Digital ID

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID.

It is a pleasure to introduce today’s e-petition debate under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to open it on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank all the organisations and individuals I have met in preparation for the debate.

Nearly 3 million people have signed today’s petition. It is the fourth most signed petition in the history of parliamentary e-petitions, comparable only to the recent petitions calling for a general election. It is obvious why the plans to bring in digital ID have provoked such outrage: they are fundamentally un-British and they strike at the core political traditions of this country. Colleagues of all parties are opposed to these measures: the Conservatives, the Greens, Reform, Lib Dems, Labour Back Benchers, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, independent MPs and colleagues from Northern Ireland. In fact, even several Ministers in this Government have, in the past, voiced their opposition to compulsory identity documents.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

For the avoidance of doubt, I am on this side of the Westminster Hall Chamber only because it is so packed that this was the only remaining chair. I have not defected to the Labour Party and I never will—nor to anyone else. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this policy was not in Labour’s general election manifesto, so it has absolutely no electoral mandate to extend the surveillance state over the people of this country with this gimmick?

[Robbie Moore]

I cannot agree enough. It raises the question: who is actually in favour of these proposals, other than the Prime Minister?

Despite the consistent opposition to identity documents, this is not the first time that they have been forced on the British public. The first ID card in this country came during the second world war: police officers could demand of the public that they show their cards and they were subject to six months’ imprisonment if they did not. Despite promises in 1939 that the ID cards would be a temporary wartime measure, they were used throughout the post-war Attlee Government; they were ended only by the Conservatives in 1952. Some 50 years later, no longer fighting German spies but the war on terror, the Blair Government tried to bring ID cards back, and they succeeded. Once again, it took the Conservative Government—this time in coalition with the Lib Dems—to stop them.

Sadly, the Conservatives are not wholly innocent either when it comes to ID. In 2021, the Government introduced the first digital ID in the form of the covid passport, which I proudly voted against. Thankfully, those documents lasted only a short while before restrictions were lifted. That brings us to the modern day and the latest excuse for ID cards: tackling illegal immigration and delivering Government services.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I will keep my intervention very short, Sir Edward. An unheard-of 4,400 of my constituents signed this petition. They are very clear that they do not want the imposition—which is what it will be—of digital ID. As we heard from my hon. Friend’s history lesson, time and again it has been the Conservatives who have said, “No, we do not want this. The British people do not want it.” Is it not time that this Government sat up and listened to the public for a change?

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly why this Conservative party is saying no to digital ID once again. The latest guesstimate of how much this is going to cost us all is a whopping £1.8 billion.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

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

[Robbie Moore]

I entirely agree, but here we are with the latest Government excuse to introduce mandatory digital ID. I can just see the communication advisers in No. 10 looking at today’s polling, dusting off the old ID card plan and slapping “Stop the boats” on the cover. There is no doubt in my mind that if the No. 1 issue of today had been tackling potholes, the very same press release would have come out of No. 10 claiming that digital ID is now the essential solution to tackling the national problem of potholes. I say that in jest, but to point out that it seems that any excuse—however unjustified and unevidenced—will do to push policy through.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I give way to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

There are many who seek the right and the ability to identify themselves, but who do not have it as it stands. We all have constituents who are experiencing that. My Committee has seen evidence that the figure cited by the hon. Gentleman is not recognised by the Secretary of State; it has been put forward by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Secretary of State will be writing to us to set out what costs she envisages and when they will be realised. It is also important to recognise that the level of digital hygiene across Government is not such that it could support a mandatory digital ID scheme, in my view.

[Robbie Moore]

Therein lies the explanation and the reason why so many Members of this House are opposed to the plans brought forward by the Prime Minister.

Here is the question that the Government hope nobody will ask: if the real target is people who are here illegally, why on earth do 67 million British citizens who already have national insurance numbers, passports, driving licences and birth certificates need to be dragged into a brand-new compulsory database as well? What exactly is it about stopping the crisis of inflatable dinghies in the channel that requires your son, your daughter, your dad or your 90-year-old grandma to hand over their data and facial geometry to the Home Office server?

