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 9 of 14.
“As the Secretary of State will explain, he has come to the House to update us at the earliest possible moment, for which I thank him. I understand that there will be further updates in the future, when more is known. We have an important and well-subscribed debate later this afternoon, and a further important statement to come before that. In the light of that, and as there is such a limited amount of information available today, I am going to restrict this proceeding so that only a couple of Members can ask questions after the statement. I want to ensure that people are aware of that; it is not that I am ignoring them. I am sure that the Secretary of State will explain—not that I want to put words in his mouth—that he will come back at the earliest possible moment. This matter involves a court case and other issues.”
“Before we begin, may I extend a warm welcome to the President of the Portuguese Parliament and his delegation, who are in the Gallery today?”
“Order. I will have no gestures from Members in the balcony. Do not gesture to me; it is not a wise decision. This is important. It is Prime Minister’s questions, and all our constituents are listening.”
“Order. I thought we had had six. I call James Cartlidge— [ Interruption. ] You have had your six questions—I was correct! I call Jonathan Brash.”
“Is it to correct the number of questions, and to say that I was right and you were wrong? I hope that you are not going for a job at the Treasury. Come on then.”
“Before we come to today’s business, I wish to make a brief statement. I previously indicated to the House that I intended to take specialist legal advice following the collapse of the prosecution of two individuals accused of espionage for the Chinese authorities. Members will be aware of my continuing disappointment about what has happened in this case and my desire to explore all possible options for action. I inform the House that I have taken that advice, and it appears that there are no other legal routes to be pursued by the House in these cases. No doubt others are considering whether options remain open to them, and if we can help, I am sure we will. I know that future allegations will be dealt with under newer legislation. I also take this opportunity to remind Members of the updated security guidance issued last month.”
“Before we begin, it may be helpful for me to remind the House that the trial of Soldier F in relation to the events on Bloody Sunday is no longer sub judice and that it is the focus of today’s urgent question. There remain live cases in respect of other soldiers. On 14 July 2025, I granted a waiver to allow limited reference to active legal proceedings related to historical troubles-related deaths. However, references to live cases should be limited to the context and to the events that led to the cases, but not to the detail of cases themselves, nor to the names of those individuals involved.”
“Before the Home Secretary makes her statement, I must advise the House that charges have been brought against a named individual and the matter is now sub judice. Members should take care not to say anything in the House that might prejudice a criminal trial. I therefore urge Members to avoid speculating about the guilt or innocence of an individual, or the motive for the attacks. The Home Secretary may wish to make factual statements for the record. Members may wish to ask about the emergency services, the response to the attacks, the support for victims and families, and connected matters. However, I urge the utmost caution in avoiding any remarks that might prejudice a future trial.”
“It is no use the Secretary State looking at me with a grin as though I am out of order. We are still only on the second question and I have to get some other Members in—that is all I am bothered about. It will get worse shortly—I have got Jim to come! I call Robin Swann.”
“Order. I don’t want to do this, but this is topicals, and all these Members need to get in. We did not get through the list already. You have to help me to help them.”
“Order. Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, may I welcome, in the Gallery, the honourable Speaker of the Parliament of Sri Lanka and his delegation?”
“Before we come to today’s business, I wanted to note that on Sunday 27 October, we marked the 75th anniversary of the rebuilding of this Chamber after it was bombed during the second world war and left destroyed. The Chamber we sit in today remains a continuing symbol of resilience and renewal. On the rebuilding of the Chamber, Prime Minister Winston Churchill described the House of Commons as “the citadel of British liberty”. This House and this Chamber continue to play a vital role at the heart of our democracy today. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in marking this important anniversary. I invite Members, at 11 am tomorrow, to attend the Chamber for a commemorative photo to mark the occasion.”
“Order. This is a very important subject, and other Members need to come in as well. These are meant to be questions, rather than statements. I recognise the importance of this matter, and I am sure you are going to come to the end of your question now.”
“Order. I need the Foreign Secretary to help me here. Members are desperate to get their questions in, and the only way I can get them in is by speeding up. We have to get on with the Opposition day at some point.”
“First, I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for her apology. I would add that should any Member need any advice on the rules and conventions of the House, the Clerks are always available to assist.”
