Digital ID
Josh Simons Excerpts(1 week, 6 days 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
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this important debate today; I hope that it is the first of many such debates to come, including in the main Chamber. Also, I apologise to the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) for briefly having to step out of Westminster Hall during her speech. I will check the record and make sure that I am across all of what she said.
I thank hon. Members from all parties for the thoughtful and respectful manner in which they have spoken in this debate. I will refer to some of the contributions during my speech. However, I will not take interventions, as I have limited time, and a lot of important questions have been asked, which I will endeavour to answer.
Josh Simons
I am told that I have 11 minutes.
I want to do three things today, as I endeavour not to be hapless: first, to explain why we want to build this new national digital credential and the principles that will guide us as we do so; secondly, to debunk some of the nonsense and myths surrounding this debate; and thirdly, to make some commitments regarding how I as the Minister and we as a Government will work with Members and their constituents going forward.
Let me start by saying why we are introducing this scheme. So often, my constituents in Makerfield, in Wigan, come to me with stories about how they have to fight against the system to do things that should be easy: dealing with the social care system or the special educational needs and disabilities system, registering for a school place, or ordering a new bin; paying taxes, or accessing benefits; opening a bank account, or buying a home. When millions of working people feel exhausted by making their household finances work, or by dealing with antisocial behaviour in their town, the last thing they need is to feel that they are being passed from agency to agency, from call centre to call centre, and from one form to the next.
It does not have to be that way. All over the world, countries have introduced national digital credentials that give people more control over their public services, ensuring that everyone can access those services more easily. It puts the state in someone’s pocket, as with everything else that we do online: banking, shopping, organising community events and supporting our kids at school. Although the Government Digital Service has done phenomenal work over the last decade, the UK needs a step change to make the state and public services work harder for people and fit around them, instead of forcing people to fit around those services.
Labour Governments have a proud history of transforming our state and making it serve ordinary people. After the second world war, the Government built new public services such as the NHS from the ground up. Harold Wilson grasped the white heat of technology to modernise the state. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown brought public services into the 21st century. Now we are doing the same, building the digital foundation of the British state and public services for decades to come.
I am proud that we are building this vital public good for our country, not outsourcing it and not leaving it to private companies. Done right, it can leave a legacy of which we will be proud in the years ahead—but doing it right, as several hon. Members have said, is vital, and my job is to make sure that we do it right. That is why, since becoming the responsible junior Minister, I have introduced three clear principles that will guide the system we build.
The first principle is “inclusive”. We will leave no person and no place behind. This is a public good, so it must be universally accessible. The people most excluded from our society, whether digitally or because they have not had a passport, are those we will work hardest to reach. We are under no illusions: this is a great challenge. It will take a lot of hard work and a massive digital inclusion drive. But do not forget that the status quo—
Josh Simons
I will not. I have loads more to cover.
Millions of people right now are digitally excluded. That is not a status quo that we are prepared to accept. We will need help to meet this challenge. Civil society, businesses, trade unions and community groups across the UK will be our partners. That is why we are consulting on how to do this. If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable—people experiencing homelessness, the elderly and people with special needs, but also veterans and people without access to the internet. This programme will empower them, because we will invest resources to reach and to include them. They will not be left behind any more.
Our second principle is “secure”.
Josh Simons
He will not.
We are working with the UK’s leading national security experts, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to build a system with cutting-edge protections against cyber-attacks and identity fraud. Let me be specific: we are not creating a centralised master database.
John Lamont
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could you clarify how long the Minister has left to speak? By my understanding, he has until 7.29 pm so as to give the proposer of the motion a minute to respond.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
We are running quite well at the moment. We will be finishing completely at 7.30 pm, but the Member who moved the motion wants a minute to wind up, which he has a right to do. So the Minister has a bit longer should he need it.
Josh Simons
I was told that I have 11 minutes, and I have about 10 more minutes of my speech. I will not be taking interventions, so the hon. Member can sit down and stop asking.
If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable: those experiencing homelessness, who are currently left behind. We will not accept the status quo. That point leads me on to the second principle. The National Cyber Security Centre will work closely with us to implement cutting-edge protections against cyber-attacks and identity fraud. I want to be specific about what exactly that means.
We are not, as many Members have asked, creating a centralised master database. The new system will be federated. Specifically, that means that there will be strict legal firewalls on what information can be shared where and a strong principle of data minimisation. People will have more control over their data in this system than they have now, because people will be able actively to control what information is shared about them and by whom. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) said, in other countries around the world, such as Finland or Estonia, citizens are massively more empowered to control their data. Their consent is placed at the centre of the system—[Interruption.]
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
Order. The Minister has every right to speak, just as everyone else has had the right to speak. He does not have to take interventions.
Josh Simons
Those countries are placing their citizens’ consent at the centre of the system, and that is what we will build here in the UK.