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

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

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is not about stopping the boats at all; it is about more Government and state control.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sarah Gibson (Chippenham) (LD)]

I will be very brief. My constituency is in rural Wiltshire, where a huge number of residents have taken part in this petition. Does the hon. Member agree that digital exclusion is a reality in areas like mine?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree that digital exclusion is a reality for all.

I ask everyone in this place and those watching at home, no matter their political persuasion, to imagine their worst ever Government: the one that keeps them awake at night and that they would march against in the streets. For many, I am sure that that will be this Government, but for some it may have been previous Governments. This single piece of digital infrastructure will hand that Government, whoever they may be, the key to our life. Once that digital infrastructure is set up, we cannot go back. Once digital ID comes into force, no political party can promise that its intentions will stay good forever. Put simply, an ID card gives the state permanent control, and I say no.

The slippery slope argument is so common in debates about civil liberties that it is almost a cliché, but once the digital identities infrastructure is in place, it will become so much harder for a well-meaning Minister to resist the idea that they can fix areas of public policy by tracking and controlling, at an ever finer level, how a population behaves.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

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

[Robbie Moore]

That is exactly what a constituent of mine emailed me about—a constituent who voted Labour in 2024. They said, “If they can’t even control the leakage from the Government, how on earth can they control our data?”

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Like many Members, I have been inundated with messages. My Hartlepool constituents are hugely concerned. Does the hon. Member agree that part of the problem is that we got an announcement without the detail? I have written to the Minister with a number of questions that my constituents have put to me. Does the hon. Member think that Government Ministers owe our constituents answers about the detail of what they are proposing?

[Robbie Moore]

I could not agree more, but I suspect that the Minister will come out and reiterate the lines from the Prime Minister that he was given before the debate.

Just look at the social credit system in China. Facial recognition linked to ID penalises people. Blacklisted citizens cannot buy train or plane tickets, book hotels or apply for certain jobs. This Government have already indicated that migration work and renting will be tied to ID, but how long will it be before future Governments push further and accessing state services is brought under the control and monitoring of digital ID?

We are already seeing signs of such a framework in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Online Safety Act 2023 and the One Login system. Combined with a formal digital ID, those frameworks would create a world of control for Whitehall and a soulless dystopia for the rest of us. Together, they replace the honesty and decency of human-to-human interaction with an opaque, mechanical “computer says no” future. The scary truth is that control and ID cards hold an appeal for anyone who has access to power. It takes a conscious effort by every one of us to resist the temptation. Power does corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if bad employers are not prevented from taking people on without national insurance numbers or passports, they will not stop at taking someone on without digital ID?

[Robbie Moore]

I agree. The attitude of control strikes at the very heart of our political traditions. We are a representative democracy, not a command-and-control state. A Government exist by the will of the people, not the other way round. Put simply, we are not a “papers, please” society.

One of the most terrifying elements of the Government’s proposals is that these IDs are to be digital. The national database on which our identities are to be held is a true honeypot for hackers all over the world. To those who say that it will be secure, I say, “Name me a company or Government body that has not had a hacking crisis in recent years.” The NHS, the Co-op, Jaguar Land Rover—I could go on. Even Estonia’s Government lost 280,000 digital ID photos in 2021.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concerns that the scheme could put constituents’ most sensitive data into the hands of private, perhaps overseas, individuals who might have neither our constituents’ nor our country’s interests at heart?

[Robbie Moore]

I completely agree. In the case of One Login, cyber-security specialists were able to infiltrate and potentially alter the underlying code without being noticed by the team working on the project. In fact, the existing system could be compromised as we speak. We are assured by advocates of digital ID that clever technology will protect the data, but as I have outlined, the temptation to further integrate data within the system will be extremely strong. How long before someone suggests that security features be removed to make the system more efficient?