“We nearly did have an apology. May I first say thank you to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order? As I know he is aware, I made a statement on Thursday last week at the start of business that provided some clarification on ways in which this House can properly consider the matter. In raising this point of order, the right hon. Member has placed on record his letter to the Prime Minister and the early-day motion tabled in his name. The scheduling of time for debates is not a matter for the Chair. I know that the right hon. Member will continue to seek ways in which to pursue the issue and he has already reminded the Treasury Bench of what he wishes. I will leave it there.”
“Order. Members on both sides of the Chamber are having their own conversations on the side. I cannot hear the Minister—and everybody wants to hear the Minister.”
“Before we begin today’s business, I want to make a short statement on the work of the Speaker’s Conference. The House knows how seriously I take the security of this House and its Members, staff and families, and so a year ago, I established the conference to consider the security of Members, candidates and elections, and the threats against them. I would like to extend my sincere thanks to the many Members and Members’ staff who contributed their time and insights to the conference. Your experiences have been vital in shaping the findings and recommendations outlined in the report. We published our first report in June, and today we publish our second and final report. We now come to topical questions to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I call Catherine Fookes. [ Interruption.”
“Order. When I decide on an urgent question, I do not need to be questioned about how urgent it is, or whether it is like a two-stroke engine or a 50 cc—actually, some of us think it might be a three litre.”
“Order. I brought the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) in early because I thought that was right for his constituents and because he had applied for an UQ, but I do expect a little respect, even if he does not like the answer.”
“Before we come to questions, I know that there has been some commentary on what Members may or may not discuss in the Chamber in relation to Prince Andrew, some of which is inaccurate. There is understandably great interest in this matter, from Members and from the public. For the benefit of the House, I would like to be clear that there are ways for the House properly to consider this matter. Any reflections on the conduct of members of the royal family can properly be discussed on substantive motions. I know that some Members have already tabled such a motion. I am unable to allocate time for a debate on such a motion, but others are able to do so if they wish. The long-standing practice of the House, as set out in “Erskine May”, is that criticism of members of the royal family cannot be made as part of questions.”
“Perhaps I can help, then. Security does include the resilience and the security of this House. I can go through it a bit more if need be, but I am sure that the Minister will use his imagination to answer.”
“Order. We have had one or two little bits of that, Mr Mayhew, and we do not need it. You should know better; you have been here long enough now. I expect a little bit more respect.”
“Order. Mr Jenrick, when you get a UQ, you get your time, and I want you to be heard in silence, quite rightly, because this is an important issue that affects this House—but I do not need barracking from the Opposition Benches. I want you to help me. If you wish to catch my eye in the future, this is not the best way to do so.”
“There is a collective responsibility for the Government to answer within this House—the right hon. Member is absolutely right to ask the question—but I am not responsible for the answers that the Solicitor General provides. This goes back to the frustration under the previous Administration, when the Foreign Secretary sat in the Lords. My view is that it is much harder, but there is a collective responsibility that questions will be answered in this House. I am not going to keep the debate going now.”
“This was a very important and well attended urgent question, and I thank the Minister for coming to the Chamber to answer it. One of the arguments made to me for not granting it was that “there will be a Westminster Hall debate next Wednesday, though on an unrelated subject: banning plastic wipes”—I know that argument was not from the Minister, who I again thank. I think we can see that the urgent question was very important.”
“Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I am sure that the whole House will know that this weekend the Rugby League Ashes returns for the first time since 2003. I place on the record my very best wishes to the England team, who will make the major rumble in London this weekend—the first of three matches against Australia.”
“Order. Can I just say that, even if we are quoting somebody else, we should not quote a direct allegation against a Member of this House? I am sure that that is not what was intended.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. The transfer of questions between Departments is a matter for the Government rather than the Chair. However, the hon. Gentleman’s concerns are now on the record, and I hope that those on the Treasury Bench have noted what he has said. Let me add that there is always the expectation that Departments will inform Members of such transfers. If there is a continuation, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not leave it there—but please, will he come and let me know?”
“Unfortunately I do not have such powers, although perhaps at times I would welcome them. I will say this, however. I thank the hon. Member for giving me notice of his point of order. Ministers are responsible for their words in the House, and the Ministerial Code is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Member has certainly put his views on the record, and I am sure that—once again—we will find that those on the Treasury Bench have been listening.”
“57) Rachael Maskell, supported by Nadia Whittome, Ian Byrne, Kate Osborne, Richard Burgon, Apsana Begum, Brian Leishman, Imran Hussain, Jon Trickett, Cat Eccles, Mary Kelly Foy and Bell Ribeiro-Addy presented a Bill to give the Monarch powers to remove titles; to provide that such removals can be done by the Monarch on their own initiative, following a recommendation of a joint committee of Parliament, or at the request of the person who holds the title; and for connected purposes. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 31 October, and to be printed (Bill 317).”
