5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Sir Alec Shelbrooke

   Civil Service Pensions

   Like all of us, several constituents have raised heartbreaking issues with me—they are getting into real financial duress. My constituents viewing our proceedings today will be thinking, “Well, what’s going to change?” Will the Minister consider compensating people from Capita’s profits, so that all missed payments are given to people who are in financial difficulty? Everybody should get what they should have got on the date they should have got it, straight out of Capita’s profits.

   Hansard source
2. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

   Civil Service Pensions

   I thank the Minister for his statement and, through him, his officials, and particularly the surge team, who are trying to clear up this mess of Capita’s creation. I am sure the Minister will share my bemusement at Capita’s stance. It seems to have no emotional intelligence whatsoever in relation to understanding the very demonstrable harm that is being done to constituents the length and breadth of this country. It does seem cognisant that His Majesty’s Government happen to be customer No. 1 as far as Capita’s balance sheet is concerned. Is it unwilling or unable to face into the situation as it currently presents itself, and really put its shoulder to the wheel and sort this out, or does he fear it has just given this up as a bad job, is just waiting for the contract to be taken from it and will just soft-pedal between now and when that time comes?

   Hansard source
3. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a member. I also thank all the petitioners from across the country who kindly signed the petition which, put simply, asks whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permanently barred from standing for elected public office. That is a serious question that deserves careful consideration by Members. Before I go any further, let me be clear that it is my firm belief that we should never be in a situation where someone convicted of terrorism can stand for office in this country. I accept that we cannot always rely on the integrity of some overseas courts, but a terrorism conviction is incredibly serious and should have an impact on a person’s right to stand for and be elected to public office. There has, quite rightly, been a lot of emphasis on the specific case of Shahid Butt, who, as we have heard, stood for election to the Sparkhill ward in the May 2026 local elections for Birmingham city council. At the time, it was known that Mr Butt had previously been sentenced in Yemen to five years in prison for terrorism, after being convicted with five other UK nationals of plotting to blow up the British consulate there, among other locations. This individual should never have been permitted to stand for election and—as others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, have said—it is deeply worrying that people in the ward voted for someone who had previously been convicted of terrorism offences. This debate is incredibly important because it opens up a much wider conversation about who can and cannot stand for public office. It is right that we properly scrutinise any convictions that have been awarded by foreign courts, but surely the fact that a conviction has been awarded sparks a level of interest in an individual, so I urge the Government to consider tightening the rules. The reality is that if someone becomes elected, having previously been convicted of terrorism offences, either to this place or to a local authority, they not only represent their ward members or constituents but have access to information. Public confidence is at risk of being derailed because of that individual. What does it say about democracy in this country when an individual who has previously been convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand for election? I do not think the Government’s response to the petition is anywhere near good enough. They have responded by saying that they “currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria” for those standing for election who have been convicted of such offences, but that they keep the counter-terrorism framework “under constant review to ensure it is fit for purpose.” I say gently to the Minister that the current scenario is not fit for purpose if someone such as Mr Butt was able to stand for election in the May 2026 Birmingham city council elections. Given the level of concern expressed in the debate, what will the Government be doing to tighten up provisions to deal with what the petitioner is ultimately asking for?

   Hansard source
4. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

   Before we move on from Shahid Butt, I want to be clear that he was allowed to stand for local elections. The Government have said they currently have no plans to change the disqualification criteria for those standing for election. Why is that? At the moment, somebody convicted of terrorism offences is allowed to stand. Why would the Government not want to change that?

   Hansard source
5. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

   Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

   I cannot quite believe the words that I am hearing from the Minister. He says that all options are on the table, but the only option that the Government should be considering is deportation. He has the ability to bring through emergency legislation, which I am sure would get the backing of both sides of the House, to ensure that Shabir Ahmed is deported. When will he bring forward such legislation, so that we in this House can vote on it and ensure that this individual, who has committed heinous crimes across Rochdale, is deported?

   Hansard source
6. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

   MOD and NHS Collaboration: Richmondshire

   7. What steps his Department is taking to collaborate with the national health service in Richmondshire.

   Hansard source
7. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Rishi Sunak

   MOD and NHS Collaboration: Richmondshire

   May I add my welcome to the new Minister? I know that he will bring experience and dedication to the role, and I thank him for his answer. The Minister is absolutely right that the new care centre will serve both serving personnel and the local community, and it will improve healthcare provision. May I ask that the MOD continues to liaise with the local authority as it develops its Catterick town regeneration plan, to ensure that things are joined up? May I also raise a broader point, on which I know the Minister will agree with me? As he said, this is the first collaboration of its kind between the NHS and the MOD, and I hope that it can serve as a template for other areas across the country. Will he join me in thanking all those who have been involved in the project, which has taken many years to bring to fruition?

