Digital ID
Sarah Bool Excerpts(2 days, 4 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
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward.
“Why are they needed when we already have secure ways to identify ourselves?”
“This is being pushed under the façade of security.”
“The cost to the taxpayer would be prohibitive.”
“This system would be incredibly vulnerable to hacking.”
Those direct quotes from my constituents get to the heart of the point: unnecessary; overreach; vulnerable; and expensive. Nearly 5,000 people in South Northamptonshire signed the petition to oppose the Government’s plans for digital IDs. This Government really are the living embodiment of the famous phrase:
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.”
First, they sold the measure as a means of tackling illegal migration, but that principle has barely been mentioned in recent weeks. Now digital IDs will become the requirement for right to work checks in the UK, which may require children as young as 13 to be involved. Talk about the creeping hand of the state!
Sarah Bool
If time permitted, I would happily take an intervention from any Government Member on where it was in the Labour manifesto that such a measure would be included, or if any member of the Government could actually tell us how much the scheme would cost. But I will save them the trouble, because it was not and they do not know.
The OBR has said that there has been no specific funding identified for the scheme, and it is forecast to cost £1.8 billion over the next three years. We have a Government drowning in Budget leaks and accidentally releasing prisoners left, right and centre, so how can they be trusted to create a system of ID? Any such system requires absolute buy-in from all our constituents, and we can see that the very reason we are having this debate today is that the Government have not secured that buy-in. This is a really dangerous gimmick from the Government. The devil is in the detail, and without that detail the devil is at play and the British public will pay.
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”.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Bool Excerpts(6 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Darren Jones
We will always negotiate in Britain’s interest and ensure value for money for the taxpayer and benefit for the UK economy. I can confirm that not only has the Paymaster General agreed to meet with the Chair of the EFRA Committee, but the relevant Minister from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be appearing to give evidence in the normal way.
Dawn Sturgess Inquiry
Sarah Bool Excerpts(6 days, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman knows the very high regard in which I hold him. He has asked me some important questions, but they are not necessarily questions that it would be in the interests of our national security for me to get into in any great detail. I can say that I have formed a view about the motive that underpinned this particular attack, but I am not going to get into it today. The point he made about the detail of the report was also raised by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster). I can give him an assurance that we will go very carefully through the all the detail of the report, and I will consider what he has said today. The conclusion that I draw, which I think is the conclusion that Lord Hughes has drawn, is that responsibility for the attack lies with the Russian state. It is the Government’s responsibility to do everything we can to guard against the threat posed, mindful of the nature of that threat.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
To the extent that he is able, can the Minister please explain what steps he is taking to secure UK commercial ports, given recent reports of individuals with links to the Russian military entering via those routes?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady raises an entirely reasonable point. She will understand that I will not want to get too much into the detail of that. We look at these matters carefully, and we work across Government and with law enforcement and the intelligence agencies on them. Again, one reason why I sit across two Departments is to ensure that our response is co-ordinated as effectively as possible. She is right to raise this issue; we are doing everything we can to counter it.
Cabinet Office
Sarah Bool Excerpts(2 weeks 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):
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Bool Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a proud Welsh MP I am honoured to be here for my first Welsh questions.
We fully recognise the role of farmers and the agricultural community in Wales. That is why one of the first things that I did as Minister was meet members of the Farmers’ Union of Wales at the farm of one of its members just two weeks ago. I will be meeting with the National Farmers’ Union later today to discuss important matters for its members, including inheritance tax. This Government have also made sure to protect the farm budget for Wales, ensuring that the full £337 million has been allocated to the Welsh Government.
Sarah Bool
I welcome the Minister to her place. The impact of the changes to IHT goes far beyond just farmers. Last month, a Pembrokeshire farm gathered 57 businesses from vets, machinery dealerships, and milk processors, to electricians and fencing companies, employing almost 11,000 people. Almost half of those were totally reliant on incomes from local farms. Have the Government fully considered the ripple effect of that policy on farms in Wales and across the UK, including in my constituency?
