Sir Lindsay Hoyle
MP for Chorley · Speaker · United Kingdom
“Before we start questions, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the legendary Sir Billy Boston. He was a pioneer in the rugby world, switching codes from union to league, a record try scorer for Wigan, and the second highest all-time scorer of tries.”
“I inform the House that I have received letters from the hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) informing me of her resignation as Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, the hon.”
“If there is more than one candidate in any election, the ballot will take place on Monday 14 September between 3 pm and 6 pm in the Aye Lobby. I remind Members that new rules in relation to campaigning for Select Committee Chair elections, which were proposed by the Procedure Committee, were endorsed by the House on 28 April 2026.”
“We now come to the statement from the Prime Minister. There has been a lot of speculation over the recess, and I just say that this is in accordance with the rules of government. The ministerial code is clear. For those who have asked why I have not commented, it is because it is within the rules, which I do not make.”
“Before we come to the urgent question on British Steel, can I say that I am amazed that a statement was not brought to the House on this very important matter that affects different constituencies? Nothing ever seems to change, but can the message go back that just telling me is not an answer?”
“Before we come to business questions, I wish everybody a pleasant recess. I hope we get some downtime; it seems to have been a very heavy Session so far.”
The complete record
Every one of 657 lines we hold for Sir Lindsay Hoyle, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 14.
“Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the honourable Speaker of the Parliament of the Republic of Fiji and the Chairman of the Parliament of Ukraine. Members will also know that today marks the fourth anniversary of the death of our friend and colleague, Sir David Amess, who was murdered in his Southend West constituency in 2021. Sir David was a long-serving Member of Parliament, respected and liked by Members across the House and dedicated to his constituency. We remember him fondly.”
“Mr Stuart, somebody who is on the Speaker’s panel, and who I have told once before, should know better. Do not question my judgment. I thought it was important that the Prime Minister tells the House first rather than somewhere else. Please, this is very important to me and to the House. I take it seriously, so I do not need any more side comments.”
“He served with my father on the Trade and Industry Committee, where they conducted many inquiries, most notably into the Iraq supergun affair. The two often vented their frustration about the thwarting of their efforts to get Ministers, officials or even fellow Members to appear before their Committee, but despite that, they pursued the inquiry fearlessly in order to get to the truth. Some things have never changed. I know that Ming was hit especially hard by the death of his wife Elspeth; they were, of course, married for more than 50 years. Courage, wisdom and integrity were Ming’s hallmarks. We have lost a dear colleague and, for many of us, a wonderful friend. Our thoughts are with Ming’s family, his friends, and his allies across the political parties.”
“Before we start the statements, I want to say a few words about our former colleague Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—better known to us as Ming—who died during the conference recess. Ming was universally liked and respected across the House, regardless of people’s party allegiance. Unflappable, kind, principled, incredibly active and held in great esteem by all parties, Ming achieved success as an Olympian, as a lawyer and as a formidable politician in both Houses of Parliament, as well as leadership of the Liberal Democrats. He was one of Westminster’s most authoritative voices on foreign affairs, particularly in articulating his party’s opposition to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. On a personal level, Ming was a loyal friend to me and to my family.”
“Order. So the hon. Gentleman is saying that he has coalfields in his constituency? [Interruption.] Okay. I am going to allow the question, but I ask that we think about whether issues are relevant to our constituencies.”
“As it stands, we have seen payment for spying on what I believe we should be protecting. At this moment, I feel we have not had the protection. I certainly do not blame the Minister—I know that he will be answering a lot in his statement and taking many questions—but I want to put it on record that I am angry and disappointed. My job is to protect Parliament. I feel that we are not getting that protection.”
