Paul Holmes
MP for Hamble Valley · Conservative · United Kingdom
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate, and I welcome the Minister to her position.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I often found myself going home in the evening and thinking, “How could I have agreed so much with the Liberal Democrats?”, but I looked myself in the mirror, had a wash and got over it the next morning. Planning decisions shape our towns and villages for generations to come.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although the Government argue that the scheme will create greater consistency and allow committees to focus on significant applications, there is a risk that standardisation will come at the expense of local discretion.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s proposed approach risks weakening the democratic safeguards that allow communities to have their voices heard. This policy represents a significant shift in the balance between professional planning officers and elected local representatives.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, she cannot have it both ways; she cannot devolve to local people, while taking away some of the most retail decisions that councils and locally elected people make on behalf of those people—giving with one hand while taking with the other.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Under this scheme, that proposal could not be referred by a ward councillor and could not be debated by ward councillors who represent the community. As the Member of Parliament, I could make a written representation but would not be able to go to a planning committee led by councillors to make that decision. That is fundamentally wrong.”
House of Commons28 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
2,156 held · 2,155 searchable for Paul Holmes. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“It is right that it is kept under review, but if it was continually added to over and over again in Northern Ireland, that would risk further divergence from Great Britain and the confusion that we touched on previously. It is right that it is kept under review, but as I say, there are high levels of public awareness of the need for photographic ID. David will correct me if I am wrong, but I think most voters are very familiar with the fact that they need to bring their driving licence or passport with them, and if they cannot get that, they can get an electoral identity card from the Electoral Office.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q That would probably be my contention on the mainland—this needs to be given a chance to bed in. We have seen evidence that the percentage of people who think it is correct to require photograph ID to vote is increasing. Do you both agree that consistently changing the expectations of voters, in terms of what they need to take when they turn up to polling stations, does not make for an easy experience? Cahir Hughes : The list of forms of ID that are available to voters in Northern Ireland is significantly shorter than the list in Great Britain. Again, it is so well established here that people are familiar with it. Nevertheless, we need to move with the times; David touched on the impact of digital ID, and the veteran card is included in the Bill.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mr Marshall, don’t feel you need to, but if you want to add something, you are more than entitled to. David Marshall : I have nothing further to add.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I appreciate that. We will go away to look at how that new clause can be tailored to your feedback, all three of you. The new clause came out of some of the campaigning in the Gorton by-election, so we will go away and look at it again.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Duncan Hames: We do support a moratorium for the purposes you describe. How temporary it should be depends on whether it is possible to address the risks. At such point as Parliament is confident that other forms of payment carry no additional risk to sterling or even cash, then the case for the moratorium would not be as strong. Right now, it is an absolute minefield to try to work out exactly where this money originates, which drives a coach and horses through the existing rules we have on political finance.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q I want to ask all three witnesses about one other area, very briefly. A recommendation in your evidence, Dr Hawley, is that we: “Prohibit crypto donations until/unless…crypto currency becomes much more widely used by a greater cross-section of the population”. That is something that needs to be seriously explored, because of evidence given to us earlier in Committee about the lack of regulation that has caught up with something that is to me completely not understandable. You support that proposal, Dr Hawley, because it is your proposal, but do the other two witnesses support an interim ban on cryptocurrency donations until the regulatory framework has caught up? Also, if we get a suitable regulatory framework, do you think such donations should be re-established or do you think that they should just be banned permanently?”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Samantha Dixon: We are talking about people who have the right to vote, but are excluded from voting because they do not have the appropriate ID. Although I accept that many people have passports and driving licences, not all do, and many more people have bank cards. The legitimacy of the banking system in the UK means that those cards should be used by younger people in particular, but could be used by any person who wants to vote in person at a polling station.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q What problem are you trying to solve, Minister? It is certainly my contention—you may disagree with this—that most people in this country will have a passport, driving licence or a form of photographic ID, and if you are a student at college, you will have a college ID. One of the witnesses today suggested that you could have automatic enrolment to voter identification paperwork or digital ID; that is something we would support. What problem are you trying to solve in trying to bring in a bank card as a possible type of identification, when that does not prove your identity? A very minor number of people are affected by this. How much do you anticipate that a bank card will make a difference to the numbers we have heard about today?”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I find it interesting that most of the people who we consider to be academics, and have made their life’s profession the integrity of the election system, are not in favour of it, but the Government are choosing to go ahead with it anyway. We will look at that further in line-by-line scrutiny. Thank you very much for your time this afternoon.”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the rulings that you have made from the Chair, which I think are always perfect and completely right, we are now entering a new period in which a Prime Minister answers a question about a subject that was not asked and then focuses on asking a question of the Opposition Front Bench. Notwithstanding the ruling that you have just made in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), can you tell me what parliamentary mechanisms there are and who I can approach to see whether the Standing Orders need to be reformed to give you the power to determine what is an answer to a question and what is a completely pathetic response?”
