Josh Simons MP: speeches

A new digital identity system is a vital part of the infrastructure that the UK needs to transform public services and accelerate digital government. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said this week, our goal is simple: to make government work better for people by joining up public services so that people do not have to fight to get the support that they need. It will be inclusive, secure and useful, and will give people more control over their data and public services than they have now.

We are building a digital ID system because it is the infrastructure that we need for the foundation of the British state and better public services in years to come. I am proud that we as a Government are investing the time and resources to improve government and make it work better for people so that it is easier to access public services. We are doing the hard work that Government should do rather than expecting people to do it for themselves. I hope that hon. Members from Opposition parties will come to see the force of that argument for their constituents.

It has not been. Digitising right-to-work checks is a vital part of how we will toughen up our illegal labour market enforcement regime. It will mean that this Government are cracking down on illegal working, reducing the pull factors and delivering on one of our key commitments, which is to crack down on illegal migration.

As with so many things, the previous Government gave up, accepted fraud as inevitable, and stopped tackling it properly. By contrast, this Government are delivering the most significant package of measures to tackle fraud and error in recent history. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that those measures will deliver £14.6 billion of savings by 2030.

I can confirm three things in response to the different elements of the hon. Lady’s question. First, she mentions consent. The system itself will be based on consent; it will ask people for their consent in how their data is shared and used, and she will see more about that in the coming weeks. Secondly, there will be strong safeguards on how data is used in the future implementation of the scheme in the legislation that we will bring forward. Thirdly, she may know that I believe strongly in this country’s sovereignty. British sovereignty will be at the heart of the scheme, and British tech companies will be supported by it, so foreign companies will not be subject to procurement in the usual way.

I thank my fellow Greater Manchester MP for that question. My constituents also want easier access to public services, and they are fed up with having to fight a system that should be working harder for them. That is what this scheme is about—making Government work better for ordinary people. I can confirm that the roll-out of the digital ID will involve one of the largest digital inclusion drives ever. We will not accept the status quo, in which millions of people in this country are digitally excluded and ID excluded. We will ensure that we go to physical spaces, such as public libraries and post offices, so that everyone can access the benefits of this scheme, if they want to.

I, for one, want to hear from people before key digital products are designed. Good product design is based on what is useful for people, which is why we will have a major consultation in coming weeks, in which we will get out across the country, engage with people, and get them engaging with digital government. That way, we can learn exactly how to build this system in a way that ensures that it is trusted, useful and secure.

Digital ID cards will be rolled out by the end of this Parliament, and will be free to everyone who wants one. The Prime Minister was clear that this is a basis for transforming public services, joining up government and making government work better. That is exactly what we are about—building public services that ordinary working people benefit from—and that is what the programme will help us to do.

Members will see more details about the costings in a very few weeks in the consultation. To be very clear: no, this Government do not recognise the figures in the OBR’s estimate, because the crucial design choices about how to make the scheme work for ordinary people will be made after the consultation and after we have talked to the public.

Of course.