“Before we come to the ministerial statement on the China case, I wish to make a brief statement. Members will know that I have already put on record my disappointment that the charges against two individuals relating to espionage for the Chinese authorities have been dropped. I am not only disappointed, but very angry. It is of the utmost importance to me that all those who work in this Parliament are able to undertake their activities securely and without interference. I continue to seek advice from officials on what further steps might be taken to pursue the issue in other ways. I will be issuing updated security guidance to Members later today. I think there is something the Government ought to be aware of: it is this Parliament and MPs here who have been spied on; and it is MPs’ offices that have been infiltrated.”
“Before we come to the main business, I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in sending our thanks and best wishes to Colin Lee, who retires today as Clerk of Legislation after 37 years’ service to the House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Colin has combined his formidable procedural brain with a modernising flair, such as the work he oversaw in the Select Committee Team to ensure that all colleagues are treated with respect and have access to fruitful career paths. He is a highly valued colleague, and I am very grateful to him for the sage advice he has given to me personally over the years. On behalf of the House, I would like to thank Colin for his long and distinguished service, and wish Colin and Brenda all the best for a long and happy retirement.”
“I am well aware of that and certainly do not need to be told. We have a three-hour debate coming up on that subject, so hopefully the Minister can respond.”
“It is totally unacceptable to treat any Member of any party in this House that way. To be left with a holding answer for three months is not acceptable. I am sure those on the Treasury Bench are now busily answering that question; if not, please let me know, and I am sure we can do something more about it.”
“I will be quite honest: this House should be treated with respect. The fact is that I am not quite sure whether the Secretary of State could have come to the House before the Typhoons were needed—and I never want to put the House in that position. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that I have had no indication that a Minister intends to come to the House to make a statement on this matter. Quite rightly, he has put his point on the record. I take defence matters seriously, and I am sure that he will have been heard.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement on this matter, but he has certainly put the point on the record. I know that many other Members are concerned. I will look to the Government to bring forward a statement on our immediate return to the House. If not, I am quite sure that others will, on our return, look to place before me a request for an urgent question.”
“I cannot add any more to what I have already said. Once again, I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have listened to the right hon. Member. I know that we have three hours for the next debate, but, quite rightly, this message has gone across. I could not be clearer: I expect the Government to come forward with a statement. If not, I am sure I can work with Members who may wish to place an urgent question before the House.”
“Bill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time on Monday 13 October , and to be printed (Bill 306) with explanatory notes (Bill 306 -EN).”
“Bill Presented Public Office (Accountability) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Secretary David Lammy, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Pat McFadden, Secretary Bridget Phillipson, Secretary Peter Kyle, Secretary Lisa Nandy, James Murray, Nick Thomas-Symonds, Alex Davies-Jones, Josh Simons, Anna Turley and Chris Ward, presented a Bill to impose a duty on public authorities and public officials to act with candour, transparency and frankness; to make provision for the enforcement of that duty in their dealings with inquiries and investigations; to require public authorities to promote and take steps to maintain ethical conduct within all parts of the authority; to create an offence in relation to public authorities and public officials who mislead the public; to create further offences in relation to the misconduct of persons who hold public office and to abolish the common law offence of misconduct in public office; to make provision enabling persons to participate at inquiries and investigations where the conduct of public authorities may be in issue; and for connected purposes.”
“Order. I think I got the message in the first five minutes. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. As she says, a contingent liability of this size would normally involve the laying of a memorandum for a period of 14 sitting days before the guarantee is approved. The written statement made by the Minister for Energy on 1 September, when the House returned from the summer recess, sets out the reasons why the usual process could not be followed in this case. I suggest that the hon. Member might want to raise this matter privately with the Public Accounts Committee and the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. I know that she is a doughty Member who will ensure that those concerns are raised in many other areas.”
“I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, as he is a senior Member, that though he has taken the time he felt was required, it has been longer than 15 minutes. May I just say that when we refer to other Members, it should be by constituency, not by name. I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.”
“May I gently say that the question is about the Mayor of London and police closures? We have allowed a little bit of leeway. Let us see how we go from here and try to stick to the questions before us.”
“Order. You know the score; you know we have to get through questions. When colleagues do not get in, they will blame the shadow Home Secretary. Please try to help others.”