House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For example, the strategy does not give funding to Housing First so that it can be rolled out nationally. Also, the Local Government Association says that a cross-departmental approach is needed, and needs to be embedded at the heart of all Government Departments, within their constitutions. We ask for that approach to be considered. Lastly on the housing strategy itself, prevention models are still patchy across the whole of the UK and there needs to be an emphasis on national outcomes, to stop people falling into homelessness. Throughout the UK, charities such as The Bread and Butter Thing are really helping on an emergency scale to relieve the homelessness crisis; we congratulate them on what they are doing.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I look to the Minister to confirm to the Chamber this morning, when she responds to the debate, that she is chairing a cross-ministerial committee on this issue, and that she will continue to do so going forward. I also look to her to say how often that committee will meet. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree mentioned the problem with data concerning immigration. She is absolutely right that the Home Office has been slightly let off the hook on this strategy; I look to the Minister to provide some reassurances on this data issue when she stands up shortly to respond to the debate. I think that the strategy goes in the right direction, but there are some concerns about the lack of funding to tackle some of the issues and to enact some of the good intentions that the Minister has outlined over the past few months.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The strategy also lacks the cross-departmental approach that we need, particularly when we consider that homelessness is not just an issue that MHCLG must find a solution to. Homelessness also involves the Department for Education, the Department for Health and Social Care, and the Home Office, in the way that the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree described. For example, regarding the involvement of the Department for Health and Social Care, we need to get better at analysing the data around drug and alcohol discharges from hospital. I am not convinced that the strategy, despite its good intentions overall, really takes the cross-ministerial approach where it needs to go.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, I will make some comments on some parts of the strategy and I will challenge the strategy regarding where we think it could go further. My main concern about the homelessness strategy is this. The current time seemed to offer an opportunity, but although the Minister has grabbed that opportunity, it is an opportunity whereby the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government seems to be leading the search for a solution to homelessness, so the chance for a fundamental rewiring of how Government works to tackle homelessness has been missed. As I said, I make these comments in a constructive way. Nevertheless, I believe that the strategy lacks genuine cross-party ministerial oversight.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In its 2024 manifesto, the Labour party promised to, “develop a new cross-Government strategy…to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness.” That strategy was not published until 11 December 2025, which was much later than expected; indeed, it was at the tail end of this Session of Parliament. However, I remind the Minister, who I am pleased to see here in Westminster Hall this morning, that in a meeting she kindly offered on a cross-party basis, I assured her that the official Opposition and I, as the shadow Minister with responsibility for homelessness, are committed to working on a cross-party basis to make sure that this strategy works. My comments this morning do not signal that I demur from that approach.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that the welfare of young people across this country, particularly those who have found themselves homeless, is at the heart of what she does, and I congratulate her again on securing this debate. Rough sleeping among families with children represents one of the most visible and distressing signs of the housing crisis in our country. Behind every statistic is a child growing up without the security of a stable home, a family living with uncertainty, and communities struggling to cope with rising costs of living and other socioeconomic pressures. We can all agree across the House that this is not a matter to procrastinate or prevaricate about.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) on securing this debate. She is not just an hon. Lady; to me she is an hon. Friend, and I am delighted to respond to her today on the Opposition’s behalf. I even managed to get out of bed just to do it because she was leading this debate this morning. The hon. Lady was absolutely right to say in her opening remarks that we should not be here this morning having to debate an issue such as one. However, while we do have to debate these issues, I am pleased that she is on the case and I look forward to working with her, being a successor to her as the shadow Minister with responsibility for homelessness.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That means tackling child poverty, expanding affordable housing, supporting local authorities and ensuring that strategies are delivered on time and backed by meaningful action. All of us in this House, on both sides, agree that no child should grow up without the stability of a safe home, no family should face the prospect of homelessness and no society should accept rising rough sleeping as inevitable. I say once again to the Minister that we come here in the spirit of co-operation. I genuinely believe that this Minister wants to achieve her aim of reducing homelessness. She has been going in the right direction to make sure that the Department constitutes what is necessary to deliver that, but we will look to see how this will be carried on across all Departments to achieve what we all want to achieve.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to official figures, 208,600 net new dwellings were added in Labour’s first year in office, which is a 6% drop on the previous year, and just 190,600 new homes were built, which is 8,000 fewer than in the final year of the previous Government. If this rate continues, fewer than 1 million homes will be delivered by 2029—well short of the Government’s stated target. That is a serious issue because housing supply directly affects homelessness. Without sufficient homes, more families are pushed into temporary accommodation and the risk of rough sleeping continues. The scale of the challenge facing families with children demands urgency, co-ordination and long-term solutions.