Digital data brings me back to consent. I will finish on this point: digital ID is an ever more intrusive evolution of traditional ID cards—one that promises to be more oppressive. Coupled with the powers of digital databases, increasing widespread facial recognition, digitalised public services and the looming prospect of a central bank’s digital currencies, digital ID threatens to create an all-encompassing digital surveillance state that even George Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” could not predict. In every aspect of public life, we give over our data with consent. Yet digital ID turns that notion on its head, insisting that we hand over data to simply function in society, and potentially for reasons to which we cannot consent in advance.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does he agree that this is just the latest example of this Labour Government trying to push through something that was not in their manifesto, and that this House must therefore do all it can to stop it becoming a reality?

[Robbie Moore]

I absolutely agree. Who else but the Prime Minister really wants to drive this through? If the Government expand the scope of digital ID after its initial implementation, I doubt that they will be kind enough to offer an opt-out clause to anyone who has signed up. People up and down the country, 3 million of whom have signed the petition, can see that this scheme is a disaster waiting to happen.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

As the Chair of the Petitions Committee, I thank the hon. Member for his excellent speech. Three million signatures! I want to apologise to hon. Members for the fact that there is not enough space in this Chamber for everyone who has turned up. I thank them for turning up, and I think it poses a question for the House to settle in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I could not agree more. It shows the strength of feeling on this issue. Thousands of people are deeply offended by the intrusion on their civil liberties; thousands are sceptical about whether Whitehall will be able to pull off such a complex scheme; and thousands are digitally excluded, terrified of a “computer says no” future. The Government should give up now, because we on the other side of the debate will never give up.

Whether today’s identity cards are stopped before they are implemented or whether they last a few months, as they did in 2010, or over a decade, as they did in 1939, the British people will fight them, we will stop them and we will overturn them. As I said to the Government on the day they announced this policy, I am not a tin of beans and I do not need a barcode.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

There we have it. This is how the Government of the day is going to be engaging with people—stating from the Dispatch Box that they are willing to listen, yet not taking one intervention. May I remind the Minister that Members of Parliament in this House have been elected to represent their constituents? Three million people have signed this petition. Not to have taken one intervention when dealing with matters that have been brought to this House is not only embarrassing for the Minister, but completely discourteous to the Members of Parliament in this Chamber. What a disgrace!

Colleagues have spoken, and I thank Members who have spoken on behalf of their constituents. I also thank the 3 million people who signed the petition, because they have demonstrated that digital ID is not something that they want this country to move forward with. It is expensive, it is unwanted and it is intrusive. It was not included in the Labour party manifesto. It was not promoted as something that would be brought forward by this Government.

The voice of this Chamber has been heard. It is just incredibly disappointing that the Minister did not have the courtesy to reflect that in his remarks.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 730194 relating to digital ID.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Again, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House will be with the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, given the terrible experience that she has clearly had. With regard to the category of victims he is talking about—unregistered, living, infected people—he is absolutely right to raise their position. The objective of this compensation scheme is to ensure that every victim, whatever their circumstances, receives the compensation they are due, and that obviously includes his constituent.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I will be forever indebted to my constituent Clive Smith, who is also the president of the Haemophilia Society. He has been a long-standing advocate and a voice for those victims seeking justice for being affected and infected. Of course, time is of the essence and many victims still feel disillusioned and that the Government are dragging their heels. While the Government have accepted publicly that victims will die before they get the compensation they are owed, as has been referenced in this Chamber, surely this just illustrates that the system is not going fast enough. What reassurance can the Minister provide that compensation will be delivered at speed and that the system will be as simple as possible for those affected and infected to apply for compensation? Also, what reassurance can he provide that they will be kept informed and updated as part of that process?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have met Clive Smith and I pay tribute to the campaigning work that he has done over many years. On updating, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important—that is why IBCA publishes regular newsletters with updates on the statistics—but he also identifies a statistic that should give us all pause for thought, which is that a victim of this scandal is still dying every few days. That shows the impetus and the imperative to speed these compensation payments up, and that is absolutely what I am committed to do.

Trade Negotiations

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

I fully appreciate my hon. Friend’s observations. I was unaware on arriving in the Chamber that a successor to Pope Francis, who is greatly grieved and missed on both sides of the House, has now been announced, and of course we wish the new pontiff well in the spiritual leadership that role will require—and I say that as a proud Presbyterian and member of the Church of Scotland.