“Before I call the Minister, I wish to make a brief statement. I found out only this morning that the charges against the two individuals relating to espionage for the Chinese authorities were to be dropped. I do not think that is good. Of course, we do not discuss the detail of security matters relating to Parliament on the Floor of the House, but given the very important issues raised by this case, I ask officials to consider whether any further steps should be taken—operational, strategic or legal—to ensure that all those who work in this Parliament are able to undertake their activities securely and without interference. I am a very unhappy Speaker with what has happened. The fact that it has taken two years, until today, for somebody to withdraw this case is not good enough.”
“I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I believe that this is a matter for the Attorney General—who is responsible for the CPS—and as he sits in the other place, maybe we will have to use the Solicitor General as a way forward. In this case, I hope that a clear message has gone back to everybody that when we still have Members of Parliament who have sanctions, we cannot let this go in the way that seems to have been done.”
“I think you have certainly put it on the record. I take seriously the sanctions that have been laid. My worry is that we have foreign state actors who do not believe in democracy, and democracy within this House. We must defend our democracy; we must defend Members of Parliament. I have to say a big thank you to our head of security, who has worked very hard on this. I am sure—not that they would make this judgment—that we are all disappointed with the outcome, including the Minister.”
“I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Member and am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. I put it to the House. Application agreed to.”
“The right hon. Member has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will be held tomorrow, Tuesday 16 September, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours and will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Member’s application.”
“I assume that the hon. Member has given notice to the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) of his intention to raise this matter?”
“(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 22, 1, 7, 8, 21, 23, 106 to 120, 46 to 49, 60 to 62, 72, 121, 2 to 6, 9 to 20, 24 to 45, 50 to 59, 63 to 71, 73 to 105 and 122 to 169. Subsequent stages (3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. (4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement. (5) Proceedings on any subsequent Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.— (Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to.”
“Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 17 October, and to be printed (Bill 305). Employment Rights Bill: Programme (NO. 3) Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)), That the following provisions shall apply to the Employment Rights Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 21 October 2024 (Employment Rights Bill: Programme), as varied by the Order of 11 March 2025 (Employment Rights Bill: Programme (No. 2)): Consideration of Lords Amendments (1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after their commencement.”
“I thank the hon. Member for the point of order and for giving notice of it. There are mechanisms for Members to correct the record if they so wish. He has put the matter on the record, but if he wishes to continue, I am sure that the Government Front Benchers will have heard him. Bill Presented Road Traffic (Horse and Rider Safety) Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Mr Lee Dillon, supported by Sarah Dyke, Liz Jarvis, James MacCleary, Edward Morello, Martin Wrigley and Andrew George, presented a Bill to make provision about the required speed and distance for passing horses in a moving vehicle; to provide for the inclusion of equestrian safety in driving theory tests; to make provision about the teaching of equestrian safety in driving education; and for connected purposes.”
“Before the Secretary of State answers, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that welcoming the shadow Secretary of State does not mean that he can then have an essay to portray one question! [ Laughter. ]”
“Divisions are a core part of our business in the Chamber, and the accurate recording of votes is integral to parliamentary decision making. I appreciate that there have been major changes in the Whips Office, and things have to be delivered in these new roles. I know the House team will work with the Whips to make sure we get accurate results. I met the Chief Whip this morning and explained the concerns that were raised with me following last night, through the Deputy Speakers. We do take this seriously. My door remains open for the Chief Whip, and I hope he will use that avenue as a way for us to work together. It is unfortunate that I have not had that conversation until this morning. I will leave it at that.”
“Order. Please—this is very important. A lot of people will be listening to what is going on in this Chamber, so let us give some courtesies to each other.”
“Order. The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) has just mentioned another Member. I presume that he has contacted her to let her know that he was going to do so. Is that the case?”
“Please do not do that again. We are meant to treat each other with respect. This message is for all Members: if you are going to mention another Member, do them the courtesy of ensuring that they are first made aware of the fact.”
