Payment Scheme

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Certainly every single situation is a priority. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that IBCA is operationally independent. It has come up with a priority set of cohorts, which is publicly available, but the estates of the deceased are absolutely a priority. He can certainly have that assurance.

The regulations are a result of listening, as we have been doing through the public consultation, to those impacted by this terrible scandal. We want the scheme to reflect the hardships and suffering faced by those who had their lives upturned through no fault of their own, and we are always keen to balance this with ensuring that the scheme can be delivered as quickly as possible. I am pleased with the progress we have made on the compensation scheme, but this debate is not about the Government’s work today. Rather, as has always been the case in these debates, it is about the House coming together to put the voice of the community first.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Historical Forced Adoption

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for the tone of his response and for welcoming what the Government have set out today. I also thank him for the care and attention that he has shown personally to this issue and linked issues.

I genuinely believe it is so important that we speak with one voice in the House today, so that those affected know that this is an apology from all of us in equal measure and that the House is united on this issue. I thank him for speaking in that way, because the issue impacts not us in the Chamber but all those who have been affected. To know that the whole House supports the apology that has been given today, and how it has been given, is really important.

On the hon. Member’s questions, we are looking at schemes. We are being guided by those affected as to the support that they think is most important to them, and we will continue to be guided in that way. He also asked about responsibility, which will be with the Department for Education. I am happy to provide him with further information as these things develop.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The evidence that the Education Committee heard from mothers and adult adoptees was utterly devastating. I thank Diana Defries, Ann Lloyd Keen, Sally Ells and Debbie Iromlou for courageously reliving their trauma so that we could shine a light on the extent of the injustice they suffered and the urgent need for a meaningful response. They should not have had to work so hard for so long just to be heard and to have their experiences recognised.

I also thank the academics who gave evidence, and especially Professor Gordon Harold and Dr Michael Lambert, whose painstaking and rigorous research helped to prove what mothers and adult adoptees have long known: that the state was culpable for the wrongs they suffered by presiding over, funding and facilitating a system that dehumanised unmarried pregnant women and their babies, and inflicted horrific cruelty upon them.

I thank the Prime Minister for this apology today. It is long overdue and much needed. I thank him for the breadth of the apology and for the Government’s work with survivors to get to this point. Women whose babies were forcibly adopted and who endured cruelty and humiliation in mother and baby homes and in the NHS should know today that the shame of this period in our history rests on the Government and on the religious and community and healthcare organisations who presided over, facilitated and sustained the system; it is not, and never was, theirs to carry.

This apology is a watershed, but it must be only the beginning of putting right the disgraceful wrongs of this shameful period of our history. May I ask the Prime Minister to set out how progress on delivering the support he has announced will be monitored and how survivors will continue to be involved in it? Will he ensure that as the Government progress this work, information on how to access that support will be made widely available?

So many families have a story, and there are so many stories that are still untold with so many still feeling ashamed to speak about this period in their lives and its lifelong impact. They must no longer feel ashamed; they must feel that they can come forward and access the help and support they need.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that she has done and led through the Education Committee, and I also thank all the members of that Committee. I heard about the testimony to the Committee and how difficult and harrowing it was for all concerned. She is absolutely right to thank those who gave their testimony and those who supported its work.

My hon. Friend used the word “dehumanised”. That is the right word, although it hardly feels strong enough to me. To break the bond between a mother and a child is nothing less than dehumanising. It goes to an intense feeling that we all have as human beings. To break that bond is indescribably painful—even to describe, let alone to have gone through—so “dehumanising” is the right word.

As I heard this morning from those in the Gallery, it is about not just the initial act and all the pain and anguish, but the everyday reminders, like when people ask, “Do you have children?” What a difficult and awful question to answer over and over again, and they have all had to come to terms with how they answer that question. It is a question that we might all hear or pose on a daily or weekly basis—it is such a simple, everyday thing, but it is so painful. That really struck me this morning, and there will be thousands of things like that across all the testimonies and stories.

To my hon. Friend’s question about monitoring, that will be done by the Department for Education, and we will, of course, involve survivors as we go forward. I have no doubt that the Education Committee will want to monitor that itself and be updated on it regularly.

My hon. Friend’s point about making sure it is widely known that support is available is so important. Many thousands of people will need the support, and they must know that it is available. As I said in my statement, I am acutely conscious that there are some who to this day have still not been able to speak about this. I hope that by making it widely known that support is available, some may feel able to come forward and get the support that they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Prime Minister’s apology, and we associate ourselves fully with all his remarks, including those about being united as one House in this apology.

I pay tribute to all the mothers and children who have campaigned so bravely and for so long for this apology. Speaking as a mother, I cannot begin to imagine the trauma, agony and shame that they experienced and had to live with. The testimony that they gave to the Education Committee this year is some of the most powerful and harrowing ever heard in this Parliament. The mothers who gave birth were denied pain relief as “punishment” and then given just a few hours or days with their newborn baby before they were stolen away. The children only found out years or decades later what had happened to them, discovering that they were victims of this appalling scandal. That evil has been compounded by the long wait for an apology. It should have come long before now.

It is a tragedy that Veronica Smith, whose daughter was taken from her 60 years ago and who founded the Movement for an Adoption Apology 16 years ago, sadly passed away before she could see her campaign succeed. This apology is a tribute to her and all who fought alongside her. I hope it gives them some sense of closure. I hope it helps them know that the blame does not lie with them, and never did, but with those who did this to them and those who allowed it to happen. That includes the Church of England, the Catholic Church, charities and, of course, the state.

As the Committee heard, an apology in words alone is not enough; it has to mean action to help heal the trauma that this scandal has caused. I very much welcome the steps that the Prime Minister has announced today on adoption records, trauma-informed support and the testimonials project. Will that support include a specialist mental health pathway for all those who need it? Will he commit to a continuing dialogue with the survivors on any further support or redress that they want?

