Budget Resolutions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

If I may, I will speak on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee, but I wish to make one point from the perspective of my constituency. Glasgow West, which I am proud to represent, has a relatively high level of youth unemployment, a lower than average level of educational qualifications, and a fairly high number of unemployment-related benefit claimants. We also do not have access to a youth hub. There are three in the city of Glasgow, but none anywhere near my constituency. My plea to the Government is this: can we please have a youth hub?

Today’s debate is about good growth in every postcode, and I want to consider an issue that the Scottish Affairs Committee spent some time on, namely Scotland’s space launch sector. Last year we visited the SaxaVord spaceport on the island of Unst in Shetland, and saw for ourselves the potential of the UK’s first fully licensed vertical spaceport. What we heard reinforced our view that Scotland is uniquely placed to further the UK’s space ambitions, while delivering economic growth. Unst’s northerly location allows for launch routes over the north Atlantic ocean, making it particularly well suited to putting satellites into polar orbits. That is combined with our expertise in satellite manufacturing—hon. Members might be surprised to hear that the city of Glasgow produces more satellites than anywhere else in Europe, and Edinburgh’s expertise in data in space makes us uniquely placed to benefit from that. SaxaVord also provides a strong foundation for end-to-end space services.

For Shetland, the economic opportunity is hugely significant. The Budget talks about the importance of creating jobs across every nation and region of the UK. SaxaVord could help to sustain an island community by creating skilled jobs and giving young people more opportunities to establish careers locally. In a remote community where unreliable connectivity makes economic development, and life in general, more difficult, that new industry could deliver growth in Shetland’s postcodes. However, the economic growth potential of a space launch capability in Shetland would extend beyond Scotland. A successful spaceport could attract international investment and create opportunities for suppliers across the whole UK.

There is also a national security interest here. Developing a sovereign launch capability would reduce our reliance on overseas providers. However, we cannot afford to be complacent, and SaxaVord has yet to achieve a successful orbital launch. In September this year, Norway’s spaceport at Andøya successfully launched satellites into orbit. We should welcome that because it is progress for the European sector, but it raises important questions about whether Scotland has lost its first-mover advantage, and what more the Government can do to support innovative businesses such as SaxaVord to realise their economic potential.

During our inquiry, we heard that there is sufficient demand to sustain more than one European spaceport. A successful launch from Scotland will be important, but the real test will be whether it can be scaled up into a commercial launch service. That is why I welcome the Government’s space strategy and their £30 million investment in SaxaVord. It is a significant public investment, but it must be spent wisely.

The Committee also looked at fixed links. Despite the island having such great ambitions, there are two ferry journeys before anyone gets to SaxaVord. Given that those ferries are not always reliable and the weather is often against us, the islands in Shetland have been looking at whether fixed links would work for them. Working in conjunction with the Scottish Government and the Shetland Islands council, we think that that is absolutely the kind of thing the Government should be looking at to meet their ambition.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With an immediate three-minute time limit, I call James MacCleary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Members have been very disciplined with interventions, but they may wish to note that several Members have absented themselves from the Chamber without any notice.

Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the hon. Member for making a very sensible point. I am pleased that the Bill takes forward the idea of having independent actors to step in, which I would always welcome—the more of that, the better. We cannot have the developers or freeholders of these buildings essentially marking their own homework.

We must ensure that buildings are reviewed holistically and made safe as a whole. As I have said, Vista Tower is facing a second round of intrusive works and the decanting of residents, so we need to ensure that such things can be avoided. That is why it is so important to have compliance plans and, more importantly, to ensure that residents are informed of and are able to influence and shape these plans. I welcome the moves in that regard.

For Vista Tower, there have now been eight years of fighting, with no timeline for ending it. We must therefore make sure that remediation compliance plans guarantee access to assessments, work specifications, delivery timetables and completion evidence, with real and meaningful engagement for leaseholders, while also providing them with accessible routes to challenge decisions and raise concerns about their homes. In that way we can give leaseholders, but also the flats market as a whole, confidence that when work is required, it will be done properly and collaboratively.

Today is a day of real progress—we are filling the gaps one by one—and I am pleased to hear that Ministers are listening. They should carry on listening to make sure that the Bill becomes an Act that finally gives people who are living in fear of the future and uncertain about what is going to happen to their home the release from all of that that they truly deserve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jessica Toale.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last, but hopefully not least.

I thank the Secretary of State and the Minister for bringing forward the Bill, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) for all his work to honour the victims and families of Grenfell, and to ensure that nobody else suffers the horror of such unavoidable tragedy.

I fully support the Government’s determination to accelerate remediation and better protect leaseholders who have been left carrying the emotional and often financial burden of a crisis they did not create. As we have heard from many hon. Members from across the House today, too many people across the country have been trapped in unsafe homes, facing uncertainty, financial anxiety and delays that have stretched on for years. Everyone deserves to live in a safe home and that is why the Bill is so important. I welcome many of the provisions in the Bill, from the clear legal duty of responsibility for unsafe buildings to the stronger enforcement with clear consequences to ensure that leaseholders are not left paying the price for failures that were not their fault.

I do, however, have to be honest about some of the practical barriers that are impacting my constituents and delaying works on the ground. In my constituency, residents in several high-rise blocks have contacted me repeatedly about remediation delays. In one case, a developer is ready to proceed with the necessary cladding works that would make the building safe, but has been waiting for approval from the Building Safety Regulator since the middle of 2024. The decision on certification has been pushed back six times. I have written to the Minister in the other place, Baroness Blake, regarding the case, but it remains a significant problem and the BSR delayed approval yet again only last month.

Another property in my constituency is similarly impacted. The contractor has bought materials and submitted the relevant applications to the BSR in August 2025, but was rejected several months later. The application was submitted again, but it was rejected in May this year. In the meantime, residents continue to live with significant damp, mould and fire safety issues in the building.

These are not isolated incidents and I could relay others—and I will, because this is significant. One building, a social housing building in my constituency, had some botched internal works, leaving really unacceptable conditions in communal areas and embarrassment for residents. One of them brought me in and showed me a piece of exposed wall with mould all over it where they had affixed a nametag that said, “Jackson Pollock 2024”. That building is on a hill, and when they brought in a contractor to remediate the internal bits of the building, they discovered that the building is smaller at the front than it is at the back. They then had to reclassify the building and submit an application to the Building Safety Regulator. I have very little faith in the fact that those residents, who have already been waiting more than two years for the internal works, will get them done in good time.