   Hansard source
8. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Employment and Training

   This draft order will allow the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, known as the ECITB, to continue collecting a levy on employers in order to fund training and address skills shortages. The engineering construction industry underpins many of the services that we rely on every day: heating our homes, supplying clean drinking water, or providing the energy and fuels that keep our economy moving. The levy helps to ensure that we have the skilled workforce needed to build and maintain critical infrastructure, a workforce essential to the UK’s future energy security and economic growth. The order continues the board’s established approach of setting levy orders for a three-year period. Under the proposals before us, the levy rates for employees working on site will remain at 1.2% of total enrolments and rates for off-site employees will remain at 0.33%. That is unchanged from the 2023 levy order. As we have heard, exemptions will continue to be in place for smaller employers. This draft order is particularly relevant to my constituency. Devonport dockyard, in the neighbouring Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, and its supply chain provide thousands of highly skilled engineering and construction jobs across Plymouth and the wider south-west. Indeed, the UK’s continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent has been maintained from Plymouth for over 70 years and will need a trained workforce—something that Team Plymouth is working hard to deliver. As major investment continues in defence and nuclear infrastructure, it is critical that we maintain a steady stream of skilled engineers, technicians and apprenticeships. I can confirm that we Conservatives will not oppose the order. However, this debate is a useful opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s plans to address the issues with recruitment and retention. As the Minister has already said, the training levy clearly commands industry support, with 85% of levy-paying employers voting in favour of it in 2025, representing 98% of the levy paid. The levy system plays a vital role in developing a consistent pipeline of home-grown engineering construction workers. According to research commissioned by the ECITB in 2024, 65% of employers felt that, without the levy and grant system, the training would not take place. In an increasingly fragile geopolitical climate, it is vital that we have a well-trained domestic talent pool across those sectors. The levy works because it is driven by industry need. Companies understand their workforce requirements far better than Whitehall ever could, and we should be empowering businesses to create jobs, not burdening them with ever greater costs and then attempting to compensate through Government schemes that seek to manage the consequences of labour shortages after they have arisen. One reason levy rates are not being increased is that employers are already facing higher operating costs, not least because of Labour’s damaging national insurance hikes. That is classic Labour economics: making it more expensive to hire people, then intervening with subsidies to solve a problem of the Government’s own making. As I have said before, most employers would rather keep more of what they earn and invest it themselves than have the Government take with one hand and give a little back with the other. I believe such details are included in the explanatory note. The levy proposals are expected to raise a total of £137.9 million over the levy periods between this year and 2028. We must ensure that this levy delivers the workforce that the industry needs. More than 70% of employers are now experiencing significant hiring challenges, up from 53% in 2021. According to the ECITB’s 2025 report, the main reasons for skills shortages include “a shortage of qualifications and skills among candidates, a mismatch between candidate expectations and what employers can offer, a limited applicant volume, mobility and location issues, and increased competition among employers and other sectors.” To make matters worse, the engineering construction industry faces an upcoming wave of retirements. Almost 15% of the workforce are already over the age of 60. Workers in craft roles, in particular, are in short supply. Concerningly, about one in four welders and one in five pipefitters are over 60. Although the number of workers under 30 has slightly increased since 2021, from 14.7% to 16.8%, new entrants are not yet arriving quickly enough to offset experienced workers leaving the industry. We know that the ECITB invested £28 million in training grants and new entrant programmes in 2024, supporting more than 2,000 new entrant starts, including 1,000 apprentice starts and more than 500 graduates. That is to be welcomed, but those numbers must keep growing if the industry is to replace retiring workers while simultaneously expanding the workforce needed for future projects. The industry will face peak demand for workers in four years’ time, and 40,000 extra workers will be needed for major projects by 2030, according to ECITB forecasts. That does not even take into account the demand in manufacturing sectors not covered by the ECITB. I accept that the Minister said that 5,000 places have been filled but, given that 40,000 figure, we will need further work on this. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking, alongside the ECITB’s work, to attract new entrants into the workforce? Given the significant training costs that employers incur, does he believe that current ECITB grant support is sufficient to incentivise employers to expand recruitment, particularly in occupations facing the greatest shortages? We know that retention is equally critical, so could he confirm what proportion of apprentices, graduates and new entrants supported through the ECITB are still working in the industry 12 months after completing their training? The Government have recently consulted on proposals to bring together the Construction Industry Training Board and the ECITB in a single body. As those responses are considered, I would welcome further clarification from the Minister on how the specialist needs of the engineering construction sector will be protected. Constituencies such as mine rely on highly skilled engineering and technical workers to support major defence and nuclear infrastructure, but we also need construction workers to build new homes and the like, and it is important that those skills are not overlooked within a larger organisation. I want to ask the Minister another question, if I may. Since the removal of local training groups by the Construction Industry Training Board, I have heard that money for regional employer networks has not been found in certain regions, and as a result those networks have not been properly set up. We have debated that point in the past, and I appreciate that it is not entirely related, but it is about employment and training. How is the Department working to mitigate the apparent failure of the regional employer network hubs that were being set up? To conclude, the engineering construction industry requires a strong pipeline of skilled workers. There is clear evidence that employers continue to support the levy system, but I would welcome the Minister’s response to the points I have raised about recruitment, retention and the future direction of the ECITB. If we are serious about delivering our ambitions on energy, infrastructure and industrial growth, we must be equally serious about investing in the workforce that will make those ambitions a reality.