“Let me first say that that is probably the worst point of order I have heard in the form of an apology, but let me also say happy Diwali to all the temples that the hon. Lady has visited. She has certainly put that on the record, but I hope that next time she will wait at the Bar of the House until after the question. Bill presented Removal of Titles Bill Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.”
“Can I just suggest to Members that their supplementary question should relate to the tabled question? That would be helpful. I call the shadow Minister.”
“We all remember Oliver Colvile very fondly. He really was a good MP and a nice kind of guy to meet. I knew Oliver way before he came to this House. We are all saddened to hear the news.”
“Order. I am sorry the Minister felt she had to push it. She is doing an excellent job. She does not need to push it; she is better than that. I call Alison Hume.”
“Order. Jeremy—come on. You have certainly put your view on the record, but what we will not do is continue the debate. You know that as a long-standing Member of this House who has great respect. I will leave it at that, because you have certainly ensured that we are all aware of that correction.”
“Order. I have got to get all these people in during topicals. Having a private conversation as the Secretary of State tries to answer the question does not help.”
“Order. Can I say to those on the Front Bench that when I start coughing and shaking my head, I am trying to move you along, not indicating that you should carry on? I think I am getting my signals wrong.”
“Before we come on to the urgent question on the Chinese spy case, I would like to reiterate my remarks from last week. I remain disappointed by what has happened in this case. I am, alongside the Lord Speaker, continuing to seek advice from officials and specialist legal advice on what further steps might be taken to pursue this issue in other ways. While it would be not appropriate to talk in detail about security matters on the Floor of the House, I am also speaking to officials about access arrangements.”
“Order. I do not need any help from the Government Front Bench. This is a very important statement that really does affect Members of this House.”
“Order. I think I need to help a little bit. It is in order to mention another Department. You cannot ringfence this and not refer to other people. It might not be comfortable, but the fact is that a question has been asked that is within order, and that is what matters.”
“Order. I have said to the Government Front Bench that I do not need any chipping in. I certainly do not need it from all along the Opposition Front Bench.”
“Order. Mr Philp, you have had the benefit of an urgent question. I have had the benefit—some might say—of listening to you, so I want you to have the benefit of listening to the Minister.”
“Order. I am sorry but I have to pull stumps as we are well over time. DCMS questions are so popular—many hon. Members have not been able to get in—that I believe we really need an hour on the subject, as I am sure the Secretary of State will agree. I know that the Secretary of State wanted to congratulate Hull KR on its treble in rugby league and on beating Wigan Warriors in the final, and I am sure that she will be supporting Great Britain when we play Australia a week on Saturday.”
“Order. May I just say— [ Interruption. ] No, you are going to hear it, whether you like it or not. Mr Tugendhat, I expect better from you. You will be wanting to catch my eye, and this is not the best way to do it. Can we please show a little bit more respect, which I normally get from you?”
“Order. I am not in the position of needing any advice or help. I have had enough from the Opposition Benches; I do not want it starting on the Government Benches, too. I think we will take it that there was, in fairness, an apology to those on the Front Bench.”
“I cannot prolong the UQ. I know the hon. Lady well, and I know she will not leave it at that point of order. She will go and use all the options that are open to her, and I am sure that she will be coming back in not too distant a time.”
“It is not even a point of order, and you know that—we are keeping the debate going. I do congratulate the Minister and feel sorry that this is his first outing, but I have to say, if you take the pay check, you also take the pain that goes with it.”
“Before we move to business questions, I would like to pay tribute to BBC Radio 4’s “Today in Parliament” programme, which last week celebrated its 80th anniversary. Barring the occasional power cut, “Today in Parliament” has been broadcasting every night that Parliament has been sitting since it was first aired on 9 October 1945. My predecessor and great friend the late Baroness Betty Boothroyd thought the programme was “champion” and once commented that she would even put her book down to listen to it in bed. On behalf of the House, I would like to say congratulations to “Today in Parliament” and its many presenters for covering our proceedings in an incredible 13,000 episodes over 80 wonderful years.”
“Order. Mr Snell, I thought you were the man who had sent me a letter about going on the Chairmen’s Panel. This is not the way to get a good interview.”