This is not about weakening standards or cutting corners; it is about robust scrutiny and effective regulation that is absolutely necessary. The point is that residents, leaseholders and good contractors who are trying to do the right things should not be increasingly frustrated by these delays. My residents need certainty that the plans to make their homes safe can actually take place and be done at pace.

We on the Labour Benches all want stronger regulators, but there appear to be genuine questions about whether the Building Safety Regulator has sufficient capacity and specialist resources to process applications as quickly as everyone would like. Concerns about delays with the regulator have been raised elsewhere, including by the Industry and Regulators Committee in the other place. The provisions in the Bill are necessary and long overdue, but if the ambitions of the Bill are to be realised in practice, the Building Safety Regulator must have the capacity and resources to match those ambitions. I would be grateful if the Minister, in her closing remarks, could address Building Safety Regulator resourcing and capacity. Will she also consider meeting Members from across the House whose constituents are experiencing delays, so that these concerns can be discussed directly? The regulator must have the staff, expertise and support it needs to ensure that vital remediation projects are not delayed unnecessarily.

The people living in these buildings have waited long enough. They deserve safe homes. They deserve certainty and to see progress. I am proud to support the Bill and I hope that the Minister will address my concerns in her closing remarks.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call the shadow Minister.

Rough Sleeping and Good Growth Funds

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith (Florence Eshalomi)]

With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s plan to tackle rough sleeping and homelessness and to deliver good growth in every part of the country. On the Prime Minister’s first day in Downing Street, he made ending rough sleeping his first priority. He did so because having a safe and secure place to call home matters to almost everything else in life. It affects our health and how children do at school, whether people can find and keep a job and the opportunities that come their way in the future.

Security is about much more than a roof over our heads; it is about whether the place we call home gives us the chance to succeed. That means putting the foundations in place for strong local economies and thriving places, because, ultimately, the economic growth we want is created by people, and people are better able to get on in life when they have a decent home, a good job and a community with the tools to shape its own future. For this Government, that means backing local leaders, too, giving them the freedom to invest in the homes, high streets, jobs and infrastructure their communities need, rather than making them bid for funding from Whitehall pots.

Today, I am updating the House on two important steps in our work: new investment to tackle rough sleeping and prevent homelessness, and the roll-out of good growth funding across England. Both stem from the same belief: national Government should provide the backing while local leaders who know their communities have the freedom to get on and deliver.

Earlier today, the Prime Minister brought together local leaders, charities, businesses and other partners in Downing Street to drive forward the pledge he made on his first day in office. Our immediate commitment is to offer everyone sleeping rough a route off the streets this Christmas and to bring forward new accommodation and the right support to help people move ahead with their lives. We are backing that commitment with an extra £432 million from next year, so that local areas can continue to provide a route off the streets over the rest of this Parliament. That takes the total funding supporting the Prime Minister’s pledge to £874 million.

This immediate help matters enormously, particularly as the winter approaches. This weekend, the first two named storms of the season brought severe weather across the country. Tragically, two men lost their lives after being struck by falling trees in Dumfries and Galloway and in north London. Our thoughts are with their families and loved ones. For anyone sleeping rough on the streets, that is a stark reminder of the dangers that winter can bring.

Getting people somewhere safe is urgent, but just as important is what happens next. It is not enough to offer somebody a bed for a few nights and then see them return to the streets. People sleeping rough may need help with their physical or mental health, finding a job or other complex needs. A route off the streets, then, must come with the support that people need to rebuild their lives, regain their independence and, crucially, find lasting security away from the streets.

This programme is designed to be led locally. Rough sleeping does not stop at council boundaries, and neither do many of the services that people rely on. Whether funding goes directly to local councils or through mayoral strategic authorities, local leaders will have the flexibility to bring partners together and respond to local pressures.

However, we need to break the cycle of crisis altogether. We cannot wait until someone has lost their home before stepping in. That is at the heart of our national plan to end homelessness: public services working together, intervening earlier and preventing homelessness wherever possible. That is why we have already moved to ban no-fault evictions, repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824 and reform right to buy to protect our social housing stock. We are bringing long-term empty homes back into use and tackling unsuitable bed-and-breakfast accommodation for families. Temporary accommodation should be temporary. All too often, it is anything but.

The principle of trust in local leaders brings me to good growth. In our “Rewiring the State” Cabinet statement in July, we committed to supporting mayors to establish good growth funds across England, putting more investment and decisions in the hands of local leaders. Today, I am updating the House on the first steps towards delivering that commitment, ahead of the Chancellor confirming the plans at the Budget.

The people best placed to help their communities should be given the freedom to invest in their future. For too long, local leaders have had to navigate a patchwork of Whitehall funding pots, making it harder to plan for the long term and use public money effectively to unlock the most important projects for economic growth. Good growth funds are designed to change that.

Today, we are confirming funding of £285 million for 2027-28, comprising good growth funds and transitional capital funding for other areas progressing towards mayoral devolution. That will give local leaders more freedom to invest in the projects their places need, from homes and town centre regeneration to infrastructure that connects people to jobs and opportunities. Importantly, when money goes back into that fund, it can be used to back new projects. That creates a virtuous cycle: public money goes further while mayors gain greater independence to plan and deliver for the long term.

I am proud to be a product of local government, and I want local government to have the means to deliver. That is why we are working with mayors to design a new £1.5 billion borrowing facility from 2028, giving them access to finance to back major local projects. We will provide strategic authorities with an additional £150 million in 2027-28 to strengthen their capacity and capability as the range of powers and responsibilities they hold grows, because devolution cannot simply mean giving local leaders more responsibility. If we expect them to take on that responsibility, they need the people, expertise and resources to deliver properly. These are first steps. The Chancellor will confirm these plans at the Budget, alongside the fiscal devolution road map, which will set out the Government’s plan for a new funding system for regional and local government in England.

