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.

Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I may be at risk of making myself fantastically unpopular, but I think I can do so having no prospect whatsoever of reaching ministerial office again. Although I am perfectly willing to admit that the previous Government did not do this, does the Paymaster General agree that a Government will at some point have to reconsider the constant freezing of the ministerial salary? It has to increase, or we will get to the point of there being no meaningful reward for ministerial office, which I think could have a detrimental impact on the calibre of people we can attract over the long term. He is being very bold on this, so why not be bold with ministerial salaries?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind the House that what we are discussing—and what is in scope—is the number of ministerial appointments, not the salaries of Ministers.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If ever Ministers were looking for a trade union leader, we have found one in the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). Having already held very high office and been Deputy Prime Minister, he should perhaps worry less about future ambitions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gavin Williamson]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There is a disconnect between all the priorities and all the issues around the world and our wanting to pass legislation to create more ministerial offices.

I also understand and appreciate the challenges that the Prime Minister will face. I am sympathetic to his position, because he will be constantly badgered to make more Ministers, with more people wanting patronage and elevation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has pointed out, there is no upper limit to the number of Ministers, so if we are in this House in 10 years’ time, we will be having a debate about how there are another 15 Ministers who are unpaid. The Government Minister will be at the Dispatch Box, possibly trying to defend the idea of paying even more Ministers. We will have a creep, creep, creep of patronage, with ever more people going on to the Government payroll. I feel, and I fear, that that may weaken this House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 16th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before we come to the urgent question on the Government’s response to the Humble Address, I would like to remind the House that Peter Mandelson is the subject of an ongoing police investigation. However, no charges have been brought. The sub judice resolution, therefore, does not currently apply. In that context, it is up to Ministers how they reply, but the House’s rules do not prevent them from answering fully. None the less, I know that the House would not wish to do anything that risked prejudicing the investigation, so I gently say to Members that it would be helpful to exercise a degree of restraint in referencing the specific matters under investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

I can confirm that any documents that are within the scope of the Humble Address and refer to communications between Ministers and others and Peter Mandelson are part of the disclosure process currently being undertaken by the Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I apologise for not being able to give you notice of it. The ministerial code clearly states that Ministers must provide accurate information to this House. Under the duty of truthfulness, it states that Ministers are required to

“be as open as possible with Parliament”

and maintain high standards of accountability. That is not just in what they say, but what they fail to say. I know that you do not enforce the ministerial code, Madam Deputy Speaker, but would you expect a Minister who has misled the House by omission to return to the House to correct the record?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. While the occupant of the Chair is not responsible for Ministers’ words, I would expect any Minister to return to the House to correct omission, although that is a matter for those on the Treasury Bench and not for the Chair.

Extreme Climate and Weather Events: National Resilience

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I will make a little bit of progress. It also includes £30 million for coastal adaptation pilots in the East Riding of Yorkshire, Norfolk and Suffolk, and £104 billion in private investment for new water infrastructure.

I was privileged to meet community members and first responders shortly after Storm Goretti, and to hear at first hand about the challenges they faced. I was very pleased last week to see His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales visit Helston, in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), shining a spotlight on the strong spirit and resilience of the people of Cornwall.

In the period preceding the storm, our world-leading weather warning service played a significant part in the initial Government response. The storm made landfall on Thursday 8 January; the Met Office issued a rare red national severe weather warning across the Isles of Scilly and parts of Cornwall. The storm brought a combination of heavy rain, significant snow and strong winds to England and Wales. Emergency alerts were quickly dispatched to half a million residents in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, advising them to remain indoors until the danger had passed. The conditions resulted in widespread power outages and disruption to transport networks. The national response was managed by the Cabinet Office, which co-ordinated meetings with health and environmental experts and senior Government officials. The Cabinet Office has committed to a comprehensive review of the response to Storm Goretti, which aims to ensure that lessons are captured across Government to improve our response to future severe weather events.

The Government are also acutely aware of the challenges faced by British farmers due to extreme weather, which can impact harvests and consequently influence food prices. Despite these challenges, the UK maintains a resilient food supply chain that is underpinned by diverse sources; robust domestic production; and reliable import routes. During a recent visit to Aberystwyth University, I visited the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences, a leading research institute dedicated to advancing the sustainable production of food, feed, and plant-based resources. I also met Aled Jones, the former president of the National Farmers’ Union Cymru, and we discussed the vital importance of securing our nation’s food supply. I recognise that the Government must work collaboratively with farmers and the NFU to ensure that our food supply is safeguarded for the long term.