That takes me to our third principle: it will be useful. I want to build a credential that our constituents want to have because having it makes their lives easier. In our economy and our society, technology has dramatically improved how we go about our daily life. I want Government to have the tools to move at the same pace. Whether it is applying for a new passport, accessing support for your children or proving who you are for a job, the state should be working as hard as possible to make these things easy for you, not making you do the hard work.
Our consultation will give the public the opportunity to have their say about how they would like to be able to use this credential, and what kind of future public services they would like to see. I want to build a system that helps people with the daily struggles they tell us about, not the system that Whitehall thinks is best.
There is also a lot of nonsense flying about in this debate, some myths that we have failed to rebut and some outright lies, so following a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), the second thing that I would like to do this evening is briefly debunk some of those myths.
First, this programme will involve a massive digital inclusion drive, rejecting the status quo in which millions are excluded both digitally and from having IDs, and investing resources and time to ensure that everyone can access the online world and digital public services through post offices and libraries—physical spaces in communities up and down the United Kingdom.
Josh Simons
Secondly, nobody will be stopped and asked for this new digital credential by the police. No card, no papers, no police.
Seamus Logan
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Is it in order for the Minister to indicate that contributions in this debate contained lies?
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
I have to say that I could not hear him say that, mainly because everyone else was making so much noise, like now. [Interruption.] I did not hear him say that.
Josh Simons
To clarify, I was not saying that contributions from other Members were lies. I was saying that there are lies out there in the country about this system. I would like to put that on the record.
We want a system that people want to use to make their lives easier, so that they no longer have to fill out forms multiple times or fight against agencies to transfer information.
Thirdly, as I have said, there is—and there will be—no centralised master database. The new system will be federated, meaning that data will stay where it already is, stored securely and separately, using only the minimum data necessary for ID verification and information sharing. Privacy-preserving questions and answers will be communicated across datasets, with strict firewalls between them enshrined in law, and only where people consent, so people will control what data is shared and where, as they do in other countries, with more control than they have now.
Fourthly, this system will be a public good. I want to build this system because it will benefit ordinary people, not because I am under the grip of some international elite or globalist diktat, as someone said earlier, which is quite the antisemitic trope to throw at a Jewish Minister. Yesterday, I was in the pub in Hindley, talking to a bloke who was trying to transfer basic information from Bolton council to Wigan council. I want that to be easier—to make the state work harder for him, not the other way around. That is why we are doing this.
Fifthly, there will be legislation establishing the credential, on which Parliament will vote. Parliament will control what this credential can be used for. We will establish a clear legal framework to prevent scope creep. Our goal is to make life easier for people and give people more security and control over their data than they have now. That is the test I will set.
Sixthly and finally, we are a proud liberal parliamentary democracy. We will never have a social credit system. We will not be tracking anyone’s life. Existing data protection laws will apply. Someone’s use of gambling sites will not be allowed to impact their entitlement to healthcare, nor will their speeding ticket affect who they can marry, as in China—a country with no elections, no Parliament and no rule of law. I wrote a book about making sure that democracy controls data, not the other way around. That is what I intend to do.
I will end by making a few promises to Members in the Chamber and to anyone in the public who is watching. The consultation, which will be launched in the new year, will be a major public undertaking. I am determined that we will engage in a different way. I will be travelling up and down the country to listen to people and hear how they want this credential to work and how they think it can make their lives easier.
As with all public goods, we cannot build this or roll it out alone. We want to work with communities, not do this to communities—working arm in arm with grassroots groups, digital inclusion organisations, local authorities, combined authorities, mayors, civil society, trade unions and businesses small and large across the United Kingdom. If Members, their constituents or their organisations are in any of those camps and would like to get involved, I encourage them to get in touch.
I understand the anxiety of many hon. Members in this Chamber and of many members of the public. In fact, I share some of those anxieties. I know that it is my job, and the job of the Government, to persuade. Liberal parliamentary democracies around the world have or are developing a national digital credential. Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, India—the list goes on. We will take a principled approach to building this new system. “Inclusive”, “secure” and “useful”: these principles are non-negotiable, and how we apply them will be led by our major public consultation next year.
My background is in technology and AI. Part of why I came into politics is that so often the way ordinary people encounter technologies is determined solely by private imperatives and not the public good. I do not want the future of our state and economy to be driven by a desire to addict our children to TikTok videos or pornography. I want it to be driven by a willingness to roll up our sleeves and do the hard graft of building infrastructure that will last for generations. That is what a new national digital credential is: a vital public good. I am proud that this Government will build it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Josh Simons Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
Mr Speaker—[Hon. Members: “Bring back Chris.”] Sorry to disappoint!
Over the past few months, I have begun to stand up a high-calibre team, working at pace to develop proposals for a free new digital credential for all UK citizens. This credential will be inclusive, secure and useful, learning from the best schemes around the world, and in the new year we will invite the public to have their say through a major public consultation. I will be travelling up and down the country, engaging in new ways as we develop this vital new public good for our country.