On the broader point about engagement with farmers, I also have a farming constituency, and I was on a farm in east Lothian only last Friday, hearing directly from farmers about the impact of the market challenges faced by farmers not just here but internationally. Through our colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, there is a lot of engagement regularly with farmers. Naturally and appropriately, that Department was involved in the cross-Whitehall processes that led to the negotiators being able to reach agreement today, and I fully anticipate further opportunities for dialogue with farmers in the future.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

We have had huge amounts of tariffs put on the UK, and then a trade deal to reduce them; there have been positive impacts on some industries, and potentially negative impacts on others. Today’s announcement of a UK-US trade deal has therefore given rise to more questions than answers. On one side, we have US officials hailing the deal as “dramatically increasing” access to the UK agricultural market, which I am sure will ring alarm bells for many. On the other side, we have the UK Government claiming that the agreement is balanced and fair. First, will the Minister categorially confirm that no reductions to UK food standards, environmental protections—which have not been mentioned yet—and animal welfare rules have been conceded in this agreement? Secondly, what is the true impact of the tariff arrangements on British farmers and growers? We have heard vague claims of reciprocal access, but have the Government conducted any assessment of the economic impact for UK farmers, their practices and their opportunities?

[Mr Alexander]

I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and early on he mentioned a trade deal to reduce tariffs; that is exactly the deal we have sought to secure and have secured today. He is right to recognise that there are continuing challenges, not just for the UK but for many countries, in relation to protectionism and higher tariff rates, but today represents significant progress on the terms, as I have described. On animal welfare and food standards, I reassure him about everything I have said on sanitary and phytosanitary measures; we made that a red line and were very clear about it, and were unwilling to compromise. I also assure him that there is nothing vague about the reciprocity I described in terms of the opportunities for beef farmers.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Friday 26th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes, I can give that commitment. I should really emphasise its importance. As I indicated a moment or two ago, we are committed to the introduction of a duty of candour; we are committed to ensuring that families are supported at inquests and inquiries, particularly for situations such as Hillsborough; and we are committed to a public advocate. Those are all really important steps that we need to take. Ultimately, that has to be accompanied by leadership and a change of culture, to move away from what Sir Brian Langstaff described as “institutional defensiveness.” That is absolutely critical.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

As your constituency neighbour, may I congratulate you on your elevation to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?

I must put on record my sheer admiration for one of my constituents, Clive Smith, who chairs the Haemophilia Society. When I was first elected to this place in 2019, one of my very first constituency meetings was with Clive at his home, to talk specifically about the importance of pushing these matters through the House. I thank the previous and current Government for their collective work to get the House to this position of providing reassurance to those who have been impacted. I also thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson) for her work as part of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood.

There are still concerns about how the payments will be made to the estates of those who have died. There is a risk that if such payments are made to the estates, they will be directed away from those who have been most impacted. My understanding is that it is currently expected that the executors of wills will decide how compensation payments are made to family members, and the payments may not go to those who have been most impacted. How will the Paymaster General ensure that the payments get to those who are most impacted?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I echo his tribute to his constituent Clive Smith for all his remarkable campaigning over many years. In respect of the hon. Gentleman’s second point on the probate process and ensuring that the money actually reaches those it is supposed to reach, the Government are considering how we can best support victims through the probate process. I hope to have further details on that in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said, an important principle is that Israel does have the right to defend itself under international law, to ensure that attacks like this one—which was brutal and horrific for its citizens—cannot happen again. We continue to support that position, but, as I said, from the start we have also wanted to ensure that humanitarian aid can go in and hostages and foreign nationals can come out. We recognise that that means there has to be a safer environment, which of course necessitates specific pauses, as distinct from a ceasefire. We discussed exactly this with our international partners yesterday at the United Nations and will continue to do so. As I made clear on Monday, we have doubled down on our efforts to find a better future for the Palestinian people. That has been a feature of all our diplomacy in the region, and we will continue to give all our efforts to making that happen.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Q7.   For too long, Bradford Council has failed to represent the best interests of my constituents, whether in its catastrophic failures on children’s services, its inability to invest our own council tax back into Keighley and Ilkley, or its refusal to instigate a review into child sexual exploitation across the Bradford district. Local residents and I are fed up of being ignored by Bradford Council, and we want out. Will the Prime Minister meet me to discuss my case for leaving Bradford Council and creating our own unitary authority that better represents Keighley and Ilkley, putting our priorities first?