As has been mentioned, our telecommunications networks are a vital part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and our emergency response in weather-related crises. They support the functioning of essential services and keep people connected when they need it most. The public switched telephone network often relies on overhead cables that can easily be damaged during severe winds, and most handsets rely on power supplies. Telecoms companies are upgrading landlines from analogue to digital, with over two thirds of lines across the UK already having been migrated. We recognise that telecoms resilience is underpinned by a resilient power supply. Through close co-ordination with the energy sector, the emergency planning community and industry, we are strengthening back-up power arrangements, improving situational awareness, and ensuring that the sector is ready to activate mitigation measures when risks escalate.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.

Standards in Public Life

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for her question. She raises important points about the process for appointing ambassadors and the delay between announcement, appointment and the host country accepting their appointment to the role. That is why we have made it clear today that the security vetting process will now have to be concluded before announcement and confirmation.

My right hon. Friend asks me about the role of pre-appointment hearings. I know that the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office has already informed her Committee that it is entitled to invite ambassadors to appear before the Committee to answer questions. Of course, we continue to keep all other pre-appointment hearings under review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

On the first part of my hon. Friend’s question, I can assure her that all procurement rules have been followed, but if there is any suggestion of wrongdoing, we have powers under the Procurement Act 2023 to take action if required. On the second part, I agree that the public were calling for change at the last election, partly because of the repeated scandals that happened under the last Administration. That is why we have already taken action to make the ethics adviser independent and institute the Ethics and Integrity Commission, and as I said in my statement, we will go further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Can I ask the Chief Secretary the following points? He said in answer to an earlier question that the documentation would be released in compliance with the Metropolitan police. Can he ensure that his Department, No. 10 and the Met understand what parliamentary privilege means and assert it on behalf of this House? Secondly, he has mentioned that the Bill that would remove Mandelson’s titles is in preparation, but that is a short Bill. Could he tell us when he expects to see it introduced in this place and guarantee that there will be a one-day process for all stages of the Bill?

The statement today is entitled “Standards in Public Life”. Knowing that Mandelson was a friend of Epstein—forget the extent—and all of Mandelson’s baggage, could the Chief Secretary finally explain to the House why Mandelson was ever on the shortlist of people considered to be appointed to what is probably our most important ambassadorial role?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The Ethics and Integrity Commission was set up only very recently by this Government to play an important role in relation to standards in public life. We want to work with the commission to ensure that we set it up for success in delivering on the issues and reforms that I have outlined to the House today. That is the basis on which we will collaborate with it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Standards Committee.

[Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)]

I never comment on any conduct or standards issues that may impact individual MPs, precisely because of my adjudicatory role on the Committee on Standards, and I do not propose to refer to the Prime Minister in respect of the potential that, if not all the documents are disclosed to the House, there might be a breach of privilege.

However, let me say this gently: the Minister constantly refers to the past, and to my party’s role in government with regard to breaches of standards issues. From this moment on, will he accept that, given the litany of issues that have befallen the Labour Government, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) at the Dispatch Box, it would really behove the Minister to stop doing that, and just to ensure going forward that the Labour Government act with the same standards of conduct that they demanded of my party in government?

Also, given the Minister’s statement, might he request that the Prime Minister attend a meeting with the Committee on Standards to outline exactly how, moving forward, the Prime Minister will uphold the highest of standards?

Lord Mandelson

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Anderson]

My hon. Friend is making a great speech about Mandelson’s influence in the Labour party. It is reported that he was involved in the selection of up to 25% of its candidates. Does my hon. Friend think that the documents in question should be made available to anyone who needs help looking into his influence on the Labour party? [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am having difficulty hearing the debate.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

What you were hearing, Madam Deputy Speaker, was incredulity being expressed by my hon. Friends at the revelation that so discredited a man had such an influence over the choice of candidates, many of whom were successfully elected at the last general election. I do not how those Members will vote this evening. It is extraordinary that Mandelson has had this enduring influence over politics in this country for such a long time, and we needed documents to be produced in the United States to get somewhere near the truth.

US Department of Justice Release of Files

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)]

As I know right hon. and hon. Members across the House will agree, Jeffrey Epstein was a despicable criminal who committed disgusting crimes and destroyed the lives of countless women and girls. What he did is unforgivable. His victims must be our first priority. As the Prime Minister has said, anybody with relevant information must come forward and co-operate with investigations, so that Jeffrey Epstein’s victims can get the justice that they have been denied for too long.

On Friday, the Department of Justice in the United States released around 3 million pages from the case files relating to Jeffrey Epstein. It is increasingly clear that his awful crimes involved many—often powerful—people, who facilitated them by actively participating in those crimes, by failing to hear the victims’ voices, by equating wealth with integrity, and by not using their privileged position to speak out, even against a friend. It is incumbent on those of us who hold ministerial office to behave in a way that builds trust in politics and upholds the standards that voters rightly expect from us.

Contained within the release by the US Department of Justice are documents that highlight the close nature of the relationship between Jeffrey Epstein and Peter Mandelson, including alleged financial transactions when Peter Mandelson was a Labour Member of Parliament and later a Minister. For the avoidance of doubt, this information was not known by the Government until the release of documents by the Department of Justice on Friday.