“That is not a decision for me. The Treasury has heard, and if the Minister wishes to respond, I am more than happy to let him. He is not going to.”
“The right hon. Member and party leader knows very well the mechanisms that he can use. I do not think that today is the end of the matter. I think this will be returned to at some point. In fairness to the Minister, he said that the House would be updated as and when the Government had the information. The points have been taken, and I expect the questions to be answered at some time. There is a long weekend before we get to Monday. Let us leave it there; I do not want to continue the debate.”
“I have enough to do, dealing with the House of Commons. Responsibility for the House of Lords is not for me, and I will certainly not take it.”
“Order. I say this gently, as Ministers are in new positions, but you are only allowed three minutes in an urgent question, not the five minutes you get for a statement. I am sure that you are coming to the end now, Minister.”
“Order. I expect this to run for around an hour, so Members can help each other with short and punchy questions. I call Elsie Blundell to set a good example.”
“I have sent a letter of condolence to the royal family on behalf of the Commons, following the sad news about the Duchess of Kent. Let us now come back to Dr Luke Evans.”
“Order. I know that the hon. Member also wants to make a speech. I would not like him to use up his whole speech in an intervention in the first 10 seconds of the debate.”
“Order. I did not like the word “duplicitous”, and I definitely did not like the carrying on afterwards. I am sure that “duplicitous” will not be said again today.”
“Order. I always respect the right hon. Gentleman, and I could put him down to speak because of his knowledge—if he wants me to, I can certainly add him to the list—but it would be better if we had shorter interventions.”
“The summit focused on the shared challenges facing democratic systems, including the rise of disinformation and increasing political polarisation. It was a valuable opportunity to exchange perspectives and explore collaborative approaches to safeguarding democratic values.”
“Before we begin today’s business, I wish to inform the House that during the summer recess I had the honour of attending the sixth World Conference of Speakers of Parliament, organised by the Inter-Parliamentary Union in close collaboration with the United Nations. The conference brought together 100 Speakers from around the world to discuss the vital role that Parliaments play in strengthening global governance and bridging the democracy gap in international affairs. A key theme was the urgent need to restore public trust in democracy and its core institutions. Following my time in the Chair on Thursday, I travelled to Ottawa to participate in the 23rd meeting of Speakers of the G7 countries, hosted by the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons.”
“Before we come to the urgent question, I should remind hon. Members to avoid referring directly to criminal cases that are currently before the courts. There is also an active application for judicial review relating to the proscription of Palestine Action. I have decided to grant a waiver in relation to that case, as it concerns a matter of public order in which there is significant public interest. Members may therefore refer to that case.”
“Order. I do not know who is doing the speeches, but I am going to crack down on Ministers and shadow Ministers if they do not keep to three minutes. I have to get Back Benchers in. Does the Minister agree to stick to the time in the future?”
“Order. This is what happens. I granted the urgent question because I thought it was important to hear you, and you were advised that it was two minutes. I think you have now finished or are about to.”
“Order. We do not want to start the session with someone leaving, do we? If someone wants to volunteer, please do so. If not, I will choose one.”
“I thank the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. While it is strictly not a matter for the Chair, I would agree that it is in everyone’s interest to work together to resolve matters. I hope that we can get people around the table rather than striking. I do not want to go into further details, and I think it is better we leave it at this stage.”
“Before we come to the ten-minute rule motion, I wish to make a short announcement about the House’s sub judice resolution. A coroner’s inquest has been opened into the death of Simone White, and those proceedings are now sub judice. However, given the significant public interest in addressing this matter, I, as Speaker, have decided to grant a waiver from the House’s resolution relating to matters sub judice in respect of any inquests into the deaths of UK citizens or residents resulting from methanol poisoning overseas. Members may therefore refer to the case in the course of proceedings, but I would urge them to avoid saying anything that might prejudice any future criminal or civil proceedings in the UK. Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)”