[The Prime Minister]

I know my hon. Friend is a passionate campaigner on this issue, having even introduced a private Member’s Bill on it earlier this year. I agree that his council should be working to ensure that it delivers good services for all its residents, including his constituents, and I will certainly arrange for the relevant Minister to discuss his concerns further with him. As my hon. Friend did not do so, maybe I can plug his event this afternoon in the Jubilee Room—a Keighley and Ilkley showcase. Perhaps the Minister can come to that event and discuss it in person then.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist); my thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with the family of Graham, who sadly passed away. We have heard some incredibly moving stories from all hon. Members, and that does not make this an easy debate. I put on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and the Father of the House for securing this important debate.

When I got first elected in 2019, one of the very first constituency meetings I had was with Clive Smith, the chair of The Haemophilia Society. We never forget those first meetings. It was just before the period of the pandemic. Clive kindly explained to me all the complexities associated with the infected blood inquiry and I gave him my reassurance that I would do all I could in my role as his constituency MP to raise that case. I am pleased to take part in this debate; it is important for me to put my weight on the Government to ensure that they are listening, not only to me but to all hon. Members in this House.

Some of the most valuable assets that all of us in this Chamber have are our health and our time. Unfortunately, all those who have been affected throughout these terrible circumstances, going back to the 1970s and 1980s, have had both of those valuable assets impacted or removed from them one way or another. Both their health and their time have been taken away from them.

It is important that we understand the number of people impacted through this terrible situation. Around 5,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with the HIV and hepatitis viruses through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some of those people unintentionally infected their partners because they were unaware of their own infection. How must that make them feel? It must be incredibly difficult. Since then, more than 3,000 people have died and, of the 1,250 people infected with HIV, fewer than 250 people are still alive today.

Furthermore, many who did not have a bleeding disorder were infected with hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusions during that period. The best estimates suggest that around 27,000 were infected with hepatitis C, of whom only around 10% were still alive and seeking justice as of 2019. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, those numbers are still declining, which just emphasises why time is of the essence. Those individuals have experienced challenges with education, with the fear factor and stigma associated with going through life, practical challenges in gaining insurance and travel documents, and challenges in dealing with their own doctors.

The inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal was set up after my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) gave it the go-ahead in 2017, when she said that it was

“an appalling tragedy which should…never have happened”

I welcome its first and second interim reports. I hope that the Government accept the recommendations in full.

I will emphasise the key recommendations: each affected and infected person should be able to make a claim in their own right; people should be able to make claims on behalf of the estates of people who have died; and it is vital that an award should be made for injury impact, social impact, autonomy impact, care and financial loss. All the different factors of those individuals’ lives been affected by those challenges. It is right, proper, fair and just that the Government listen to the inquiry’s calls.

The Government’s lack of response should be acknowledged as part of any award. Rather frustratingly, it is being reported to me that, even though the report has been issued—I put on record my thanks to Sir Brian and Sir Robert for their work—there is still no clarity from the Government, from whom a better level of communication is required. It is absolutely up to the Government to meet key stakeholders on a regular basis. As I say, the two most valuable assets to us all are health and time. Time is of the essence, and I call on the Government to act with the quickest of speed, because one person is dying from these challenges every four days, and that is not fair.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I quoted earlier the chief executive of Tesco, the largest retailer in the United Kingdom. In the paper yesterday he made the very good point that there is one drinks industry across the United Kingdom and we should have one solution to the recycling problem.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the strength of the Union.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

3. Whether he has made a recent assessment of public support for the Union in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)]

My assessment is that the Union is strong, as is support for the Union. [Interruption.] Oh yes, strong—very, very strong. People want to see their Governments delivering, and that is what we are doing, from levelling up to tackling the cost of living and working with the Scottish Government on delivering freeports, investment zones and city and region growth deals.

