Paul Holmes MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am sorry to keep focusing on this point, but can you explain to the Committee how you would deem bank cards to be more secure than someone just turning up with a polling card, as they used to under the old system? Dr Garland: I go back to my point about needing something that people carry on them, which has their name on it and provides the base level of knowing who that person is, as the policy initially set out. We could achieve that in a number of ways. In the voter ID pilots poll cards were used, and those pilots with poll cards as an option saw the fewest number of people turned away, so we know that those more accessible forms of ID are going to be better for the scheme altogether. For most people, however, bank cards have really good coverage. We also have to think about what newly enfranchised 16 and 17-year-olds will be able to access. That is part of the whole question of what we should be looking at—what will cause the least damage when it comes to people turning up to vote?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Nicol, do you want to say anything? Robert Nicol: Thank you. Malcolm covered an awful lot of what I had noted down, but you say, “How do we ensure that it becomes successful?” This is not a measure that I would necessarily recommend, but having a high-profile electoral event shortly after you introduce it— as happened with the young persons register in Scotland in 2013 and ’14 coinciding with the independence referendum—certainly embeds it in the minds of the population. In terms of the practicalities—this cross-cuts a wee bit into automatic registration as well—we need to be aware that how data is held in different parts of the country can vary. I hate calling it data, because it is about individuals—individual electors and so on. For example, education data is held by local authorities in Scotland, so we utilise education lists from local authorities and from private schools to invite electors, young people, directly to register. That is from the age of 14 upwards. I think that it is also a welcome aspect of the Bill that there is clarity about it being from age 14 onwards, rather than the quite convoluted definition that was previously in place for 18-year-olds. Clarity of messaging is really important. Malcolm rightly said that there is Welcome to Your Vote Week. There are also various outreach things. A number of years ago, when I was a lot younger, I went into schools myself and helped to try to enthuse young electors to get registered and suchlike. Various participation activities happen. I know that some people might think that this is a prime area for automatic registration, but I wonder whether an elector’s first experience of registering to vote being something that is done “to” them is necessarily the positive way to look forward. Hopefully that explanation has helped a wee bit, inasmuch as we do try to engage with young people. One other really important thing, which I think Malcolm touched on, is that this is not just about getting people registered; it is about ensuring that they are enabled to exercise their vote. That relates to things like voter ID at polling stations, but also the ID checks that happen for postal votes. Making sure that that is appropriate for this age group as well and how it is administered will be important parts of this as we go forward.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning and welcome. First, thank you for what you do for all of us; without electoral administrators none of us would be here, so thank you, Mr Stanyon. The Government have set out from a very early stage that they want to make the electoral system easier and want more people to be enlisted on the roll. My first question is a very broad one for both of you. Have the Government given you enough time to prepare for the changes proposed in the legislation? Secondly, the Government propose bringing in automatic registration. Can you outline some of the challenges or problems that might result from that? Thirdly—to get my questions out of the way—there are proposals to allow, for example, bank cards and non-photographic identification as voter ID at the polling station. As the chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, do you have a concern about that? Do you perceive that the secure ballot process could be harmed as a result of those changes? Peter Stanyon: I shall take those in order. There is never enough time to introduce significant change, albeit that the very fact we are into the parliamentary process now is really important so we can look towards getting the Act in place. It is clear that, in lots of places, the Bill is setting a framework for what will come, and we are pleased that the officials who we are working with are already working on the secondary legislation to go alongside it. The devil is very much in the detail when it comes to how that will be delivered. Much depends on how we can deliver the policy intent behind the Bill, so that the polling stations and administrators can deliver it in time. I think that the significant change will be noted. Friction is the wrong word, but there may be some clunkiness in certain areas where we are not quite clear where we are going with the overall detail at this stage. That is being worked up. We would always echo—we are pleased to hear the Government echo it as well—the Gould principle of trying to make any legislative changes six months ahead of any major poll. If we can get that to nine months or 12 months, it will make registration even easier. We do have some concerns about the timescales around the introduction of voting for 16 and 17-year-olds. Those timescales do not mirror what happened in Scotland and Wales, where, in broadbrush terms, there was a year’s lead-in for 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote at elections. In this Bill, it becomes almost automatic, and that could mean that the preparatory time for getting everybody on that we want to is not there in quite the same way as it was for Scotland and Wales. We hope that that can be looked at, so we get it in a more measured way and do not miss individuals out simply because of the timetable—although we fully appreciate the reasons why. On automatic voter registration, we have looked at what happened in the pilots in Wales. There is some learning, but it is a very broad area at this stage. What are the data sources that we are looking at? What is the process to be followed? How does that interrelate with the current individual electoral registration system? A lot of communication will be needed to understand these parts of the principles. Interestingly, one of the things that came out of the pilots in Wales was the lack of understanding of the need to be involved in the electoral process. It becomes a much wider communication process about, “These are the benefits of doing so.” We cannot solve all problems with the introduction of that sort of system; there are a lot of things needed alongside that. I do not know if Councillor Bentley wants to come in before I come on to the voter ID pilot. Councillor Bentley: I am happy for you to continue, and then I can answer all three questions.