Max Wilkinson
MP for Cheltenham · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The proposals are not the result that I wanted for my constituency or Gloucestershire. However, I am a reasonable man, and I am willing to take the Secretary of State at his word.”
“This summer brings good news in the Big Space Cancer Appeal, which Health Ministers are right behind. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the brilliant doctors behind the appeal, Charles Candish and Sam Guglani, and the many donors who are helping to pay for the £17.5 million new cancer centre at Cheltenham hospital?”
“Cheltenham train passengers have a continual frustration with the turnaround time at Gloucester. There is also a new frustration: I wonder whether the Secretary of State or a Minister can tell me why so many trains due to terminate at Cheltenham unexpectedly terminate at Gloucester?”
“Lord Gove used his “Quite right!” Spectator podcast to call me “oleaginous”, a word that I later learned means oily, the “king of smuggery” and an offensive term, but I will spare Members’ blushes by simply saying that it starts with d and rhymes with “mick”. That is from a Member of the House of Lords in this Parliament.”
“Instead, it proposes the wholesale reform of the appeals process, creating the Independent Immigration Appeals Authority, which will not be operational until late next year. Even the Home Office has described the value of this measure as uncertain.”
“Sadly, this measure, coupled with potential decades-long waits for leave to remain, will actively undermine the integration that everyone in this House should be aiming for. Costs to the taxpayer are likely to go up and not down. The reviews of refugee status alone are set to cost up to £725 million extra in the first 10 years.”
The complete record
Every one of 601 lines we hold for Max Wilkinson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 13.
“This is a heartbreaking case of a young man who should be alive today with a happy life ahead of him. Because of the forces of evil, he is not. On behalf of my party, I extend my sympathies to Henry’s family and friends, and I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. The independent investigation should uncover how one evil individual was not picked up despite apparently exhibiting disturbing behaviours that saw him ejected from his place of worship and having an obsession with weapons. Of course, police officers work under high stress and must make split-second decisions, and we rely on their good judgment every day. Tragically, in this case the officers made a clear and terrible mistake—one that failed Henry and has broken the hearts of his family.”
“That must be tackled, as Mark Nowak has rightly said. The judge’s remarks in this case tell us that the knife being carried by the murderer was different from that typically carried by British Sikhs as a part of their faith.”
“I am, Mr Speaker, and I apologise. As Mark Nowak has said, the outcome here should not be further division. In that spirit and in Henry’s memory, we must work together to ensure that this kind of tragedy is not allowed to happen again.”
“This Government now face a stark choice. They either embrace proportional representation or usher in a future Reform Government propped up by the Conservatives to give us more of the same that they gave us before: the failure of Brexit, the lack of security and the failing economy. Sadly, this King’s Speech will not do what is needed to fix our relationship with Europe, to make us safer or to empower communities, and it will not change politics for the better. It is a crying shame that with a massive majority, the Government have a massive lack of ambition.”
“Those include towns such as my constituency of Cheltenham, which stands ready to help, supporting the work of GCHQ and building on it at the Golden Valley cyber park, which is supported by this Government. I welcome that and commend the Government’s decision to do so. The King’s Speech also ignores the new reality in British politics. The two-party system of the red team and the blue team shouting at each other is now over. That undermines our ability to have a thriving economy. It undermines our ability to make long-term plans to invest in the long-term defence and security of our country. It is a pity that Andy Burnham has changed his mind on proportional representation. That makes at least two U-turns before he has even rejoined this House, but let us hope he does a 180-degree turn when he gets back here.”
“Such a moment of national challenge demanded a King’s Speech offering significant change to reintegrate with Europe for the sake of our economy and defence, but regrettably, the Prime Minister has offered us more of the same. Politics is about ideas, and the ideas that inspire me and those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches are liberalism and internationalism. That will not change. The challenge facing our nation today can only be met by those ends. At home, communities are crying out for real empowerment, yet this Government’s devolution agenda delivers only the illusion of local control. To achieve growth, including in our defence sector, Whitehall’s grip must be loosened to devolve real power and funding not just to distant regional centres away from our communities, but to towns and cities.”