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That represents a 12% increase in just one year and the ninth consecutive record since December 2022. Ultimately, the only sustainable solution to homelessness is to increase the supply of homes and, in particular, social and affordable housing. The Government have pledged to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament. However—I say this again—experts have expressed serious doubts about whether that target can be achieved. Professor Paul Cheshire, a leading planning expert who advised previous Governments, stated that there is “absolutely no way” the current reforms will deliver that number of homes. Let me be clear to Members across the House: that does and should include social homes. Recent housing statistics raise similar concerns.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Between July and September 2025, 134,760 households were living in hotels, B&Bs or temporary flats, which was an increase of nearly 7% compared with the previous year. Of those households, 85,730 include children. These are the highest figures since records began in 2010. In London, the situation is particularly stark. According to London Councils, one in 50 Londoners is now homeless and record numbers of children are growing up in temporary accommodation. In some boroughs, the pressures are especially severe. Newham has 6,667 households in temporary accommodation, followed by Lambeth with 4,657 and Southwark with 3,828. Statutory homelessness data shows that, across England, 169,050 children are currently homeless in temporary accommodation.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Figures from autumn 2025 estimate that 4,793 people were sleeping on the streets on a single night, which was an increase on the previous year. Particularly concerning is the rise in vulnerable groups on the streets. The number of female rough sleepers increased by 8% to 733, alongside 3,938 men and 122 cases in which gender was not recorded. London continues to face the greatest challenge, with 1,277 people sleeping rough—the highest figure in the country—but the sharpest increase was in the north-east of England, where rough sleeping rose by 31% in just one year. For many families, the pathway to rough sleeping begins long before anyone ends up on the streets. It often starts in temporary accommodation.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. That was a policy decision of Governments before I took this role. I believe in the right-to-buy policy. It was a massive tool to allow people to achieve ownership in a radical way that we need to see again in this country. But in hindsight I accept, given some of the way the system worked, that we needed to see greater investment back into councils so that they could reinvest in stock. I think that is a perfectly reasonable thing to assume, but I will say that under this Government, the social housing fund that has been allocated just is not great enough to ensure that we have the houses that we need to deliver. The number of people sleeping rough in England is now at its highest level since records began in 2010.”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I knew the Minister would give me a straight answer, but may I push her a bit further on the remit of the interministerial group? Will she confirm her intention for how often it will meet? Is it constituted to meet a certain number of times during the year?”
House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For integration to work, people must know into what they are integrating. That means a culture that is confident, that is strong and that believes in itself. That is what this Government still seem unable to understand and unwilling to defend.”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Such campaigns fuel hostility towards Jewish people and contribute to the rise in antisemitism. Local procurement boycotts of Israel are supposed to be unlawful, yet Ministers do nothing to enforce the law. They will not even compile a list of the councils pursuing such boycotts. Added to these fears, separatism is on the rise in our country, as the Leader of the Opposition rightly set out in her speech last week. She said that “for too long, Britain has been complacent about our culture and too tolerant of those weaponising identity politics for their own gain…Britain is a multiracial country, we must not be a multicultural one.” [ Interruption. ] That was in the Secretary of State’s statement, by the way. We must reject the absurd idea that culture is something imported from somewhere else.”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Meanwhile, around 1 million adults in this country cannot speak English properly. This fundamentally limits their life chances and perpetuates separate communities. If the Government truly believed in equality, they would not turn a blind eye to practices such as family voting, where husbands effectively take the votes off their wives. Neither would they tolerate the misogyny and segregation that occur when men prevent women from learning English— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members might want to listen to this, because I am about to talk about antisemitism and I know that they have had a problem with that. On the question of antisemitism, will the Government challenge anti-Israel boycotts and divestment campaigns in local government, as we have seen recently in Bristol, advocated by a party in this House?”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The definition risks undermining free speech within the law, it risks hindering legitimate criticism of Islamism and it risks creating a back-door blasphemy law. The strategy also claims that the Government want to promote the English language, but they will not say whether they support the guidance issued to councils in 2013 by the then Secretary of State, Eric Pickles, which advised against routine translation into foreign languages. We should be investing in English language training, not endless translation. Translation undermines integration, it wastes taxpayers’ money and it ultimately harms equality. There is no legal duty on councils to translate documents into foreign languages, yet too often officials gold-plate the Equality Act 2010 and do so anyway.”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will he confirm whether organisations deemed extremist or subject to the Government’s policy of non-engagement were permitted to submit evidence? So far, this review appears to have been conducted largely in secret. The Government even had to be dragged kicking and screaming into publishing an email address so that evidence could be submitted. The proposed definition still raises serious questions. Jonathan Hall KC, the Government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has warned that any definition should include clear examples of free speech that are not considered anti-Muslim hatred. He says it is important that people can still openly discuss difficult but significant topics such as migration and Islamism.”