruby’s law seeks to draw on international best practice in tackling these clear concerns. In the US, Canada and Australia, pets are explicitly included in domestic violence protection orders. California and Maine have passed laws allowing pets to be part of restraining orders, providing survivors with greater security and helping them to leave abusive situations sooner. The Northern Ireland Assembly has similarly shown significant support for introducing its own Ruby’s law, with similar proposals forming part of the Executive’s new strategy for ending violence against women and girls. For that reason, I particularly welcome the interest and support from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who sadly is not in his place at the moment.
Turning to the substantive proposals of the Bill, Ruby’s law would seek to address current gaps in the Family Law Act 1996 by including pets in non-molestation and occupation orders. This would include the addition of provisions to ensure that pets are protected from harm and survivors are granted legal custody of their pets. Ruby’s law would also amend the Domestic Violence Act 2021 to explicitly reference pet abuse as a form of controlling or coercive behaviour under section 1 of the Act. This will require the police and prosecutors to take pet-related domestic abuse seriously by providing clear legal grounds for prosecution.
The Bill would also allow veterinary records, witness testimony and digital evidence of threat or harm to pets to be admissible in court as evidence of a non-molestation order breach, making it easier to prosecute abuse cases involving pet harm. Courts would also be able to consider animal abuse as an aggravating factor in sentencing and risk assessments of perpetrators, helping to protect women and their pets from further abuse. Offenders could also be required to attend behavioural intervention programmes aimed at addressing the link between animal cruelty and domestic violence.
I will close by paying tribute to Christina Warner. I have been working closely with her, and she has provided extraordinary leadership on this issue, drawing on her professional experience as a family law barrister. Ruby’s law is firmly aligned with the Government’s agenda of tackling violence against women and girls and supporting victims of domestic violence, and I urge Ministers to give its provisions serious consideration. Together, these changes would offer greater legal clarity and protection, increasing safety for both human and animal victims of domestic abuse. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ruth Jones, Irene Campbell, Sir Roger Gale, Kerry McCarthy, Rachael Maskell, Adam Jogee, Sir Desmond Swayne, Ann Davies, Dr Neil Hudson and Robin Swann present the Bill.
Ruth Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 April, and to be printed (Bill 402).
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Tuesday 10th March 2026
(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 View all Courts and Tribunals Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:56 - The House divided: - Ayes: 203 / Noes: 311 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:09 - The House divided: - Ayes: 304 / Noes: 203 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The reasoned amendment in the name of the loyal Opposition has been selected.
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am very proud to bring this Bill back before the House, because it will drive long-overdue reform to effectively evolve our 20th-century criminal justice system so that it is fit for the 21st century. This House will recognise that a particular kind of silence now echoes through the corridors of our courts. It is not the silence of a jury carefully weighing the evidence, or the hush as a judge delivers their verdict; it is the silence of waiting. It is the silence of victims who have been told, sometimes for the third or fourth time, that their trial has been adjourned because there is no judge, no courtroom, and no capacity to hear it. It is the silence of people like Katie, who reported her partner for actual bodily harm and rape in 2017 but, staggeringly, did not see justice until 2024, after waiting seven years. Her life fell apart over that period—it left her mental health in tatters and caused her to lose her job. This is an injustice. It is Katie’s injustice and the injustice of thousands of victims across the country, and this Bill seeks to redress that today. It builds on Sir Brian Leveson’s thoughtful and considered review. I am grateful to Sir Brian for all his work, particularly in getting us to this point with part 1 and part 2 of this Bill.
This Government inherited a justice system close to breaking point from the previous Government, who could and should have reformed it. The consequences of their inaction are clear: we have nearly 80,000 cases in the Crown court backlog. That is more than double the number in 2019. More than 20,000 cases wait for more than a year, and that includes around 2,000 rape cases. It is an average of 255 days before a Crown court case gets heard and finishes. For rape, it is a staggering 423 days. If we do nothing, the backlog is projected to reach 200,000 within the next decade. That is five times what it was in 2019. This is not a matter of efficiency; the progressive case for court reform is about whether the institutions of the British state can still deliver justice. For the people we were elected to represent in Parliament, when we speak about the rule of law, we do so as though it is a lofty constitutional principle, but the rule of law is not abstract. It is a public service. If that service cannot be delivered in a timeframe that allows victims to move on with their lives, the law is not ruling, but failing.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the rule of law is a living thing, and the connection between the public and the exercise of criminal justice is fundamental. Central to that is the age-old principle of juries and jury service. It is a direct engagement of the public in something that otherwise would be remote from the vast bulk of them. Does he retain my view that jury service is critical, and that juries should play a continuing part in the criminal justice system, or is he determined to minimise the number of jury trials? That is certainly what his proposal looks like to the vast majority of people in the Chamber.
Mr Lammy
I absolutely retain the right hon. Gentleman’s view that juries are a cornerstone of our system. They are fundamental. This Bill is about protecting them. All Governments put thresholds on where juries sit. He will recall that one of his great heroes, Margaret Thatcher, made such a change in 1989.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the progress he is making. I am for reform. My concern, as his own review in 2017 highlighted, is that this will fall on people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds and the inequalities that they already face. Can he reassure me, my constituents in Bradford West and people more widely that he will robustly review the impact of this Bill on people from minority ethnic backgrounds? Will he ensure that it is a meaningful review that holds weight?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend probably has more lived experience of the criminal justice system than many others in this Chamber. She has been a doughty campaigner on issues for ethnic minorities across our country for many years. I can give her that reassurance, and I will come to that point a little later in my speech. It is right that there will be a review, so that we understand exactly how our reforms—and, indeed, our criminal justice system in a deeper and better way—are affecting ethnic minority populations. I hope that she will engage in the ambit, scope and direction of that review.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend is right to set out the importance of jury trials as a cornerstone of our democracy and justice system. They are in place for a very good reason. In the Lammy review, he previously emphasised the importance of jury trials and, in particular, the disproportionate impact on BAME communities. What has changed?
Mr Lammy
I know that when my hon. Friend is upset, his baritone deepens—it was not quite as deep today as it has been on other occasions. He will know that I take very seriously the review I did. I will say more about disparities in a moment, but if we look at that review, we see that it was clear that there is tremendous public trust in our juries. When I was asked by David Cameron to do the review, there was concern in some towns and cities and among some ethnic minority populations about situations where they perceived they had an all-white jury. They asked whether it was still fair. Broadly, it was found to still be fair, and there was no evidence that there were unfair trials in our magistrates courts, which do 90% of the work, or if a single judge is sitting on their own. For the reasons that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), it is right that we review how the system is working and fully understand how these changes will affect the system.