The nature of the documents has also raised serious concerns about Peter Mandelson’s behaviour while a Minister. Peter Mandelson must account for his actions and conduct. It is an understatement to say that his decision to continue a close relationship with a convicted paedophile, including discussing private Government business, falls far below the standards expected of any Minister. His behaviour was unequivocally wrong and an insult to the women and girls who suffered. No Government Minister of any political party should have behaved or ever should behave in this way.

The Prime Minister has today asked the Cabinet Secretary to review all available information regarding Peter Mandelson’s contact with Jeffrey Epstein during his period as a Government Minister, and to report back to him as a matter of urgency. As the House knows, Peter Mandelson is no longer a member of the Labour party, having resigned his membership last night, and the House may wish to know that disciplinary action by the Labour party was under way prior to his resignation.

The Prime Minister believes, as do the Government, that Peter Mandelson should not retain his membership of the House of Lords or use his title. As the House already knows, the Government do not have the power to remove peerages without legislation. However, the Prime Minister is calling on all political parties—including the Conservatives, as the largest party in the House of Lords—to work with the Government to modernise the disciplinary procedures to allow for the removal of peers who have brought the House of Lords into disrepute. The Government will today write to the appropriate authorities in the other place to start that process. It would be better to update those procedures so that they apply to all Members of the House of Lords, instead of having to introduce complex hybrid Bills for each individual peer who has brought the other place into disrepute.

I recognise the strength of feeling on all sides of the House, myself included, and the Government will of course keep Members up to date. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right that each individual issue is wholly unacceptable, and cumulatively they are also unacceptable. The undeclared exchange of funds and the passing on of Government information, let alone the fact that those exchanges were to a convicted paedophile, are wholly unconscionable. The House will know that if any of those activities were to take place today, Ministers would be swiftly relieved of their duties and could be, via the recall petitions available to the House, removed from their constituency, too. As to the matter of criminal investigations, of course that is a matter for the prosecution services and the police. As I have informed the House, the investigation by the Cabinet Secretary into the released documents, as requested by the Prime Minister, is currently under way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are right: we must start by remembering the many women and young girls who experienced unimaginable horrors at the hands of Epstein and his network.

We must also ask what it was that first attracted the politician Peter Mandelson to the billionaire financier Jeffrey Epstein, and why it was that that relationship continued after Epstein’s character was well known. At the very least, the forwarding of confidential Government correspondence to a wealthy and powerful individual was clearly well beneath the conduct expected of a Cabinet Minister and possibly a breach of the law. When that is combined with the reported financial flows, the evidence is damning. The use of public office for private gain is the very definition of corruption; regardless of the outcome of a Government investigation, millions of people up and down the country are more than capable of judging for themselves on the evidence in front of them.

Is it not time to end the Lord Mandelson charade once and for all by bringing legislation to the House to strip him of his peerage? And what about his membership of the Privy Council? The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister referenced declarations of interest, so will the Government work with the House authorities to republish Peter Mandelson’s entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests dating back to his time as a Cabinet Minister in a Labour Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Jones]

The process for political appointments has since been strengthened by this Government to include additional interviews and processes for declarations of interest. The key thing, though, is that when someone lies in their declaration of interest, there must be a consequence, and that consequence for Members of the other place needs to be removal from the House of Lords and loss of peerage; that can happen only if the other place brings forward proposals to update its own processes, and the Government stand ready to support it in doing so. I agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be robust, clear and transparent processes, that any conflicts of interest need to be surfaced and dealt with adequately, and that when people are found to have lied, there must be some consequence.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is right to say that the other place must modernise its disciplinary procedures, but that kicks the Mandelson can down the road. This is not the first time this modern-day Icarus has flown a little too close to the sun, usually over money; we all remember the Geoffrey Robinson mortgage loan, which of course occasioned an earlier resignation—

Foreign Interference

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Chowns]

That is not the Green party’s position. The Green party’s position, which I clarified in a point of order in this Chamber just last week, supports our membership of NATO at this time of extreme threat on Europe’s borders.

It has long been known that the Kremlin seeks to interfere and undermine democratic politics in other countries, with online bots and cyber-disinformation. The need is urgent. In June 2025 the Government published a strategic defence review, which stated:

“The UK is already under daily attack, with aggressive acts—from espionage to cyber-attack and information manipulation—causing harm to society and the economy.”

Russia was called

“an immediate and pressing threat”,

including in key areas such as cyber-space and information operations. These concerns are not new. Credible evidence of Russian interference in UK elections was flagged in the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2020 Russia report. In 2022, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put out a press release that revealed that a Russian spy agency had targeted UK national infrastructure in a “calculated and dangerous” hacking campaign, and that Putin was sowing

“division and confusion among allies.”