“Our Government have a responsibility to be so much bolder in reversing the damage caused to this country. Every Labour Back Bencher and Minister knows that rapid reintegration with Europe is the only way to increase prosperity and security and boost business too. Apparently, the Mayor of Greater Manchester used to know it, but he is not sure for the next few weeks while he fights that awkward by-election. The good news is that the departed Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), is wildly pro-European again, which may or may not have something to do with the Manchester Mayor’s current travails. Who knows?”
“We are reliant on an unstable United States, run by an unpredictable leader who many now think is mad, with a deputy who is intent on fomenting discontent on our streets. Who is responsible for the abject failure of Brexit? It is certainly not the people of this country. We all know in this House who is responsible for the failure of Brexit, and we all know that they are currently getting away with it. While the rest of us are undeniably poorer as a result of Brexit, there are 5 million reasons why the Reform party must keep claiming that it has been a huge success. We all know what those reasons are. Reform Members are deluded, and so are their pals in the Conservative party. They must, en masse, take responsibility for the fact that this country is now poorer and less secure as a result of their disastrous Brexit.”
“Almost 10 years ago, this country voted to leave the European Union, but it is now clear that whether you voted leave or remain, you did not get what you voted for. Has Brexit made us wealthier? No. Has it made us healthier? No. Has it made it easier for businesses to grow, as we were told by the Conservatives? No. Has it lowered our taxes? No. Has it helped us protect our environment? No. The faeces flowing into our rivers suggest strongly that it has not helped our environment. Has Brexit helped us run a more effective immigration and asylum system? No! The gangsters profiting from small boats are laughing all the way to the bank. On the subject of today’s debate, has it made us more secure, and has it boosted national resilience? No!”
“I represent the constituency of Cheltenham, which is the home of GCHQ, where thousands of people work every day to keep us safe. They work quietly and never ask for our thanks. In this House, it is right that we acknowledge that whenever we can. I strongly agree with the points made earlier about the urgency of investment in defence. As a member of the all-party parliamentary group on rearmament, I commend the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). I also echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) about the need to reintegrate with Europe as soon as we possibly can—if not on the economy then for defence alone.”
“On the subject of mistakes made and growth, does the shadow Chancellor accept that the Brexit that he and his party left us has knocked between 4% and 8% off our GDP?”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the subject of home affairs. As the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesperson, I too am disappointed that there is not a day for me to have my say on this matter, and I will try to do so in this brief intervention. When I am opposite the Home Secretary, who makes a great play of shouting things at me as if I am a terrible liberal making unreasonable statements, she tends to imply strongly that by moving to the authoritarian right, the Labour party is seeing off the challenge of the Reform party. I wonder whether Labour Members are reflecting on that in the wake of the recent election results.”
“I would hope that Members on both sides of the House recognise that—I know that they do. Even though the Government are clearly not going to vote for the motion this evening, we will.”
“I recognise that, since the last round of ping-pong, a concession was made on youth diversion orders in the other place and we welcome that. We are disappointed that the Government have not made suitable concessions on fixed penalty notices. However, we do not seek to force that to a vote this evening. We hope to work with the Government and we will pursue other avenues. The shadow Minister set out the case very well for the motion on the proscription of Iran-linked groups. Recent activities in this country give us further cause for concern. The rise in antisemitic sentiment on our streets and the way in which Iran is clearly seeking to foment discontent on our streets by funding activities that further antisemitic hatred and terrorist outrages should give us pause for thought.”
“Does he accept that, if those links are substantiated, proscription would be more likely to deliver justice for the Jewish community? We know that hostile foreign states sometimes try to recruit individuals online to carry out these kinds of attacks on British people. There are rumours that social media has been the recruitment tool used. Does the Minister know what the social media companies are doing to identify, monitor and clamp down on that practice? What are Ministers doing to ensure that social media companies themselves are taking action?”