   Hansard source
9. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Foreign Interference in UK Politics

   I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and Philip Rycroft for his review. On Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, we Conservatives reaffirmed our support for measures to tackle foreign interference, in the light of growing threats from China and other hostile actors. However, we have expressed our concerns about the lack of proper consultation on the detail of the proposed measures, and the lack of engagement with political parties on changes to the law affecting political parties. The Bill should have been introduced after the Government’s response to the Rycroft report, rather than being hastily amended halfway through. The integrity of our democratic system is fundamental to public trust in politics. Every political party represented in this place has a shared interest in ensuring that foreign interference, illicit finance and attempts to undermine our democratic processes are prevented—well, almost every political party. [Laughter.] I thought Labour Members would like that. However, while we support the objective of protecting British democracy from foreign interference, we have significant concerns about both the process that the Government have adopted and several of the proposals emerging from the review. First, the Government immediately accepted—with retrospective effect—a moratorium on cryptocurrency donations and a £100,000 annual cap on donations from overseas electors, yet those decisions were announced without any meaningful consultation or engagement with political parties. That is particularly disappointing because questions of party funding have traditionally been approached through dialogue and cross-party discussion. Such conventions exist for good reason: rules governing political competition should command broad confidence, and should not be changed unilaterally by whatever party happens to be in government. The breakdown of these long-standing conventions should concern all parties, regardless of their political perspective. If Governments begin introducing retrospective and highly partisan changes to the rules of political finance without consultation, we risk creating a precedent that future Administrations may follow. Parliamentary questions have shown that there has been no engagement with the House of Commons—with the Committee on Standards, the registrar, or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards—despite changes directly relating to the registration of donations by Members, and despite this House’s code of conduct. Yet again, the Government are making announcements, such as changing the policy on a cap on donations and changing the rules on candidate donations, with zero consultation. Without stepping into matters that are the remit of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, I note that it is already the case that newly elected MPs are supposed to declare gifts and donations that they received in the past 12 months. There also appears to be uncertainty about the scope of the new requirements relating to candidate donations. It is not yet clear which categories of elected officials the provisions will cover, and I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that. What assessment has been made of the impact of the new profit test on the ability of all political parties to undertake sponsorship and advertising at their party conferences? Have the Government properly considered with the Electoral Commission the interaction of the new requirements with the proposed draft guidance on sponsorship? Does the Minister think that a company sponsoring a lounge or a lanyard is foreign interference? Had the Government engaged fully with political parties, electoral administrators, compliance professionals and other stakeholders before announcing their response, many of these practical difficulties and unintended consequences could have been identified and addressed at an earlier stage. To be clear, we support measures that genuinely strengthen the resilience of our democratic system. We recognise the risks associated with cryptocurrency donations and agree that safeguards are necessary. We also support tighter rules governing donations in the period immediately before elections. However, good policy requires more than good intentions; it requires engagement and a willingness to listen to those responsible for implementing the rules. The protection of our democracy is too important to be pursued through retrospective legislation and measures whose practical consequences have not been fully thought through. Unfortunately, this is a Government who talk about defending democracy while trying to cancel local elections for two years in a row; who amended the electoral system for mayors for partisan advantage; and who changed the laws on election pilots in complete secrecy. They are now gerrymandering local government boundaries. The official Opposition will work constructively with the Government to defend the national interest from foreign interference, but Ministers would be wise to step back from US-style, hyper-partisan legislation, and actually learn to consult.

   Hansard source
10. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Foreign Interference in UK Politics

    Order. Before the Minister responds, let me say that one question is enough.

    Hansard source
11. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Police Leadership Commission Report

    Order. Mr Jenrick, one question is normally enough, and I have given you the privilege of two. I call the Minister.

    Hansard source
12. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Police Leadership Commission Report

    Mr Vince, you have moved. No wonder it is so quiet in your usual part of the Chamber.

    Hansard source
13. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Civil Service Pensions

    Order. We refer to colleagues not by their names, but by their constituencies. You have already named the Chair of that Committee, so dive into the question.

    Hansard source
14. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Civil Service Pensions

    Order. To help more Members get in, questions need to be short and limited to just one question.

    Hansard source
15. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Civil Service Pensions

    Order. The questions are far too long. Too many colleagues will be disappointed unless questions are kept short. I call Kim Johnson to show us how it is done.

    Hansard source
16. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Civil Service Pensions

    Order. Gosh—a long question and the hon. Member is saying “you”; it is not my responsibility. Minister, over to you.

    Hansard source
17. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Civil Service Pensions

    Order. What can I do to restore confidence, or what can the Minister do? You mean the Minister?

    Hansard source
18. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I can inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. Clause 2 Offences relating to designated bodies

    Hansard source
19. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 6.

    Hansard source
20. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    Mr Sewards, normally when a Member is called last, they are under a time limit, but you now have more than an hour.

    Hansard source
21. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I call the Minister to wind up. As I said, an hour and 15 minutes is yours.

    Hansard source
22. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Support for Veterans

    May I endorse your tribute to the late Sir George Howarth, Mr Speaker? May I also take this opportunity to welcome the incoming Minister for Veterans and People, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), to his new position? In the two years that he has been in the House, he has already established a reputation for independence of mind and for fearlessly speaking truth to power, regardless of the consequences. I am sure that will stand him in very good stead now. May I ask a specific question about Northern Ireland veterans? When the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), resigned on principle, partly over the legacy issue, he famously described Labour’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill as “unfit for purpose”. What does the Secretary of State think he meant by that?