[Robbie Moore]

Opinion polls clearly show that the people of Scotland want the UK and Scottish Governments to work together to take Scotland forward, rather than going back to the divisions of the past. Does the Secretary of State agree that the new SNP leader should focus on Scotland’s economy, the NHS, schools and creating jobs, rather than going back to another divisive independence referendum?

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I would call on the new First Minister to seize this opportunity to do things differently. Rather than confrontation, let us have collaboration for a change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

1. What steps his Department is taking to mark the anniversary of the Belfast agreement.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to mark the anniversary of the Belfast agreement.

[Robbie Moore]

The 25th anniversary of the signing of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is significant, not just in the history of Northern Ireland but for the whole of the United Kingdom. How will my right hon. Friend’s Department ensure that this historic moment is recognised appropriately in every part of the country?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I agree with my hon. Friend that this historic moment is an achievement not just for Northern Ireland but for the entire United Kingdom. We have an educational initiative that is going to offer young people across the United Kingdom an opportunity to engage with the anniversary by learning about the journey to the agreement and its crucial role in providing peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland. Obviously, 25 years on, we are no less committed to achieving that aim.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Thursday 16th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I do not recognise those figures at all. There are homeless veterans in this country, including some who are involuntarily sleeping rough because of a lack of provision. We are ending that this year through clear homelessness pathways and through working with Riverside, Stoll and Alabaré and other brilliant service charities to make sure that there are no homeless veterans by the end of this year. Again, if there are any examples, I am more than happy for hon. Members to write to me and I will take up individual cases, but we will end it this year. I remind Members that, if we continue to go around saying that there are lots of homeless veterans when that is not the case, that will be self-defeating as we attempt to make this the best country in which to be a veteran.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

3. What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the veterans’ strategy action plan on supporting veterans in their civilian lives.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

14. What assessment his Department has made of the impact of the veterans’ strategy action plan on supporting veterans in their civilian lives.

[The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs (Johnny Mercer)]

We have already completed delivery of over 35% of our strategy action plan commitments. Veterans are being supported into employment in the public sector. We are accelerating our investment to end veteran homelessness. The veterans’ survey has been a game changer, and Op Courage is delivering more mental health support than ever before and is on track, despite what the Opposition might say.

[Robbie Moore]

We have many fantastic veterans across Keighley and Ilkley, including George Metcalf and Pete Western, whom I have met on numerous occasions to talk about supporting veterans in their civilian lives. Could my right hon. Friend outline the schemes available to help increase veteran employment and to assist their transition into the civilian workplace?

[Johnny Mercer]

I am clear that having a job—a meaningful job—is the No. 1 factor that will improve the life chances of any veteran and their family. We are putting a great deal of resource and time and effort into that space. On pathways into the public sector, the STEP into Justice programme gets people into the justice system. The Office for Veterans’ Affairs has a veterans employment group. There are some fantastic employment opportunities. We are trying to bring it all together so that it is clearer for people. I commend the work of James Cameron and Mission Automotive in that space. I would like to see those pathways across different sectors, and we are looking to roll that out this year.

Civil Service Impartiality

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I understand that the Leader of the Opposition may be short of a chief of staff at the moment, but I am sure he has someone who keeps an eye on his diary. I am sure there is someone who could inform this House what the dates were, when the meetings took place, where they took place, and what was discussed and with whom. It is not too much to ask and it would help to clear this up. It would save the Leader of the Opposition the embarrassment of being asked about these things on repeated occasions and not being able to be clear.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

Maintaining complete political impartiality is absolutely key to maintaining credibility within the civil service, so does my right hon. Friend agree that if even one meeting or one conversation took place between Sue Gray and the Labour party and the Leader of the Opposition in advance of her resignation about the job offer for such a hugely political job, surely Sue Gray’s political impartiality in her role in the civil service has to be brought into question?

[Jeremy Quin]

I set out the rules in response to the urgent question. They are there in Hansard and people can read through them. There are protections in the rules to try to ensure that impartiality, and perceived impartiality, is not jeopardised. We will explore exactly what happened in these circumstances.