“Earlier today, I met groups representing British Jews, including the Community Security Trust. They told me that British Jews are feeling extremely vulnerable, with some questioning their long-term security in this country. That such sentiment is held by any minority group in Britain in 2026 must give this House pause for thought. That the sentiment is held by the Jewish community, given the centuries of persecution they have suffered, is a tragedy. A group called Ashab al-Yamin has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks, and others across Europe. What are Ministers doing with our European partners to tackle the cross-country and cross-continent threat that this organisation and others pose? Given the potential links with the IRGC, will the Minister act swiftly to proscribe it?”
“On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to extend my sympathies to the Jewish community, who will understandably be worried about the disturbing uptick in violence against their community across Britain. The series of arson attacks on Jewish sites in recent days is an abhorrent trend. The pattern of attacks on Britain’s Jews is clear to see. Without serious intervention, it is only a matter of time before we see another attack like that seen in Manchester last year. We are grateful to hear the Minister’s words today on the action being taken. We must recognise that we have a huge antisemitism problem in this country. We in this House must re-state that again and again until the problem has been stamped out. But that is not enough; the political system must also take action to tackle its root causes.”
“This amendment would require the Government to review any organisations related to the Iranian Government. In the interests of our national security, our economy and our Jewish community, we will back the amendment today.”
“If we are to take fly-tipping seriously, we must increase the penalty for the offence, so empowering the police to confiscate vehicles that are used to dump rubbish illegally is a sensible improvement to this Bill. Sadly, no Government concession was proposed on this specific amendment. We supported the amendment in the Commons last time, and we will do so today. Finally, the Liberal Democrats will also support the Conservative amendment requiring a review of whether to prescribe Iranian Government-backed organisations. We have a long-standing record of calling for past Governments to proscribe the IRGC. There is increasing concern that attacks on our Jewish community are being funded by the IRGC, and it is beyond time that the Government took action to protect British citizens against the threat it represents.”
“On matters relating to protests, the Government took a firm line on the difference between the terms “may” and “must” last week, and perhaps they will do the same again today. The Liberal Democrats will also support two Conservative amendments, the first of which adds fly-tipping to the list of offences for which vehicles may be seized. Fly-tipping is a blight on our communities. It undermines the pride that people should feel in their neighbourhoods, and in some cases causes significant damage to the local environment. This was highlighted in Oxfordshire by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller), and in some cases it is linked to criminal gangs.”
“This will ensure that when considering a youth diversion order, courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, and of what consultation took place with the child and other relevant agencies. The Government amendment in lieu suggests that guidance “may” include matters to be taken into account by the police before applying for a youth diversion order. Again, that does not go far enough. Ensuring that all previous interventions are considered will improve the court’s understanding of the relevant factors in each case and bring efficiencies in the longer term. Most importantly, the amendment will result in better outcomes for the young people involved, who might otherwise become entangled in terrorist activity.”
“The Liberal Democrat-backed amendments will help refocus enforcement action towards those offences, and improve outcomes for young people who are already caught up in the criminal justice system. First, we will again support our amendment to prevent enforcement companies issuing fixed penalty notices on behalf of councils from making a profit. A clear ban would remove an incentive that drives lower-level offences to be punished instead of more serious antisocial behaviour. The Government amendments tabled in lieu are significantly weaker than the ban we have suggested, so we will continue to support the amendment today. I urge Members from across the House to support an outright ban on fines for profit. Secondly, we will again support our amendment on youth diversion orders.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try not to talk too much rubbish, although those on the Treasury Benches will object, as usual. As I stated last week, the Liberal Democrats support many aspects of this Bill, but we have some concerns about the lack of a proper rural crime strategy, and about some of the motions relating to protest and freedom of speech that were voted on, and indeed not voted on, last week. I turn to today’s amendments. The Liberal Democrats in the other place tabled two amendments, which the Minister referred to earlier, that would strengthen this Bill’s provisions on crime and antisocial behaviour—issues that have plagued communities for too long.”
“That follows similar provisions in the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to issue guidance.”