Following my appointment as a joint Minister across the Cabinet Office and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, I would like to respond to Members’ concerns about the digital ID policy. The programme has two core objectives. The first is to transform the state and make it work better for ordinary working people. Too often, accessing public services is harder than it should be. Digital ID will change that, providing the foundation of how we transform public services for everyone. The new digital ID will be a modern, secure and trusted way for people to prove who they are and to access services across both the public and private sectors. It will be inclusive. We will issue the new digital ID to everyone who wants one and has the right to be in the UK, including the around 10% of UK citizens without traditional forms of ID. That will be transformational for how they access services, and it will unlock Government services that work better for people, saving people time, hassle and money. It will reduce fraud, enable new possibilities for integrated services and make interacting with Government easier for everyone. That is why, by the end of this Parliament, we will design and roll out a digital credential to every eligible UK citizen who wants one—one that is easy to use and unlocks improved public services. Secondly, we are committed to reducing illegal migration and will be mandating that right-to-work checks are conducted digitally. Currently, employers can carry out checks of over a dozen different forms of ID. For British and Irish citizens, many of those checks are currently paper based. That is confusing, vulnerable to fraud and does not always create a clear record of when and where checks have been carried out. As the Prime Minister clearly said yesterday, there will be checks, they will be digital and they will be mandatory. Those seeking to work illegally in the United Kingdom will no longer be able to provide fraudulent papers. Information obtained from digital right-to-work checks will be available to help crack down on unscrupulous employers who are undercutting British workers and hiring people without the legal right to work. This is about fairness and ensuring that only those with a genuine right to work in the United Kingdom are able to work in the United Kingdom. We will be consulting imminently, in a range of ways, on how we design this scheme. We want to hear from people, businesses and stakeholder groups across the United Kingdom about what approach works for them. A new digital ID will put power back in people’s hands, helping to make services more personal, joined up and effective, and ensuring that everyone can access the support that they need, when they need it. It will be—

The digital ID scheme and toughening up illegal labour market enforcement are part of a suite of measures that this Government are delivering to crack down on illegal migration. Other measures include, for example, extending right-to-work checks to cover businesses hiring in the gig economy and zero-hours workers in construction, food delivery, beauty salons and so on. This is all about reducing incentives for illegal migration, and it will change irregular migrants’ perceptions of the toughness of the UK labour market enforcement regime, which the hon. Member’s party failed to do for 14 years.

We absolutely will outline those benefits. I would just underscore that countries all over the world have introduced a digital ID scheme to better join up public services. In India, that has saved an estimated $10 billion every single year; those are savings that this country deserves and wants, and that is what we will deliver.

I wholeheartedly agree. Toughening up our illegal labour market enforcement regime, and using digital right-to-work checks to do that, is a vital part of delivering this Government’s central priority to crack down on illegal migration.

Let me restate for the hon. Gentleman the argument that connects digital ID to small boat crossings. We are using digital right-to-work checks, which will enable an audit of where those checks have happened, so that we can toughen up our enforcement against illegal working. That will bring this country in line with international peers, such as France and Germany, and reduce the pull factors. The use cases for this system, and how it will join up Government, are matters that will be subject to the consultation, so I invite him to make a submission to the consultation and tell us where exactly it can be useful. Let me give one example. When somebody has a baby, they have to apply for childcare repeatedly, and have to remind the Government of what they are doing. The Government already know that information, so people should not have to do that. Tired working parents should not have to fight the Government to get things that they are entitled to, and we will ensure that they do not have to.

I am glad the hon. Member is smiling about the potential new colleague she may obtain in the coming days. We on the Labour Benches have a proud history of building public goods that help us to serve people better: the NHS, social housing, the welfare state. This piece of digital infrastructure will serve working people across the country for decades to come and make government work better for them. I am proud that we are building digital public goods.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a powerful advocate on this issue. The purposes of the scheme are twofold. First, digitising right-to-work checks will help us toughen up illegal labour market enforcement, making it easier for businesses to check people’s right to work and for individuals to prove their right to work. Secondly, this is about the future of digital government; it is about making our Government work better for ordinary people, and the digital ID scheme is a foundational piece of infrastructure that will help us do that in the decades ahead. The Labour party has a long history of building public goods and public infrastructure, and I am proud that we are doing that for the future.

I thank my hon. Friend for her constructive question. I will cover each of those three points. First, the digital ID will be free for everyone who wants one. Secondly, access to public services will not be conditional on having one. The Prime Minister has been clear on that, and I can underscore that commitment. Thirdly, it will be rolled out with one of the largest digital inclusion programmes that the UK Government have ever undertaken.