I began with the commitment the Prime Minister made on his first day in Downing Street. Today’s summit at Downing Street was about keeping the momentum behind that promise—getting people off the streets, ensuring that the right help is there for them afterwards and breaking the cycle of crisis that leads people into homelessness in the first place. The Prime Minister also talked on his first day about a Government who invest in people’s successes rather than paying for failure, and that underpins all I have set out today. People can get on in life when they have a decent home, a good job and a community with the confidence and means to shape its future. That means giving people the security they need. It means giving local leaders the powers and investment to create opportunities in the places they know best. That is how we build a country where no one is written off and where every part of the country has the chance to succeed and to share in that good growth. In that spirit, I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Florence Eshalomi]

It is always good to see the hon. Member in his place.

We have to look at the facts of what we are dealing with. This Government inherited a homelessness and rough sleeping crisis; both rough sleeping and homelessness in temporary accommodation have more than doubled since 2010. I mentioned that I have just come from a summit earlier this morning in Downing Street, where the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and I convened a range of organisations, charities, faith leaders, civic societies and groups, and council leaders working on this important issue.

To understand the challenges of rough sleeping, we have to recognise that it is not about just putting a roof over people’s heads. For many people sleeping rough, it is about the wraparound support. It is about the long-term interventions on substance misuse. It is about support to help them manage their finances. This is what, crucially, that funding will go to. It is not about handing out £200,000 per person; it is about the many organisations who fundraise on an annual basis to address this issue. We on this side of the House are proud that this Government are committed to that, given that, to our shame, we are seeing people still sleeping rough in England in 2026.

The shadow Minister outlined the figures and statistics from Manchester. What he failed to realise and mention is the fact that the then Mayor of Greater Manchester inherited that crisis from the then Government, and that there was not enough funding to support some of the key initiatives. So the then Mayor of Greater Manchester took on that initiative, working with many charities to bring forward a programme which we are now looking to replicate in order to be able to meet this commitment.

When looking at investment and intensive support for people sleeping rough, we must listen to their lived experience—the lived experience that was shared with us this afternoon and at that summit—to ensure this is an issue not just for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to solve, but working across Departments, across Cabinet, showing that there is real commitment. Now we have a Prime Minister, Secretary of State and Minister who are really focused on looking at how we can end rough sleeping, I hope the Opposition will get on board.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.

[Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. I had the opportunity to attend the summit, and I agree that prevention is the key to ending rough sleeping. I ask the Minister to implement all the Committee recommendations from the rough sleeping inquiry—I know the Government have implemented some of them. I have a specific further question: what assessment have the Government made on identifying people likely to become at risk of homelessness if the local housing allowance remains frozen at this Wednesday’s Budget?

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee for her participation in this morning’s summit. She highlighted the Committee’s statement and recommendations: I hope that she agrees that this Government are going further and faster than previous Governments in addressing rough sleeping. This new cash injection will make immediate provision to address the Committee’s recommendations, help to ensure people are off the streets by Christmas and, most importantly, provide long-term and intensive wraparound support to ensure that no one ends up back on the streets. She knows that the local housing allowance is close to my heart. We continue to raise it with Treasury colleagues and I ask her to continue to press the Treasury on the matter, in the same way that I will continue to do so.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment. We want to see an end to rough sleeping, but we have heard such pledges before. The last Conservative Government promised to halve rough sleeping by 2022 and end it by 2027, then brought that forward to 2024, but they achieved neither, leaving 8.5 million people in England with unmet housing needs. This attempt must do better—a catchy pre-Budget headline needs a plan behind it.

Somerset council has identified 142 bed spaces, but given that it will not know its share of the money until Wednesday, that will leave only around eight weeks for the council to deliver the spaces before Christmas. Rough sleeping is not just an urban problem: in Somerset, 80 people were found rough sleeping on a single night at the last count. In Glastonbury, 131 vans and caravans are being lived in at the roadside by people who have been priced out of a home by rents that they simply cannot afford. They do not show up in the rough sleeping count, but they are homeless in all but name. The County Councils Network warns that more than 23,000 children in rural England are growing up in temporary accommodation. None of this will be fixed without more social homes, so the Liberal Democrats would build 150,000 of them a year.

I have three questions for the Minister: is eight weeks a realistic timeframe for councils to deliver? Will the funding reach rural areas, not just our cities? And will it be backed by long-term investment in social housing, or will people be forced back on to the streets come January?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I want to get in as many Members as I can on this statement, so can we have shorter questions and shorter answers, please?

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s additional £432 million to tackle rough sleeping. With reoffending accounting for 80% of offending in England and Wales, securing stable accommodation on release from prison is absolutely central to reducing reoffending and making our communities safer, yet last year around 1,000 people a month left prison homeless. Will the Minister work with the MOJ to use this investment to go beyond the target of halving homelessness among prison leavers? As we seek to accelerate progress on preventing homelessness, I am concerned that the Ministry intends to replace quarterly accommodation figures with annual reporting, so will the Minister press for quarterly publication to continue to be tracked?

Black History Month

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

Oh, that has made my day, Madam Deputy Speaker, because normally it is only my mum who remembers, so thank you so much. As the first black female MP Minister of this country—I was the first black female MP to stand at the Government Dispatch Box—it makes me really proud to see other black female MPs doing the same, such as the Minister for Homelessness, Democracy, Communities and Faith; I thank for her powerful opening speech. I am as proud today as I was last year when I witnessed the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare) at that Dispatch Box, and the year before when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi) was at that Dispatch Box. Watching generations of women coming after me makes me extremely proud.

The only thing I would ask the Government to do is to make sure that this debate is scheduled in the diary every year, so that we do not have this merry-go-round of applying to the Backbench Business Committee and then being told that the debate will be held in Government time. Let us just put it in the diary and have a set date, because this debate is becoming more and more fundamental. As was mentioned earlier, we are witnessing the unapologetic rise of the far right, the rise of racism and the rise of white supremacy. When Reform-led St Helens council shamefully announces that it will no longer formally observe Black History Month, we know that the rest of us have to make sure that we observe it, put it in the books and fight to ensure that black history is not erased, because black history is indeed a part of British history.

I want to start by acknowledging the man, who was mentioned earlier, who brought Black History Month to the UK—Mr Akyaaba Addai-Sebo. We owe him a great debt of gratitude for his tireless work to ensure that black history, black achievement and black identity are not erased, but celebrated. The theme this year is “Honouring Our Communities.” Recognising the everyday contributions of black people across the whole UK, whose work often goes unseen, is vital.