The Foreign Secretary at the time was Liz Truss, who said that she would not tolerate it, yet she, and the moribund Conservative Government of which she was a part, did not open an investigation into the ISC’s Russia report on Kremlin-linked influence in the UK.

Obviously, Liz Truss should never have been anywhere near the levers of high office, but why have this Government not acted as the US did? The 2017-19 Robert Mueller special counsel investigation was a criminal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 US elections. We need something similar here. The US report concluded that Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election did occur in “sweeping and systematic fashion”, and that it “violated U.S. criminal law”. In 2016 we had the Brexit vote, which has so harmed and divided our country, and it is well known that the Kremlin wants a weakened, fractured EU, so where is our version of Mueller?

The upcoming elections Bill will be critical in addressing the dodgy influence of foreign money in UK politics, not least via cryptocurrency, on which I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell). Reform UK is the first British political party to accept donations in crypto, despite UK National Crime Agency investigators recently saying that cryptocurrency has turbocharged money laundering. The NCA also points out that the cryptocurrency backed by the Reform donor is used for the Russian war effort. Reform UK’s record £9 million crypto donation is just the latest offering from abroad. Last Sunday, The Observer reported that two thirds of the funds given to that organisation in this Parliament have come from donors with overseas interests.

That demonstrates why it is so urgent that the forthcoming elections Bill is robust in stopping dirty money. We have not yet seen the Bill, but as well as urgent controls to prevent big overseas donations, the Bill must, among other things, streamline national versus local spending limits with a per-seat cap on total spending, have a limit on major donations, give the Electoral Commission the power to prosecute and reinstate its independence. It is also crucial that we have rules requiring the submission of all online and offline advertisements to the Electoral Commission as soon as they are published, with data on who has sponsored the ad readily available to the public. As things stand, we get only partial transparency after an election has happened. That is too late.

Today’s debate is crucial. As we have heard, it has many strands: the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and our democracy. I reiterate the critical point that defending our democracy must mean the UK Government finally investigating Russian interference in our elections. Not to do so is effectively to send a message of permission, and that is intolerable. The stakes could not be higher. I urge the Minister to tell us when we will get the long-overdue Mueller-style inquiry into Kremlin-linked interference in our democracy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) for securing the debate and all other hon. Members who have spoken so thoughtfully.

The first duty of the state is to protect the freedom of its citizens. Today’s debate has highlighted how foreign states with malign intent are seeking to undermine our security, press their own economic interests through political interference, and take direct steps to subvert our democracy. I will focus my remarks on the threat to our democracy.

We are rightly proud of the UK’s history of continuous parliamentary democracy, yet functioning democracy is not an end state, but a continuous task that we in this House all share. At its heart is the belief that each person’s vote should have equal standing, and that that equality is the best defence against tyranny and the best protector of liberty.

Too often, however, the votes of our citizens are not equal, when the powerful, including other states, seek to buy influence or suppress opposition. The UK is beset by external threats that seek to undermine our democracy. Just today, we heard how the Hong Kong authorities have ramped up their campaign of extraterritorial intimidation against UK residents. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) has highlighted that his constituent Carmen Lau has been subjected to the circulation of fake photographs to her neighbours. That follows similar letters that asked the same neighbours to take her to the Chinese embassy to receive a $100,000 bounty.

This Government need to demonstrate to the Chinese authorities that there are red lines when it comes to protecting our citizens. That should begin with the Government rejecting the application for the super-embassy, which would allow the Chinese authorities to spy more effectively on British residents. It should extend to clamping down on the Chinese use of cyber to attack our universities and steal intellectual property in this country; to giving real reassurance to students and others on our university campuses that they are free to express views and research the activities of China and the Hong Kong authorities without fear of intimidation; and—as we are acutely aware—to saying that spying on our Parliament is totally unacceptable.

China’s activities are eclipsed perhaps only by Russia’s. Vladimir Putin may be the President of Russia and perhaps the richest man in the world, based on hidden wealth, but above all, he remains the jilted KGB man from St Petersburg who has never accepted the break-up of the Soviet empire. In an eerie parallel with Adolf Hitler’s psychological response to the humiliation of Versailles, Putin has made it his life’s mission to restore Russia’s standing on the world stage. It is his doctrine to restore Russia’s borders to those of the Soviet Union and the Tsarist empire, as was evident from Russia’s invasion of Georgia in the first decade of this century, and from the invasion of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

More recently, in Hungary, Moldova and Romania, we have seen clear examples of Russian interference in democratic activity. Most recently, the sabotage of railways in Poland shows Russia’s willingness to engage directly in interference in the critical infrastructure of countries. We have seen similar threats in this country. All of this activity comes straight out of the KGB playbook; it is a means of escalating intimidation intended to destabilise other states. The same is true of its attempts to interfere in our democracy.