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones), stated: “The Government’s policy of non-engagement with the Muslim Council of Britain has not changed.” However, just two days later, when asked whether the Muslim Council of Britain was on the list of organisations subject to that policy, the Minister for Security, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), replied: “The Home Office does not comment on specific groups.” So which is it? This lack of transparency also applies to the review itself. Will the Minister now publish the full report provided to him by the working group? Will he publish a list of every external organisation that the working group met, and every organisation his Department has subsequently consulted on that report?”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The strategy claims that the Government intend to embed the anti-extremism principles adopted by the previous Conservative Government in 2024, but if that is the case, why have this Government reversed the position on naming extremist organisations? We now have the ridiculous situation where the Government claim they have a policy of non-engagement with extremists but refuse to say who that policy applies to. Last month, we saw this confusion laid bare when the Home Office was asked whether it engaged with the Muslim Council of Britain. Two Ministers gave contradictory answers. When asked whether the MCB had given written evidence to the Macdonald review into hate crime, the Minister for Policing and Crime, the hon.”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement, although the Government leaked it on Friday and his Department briefed it to the press yesterday. Parliament should not learn the details of Government policy through newspaper reports. This House deserves transparency. There are some measures in this strategy that we welcome. Efforts to tackle extremism in charities and universities are important and necessary, and we welcome them, but the strategy lacks ambition and action to deliver tangible change. The Secretary of State spoke for two minutes over his allocated time, which is ironic because there is absolutely nothing new in the measures that the Government are announcing this evening.”
House of Commons9 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Grenfell must be a watershed with a legacy of safety, transparency and respect for every resident. Let me make clear the commitment of the Conservatives to work with the Secretary of State and the Government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State has promised to complete all the remaining recommendations during this Parliament. Will he lay out key dates for when key parts of that will be achieved? Will he update us on what stage he is at with the Grenfell site itself and future plans for it? How is he working with the victims’ families to support them? Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences—not just fines, but criminal charges where the evidence allows. We will support and scrutinise the support for victims and their families that the Government are putting forward to ensure that we get this right. I know that the Secretary of State and the Building Safety Minister, the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), want to get this right.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was welcome that this Government also accepted the recommendations. Will the Secretary of State publish a detailed plan on how all the recommendations are being implemented and their status? He gave us the update that 91% of high-rise residential and public buildings have had cladding removed. Will he update us with a road map for when the rest will be completed? All building owners must step up, do the right thing and fix their buildings without delay, or face the consequences of their inaction. Those who intentionally cut corners on building safety must be held to account. The Metropolitan police and the Crown Prosecution Service should continue to pursue criminal charges against the small number of developers and contractors who knowingly and fraudulently cut corners on building safety for greed and financial gain.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one Department are long-overdue reforms. While we welcome the formation of a single construction regulator, can the Secretary of State confidently state that he believes it will be more effective and help to safely build the homes that we need? Can he confirm that we will not be left with the potential delays that we have seen under the Building Safety Regulator? When we were in government, we took decisive action to initiate this public inquiry immediately after the tragedy to learn the lessons and prevent it from ever happening again. We strengthened the regulatory regime and implemented the inquiry’s recommendations following the report from the first phase.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The victims must be at the heart of how we remember Grenfell, and the Government must work with them in as sensitive a manner as humanly possible. We will support and scrutinise how the Government proceed with the memorial to ensure that the victims are at the heart of what he has decided. We believe that this matter should be cross-party, as it goes beyond party politics and it is simply the right thing to do. The inquiry’s findings—decades of systematic failure, dishonesty and negligence—are a damning indictment of successive Governments, regulators and industry. The Government’s response last year was to accept all 58 recommendations, which is a step forward, and we welcome the commitment to action. I am glad to hear today that action on a few of those recommendations has already taken place.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and join him in welcoming survivors from Grenfell who are with us today. The events that took place on 14 June 2017 were an avoidable national tragedy that should not have robbed 72 people of their lives, and they must never be repeated. It is right that in consultation with the survivors, the bereaved and those directly impacted, a fitting and lasting memorial is put in place to remember the 72 lives lost that day and the wider Grenfell community. We welcome the new legislation that the Secretary of State has announced this afternoon. It is right that we remember the victims, and I thank the Secretary of State for giving us the opportunity to do that while he updates the House.”