We have lost many of those people over the last year, and I apologise in advance for the many deserving names that I will not mention: Yvonne Brewster, the pioneer who co-founded Talawa Theatre Company; Gerlin Bean, the British black feminist and community organiser; Uriah Rennie, the trailblazing premier league referee; Syd Lawrence, the pioneering black England cricketer; Trevor Toussaint, the British television and theatre actor; and Sonny Blacks, one of the founders of Notting Hill carnival. Some of my personal friends have passed away: one of my closest friends, Kanya King, the British businesswoman and founder of the MOBO—Music of Black Origin—awards, who created that awards ceremony to recognise black music when the major industries did not; Bonnie Greer, the playwright, novelist and critic; Rennick Thomas, affectionately known as Tom, who had a bakery in Forest Gate and on Ridley Road, who was in a bakery war with my dad over who could produce the best hardo bread and bun, and who was my mum’s best friend after my dad died; and, lastly, Professor Jason Arday, who was an exceptional scholar of race and inequality. He joined the faculty of education at the University of Cambridge in 2023, and in August 2026 he was hounded to his death, the hunt started by a self-proclaimed eugenicist and white supremacist.

It would be incomplete to honour our communities without acknowledging what has been taken away. Last Saturday, I attended a reparations conference organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) and it made me think of something. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I stole your Rolex watch, would it become mine? Of course not. If I gave that Rolex watch to my daughter, would it become hers? Of course not. A gift does not erase a theft. If she passed it to her child, would it suddenly become a family heirloom? Of course not. Time does not turn theft into ownership.

Now imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that your daughter discovers the truth that your watch was stolen. Would she not have every right to ask for that watch back? Suppose I used that stolen watch as collateral to get a bank loan and bought a house, and passed that wealth on to my children? The benefit of that theft would be in my family for generation after generation. Some will say, “But today’s generation did not commit the wrong.” That would be true, but your daughter did not suffer the theft. Others will say, “But the past is the past. Leave it alone.” But if the benefits of the injustice are still being enjoyed, then the consequences are not in the past at all, but are actually in the present.

That is the principle behind reparations. It is about recognising that the passage of time does not transform an injustice into a rightful inheritance. If time alone can turn stolen property into rightful ownership, what we are actually saying is that stealing is okay—we merely have to wait until people die and hope that the truth is not exposed or told. The issue is not about inherited guilt, but about inherited benefit and inherited loss. If we would not accept that argument for a stolen watch, why should we accept it for stolen labour, stolen wealth, stolen land or stolen opportunity?

When we look at the world today, we still see the legacy of historic injustice. Across Africa and the Caribbean, the effects of centuries of exploitation remain visible. We can all recognise the iconic Louis Vuitton pattern, but where did it originate from? The Adinkra symbols of the Akan people of Ghana predate many luxury brands by centuries. These are symbols rich in meaning and history. The oldest surviving Adinkra cloth is kept in a place that holds the largest collection of stolen property in the world: the British Museum. Where is the line between appreciation and appropriation? Appreciation acknowledges and credits the source; appropriation too often profits from culture while erasing its origins.

Exploiting indigenous cultures for profit should not be normalised or accepted. That is why the theme of honouring our communities is so important. The Maasai Intellectual Property Initiative is so powerful, because it was established to address the unauthorised use of Maasai branding. It enables businesses to work with the Maasai tribe ethically, ensuring that the benefits flow back to the Maasai people. It is so important in this debate, when we are honouring communities, that we give back, especially what is stolen and what is owed.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not just talk the talk; I walk the walk. I created the Bernie Grant leadership programme, the £1 student fees to get young people engaged in politics, and the parliamentary black caucus, because change will not happen without action. Sometimes this period of time feels extremely overwhelming when we think about the rise of racism and the far right, and all that is thrown at us. The civil rights activist John Lewis said:

“Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Ours is not the struggle of one day, one week or one year. Ours is the struggle of a lifetime, or even many lifetimes, and each one of us, in every generation, must do our part.”

So, my question to those of us here and to the country is: have you done your part in this struggle? For me, I want to see the end to racist practices and structures in different institutions all across the world in my lifetime. We should not be afraid to call out wrongdoing. Whether it is violence against women and girls, paedophiles, class war, genocide or racism, we need to call it out so we can end it in our lifetime.

John Lewis also said:

“Never be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary trouble”.

I am known to get in a little bit of trouble from time to time. I may have got into trouble earlier; we will soon see. But I show up. International Women’s Day debates—I show up. International Men’s Day debates—I show up. Debates on white working class boys—I show up. LGBTQI+ debates—I show up. If we are going to beat the racists, we have to show up. We have show up for each other. We have to speak out and show up to protect black and brown people. We have to show up for them when they are being abused and discriminated against online. We have to show up. When we show up and when we unite, we will never be defeated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I further remind Members that the Jason Arday case is sub judice, because the inquest has been opened and adjourned. While tributes are welcome and allowed in this debate, Members should not stray into the circumstances on contributory factors to his death.

--- Later in debate ---

[Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)]

It has been a real privilege to listen to so many powerful speeches this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) reminded us to ask the question, “Have you done your part?” and told us never to be afraid to make noise, which are really important points. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) reminded us that black history is correctly British history. My hon. Friend the Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) just gave a really powerful speech, reminding us of the stark reality today, where we find that racism is not just whispered but amplified.

As this is my first speech in the Chamber as the newly elected Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen). She is a brilliant campaigner who in her time as Chair shone a light on critical issues and secured significant policy change. Her work on bereavement leave for pregnancy loss in particular leaves a lasting legacy. In such debates, I always admired the way in which she shared stories that are not told often enough in this place, often from her own constituency. Therefore, when preparing for this important debate on Black History Month, I decided to spend some time looking in the royal Berkshire archives to tell one story from Reading’s black history.

I came across a man called Harvey De Pass. Harvey arrived on the HMT Empire Windrush in June 1948. After a brief dalliance with Staffordshire, he and his family moved to Reading. Harvey took up the role of Reading’s first community relations officer at the Reading council of community relations and spent years serving our community, in particular working with local schools.

In October 1970, Harvey organised a conference entitled, “Children in a Mixed Community”. At the time, he told the local paper:

“Our children aren’t immigrants…they know no home other than Britain”—

words that are just as poignant today. After a decade in that role, Harvey set up a local business, DePass Travel, on the Oxford Road. When Harvey died in 2012, he was remembered by the local community for his big heart and his love of cricket.

