Call for General Election

Robbie Moore Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont]

I have not looked at that particular facility. I am here to represent the 1 million people who signed the petition calling for an election and all the people I speak to each week in my constituency who are fed up with the U-turns, betrayals and chaos that this Government—the party that the hon. Gentleman represents—are presiding over. I make no apology for standing up for those people and putting the case that they have asked me to make on their behalf. The Labour Government may still have the votes, as the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, but they have lost the country. Britain deserves far better than this Prime Minister and this failing Labour Government.

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

I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the Prime Minister saying that

“not a penny more on your council tax”

would be implemented by this Labour Government, yet constituents in the Worth valley, across Keighley and Ilkley, have experienced a rise of 14.99% in the past two years under Labour-run Bradford council. Does my hon. Friend feel that that meets the Prime Minister’s promise?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of my recollections from the last general election was the then Conservative leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), saying in the leaders debate, “Mark my words: if you think Labour is going to win this election, start saving now, because they are going to put up your taxes.” And guess what? He was absolutely right. Tax after tax has gone up, despite the promises that the Labour leader made—I will happily take interventions from Labour Members.

After all the Prime Minister’s promises not to put up taxes, look at us now: £64 billion-worth of tax rises, thanks to the Labour Chancellor, just in the past 18 months. What an absolute embarrassment. No wonder people are fed up with politics. No wonder people do not want to take part in voting any more. They feel utterly betrayed, and you lot are responsible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Hurley]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

Back in 1983, when he was the Leader of the Opposition —[Interruption.] Members may remember Michael Foot—the right hon. Gentleman will never be the Leader of the Opposition. Michael Foot thought he was storming to victory back in 1983. “Look at this,” he said to John Golding. “I’ve got a rally here. There’s a thousand people cheering me on.” “But Michael,” John replied, “there were 122,000 outside saying you’re crackers.” A million people have signed the petition, but how many people voted in the general election? Well over a million people.

This Parliament was elected in a general election held under rules that were well known in advance, and those rules include a parliamentary term. Some Members might not like it, but it is true. The rules do not include a rolling plebiscite triggered whenever a sufficiently large group of people becomes bored, frustrated or impatient—or someone has shared a video clip with them on WhatsApp.

[Robbie Moore]

Will the hon. Member acknowledge that, in the history of petitions debates, the two most highly subscribed debates have been on petitions asking for a general election in this Parliament? Does he acknowledge that the fact that both those petitions were signed by more than a million people illustrates huge frustration at the Government and that people want them to change course?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Well over a million people signed this petition, a good proportion of them from my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. They want me to speak on their behalf, and to reiterate that this debate is fundamentally about trust—why? Because trust matters in the relationship between constituents and their MPs—and not only MPs, but the Government of the day.

Let me take us back to the last general election, when many Labour Members were knocking on doors in my constituency promising change. They promised that, if they were lucky enough to get into Government, they would not increase taxes on hard-working people, would not raise council tax by a penny, would return to a politics of service and would ultimately deliver a strategy aligned to their manifesto.

What have we seen? We have seen rising taxes on working people. Council tax has been raised by 14.99% in my constituency alone in the last two years under Labour-run Bradford council, so that tax is increasing on hard-working people. We have seen betrayals and U-turns, and I will go into a few of them because ultimately that is why so many people—more than a million—have signed this petition. It illustrates the level of frustration out there among the wider population. This is the second petition on this issue that the Petitions Committee has considered.

Let us start with the betrayals. Our farmers and family businesses have been impacted by choices this Labour Government have made. Those choices and changes were not indicated before the general election, such as inheritance tax challenges with agricultural property relief and business property relief. We have seen 14 months of huge amounts of anxiety and frustration among our farming community and family businesses, which will now be exposed to an IHT liability of 20%, over and above a rise in the threshold to £2.5 million. That rise only took place at the 11th hour, three days before Christmas, after 14 months of many of those farmers and family businesses raising their concerns.

We saw Labour MP after Labour MP go through the voting Lobbies, backing the ambitions of the Prime Minister and Chancellor to increase tax on many of our hard-working farmers. Only one Labour MP had the courage and the backbone to stand up on behalf of his constituents and tell the Chancellor that he did not agree with the proposals she and the Prime Minister had made.

All those family businesses, whether in hospitality, brewing, manufacturing or engineering, are being impacted by the IHT changes. I was with the owners of a business that makes furniture in my constituency, who had worked out that their business property relief liability was already about £800,000. They employ 250 people in Keighley, and will be directly impacted by this Labour Government, who—dare I say—said that they would not do this and did not include it in their manifesto. That is a betrayal that this Labour Government has rolled out.

