PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Topical Questions - 22 January 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

This week, I gave a speech recognising the public’s frustration with our public services. I rejected the Conservative party’s offer of continued cuts and decline, and I rejected the offer of the populist parties, which just want to tear everything down and leave people on their own. Labour will build public services anew, so that accessing services in the future will feel more like online banking or online shopping, and so that public services are there when people need them most.

I have tabled a written ministerial statement about other changes in how we perform our duties in government. There will be new taskforces; the expansion of the innovation fellowship scheme; the new national school of government and public services; and reforms to the recruitment criteria, bonuses and performance management of the senior civil service. All of those are spelled out in the written ministerial statement, and I am happy to answer any further questions today.

In his speech this week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out his plan for the future of the civil service, in which he envisioned further sackings in a digital transformation. Last week, we saw the untested and potentially dangerous nature of artificial intelligence when the chief constable of West Midlands police admitted that his force had used AI to come to its verdict that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans should be banned from attending their European game away to Aston Villa. As Government Departments are already using AI to make critical and life-changing decisions, can the Minister clarify whether he plans to replace diligent civil servants with artificial intelligence?

In the first instance, I am trying to put in place computers that work. Before we even get to artificial intelligence, we need to build some pretty basic services—services like those that the public are used to using in the private sector, but that are not used for public services because of 14 years of austerity from the Conservative party.

Order. That is a very important question, and I fully support it, but we have to shorten the questions to get others in. The Minister will give a good example in his reply.

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue that affects her constituency. As I said earlier, we need to do more to support great British businesses like Alexander Dennis. In the consultation, we are looking at reforming social value. I think it needs to go further; there should be meaningful social value that really helps local communities.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

At the risk of overworking the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, I would like to ask him a question. It is boring but important; my last boring question was to the Paymaster General. The Opposition have found that his Department often refuses to release information to Members in response to parliamentary questions, but then releases it in response to freedom of information requests. Does he agree that, in principle, that is wrong?

I do, and I am happy to take a look at that.

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply; I really appreciate it. In his role as chief of staff to the Prime Minister—

In his role as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, will he please write to all other Government Departments to make sure that the good example that will now be set by the Cabinet Office is followed by other Departments?

Mr Speaker, you will know that I take accountability to Parliament very seriously, as do the whole Government. As I said in my first answer, I am happy to take a look at that.

I could not agree more, and I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important case for his constituency, as he did yesterday at Prime Minister’s questions. Whether on defence, nuclear energy, or fixing public services, the SNP have failed Scotland for far too long, and only with Anas Sarwar as leader of the Scottish Government from May will things start to get better.

That is a matter for Parliament, not for Government. There is certainly a European Union relations secretariat in the Cabinet Office, with some absolutely excellent civil servants, and I am very proud to work with them on leading the negotiations.

I could not agree more. Perhaps with those what3words, more Tory MPs can find their way to the Benches next time.

As I made clear in a lengthy and detailed statement to Parliament earlier this week, we will not get into the technical detail of the mitigations. I was reassured to see the letter from the director general of MI5 and the director of GCHQ, in which they pointed out that there are clear security advantages from the proposal. I also sought to make the point that we have agreed with the Chinese Government that there will be a reduction in their current diplomatic footprint from seven sites down to one.

I absolutely do. As I have said previously, Britain should become Britain’s biggest customer. We have a procurement budget of £400 billion a year. In my opinion, we do not use that well enough to support British companies, but I am working with the Chancellor and colleagues across the Government to make sure that we do so in future.

Last year, in their UK-EU trade deal, the Government sold out British fishermen, giving away 12 years of access to our fishing waters, and we have seen that the Government have form in using our fishermen as pawns in negotiations. Will a Cabinet Office Minister please confirm that, in any trade negotiation or sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, no part of our fishing industry will be returned to the common fisheries policy?

We are not returning to the common fisheries policy, and the hon. Lady is completely wrong in what she just said. The medium-term stability that we have delivered for our fishing industry will mean a £360 million investment in upgrading our fleet and in our coastal communities. If she opposes that money going into our fishing communities, she should say so. Secondly—[Interruption.]

Order.

Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Thank you. We got there. I call Jim Dickson.

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.

Will the Minister update the House on the delay to the pension payment of civil servants who left employment under the voluntary exit scheme? A number of constituents have complained to me that they have been left without any income, due to the delay by the pension administrator Capita. Will the Minister take personal control of the situation, and will he update the House at some point on contingencies and a new escalation process for people who are affected?

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. If he writes to me on those specific points, I will be happy to look at them. I have seen the chief executive of Capita and have made clear the standards that I expect. Capita should be in no doubt about the contractual tools available to me, which I will employ to drive performance.

As chair of the Labour rural research group, I continually hear about the challenges facing rural communities, including access to education and transport infrastructure. Will the Minister set out the specific steps that the Cabinet Office is taking to ensure that rural voices and rural communities are meaningfully represented throughout Government decision making?