I commend my hon. Friend for the public meeting she held—my constituents reported back that it was a robust but constructive conversation, which, as she knows, conversations always are in Wigan—and I can set out the wider benefits. When someone has a baby, they should be able to access the childcare they need without having to tell the Government repeatedly the same information that we already know about them. When we tell our constituents that that does not already happen, they think it probably should already happen. We will make sure that it does happen so that people are saved time, money and hassle.

I am delighted that the hon. Member is so pleased with gov.uk. I am sure that he will be equally delighted when we roll out the simple, easy-to-use and effective digital ID, which will help him to access a whole range of public services through gov.uk that he cannot currently access. In the coming weeks, we will show him more about how we might do that, and I am sure that he will be thrilled.

Digitising right-to-work checks means two things. First, it will be easier for businesses to check people’s right to work and for citizens to prove their right to work, adding simplicity to the system and taking away the paper-based documents that can often open the way for fraud. Secondly, and crucially, it will allow a record of businesses that have conducted checks. That is the basis of tougher enforcement, which is the ultimate goal: tougher enforcement against those who hire people illegally, which undermines British workers and produces a pull factor that keeps illegal migration coming. That is what we are committed to solving, and why digitising right-to-work checks matters.

We announced the intention to roll out digital ID cards, and I have clarified today that those will be free for anyone who wants one. We will consult on how to make that maximally useful for every British person who wants a Government who work better for them. That is what we will do.

I can assure my hon. Friend that the consultation will involve going right across the country to the places where people live, to listen, to engage and to build a consensus on the scheme’s design. I should also underscore that the status quo is that we are not making enough effort to reach people who are digitally excluded and ID-excluded. This programme will involve one of the biggest digital inclusion drives in the history of the Government, to reach those people so that they can access services. I, for one, am proud of that.

I too believe in freedom. Any good digital system must be trusted; if it is not trusted, it does not work. That point will be at the heart of the consultation that we will publish in a few weeks. The system that we build will give citizens more control and information about how their data is used and who accesses it. It will be decentralised, with strong firewalls between data sets, so that there is no central data storage, beyond data that the Government already hold. It will hold the minimum possible data needed to serve ordinary people better.

I think I understood the hon. Member’s question, so let me have a crack at answering it. I will address the second part of her question first. The constituents who email her, who will find this scheme useful, are asking for more joined-up public services. They are asking not to have to fight the Government to get things that they are entitled to, which is what this scheme will deliver. On the first part of her question, there is a distinction between digitising the right-to-work checks so that we can toughen up illegal labour market enforcement, which is what the Prime Minister underscored yesterday, and the digital ID, which will be free and voluntary for anyone who wants it.

As I said to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), there will be strong safeguards in the legislation about how the scheme is used over time, and the hon. Member will be able to scrutinise them. He should feed in his thoughts about how that legislation should be structured to the consultation, which will open in a few weeks’ time.

The digital ID database will be based on the principle of data minimisation. The minimum possible data that the Government already have will be stored about every individual citizen, so that we can do what we need to do, which is join up public services better.

The digital ID scheme will be funded within existing settlements and conversations about that are ongoing.

I think the hon. Gentleman was lost for a moment there as he was contemplating the implosion of his shadow Cabinet once again, which I can wholly understand. Details of how the scheme will be used will come after the consultation. I invite him to tell us, in the consultation, how he thinks it could be useful for him to access childcare if he so needs and chooses.

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. To confirm, the digital ID will be free and available to every eligible UK citizen who wants one. The consultation will invite people all over the country to tell us how it could be useful in dealing with the daily struggles that they face. We have a range of use cases available to us. In the decades ahead, every time there is an information boundary problem, every time public services are not properly joined up, and every time citizens of this country are frustrated by the need to chase Government Departments to get them to share information properly, a digital credential that is free for everyone will help to solve that problem.

Talking and listening to people is what I believe in. That is why we will be launching a major public consultation and will be out across the country talking to people about their frustrations with the public services that the Conservative party left to rot for 14 years. We will build the public goods and the digital infrastructure we need to fix them.