[Mr Charters]

The hon. Member uses the term “betrayal”. I know he has been a steadfast voice for the defence of the Ukrainian people, so does he agree that the biggest betrayal this country has seen from a politician has been Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform in Wales, taking money from a foreign power?

[Robbie Moore]

I have to confess that I am not aligned with the detail of that case, but what I do know is that the hon. Gentleman, who represents York Outer—a very rural constituency—and I believe sits on one of the key all-party parliamentary groups for food security, was one of those Labour MPs who voted against the inheritance tax changes that the Conservatives advocated. I am sure the hard-working farmers and family businesses in his constituency will feel a huge amount of frustration that he did not stand with them.

Then there is our pub industry. The huge rises in business rates and employer national insurance contributions are hitting many of those hard-working businesses within the hospitality sector and the pub industry. No wonder it is very difficult for a Labour MP to get a pint in a pub, many of which they have been quite rightly asked not to return to. Of course, the rise in employer national insurance contributions is hitting all businesses. I have had many conversations with our hard-working teachers and headteachers, who regularly tell me about the tough choices they face about making teaching assistants redundant because of the rise in employer national insurance contributions. The grant that comes out of central Government to cover the rise covers only about 70% of the increase in costs, so the additional 30% must be covered by the existing school budget.

There are also the free school meals and breakfast clubs—but who is paying for them? The schools are, out of their existing budgets. Labour MPs want to roll out the narrative that our constituents are going to receive all these benefits, and of course we want to see those benefits happen, but they must get to grips with the facts of the case. Hard-working hospices now cannot provide end-of-life care and schools cannot roll out education because they are having to make tough choices around paying increased levels of employer national insurance contributions. That betrayal was not in the manifesto.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that children deserve to be fed, and that it was right to raise employer national insurance contributions to pay into public services, in order to free up the resource to introduce breakfast clubs to feed young children, many of whom are in poverty due to Tory policies?

[Robbie Moore]

Obviously I agree that children need to be fed, but I would gently say to the hon. Member, “Be honest with the public.” The Prime Minister promised before the general election that hard-working people would not be taxed. What was then rolled out? A rise in employer national insurance contributions. It is those organisations that provide a public service—our councils, hospices, hospitals, GP practices and schools—that are impacted by that rise, and their budgets have not increased at the same rate as those taxes have. Therefore, the level of service that they are able to roll out is diminished as a result of this Labour Government.

Having spoken to many constituents on the doorstep, I know that what angers them the most—the reason they signed this petition—is they have been duped by this Government through promises that did not come through and a strategy that was not in the manifesto. The Government then followed up with the U-turns—crikey, what have we seen this year alone? Inheritance tax changes have been rolled out on our farmers and small businesses—yes, the relief has increased, but it goes nowhere near far enough. The Conservatives believe that the family farm tax and the family business tax should be axed, but the thresholds have simply been tweaked.

Then, of course, there is the statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Let us rewind to a year ago: the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley (Yvette Cooper), stood at the Dispatch Box and said that we would have five local inquiries into grooming gangs, yet every Labour MP voted against having a national inquiry. It was only as a result of campaigning by the Opposition, as well as by many victims and survivors, that the narrative that we had to have a national inquiry continued. A year later, the Government were brought to the House—dragged to the House—to say that we would be having a national inquiry.

[Lee Anderson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is most generous with his time. Could he please explain why he thinks Labour MPs were so against voting for a national inquiry?

[Robbie Moore]

We have seen it at a national level, and the very same strategy was rolled out across Labour-run Bradford council, where a Conservative group motion was put before the council, urging it to vote for a national inquiry. What did the Labour councillors on Labour-run Bradford council do? They voted against that motion. This gets to the nub of the issue, because it should not be about politics; it should be about the difference between right and wrong. That, I feel, is why so many people have signed the petition. Yet again, this Labour Government—Home Secretary after Home Secretary—have been dragged to the Dispatch Box to carry out a further U-turn.

[Dr Arthur]

It is great to hear what is happening with Conservative council groups across the country in relation to the rape gang inquiry. What did the Conservative Government do over the last 14 years?

[Robbie Moore]

The grooming gangs taskforce was rolled out. As an individual, I have been clear; the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse under Theresa May, the Home Secretary at the time, provided a huge number of recommendations, and I have always advocated that they be put into force. But let us look at the timing. The 14 recommendations in the IICSA report—a very detailed report by Professor Alexis Jay—came out in 2022, and an equivalent amount of time has passed since the general election, so I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) why it is that this Labour Government have not implemented in full even one of those recommendations. That is shameful.

