Digital ID
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(2 days, 2 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Ms Furniss. The historian AJP Taylor said:
“Until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state…He could travel abroad or leave his country for ever without a passport or any sort of official permission.”
Sounds great, does it not? Yet the world wars that followed changed all that. By the second world war, we had a national identity card—as has been mentioned—and that requirement only ended in 1952. However, individual registration numbers remained, and do so to this day, for national insurance and the NHS. When the NHS was being formed, many people said, “Oh no—not the socialist state that is taking over all our lives.” Yet so many of us depend on it to this day.
It would be wholly wrong to claim that there has been no need for the state to provide a system to verify a citizen’s identity, either for national security or for the right to access public services. If someone had asked me 20 years ago, the last time a national identity service was being properly considered, I would have had my doubts as to whether it was really necessary.
Kevin Bonavia
I will not, I am afraid.
I am now convinced that it is necessary. Why is that? It is because today, identity checks are not a novelty; they are a necessity across all our lives. Why is it that a company such as Amazon can do far better handling our data than the national health service? My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), a respected doctor, explained how we cannot, as individuals, access the services that we need.
Why is this seen as so un-British? Is it not British to be ambitious for our people? If we think that other countries can do it, but we cannot because we are so rubbish at such things, why should we not discuss that?
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The scale of the response to this petition—almost 3 million people—should cause us all to pause. This rash proposal has clearly touched a deep-seated opposition among our constituents to anyone interfering with their personal data and personal details. Almost 5,000 of my constituents are among that number, and I well understand and support their opposition.
Yes, digital ID might be convenient and it might be expedient for some people to have all their data in one location that they can share, but the key issue here is that the Government are choosing—without a mandate—to make it mandatory. It would be a different matter if the Government were coming to this House to say, “We are going to provide a facility whereby, if you wish, you can have the convenience of this: if you want to take the risk of being hacked, we will provide the facility,” but when they say to the citizen, “You must,” or, “We will impose,” they have crossed a line that no self-respecting Government should cross and that no self-respecting people should tolerate.
That, for me, is the critical component: this is a Government who think they know better and who will impose it, and we will be left with no choice as citizens. That is so illiberal, so fundamentally an assault on our personal freedoms, that no one in this House should be entertaining it, least of all the Government.
Mr Mohindra
The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an excellent contribution, as always. If this is such an important issue, why was it not in the governing party’s manifesto at the last general election?
Jim Allister
That is a question that I obviously cannot answer, and it is one that I doubt the Minister will answer, but it is well posed. Why, oh why, if the Government were going to impinge on the personal liberties of their citizens, would they not, in asking for their votes, tell them that that was their agenda?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I want to begin by thanking the 4,337 constituents in Chester South and Eddisbury who have expressed their opposition to the introduction of mandatory digital ID cards. The British public, including my constituents, are concerned not only by the principle of mandatory digital IDs, but by the manner in which the Government have attempted to introduce them: without a timeline, without a clear financial cost, without a plan and without a mandate.
When the Government first briefed their intention to pursue mandatory digital ID, my inbox was inundated with concerns. Because of the clear salience of the issue, I launched a survey asking my constituents for their views. I am grateful for the hundreds of responses, more than three quarters of which were opposed to a mandatory ID scheme.
The truth is that this petition should never have been necessary. A policy of this magnitude, with profound implications for civil liberties and for the relationship between citizen and state, ought to have appeared in a party’s manifesto. I am also deeply concerned by the Government’s so-called justification that this will solve the small boats crisis. Before the election, Labour promised it had a plan to smash the gangs, stop the boats and tackle illegal migration. We can all see how that plan is going, so how would this policy make any difference? Is it not just another cynical attempt to distract from the failure of this Government to address illegal migration? If the Minister has confidence in the proposal, can they clearly set out how much the Government expect illegal crossings to fall as a result and what cost they expect the taxpayer, our constituents, to bear?
Time is short, but I want to raise one further concern: rural communities that remain digitally isolated would face significant challenges under these plans. I have spoken many times about the digital exclusion facing so many in Chester South and Eddisbury. Progress was being made under the previous Conservative Government, but I am concerned that Ministers are now pushing ahead with a digital ID scheme without first ensuring digital connectivity, which risks leaving rural communities even further behind.
Mr Mohindra
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution, as always. One issue that I recently learned about in the Chamber is that the roll-out of gigabit broadband throughout the country has been delayed by a further two years from 2030 to 2032. Does she share my concerns that the void between the proposed digital inclusion and the constituents who do not have access to gigabit or wi-fi signals will be an even more manifest issue?
Aphra Brandreth
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. The money that will be spent on mandatory ID needs to be spent on ensuring that all our constituents are connected. The £9.5 million strategy to tackle digital exclusion is inadequate.