    Hansard source
23. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Support for Veterans

    We have been waiting for those amendments almost as long as we have been waiting for the DIP. Where is the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) on the legacy issue? Many regiments that hail from the north-west—such as the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, which has already mentioned once today, and, before it, the King’s Regiment, which traditionally recruited from both Liverpool and Manchester—did multiple tours in Northern Ireland on Op Banner. Has the Secretary of State had any indications that our likely new Prime Minister is going to do right by those former soldiers from his own region, scrap the benighted Bill, which helps Sinn Féin pursue our veterans via lawfare, and get rid of the whole nonsense altogether?

    Hansard source
24. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    Civil Service Pensions

    One of my constituents, Caroline from Rickmansworth, has been waiting over six months to receive the documentation required to retire. Capita publicly stated that all outstanding retirement quotes would be issued by the end of June 2026. However, this deadline has passed and Caroline is still waiting. What advice can the Minister offer Caroline about what she should do to receive this essential documentation?

    Hansard source
25. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Environmental Protection

    In my previous role as Lancashire’s police and crime commissioner, the connection between such sites and organised crime gangs was often well documented. As the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) outlined, a multi-agency response is often needed, but it is important that we do not forget the role of the police, who often have to escort other agencies to the sites in order to protect them from the people operating them.

    Hansard source
26. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Environmental Protection

    The Minister is being very generous in taking interventions. In my previous role, and from meeting people working in the industry in my Fylde constituency, I discovered that the Environment Agency often regularly visits those businesses that are already abiding by the law and keeping good records, because those records are easy to inspect and the companies are easy to deal with, and it often issues fines for small misdemeanours. Meanwhile the criminal operators, who are flagrantly breaking the law, often evade any inspection because they are difficult to deal with and aggressive. The regulatory framework is important, but the culture of going after those who are flagrantly breaking the law, rather than just checking people’s paperwork, is really important as well.

    Hansard source
27. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Civil Service Pensions

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Nobody in this House should be in any doubt about the anxiety and hardship being felt by retired public servants and the grieving families left stranded by this operational collapse. We are talking about more than 6,700 outstanding pension quotations and more than 4,100 unresolved bereavement cases. These are not mere statistics; they represent vulnerable individuals who have been left facing severe financial distress. Let us be completely clear about where responsibility for this ongoing execution failure lies. The Minister can look backwards to November 2023 all he likes, but the critical transition phase, the data quality integration and the system go-live occurred on this Government’s watch and, more specifically, on his watch. The timeline of unheeded warnings is damning. Throughout 2025, both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee explicitly flagged that Capita was missing critical transition milestones and IT delivery targets, yet despite these clear red flags, the Cabinet Office chose to override the warnings, accepted flawed assurances and pressed ahead with the December go-live. The contract management failure belongs entirely to those on the Government Front Bench. Alarmingly, despite the establishment of the Minister’s flagship pensions recovery taskforce, the situation is deteriorating in key areas. The Minister has just admitted that the backlog of MP complaints has grown significantly under his watch, going from 1,500 to more than 1,900 outstanding constituent cases since the end of April—barely nine weeks ago—and it is getting worse. Worse still, instead of focusing purely on immediate operational rectification, the Minister is using this crisis as an ideological springboard to flip to default insourcing. I am agnostic on whether the scheme is provided in-house or externally, but there is little in the Government’s record to suggest that they are capable of running this scheme any less incompetently than the current operators. Retired civil servants do not need a lecture on procurement ideology; they need their pensions sorted today. The Minister must answer four specific questions. First, given that the Public Accounts Committee explicitly warned of the Capita IT system’s unreadiness last October, what independent technical verification did the Cabinet Office conduct before Ministers allowed the December go-live to proceed? Secondly, the Minister noted that the 140-strong Government surge team are costing significant resource. Although he intends to recover the costs from the £9.9 million withheld from Capita, will he guarantee that any remaining funds will be legally diverted into an immediate compensation scheme for those affected and for grieving families who have suffered real financial detriment? Thirdly, the Minister expressed deep frustration at Capita’s wider public sector footprint. The Procurement Act 2023 is fully active, and it established a centralised debarment list specifically to stop failing legacy suppliers winning further public work. Will the Minister commit at the Dispatch Box to formally referring Capita to the Debarment Review Service for investigation, or will he allow it to continue bidding for other contracts while he waits until 2027 to implement his insourcing reviews? If the threshold is not met in this case, where will the Minister consider it appropriate to use the powers that he has? Finally, given the Minister’s conclusion that Capita has always been an unsuitable operator of the scheme, can he tell the House why the current Government chose to award Capita the new Department for Work and Pensions contract—not in 2023, but this February? Public servants who have dedicated their working lives to this country deserve financial security and dignity. They have been let down by corporate failure, as the Minister says, but they are also being let down by this Government’s failure to manage the contract when it matters the most. It is time for the Minister to stop blaming the past, stop pitching future ideological tests, and finally fix the operational reality on the ground.