There have been further U-turns. The winter fuel allowance has changed. Our pensioners have been hugely negatively impacted by this Labour Government, and we can go on to the two-child benefit cap change and income tax. Labour MPs will say, “Those with the broadest shoulders need to bear the brunt of these choices”—like the Chagos deal, which cost something like £47 million, or the roll-out of digital ID at £1.8 million. But who is paying these bills? Basic rate income tax payers will see their income tax go up by £220 this year. They are not the individuals with the broadest shoulders, but it is these hard-working people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and the Worth Valley who will pay for the disastrous decisions that the Government have made in the last 18 months.

[Alistair Strathern]

If I heard the hon. Gentleman right, he criticised us for the £280 tax burden that basic rate taxpayers face because of the threshold freeze that is in effect this year. He knows, of course, that that threshold freeze was in his Government’s manifesto going into the general election and part of their last Budget settlement. Did he criticise it at the time?

[Robbie Moore]

I do not agree at all with the basic rate income taxpayer having to pay an additional £220 this year. I do not think the vast majority of the country—including many of my constituents—voted for a tax rise of £64 billion over the last two Budgets to fund things that were not even in the Labour party’s manifesto, such as digital IDs, the Chagos deal and the raising of employer national insurance, which, as I have indicated, has had a huge impact on many of my constituents.

The reality is that in areas such as Braithwaite, Bracken Bank, Oxenhope, Haworth, Stanbury and Oakworth in my constituency, and across the country, people were promised one thing and clearly got another. They have seen chaos and U-turns, and most of all, the effect of Labour’s policies are hitting hard-working people across my constituency. The message to the Government is this: get a grip and start delivering for those hard-working people. Be in no doubt, the public will not forgive, and they will not forget.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind colleagues that the focus of this debate is not a general critique of the Government, or indeed a general defence of the Government. The focus of this debate is on whether or not there should be a general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. I welcome this debate. My comments tonight will be directed at everyone in Dartford who signed the petition and all others in my wonderful constituency that I have the privilege of serving in this place.

Ahead of the election in July 2024, this country was crying out for change, and Dartford was no different. I recognise that there is now an expectation of that change being delivered as quickly as possible. We know that delivering real change is not easy—it takes time—but in my view, when I look around my constituency, it is happening. With around three years likely left until a general election, I want to use this moment briefly to take stock of what I said in Dartford that I would prioritise before the 2024 election and where progress is being made.

Dartford is one of the fastest growing towns in the UK, with lots of new homes being built. I very much welcome the new families who are making a great contribution to Dartford alongside our wonderful, hard-working existing communities, but they know that although the population has expanded over the last 15 years, very little has been spent on increasing the local infrastructure—the roads, the health provision—to meet the growing population. That really should not have come as a surprise to representatives of local government or national Government.

On NHS provision, I promised, in partnership with the Government, that we would make progress, and since the election we have been seeing that. We see it in the expanded community diagnostic centre at the Livingstone community hospital site and in the funding for a new intensive care unit at Darent Valley hospital, which will add crucial capacity elsewhere on the site. Waiting lists are coming down, but we have much more to do—that is what I say to Dartford residents who signed the petition—in particular on GP capacity across Swanscombe and Ebbsfleet, where pressure on appointments is most acute.

I recently visited Swanscombe health centre, which is among the busiest in Kent. It has added 11,000 patients to its roll in the last five years as a result of our growing community, and it desperately needs infrastructure investment to meet that growing need. Despite the fact that community infrastructure levy money is being spent on increased provision, that part of my constituency would be ideal for one of the new wave of neighbourhood health centres being planned by Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care. I hope to make that case robustly in the months ahead. If we have a general election, it will be difficult to do that.

Another key issue for Dartford on which I stood at the last election is that the town is regularly gridlocked by terrible traffic. My plan, which I put before residents at the election, was to get Dartford moving again—again, in partnership with the Government. We said we would invest in infrastructure, and we have had some hugely positive news on the lower Thames crossing, which will reduce congestion at the Dartford crossing and make Dartford residents’ lives freer from terrible air and the congestion that they see every day. Government funding is now in place, and planning consent has been given for the lower Thames crossing. We are now at the start of a procurement process for the machinery needed to dig under the River Thames and create the new crossing. I am eagerly awaiting news from the Government on the next steps on the private finance package that needs to be put in place to make the scheme work. I am anxious to see spades in the ground in the near future, under this Government.

One of the crucial projects to get Dartford moving again is the repair of Galley Hill Road, which collapsed in early 2023—almost three years ago—cutting a crucial route between my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). That road closure has led to an increase in traffic and, in particular, an increase in heavy good vehicles passing through roads in Swanscombe that cannot accommodate them. It has been a disaster for the community.