Mr Perkins
Britain has a proud track record of providing refuge for people fleeing persecution and war, but when tens of thousands of people are travelling across many safe countries to get here, it is clear that the criminal gangs’ sales pitch—that Britain is an easy place to find illegal work—is working. Can my hon. Friend tell me how digital ID will help us smash those criminal gangs and tackle the scourge of illegal work?
Josh Simons
Around the world and across Europe, countries use digital checks to evaluate whether someone has a legal right to work, but we do not. While we have brilliant digital verification tools, millions of checks use unreliable paper-based systems based on passports, birth certificates and other forms of evidence. This leaves too much room for fraud and, crucially, creates the perception that our country has weaker regimes for combating illegal working. Digitising checks will enable digital auditing of employers and more enforcement, bringing our illegal working regime in line with international peers and helping to deliver on one of our top priorities: reducing illegal migration.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In October, the Prime Minister called a Downing Street press conference rather than come to this House so that he could tell the nation that digital ID will not be mandatory; it is just that people will not be able to get a job without one. What else will they not be able to do without this apparently voluntary digital ID? If people will not be allowed to get a job without digital ID, can the Minister confirm that they will also be unable to receive any benefits without it?
Josh Simons
Building a new digital credential for UK systems is a major public good that we need to do carefully and take our time over. That is why, as I said, we will launch a major public consultation in the new year. That consultation will include a whole series of questions about the use cases for digital ID. I look forward to working with the shadow Minister and Members across this House on what the new digital credential should do for our citizens.
Mike Wood
The Minister’s answer makes it clear that this announcement was not a policy—it was a late party conference stunt. The Government obviously have not thought it through; it is clear that the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to push back against officials who have taken this awful idea off the shelf once again. The truth is that this is a £1.8 billion solution in search of a problem. The Minister talks about illegal migration, but there is already a legal responsibility to carry out these checks, and the Home Office offers a reliable service. Can he tell us how many people who have passed the Home Office right-to-work check are later found to not have the right to work?
Josh Simons
To be very clear about right-to-work checks: the current system is not fit for purpose. The United Kingdom is out of whack with international peers, and that creates the perception that we have a weak, illegal labour market regime. I am sure that the shadow Minister would not be against toughening up enforcement against illegal working. On the broader benefits of digital ID, in the future economy and state that we need to build, a free digital credential to which every citizen has access is a vital foundational public good for everything that we want our Government and our state to do in the 15 to 20 years ahead. I am proud that this Government are taking on the task of building it.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
In this country, at present millions of people cannot access public services online, and millions lack the IDs that they need to go about their daily lives. That is the status quo, and we will not accept it. That is why we are introducing a new national digital credential, free for everyone over 16, that will be inclusive, secure and useful. This will involve a massive digital inclusion drive to ensure that the system works for everyone, including those who do not have smartphones, are elderly or are less digitally confident, so that everyone will benefit from simpler, safer and more secure access to public services.
Bradley Thomas
I thank the Minister for his scripted answer. Digital ID is a terrible idea. If the Government are going to pursue it, what assurances can he give me, in a tiny bit of detail, about what the Government will do to ensure that people are not, through a lack of technological skills or financial exclusion, disadvantaged in accessing Government services?
Josh Simons
Let me be clear about the status quo that the Conservative party left behind: millions of people right now are digitally excluded from accessing public services, and millions of people lack the identity credentials that they need to access them. We will not accept that. We will make sure that post offices, libraries and a whole range of physical places in the communities where people live can be used to access this new digital credential, getting people online who were left behind by the last Government.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Cabinet Office
Josh Simons Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?
Josh Simons
As the hon. Member knows, we have changed that policy. When the changed policy comes into force at the end of October, it will apply to all future such situations.
[Official Report, 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 34.]
Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons):
Josh Simons
As the hon. Member knows, we have changed that policy. When the changed policy came into force on 13 October, it applied to all future such situations.
Ministerial Code
Josh Simons Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text 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
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister to make a statement on the ministerial code.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
Trust in Government and in politics is at an all-time low. For my constituents in Makerfield, Wigan and for others across the country, there is a crisis of faith and trust, and it is incumbent on all of us across this House to fix and restore it.
The Prime Minister has always been clear: serving this country is what we exist to do. The ethics of service must always guide all of us. We are committed to restoring trust in Government by ensuring that Ministers are held to the highest standards. That is why the Prime Minister strengthened the ministerial code when this Government came into office and why he has put the Nolan principles back on to the face of the code.
The ministerial code is a statement of values, not just a set of rules and guidance. Because public service is an immense privilege, this Government have implemented changes to raise the standards expected of Ministers, which includes giving new powers to the independent adviser, who can now initiate investigations without the risk of veto. The new code also closed loopholes on gifts and hospitality, mandating that information on Ministers’ gifts and hospitality are now published on a monthly basis, aligning more closely with the practices of Members across this House. We have also doubled the frequency of publication of information about Ministers’ interests from twice yearly to quarterly.