As I have mentioned before to the hon. Gentleman and in the House, the design and delivery of the scheme will be subject to the consultation that we will launch in a few weeks. Choices will be made about the scheme in that consultation. After those choices are made, we will have much more detailed costings available to the House. The crucial thing is this: nations all over the world that have already developed digital ID programmes have realised massive, significant and quantified savings. Let me give an example: India’s digital ID programme has saved an estimated $10 billion per year by ensuring that public resources are accurately targeted at those who are eligible to receive them. That is what this Government will be doing, too.

There was quite a lot in the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will do my level best to answer it. Digital right-to-work checks will make it easier for those who have a digital ID to prove their right to work. Crucially, it will make it easier for employers to check people’s right to work. That will benefit our economy. When a digital right-to-work check is done, it creates a record. That is a key piece of information that this Government will use, alongside the other ways we are toughening up our illegal working regime, to ensure we are enforcing against employers who are undercutting British workers by hiring people illegally.

I am, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am proud that this Labour Government are building this vital public infrastructure to make Government work better for everyone.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Trust is vital—digital tools work only when they are trusted. In the consultation that we will publish in the coming weeks, Members will see that trust is at the heart of how we build the system for working people.

Let me answer the hon. Gentleman by stepping back for a moment and stating clearly what British citizens and taxpayers will get. Digital IDs will be rolled out for free to everyone who wants one. If anyone does not want one, they do not have to have one. People will be able to use that credential to prove their right to work digitally by the end of this Parliament, which will make it easier for businesses to check people’s right to work and enable tougher enforcement against illegal working. We will harness the potential of this credential to deliver a transformation in digital government and public services. I, for one, am tired of constituents being frustrated by basic problems caused by a lack of joined-up government that we should have fixed decades ago, and by not having control of their public services at their fingertips. This is free, voluntary digital infrastructure, and a foundation for public service improvement and private sector innovation, that we should have built years ago, as the hon. Gentleman’s predecessors in the last Conservative Government recognised, but of course we did not do it. As the British people know very well, given the way that they passed judgment at the last election, the Conservatives gave up governing this country properly. They gave up on reforming the state and they gave up making government work better for ordinary people. This Government will not do so.

I thank my hon. Friend for what I think were three questions, all of which I will try to answer. Our job in building this voluntary scheme, where people can get an ID if they want one, is to make it useful and effective. It is on us to figure out how to do that, and that is what we will be doing. The consultation will have more information about the modelling that he is after, and that will be published in the coming weeks. Once we have made the design choices about how to make the system maximally useful for people, further costs will then be published for the House. On the third question, the digital right-to-work checking system will be developed alongside the digital ID programme.

I will feed those comments back to the relevant Secretary of State.

I agree with my hon. Friend that it is vital that people trust any digital product and system that this Government build. Trust has to be at the heart of everything we do. We will put trust at the heart of the consultation that will be published in a few weeks, and we will explain more about how we will do that. To be really clear, though, the reason why the digital ID connects public services is that at the moment, there is no mechanism for the Government to join up public services based on what an individual wants. If somebody wants to share information across Government services to get something—their childcare, for instance—they should be able to do so, having given consent. That is what this digital ID will unlock.

About 25% of UK citizens do not have a passport, and 15% of people have never had a passport. There are millions of people right across this country who are currently digitally excluded, which affects their capacity to access vital services in the public sector and the private sector. I want those people to be part of our public services and our economy just like everyone else, and we will make every effort to reach them.

The hon. Gentleman talks about flapping in the wind. He might have noticed that one person will be flapping in the wind: the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who I believe has just been sacked by the Leader of the Opposition for secret plots to defect to another Opposition party. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman wants to ask him whether he is flapping in the wind.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

Secondly, nobody will be stopped and asked for this new digital credential by the police. No card, no papers, no police.

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.

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. ]

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—

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.