Harvey is just one example of the wonderful Windrush generation who have brought so much to Reading, with many working in iconic local businesses such as the Huntley & Palmers biscuit factory as well as at our Royal Berkshire hospital and on the town’s bus network. I am reminded of their stories every day when I drive through Reading as I pass the Reading black history mural, which depicts global figures alongside the local heroes who built Reading’s black community. When the site faced redevelopment, which threatened the mural’s future, it was local community campaigners—today’s Harvey De Passes—who successfully ensured that it was preserved for future generations.

As we have heard a lot today, the theme of this year’s Black History Month is “Honouring Our Communities.” As other hon. Members have said, this is about not just telling stories but confronting the inequalities that black people in our country continue to face at work, in healthcare and on the streets of our communities. The work of the Women and Equalities Committee shows how much more we have to do in that regard.

The Committee’s work on health shows that black women are still more than twice as likely to die in childbirth as white women, more likely to experience life-threatening complications, more likely to be admitted to an intensive care unit and more likely to give birth preterm and to lose a baby to stillbirth. Black people are almost four times more likely to experience homelessness, and experience worse outcomes as they progress through the homelessness system. In the workplace, it is more difficult to progress and there are more barriers. Throughout all the Committee’s work. there is one terrible constant: wherever people are adversely affected—be that by policies, attitudes or actions—those impacts are disproportionately worse for people who are black.

That is why, as Chair of the Committee, I am determined to use our platform to hear from black voices on the issues that matter, to ensure that the Government listen, and to hold the Government to account on the promises they have made to the black community, whether on ethnicity pay gap reporting, improved maternal care, or ensuring that those affected by the Windrush scandal receive the support and compensation they are owed, because commitments are meaningful only when they lead to change. Our history is important, but honouring our communities means that we must actively confront inequality to truly commemorate the contributions of those who have made progress. I look forward to building on the Committee’s important work and ensuring that we continue to challenge inequality wherever we find it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Social Housing Bill [Lords]

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 10th September 2026 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

The reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition has been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will not; I am just about to conclude—apologies to my hon. Friend.

I look forward to engaging with hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber in relation to these and other matters as we look to improve the Bill further, and I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Local Government Reorganisation

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 7th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s frustration, but—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) may wish, out of courtesy to this House and certainly to the Secretary of State—and to his constituents and my constituents—to stay in his seat to listen to the response by the Secretary of State.

[Angela Rayner]

The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) raised these issues before, and I do appreciate the frustration in Essex. In response to the right hon. Member, who was here a while ago and raised these issues, I made it really clear that local government reorganisation is about delivering—

Representation of the People Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I will put in place an immediate five-minute time limit.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I will speak in favour of new clause 88, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, which would require the Government to establish a royal commission on political donations and campaign expenditure. It would examine the case for a donations cap review and whether existing campaign spending limits remain effective, and would report back within 12 months. Crucially, it would take account of the modern flavours of old challenges, because money can now shape political debate through social media platforms, algorithmic amplification, third-party campaigning and political advertising that can reach millions of voters almost immediately.

When we knock on doors in our constituencies, or even when they are only our prospective constituencies, we are taking part in the most important act of our democratic system. We are listening to the concerns of citizens. We are empowering them to test us on our politics and to push us to champion their causes, and through taking forward the electorate’s concerns, we are giving them a voice. The principle is simple: one citizen, one vote. It is the basis of a democratic system. If a voter is particularly taken by our arguments, they may choose to donate to us to cover the cost of those snappy little pamphlets we leave behind in our wake, which some on the Liberal Democrat Benches are particularly passionate about.

At this point, I will explain something that we did in Sutton to welcome the huge number of Hongkongers who moved to our borough and to my constituency over the last few years. We produced leaflets in their local language, so that those who did not have particularly strong English skills could read the information about our political party. They had travelled here, escaping the Communist regime to take part in a democratic process, and escaping the crackdown on democratic rights in Hong Kong. I invite an intervention from the Conservative Benches to explain why that communication, in a language that was understood by those who had not long been in our country and did not have the language skills to understand the English leaflets, is such a bad thing. There are none.

When our election laws were written, donations to political parties would have probably have been covered by the existing laws. Maybe a big local donor would pay for an advertising board, or for posters and a loudspeaker on the roof rack of a clapped-out old Volvo of the kind that my dad used to go around his prospective constituency in the ’90s. However, our citizens still held the levers of power relatively directly. Today, the spending in our politics, and therefore the influence and power of money and donors, has shifted so dramatically that the question is how we rise to the challenge of constantly having to patch the cracks and the potholes in our outdated election law.

If we fail to answer that question, we condemn the voting public to powerlessness, as those with the deepest pockets and strongest influence rip our hands off the wheel of the ship of state. We cannot fail to address the modern challenges first posed by those who bankrolled the Brexit campaign, who promised to give back control to the public and then handed it straight to their oligarch friends. For those reasons, I was disappointed the Government did not use this Bill to introduce a meaningful cap on political donations.

Wealthy individuals are increasingly able to spend sums that would be completely beyond the reach of ordinary voters, while public confidence in the way politics is funded remains extremely weak. We can see how members of two parties in this Chamber have received more than £56,000 through X, a company owned by the very model of a modern fascist oligarch. It has an algorithm that he designs and the payments are therefore decided and funnelled directly to those political actors.

There will always be those with bigger pockets who can make a larger contribution to political parties and projects than others. The vast majority do so for the right, philanthropic or ideological, reasons. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) has given a passionate explanation of why political donation through unions, with proper controls, is absolutely an appropriate way to deliver political support and political power to those groups of people who need that representation the most. However, when money has been flowing in from those who would do our country harm and who want to rip control of the state away from the voting public and turn our nation into a Russian-style oligarchy, and when democratic institutions are just shopfronts for a nefarious state captured by the rich and powerful, we cannot stand idly by. That is why new clause 88 is so important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the objective of the new clause that we are not talking about, because it is not in—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members that discussion of an amendment that is not in scope and has not been selected, is not in scope.