To conclude, this policy is an attempt to distract from the Government’s failures and has absolutely no mandate. I therefore stand with the many thousands across Chester South and Eddisbury in opposing any plans to introduce mandatory digital ID.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Kendall
I absolutely will arrange for my hon. Friend to meet the relevant Minister and UKRI to make sure we get this right, because we have to do more to back our world-leading researchers and then turn that research into innovation and future growth. That is the first part of the journey, and we want to—and will—get it right.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Digital Government and Data (Ian Murray)
According to independent analysis, more than 89% of UK premises can access a gigabit-capable connection. We have recently reconfirmed our commitment to achieving nationwide gigabit coverage and expect 99% of premises to have access to a gigabit-capable connection by 2032. In the period up to 31 March 2025, more than 1.2 million premises in hard-to-reach communities across the UK have been upgraded to gigabit-capable broadband through Government-funded programmes.
Mr Mohindra
I thank the Minister for that answer, but it was the Conservative Government who brought forward Project Gigabit in order to ensure that everyone had access to a decent level of internet access, and some of my constituents continue to write to me saying that they do not have access in their areas. The Minister referred to 2032, but I think the previous commitment was for 2030; can he confirm what the target date is, whether for 99% or higher?
Ian Murray
The date is 2032: the Government are committed to ensuring 99% gigabit coverage by 2032. We have just rolled out 30 new Project Gigabit contracts across England, connecting 850,000 homes. The Government are fully committed to delivering this, and 2032 is the target.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ellie Reeves
Our plan for growth is central to this mission-driven Government. Our investment in housing—building 1.5 million homes—will add £7 billion to the economy by the end of the Parliament. We are getting building, with spades in the ground on our rail and road projects, and getting on where the Tories failed this country for 14 years.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Our plan for change is already delivering for the British people, as the Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham West and East Dulwich (Ellie Reeves), has just said: wages up more in the first 10 months of our Government than in 10 years under the previous Government; a new nuclear age with £14 billion committed to building Sizewell C as a critical part of our clean energy transition; and NHS waiting lists down by more than 200,000 for the first time in years. What a contrast to the record of the Conservatives.
Mr Mohindra
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster reassure the House that once he has actually started publishing the tracking dashboard for the plan for change, the six milestones will not go the same way as the three foundations, the six first steps for change, the five missions and the seven pillars of growth, and that it will not be abandoned and replaced when the Government realise they are missing their targets?
Pat McFadden
If the hon. Gentleman wants more facts about delivery, let me help him out right now. Last week we launched the biggest social and affordable housing programme in a generation, meeting a need that has been unmet for years in this country; we have extended free school meals to half a million more children; and this year, we will be putting 3,000 more neighbourhood police back on the beat. I am very happy to give the hon. Gentleman all the figures he wants.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her support. In fairness, she has been supportive of the youth experience scheme throughout. Having secured the agreement at the summit, we will obviously move now into a different phase of the negotiations, looking at implementation, whether that is in terms of the link with the emissions trading systems, the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement or the youth experience scheme. We obviously want to move forward as quickly as we can with implementation.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
There is no question but that the new arrangements we have with the European Union will grow our economy. It will put more money in the pockets of working people, and the proof will be there for all to see as it eases pressure on food prices and cuts red tape—more prosperity, more safety, more security—but unfortunately, it seems that the Opposition’s position is to unpick all of that.
Mr Mohindra
The Government continue to celebrate last month’s latest EU surrender deal, continuing their long-term ambition to undo the results of a democratic vote that their leadership has never agreed with and is doing its best to reverse at every opportunity. The Government have already proven that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses. Can the Minister reassure the House that this Government have no further intentions to surrender any more hard-won Brexit freedoms?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The only thing that has been surrendered is the credibility of the Conservative party. This Government have used the independent post-Brexit trade policy to secure a deal with India, a deal with the United States, and a deal with the EU that is good for jobs, good for bills and good for borders. The Conservatives will have to explain at the next election why they want to undo all of it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The approach to legacy taken by the last Government was wrong. It caused immense pain to victims and survivors, and in many respects has been found to be unlawful. In December I laid a proposal for a draft remedial order to address the human rights deficiencies in the Act that had been identified by the courts, and when parliamentary time allows, I will introduce primary legislation to reinstate legacy inquests halted by the Act and to reform and strengthen the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery.
Hilary Benn
Because sections 46 and 47 of the Act were found to be unlawful, and, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the case that gave rise to the attempt to deal with the problem through those sections that have now been found to be unlawful arose from a Supreme Court judgment in 2020. For two and a bit years, the last Government were unable to find a solution.