I am pleased that it was a visit to that site by Transport Ministers after the 2024 general election that inspired the Government to create the structures fund announced in the spending review last year. The fund is designed specifically to repair rundown transport infrastructure such as Galley Hill Road. I have no doubt that had the last general election result been different, such a fund would not be in place. With details on the fund to come in the months ahead, it will be on Kent county council to put in a bid to the fund that has the best possible chance of finally getting Galley Hill Road fixed and once and for all ending the chaos on Swanscombe’s roads and for its communities.

The final topic that I campaigned hard on at the general election and that I believe the Government are making a significant difference on is the restoration of neighbourhood policing. Each neighbourhood across Dartford is unique, and it is crucial that we rebuild relationships between communities and the police officers there to keep them safe. The neighbourhood policing guarantee, a key item in the 2024 manifesto and introduced by the Government last year, will put that into action alongside the 13,000 additional police officers, PCSOs and special constables that we are putting into neighbourhood policing roles. We are already seeing more police in Dartford.

[Robbie Moore]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Member running through his campaign literature, but does he think it is right that a basic rate income tax payer in his Dartford constituency is paying an additional £220 this year to fund things such as the roll-out of digital ID, which was not in the Labour party’s manifesto, or the £47 billion Chagos deal? Is that the right thing for hard-working constituents in Dartford?

[Jim Dickson]

The residents in Dartford who voted for me wanted to see us deliver the things that I am talking about: infrastructure to improve their roads, a better NHS, additions to their local hospital and police on the streets. They are appreciating that. We are rebuilding the relationship between the police in Dartford and local residents.

I have been particularly pleased to meet officers across Dartford and the villages over the past 18 months, and I put on record my thanks for all they do. We have much more to do, particularly to ensure that police have the powers they need to tackle the troubling trend, which I have discovered in my constituency and across Kent more broadly, of catapults being used to target wildlife and people. I am gladdened by the response from Ministers at the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which demonstrates again that this is a Government who listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely not. Those are not comments I am familiar with at all. I would advise the hon. Member not to focus on newspapers’ speculation and to focus on supporting his constituents.

I talked to the young people in school about how the Government take our international treaties on both the climate and human rights seriously, and they value that. I also talked about the plans to extend the voting age for general elections in Scotland to 16. Young voters can already vote at 16 in other elections in Scotland.

[Robbie Moore]

Before the hon. Member moves on, does he recognise the level of frustration there is with the Employment Rights Act 2025? My inbox has been filled with a lot of emails and correspondence from lobby organisations representing those with disabilities and special educational needs. They are frustrated that the Act will make it much more difficult for an employer to take a risk on giving an opportunity to someone with additional challenges or needs, so that there will be much less opportunity for them. Is he proud that the Government are aiming to do that with the Employment Rights Act and are not recognising those challenges?

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member knows that that is not the intention of the Government. He is welcome to visit my constituency, where I can help him meet lots of people who already support those with additional needs into work. They are doing fantastic work. I am sure that whatever the Government do will build on that success.

I am proud that the Government have learned from Edinburgh and introduced a pavement parking ban last week that will give councils across England the powers to introduce one. Again, that is a great step in creating a more equal UK. I am also really happy with the road safety strategy, which will save thousands of lives.

In Scotland, as we have already heard, we have had our biggest ever settlement. It is still a bit of a mystery to me how the Scottish Government spent that money. One of the biggest challenges we face in Edinburgh South West—this will have been part of the frustration that led people to sign the petition—is the housing crisis. I was really disappointed that last week the Scottish Government voted to tax house building in the middle of a housing emergency. That is the kind of Government we face in Scotland. We could talk about the UK Government, but people should look at the Scottish Government before doing so.

And I am really proud of what my office has done in the past year. It has resolved 8,000 cases and accumulated £303,000 of financial gain for constituents, mostly due to my colleague Lucie in my office. We also had a big impact on the Budget. Our lobbying brought about changes to inheritance tax and infected blood payments, and also brought reform to the Pension Protection Fund, ensuring that there was some indexation of the payments.

However, cutting across everything that happens in my constituency, there is still the cost of living crisis. There is also the growing youth employment that we have, particularly in Scotland—a point raised repeatedly by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. Immigration is also a real issue. People feel that the previous Government lost control of immigration—I think we can accept that—and that the current Government must do more to bring it back under control. I say that as someone whose life was saved by an immigrant back in 2015, and who also worked at a university. So I understand the benefits of immigration, but we have to get it to a place where it is supporting the country as a whole, and I think there are some questions about that.