[Darren Paffey]

My point is that in addressing amendments 69,70, 80, 120, 72 and 48, as I intend to, there is a context. Many of us believe that the world of two-party politics no longer exists, and we need a political system that supports what every other amendment and every other part of the Bill seeks to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I would like to speak to amendment 15 and new clause 30, tabled in my name, and to new clauses tabled by other colleagues from across the House. First of all, I welcome the new Minister to her place and I welcome the Bill. I always like to start where there is common ground. It is certainly true that there are steps forward in the Bill: the implementation of the Rycroft recommendations to tackle foreign influence in our politics; movements towards automatic voter registration; and dealing with crypto to some extent, although not enough. Those are all positive steps forward. I also warmly welcome the introduction of votes at 16, which is a long-standing Green party policy.

But—there is a big but, I am afraid, Minister—the Bill could and really should do far, far more to clean up our politics. There are three big things that we need to do: get rid of the influence of dirty and big money in our politics; eliminate the poison of disinformation in our politics; and fix the fundamental structures of our politics that disenfranchise so many people. It is therefore frankly ridiculous that in a Bill about elections called the Representation of the People Bill we are not even allowed to discuss new clause 31 on a national commission on electoral reform. This is fundamentally important to our politics. The fundamental principle of democracy is that everybody’s vote must count equally.

The Government, of course, do not need to legislate on a national commission on electoral reform. They could kickstart one anyway. I really hope that the Minister will take that back to the Prime Minister—who, after all, is supposedly a supporter of electoral reform—and strongly encourage him to put his action where his mouth is on this issue and demonstrate that, if he is serious about problem-solving, he needs to work to solve the problems in our democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Will the hon. Member please remember to keep her speech within the scope of what is currently before us?

[Dr Chowns]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was speaking in relation to the title of the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I ask the hon. Member please to take my comments as they were made, and stick to the scope of the Bill.

[Dr Chowns]

I will move on to my amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Amendment 15 seeks to ban all corporate donations. Donations from companies are banned in France and Canada, among many other countries. According to research conducted by CenTax, about a quarter of donor companies are so opaque that it is not possible to identify who controls them, and almost £1 in every £10 given by companies comes, indirectly, from people who could not make donations themselves. This is a loophole in our politics. The Bill already accepts that a company has no independent right to donate, as it depends on the individuals who own it being on the electoral register, so it makes sense to complete the step and ban corporate donations altogether. If the House is not willing to go as far as a ban, it can still strengthen the Bill by strengthening clause 60.

I have also tabled new clause 30, which calls for

“a review of how campaign expenditure limits could apply on an annual basis”.

The new clause would deal with another huge loophole. We recognise that money skews politics; that is why there are spending limits during the short campaign; but we know that politics does not happen just in that short period before an election. Politics happens all the year round, especially now that the online world is such a big part of our politics. Long gone are the days when elections were fought only in those short weeks. Political campaigning happens throughout the year, not just on doorsteps but also online, and it is therefore imperative to place limits on annual campaign expenditure to prevent our politics from being skewed out of all proportion by big money. That is why I support new clause 70, tabled by the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), which would lower limits for campaign spending altogether.

In her new clause 120, the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) makes a clear case for a cap on all donations. Big money has been allowed to skew our politics for far too long. I would prefer the cap to be much lower, perhaps at £50,000 a year, and that view is supported by the majority of the British people, but any move in that direction would be an improvement.

Moreover, some donations simply should not be allowed. I welcome new clause 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon): there is no place for fossil fuels in a sustainable future, and no place for dirty fossil money in our politics.

I also welcome the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), particularly new clause 43, which calls for

“a repository of digital political advertising”.

This is absolutely crucial: we have to guard against the use of AI to fuel disinformation. We have to take big money out of politics, take the poison of disinformation out of politics, and fix our political system once and for all.

Legacy of Jo Cox

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for making that intervention, because it is not possible to visit the Syrian community in Manchester without talking about Jo, given the impact she had on them.

Jo’s foundation has led the way in campaigning for decency and civility in politics and taking forward her pioneering work to achieve a public policy response to the loneliness epidemic. The foundation has also worked in West Yorkshire to maintain the local constituency community work that Jo did in Batley and Spen and beyond.

As we have said, Jo’s concern for civilians in the face of horrendous war led her to become the co-chair of the friends of Syria all-party parliamentary group, alongside the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell). In her 104 contributions in the House of Commons, she was a constant voice for the child refugees pouring out of the hellhole that Syria had become. She pioneered the use of urgent questions, particularly from Back Benchers, to harry the Government into action. With terrible conflict raging, threatening the lives of children and other civilians, we can only imagine how much more forceful the response of the House of Commons to these horrors would have been if Jo had remained here. Notwithstanding that, there are Syrian refugees alive and safe today because of Jo. That is a lesson to us all about the opportunity we have to speak up in the face of outrage and indignity.

In the form of the Jo Cox memorial grants, her legacy reached around the world, helping 85,000 people, empowering women and preventing identity-based violence. At her home, Batley and Spen, the 10th Run for Jo will bring people together again for a day of fun and celebration.

All those good things happened because of Jo. They did not happen because she died; they happened because she lived. Her love was felt so far and so wide, and so is her legacy. I look forward to hearing all the contributions that Members will make today, with the memories and moments they wish to share. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley once again for securing this debate, and all those across the country who are determined that Jo’s legacy will go on, always.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Leadbeater]

She would have loved you.

It is so important that we keep empathy and compassion at the heart of our politics, and Jo understood that better than most. She believed deeply in human dignity. She believed that people from different backgrounds could live together peacefully. She believed that Britain is strongest when it is open-hearted rather than fearful. That belief cost her her life, but it must not die with her.

If there is one lesson we should take from Jo’s legacy, it is this: hatred grows when good people become indifferent to division. The answer to polarisation cannot be more polarisation. The answer to fear cannot be more fear. The answer must be courage—the courage to listen, the courage to speak responsibly, the courage to reject extremism in all its forms, the courage to defend democratic values even when emotions run high and, most importantly, the courage to remember that we belong to one another.

In remembering Jo today, let us not simply mourn what was lost; let us ask ourselves what kind of country we want to become. Do we want a society defined by outrage and suspicion, or one defined by compassion and solidarity? Do we want future generations to inherit division, or do we want them to inherit hope? That choice is ours. Perhaps the greatest tribute we can offer Jo is not merely to repeat her words, but to live by them and to show in all our actions and behaviours that we really are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Miatta Fahnbulleh]

I will make progress.