Mr Mohindra
Notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s response, may I ask why this Labour Government are continuing to undermine the tough action taken by the Conservative Government on individuals who have acted against our democracy and society, such as Gerry Adams, by considering repealing the Act, giving Adams and others the possibility of a six-figure payout?
Hilary Benn
As I said during the last Northern Ireland questions, no one wants to see that happen. We are currently working to find a lawful way of dealing with the problems that were created by the way in which the original interim custody orders were signed in 1972 and, I think, 1973. In 2020, the Supreme Court found that orders that had not been signed and considered by the then Secretary of State were not lawful.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue in relation to maternity pay and maternity leave. The Leader of the Opposition thinks that maternity pay is excessive. That is the difference—we know that workers’ rights are pro-growth, and I am proud that our Employment Rights Bill will introduce parental leave from day one, which means that 1.5 million more employees will be entitled to unpaid parental leave and 30,000 more fathers will be entitled to paternity leave. I am happy to ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting with the relevant Minister.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
In December 2020, I was in my office, working on the expected Brexit deal with my team. We had to analyse the deal as it came in at speed and prepare and deliver a live statement at speed on one of the most important issues for our country in recent years. That was what I was doing. What were the Conservatives doing? Bringing suitcases of booze into Downing Street, partying and fighting, vomiting up the walls, leaving the cleaners to remove red wine stains. That is the difference. I was working—they were partying.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertford-shire) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Earlier this week, the House marked the first anniversary of the horrific attacks on 7 October, and I take this opportunity to reiterate that the hostages must be released. I also reiterate our call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and Lebanon.
This week, the Government will deliver on our promise to the British people of the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. The employment rights Bill will ensure that work pays; it will forge a new partnership with business, and reset the dreadful industrial relations that have cost our economy and our national health service so much in recent years. We are also preparing for the international investment summit next week, which will bring hundreds of global chief executive officers to the United Kingdom and unlock billions of pounds of investment.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Mohindra
The commitment of £400 million for a new hospital at Watford General was one of the many brilliant things that the last Conservative Government did, along with my good friend Dean Russell, the former Member of Parliament for Watford. It would have been life-changing as well as lifesaving for so many of my constituents. Why is the Prime Minister cancelling that funding commitment, and spending billions of pounds on giving pay rises to train drivers instead?
The Prime Minister
Because the promise of 40 new hospitals did not involve 40 and did not involve hospitals, they were not new, and they were not funded.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(2 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Jeremy Quin)
Cabinet Office Ministers have, through Cobra, been assisting Departments in their responses to industrial action. When there is a spate of industrial action across the public sector, which causes huge disruption to our constituents, it is particularly important that we act together, and the Cabinet Office assists Departments in their planning.
Mr Mohindra
Like many of my constituents, I commute to London daily via rail and have had to deal with another summer of disruption caused by ASLEF and the RMT, while students are applying for jobs with unconfirmed grades from unmarked exam papers and junior doctors continue to strike. What is the Minister’s Department doing to end the strikes and get those people back to work so that we can continue to clear the backlogs and reduce the inflation that they claim to be striking against?
Jeremy Quin
My hon. Friend is right: it is outrageous that his constituents can have their lives totally upended by strikes and by militant unions. We will, of course, respect the right to strike, but we have a duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of the British people. That is what our minimum service levels legislation aims to do. It is a pity that the Labour party will not support it.
Oliver Dowden
Of course, it is incumbent on Ministers to drive efficiencies in arm’s length bodies such as Homes England. I am very happy to pick that up with my relevant ministerial colleagues.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
I have already met with Lord Janvrin, who will be leading the committee. He of course has two decades of experience in service to the royal household, including as private secretary to Her late Majesty. The aim we are working towards is that the committee will report by 2026, which would have been Her late Majesty’s 100th birthday.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertford-shire) (Con)
Oliver Dowden
As a fellow Hertfordshire Member of Parliament, I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the disruption to travel, particularly for commuters into London. That is precisely why our manifesto committed to bringing forward minimum service legislation. We are passing that legislation through the House in the teeth of opposition from Labour, and the reason for doing so is to ensure that our hard-working constituents can get on with their lives and livelihoods.
Ministerial Appointments: Vetting and Managing Conflicts of Interest
Gagan Mohindra Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeremy Quin
The usual appointment process was undertaken, so the Prime Minister will have had the benefit of full disclosure of the interests that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon declared when the Prime Minister appointed him chair of the Conservative party.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister correctly asked his independent adviser on ministers’ interests to establish the facts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must not prejudge the outcome, and should allow the process to conclude?
Jeremy Quin
I agree. That is the purpose of having an independent adviser. He has been asked to investigate, and to work out exactly what the facts are. It would be ill-judged to make a decision before knowing all the facts that pertain.