“We support Government amendments 1 and 4 regarding respect orders, which were concessions secured by our Liberal Democrat colleague Lord Clement-Jones. Respect orders will grant police extended powers to tackle antisocial behaviour, with police chiefs given the power to issue orders without oversight. Lords amendments 1 and 4 require the Secretary of State to make appropriate consultations before issuing or revising those orders. We are backing several further measures that take action on violence against women and girls. We support Lords amendment 294, a concession thanks to the work of our Liberal Democrat colleague Baroness Brinton, which would replace the power to issue stalking guidance by the Secretary of State with a duty to do so.”
“Amendment 342, another Liberal Democrat amendment tabled in the other place, will change how youth diversion orders are issued, ensuring courts are given a full account of any alternative interventions that have been tried or considered, why those interventions failed and what consultation took place with the child, as well as relevant agencies. Multi-agency input will help courts better understand why other interventions have failed, leading to higher success rates and time efficiency. Crucially, this amendment will mean better outcomes for young people who would otherwise become embroiled in terrorist activity. We call on Members from across the House to support these measures. The Liberal Democrats are also supporting several other amendments.”
“That is happening not just because of the measures in the Bill before us today; it is happening regularly under this Government. We must all consider that at some length in this House. However, I am pleased that the House will today consider two amendments tabled by Liberal Democrats in the other place. Amendment 2 will ensure that private companies are not incentivised to issue as many fixed penalty notices as possible, so more serious antisocial behaviour is prioritised instead. The Government’s amendment in lieu does not go far enough. It substitutes the clear ban on fining for profit with non- statutory guidance. We must remove this perverse incentive with a ban, not guidance that will inevitably be open to challenge.”
“As the Liberal Democrats made clear at earlier stages, there are parts of the Bill that we can support and parts that we strongly oppose. We welcome a number of the new measures brought forward today. None the less, it is a pity that the Government have overlooked opportunities to take action in some crucial areas, from cracking down on rural crime to supporting a real return to proper neighbourhood policing. In addition, we are deeply disturbed by the use of the Bill to further erode the protest rights of British people. These are hard-won freedoms that were won by the suffragettes, trade unionists and others over many years, but the previous Government and this one are recklessly taking them away for short-term political expedience, so we strongly oppose those measures.”
“The right to protest is a vital component of our democracy, and Liberal Democrats will fight to defend it. I urge Members on all sides of the House to put aside their personal feelings about certain ongoing protests and seriously consider what the consequences of this change would mean for our right to challenge those who exercise power over us. Members on the Government Benches might be content with that approach while they are in charge, but Labour MPs must ask what might happen under a future Government who might not adhere to liberal democratic principles.”
“We are supportive of the suggestion in Lords amendment 311, proposed by Cross-Bench peers, that an alternative is needed to proscription. That has been made particularly clear by what has happened with Palestine Action. However, we are cautious about voting for such a change while the outcomes of the independent review of public order and hate crime legislation are not yet known. Finally, Liberal Democrats are vehemently opposed to the Government’s Lords amendment to give the police unprecedented powers to further restrict the right to protest. That follows a pattern started by the previous Conservative Government, who hacked away again and again at the historical right to protest enjoyed by British people. It is an absolute travesty that that has carried on under Labour.”
“The Liberal Democrats will support Conservative Lords amendment 15, which would increase the maximum penalty for possession of a weapon with intent to use unlawful violence against another person to 10 years, in line with the recommendations from Jonathan Hall KC. To effectively tackle criminal gangs, we must ensure that the legal system can effectively cut off their revenue sources. The current closure notice periods for shops selling counterfeit goods are too short, and criminal gangs are too often able to survive the economic hit, impacting the prosperity of our high streets. That is why we support Lords amendment 333, which would extent the period in which the police and the magistrates courts may make closure notices to seven days and closure orders to 12 months.”
“Zoe’s case goes to show that we need to go so much further to protect women, and the depiction of that kind of activity clearly might provoke unintended consequences that none of us in this House want to see. Spiking remains a big problem on high streets and in pubs and bars up and down this country. With a view to strengthening online protections, we will support Lords amendments 258 and 259, relating to the non-consensual generation and sharing of intimate images. It is crucial that the law catches up to the reality of abuse being faced by women like Zoe every day. We will support Lords amendment 301 to extend the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to include protections against hostility motivated by a range of characteristics, including sex and disability.”