Anna McMorrin
This Government want to strike a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing our public finances on which our communities, including those important agricultural communities, rely so heavily. The vast majority of farmers will not be affected by this change, and they will be able to pass the family farm down to their children. Welsh Conservatives voted to block the support reaching Welsh farms in March, which shows that the Conservative party just does not care for farmers and the agricultural community.
Oral Answers to Questions
Sarah Bool Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do recall that visit—it was extremely good and very welcoming. Our support for Ukraine remains unwavering. The attack last night in Poland shows that Putin’s belief is that he can somehow act with impunity. That is why we are working so hard with the coalition of the willing to ensure that there are security guarantees as we go forward. We have made real progress in recent weeks; we must continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Today is the 10th annual Back British Farming Day. Given that the Prime Minister has been so keen on resets in recent weeks, will he reset his relationship with our farmers and reverse the family farm tax?
The Prime Minister
Let me tell the House what we are doing. We are working with the former President of the National Farmers Union, Baroness Minette Batters, to review farm profitability—that is the key issue. We are delivering the 25-year farming road map, and we have struck a deal with the EU, which is of great benefit to farmers, and which of course the Conservatives say they will reverse. That is on top of the £5 billion that we put into farming in our last Budget.
Prime Minister
Sarah Bool Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool
It is National Diabetes Week, and as someone living with type 1, as we both are, Mr Speaker, I am more than aware of the serious complications of diabetic ketoacidosis—DKA—which can prove fatal if not caught early enough. A quarter of children are diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when in DKA, and that could be avoided with early diagnosis. Will the Prime Minister commit to rolling out a national universal screening programme, as seen in Italy, for type 1?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for championing this really important issue. My late mother had diabetes, so I know at first hand just what a struggle it can be and how important this is. Type 1 diabetes is not preventable, as she knows, but the sooner we can reach people, the sooner we can care for them. We have a screening programme in the UK available to families across the country, and over 20,000 children have already taken part. It is really important that we continue to deliver that, but I thank her for continuing to champion this and to raise her voice on this very important issue.
[Official Report, 11 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 974.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):
UK-EU Summit
Sarah Bool Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In mid-March, in my role as a vice chair of the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, I formed part of the delegation that headed out to Brussels for the assembly meeting ahead of the 19 May summit meeting. While it was a convivial affair, I came away with great concerns about the tone of the conversations and contributions made by Labour Members. While the Prime Minister is on the record as saying, as part of his red lines, that there would be no return to freedom of movement and no rejoining of the customs union or the single market, the assembly would not allow me to include such a statement in the committee’s recommendations that were published. If, as was said, it was implicit, surely it is not controversial to include it as a statement of fact. The tone of the conversations and debates indicated a different direction. The red lines seemed to be drawn in disappearing ink.
It very much felt that the leadership and the Members were singing from different hymn sheets, or perhaps the Members belie the Government’s true intentions. If that is the case, the Government should be much clearer with the British public and those in this House about what they are trying to achieve. Going into the summit, the conspiracy of silence cannot continue.
Brexit at its heart was about restoring powers to Britain, allowing us sovereignty. Despite the result of the referendum, the goal of Labour Members seems to be to get ever closer to the EU again. Talk of youth opportunities seems innocuous, but Labour Members must explain their terms and be realistic about what that would mean for opening up free movement of people between the European Union and the UK via the back door.
We must also be alert to the trade-offs in this debate. I fear that, to secure a veterinary agreement, we will concede on dynamic alignment. The Minister has another opportunity to intervene, should he so wish. Silence once again. I also fear that our fisheries, which were not mentioned once in the Labour manifesto, may be the next sacrificial lamb.
The PPA recommendation, which the Conservatives dissented to on the whole, states that the assembly would provide
“a signal at or before the Summit that a fair deal on fisheries will be reached, building on current arrangements”,
but what does “a fair deal” mean to this Government? If, as a condition for getting an SPS agreement, the French insist on a multi-year agreement that naturally shifts the favour further towards their industry and our Government agree, they will have harmed another community. First, they attack our farmers; now they attack our fishermen.
At the PPA meeting, members said that everyone should be clear that this Labour Government are clear in their ambition to reset the relationship with the EU, but I offer a word of warning: we must not betray our fishermen and risk our food security in doing so.