Today’s apology is not the end. It must be the beginning of a better, more caring approach to these mothers and their children.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 16, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

“33AA Conduct relevant to designation

(1) For the purposes of section 33A, a body is to be regarded as involved in foreign power threat activity if the Secretary of State reasonably believes that the body is, or has been, involved in—

(a) transnational repression;

(b) abusive lawfare;

(c) sanctions evasion connected to a foreign power, a designated body or foreign power threat activity;

(d) the concealment, movement or control of assets for or on behalf of a foreign power or a body acting for or on behalf of a foreign power; or

(e) conduct which enables, facilitates, assists or conceals any activity falling within paragraphs (a) to (d).

(2) For the purposes of this section, “transnational repression” means conduct carried out by, for, or on behalf of, or with the intention of benefiting, a foreign power, where the conduct has the purpose, or effect, of intimidating, coercing, punishing, silencing, controlling or retaliating against—

(a) a person in the United Kingdom;

(b) a United Kingdom national;

(c) a person resident in the United Kingdom;

(d) a person with a substantial connection to the United Kingdom; or

(e) a family member, associate or representative of a person falling within paragraphs (a) to (d).

(3) Conduct falling within subsection (2) includes, but is not limited to—

(a) surveillance, harassment, intimidation, threats or coercion;

(b) threats or reprisals against family members or associates overseas;

(c) forced return, attempted forced return, abduction or attempted abduction;

(d) misuse of criminal, civil, immigration, extradition or administrative processes;

(e) misuse of Interpol notices or other international police cooperation mechanisms;

(f) targeting of journalists, activists, human rights defenders, lawyers, political opponents, dissidents, whistleblowers or members of diaspora communities; and

(g) conduct intended to conceal, enable or facilitate any activity falling within paragraphs (a) to (f).

(4) For the purposes of this section, “abusive lawfare” means the use, or threatened use, of legal, regulatory, administrative, criminal, civil, immigration, extradition or other proceedings where the predominant purpose, or one of the predominant purposes, is to—

(a) intimidate, silence, punish or deter a person from engaging in public interest speech, journalism, advocacy, democratic participation or human rights work;

(b) deter investigation or scrutiny of corruption, human rights abuses, sanctions evasion, hostile state activity or foreign power threat activity;

(c) impose disproportionate cost, delay, pressure or reputational harm on the target; or

(d) protect, conceal or advance the interests of a foreign power or a body acting for or on behalf of a foreign power.

(5) Proceedings, or threatened proceedings, are not abusive merely because they are brought by, or on behalf of, a foreign power, or a person connected to a foreign power.

(6) For the purposes of this section, “sanctions evasion” means conduct which has the purpose, or effect, of enabling or facilitating the evasion, circumvention or frustration of—

(a) sanctions imposed under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018;

(b) asset-freezing measures;

(c) trade sanctions;

(d) export controls;

(e) immigration restrictions;

(f) public procurement restrictions; or

(g) any other restrictive measure imposed by or under an enactment for the purpose of protecting the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

(7) Nothing in this section is to be read as preventing legal advice, representation or advocacy, provided that such activity is not undertaken for the purpose of facilitating foreign power threat activity, transnational repression, sanctions evasion, abusive lawfare or the concealment of assets connected to a designated body.”

This amendment would specify categories of conduct that may be regarded as involvement in foreign power threat activity for the purposes of designation.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 15, page 2, line 42, at end insert—

“33C Mandatory review following designation

(1) Where regulations are made under section 33A designating a body, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the regulations being made, conduct a review of whether further action should be taken in relation to—

(a) the designated body;

(b) any person who owns or controls the designated body;

(c) any person owned or controlled by the designated body;

(d) any officer, employee, agent, member or representative of the designated body;

(e) any person acting for or on behalf of the designated body;

(f) any person who materially assists the designated body; and

(g) any person who provides funds, economic resources, professional services, goods, technology or other material support to the designated body.

(2) The review under subsection (1) must consider whether it is appropriate to take, recommend or request action including—

(a) designation under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018;

(b) asset-freezing measures;

(c) travel bans or other immigration restrictions;

(d) director disqualification;

(e) public procurement exclusion;

(f) civil recovery, restraint, freezing or forfeiture action;

(g) referral to Companies House, the National Crime Agency, the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, the Financial Conduct Authority, the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Bar Standards Board, HM Revenue and Customs, the Charity Commission, the Electoral Commission or any other relevant authority;

(h) enhanced beneficial ownership checks;

(i) enhanced reporting requirements; and

(j) any other action necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

(3) In conducting a review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Treasury;

(b) the Secretary of State responsible for foreign, Commonwealth and development affairs;

(c) the National Crime Agency; and

(d) any other Minister of the Crown or public authority as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) Within 30 days of a body being designated under section 33A, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement confirming—

(a) that the review required by this section has been conducted;

(b) what categories of action listed in subsection (2) have been considered;

(c) whether any such action has been taken, recommended or requested; and

(d) where no such action has been taken, recommended or requested, the reasons for that decision.

(5) A statement under subsection (4) may omit information where the Secretary of State considers that publication of that information would be contrary to the interests of national security, international relations, the prevention or detection of serious crime, or the protection of ongoing legal proceedings.

(6) The Secretary of State must keep under review whether further action under subsection (2) is required in relation to a designated body and persons connected to it.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State, within 30 days of designating a body, to review whether further action should be taken against the body and persons connected to it, and to lay a statement of the outcome before Parliament.

Clause stand part.

Amendment 3, in clause 2, page 3, line 8, leave out from “body” until end of line 9.

This amendment and Amendments 4 to 6 would remove the additional defence of supporting a designated body for a non-prohibited purpose.

Amendment 4, page 3, line 16, leave out from “body” until end of line 17.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 5, page 3, line 21, leave out from “body” until end of line 22.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 6, page 3, leave out lines 23 to 25.

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 3.

Amendment 1, page 4, line 23, at end insert—

“(3A) The conduct specified in subsection (3) includes establishing, administering or maintaining a company, trust, partnership or similar arrangement which conceals, or is intended to conceal, the beneficial ownership of assets connected with a designated body.”

Amendment 8, page 4, line 27, after “United Kingdom” insert

“or are conducted outside, but were planned from within, the United Kingdom”.

Amendment 7, page 5, line 15, leave out “14” and insert “25”.

This amendment would increase the maximum sentence for assisting a designated body from 14 years to 25 years imprisonment.

Amendment 11, page 6, leave out lines 21 to 23.

This amendment would remove the defence of reasonable excuse for retaining a material benefit provided by or on behalf of a designated body.

Amendment 12, page 6, line 38, leave out “(7) or”.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 11.

Amendment 9, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“17D Uniform and publication of images in relation to a designated body

(1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he—

(a) wears an item of clothing, or

(b) wears, carries or displays an article

in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter of a designated body.

(2) A person commits an offence if the person publishes an image of—

(a) an item of clothing, or

(b) any other article,

in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a supporter of a designated body.

(3) In subsection (2) the reference to an image is a reference to a still or moving image (produced by any means).

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

(5) A constable may seize an item of clothing or any other article if the constable—

(a) reasonably suspects that it is evidence in relation to an offence under subsection (1), and

(b) is satisfied that it is necessary to seize it in order to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed.

(6) In connection with exercising the power in subsection (5), a constable may require a person to remove the item of clothing or other article if the person is wearing it.

(7) But the powers conferred by subsections (5) and (6) may not be exercised so as to seize, or require a person to remove, an item of clothing being worn next to the skin or immediately over a garment being worn as underwear.”

This amendment would create an offence of wearing or displaying in public, or publishing an image of, an article in a way that arouses reasonable suspicion that a person is a supporter of a designated body.

Amendment 10, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“17D Preparation of acts relating to a designated body

(1) A person commits an offence if, with the intention of—

(a) committing an offence under section 17A, 17B or 17C, or

(b) assisting another to commit such an offence,

the person engages in any conduct in preparation for giving effect to the intention.

(2) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the intention and preparations relate to one or more particular offences, offences of a particular description, or such offences generally.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).”

This amendment would create an offence of engaging in conduct in preparation for committing, or assisting another to commit, an offence relating to a designated body.

Amendment 13, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“17D Self-directing acts in support of a designated body

(1) A person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct of any kind which is—

(a) inspired by the ideology, actions, and self-promotion of a designated body, and

(b) prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

(2) A person commits an offence if the person—

(a) engages in UK-related activities that are likely to assist the stated, or assumed, aims of a designated body, and

(b) knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought to reasonably to know, that their activities are likely to assist the stated, or assumed, aims of a designated body.

(3) UK-related activities” means—

(a) activities taking place in the United Kingdom;

(b) activities taking place outside the United Kingdom which are prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) apply to conduct outside the United Kingdom, but apply to conduct taking place wholly outside the United Kingdom only if the person engaging in the conduct—

(ab) is a UK person, or

(b) acts for or on behalf of, or holds office under, the Crown, or is in Crown employment (whether or not they engage in the conduct in that capacity).

(5) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence to show that the person engaged in the conduct in question—

(a) in compliance with a legal obligation under the law of the United Kingdom which is not a legal obligation under private law,

(b) in the case of a person having functions of a public nature under the law of the United Kingdom, for the purposes of those functions,

(c) as a lawyer carrying on a legal activity, or

(d) in accordance with, or in relation to Uk-related activities carried out in accordance with, an agreement or arrangement to which—

(i) the United Kingdom was a party, or

(ii) any person acting for, or on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown was (in that capacity) a party.

(6) A person is taken to have shown a matter mentioned in subsection (5) if—

(a) sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it, and

(b) the contrary is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

(7) A person who commits an office under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).

(8) The following terms have the same meaning as in section 3—

“Crown employment” ;

“financial benefit” ;

The “law of the United Kingdom”;

“lawyer” ;

“legal activity” ;

“UK person” .”

This amendment creates a new offence of undertaking conduct harmful or prejudicial to UK interests that is inspired by a designated body, rather than actively commissioned on behalf of a designated body.

Amendment 14, page 7, line 8, at end insert—

“17D Dissemination of publications relating to a designated body

(1) A person commits an offence if the person engages in conduct falling within subsection (2) and, at the time of doing so—

(a) intends an effect of the conduct to be a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to support, or to provide assistance to, a designated body, or

(b) is reckless as to whether the conduct has that effect.

(2) A person engages in conduct falling within this subsection if the person—

(a) distributes or circulates a publication relating to a designated body;

(b) gives, sells or lends such a publication;

(c) offers such a publication for sale or loan;

(d) provides a service to others that enables them to obtain, read, listen to or look at such a publication, or to acquire it by means of a gift, sale or loan;

(e) transmits the contents of such a publication electronically; or

(f) has such a publication in the person's possession with a view to its becoming the subject of conduct falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (e).

(3) For the purposes of this section a publication relates to a designated body if matter contained in it is likely to be understood by a reasonable person as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to support, or to provide assistance to, a designated body.

(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that—

(a) the matter by reference to which the publication was treated as relating to a designated body neither expressed the person's views nor had the person's endorsement, and

(b) it was clear, in all the circumstances of the conduct, that the matter did not express the person's views and did not have the person's endorsement.

(5) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years or a fine (or both).”