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for coming this morning. There are many questions that I want to ask the Electoral Commission on the Bill, because you are intrinsically involved in ensuring that it will be delivered on at the end of the day, but I want to focus on election finance and campaign finance. What is your view, as far as you are able to give it, on the fact that the Government have gone forward with landmark and quite detailed legislation, but at the same time have asked Philip Rycroft to conduct a review of campaign finance and foreign interference, which bears no resemblance to what the Government are proposing during this legislative process? Have you made representations to the Government that this legislation should be paused until we have the conclusions of Dr Rycroft’s review? Vijay Rangarajan: Thank you for the question. No, we do not think the legislation should be paused, partly because of the timing issues that you covered with the previous witnesses. Unless this legislation goes through fairly swiftly, there is little chance of the crucial changes it makes being in place in time for the next general election or beyond. There are a number of really quite urgent changes, particularly in the political finance area. We have been making recommendations since, I think, 2013 to tighten up on unincorporated associations, for example, and to look at the company donation provisions and at “know your donor” checks. We really welcome the fact that they are in the Bill, and we would like to go further in some areas. However, for those provisions to be in place—this is probably the tightest of the timing issues for the Bill—there will need to be the primary legislation, then secondary legislation, then guidance and then, crucially, quite a period of training and guidance for parties themselves so that they are able to get their systems in place and implement this in the financial year of a general election. That is a lot of steps to go through, so we would like to see this done fairly soon to alleviate, quite rightly, what the AEA and others just said on timing. We also really welcome the Rycroft review. It looks as if it is going further than just finance. It may make changes; I think the Government have said that they will take that on board in the Bill. It is very helpful to have a look at the broader issues of foreign interference—for example, through online media and many other areas than just money. We see a whole range of threats, which the Committee may want to get into further.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It could also be argued that if you cannot prove that there has been an increase or decrease in the amount of personation, the system is working, couldn’t it? Dr Garland: I think we would need to know what exactly is happening. We have to be very clear on what we think the problem is in the first place, and of course we know where personation has been a problem. In Northern Ireland, for instance, many, many people were turning up to find that someone else had cast their vote. We do not have that evidence base across the whole UK. There is no evidence in the first place of widespread personation, so we need to think about the impact of the scheme, and that impact has been at least 42,000 people losing their vote. I urge people to think about what it must feel like for a voter who has turned up to cast their vote in our democracy and been turned away, despite being eligible to vote. I think that is incredibly damaging for our democracy, and I urge the Committee to think about the wider picture on voter ID.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  You will have noticed some scepticism from the previous panel—I do not think it is ungenerous to say that—about the proposals for using bank cards as a form of identification. In your role, do you have concerns about the Government’s proposals to water down photo voter ID? Vijay Rangarajan: We are also concerned about the bank cards proposal; that is largely for the administrative reasons the previous witnesses set out, so I will not repeat those. We do see growing public support for voter ID—73% of the British public are now in favour of it, up from 65% in 2024—and the way we have implemented it has broadly worked. About 0.1% of people in Great Britain were unable to vote, because of voter ID, and it definitely put off some voters, so there is a slight cost to this. However, in Northern Ireland, after 25 years of voter ID, it has become part of the fabric of how people vote. Rather than continually changing the system, it would be helpful to allow a broad range of voter IDs—which should probably stay with the existing security standard to maintain public trust—and give some stability to the system. In time, people will get used to it; we are already well above 90% of people knowing that they have to bring voter ID. Again, before this May’s elections, and before every election, we will run, in areas where voter ID is needed, a campaign to remind people to bring voter ID.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you for that. May I challenge you—not challenge, but ask you; I am not a challenger—to elaborate on the 42,000 number? The Electoral Commission reported—this is in footnote 13 of your evidence; it may be that I have not understood the wording, which is perfectly possible—that in 2024, 16,000 electors attempted, but were unable, to vote due to the voter ID requirement. You have put that that equates to one in every 1,200 voters. In the May ’24 local and mayoral elections, the figure was 13,000. Where did you get the 42,000? Dr Garland: Three sets of elections have used voter ID. If we add up the voters who were turned away and failed to return with ID across the three sets of elections where we had voter ID—that includes two local and one general election—that is where the 42,000 comes from. It is Electoral Commission data on people who have got to the polling station and been registered, but then registered as not returning. Another percentage of voters just did not turn out in the first place, because of voter ID.