Russia is constantly looking for useful idiots. Sometimes those are petty criminals and thugs like Dylan Earl, who burned down a warehouse in east London containing goods for Ukraine; sometimes it is suited criminals whose interest in money or power is greater than their loyalty to their political party or country, like Nathan Gill. The relationship between senior Reform politicians and Russia is of particular concern. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I notified him that I would mention him this afternoon—initially denied any connection to Nathan Gill’s handlers, yet photographic evidence shows him consorting with the wife of Oleg Voloshyn.

Under the previous Conservative Government, there were commitments to tackle the flow of Russian money into London, but there was little action. I am sure that there is no connection, but at the same time, Russians in the UK were close to the Conservative party and provided it with funding during the previous Parliament. To their credit, a number of Conservative Members expressed concerns, yet those funds still supported Conservative elections, and the regulatory tightening did not take place. Perhaps these were wealthy Russians with strong Conservative values; if they were, then judging by the holiday companions of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), whom I have also notified, Russians like Lubov Chernukhin have switched allegiance, and are now entertaining the hon. Gentleman in their French Riviera châteaux instead of paying for tennis matches with the former leader of the Conservative party.

We must have more scrutiny of Russian money in British politics, but sadly, Russia is not the only declining superpower that wants to meddle in UK politics. Last Thursday, Trump’s national security strategy was published. There is much that we should worry about in that document, as many Members articulated earlier today during the urgent question, but the most arresting statement is the claim that the US Administration will cultivate

“resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations”.

The Trump White House declares itself to be isolationist, and interested in the affairs of other countries only in so far as they affect America, yet for the UK and the EU, it makes a special exception. Let us be clear: this means that the Trump White House intends to meddle in the domestic politics of European nations, including the UK. We should not stand for this, just as we would not stand for it from Russia or China.

Just because the President is unhinged, it does not mean that he and his entourage are not a threat. There is a toxic set of anti-democratic forces around the President today who have ambitions every bit as imperial as Vladimir Putin, and the vice-president is the cheerleader-in-chief. Vested interests around Trump intend to meddle in our politics, urging him to use US national influence to bully the UK into serving its commercial interests, even when that would harm children here. They want to export to the UK the same toxic, violent and divisive politics that are doing such damage to America, and we should stand against that.

We see Elon Musk funding the legal bills of a convicted criminal. We see Donald Trump sustaining lies about safety on the streets of our capital city, and making racist attacks on its mayor. We see James Orr, who has been described by J.D. Vance as a national conservative sherpa, joining Reform UK and providing a bridge for funding between the UK and the US. Other Reform UK advisers have complex corporate directorships that could mask donations from US entities that would corrupt British politics.

These external threats are compounded by the perhaps more insidious political forces in our country that are enabling them. The hon. Member for Clacton blames the small boats on what he may call foreign courts, even though it was his irresponsible devil-may-care approach to Brexit that tore up partnerships that helped UK immigration authorities to exchange data and work together to prevent people trafficking. Meanwhile, Zack Polanski wants to take the UK out of NATO at the most fragile moment in European security since the early 1980s. Nothing would make Vladimir Putin happier.

I ask the Minister to respond to a series of opportunities. To address China’s threat, will the Government state some red lines, and say that they will have no tolerance of extraterritorial intimidation of UK residents? Will they further sanction Chinese Communist party officials involved in bounty hunting, and will they finally place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? To protect Russia from interfering in our politics, will they launch an investigation into Russian interference in the UK, following up on the ISC’s Russia report? Will they commit, given that the leader of Reform will not, to investigating Reform’s links to Russian money?

On wider reforms, will the Government commit, through the new elections Bill, to clamping down on excessive financial flows into British politics and tackle shell corporate structures, which are intended to shield those donations? Will they ensure scrutiny of access to Parliament through all-party parliamentary groups on dedicated countries, and other groups that allow people to come into Parliament under the guise of support for various issues? Will they regulate financial flows into the UK and its political parties from overseas and from Crown territories and dependencies?

Finally, in the light of the US’s recent outrageous statement, will the Government commit to an urgent review of the national security strategy and the strategic defence review to ensure that both can protect us from the stated goal of US interference in our politics?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow spokesperson.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Ian Byrne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

May I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and particularly to my role as vice-chair of WhistleblowersUK, a not-for-profit organisation?

The Bill places new obligations of transparency and frankness on public authorities and officials, leaving them nowhere to hide from public scrutiny of their actions. I absolutely applaud those aims. We have been offered the opportunity to strengthen the Bill, and I have a contribution to make that stems from more than a decade of listening to whistleblowers. The UK has no proper law on whistleblowing or for protecting whistleblowers. Section 43B of the Employment Rights Act 1996, which was introduced by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998, gives a measure of protection from detriments to workers and employees who make what are termed “public interest disclosures”. However, that provision treats such detriments as essentially employment matters; it does not once use the words “whistleblowing” or “whistleblower” and does not extend beyond workers and employees. It is highly technical, puts all sorts of barriers and difficulties in the way of workers and employees who make public interest disclosures, focuses exclusively on the employment context, and rarely—if ever—leads to any wider investigation of the substantive matters about which the worker or employee makes a disclosure.

The Public Office (Accountability) Bill misses an opportunity: it could and should have recognised the important role played by whistleblowers in ensuring accountability. The whistleblower is, or should be, the best friend of every chief executive officer, every board, and every Minister. Whistleblowers want to see an end to crime, corruption and cover-up; they do not want to be fired for raising their concerns. Almost everyone will recognise the major scandals in which whistleblowers have reported what was happening again and again but have not been believed or, worse, have been invited or forced to leave their role. The case against whistleblowers is all about protection of reputation and the imbalance of power, and I recognise entirely what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) said.

Explicit recognition was given to the role of whistleblowers in the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) on 9 July 2025, with the support of the Hillsborough victims. Clauses 2, 5(1) and 9 in that Bill would have been of huge significance in advancing the protection of whistleblowers. For the first time in legislation, the Bill gave explicit recognition to whistleblowing—a word which had hitherto not featured in the legislative lexicon. The ten-minute rule Bill sought to extend the concept of public interest disclosures beyond employment law; it would have extended whistleblower protection to all who blow the whistle, many of whom will be outside the scope of employment law. If that Bill had proceeded, whistleblowing as a legal concept would have broken out of the confines of employment law.

Clause 9 of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill requires public authorities to publish codes of ethics. It would be easy for the Government to take into their Bill the provision from the earlier Bill requiring public authority codes of ethics to recognise the need to protect whistleblowers. It is deeply disappointing and unfortunate that it does not, and I ask the Minister to address that point and amend the Bill in her mission to strengthen it. If that were to happen, it would be a start, but further reform would still be needed. First, the provision would apply only when the potential wrongdoer was a public authority within the scope of the Bill. Secondly, such protection as would be given would arise only indirectly through the existence of a code of ethics. Thirdly, the Bill would lack teeth to deal with breaches of the code of ethics. Fourthly, there would still be no mechanism for investigating and following up the wrongdoing that a whistleblower might have uncovered.

There remains an urgent need to set up the office of the whistleblower, and to extend the Bill’s scope to include contractors in the private sector—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. May I remind the hon. Lady of the scope of this Bill?

[Tessa Munt]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I sought to pick up on the Minister’s and Prime Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Bill is as strong as it can be.

The Bill should cover contractors in the private sector as well as the public sector, as was mentioned, if it is to have real teeth and ensure that wrongdoing is fully investigated and that wrongdoers are brought to account. Will the Minister meet me and whistleblowers to explore the scope of this Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

I welcome the Bill, and thank the Government for introducing it. It is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families of the victims and the survivors of Hillsborough. Many of the worst corporate miscarriages of justice, from infected blood to Grenfell, would have been exposed years or even decades ago had it become law sooner.

The Bill requires the state and its agents to tell the truth about their misconduct, and gives rights to the victims, not least the right of representation on fair and equal terms in inquests and inquiries. Let us therefore celebrate a landmark piece of legislation which, like the Human Rights Act and the Freedom of Information Act under the last Labour Government, gives power to the citizen and makes the state accountable; but let us also look for ways to improve it by strengthening what is in it and adding what has been left out.

I welcome the duty of candour in clause 2, which requires public authorities and officials to act with “candour, transparency and frankness”. Clause 4 extends the duty of candour to bodies or individuals who are not public authorities or officials, but who had a “relevant public responsibility”. However, it requires

“a direct contractual relationship with the public authority”,

which means that subcontractors or subsidiary companies would not be caught by the duty of candour, and I think that is wrong.

Clause 11 introduces a new offence of misleading the public. It is a strong test, but the Bill also contains exemptions and caveats that may make it less comprehensive or effective. First, the “harm” test in the clause is unnecessary. The object of the clause is to prevent the public from being misled. That may cause harm to an individual, but it should not be a requirement. Preventing reliance on wrong information is an end in itself.

Secondly, the carve-out for the security services is too broad. Schedule 1 not only exempts legitimate safeguards such as national security, but gives a general exemption to intelligence officers at all levels up to and including director. Thirdly, clause 11 provides an exemption from the offence of misleading the public for acts done

“for the purposes of journalism.”

However, the scope of this exemption is unclear. For example, does it extend to individuals being interviewed as well as those conducting the interviews, or to public officials who also, for instance, publish news columns or host news programmes? We know all too well from Hillsborough that the actions of the media can lead to injustice for victims.