This amendment would create an offence of disseminating, or possessing with a view to disseminating, a publication that encourages support for or assistance to a designated body.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 7, line 27, at end insert—

“(5) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

This amendment ensures that any regulation under section 33C made by the Secretary of State to remove a designation is subject to the draft affirmative procedure.

Clauses 3 to 8 stand part.

New clause 3—Designation of the IRGC—

“(1) The Secretary of State must take reasonable steps to lay before Parliament regulations under the provisions of this Act to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a body involved in foreign power threat activity.

(2) Before laying such regulations, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the IRGC fulfils the conditions set out in Section 1 of this Act.

(3) The regulations specified in subsection (1) should be laid before Parliament within a month of this Act coming into force.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to bring forward regulations designating the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) within a month of this Act coming into force.

New clause 4—Assessment of the adequacy of the powers contained in the Act—

“(1) Within twelve months of passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must commission the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation or another such person performing a similar function to produce a report on the adequacy of the powers contained in this Act.

(2) The report specified in subsection (1) must consider the effectiveness of the Act’s powers in tackling the threat posed by state-backed and state-linked actors to the security of the United Kingdom.

(3) The report specified in subsection (1) must include any proposals for legislative changes to the provisions of the Act as are considered necessary by the Independent Reviewer.

(4) As soon as receiving the report, and no later than three months after receiving it, the Secretary of State must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.

(5) Within three months of laying the report before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a response to the report and to any recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer.”

This new clause would require the Independent Reviewer of State Threats Legislation to assess the adequacy of the powers introduced by this Act twelve months after its passing.

New clause 5—Seizure of Passports etc from Person Suspected of Assisting a Designated Body—

“(1) This section applies in the case of a person at a port in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, or in the border area, if a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that the person—

(a) is there with the intention of leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland for the purpose of assisting a designated body outside the United Kingdom; or

(b) has arrived in Great Britain or Northern Ireland with the intention of leaving it soon for that purpose.

(2) The constable may—

(a) exercise any of the powers in sub-paragraph (4) in the case of the person, or

(b) direct a qualified officer to do so.

(3) A qualified officer must (if able to do so) comply with any direction given by a constable under sub-paragraph (2)(b).

(4) The powers are—

(a) to require the person to hand over all travel documents in the person’s possession to the constable or (as the case may be) the qualified officer;

(b) to search for travel documents relating to the person and to take possession of any that the constable or officer finds;

(c) to inspect any travel document relating to the person; and

(d) to retain any travel document relating to the person that is lawfully in the possession of the constable or officer.

(5) The power in sub-paragraph (4)(b) is a power to search—

(a) the person;

(b) anything that the person has with him or her; and

(c) any vehicle in which the officer believes the person to have been travelling or to be about to travel.

(6) A constable or qualified officer—

(a) may stop a person or vehicle for the purpose of exercising a power in sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b);

(b) may if necessary use reasonable force for the purpose of exercising a power in sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b); and

(c) may authorise a person to carry out on the constable's or officer's behalf a search under sub-paragraph (4)(b).

(7) A constable or qualified officer exercising a power in sub-paragraph (4)(a) or (b) must tell the person that—

(a) the person is suspected of intending to leave Great Britain or (as the case may be) the United Kingdom for the purpose of assisting a designated body, and

(b) the constable or officer is therefore entitled under this Schedule to exercise the power.

(8) Where a travel document relating to the person is in the possession of an immigration officer or customs official (whether a qualified officer or not), the constable may direct the officer or official—

(a) to pass the document to a constable as soon as practicable, and

(b) in the meantime to retain it,

the officer or official must comply with any such direction.”

This new clause would replicate existing powers to seize travel documents from individuals suspected of terrorism, applying those powers in relation to individuals suspected of assisting a designated body

New clause 6—Police powers to apply for serious crime prevention orders in designation cases—

“(1) The Serious Crime Act 2007 is amended as follows.

(2) In Section 8, after subsection (2)(a) insert—

“(ab) it is an application for an order under section 1 that is related to an offence committed under section 2 of the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026.””

This new clause allows police to apply for serious crime prevention orders in relation to offences committed under this Act.

New clause 7—Sanctions—

“(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations under the provisions of Section 1 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 to subject any—

(a) body designated under the National Security (State Threats) Act 2026, or

(b) a person who commits an offence under section (2) of that Act

to any available sanction within that Act.”

This new clause would ensure that any body designated under this Act, or any person who commits an offence under this Act, may be subject to the sanctions regime set out in the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.

The schedule.

[Alicia Kearns]

We have tabled 13 amendments, not to frustrate the Bill but to give it the necessary teeth. This Bill is soft where it should be hard, silent where it should speak, and blind where it should see. It is soft because, as drafted, it sets a higher bar to prosecute a person who supports the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps than a person who supports the terrorists whom the IRGC funds and commands; it is silent because whole categories of hostile conduct that our terrorism laws have criminalised for 20 years are simply missing; and it is blind because it has been written for one organisation on one timetable, with almost no provision for future designations. Good will is not enough, and we must close the holes that our enemies will exploit.

The Government have lifted much of this legislation from section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000, yet they have added something that does not appear in the terrorism offence: a requirement that support was given for a prohibited purpose that was prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United Kingdom. Let me ask the Minister the simple question that this Bill invites: what level of support for the IRGC do the Government consider beneficial to the United Kingdom? The IRGC is the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, and if she agrees that there is no level of support for it that is beneficial to the UK, we can simply remove the prohibited purpose. She has just said from the Dispatch Box that she agrees that there is absolutely none, so let us act and amend the Bill.

Under the Bill as drafted, to convict someone who supports the IRGC the prosecution must prove that their support was prejudicial to the safety or interest of the UK—an additional threshold—but that requirement does not exist in terrorism law. To convict someone who supports Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis—the proxies that the IRGC arms and funds—there is no such hurdle, so the body that inspires, organises arms and funds the terrorists is handed a protection in law that the terrorist himself is denied. That is the difference between a prosecution that succeeds and one that never gets off the ground, and I know something about prosecutions that fail at the last moment. Our amendment 3 simply removes the extra defence and brings this offence into line with the terrorism law from which it is drawn.