The Prime Minister further strengthened the ministerial code last month to implement reforms in relation to ministerial severance payments. Just last month, we set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, as promised in our manifesto, and reformed the business appointment rules system. The reforms introduced on ministerial severance payments ensure that payments are proportionate and fair. Before the Government introduced those reforms, we saw thousands of pounds of public money going to waste after being claimed again and again by Conservative Members in the previous Parliament. As Members will no doubt remember, it did not matter whether former Conservative Ministers were reappointed or, in the worst cases, forced to resign due to unacceptable behaviour.
I digress, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, it is not clear from the question which aspect of the ministerial code the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask about. For me, as for the Prime Minister, restoring public confidence and trust across the country in this House and in the Government is a defining mission. We will continue to seek to uphold standards in public life as we deliver and serve this great country.
Mr Speaker
Order. I thank the Minister who has been sent here, for coming to the House.
Once again I must remind Ministers of the requirement in the Government’s own ministerial code that major announcements should be made in the House in the first instance, not in the media. I understand that media announcements must be managed carefully as long as the expectations remain as they are in the ministerial code. That is the problem. It is the ministerial code that is being broken. I will continue to uphold the rights of this House and its Members to be treated with respect and to be first to hear any major announcements. Unfortunately, last week, when I also had to criticise Ministers, some of them decided to make comments about “having a bugle”. The point is, those Ministers ought to learn the facts of the ministerial code before they make comments in the media.
Alex Burghart
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I mean no offence to the Parliamentary Secretary, because I have been in his shoes, but when the Government send out a junior Minister to answer a very serious question, it is normally because they have something to hide. In this case, it is clear that the Government have a great deal to hide.
We have had a whole series of scandals since the summer break, and there have recently been a number of apparent breaches of the ministerial code, in addition to the one that you just raised, Mr Speaker, referring to paragraph 9.1 of the ministerial code about ensuring that this House hears about serious announcements first. We have seen pre-Budget briefing become entirely endemic—to the point where the Government have successfully spooked the markets in advance of the Chancellor’s speech. Goodness knows how they will react when they actually hear the Chancellor’s speech. Will the Minister at least condemn these briefings?
Even more serious is the case relating to paragraph 1.6.f of the ministerial code, which states that Ministers must ensure that no conflict of interest arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise. In the case of David Kogan and the Prime Minister, it is clear that a perceived conflict has arisen. Mr Kogan told the Culture, Media and Sport Committee on 7 May that he donated money to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign. That was before the Prime Minister appointed him as football regulator. Surely given the circumstances, full transparency is required. How much money did the Prime Minister receive from Mr Kogan?
We also had the absurd situation of the Prime Minister clearing the Culture Secretary of wrongdoing in this case, despite the fact that the Prime Minister should have recused himself. How did this happen? Over the weekend the Prime Minister said that Ministers know that if there is any issue they must refer themselves to the independent adviser. Has the Prime Minister referred himself, and if not, why not? Surely the House will see that this is pure hypocrisy otherwise.
Lastly, the Information Commissioner’s Office has today said that Ministers’ criminal convictions do not have to be disclosed to the public. This seems odd. Will the Minister reassure the House that this Government will reveal any criminal convictions that Ministers have, and is he able to confirm that no current Minister has a criminal conviction?
Josh Simons
I thank the hon. Member for his series of questions—connected, I think, by virtue of being in relation to the ministerial code. Things happen in politics. Things go wrong and people misbehave. But the difference between us and the Conservatives is that whenever something has come up, we have always followed processes and then acted. That is why the Prime Minister has strengthened the ministerial code and put public service at its heart, and strengthened the role of the independent adviser.
I notice that the hon. Member is not joined on the Front Bench by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who when faced with bullying claims and having broken the ministerial code was not sacked by the Prime Minister at the time, to whom the hon. Member was a Parliamentary Private Secretary. Instead, the Prime Minister at the time made his independent adviser on standards quit. I notice that the hon. Member is also not joined by the shadow Housing Secretary—the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—who called a north-east town not that far from me a word that I will not repeat. We will not take lectures from the Conservatives, who were roundly rejected by the public for having corroded trust in politics.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for saying clearly, and quite rightly, that we should not be taking lessons from the Conservative party. What more can he say about the reforms that will follow the establishment of the Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that former Ministers cannot trade on their knowledge through the revolving door and—with the scrapping of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, which had been derided as a toothless regulator—that there are far stronger safeguards on former Ministers taking up jobs in the private sector.