I thank my hon. Friend for the great work that she does in Parliament and within the Labour party as a leading voice for rural communities across our country. On Government action, I point her to the rural taskforce, a cross-departmental group looking at how policies taken across Government can have a positive impact in rural communities while recognising the unique risk that we want to mitigate.

The Paymaster General has told the House this morning, on more than one occasion, just how wonderful his new EU deal will be for British food and drink manufacturers, so why is he refusing to appear in front of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to discuss the matter in more detail?

To be frank, when we have the final negotiation and the legal text I will of course be willing to appear before the Select Committee at the appropriate moment. If the hon. Gentleman looks at how many Select Committees I have appeared before, in this place and in the Lords, he will find that it is a very high number.

The 10-year bus pipeline is yet to be published, and a media report about the investigation by the National Cyber Security Centre and the Department for Transport into kill switches suggests that 700-plus Chinese buses on British roads have remote disabling technology. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are delaying the publication of the 10-year bus pipeline until the report on Chinese kill switches is concluded?

I believe that my hon. Friend has had a meeting with a Transport Minister to discuss these matters, but I would be very happy to discuss them with him further.

The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is still under consideration in the Scottish Parliament and has not been passed, contrary to the views of a number of Members of this House. This week, a number of measures had to be removed from the Bill because they were not compliant with the powers of the Scottish Parliament, but Scottish Ministers suggested that they were in an ongoing discussion with the UK Government about a future section 104 order. Can Ministers update the House on the current discussions with the Scottish Government? And do they agree with me that ultimately—

Order. These are topicals, David—you have had your go. Come on.

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take a neutral position in relation to that Bill. It is also important, both recently and going forward, that we work sensitively with all the devolved Administrations.

On Tuesday, the Chief Secretary set out plans to “promote the doers” across the civil service by establishing the new national School for Government and Public Services. Will he tell the House what steps he plans to take to ensure that Whitehall is focused on delivering services that actually work really well for my residents in Exeter?

My assessment is that government conflates policy and delivery. That is why we will be promoting people from the frontline into the more senior levels of the senior civil service, to make sure that we understand the customer experience and how citizens expect their services to work more than has been the case in the past.

I questioned the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Makerfield (Josh Simons), earlier about the U-turn on compulsory digital IDs. Much to our confusion, he said that there had been no U-turn. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster clear this up? Is digital ID going to be compulsory—yes or no?

There has been no U-turn—[Interruption.] The hon. Member has asked the same question twice and has had the same answer. If he would like, I will write to him in plain English and he can read it a third time.

North West Leicestershire is home to East Midlands airport, which carries the highest volume of small parcel air freight in the UK. In the light of the new trading agreements with the EU, can the Minister update me on how we will ensure that small businesses can make the most of these additional trading benefits, for current and future agreements?

The deal that we struck at the UK-EU summit will cut costs and red tape for businesses that import and export to the EU. This Government are committed to removing barriers to trade; it is a shame that the Conservative party is not.

I thank the Chief Secretary for meeting me to discuss the £20 million Pride in Place money awarded to Portsmouth. To boost and expand those funds in my city and make investment lasting, will the Chief Secretary tell me and my constituents more about his work with the new Office for the Impact Economy, collaborating with social investors and philanthropists so that we can boost funding and create much-needed change in local communities?

I thank my hon. Friend for the brilliant work that she is doing in her constituency with this historic money from Pride in Place, whereby local people get to decide how to spend money on their own communities. As she has alluded to, the Office for the Impact Economy will work with social investors, philanthropists and other organisations to match up funding in order to increase that money even further and have a longer-lasting impact on local communities.

I thank the Government for their work on cutting the cost of living. Can the Minister say how the Cabinet Office is supporting other Government Departments to continue this work?

As part of the Growth and Living Standards Cabinet Committee, the Cabinet Office co-ordinates Ministers across Government to ensure that we are working as hard as possible to get inflation and costs down and make a real difference to the living standards of the public across the country.

Boots has stores in Castlepoint, Southbourne Grove and Boscombe high street in my constituency. I met Boots in Parliament to hear about what it is doing to tackle shoplifting. In London, it is working with the Metropolitan police, who plug into Boots’s own reporting system to avoid the need for duplicate reporting. I am calling for the same to come to Bournemouth, but plugging all businesses into all police forces will take a lot of work. Will the Government consider having a national police app that is opt-in, like the national health service app, so people do not have to go through the faff of reporting their demographic information and so they can get on with reporting crime faster? That would be a lot of help to Karl, the store manager at Aldi in Boscombe.

That is a very good idea—I have had similar issues in my own constituency. I will make sure that that idea is passed on to the Home Secretary. Police reforms will be coming to the House shortly.