    Hansard source
28. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Payment Scheme

    I would like to start by thanking the Paymaster General for bringing forward these important regulations and also to say thank you to the former Minister for Public Health, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), for her valuable work when she was in office. This debate takes place in the shadow of one of the gravest injustices in modern British history. The infected blood scandal caused unimaginable harm, with lives lost, families devastated, careers destroyed, potential never realised, children robbed of parents and many victims forced to fight for decades just for recognition and to be heard. Compensation is not a gift from the state; it is a duty owed to those who were failed by the state. That duty must be delivered with urgency, compassion and fairness. The regulations make a number of amendments to the Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2025. Many of the changes appear to address concerns raised by victims, families and campaigners about the structure and adequacy of the scheme and, obviously, those contained in the additional report. His Majesty’s Opposition welcome the Government bringing forward these amendments to address the lessons learned from the early stages of the compensation scheme, to fill in some of the gaps and to implement the recommendations of Sir Brian Langstaff’s additional report. However, the existence of this instrument also underlines the importance of getting the scheme right. Victims and their families have already waited far too long. They must not be required to navigate repeated technical changes, uncertainty or delays before receiving the compensation and recognition they deserve. The regulations also amend the method for calculating past and future amounts for certain awards, including financial loss awards. I would be grateful if the Minister sets out clearly how the Government will ensure that those changes are properly communicated to victims and to families so that people understand how their entitlement will be calculated and whether they may be better off as a result. The changes are sensible but, by necessity, regulations can appear rather daunting. My degree was in economics and law, and I am reasonably comfortable with legal texts and with algebra, but at first glance we can wonder what language some of it is written in, so it is obviously important that they are communicated in a way that can be properly understood. His Majesty’s Opposition also welcome the changes to the autonomy award for those infected as children. The fact that some people were infected at such a young age, with consequences that shaped their entire childhood and adult life, must be properly reflected in the scheme. This is not simply a question of medical impact; it is about lost childhoods, lost opportunities and the lifelong trauma experienced by those who infected when they were at their most vulnerable. There are also changes in relation to unethical research practices, which we have discussed many times in the Chamber. We greatly welcome the increase in the relevant award amounts and the extension in provision to those who received treatment for bleeding disorders before 1986. Given the seriousness of the issue, will the Minister confirm how the Government will identify those who fall into that category and what evidence he expects they will have to provide so that the process does not become another source of distress for victims and their families? We also note the creation of a new “severe health condition” category for qualifying chronic hepatitis-associated conditions based on support scheme categories. Again, we would welcome clarity from the Minister on how he expects that to work in practice and in particular how the Government will ensure consistency across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendments to affected injury awards are also significant. Families were not bystanders to this scandal; partners, parents, children and siblings lived with the consequences every day. Many provided care, endured bereavement, suffered stigma and experienced profound emotional and financial harm. The scheme must continue to recognise that the damage caused by this scandal extended far beyond those directly infected. Therefore, while these technical changes matter greatly, the central question remains delivery. Victims and families need to know when they will receive compensation, including as a result of the new regulations. They need to know how quickly claims will be processed, what support will be available to them to navigate the scheme, and how the Government will ensure that truly no one is left behind. I therefore ask the Minister to address the following points. First, what is his intended timetable for payments under the regulations, and how many people do the Government expect to receive compensation in the coming months? Secondly, how confident is he that that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the staffing, expertise and resources it needs to process claims under the regulations quickly and sensitively?

    Hansard source
29. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    Payment Scheme

    I could not agree more. It is particularly important that infected and affected victims and their families, who for many, many years were not listened to, heard or believed, and who faced officials who denied what all the evidence later proved to be the case, now feel that they are being treated with respect and sensitivity. Thirdly, will the Minister clarify further, as I asked earlier, how the Government will communicate the broader changes to victims and their families in plain English, rather than simply relying on the legal and technical language in the draft regulations? Finally, what appeal or review mechanisms will be available if individuals believe that their reward has been calculated incorrectly or does not reflect their full circumstances? The Opposition strongly support the regulations, which build on work that has proceeded through this House with support from across the Chamber, and continue work that began before the last election. We recognise that they contain changes that many victims and families will welcome. I am sure that the Minister will agree that our responsibility as Parliament, and his as a Minister, does not end with the passing of statutory instruments. It ends only when victims and their families have received the recognition, justice and compensation that they have waited decades to secure. This scandal was defined by delay, denial and institutional failure, and the compensation scheme must not be defined by the same failings. The regulations are a strong and positive step towards ensuring that that is not the case, but the Government must now deliver them with urgency, transparency and humanity. That is the very least that victims and their families deserve after all this time.

    Hansard source
30. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Police Leadership Commission Report