I recognise that the Government may seek to argue that state entities enjoy protections in international law that terrorists do not, that we must set a higher bar than in equivalent terrorism legislation and that acting prejudicially to the UK’s interests is a reasonable test. However, state immunity protects the Iranian state from being sued or prosecuted in our courts, and it has nothing to do with the British resident who chooses to fund or promote the IRGC. We are not prosecuting Tehran; we are prosecuting the person here who does its work. The proposition that the Minister is left defending is that supporting the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism should be harder to prosecute than supporting the groups it sponsors. That is not a higher bar; it is international lawyers tying the hands of Ministers who are meant to be keeping us safe.

On amendments 11 and 12, the same instinct to protect where we should prosecute runs through subsection (7) of proposed new section 17C, which makes a reasonable excuse a defence for accepting and keeping a material benefit from a designated body. That is not necessary, because there are already protections in the Bill for, for example, a lawyer or somebody who has no ability to know that funds were being taken. I recognise that such a provision is in the National Security Act 2023, but that is not a reason to repeat a weakness, and we have an opportunity to fix it. There is no excuse for keeping a hostile state’s money—not in this Bill and not in the Act it leans on.

The sentencing gets the gravity backwards. As drafted, supporting a designated body and actively assisting one carries the same maximum sentence of 14 years or a fine.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Debate on the Address

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

I welcome the King’s Speech, as we continue to implement our manifesto. I note that we have already delivered more of those manifesto promises than Reform has actual policies.

I welcome the steps to make Britain a land of opportunity, built for all. That opportunity starts at home, with a good home. That is why I support the measures that we are taking to protect social housing stock and incentivise the building of more social homes via the social housing renewable Bill. At the heart of this opportunity must be a hard day’s work, and it must always be our Labour mission to repair the broken link between work and our livelihoods. I welcome the steps that we are taking to deliver a fair deal for working people, but I want targeted fiscal support behind it, to ensure that we have a tax system for growth, and a tax system that ends the carers’ tax trap and the other tax cliff edges that punish working people. We have to work on lowering the cost of employment for young people, and let them get that first crucial step on the ladder. We must let low earners take home more of what they earn, on top of the pay boost that 2.7 million workers have already had via the minimum wage increase delivered by this Labour Government.

I welcome the steps to strengthen and reform the state, and I urge the Government to go even further, faster, to get dynamism back into the apparatus of our British state and to harness its potential as an investor and co-ordinator, as we have done by empowering our public finance institutions. Those same institutions are investing millions of pounds in the Cornish economy and bringing together crucial projects that might not have come to fruition under a pure, narrow-minded, private investor mindset. Sometimes it takes the state to co-ordinate things, and to step up and say, “We are going to deliver in this industry.” This toolkit, and this ambition for the role of the state and its potential for dynamism and for rebuilding our public wealth, is needed to deliver on the ambitions for economic, energy and national security that we have outlined today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jim Shannon.

Government Procurement Strategy

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office was asked several times about trade union requirements in public procurement contracts, yet Hansard records him as saying on 4 December that

“The Government’s social value model provides opportunities to reward suppliers that recognise a trade union”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1144.]

Could I seek your guidance as to how I could ask the Minister to confirm those two points together?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Minister, would you like to respond?

[Chris Ward]

I would just point out that an opportunity is not a requirement. The question I was being posed was about a requirement to recognise trade unions—that is not the same as an opportunity to reflect that within the system. That is the difference between those statements, and as I have said, nothing in the strategy changes the status of trade unions within the procurement system. What it does is deliver on our really important manifesto commitment to end the age of outsourcing and bring more work in-house.

Pension Schemes

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

I wish to provide the House with an important update on key pension, contractual and commercial decisions.

The security and dignity of those who have dedicated their careers to our public services are not negotiable, and they deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. For those principles to be more than just words, they need to be underpinned by rigorous accountability and a refusal to accept second best. We recognise that for our public servants, these services are the foundation of their financial security. When the standards they deserve are not upheld, the Government will not hesitate to act decisively to protect their interests. It is in that context that I want to give the first update to the House on the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme.

Following a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a lack of confidence in Capita’s ability to implement and transition to the new operating model in a timely fashion, I am announcing today that I have terminated the new Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract with Capita. Capita had an 18-month planning window to prepare for the transition. It failed to deliver numerous milestones, including a failure to implement the required IT automation. The Cabinet Office repeatedly flagged delays in transition milestones and that IT automation, ultimately issuing formal correspondence to reaffirm the mandatory requirements. To ensure members are protected, we will ensure continuity of the existing contract, but let the message be clear: I will not and we will not tolerate delivery failure from contracted partners. Public services require high-quality delivery, and public money should not be used to fund performance that falls short of the standards we expect.

I also want to address problems in the administration of the civil service pension scheme. The transition process from the previous provider, MyCSP, was not satisfactory. We are investigating the respective liabilities for those failures as between Capita and MyCSP. Given the criticality of these services, the Cabinet Office permanent secretary and I discussed transition with the chief executive officer of Capita. We sought and were given explicit personal assurances that the transition would be handled with the utmost care and that any backlogs would be managed effectively. I am sorry to say that those assurances have not been met.

It is clear in any event that the delivery of the service to civil servants since the transfer on 1 December last year has fallen far short of the required standard. The delays that civil servants have faced in accessing their civil service pensions are unacceptable, especially in view of their many years of dedicated public service. That is why I established a specialist pensions recovery taskforce, led by the second permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Angela MacDonald, to take strategic oversight of the scheme’s management. That intervention, which includes a circa 140-person Government surge team to bolster operational capacity, is delivering results, including helping Capita to clear 15,000 inherited unread emails. Telephony wait times that averaged more than 90 minutes earlier this year have been successfully brought down to an average of under two minutes.