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, and welcome to the Committee. Thank you for submitting your very comprehensive evidence note, which I had the pleasure of reading—I am one of those people who like reading about election law. There is a theme to my questions this morning, Mr Mundell. Dr Garland, you identified in your evidence that you are in favour of relaxing voter ID from requiring photographic identification, and you cited a Cabinet Office report, “Securing the ballot”, which suggested including bank cards, signatures and date of birth checks. Could you elaborate on what, in your opinion, date of birth checks would look like for a person volunteering at a polling station? Could you explain to the Committee why you do not think that going from photographic ID to bank cards would relax security around someone being able to vote? Dr Garland: Taking that first question, I think it is important that we go back to the origins of the policy. The report said clearly that we need to have something that is proportionate, which is where I think we need to start. What is the problem that we are trying to solve? I worry that we have moved very quickly to a very, very tight scheme that does not give voters other options. For instance, none of the currently accepted IDs are the sort of thing that people ordinarily carry, except for the over-60s bus pass. Most people are not carrying their passport around, so we have this problem of disenfranchising not just those who do not have access to those IDs, but also people who might have forgotten them on the day. That is why I think the suggestion of including bank cards has a lot of value, and digital ID is the same—the sort of thing you might have on your phone, as we heard earlier. Under the scheme, we do not have any option for people in the polling station, which sets the current policy even further away from some of the strictest voter ID schemes around the world. We have a very strict scheme with very few options for voters, yet we see in the evidence that it has not really made any difference to claims of personation, which remain the same as before the scheme was introduced, and it is inconclusive as to whether it has enabled people to identify personation happening. I worry that we have walked into a position where the cure is something of a curse. We have seen many more people disenfranchised by the limitations of the scheme than have ever had their vote stolen through personation. You used the word “relaxing”, and I think it is rebalancing—it is bringing it back into proportion with the risk of personation that might exist.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q That is perfectly reasonable, thank you. Ms Jones, before we come to Mr Nicol and Mr Burr, can you talk briefly about your experience of ensuring that the roll has remained accurate since the automatic voter registration pilots? I will then come on to the second question, Mr Burr and Mr Nicol. Karen Jones: Just to confirm, in the evaluation report I referred to—and I will send the details to the Clerk of the Committee after this evidence session, if you do not have that to hand—the addition of names to the register did not impact accuracy. Very few people chose to take their names off the register, so there was support from the general public for the exercise.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you. This will be my final question. In the old system, our polling cards at least had our full names on them. There was a question about that, which is why we Conservatives supported voter ID and photographic ID. There was a reason why we brought in that legislation: theoretically, somebody could take a polling card from their next door neighbour and be able to vote at the ballot box. It is our contention that the bank card proposal provides a less secure way to vote than even a polling card. Councillor Bentley, do you agree with that, and can you give me your thoughts on the proposals concerning voter ID? Councillor Bentley: I do agree with that. Of course, bank cards can be cloned and other people can get hold of them. There is no photographic evidence, as we know, and I agree with everything my colleague has just said about that. Another element that we have not considered is: if someone should use a bank card fraudulently to vote, whose fault is that? Let me be clear that there should be no blame whatsoever on polling staff, should that take place. If this goes ahead, that needs to be made very clear. Anyone can obtain a bank card. You can have “K Bentley”, “Kevin Bentley” or “Kevin Paul Bentley” on those bank cards. For all I know, there may be other Kevin Paul Bentleys—there probably are—and they could use those cards. You have heard why I think that is not a great system. With voter ID, you need photographic evidence to be able to prove someone’s identity, and people can register via their local authorities. May I tackle some of the other questions as well? I think you have heard a very good answer about there being enough time. There is a cost element to it as well, and, being from the LGA, you would expect me to say that any extra burden put on local government should be funded properly. We require extra staff to be able to do that, and the extra responsibility for 16-year-olds adds extra pressure to staff—that is not a comment on whether 16-year-olds should vote, but staff would need to be brought in to do that above and beyond their normal duties to run elections, so it needs to be thought about. On automatic registration, all I would say, and this is just an observation, is that in this country we have the right not to vote, and therefore we need to be very careful about people being put on there automatically. I think that needs to be tested with the public more; we need the public’s opinion on whether they want to be registered automatically. That is a comment, rather than me saying whether we are for or against it, but we need to ask the public what they think about it further.