Josh Simons
I know that my hon. Friend has done a lot of work to look into and promote some of these important reforms. We made a manifesto promise to establish the Ethics and Integrity Commission—now a manifesto promise kept—and abolished ACOBA, which means that there will be financial penalties for ex-Ministers who break any rules on jobs. That is something that the former Prime Minister, to whom the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) was a Parliamentary Private Secretary, will surely be furious about.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
It seems that the urgent question has been in part fuelled by rampant pre-Budget briefing, but I would argue that it is a symptom of wider dysfunction in our Budget scrutiny process. Parliament is generally relegated to the sidelines and has no real power to challenge or amend the Budget, unlike in other democracies. Will the Minister look to review the UK Budget scrutiny process and see what we can learn from other countries? More broadly, will he look to enshrine the ministerial code into law? Will he also look at the role of the ethics adviser and ensure that it is truly independent, able to initiate its own investigations, come to its own conclusions and publish reports in its own time?
Josh Simons
To address that question directly, we have no plans to put the ministerial code on a statutory footing. It is a standard that sets out the Prime Minister’s expectations of his or her Ministers and it is right that it remains a political document directed by the Prime Minister. That has been the approach of many Governments.
Mr Speaker, I assure you that the Government and I take our obligations to the House very seriously. Before I was elected, I regularly read about what was going to be in the Budget in the papers. That is why, to answer the hon. Member’s question, it is right that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into ministerial statements and the ministerial code. The Government have already engaged with the inquiry and look forward to considering the Committee’s report in full and recommendations that it might have.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
My constituents have not forgotten following the rules during lockdown only to find out that the then Government, who set those rules, were having raucous, drunken parties in the corridors of power. I greatly welcome this Government’s strengthening the ministerial code and ensuring that our nation’s leaders are properly held to account. What is the Minister’s response to those who served in the previous Government having the brass neck to lecture this Government on standards in public life?
Josh Simons
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful point. It is somewhat ironic to be asked the urgent question by a former PPS to a Prime Minister who did so much to corrode trust in government. Under that Prime Minister, as opposed to this one, not one but two independent advisers resigned from their posts because they did not feel able to conduct their inquiries. I will not take lectures from the Conservative party on standards in public life.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
When did the Prime Minister realise that his preferred candidate to be the football regulator had donated to his leadership campaign? From whom did the Prime Minister seek advice when he learned that? What was the nature of the advice in response? In particular, what advice was the Prime Minister given regarding his continuing involvement in the process and his ability effectively to be judge and jury on the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport? Notwithstanding what the Minister has rightly said on the status of the ministerial code, which is authored in and policed by Downing Street, is it not time, given the problems that successive Governments have had on these issues, for serious consideration to be given to bringing the ministerial code under the orbit and auspices of this place and not No. 10?
Josh Simons
On the independent football regulator appointment, the hon. Member may be aware that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, setting out in detail his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements that were in place. The Prime Minister acknowledged that, in retrospect, it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment, or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret. I draw the House’s attention to the independent adviser’s conclusion that the disclosures made by the Prime Minister were an important demonstration of the Prime Minister’s
“commitment to transparency and to ensuring that mistakes are acknowledged and necessary steps taken to improve processes underpinning standards in public life.”
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is clear that trust in politicians from all parties is too low, and that is why I really welcome the setting up of the Ethics and Integrity Commission, but just for the avoidance of doubt, and to place it on the public record, can my hon. Friend confirm his view on the ethics of elected Members of any Parliament accepting bribes from Russia to ask questions?
Josh Simons
I was truly shocked to read about those revelations, and I would direct that question to Reform Members. When, during the last Government, I saw Conservatives Members trashing the reputation of the Government with the public, I was running a charity and having my first child, and I was furious about it. We can always do more as politicians and as a Government to restore trust in politics, and I welcome those who support the measures that this Government have taken and the measures that we will take in the future.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The independent adviser on ministerial standards is currently appointed by the Prime Minister, and it is a genuine question for the whole House whether that model is still fit for purpose. If the adviser were incapacitated or ill—it is to be hoped that will not happen to the current one—what would happen? Would we all wait for many months? Might a new model involve bringing together three ministerial advisers to the Prime Minister on ministerial standards, so that if one were incapacitated, the other two could step in, or if there were deadlock in reaching any agreement, there would be a casting vote? Clearly, having the Prime Minister appointing the individual who oversees the highest standards of integrity in public life is not longer fir for purpose.
Josh Simons
To my mind, one cannot get away from the character of the Prime Minister and his or her relationship to that appointment. What matters is that if the post of adviser is vacant, it will not be allowed to remain so. Unlike under the previous Government, it will be appointed and the person will be respected. That is exactly what this Prime Minister has done and will always do because, in the end, the Prime Minister believes that restoring standards in public life and restoring trust in this House and in democracy is the most important mission for this Government.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker, I thank you on behalf of the people of Harlow for allowing us Back Benchers to get a voice in Parliament on these issues. That is really important. Last month, the Government set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission, which I welcome. Could the Minister touch a little more on its scope and remit, to ensure that we avoid things like the partygate scandal in future?