The stories we have heard of members missing mortgage payments and falling into hardship are distressing and entirely unacceptable. No one should have to face such financial anxiety after a lifetime of dedicated public service. That is why I took immediate action to ensure that no member was left to face these challenges alone while these service issues are being resolved. To mitigate the impact on those most affected, we have already provided more than £7.2 million in interest-free transitional support loans to more than 1,300 members. We are proactively driving the uptake of those loans to ensure that no member in need of support is missed, and I encourage all hon. and right hon. Members to ask their eligible constituents to reach out to their civil service employers for these loans, so that we can provide the vital support they deserve.

I can tell the House that Capita was explicitly instructed in July 2025 to prepare for the volumes it is now seeing. It knew the scale of the challenge, but failed to deliver the IT automation and portal functionality required when the service went live. The result, I am afraid to say, is a backlog of around 24,000 outstanding pension quotations. There is also a backlog of more than 1,500 open MP complaints. That is totally unacceptable. I have instructed officials to speak to Capita about how we can ensure that MP correspondence is dealt with quickly and efficiently, noting the importance of the fact that Members across the House were speaking up for their constituents. These are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent thousands of individuals who are unable to plan for their futures or retire with dignity.

Service delivery is about more than just speed; it is also about the absolute security of member data. The breach we saw on 30 March, which saw personal information compromised on the pension portal, represents a fundamental failure in data protection. To be clear with the House, I will not tolerate these lapses. The Cabinet Office has formally notified the Information Commissioner’s Office of this breach, and we have written formally to the chief executive officer of Capita to demand a full technical account of this failure and a guarantee that it will not happen again.

Across the civil service pension scheme, we have taken direct action on all commercial levers. We are withholding milestone payments where deliverables have not been met, and we reserve every right to take further formal action. The Cabinet Office has mandated a clear recovery target on service levels. Capita must clear all inherited arrears by the end of this month and restore service levels to standard, contractually required levels by the end of June this year. We will continue to use every commercial lever at our disposal to ensure that these standards are met.

The security and dignity of all those who have dedicated their careers to our civil service and the Royal Mail are not negotiable. They deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure. We will continue to use every lever at our disposal to ensure that those standards are met and that members receive the service they have earned. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend can rest assured that I have interrogated officials on the situation that I inherited. On the point about assurances and promises not being met, I think the House can say today that when assurances are not met, I take decisive action, including commercial action. My hon. Friend will have seen that with regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, but also in our withholding milestone payments from Capita. He talked about whether we are looking at insourcing more things. That clearly is the Government’s pledge, and our policy going forward. With regard to the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme, we will look at a range of options in both those categories to ensure that we get the very best possible service for those who deserve it and rely on it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. We have learned today that this contract was awarded two and a half years ago. Capita had two and a half years to prepare for taking on the administration of the civil service scheme. As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee warned in October that Capita was not ready, yet it took on the contract regardless on 1 December. Today we learned also that the Government have terminated another Capita contract, for the Royal Mail pension scheme.

My constituents would like answers to the following questions. How many people on the civil service pension scheme, as of now, have not received payments that they should have had? Why should taxpayers be paying for the surge in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff? A hundred and forty staff have come in to sort this out. Surely Capita should be paying for its incompetence. What is the timeline for Capita to clear up all inherited arrears, and is it prioritising hardship and bereavement cases? With regard to the Royal Mail pension scheme, now that Capita has been terminated, what is the plan?

Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am going to try to get more Members in to speak, so I am reducing the informal time limit to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. The Minister will be called at 5 pm precisely, so with the remaining time, I call Jim Allister.

Antisemitic Attacks

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the Minister to make a statement on recent antisemitic attacks, I should inform the House that in some cases, charges have been brought. Those cases, including the attacks on the Hatzola community ambulance services and at the Manchester synagogue, are therefore sub judice. In respect of more recent incidents in Kenton and Finchley, arrests have been made but charges have not yet been brought. I remind hon. Members that they should not refer to the details of any specific cases currently before the courts, and that they should exercise caution with respect to any specific cases that might subsequently come before the courts, in order not to prejudice those proceedings.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

With permission, I will make a statement about the appalling incidents targeting British Jews and opponents of the Iranian regime over recent days. I will begin with the facts. Counter-terrorism police have confirmed that they are investigating a series of arson attacks and incidents that have occurred in London over recent days. These include an arson attack at a synagogue in Finchley on Wednesday 15 April; a suspected arson attack targeting premises in Hendon linked to a Jewish charity on Friday 17 April; a suspected arson attack targeting a synagogue in Harrow on the evening of Saturday 18 April; and a further incident in the early hours of yesterday morning outside residential premises in Finchley and opposite a synagogue.

These events follow the arson attack on a volunteer-led ambulance service run by the Jewish community in Golders Green on 23 March. Last week, there was also an attempted arson attack on a Persian-language media organisation that has previously been the target of serious threats linked to the Iranian regime and its proxies. Eight arrests have now been made in connection with that incident, and four people have been charged. Jewish communities across the UK will be distressed and dismayed by these abhorrent attacks, and I know that I speak for hon. Members from right across the House when I say that there is no place in British life for antisemitism. Attacks on British Jews are attacks on all of us, and we will do whatever it takes to stop the cowards and thugs who seek to intimidate our Jewish communities.

The police response over the weekend has been decisive. Fifteen arrests have already been made. In addition, a range of capabilities have been deployed to deter potential attackers and to reassure communities. Over the weekend, the Metropolitan police significantly increased the number of officers in and around north-west London. Uniformed and plain-clothes officers have maintained a strong presence around Barnet, and additional stop-and-search powers have been introduced across the borough. Response vehicles and Counter Terrorism Policing resources have been deployed, alongside local policing, to respond to potential threats.