    I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement and pay tribute to the noble Lords Herbert and Blunkett for producing such a timely and thoughtful report. The last year has done real damage to public confidence in police leadership. Of course, the report rightly recognises that there are many outstanding officers leading forces across the country, but the headlines that people remember tell a different story. From the shameful scenes surrounding the Maccabi Tel Aviv match to the heartbreaking murder of Henry Nowak, alongside too many other incidents, the public have been left asking a simple question: who is in charge? Leadership is not about managing decline or issuing guidance; it is about setting a culture and making it unmistakeably clear that the first duty of every police officer is to protect the public and uphold the law without fear, without favour and without distraction. The report gets to the heart of that when it says that police leaders must refuse to take sides and remain focused entirely on preventing crime, catching criminals and bringing offenders to justice. Culture starts at the top. If we want frontline policing to change, leadership must change first. What struck me most about the report was not simply its recommendations but the evidence behind them. This is not the work of critics looking in from the outside; it reflects what police officers themselves are saying. As the authors acknowledged in their letter to stakeholders, much of the evidence made for uncomfortable reading. Perhaps the most alarming finding is that only 13% of constables and just 17% of sergeants surveyed believed that they worked in a well-led and well-managed organisation. Think about that: more than four in five officers who put themselves in harm’s way to keep our streets safe do not believe that they work in a well-led organisation. If that does not ring alarm bells, I do not know what will. Time does not permit me to go through all 27 recommendations, but there is much that deserves support. In particular, I welcome the emphasis on merit. Our best officers should be recognised, developed and promoted because they are the best, not because they have ticked the right boxes. But we also have to be honest about the context. The report sits alongside a programme of wider police reform announced by the Government, although reports suggest that the incoming Prime Minister is already getting cold feet about those reforms. That matters, because many of the recommendations assume larger forces and more centralised models. If those reforms do not happen, Ministers need to explain how the recommendations will work in practice rather than simply in principle. There is another contradiction that cannot be ignored. If we want stronger leadership, we need to give police leaders the tools they need to succeed. That means enough officers on the streets and the technology to help them do their jobs effectively. Instead, officer numbers have fallen by about 1,300 across the country. At the same time, in London, the Labour mayor chose to pick a public fight with his own commissioner over the use of technology, with the commissioner making it clear that the mayor’s decision would leave the force able to achieve less. How can we demand better leadership while cutting officer numbers and denying forces the technology they say they need? There is much in the report that hon. Members on both sides of the House can support. Better leadership is not a partisan cause—it is a public necessity—but if we are serious about restoring confidence in policing, we cannot stop at identifying what police leaders should do differently; we also have to stop making political decisions that make their jobs harder. The public deserve better, our best officers deserve better, and the future of policing depends on us getting both police leadership and political leadership correct.

    Hansard source
31. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    The Government’s decision to allow alterations to this Bill will come as a surprise to many who followed it through its earlier stages. As colleagues in the other place observed, this came as a surprise because, throughout the interregnum, the Government repeatedly informed the official Opposition that they were unable to make further policy decisions. That position even extended to measures confirmed as Government policy, such as passport seizure powers. Given that even fundamental issues relating to countries such as China could not be addressed then, it surprising that we are considering further amendments to this Bill now. Nevertheless, we are where we are, and we are considering the Government’s amendments on humanitarian activities. I understand the intention behind them. Nobody wants genuine humanitarian organisations that are carrying out vital work in difficult parts of the world to be caught by legislation never intended to target them, but we also have to recognise the reality of the threats that we face. As the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation recently pointed out, hostile states are willing to hide behind legitimate activity. Just as they might exploit legal or journalistic cover, they might also seek to exploit humanitarian cover. That is why the amendment he suggested was narrower than the one before us today. My concern is that the Government’s wording is capable of broader interpretation, particularly around conduct said to be for the purpose of “the carrying out of humanitarian activities”. That risks creating uncertainty and opportunities for abuse. What is striking is that this is not the position the Government took a short time ago. On Report, the Minister made it clear that genuine humanitarian work would not be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. Indeed, when rejecting amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), she argued that the prohibited purpose test would protect legitimate conduct without creating loopholes for hostile actors. If that was the Government’s position then, what has changed? We would be naive to assume that this defence could never be exploited. We have seen hostile states attempt to use charitable organisations as vehicles for influence and interference. The chief executive of the Charity Commission has warned about those risks, and Ministers themselves have highlighted concerns about Iranian-backed charities operating in this country. Members have worked hard to expose those threats. As we strengthen our powers to tackle hostile state activity, we must be careful not to create new opportunities for hostile actors. This Bill already contains a higher threshold—or safeguards, as some would call them—that creates greater protections for those who support state bodies directing acts of terror, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, than for those who support the terrorist groups that the IRGC funds and directs, such as Hamas and Hezbollah. This threshold, we believe, will make prosecutions far less likely, as the extra hurdle and burden of intent is too high, and necessarily so. In addition, any prosecution requires the consent of the Attorney General, providing a significant safeguard against inappropriate cases. That makes me question whether these provisions are necessary. I appreciate the Government’s intentions, but our first responsibility is to ensure that this legislation is robust. This Bill exists because the threats posed by hostile states are real and growing. If we are giving our police, intelligence agencies and security services the powers they need to respond, we must ensure that those powers are not weakened by loopholes. For that reason, we remain concerned that these amendments, however well intentioned, risk creating opportunities for hostile actors to evade the measures that the Bill is designed to put in place.

    Hansard source
32. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Topical Questions

    On Armed Forces Day, I had the huge honour of unveiling a veterans’ buddy bench in Sunbury Park in my Spelthorne constituency. The idea is that the bench is dedicated to veterans; veterans go there, and members of the public are encouraged to go and sit with them. As the Front Benchers go around the country, will they encourage other constituencies to get a veterans’ buddy bench?

    Hansard source
33. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) on securing this urgent question and thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting it, because Shabir Ahmed is a vile individual and his continued presence at liberty on our streets is an affront to every single value that we hold dear. The Minister has come here and said that all options are on the table, but he has also said he needs to tread carefully. The people of Spelthorne, who have been talking to me about this all weekend, do not want him to tread carefully; they want him to pull on his hobnail boots and frogmarch Shabir Ahmed to the airport today.