I am happy to give the House a commitment that the Government will not commence these ministerial powers of direction for two years following Royal Assent, nor will we use the powers to provide for a mayor without local consent for a period of four years following Royal Assent. I hope that that will reassure Members.

To conclude, there are many amendments for us to work through together in this debate. I hope that the House has seen that we are willing to engage with amendments that we think enhance the Bill, but we cannot and will not accept amendments that undermine the core principles of the Bill, which is, fundamentally, to make sure that we give local authorities, leaders and communities the powers that they deserve. I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s position.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)]

I will begin by recognising the work that has taken place in both Houses to try to improve this legislation, which is in many ways such a curate’s egg. It has faults and flaws that their lordships in the other place have worked towards improving, and I thank them for that work.

The Conservatives have been clear throughout the passage of the Bill that this is a centralising Bill. It takes decisions away from local communities and places them into the hands of Ministers, often without consent. We have already seen the consequences of this centralising of power and “Government know best” attitude. We have seen elections cancelled and then reinstated. We have seen the restructuring of local government imposed from the centre, driven by political considerations rather than the voice of the independent boundary commissions.

Local leaders are being presented with plans and told to comply. It is called a devolution Bill, but it is not devolution. We welcome the improvements to this Bill put forward by the Lords. The question before the House, however, remains simple: does this Bill empower local areas, or does it continue a pattern of centralised control? I will go through the Lords amendments in turn.

Lords amendment 36, which we support, would be an important and practical improvement to the Bill. It establishes the clear principle that brownfield land should be used first. That is just common sense. We want to get more houses built—of course we do—but we should start with land that has already been used rather than virgin land. The amendment protects communities while still enabling homes to be built with local approval and local consent.

--- Later in debate ---

My constituents in Heywood and Middleton North are tired of top-down policy making, and I hope that this Bill will be implemented with the backing it needs so that we can finally dismantle the structures that have failed our regions for decades. Further progress in areas such as ending out-of-area private hire vehicle operations would assure constituents such as mine of the Government’s intent, and I look forward to seeing more progress in this area, hopefully in the form of additional primary legislation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am imposing a five-minute time limit.

[Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)]

My area of Sussex is on the fast-track devolution programme. Although that brings challenges and inevitably means that we are still building parts of the plane while learning to fly, for my constituents and all Sussex residents, the devolution of power and resources has the potential to transform our area in health, education, housing, transport and sustainable economic development.

Given the short time available to me, I will concentrate my remarks on Lords amendment 80, which would strengthen the ability of licensing authorities in England, Scotland and Wales to issue cumulative impact assessments or gambling impact assessments. The amendment would give councils a clear, evidence-based tool to assess the cumulative impact of adult gaming centres and to identify areas in which further gambling premises would undermine local licensing objectives, including vulnerability and clustering.

Social Cohesion Action Plan

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)]

With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s action plan for social cohesion entitled, “Protecting What Matters”.

Britain has faced global crises at many moments in our history; we got through them by staying strong and united. Today we navigate new threats to our communities and families. We must stand together once again against those who seek to divide and weaken us. They want to sow division in our streets, our neighbourhoods, our homes and our minds. They feed off deliberate misinformation, hatred and extremism, carried across social media by algorithms, and funded by hostile states and rogue billionaires determined to pull our communities apart.

Online echo chambers, hatred for those with a different point of view and an unwillingness to seek compromise have led to a politics that is more aggressive, polarised and toxic than we have seen before—certainly in our lifetimes. As a nation, we are proof that people from different backgrounds can live, work and contribute together—a multi-ethnic democracy where neighbours look out for each other—but the foundations on which this country was built have been rocked by the rapid change all around us. Economic shocks and austerity halted the once steady improvement in our living standards. Rapid technological change has transformed how we work and live our lives. Intergenerational unfairness, regional inequality, an ageing population, the Tories’ open borders experiment and the disruption caused by their asylum-seeker hotels policy—all of that—has left communities more fearful of the future and more susceptible to siren voices wrongly putting the blame on minority groups.

Today, through the publication of “Protecting What Matters”, which we laid as a Command Paper in both Houses this afternoon, we have set out our steps towards a more confident, cohesive and united kingdom. Patriotism means bringing our country together, never pulling it apart. It is not patriotic to target someone because of their religion or the colour of their skin. We will resist those who peddle that kind of hatred and division. We choose to celebrate our country and all it stands for. We choose to come together in the best of times and the worst of times. We choose to take on those who seek to divide us. That is patriotism.

Our action plan aims to build confident communities that have hope in the future. There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards. People remember high streets from years gone by that were vibrant, buzzy, great places to socialise with friends and family. There is a real sense of anger, as well as of loss, that so many have been left boarded up and run down, covered in graffiti and full of dumped rubbish—bleak symbols of the wasted Tory years.

People deserve to feel proud of their neighbourhoods. Pride in Place is central to our plan to make that happen. We have now committed £5.8 billion to almost 300 constituencies and begun to set up neighbourhood boards so that local people can decide for themselves how that money is spent. Fair funding for councils means that funding now follows deprivation for the first time in over a decade. We are offering grassroots organisations £5 million through the common ground fund to tackle division in communities.

We will focus, too, on protecting young people from those who want to warp their minds with hatred and introduce more effective regulation of home education, with the first ever register of children not in school, stronger oversight where children may be at risk and the piloting of a new approach where new safety checks are carried out before a child can be taken out of mainstream schooling.

It is important that children grow up understanding the diversity of our nation, so we are investing £500,000 to link schools serving different communities in order to ensure that they know and understand each other better. We will establish a social cohesion measurement framework so that we can identify risks early and act quickly. We will set expectations on integration for new arrivals and the communities who will receive them, with a focus on learning English so that people have a shared language, can participate in the local community and have respect for British values, our democracy and our way of life. We will end the Tory asylum hotels policy and shape an immigration system that is fair and transparent, and that works better for all communities.

We will not allow hatred to distort the lives and life chances of those who are targeted. Right now, Muslim communities are facing shocking levels of abuse. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are at record levels and now make up almost half of all religious hate crimes—way out of proportion to the size of our Muslim population. Mosques, schools and businesses have been attacked. Women have been harassed. Families are living in fear.