Josh Simons
The Ethics and Integrity Commission was a vital part of our manifesto commitment to restoring trust in Government. Its scope has been set out clearly in the public domain and it will, over time, establish its reputation as a core driver of standards across the state, across Government and across the public sector. I look forward to the next series of publications that are coming later this year.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
One potential breach of the ministerial code is the briefing to the papers, but not to this House, that the Government will pay a major increase to pharmaceutical companies, seemingly at the behest of Donald Trump. Can the Minister confirm today that people who are worried about their local health services will not see a huge amount of money going to pharmaceutical companies at the behest of an outside player? Furthermore, will he ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to come to the House and explain that to us in full?
Josh Simons
I can assure the hon. Member, given the respect that the Government pay to this House and to their obligations in it, that if there is an important policy announcement to be made, it will be made to this House. If she writes to me with more details about the issue she raises, I will be happy to look into it and to talk to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I listened carefully to the Minister’s rather Kafkaesque reply, but could I ask him a technical question? Given that the Prime Minister oversees the code and appoints the independent adviser, when the independent adviser reports, who adjudicates whether to take further action, because it could be argued that the Prime Minister has a vested interest? Should another Minister take that decision—perhaps the Health Secretary, or does he have a vested interest, too?
Josh Simons
In this country, we have a political constitution—it is one of the great strengths of this country—and, ultimately, therefore, the Prime Minister answers to this House and this House answers to the people.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The former Environment Secretary and now Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), claimed at the Dispatch Box just a few months ago that water pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England. When it was pointed out that this is completely untrue, rather than apologising he doubled down repeatedly. Now the UK Statistics Authority has rebuked him, saying his claims “lacked enough transparency” and
“run the risk of misleading the public”.
The ministerial code is clear that he should correct the record. Does the Minister agree?
Josh Simons
I thank the hon. Member for drawing my attention to that issue. I do not know the details of it, but I am happy to look into it and to refer that to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I will try a fourth time. We know that the chair of the football regulator—the chap who is now in charge—donated to the Labour party, to both the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary, before he was appointed. At what point did the Prime Minister know personally that he was signing off a Labour donor to be chair of the football regulator?
Josh Simons
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), has set out already in extensive detail to the House the background to the appointment of David Kogan as the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. The Secretary of State also responded comprehensively to the recent report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. She acknowledged the findings of the report, accepted responsibility for an unknowing breach related to previous donations and explained that she will ensure that lessons are learned from this process. As I mentioned earlier, the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser, who responded with the conclusion that his disclosures are an “important demonstration” of the Prime Minister’s commitment to transparency.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Prime Minister agreed with the independent adviser on ministerial interests to recuse himself from the appointment of the football regulator in autumn 2024. Then, in April, as the report by the Commissioner for Public Appointments makes clear, he confirmed Mr Kogan’s appointment, breaking that undertaking. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from Mr Kogan, and when did he declare them?
Josh Simons
The Prime Minister acknowledged, as I have said before, that in retrospect it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content with the appointment. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Minister says that the Prime Minister is committed to transparency, so how much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister’s leadership campaign?
Josh Simons
As I say, the Prime Minister acknowledged that in retrospect it would have been better if he had not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content with it. That is why he has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
As my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) said, dealing with the Department of Health and Social Care over the past year or so has been an exercise in opacity. One thing that we have struggled with has been the 50% cuts to NHS integrated care boards. That has left hon. Members from across the House having to piece together the facts from the media. Will the Minister confirm to Members which NHS services will lose funding to pay for the £1 billion redundancies that the Government’s reorganisation has created?
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Prime Minister boasted to ITV at the weekend that he had strengthened the ministerial code and the powers of the ethics adviser, and that any Minister who makes a mistake must refer themselves to the adviser. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was referred for breaching the ministerial code, so why has the Prime Minister not referred himself? It this just more Labour double standards?
Josh Simons
The independent adviser on appointments is the person to whom the Prime Minister wrote about his own ministerial interests in order to be very clear about his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements in place. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Welsh Local Government Association has warned today that next year’s Welsh local government settlement still fails to meet structural pressures on Welsh councils. That is the stark backdrop to the upcoming Budget. Does the Minister recognise that the pre-Budget circus of leaks, briefings and chaotic U-turns in No. 10 has only made it harder for already struggling councils to plan ahead and deliver their essential services?
Josh Simons
I will not comment on speculation about the ongoing Budget process. The Chancellor will come to the House on Wednesday to deliver a Budget that will put money into the pockets of working people, tackle the cost of living crisis, protect the NHS and get debt down.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
The Minister said that the Government’s defining mission is to uphold the highest standards, but he is failing to answer simple questions about transparency. How much did the Prime Minister receive in donations from David Kogan, and did he adhere to the ministerial code in declaring those donations?