    Hansard source
34. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Support for Veterans

    Twiggy Roberts, who is a veteran himself and runs HX Motors in my constituency, training other veterans to maintain and customise Land Rovers, says that he hears a lot from veterans of his generation about their frustrations as they try to gain access to the mental health services that they need and deserve, especially when dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder. It would be good to hear about what conversations the Secretary of State is having with Cabinet colleagues, particularly those in the Department of Health and Social Care, about how veterans can be given access to those services. They give one another great support, but it is clearly not the same as support from professionals.

    Hansard source
35. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on whether the Government are planning to change the law to deport Rochdale grooming gang leader, Shabir Ahmed.

    Hansard source
36. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·Katie Lam

    Rochdale Grooming Gang: Offender Deportation

    Shabir Ahmed has committed some of the most despicable crimes imaginable. As the ringleader of the Rochdale grooming gang, he was responsible for grooming, trafficking and raping children as young as 12 years old. He was jailed in 2012 for 30 counts of child rape. His victims were promised that when he got out of prison, he would be deported back to Pakistan. He has been released from prison, but now we are told that he will not be deported because of a provision in the 1971 Immigration Act. The idea that he might be allowed to stay in this country because of a clause in a decades-old law designed for a completely different time and context is not just absurd, but sickening. As recently as 2023, parole officers concluded that Ahmed posed a “very high risk of serious harm” to children. How can he possibly be allowed to walk the streets again? When the law produces an outcome that is clearly so wrong, the law must be changed. The Government must now change this law to make sure that we can remove Ahmed. Conservative Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, have made it clear that, if the Home Secretary puts forward changes to the law that would allow us to deport Shabir Ahmed, we will support them. The shadow Home Secretary has already drafted an amendment that the Government could adopt. The argument for deporting Ahmed is clear, and the mechanism has already been created. All that remains in question is whether the Government have the will to act. If so, we will be happy to support them. If they do not, people across this country will rightly ask, as they are already asking, whether this is a Government that can really keep the British people safe.

    Hansard source
37. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I begin by thanking Richard Donaldson for creating this petition and the more than 200,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed it. I also thank the 205 people from my own constituency who added their names. As Members know, my role today is to introduce the petition and facilitate this debate. However, having considered the evidence and having spoken to the petition creator, I believe he raises an important point that Parliament should not dismiss. At its heart this debate asks a simple question: should someone who has been convicted of terrorism offences be entitled to seek public office? For me the answer is no—not because I reject the principle of rehabilitation and not because I believe people cannot change, but because holding elected office is not an automatic right. It is a privilege bestowed by the public, and with that privilege comes an expectation that those who seek to represent our communities demonstrate respect for the democratic institutions they wish to serve. For most people, the current law simply does not pass the common sense test. We already prevent certain people from standing for elected office. Individuals may be disqualified because they are subject to certain bankruptcy restrictions. Others are disqualified because of corrupt electoral practices, certain sexual offence notification requirements or offences involving intimidation of candidates. Yet someone with a historical terrorism conviction may still be entitled to stand for election. Many members of the public struggle to understand that distinction. Terrorism is not an ordinary crime. It is an attack on democracy itself. It seeks to replace political debate with violence. It seeks to intimidate Governments, frighten communities and undermine the rule of law. That is why Parliament has consistently recognised terrorism as different. We have unique counter-terrorism powers, unique sentencing provisions and unique monitoring arrangements following release from prison. We recognise that terrorism is fundamentally different because it is directed against the democratic values on which this country is built. If we accept that principle elsewhere in our law—and I believe we should—it is entirely reasonable to ask whether those convicted of terrorism offences should be permitted to hold democratic office.

    Hansard source
38. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I will come on to that individual’s case shortly, but I do share his concerns. Indeed, there were cross-party concerns at the time of that individual’s candidacy—both Labour and Conservative politicians expressed concerns about that. As I say, I will move on to that later in my speech.