To ensure the police response is a sustainable one, the Government have already committed an additional £5 million for this financial year to support the deployment of specialist officers across the country to support vulnerable communities under Project Servator. That is in addition to the record £73.4 million annual funding for protective security at Jewish, Muslim and other faith sites.

This morning, I visited Finchley Reform synagogue with the deputy commissioner and the local MP, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman). I met community leaders and saw at first hand the strengthened police presence and the resilience of those affected, and I reaffirmed our commitment to protect all those who have been targeted.

The Government’s commitment to supporting British Jews is an enduring one. We are taking firm steps to root out antisemitism wherever it appears across public life—from our public services to our universities, our charities and beyond. We are backing up our words with action. This includes launching an urgent review of antisemitism in the NHS, introducing mandatory training, and investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities. This is a whole of society effort, grounded in close engagement with Jewish communities.

We are determined to tackle the issues that have a daily impact on the lives of our Jewish communities. An amendment to existing powers will allow the police to deal with repeat protests by taking into account the cumulative effect of protest activity, and the Home Secretary has asked Lord Macdonald to undertake a review of public order laws to ensure people can go about their lives without fear of intimidation.

The Government have set out our vision for a fair, tolerant and decent country with the recent publication of “Protecting What Matters”, our action plan to tackle threats to social cohesion and counter the scourge of extremism. The plan makes significant spending commitments, including £800 million to expand the Pride in Place programme to 40 new neighbourhoods, plus new investment in community resilience, schools linking and local media. This vital effort requires us to work collectively across Government and with operational partners, and it will be driven forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Furthermore, we are actively protecting Persian language media organisations that are at risk. This includes tailored security advice and cyber-protection through to armed police protection where necessary. We have already seen a number of charges and convictions of those seeking to harm journalists in the UK. Through the implementation of the National Security Act 2023 and other means, we are making the United Kingdom an even harder operating target for hostile actors.

Hon. Members will be aware that a group calling itself Ashab al-Yamin—the Islamic Movement of the Companions of the Right—has claimed responsibility for a number of these incidents. It has also claimed responsibility for attacks across Europe over recent months targeting Jewish and Israeli interests. I am aware of the public speculation linking that group to the Iranian state. Given that police investigations are ongoing, it would not be appropriate to comment on who may ultimately be behind these specific incidents, but more generally, we have held and will continue to hold Iran to account for its hostile acts.

Let me be absolutely clear: whether linked to Iran or to any other source, we will never tolerate hostile activity on British soil. Alongside the police and our world-leading security and intelligence agencies, we will do what is necessary to keep our citizens safe. On those criminal proxies used by states to do their dirty work, we will continue to ensure that their actions are met with the full weight of the law, as we saw with the conviction of the Chechen-born Austrian national who was imprisoned in 2023 for conducting surveillance on Iran International’s UK headquarters.

We have already seen the first convictions under the National Security Act for assisting a foreign intelligence service, including that of Dylan Earl, who in October received a sentence of 17 years for masterminding an arson campaign for Russia’s Wagner Group. To anyone tempted by offers of financial reward from foreign states to conduct hostile acts against the UK, my advice and my message is unambiguous: “You will be discovered and the consequences will be severe. Turning a blind eye or pleading ignorance is no defence.”

Antisemitism has existed in its many poisonous forms for centuries, but there is no doubt that we find ourselves at a critical juncture as fellow members of our society feel forced in some cases to live a smaller Jewish life. Our response must be unflinching, and I assure the House that under this Government it always will be. We will work relentlessly to ensure that antisemites and those who threaten the Jewish community here have nowhere to hide, and to show British Jews that we stand with them and will do everything in our power to keep them safe. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for the assiduous representation of his constituents and his constituency. The threats he describes are abhorrent and completely unacceptable. The notion that some members of our Jewish communities might be forced to live less Jewish lives is totally unacceptable. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that our response is proportionate to that threat. Along with ministerial colleagues in the Department, we have been in constant contact with the Metropolitan police over the past few days. I met Deputy Commissioner Matt Jukes this morning to look at what more we can do to ensure that the police have the resources they need.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the police for their work in recent times, which has been an impressive effort. They have stepped up to the plate and their response has been impressive, but we need to ensure that, collectively, we have the resources in place to continue that for as long as is necessary, to provide the reassurance required in constituencies such as the one that my hon. Friend is proud to represent. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take this matter and I would be very happy to discuss it with him further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to extend my sympathies to the Jewish community, who will understandably be worried about the disturbing uptick in violence against their community across Britain.

The series of arson attacks on Jewish sites in recent days is an abhorrent trend. The pattern of attacks on Britain’s Jews is clear to see. Without serious intervention, it is only a matter of time before we see another attack like that seen in Manchester last year. We are grateful to hear the Minister’s words today on the action being taken. We must recognise that we have a huge antisemitism problem in this country. We in this House must re-state that again and again until the problem has been stamped out. But that is not enough; the political system must also take action to tackle its root causes.

Earlier today, I met groups representing British Jews, including the Community Security Trust. They told me that British Jews are feeling extremely vulnerable, with some questioning their long-term security in this country. That such sentiment is held by any minority group in Britain in 2026 must give this House pause for thought. That the sentiment is held by the Jewish community, given the centuries of persecution they have suffered, is a tragedy.

A group called Ashab al-Yamin has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, and others across Europe. What are Ministers doing with our European partners to tackle the cross-country and cross-continent threat that this organisation and others pose? Given the potential links with the IRGC, will the Minister act swiftly to proscribe it? Does he accept that, if those links are substantiated, proscription would be more likely to deliver justice for the Jewish community?