To conclude, we have used the word “betrayal” quite a lot in the debate, and I really regret that, because it has often been used to deliberately amplify division in the country and among people listening to the debate. As a Parliament, we have a duty to talk much more about where we agree. I am sure we agree with the point raised earlier about improving employment rights for pregnant women, women returning from childbirth and women who have had miscarriages. I hope that, for the remainder of this Parliament, we can spend more time talking about what we have in common and engaging with the electorate on that. Then, we will perhaps be able to focus on delivery rather than petitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for moving the motion on behalf of the signatories of the e-petition across the country asking for a general election. I was very struck by how many Opposition Members prayed in aid the number of people who signed this petition. Of course, it was enough to bring us this debate, which we must take note of, but as was flagged by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), that number is down by two thirds on this time last year. I want hon. Members to think about that. If numbers are the driving force for how people feel and the strength of feeling about a general election, perhaps Conservative Members can reflect on that two-thirds decline and what it represents.

I thank all hon. Members who participated. So many of them have shown themselves to be true advocates of their communities and their constituents. We have seen some fantastic examples of passion and commitment to the issues that people care about in their communities and how hard some many Members of Parliament are working in the face of so much cynicism about politics today. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Labour Government—a Government that I am extremely proud to be a part of, following 14 years of Conservative and Lib Dem chaos and decline. I have listened to the contributions of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk and others, and it is clear now, as it was at the last general election, that the Tories are not serious, cannot be trusted and have not learned from the failures they made in office. I did not hear any apologies or any humility about the chaos and ruin they left. The noise and the bluster of impotent opposition that we have heard in this debate is leaving us to get on with the job of fixing the mess that they left.

I am not often surprised these days, but I have to admit that I am today, because it is a surprise to see the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) in this debate. The problem with Reform is that it cannot deliver the change this country needs, because it is not fit to govern, and despite being paid to represent their constituents, too often their MPs withdraw questions in this House, miss votes, and sit as bystanders in the gallery, but they always turn up when there is a chance to get on telly or get a clip for social media. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, a former Tory himself, is happy to welcome the 23rd former Conservative MP to Reform. If that does not send a message that Reform are the same old failed Tories in a slightly different shade of blue, then I do not know what does. It is just another party that does not believe in the NHS or rights for working people and has nothing to offer people on issues such as the cost of living that we know matter to them.

This Labour Government were elected with the largest majority that any party has secured since the last Labour Government’s landslide victory in 1997. This Labour Government are committed to delivering the people’s priorities, and since coming into office, we have been busy delivering on our promise of change. As Labour Members have articulated so clearly, we know that we were elected with a clear mandate to deliver the change that people asked for. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that people voted to reject the previous Government’s record of 14 years of austerity, and he is absolutely right, because let us be honest about where we started when we won the election in 2024.

Decades of decline do not disappear in months; we know that. The financial crisis, Brexit, a pandemic and war in Europe all helped to drive the challenges that we have faced financially in this country. But on top of that, years of weak and irresponsible Government left living standards falling, public services stretched to breaking point, too many communities feeling forgotten and left behind, and, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) said, a steaming pile of rubbish. I could not agree more with her analysis.

That was our inheritance, but we know that life is still harder than it should be for so many people in this country, and I understanding that that is why so many people have signed this petition. People are absolutely right to be impatient. We know that the cost of living continues to bear down on people, but we are taking rapid action to ease that burden. I am proud that living standards are forecast to grow by 2.9% over this Parliament. Under the last failed Tory Government, disposable income fell for the first time since records began in the 1950s—hardly a record that Members here can begin to defend.

We are taking action to tackle the deficit and crisis that the previous Government created—the crashing of an economy, where they allowed Liz Truss to experiment with the country’s finances and sent mortgages, rents and bills soaring. Since coming into office, we are reversing that decline. Families are already £800 better off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Lillian Jones) said, 200,000 workers in Scotland are getting a pay rise, mortgages are down £14,000 compared with where they were when we won the election, and wages are up more in 10 months than they were in 10 years with the Tories. That is a record to be proud of.

[Robbie Moore]

That is just not what people in Keighley and Ilkley and across the Worth valley are feeling. Why are the Labour Government increasing the amount of tax that a basic rate taxpayer is paying by another £220 this year? Why is it that Labour-run Bradford council has tried to increase council tax by 14.99% this year? On top of that, the Government are making decisions that were not in their manifesto, such as rolling out digital ID at a cost of £1.8 billon or the £47 billion Chagos deal. Those are things that the Government are doing beyond their manifesto promises, but which they are taxing hard-working people across Keighley for.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

Order. That is a bit on the long side for an intervention.

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.