Josh Simons
Well, I will sound like a stuck record, but it is true that the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests to set out his involvement in the process, and he acknowledged in retrospect that it would have been better had he not been given a note on the appointment or confirmed that he was content. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
How can the Minister justify the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) receiving severance pay after she had to resign in disgrace?
Josh Simons
As the hon. Member knows, we have changed that policy. When the changed policy comes into force at the end of October, it will apply to all future such situations.[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 6WC.] (Correction)
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I will try to speak really slowly and ask not multiple questions but just the one. How much cash did David Kogan give the Prime Minister?
Josh Simons
I can speak slowly, too. The Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests to set out his involvement in the process and the recusal arrangements in place. He has expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
We just want the transparency that was promised to be delivered. The Minister has been given an impossible task as a junior Minister, but the House surely deserves to know how much cash was transferred to the Prime Minister by someone who has been given a £130,000-a-year part-time sinecure. [Interruption.] If the Minister will not answer today because he is being told not to do so by the chair of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley), will he undertake to come back and give the House an answer? We are entitled, on behalf of the whole country, to be given an honest answer by the Government, who are supposedly committed to transparency.
Josh Simons
As I said, after the Prime Minister wrote to the independent adviser on ministerial interests, he expressed his sincere regret for what was an unfortunate error.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his statement, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all you do to ensure that the ministerial code is followed by all Ministers—we appreciate it.
There has been much discussion this year regarding the ministerial code and how major policy announcements are made. What steps will the Minister take to give Members confidence that Ministers will adhere to the code—and to the requirements set out within it—and ensure the correct working order of this House?
Josh Simons
I thank the hon. Member for that question.
May I correct myself, Mr Speaker? I did not realise that you directed the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to carry out that investigation. It is an important inquiry into how ministerial statements and the ministerial code work in practice, which is clearly a problem. The Government are already engaged with the content of that inquiry and look forward to considering the Committee’s report and any recommendations in it.
Mr Speaker
That completes the urgent question. Was that your first one, Minister? Well done.
Oral Answers to Questions
Josh Simons Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
The Government believe that strong partnerships with the voluntary sector are central to delivering for people across the country. Following publication in July of the civil society covenant—our ambitious plan to partner with civil society—we are now working with partners to launch a new £100 million programme that will reform services at a local level to help prevent the most vulnerable from falling into crisis. It will involve partnering with the voluntary sector to support people who might otherwise fall through the cracks between services, such as prison leavers or those suffering domestic abuse.
Danny Beales
I welcome the covenant and the Minister’s response. Research from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations indicates that the charity and voluntary sector delivers £14 billion of public services annually. In my constituency, Hillingdon citizens advice bureau, Mencap and Mind provide vital advice and support, but in recent years their funding has been cut by the local authority. What steps is the Cabinet Office taking to reform public procurement and strengthen partnership working with the voluntary sector so that such organisations can play a greater role in future?
Josh Simons
I know that my hon. Friend has been a real leader in working with voluntary organisations in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and indeed across the country. As he knows, those organisations are often closest to the communities they serve. I am proud to say that, from April next year, all Government Departments must set a two-year target for direct spend with voluntary, community and social enterprises, and they must publish their results annually. That is a clear commitment to this Government’s belief that the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector is vital to rebuilding and renewing our country.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I welcome the Minister’s reassurance. The UK shared prosperity fund is about to come to an end, to be replaced by the local growth fund, and voluntary and community organisations in Northern Ireland have real concerns that they will be left in limbo between one ending and the other starting. I recognise what the Minister just said about the two-year funding pot, but what reassurances can he give those organisations in Northern Ireland that their funding will carry over? They support some of the most vulnerable people in our community.
Josh Simons
My understanding is that the new funding will start in the new financial year, but I will look into the specific issue the hon. Gentleman raised in relation to Northern Ireland, and I will write to him to reassure him on that.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
In our public services, almost everywhere we look, outdated digital and data systems trap us in the past. We are laser focused on reforming the state. Central to that is a free, universal digital ID that will bring the state to all citizens and improve access to public services. A national digital identity system is a public good that is long overdue and this Government will deliver it.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just come to the Dispatch Box and said that we have done a new trade deal with the European Union, which I think is news to both the Prime Minister and Brussels. The only thing this Government have done so far in terms of EU relations is to sell out our fishing industry for the next 12 years. With that in mind, will the Minister actually stand up for British interests in future negotiations with Brussels?
Public Sector Fraud Authority
Josh Simons Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Josh Simons)
Fraud remains one of the biggest challenges facing the public sector, with estimated losses for fraud and error measured in the billions annually. The damage extends beyond just financial consequences: fraud erodes the public’s trust in our public services and confidence in the Government’s ability to protect taxpayers’ money. Working people across the country expect their taxes to fund the vital public services that they and their families rely upon. When that money instead ends up in the pockets of fraudsters, it undermines the principle that everyone should pay their fair share.