“The Minister seems to be arguing that there is not very much to see here, and that the difference is between “can” and “must”. Is there evidence that when police are having problems policing protests at the moment, they are not assessing the cumulative impact and the problems that that causes?”
“I thank the Minister for being generous with her time. Earlier, she said that the right to protest was sacrosanct in this country. My understanding of the definition of “sacrosanct” is that it describes something that is too important to be trifled with. In making this argument, the Government are suggesting that the right to protest should be trifled with, and that the police must do more to restrict the right to protest, aren’t they?”
“The Home Secretary’s authoritarian tendencies often please the Reform party and the Tories, but some Labour Members are apparently less happy with that approach to immigration and asylum. In particular, changes to indefinite leave to remain risk busting efforts at social cohesion while harming public services and the economy, and creating unworkable bureaucracy in the Home Office. Liberal Democrats have expressed concerns about those proposals, and many Labour Back Benchers are reportedly very unhappy. Does the Home Secretary feel comfortable that she might be reliant on support from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and the Tories to force through her flagship project?”
“The agreement to fund French police activities to prevent small boats from leaving the French coast is about to run out. That risks the resumption of higher numbers of small boat crossings, which place lives at risk and undermine efforts to bring control to the asylum system in this country. Many in the Home Secretary’s own party are crying out for the Government to speed up reintegration with the EU, and public opinion on the failures of Brexit is now clear. Will she go to Cabinet colleagues and advise them that it would be easier to fix the asylum system if we had a much closer relationship with Europe?”
“High streets are a key concern for us all in this House. On the Promenade in Cheltenham we have Cavendish House, which was a cherished retail centre for 200 years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) remembers it. Now it is empty; Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct left and now we have a big, empty building owned by Canada Life. Does the Minister agree that the big pension and investment companies need to pay more respect to our high streets and bring forward planning applications to redevelop and regenerate as soon as they possibly can? We should not be left waiting for as long as we have been.”
“Under regional devolution plans, MHCLG has told Gloucestershire to look to the north, with Herefordshire, Worcestershire and maybe Warwickshire, too. Our integrated care board is being merged with Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire. Meanwhile, our police boundaries are being merged with Wiltshire. Does the Leader of the House agree that that makes a mockery of the devolution agenda? If he does, will he arrange for me to meet the appropriate Ministers so that we can sort it out?”
“Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who maintains that he does not “do computers”. There is much work to be done to protect our democracy, and the Minister and the Government have our support to speed up that work, because there is nothing more important for us in this House than protecting those values.”
“Members, and we were rightly outraged that Peter Mandelson shared market-sensitive information with Epstein, and by many other elements of disgraceful conduct that pose a threat to our democracy. Is it not time for a dedicated crime and corruption unit in Whitehall, and does the Minister agree that it is time for legislation that ensures that all electoral candidates declare any donations or gifts from Russia? Does the Minister also agree that it is time for rules to be introduced about donations made to political parties via cryptocurrencies? This method obscures the source of donations. That loophole must be closed before it is exploited more widely, to the detriment of our democracy. We will all have noted the recent endorsement of crypto by the leader of the Reform party, the hon.”
“Hostile states are increasingly using social and traditional media to spread disinformation in order to undermine democracy and our elections, so what steps are Ministers taking to tackle that threat? As the Member of Parliament for Cheltenham, which is home to GCHQ, I know the vital work that our intelligence agencies do to counter those threats, but that work must be matched by political leadership from this House. We will all remember with disgust the case of Nathan Gill, the Reform politician convicted of working for the Russian Government. That case received remarkably little attention, yet it shows the very real threat to our democracy from within. We are also all scarred by the revelation that there were agents of the Chinese Communist party working in this House for hon.”
“Having experienced threats myself—not from radical Islamists, but from right-wing extremists—I know how important these protections are. As the MP for Cheltenham, I also remember the bravery of Andrew Pennington, who died defending my late friend Nigel Jones in an attack on the Cheltenham Liberal Democrat office. I welcome the steps that the Minister is taking to ensure that the elections in May are free and fair. Our democracy is precious, and it must be carefully protected by those in power. To that end, we welcome the existence of the taskforce, and the work it is doing. We worry, however, that the taskforce is perhaps not working fast enough to address the threat of foreign interference in our democracy.”
“I thank the Speaker’s Office for all that Mr Speaker and the Madam Deputy Speakers are doing on this issue. I must say, I was somewhat taken aback by the shadow Minister’s approach; I will try to be constructive, but where I veer away, I hope the Minister will take my points. The Minister is right to highlight the importance of protecting politicians at every level of our democracy. We must ensure that the horror of what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess never happens again, and that representatives at every level feel secure when they are discharging their democratic duties. Many Members, particularly women and those from minority backgrounds, have received death threats and harassment, and fear for their families.”
“It is utterly ridiculous that the Home Secretary has already sunk almost £1 million of taxpayers’ money in fighting in court to keep Palestine Action proscribed while dragging her heels on the IRGC’s proscription, even when the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has urged immediate proscription. Will the Home Secretary commit to confronting the threat of the Iranian regime by immediately proscribing the IRGC? If not, will she give the House a date for legislation?”
“Clearly, these values are at odds with those of the British public, who would rightly condemn the ayatollah’s oppression of the Iranian people and sponsorship of terrorism across the world. At a time when Iran is putting the safety of British citizens in the middle east at risk with its indiscriminate attacks, it would be inappropriate for the march to go ahead. Nevertheless, the decision to ban the march highlights a deeper failure by the Government to tackle the underlying threats that fuel such tensions. Labour has dithered and delayed over the proscription of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the organisation responsible for much of the violence and terror emanating from Iran, and for attacks abroad.”
“The Home Secretary is aware that we have concerns about her authoritarian tendencies. We have particular concerns about this Government’s enthusiasm for restricting the right to protest and their use of terrorism legislation to proscribe protest groups. The Liberal Democrats place a much stronger weight on the right to peaceful protest than the Home Secretary does. That is her right. The right to protest is a fundamental freedom, and any decision to ban a march must only be made in exceptional circumstances. On this occasion, however, it is right to take a cautious approach. The Islamic Human Rights Commission has very concerning views on Iran. The organisers of the al-Quds march have expressed support for the late Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and have claimed that he stood on the right side of history.”
“Far too many crimes—shoplifting, bike theft, tool theft and so many more—go unsolved at the moment, and ordinary people pay the price. Police stations and front desks are disappearing at an alarming rate even under this Government, leaving people with nowhere to go. Labour has promised the public 13,000 more police officers, but instead frontline officer numbers have fallen. By September last year, we had 1,300 fewer officers than the year before, and in March 2025 the number of frontline police officers was down by more than 4,300 compared with March 2024. That is why it is so important to get these police reforms right, and we must see an improvement in frontline policing numbers as soon as possible.”
“I would like to start by declaring an interest, in that my father-in-law is the police chaplain for North Yorkshire police and my brother-in-law is an inspector in North Yorkshire police. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Hear, hear, indeed, and I would like to segue from thanking them to thanking Inspector Steve Benbow, who leads the policing team in Cheltenham and does a terrific job in difficult circumstances. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a return to proper community policing. Unfortunately, community police numbers fell under the last Conservative Government, and it is clear to me from speaking to people in my constituency and elsewhere that they want a visible and trusted police presence in their community to focus on preventing and solving crimes.”
“Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an important point. When we call the police, we expect them to turn up. I do not blame the police officers for not showing up. If there are simply not enough of them to do the job, that problem is a hangover from the previous Government. This Government must go faster to solve that problem.”
“So I ask the Minister—I am happy to take an intervention if she would like to put me straight, because we have asked a written question—will each council ward have its own policing team? Will it be unique to that ward, or will it be assigned en masse to several wards?”