    Hansard source
39. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I am grateful for that point. That is accurate, but the fact that anybody would want to vote for a convicted terrorist does raise serious questions, which I think we should be concerned about. Every day we walk through this palace, reminded of the human cost of terrorism. Within these walls are memorials to Members of Parliament murdered in terrorist attacks, including Airey Neave, Ian Gow, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Their lives were taken because they believed in democracy. Those memorials serve as a permanent reminder that terrorism is not simply another criminal offence; it is an attack on democratic life itself. We should not forget the many other victims of terrorism across our country. From Lockerbie to the 7 July bombings, the Manchester Arena attack and the attack here at Westminster in 2017, terrorism has left deep scars on communities throughout the United Kingdom. Those attacks were intended not just to kill innocent people, but to undermine our confidence in democracy and the rule of law. The petition before us arises because many members of the public were surprised to discover that under our current law, someone convicted of terrorism offences in certain circumstances could stand for elected office. Historical convictions, even for very serious offences, may not prevent someone from standing. Indeed, candidates largely self-certify that they are eligible, with returning officers having only limited powers to determine whether someone is disqualified. The Government’s response to the petition states that there are currently “no plans” to change those rules. I hope that today’s debate will persuade the Minister to think again. As we heard from the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the catalyst for this petition was the case of Shahid Butt, who stood as a candidate in Birmingham during this year’s local elections. It is a matter of public record that he was convicted in Yemen in 1999 of involvement in a terrorist bombing plot that targeted, among other sites, the British consulate and that he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Mr Butt has consistently maintained that he was wrongly convicted and that his confession was obtained through torture. Those claims have been reported widely. Members may hold differing views about that case, but today’s debate is about something much broader than one individual. It is about whether our electoral law contains an obvious gap that should now be addressed. There is also a practical consideration that deserves attention. If someone convicted of terrorism offences were elected to this House, the parliamentary authorities would have little choice but to issue them with a parliamentary security pass, allowing routine access to much of the parliamentary estate. Members often focus on ourselves, but this is also about the thousands of people who work here every day: our staff, Clerks, police officers, security personnel, cleaners, caterers and many others. They deserve to know that Parliament takes their safety seriously. Some will argue that once someone has served their sentence, they should once again enjoy the full rights of citizenship. That is an important principle, but society already accepts that certain positions carry additional responsibilities and require higher standards. Serving in Parliament, in a devolved legislature or on a local council is different from ordinary employment. They are positions of public trust. The public are entitled to expect exceptionally high standards from those who seek those positions. This debate is therefore not about preventing rehabilitation. It is not about denying someone the opportunity to rebuild their life. It is about deciding who should exercise democratic authority on behalf of others. Those are not the same things. Others may point to Northern Ireland and the peace process. It is important that we approach that history carefully and respectfully. The Good Friday agreement transformed Northern Ireland and brought to an end decades of violence. Nothing I say today should diminish that achievement. Indeed, we should rightly distinguish between those convicted of terrorism offences and figures such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams, neither of whom was convicted of terrorism offences. Today’s petition concerns something much narrower. It concerns people who have been convicted of terrorism offences. That distinction matters. It is also worth noting that concern about this issue is not confined to one political party. Following the Birmingham case, both Labour and Conservative Members publicly expressed concern that someone convicted of terrorism offences could stand for election. Victims of terrorism have questioned whether such individuals should be eligible to represent the public in a democracy. This should not be a partisan issue. It should be about maintaining public confidence in our democratic institutions. Democracy depends on not only free elections but public confidence in those elected. If the public lose faith that Parliament is capable of drawing sensible lines around who is fit to hold elected office, that confidence is weakened. Parliament should never be afraid to legislate where the public can plainly see that the law no longer reflects common sense. I was encouraged to hear the Secretary of State for Defence recently acknowledge that the Government are considering this issue through the defending democracy taskforce. That is welcome, but today’s debate gives Members an opportunity to go further. The obvious question is: what should change? The petition proposes a straightforward legal disqualification, preventing those convicted of terrorism offences from standing for elected office. The detail would require careful consideration. There would undoubtedly need to be safeguards where overseas convictions were concerned, to ensure that politically motivated convictions, handed down by regimes without independent judicial systems, were not automatically recognised. Those are important drafting questions, but they are not reasons for doing nothing; they are reasons for careful legislation. The principle is clear: those convicted of terrorism offences should not be entrusted with elected office. Our democracy is one of Britain’s greatest achievements. We rightly welcome robust political disagreement; we encourage free speech and we welcome vigorous campaigning, but democracy also has the right—indeed, the responsibility—to defend itself against those who have sought to destroy it through violence. That is not intolerance; it is common sense, it is resilience, and it is about protecting the integrity of our democratic institutions. I thank Richard Donaldson once again for bringing this matter before Parliament. Petitions such as this demonstrate democracy working as it should: a member of the public identified what he believed to be a gap in our law, more than 200,000 people agreed, and today Parliament has the opportunity to consider whether that gap should be closed. For my part, I believe that it should. I hope that the Minister will move beyond acknowledging the issue and commit the Government to examining proportionate, workable and robust legislative options. Those who seek to destroy our democracy should not be able to exploit it.

    Hansard source
40. 6 Jul 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Public Office Disqualification: Terrorism Offences

    I thank all the Members who participated in this important debate, particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). All Members made very valid points, particularly both the Members from Northern Ireland—the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim and the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) —who are obviously acutely aware of the challenges of having terrorists operating in their democratic institutions. I apologise to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim; I totally forgot that Martin McGuinness had been convicted. Of course, anybody who is convicted of a terrorism offence should not be allowed to stand for office. I appreciate the Minister’s response and her initially positive style, but I am a bit disappointed with her conclusion. This is such an important principle: people who want to destroy our democracy, who want to pull the rug from under us and who have gone to great lengths to bring down everything that we in this place believe in, should absolutely not be allowed to stand for election, whether that is for local government, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the UK Parliament in Westminster. If they have ever held those fundamental views about bringing down the very pillars of what our country believes in, they absolutely should not be allowed to stand for Parliament. I was disappointed that the Minister could not quite bring herself to say that. Yes, there are challenges around overseas convictions, but we employ very clever drafters for our Government; they can come up with wording to get around that to ensure that those who have been wrongly accused of something overseas are not debarred from standing for election. Yes, we have disqualification rules, but we should be able to extend them further to ensure that terrorists—those who want to destroy our country and the institutions we in this place guard and protect dearly—are barred from standing for Parliament. I hope the Minister and her Government will reflect on today’s debate and on what the petitioner and all those who signed the petition put forward. I thank Richard Donaldson again for bringing this petition forward, and all Members who have taken part. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 759385 relating to disqualification from election candidacy for terrorism convictions.

    Hansard source