House of Commons25 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady is right that we did table an Opposition day motion in Conservative time on this subject, but the difference between our motion and the Liberal Democrat motion is that ours contained proposals. This afternoon, she is asking us not to debate a motion on the topic in the title of the Bill, but merely to give the Liberal Democrats control of the Order Paper on 9 March. Why did she not choose to bring forward a Bill, allow the House to look at her proposals and have a solid, principled debate on it before she asked us to give her control of the Order Paper on 9 March?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way again, because I have to push this point. She has outlined that her party has published proposals in the other place, but her party is called the Liberal Democrats—this is the democratically elected Chamber, and we should be debating a proposed Bill from the Liberal Democrats on their Opposition day. I agree with her that we need urgent legislation. Why is she depriving Members across the House of detailed proposals that we could vote on and instead asking the House through a procedural motion to give her party control of the Order Paper on 9 March?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lady is now elaborating on the Floor of the House on what she wants her policies to be, but she is asking us to vote for a Bill that has not been put before this House. Can I therefore have your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether this debate should be going ahead if the House does not have a substantive Bill relating to this procedural motion?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for your indulgence, and I suspect that I will get the same answer as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but I have never, in my seven years in this House, been in a situation where a motion outlines the timetable for Monday 9 March—including the timings of proceedings and questions to be put on Monday 9 March and of consideration of Lords amendments and messages on a subsequent day—for a Bill that this House has not seen. How can Members vote for a motion that allocates separate procedures for a Bill that has not been published? I want my constituents to know what the Liberal Democrats are proposing in this space. The hon.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Lady is being characteristically courteous in giving way, and I always have her best interests at heart. She is right to say that people are keen to be heard loud and clear, and she is rightly setting out her position about legislation she wants to see before the House. However, if she thinks that people have been heard loud and clear, can she tell the House whether the things she has outlined today are in a drafted Bill, sitting in a safe somewhere within Liberal Democrat HQ, and why she chose not to publish that this afternoon so that we could have a principled debate on her policy proposals?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It does not give the Government the opportunity to table legislation on a cross-party basis at a timing of their choosing—it has to happen under the jurisdiction of the Liberal Democrat motion, does it not?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It would make a number of amendments to the Order Paper on that day, including that “No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies... The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.”, and that only a “designated Member” would be able to make any decision about the order in which a Bill was to be taken. In subsection 19 that designated Member is “(a) the leader of the second largest opposition party; and (b) any other Member acting on behalf of the leader of the second largest opposition party.” Despite the protestations of the Liberal Democrats that they want this to be a cross-party approach, this is them taking over the Order Paper and giving their leader carte blanche to table what they like on 9 March.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Members might be jaded by my making this point of order, but I am grateful to you for allowing me to do so; as a democrat, I like this Chamber to work properly. Will you clarify the procedural basis of the request by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for the Government to make time for the Bill? I ask this because if the motion is accepted, the Government will not be able to pick a time for the legislation; instead the Liberal Democrats would take over the Order Paper and force the Government to accept their legislation on 9 March, with the procedures that are outlined. May I also ask your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, on the motion?”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman has just said that he thinks it is absolutely right that this House focuses on Peter Mandelson’s links with Jeffrey Epstein, and I welcome him for suddenly coming to that conclusion. Can I therefore ask him why the Prime Minister felt it necessary to appoint Mandelson as the US ambassador when—we know this after this afternoon’s revelation—the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson still had a relationship with Epstein?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman’s speech is coming across to me as quite miraculous, and not in a good way. He is claiming that his Front Benchers have shown leadership this afternoon. Let us remind the House exactly what has happened: his party’s leadership and Front Benchers have changed their amendment to the motion, because they knew that Government Members would not have voted for it.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“According to reports, it is worse than that: Peter Mandelson had his fingertips throughout the whole of the Labour party, but also the Government. There are reports that after the Prime Minister had realised he had had a continuing relationship with Epstein, Mandelson was in No. 10 during the Cabinet reshuffle of 5 September, so he had a direct role in appointing half the Cabinet, has he not?”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In response to the intervention from my right hon. Friend Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke), there is a key difference between this Prime Minister and former Labour Prime Ministers, in that Gordon Brown and Tony Blair appointed Peter Mandelson without knowing some of the connections that he had. The key difference is that this Prime Minister knew and still did it. There is still a Labour Prime Minister with integrity, and that is Gordon Brown, who actually took things to the police. This Prime Minister did no such thing.”
House of Commons4 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