We know that hostile foreign states sometimes try to recruit individuals online to carry out these kinds of attacks on British people. There are rumours that social media has been the recruitment tool used. Does the Minister know what the social media companies are doing to identify, monitor and clamp down on that practice? What are Ministers doing to ensure that social media companies themselves are taking action?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has raised her concerns diligently with me on a number of occasions. I had the privilege recently of visiting JW3, in her constituency, which is a truly inspiring place. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Raymond, the chief executive officer, and to all the staff and volunteers for the incredibly important work that they do. I know it is hugely appreciated in my hon. Friend’s community.

The threat that my hon. Friend describes is totally unacceptable, and I can give her an absolute assurance to take back to her constituents of how seriously we take that threat. I also assure her that we will bring forward and use all the tools at our disposal. There has been a lot of commentary about proscribing the IRGC, and I completely understand why. She will understand that the Government have made a commitment to bring forward a legislative tool that was recommended by Jonathan Hall. It was this Government’s view that we did not have the appropriate legislative mechanism to proscribe a state-backed entity, which is why we have made a commitment to bring forward that particular tool. However, she should be assured that we will not wait for that particular legislative tool to do everything necessary to combat and counter the work of the IRGC. I set out the work we are doing to counter the threat from Iran a moment ago, and I hope that provides some assurance to her and to her constituents.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I am sure that everyone in this House will have heard stories from friends and constituents who are unable to enjoy a full Jewish life in the way that they should. The Minister is right that this is not just about putting in place more police and security, but about driving out the root cause of antisemitism. In this case, it does seem that the attacks are driven by foreign state actors, so I must agree with the calls for the proscription of the IRGC. This is something that the Government must now look at urgently.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)]

The hate-filled attack on the Kenton synagogue in my constituency is the latest in the series of disgusting attacks on Jewish buildings that the Minister outlined. But these are more than attacks on buildings; they are calculated attacks on the whole Jewish community, designed to destabilise and instil widespread fear. This is the very definition of terrorism.

I am grateful to the police for their swift response and the arrests that they have made in relation to some of the attacks, but I believe it is vital that the Government and the Met treat these as terrorist attacks, not simply as criminal damage. I would also ask that the Home Office, and perhaps the Home Affairs Committee, examines the involvement of foreign actors and the ease with which they are able to launch such attacks. For too long, London has been regarded by some hostile regimes as a safe base from which to operate and a place where money can be laundered. That British Jewry lives under the dark shadow of antisemitic hatred is something that, sadly, we have all come to understand but must never come to accept.

I pay tribute to the work of the CST and the security personnel at Kenton, who are always there to greet those of us who visit to ensure the safety of us and the whole congregation. In the London borough of Brent, we like to pride ourselves on the multicultural nature of our community and the harmony between all those from different faiths and cultural backgrounds, but good community relations have to be worked at—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Member will ask his question.

[Barry Gardiner]

I ask the Minister to reinforce the fact that those good community relations are built not simply on the toleration of the views of others but on—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Minister.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance of community relations. He is also right that we have seen a number of clearly calculated attacks in recent times. He will understand that I do not want to get in front of a live and ongoing police operation, and it is not for me to categorise the nature of these attacks, but I again make the point that the Metropolitan police has arrested a number of people over the weekend. Should any further individuals be considering conducting any more attacks, I strongly advise them against doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Every community should feel safe. Does the Minister agree that we must condemn racism in all its forms—antisemitism, attacks on mosques, the abuse and intimidation directed at other minority ethnic communities, and attacks on asylum hotels by far-right terrorists? The Government’s approach appears inconsistent. Take the handling of visas for divisive far-right figures, such as Valentina Gomez. Her entry has now been blocked, but why was her visa approved in the first place, given the clear risk that she posed to the safety and cohesion of our—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. These questions are too long. Minister.

[Kim Johnson]

I will finish off by saying—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Sit down please.

[Kim Johnson]

Does the Minister agree that all—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member will respect the Chair. I call the Minister.

[Dan Jarvis]

Every community must feel safe, and this Government will defend against racism wherever it raises its ugly head.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 2 stand part.

[The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Cummins, as I open the proceedings in the Committee of the whole House. I set out the core arguments for this Bill in my Second Reading speech, so I will not rehearse them again, although I have not matched the Teddy Taylor standard from 1975. However, for the benefit of the Committee, I will outline the two clauses and why they should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1 amends paragraph 2 of part V of schedule 1 to the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which determines the maximum number of salaries that may be paid to certain ministerial office holders. Sub-paragraph (a) replaces the previous provision for 21 salaries at Secretary of State rank with a new provision for 22 salaries, sub-paragraph (b) replaces the previous provision for 50 salaries at Secretary of State rank and Minister of State rank with a new provision for 54 salaries, and sub-paragraph (c) replaces the previous provision for 83 salaries at Secretary of State rank, Minister of State rank and Parliamentary Secretary rank with a new provision of 94 salaries. This increases the total number of ministerial salaries available by 11. As I have said, the new limits are cumulative, meaning that the Prime Minister has the discretion to allocate salaries to a large number of Ministers at more junior ranks within those limits, if so desired.

Clause 2 sets out the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill. The Bill extends to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Of course, the Bill comes into force on Royal Assent. I very much look forward to the rest of the debate and seeing the Bill on the statute book soon.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I have just a few short remarks. First, it would be helpful if the Minister set out how the Government have come to the totals that they have come to: why one, four and nine in total? Why not fewer, and why not more? Secondly, I did not quite get the Dispatch Box commitment I was looking for that this would mark an end to unpaid ministerial posts in this Government. [Interruption.] There is a little bit of a debate on the Government Front Bench about whether that commitment was made, but if the Paymaster General would be crystal clear, we can all go home happy.