Fraud against the public sector occurs in many forms and includes procurement fraud, benefit fraud, fraud in the construction industry and the fraud experienced by the Government throughout the covid-19 pandemic. Tackling fraud against the public purse is the responsibility of the Public Sector Fraud Authority, whereas the Home Office is responsible for fraud against individuals and businesses. That is why I wish to inform the House about the record-breaking success of the Public Sector Fraud Authority in protecting taxpayers’ money. In the 12 months to April 2025, it has prevented £480 million from falling into the hands of fraudsters. This means the Government have millions more to invest in our plan for change.
These successes have been driven by artificial intelligence and advanced data-matching. The recently announced fraud risk assessment accelerator is part of this approach. The tool scans new policy proposals for potential fraud weaknesses and early tests show it could reduce the time to identify fraud risks by 80%, while preserving essential human oversight. The UK intends to license this technology internationally.
The Covid Counter-Fraud Commissioner has been tasked with recovering taxpayers’ money from fraudsters. Over a third of the money saved by the Public Sector Fraud Authority—£186 million—comes from tackling fraud committed during the covid-19 pandemic. The National Fraud Initiative sits in the Public Sector Fraud Authority and is also responsible for a significant amount of these savings. It has prevented over £68 million in wrongful pension payments and saved £36 million for local councils across the country.
Wider investment in counter-fraud includes the introduction of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, and investment in significant measures that will deliver an estimated £9.6 billion in savings by 2030. This record-breaking year demonstrates that with the right technology, determination and leadership, we can go further, and do more, to protect taxpayers’ money while delivering the Government’s plan for change that our country needs.
[HCWS969]
Oral Answers to Questions
Josh Simons Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We are passing a borders Bill with extensive powers to smash the gangs. These are anti-terrorist-like powers that give powers to the police to intercept where they think the suspects are committing people smuggling, which is a vile trade, and we must take back control of our borders after the last Government lost control. But what did the hon. Gentleman and his party do? Did they support those extra measures to actually smash the gangs? No. They went into the Lobby to vote against them with the Conservatives in their new coalition. And let us be clear what a vote for his party means. It means a vote to charge for the NHS, a pro-Putin foreign policy and a vote against workers’ rights. And now we hear that he has recruited Liz Truss as his new top adviser, just as he was cheering on the mini-Budget.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Ukraine
Josh Simons Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that characterisation. It is very important that we provide the funds we need for our defence spend, but what we have got from SNP Members is what we had at the Budget: yes, they want the biggest provision of money and finance for the Scottish Government that has ever happened under devolution, but no, they do not want to say how they would pay for that; yes, they want an increase in defence funding, but no, they do not want to say how they would pay for it. That is unserious.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
In recent months, the Conservatives, who apparently lack the stamina that the Prime Minister displayed over the weekend, have confidently and repeatedly pronounced to the Prime Minister what the President of the United States will and will not do, all of which has turned out to be bluff and bluster. Does the Prime Minister agree that the UK Government have the best intelligence to support the UK national interest, and that the UK national interest would be better served with a bit less bluff and bluster, and a bit more optimism about what this great country can do to lead the way to make our world and our people more secure?
The Prime Minister
I agree with that. I am proud of the fact that, as a country, over many decades and throughout our history, we have always stepped up when it has been necessary to step up. It is now time to do so again. We will do so and I am really pleased that, by and large, we have full support from across the House at a time when we need to step up.
Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements
Josh Simons Excerpts(1 year, 1 month 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
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I was not aware that financial mismanagement by the Conservative party was a matter for the Modernisation Committee, but it should certainly be referred to something.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
Like others, I am surprised to hear that Conservative Members recently rediscovered their moral compass—the one that they lost perhaps when the former Prime Minister sent out the “bring your own bottle” invite to Downing Street, when he spent taxpayers’ money jetting his girlfriend around the world, or when they unlawfully suspended this place. Perhaps the Minister agrees that there might be another motivation. Does the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) want to keep her job next week?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Of course, we wish the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) well for the reshuffle next week. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a very persuasive point. The Conservatives will talk about anything apart from their record.
Reporting Ministerial Gifts and Hospitality
Josh Simons Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ellie Reeves
No Member sets out to deceive the House, and donations have been made in the right way. There is no suggestion that donations have not been declared properly or transparently. We are seeking to align the rules for Ministers with the rules for MPs, but I do not think there has been any suggestion that declarations have not been properly made.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
If the newspapers are to be believed, several Members on the sparsely populated Conservative Benches are considering standing down if the Government’s reforms to clamp down on second jobs are delivered. Will the Minister confirm her commitment to delivering these reforms to restore standards in public life, despite the sad possible loss of Conservative Members?
Ellie Reeves
Of course the Modernisation Committee will look incredibly closely at the issue of second jobs.