However, aside from that exemption, the role of the media has been overlooked by the Bill. South Yorkshire police defamed the Hillsborough families and survivors, but they did not do so alone. Their lies and smears were promoted by several newspapers, most notably The Sun.

It was the culture, and the connections between the newspapers and the police, that enabled this to happen, and there is no evidence that that has changed. Just as South Yorkshire police were protected by The Sun after Hillsborough, the Metropolitan police were responsible for astonishing oversights in the investigations into phone hacking at News of the World.

The culture of complicity was due to be investigated by part 2 of the Leveson inquiry. Margaret Aspinall, who is here today, was among those due to give evidence to Leveson. Her son died at Hillsborough; he was only 18. Margaret has written powerfully in the Liverpool Echo today about the need for this Bill and for the press to be held to account.

I would like to voice my support for the expansion in legal aid for inquests that will be brought in by the Bill. The Bill provides that families will be eligible for non-means-tested legal aid if a public authority is an interested person at the inquest. I would appreciate clarity from the Minister on how that expansion in legal aid will be funded. What is the estimated cost of providing representation at inquests and inquiries, and how will it be funded? Will it be, for example, from existing budgets?

Finally, I will mention a couple of provisions that I think should be added to the Bill. There is no mention of the Independent Public Advocate. It would be good to hear from the Government on how they think that office—for which the Lord Chancellor has just made an excellent appointment in the person of Cindy Butts—can work to support victims through the Bill.

There is also no national oversight mechanism provided for in the Bill, despite widespread support for one as a necessary guarantee of the successful implementation of public inquiries and prevention of future deaths reports. A national oversight mechanism, which has been proposed by the charity Inquest—which I know has been working closely with the Hillsborough families—would ensure that recommendations from inquests and inquiries were effectively publicised and that their implementation was monitored. Too often, the recommendations of inquiries sit on shelves and are not implemented, and no one goes back to see that they are. A national oversight mechanism is a major omission from the Bill, and I hope the Minister will address that point when she winds up.

I invite the Minister to respond to the points I have raised this evening. The Bill is an overdue, but no less welcome, piece of legislation that the whole House should wish to improve and enact.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Following the next contribution, I will reduce the time limit to five minutes—so, on a six-minute time limit, I call Abtisam Mohamed.

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

As the Member for Sheffield Central, I approach this Second Reading debate with pride that we have finally got here, but with the deepest frustration and sadness at the time that that has taken. Many of my constituents, like those of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), will be pleased that we are finally here, and I am sure that they will stand in complete solidarity with the families affected.

For over three decades, our city was part of a tragedy that repeatedly scarred families and communities who lived far beyond South Yorkshire. Not only were 97 lives lost at Hillsborough; those people were unlawfully killed—and instead of those lives being honoured and mourned, the families of the 97 had to swallow their grief and fight decades of institutional injustice, indifference and denial.

The failures were not limited to what happened on that day in April 1989. They continued for months, years and decades after: wave after wave of betrayal for families already living with the unimaginable pain of losing their loved ones; wave after wave of betrayal by those in leadership positions who just closed ranks; wave after wave of betrayal by the media, leading to cover-ups, delays and dishonesty.

With this Bill, we can say that this will never happen again—to anyone; because, while the bereaved families have sought justice for their loved ones, the cover-ups have continued. They include Grenfell, Horizon and the infected blood scandal, to name just a few. Time and again, families have watched as the same playbook is used to smear working-class communities and protect those at the very top.

It is right that the Hillsborough families have pushed hard for non-means-tested legal aid, because while those who covered up benefited from the public purse to fund their legal fees, families had to scrimp, save and borrow just to enter the legal system on the same footing.

I am pleased that this Bill will ensure that there is change, and that that change will start now. Fair access to justice means that no victim will be left to fight the state alone. With the duty of candour, public bodies must act truthfully, they must support investigations and they must behave in line with the Nolan principle of integrity. Now when things go wrong—when tragedy strikes—lessons must be learned, not buried.

This is the Hillsborough law, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for their tireless efforts to ensure that those lessons are protected through the Bill. Their legacy, and that of the bereaved families, is the one that will be remembered. Their tireless campaigning has resulted in change at the very top, and their relentless fight has forced the Government and public institutions to abandon a culture of cover-ups. There must be accountability, and there must be no dilution. At the bottom and at the heart of this, there must always be justice for the 97.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

On a five-minute time limit, I call Dame Nia Griffith.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Gordon McKee.

China Spying Case

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow]

As has already been set out, the threat from China has evolved over time. I would have loved it if the previous Labour Government had amended the Act, but it was the Conservative party that held a consultation, and then sat on the results for eight years and did nothing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Mark Pritchard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, because I will not get another minute, and I want to make some progress and allow other colleagues to speak.

