Digital ID

Debate between Sojan Joseph and Tom Gordon

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

About 5,000 people from my constituency of Ashford have signed this petition. I recognise the benefits that the national digital identity scheme could bring; they have been debated in the media and elsewhere. However, if the Government are to go ahead with the scheme, Ministers must ensure that it is inclusive, secure and useful for everyone. Additionally, if the scheme is to be successful, Ministers will have to respond to the legitimate concerns raised by our constituents.

My constituents have expressed concern that a national digital ID scheme could become a tool for surveillance or a mechanism of state control. In recent years, we have seen an increase in distrust of the Government as an institution. It is important that any digital ID scheme does not further erode trust. Can the Minister reassure the House that if the Government go ahead with digital ID, strict safeguards will be in place? Would my hon. Friend also say what action the Government will take to ensure that digital ID cannot be used to infringe on individual freedoms or civil liberties?

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sojan Joseph]

I need to carry on; I am sorry.

Constituents have also raised concerns about the security of a national ID scheme. This year, we have seen the impact that cyber-security breaches have had on some well-known brands. My constituents have expressed worry that a similar breach of a national ID database could expose sensitive personal information on a massive scale. Can the Minister reassure me that there will be robust encryption and continuous security monitoring? What actions will be taken to ensure the highest data security standards? Another related concern is the ownership of data. Will the Minister confirm that any scheme will be designed with clear rules and with transparency, so that personal information can never be exploited for commercial or political purposes?

Concerns have been expressed to me that adopting digital ID will lead to digital exclusion. Not everyone has access to a smartphone or reliable internet, especially in some rural parts of my constituency. If digital ID becomes the only option for accessing Government services in the future, what proactive action will be taken to prevent vulnerable groups from becoming marginalised? The Government have an opportunity in this debate to respond to these and other legitimate concerns that our constituents have raised regarding digital ID. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that have been made. I ask him to reassure our constituents that, if digital ID is to go ahead, their concerns will be listened to and addressed.

Suicide: Reducing the Stigma

Debate between Sojan Joseph and Tom Gordon

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sojan Joseph]

As someone who worked in mental health services for 22 years, I absolutely agree. We need access to mental health services, and not just for young people; everyone is important. Getting help early is key to preventing suicide among young people.

The situation is worse among men working in the farming industry. The likelihood that a male farm worker will die by suicide is three times higher than the national average for men. Earlier this year, a Farm Safety Foundation report revealed that over 90% of farmers said that poor mental health is the biggest hidden problem in the industry.

What is contributing to that poor mental health and the increased risk of suicide among those working in the agricultural sector? It is driven by a combination of isolation—many work alone in remote areas—and financial pressure from market volatility, debt and rising costs. Long working hours, often exceeding 60 hours per week, lead to exhaustion and poor mental health. There is also a strong stigma around seeking help, which means that many farmers suffer in silence.

The connection between suicide and mental illness is well documented, but reducing the stigma of suicide should not be viewed solely as a mental health issue. Many individuals who die by suicide have never engaged with mental health services or displayed obvious symptoms, and not all have a diagnosed condition. People at risk often face a complex mix of personal, relational, community and societal factors. As the suicide prevention strategy highlights, common risk factors include physical illness, financial hardship, gambling, substance misuse, social isolation, loneliness and domestic abuse. Although mental health support is important, the strategy stresses that reducing stigma extends far beyond that. Focusing only on mental health risks overlooking those in acute distress who do not meet the diagnostic criteria. It also places the burden on mental health services, when in reality reducing the stigma of suicide requires a collective effort from local authorities, employers, schools, the justice system and society at large.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

One of my constituents, Steve, founded the Jordan Legacy after he lost his son to suicide. Its work involves outreach to schools, universities, employers and community groups. I echo the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Does he, like me, think that there should be more support for the fantastic work of such charities and organisations?

[Sojan Joseph]

I absolutely agree. Charities do a brilliant job. Youth groups in our communities used to be very good places for young people to go, and I would love to see them coming back into our communities.

Effective prevention means prioritising early intervention in schools, universities, workplaces and community settings, which are also important. Every suicide is a tragic event that has a devastating impact on the family and loved ones, and this impact can be felt across the community. That is why we must break the silence and dismantle the stigma around suicide. Every conversation matters. When people feel safe to speak, they are far more likely to seek help, and that can make all the difference.

Adoption Breakdown

Debate between Sojan Joseph and Tom Gordon

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon]

While the early stages of adoption may involve training and some resources, the ongoing assistance tends to dwindle after a child is placed. Many adoptive parents, especially those caring for children with complex needs, report feeling isolated and overwhelmed, as local authorities frequently fail to offer consistent, tailored support.

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I have been approached by my constituents about their breakdowns. As we do not have any data, we do not know how many parents are struggling in our constituencies. Does the hon. Member agree that if we do not identify adopters and support them, we will not have any adopters in the future?

[Tom Gordon]

That is one of the key points about adoption disruption and breakdown, and the hon. Gentleman makes it very eloquently. There is concern that if we do not help people who are adopting now, we will not have a next generation of people who will adopt.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Sojan Joseph and Tom Gordon

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)]

I want to talk about amendment (b). The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said that all members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists are already members of the General Medical Council. But not everyone on the General Medical Council is doing the same job. Psychiatrists are experts whose day-to-day job is to manage people’s mental state, and deal with people with suicidal thoughts and depression. They are the experts.

I do not think that all members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists are for or against the Bill, so it would be reasonable to listen to those people who are experts in assessing people’s mental state and whether they are having suicidal thoughts—that is part of their job. I strongly support that part of the provision.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I want to touch on a few bits of language that have been used so far that just worry me slightly. When we talk about the value that experts can add to this process, it is not necessarily helpful for someone to try to say that some experts would be better than others in that regard. The phrase “best person” was used in one particular instance and there were comments about whether or not experts would add balance.

The list that has been collated has taken the lead sponsoring Member of the Bill a number of weeks and months to produce. Everyone had the opportunity to feed into that process over a period of time. And on balance, it is a list that captures a wide spread of views and different organisations.

During this sitting a number of points of order have been made to correct the record. In the spirit of the Second Reading debate on the Bill in the House of Commons, we need to try to make sure that we are mindful of any comment we make, so that we do not seem to try to say things that are not necessarily accurate.

The point that was made earlier about eight witnesses coming from foreign jurisdictions is important. My understanding of this whole process is that it is not about our trying to decide whether the Bill should go ahead or not; it is about trying to understand what would be workable. So, hearing from people in places that have already implemented assisted dying is far more useful than hearing from people in countries that have not done so. We have also heard from Members about which of those countries are more comparable to us.

It does not necessarily help us if someone takes us round in circles and talks about the point rather than trying to get on with the work. I fear that that is where we are at with these amendments. If we are now trying to rejig who will give evidence and at what time, that stops us from doing the important job of scrutinising the legislation and hearing from the expert witnesses that we want to call.

These amendments are not minor changes. Regarding the list that has already been collated, I know that it has taken a lot of time to establish when the witnesses on it are free and available to give evidence. I am not sure that those witnesses referred to in the amendment have the same level of availability in their diaries. So, on balance, we should proceed as the lead Member has been putting it, and putting it so well.