We have a duty to act, but we cannot tackle a problem if we cannot describe it, so today we are adopting a non-statutory definition of anti-Muslim hostility. This gives a clear explanation of unacceptable prejudice, discrimination and hatred targeting Muslims, so that we can take action to stop it. The definition safeguards our fundamental right to freedom of speech—about religion in general or any religion in particular—and ensures that concerns raised in the public interest are protected.

I thank the members of the independent working group chaired by Dominic Grieve, who have provided advice to me on this matter. They have been targets for abuse because they carried out that work. That is utterly unacceptable. I am grateful for their patience and their wisdom. We will now work with groups across society to consider how the definition can be used most effectively and what comes next in disseminating it. We have deposited a copy of the definition in the Library of each House.

We also remain absolutely committed to stamping out antisemitism. We have witnessed murderous antisemitic terrorist attacks both here in the UK and abroad. Sickeningly, those have led to spikes in antisemitic abuse. Since coming to power, the Government have taken decisive steps to combat antisemitism, with record funding for security at synagogues and schools, millions of pounds to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, and new laws to stop abusive protests outside places of worship.

Today we are going even further to tackle antisemitism in schools and colleges and in the healthcare system and, crucially, clamping down hard on the extremism that so often targets Jews first of all. Work is under way across Government as we continue to root out antisemitic hatred from every part of British life. We also hear concerns about hatred and discrimination in the workplace. We are building on protections in our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, rolling out training across the civil service and working with major employers such as the NHS. This will include training to prevent and respond to religious hatred across the entire workforce.

Confronting extremism in all its forms requires more resilient communities. We will implement the anti-extremism policies that the previous Government announced but never brought into force, embedding the 2024 extremism definition, producing an annual state of extremism report and improving our ability to monitor and stop extremist influence online and offline. We will introduce a state threats designation power to disrupt hostile state and proxy organisations. We will also strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremist abuse and ban visas for extremists and hate preachers.

Our universities should always be beacons of free speech, where students feel safe to learn, to disagree and to explore how they see the world, but in recent years this has been undermined and we will not tolerate that. We are introducing new measures to tackle the rise of extremism on our college and university campuses, particularly since the 7 October attacks, which include strengthening the monitoring of extremism on campuses, improving oversight of compliance with the Prevent duty and taking more robust enforcement action where it is needed.

We will also protect people from hate content online. The Government will not stand by as rogue platforms push divisive and aggressive hatred on social media. We are looking at how we can make platforms give their users more control over the algorithms that determine what they see, and we will make full use of the powers in the Online Safety Act 2023.

We have all grown up in a United Kingdom that is, by global standards, remarkably cohesive. That cohesion underpins our economic strength, our democratic freedom and our national security. It is a fundamental part of the Britain we love. We have made our choice. In place of division, we choose unity, and we know that the people of Britain have made the same choice. The division and hate spewed by a small minority will never reflect our country.

The real Britain is where parents put on after-school clubs and summer fêtes to bring their kids together, where towns come out in the pouring rain to support their local football club with the same passion as they would support their country’s team in the world cup, and where neighbours hold street parties and set up mutual aid groups to look out for each other during covid. This is a Britain to be proud of, and I commend this plan to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. However, I had no prior notice that he would overrun the 10 minutes that he was allocated for his statement by more than two minutes. He has taken 12 minutes, so the shadow Front Bencher will get their time extended to six minutes. I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

Many Members across the House will recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes, which will have been communicated to us by our own constituents. There are laws against outright discrimination, and those must be properly enforced, but we hope the definition will help the vast majority of employers—people of goodwill—who may not understand the nature of hostility towards Muslims or people who appear or sound like they are Muslim to see how employers contribute to that hostility. The intention of the definition is to enable those individuals and employers to better understand the circumstances, so that Muslim people are given the same opportunities and chances in life as anybody else.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. Liberal Democrats are pleased to see the Government present this social cohesion strategy, partly because we have consistently called for its publication without further delay—it was promised last year. This should not be a political matter. We all witnessed the scenes during the 2024 riots. To suggest that a community cohesion strategy is unnecessary is to be blind to the very real challenges facing our country—challenges that have regrettably been inflamed by certain politicians who should know better. Given that almost 140,000 hate-related offences have been recorded in the year to March 2025, it is clear that action is definitely needed at a national level.

To support community cohesion, we must first build community itself and the kind of community that comes from access to shared spaces—youth clubs, green spaces and the everyday places where, regardless of background, we come to recognise how much we have in common with each other. Will the Secretary of State outline how faith communities will be properly supported and involved in proactively preventing division?

The Government also previously committed to promoting local faith covenants as a way of strengthening partnerships between councils and faith groups. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the new strategy will provide practical support for local authorities to implement those covenants, especially given that many councils are on the brink financially?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

It is for the House authorities to determine what happens with Members of this House, but the hon. Member is right to point to the huge concern that we should all share about the unacceptable level of hostility and abuse directed at Muslims. It is under-reported, in all likelihood, because we know that not all instances of such crime are reported.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Steve Witherden—[Interruption.] I mean Dr Scott Arthur.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we are easily confused.

Yesterday I attended Open Heavens church in Wester Hailes, and a man told me how he had faced open racism from his colleagues and had been forced to resign, take his employer to court, and win his tribunal—a fantastic achievement. It was a shameful episode, but what made it worse was that he was an NHS consultant, and it was the NHS that he took to court. The point he made to me on the floor of the church was that too often society views hate as a series of events, rather than a culture. Will the Secretary of State confirm that what he has presented today will result in a change of culture, rather than simply addressing events? How will we measure that as we proceed through the remainder of this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Reed]

Part of the action that the Government are taking is the allocation of £5.8 billion to some of the most held-back communities in the country—over 300 constituencies will benefit from that funding. It will be local communities, through neighbourhood boards, who will decide for themselves how that money will be spent, directly addressing poverty but also directly addressing the lack of power that many of those communities feel. That will deliver the kind of change that the hon. Gentleman is describing and that we all want to see.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Rachel Taylor to ask the final question.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

As part of my work on the Women and Equalities Committee, I have heard at first hand from victims of horrific hate crimes, who have been targeted just because of how they looked and who they were. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Labour Government will finally deliver the funding, resources and a call to action to empower communities like mine in North Warwickshire and Bedworth, to bring people together and to combat those seeking to create division and hatred across this country?