The director general’s speech was explicit. The Security Service is very clear-eyed about the national security threat from China, even though Ministers might be tempted, arguably, to recalibrate and put economic interests over the UK’s national security interests. I wonder whether there might be other factors at work here, too, including underlying vested interests and competing interests between different parts of Government, and even some conflicting personalities. We do not have time to go into that today. Today’s debate is rightly focused on whether politics got in the way of national security.

A wider question might be why a political adviser was appointed to the role of National Security Adviser in the first place, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. Perhaps there is something to see here. The current National Security Adviser has wide and vast experience, and I pay tribute to him for his important role in the Northern Ireland peace process and other peace-brokering exercises he has done around the world. There is absolutely no doubt that he is a long-standing, distinguished civil servant, but the fact that an outsider, rather than insider, became the National Security Adviser might be an issue as well. Some may see that as a strength, but today’s proceedings might suggest that it could be a weakness in this case. There is a question mark about that, of course.

Back to China. The conclusions and recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s inquiry on China talk about proper oversight. We need to ensure that, for example, the investment security unit has proper oversight by the ISC, because if there was ever a place where it was likely that politics would conflict with the economic interests of this country, it was that unit. That is absolutely critical. When politics gets too close to professional, cool, calm intelligence judgments, the situation will always be fraught with danger, as this country witnessed with the Iraq war. In conclusion, when—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Gareth Snell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I will be starting the Front-Bench contributions at 6.40 sharp.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Among all the finger-pointing in this House, there are some immutable facts, and one is that in the spring of 2024, the evidential burden to bring a prosecution was met, because the CPS levelled a charge that the two individuals were guilty under the 1911 Act of having information capable of assisting an enemy. The first point is that a deficiency in the 1911 Act is not the problem, because the CPS was capable of bringing the charge. The second point is that to bring the charge, the evidential tests for bringing a prosecution had to be met: that there was a reasonable prospect of conviction and that it was in the public interest.

The unanswered question in all this is what happened between the spring of 2024 and September 2025, when suddenly the same evidential test was not met. What changed? It was met, or the charges could never have been brought, but suddenly it was not met and the charges were dropped. It seems pretty clear from what has been said to a Committee of this House that what changed was that the Government backed off in their evidence as to what would establish whether China was an enemy.

The Government were assisted in the meantime by the Bulgarian case, where the Court of Appeal refined “enemy” to “posing threat or threats”. Indeed, the Court said it was a matter of common sense as to whether something or someone was an enemy. There is no greater jury question than to decide whether or not something is common sense. The prosecution looked easier after the Court of Appeal decision, not harder, yet the prosecution was dropped. That is yet to be explained to this House. It seems to me that it can only be explained by the Government’s failing to come up to proof. Since they had come up to proof to bring the charge in the first place, they obviously retreated. We can talk around this as much as we like, but that seems to me to be the immovable reality of the situation.

There are, of course, issues here about the equivocation of the Government towards China, but it is an equivocation that is even infecting devolution. Coming up in Northern Ireland is a co-sponsored conference between the Chinese Government and the Sinn Féin Economy Minister to talk about infrastructure and investment. I say to this Government that they need to take a long, hard look at the way in which devolved institutions, particularly in Stormont, are playing footsie with the Chinese Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Minister, please continue.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) nailed the myths, I thought very effectively, in his contribution. The right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox) described his duck. It felt as if his contribution was as much aimed at the DPP and the CPS as at the Government, but it was engaging none the less. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) raised important points about some of the critiques that have been levelled, and I agree with him about trying to establish cross-party consensus.

The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about the nature and the description of the threats we face from China. Let me say to him that it is completely unacceptable that he and other Members of this House are sanctioned, and I give him an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which this Government take those particular threats. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) spoke about transnational repression. He has raised it previously, and I can tell him that the defending democracy taskforce has concluded a review, and the Government have developed a range of support and security mechanisms. Most importantly, however, we condemn any malign activity towards anyone here in the UK.

The right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) spoke about the work of the ISC, and he was right to do so. The Government welcome the work of the ISC in looking carefully at the circumstances of this case, as we do the important work of the JCNSS. I thought my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) made the really important point that, given the concerns that have rightly been expressed right across this House about what has happened, we should be trying to seek to work together and establish a consensus. I thought he made that point very powerfully.

Time is running short, so let me say to the House that national security is the first duty of this Government. That is why we oppose the Opposition’s motion, which would see the release not only of information subject to legal professional privilege, but of information vital to the security of the United Kingdom, including advice to the Prime Minister. Successive Governments, including the previous Government in which the shadow Home Secretary served as a Minister, have maintained that position. This is not a question about parliamentary scrutiny. We welcome the ongoing process with the JCNSS, and we look forward to continuing to work with it, as we do with the ISC. This Government will continue to develop a consistent and pragmatic approach to economic engagement, but without compromising our national security.