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Councillor Bentley, because you are a leader of a council and you are responsible for a number of staff on polling day, I value your opinion on the voter ID question. Mr Stanyon, would you like to answer the voter ID question? Then we will go to Councillor Bentley. Peter Stanyon: We have severe reservations about bank cards being added to the available lists. The simple reason is that when voter ID came in in the first place, it set the bar by being very clear that photographic ID is required in polling stations. We are unsure about what can come through, because our understanding at this stage—again, this will become clear as the secondary legislation rolls through—is that it will not be a full name on a bank card. For example, it can be an initial. How can you guarantee that it is the right person before you? If you have a photograph—regardless of whether that is the right or wrong policy—at the end of the day you have something to hang that on going forward. The other challenge is the range of bank cards that are available. What is a bank card? We all know the major institutions, but there are lots more out there now. That adds a degree of confusion for the staff in polling stations. There could be a tension there, which we see already. Someone might bring in their passport, for example, and the staff do not deem that to be of a satisfactory level. Then they produce a bank card, and it is accepted. There is a counterintuitive nature to that side of things, so we do have significant concerns with regard to that part of the system. We may be opening up the ID possibilities for 16 and 17-year-olds, but we would much rather see us take more of a digital ID-type approach—for example, by having a digital VAC, or voter authority certificate. Most of the time, I bank using my phone rather than my bank cards. Will it have the effect that we are looking for? We have significant concerns about adding additional confusion, despite the fact that we understand the reasons why the policy was put forward in the first place.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  In the interests of transparency, I have met various witnesses in other settings in my official capacity as shadow Minister.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Mr Burr and Mr Nicol, could you give a brief overview on votes at 16? Then others can come in and ask their questions. Malcolm Burr: Yes, happy to do that. We have had a successful experience in Scotland over many years of implementing voting for 16 and 17-year-olds and of course that means implementing voting preparation for 14 and 15-year-olds. I will let my colleague Mr Nicol speak to the practicalities of that. I am very pleased to see the proposal in the Bill, as an electoral administrator, that there would be automatic additions to the UK parliamentary register of those already registered to vote. Consistency is always welcome, as is alignment at an administrative level. It helps the voter, the administrator and the process. Your question also focused on engagement with young people, and I think that has been generally very successful. Across Scotland, there is Welcome to Your Vote Week activity in schools—in early March, for obvious reasons. That is universal. It is well received. It is updated to take account of feedback as well as changes. The independence referendum in 2014 saw a high level of voting across all age groups, and such academic research as there is shows that young people who have voted at the ages of 16 and 17 are highly likely to continue their participation in the future. All those are important points for consideration. It certainly has not caused significant issues. There are practical issues that we have to look at, of course. With voter ID for UK elections, we have to make sure that there is appropriate ID for young people of that age. There are also issues of data protection, but I will let my colleague, Mr Nicol, speak about those.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a brief question in relation to something that was said. We agree that the bank card proposals are flawed, so we have tabled amendment 30. I do not expect you to know what that amendment is, and I am about to tell you: it would ensure that only “bank cards that are issued subject to a search of a consumer’s credit file conducted in the way set out in the amendment” could be used as voter ID, as we do with loans and the like. We understand that it is not a brilliant amendment, because we do not believe that that part of the legislation should be included at all, but do you think that having a bank card with a hard credit check would make any difference to the process, or—this is probably for you, Mr Stanyon—would it be better if that was not included in the legislation? Peter Stanyon: I think the latter in terms of the uncertainty. The difficulty in putting that in place is that the individuals dealing with this at the polling stations are effectively volunteers. We already have a list of 23 versions of voter ID available, and it is quite a complicated process. Ultimately, if a bank card is presented and it is to the standard that the staff have been trained to receive, they will accept it, so the hard credit check thing will be more for the central control of the election than it would be for the staff at the station. Councillor Bentley: I agree. I think that it is difficult to have that included, but I would re-emphasise that if it is, you must be very clear that it is not local government staff who will be at fault if someone commits an offence.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister briefly give way?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Rough Sleeping: Families with Children · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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? 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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Grenfell Tower Annual Report · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way briefly on that point?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  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? 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. 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?