Graham Stringer MP: speeches

95 published records · newest first.

Speeches

17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
Order. Members who wish to speak should bob. I have taken a rough count of those who have, and we will start with a four-minute limit, which I might have to reduce later.
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
It is guidance, as opposed to a rule. With the exception of yourself, I did put to the end of the list those people who had intervened.
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
Order. I am going to reduce the time for speeches to three minutes.
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
Order. We must move on to the next debate.
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
Order. The flurry of interventions that we have had over the last three speeches has meant that we have gone two or three minutes over time. I will reduce the time available to the spokespeople for the three parties by a minute each, and ask each of them to take nine minutes.
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
Order. We must start the next debate. Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
We have little time, Minister, so please try to leave a minute or two at the end of your speech for the winding-up speech.
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
Order. I remind Members of two things: first, interventions should be brief; and secondly, if you say “you”, you are referring to me.
17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source
More
Order. I am going to have to reduce the time limit to two minutes. That speech lasted longer than I expected.
16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source
More
I was following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments closely and agreeing with them until he got to the point about Prime Ministers, because is it not a consistent position that if a hon. Member changes their political party there should be a by-election, therefore if there is a change in leader, as the Conservatives have got into the habit of doing, there should be a general election?
16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source
More
I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is a constitutional precedent for by-elections when situations change. It used to be the case that when Members were appointed to the Cabinet, they had to face a by-election. In my city, Manchester, there was a famous by-election when Winston Churchill had to stand again, and he lost. I think that was just before the first world war. Then, a change of circumstances meant a by-election. It is a very serious change of circumstances if somebody changes political parties. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view on that constitutional precedent.
16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source
More
I am sure that everybody in this room is familiar with the arguments for and against PR. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) gave a very balanced speech. There was only one thing that I thought was unbalanced: the argument that somehow there would be less tactical voting in a PR system. A PR system is actually set up and designed for tactical voting. I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) gave an opinion on that.
16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away again and I do not wish to push this point too far, because I personally do not think that there should be a general election if the ruling party changes its leader. However, the thrust of his argument was that what is in people’s minds when they vote is the political party and the name of the leader; he said it was about the difference between Boris Johnson and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). If that is important, and the leader changes, and so does the party’s political programme—that relates to the wording on the ballot paper of the political party and has been there since the Representation of the People Act 1969—I think there is a solid argument for holding a general election. It is not an argument that I completely agree with, but I would be interested to hear his response to it.
11 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Q12. The National Audit Office report on Northern Powerhouse Rail, which came out on Monday, surprised none of us in its conclusion that the Department for Transport’s lack of engagement with mayoral authorities, local authorities and other involved parties in the north of England was leading to poor programming and a lack of investment in the rail system. We in the north of England deserve a rail system fit for the 21st century, not the 19th century. Investing in the rail system will enable growth in the north of England, which will benefit the whole country. Will the Prime Minister take a personal interest in the slowness of investment in the rail system so that we can get that growth?
25 Feb 2026 · Diego Garcia and British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source
More
Risking the accusation of creeping, Mr Speaker, may I say that it is a great pity that you are not in charge of these negotiations? The deal we have come to, or are coming to, is inexplicable both in principle and in relation to the costs to my constituents. I very much doubt that at the time of the next general election, most Labour candidates, or indeed our manifesto, will point to the yearly cost of £100 million and us giving up ownership of these islands. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows it off by heart, but I will just remind him of page 120 of the Labour manifesto, which states: “Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, including the Falklands and Gibraltar. Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.” We have not even consulted the Chagossians. Will my hon. Friend not reconsider?
4 Feb 2026 · Nurseries and Early Years Providers: CCTV · Hansard source
More
I remind Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and of the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source
More
Order.
4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source
More
Order. I intend to call the Front-Bench spokespeople at 5.10 pm. That gives us just under 30 minutes, and seven Members are standing; I think three and a half minutes each would be appropriate, but please try to keep interventions brief. I remind Members to keep bobbing before I call somebody to speak.
4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source
More
Order.
4 Feb 2026 · Armed Conflict: Children · Hansard source
More
Order. I remind Members that the time for this debate is tight, so interventions should be short and to the point.
4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source
More
Minister, I would be grateful if you could leave a couple of minutes at the end for a wind-up speech from the mover of the debate.
4 Feb 2026 · Postal Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source
More
I remind Members that they need to bob at the end of every contribution if they wish to be called to speak. There are 12 people standing; I intend to call the closing speeches at 3.30 pm, so I will impose a time limit of three minutes, which does not leave very much time for interventions.
20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source
More
That is at the heart of what has gone wrong, and the right hon. Gentleman has been talking about it for a long time. The Chagossians were treated as itinerant workers in the 1960s, so they did not get the basic rights that people got in other British protectorates. They were discriminated against, and we are discriminating against them again by giving Mauritius the power to determine what goes on. The only solution to the central issue is not a survey, which the House of Lords is doing in good faith; it is to have a referendum, which has been ruled out of order today, for good reasons in procedural terms. We should give the Chagossians a say in a referendum on whether they want to return or not. Otherwise, it is all speculation. I do not think the Minister explained why we should not take notice of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. That is fundamental, because the Committee goes back to the 1960s decision, and it sees what happened then, and what is being perpetuated now, as racial discrimination, and we and the Mauritians are perpetuating that. My hon. Friend the Minister did not really respond to that point, just as he did not really address what has changed. I have listened to many of his statements in this House, when he has said in good faith that the United States supports us. Regardless of whether it did so in the past—it probably did—it certainly does not support us now. Those are two reasons for pausing and thinking again: becoming compliant with the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and talking to the United States, because it has changed its position. The amendments before us would not affect the core of the Bill, because that was dealt with in a very short period of time on Second Reading, on Report and in Committee, but they are important in as much as they ask for information. We are going to pay for something that we did not used to have to pay for. It will have consequences for our ability to look after our defence interests in the Indian ocean, and we do not know how much it will cost. Amending the Bill to give us an exact figure for those costs is important. Lords amendment 1 is also important if for some reason Mauritius changes its view or the islands disappear under water. I do not have the opportunity this evening to vote for what I would like to vote for, but I will vote for the amendments that the Lords have put before us.
20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source
More
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard him in this Chamber a number of times say that the United States supported this deal. The President of the United States clearly does not support it any more. I would have thought that that was the case for a pause, but I would also have thought that something else that has changed was the case for a pause: the resolution of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has also asked for the Bill not to go forward. Does the Minister not think that those two things together mean that we should pause?
20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source
More
rose—

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →