Paul Holmes MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate. She is an absolute champion for her local area, and I know how hard she has worked to secure this debate on Government support for waste collections in Birmingham and the west midlands—a debate that could have been completely avoided, had the Government done due diligence on ensuring that local authorities deliver for local communities. A person is in a topsy-turvy world when they find themselves in utter agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), but that is the situation I find myself in this afternoon. In response to the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), I say that despite his passionate speech, he does not have a monopoly on representing working-class people. I happen to represent lots of working-class people and am working class myself. It was because I am working class that I joined the Conservative party. The hon. Member talks about the electoral oblivion of the Labour party. I suggest that it is socialist speeches of the 1980s that will destine the Labour party to electoral oblivion, not the current policies that they are putting out today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills is absolutely right to bring forward this issue today. Quite frankly, it is a national embarrassment that one of our nation’s greatest cities—indeed, the second largest in the country—is facing a situation like this. As my hon. Friend said, the “squeaky blinders” are running freely down the streets and into piles of rubbish found outside hard-working people’s homes. I certainly would not want to see rats in my street, and I am sure that all Members taking part in this debate can absolutely agree with that. What is just as embarrassing is that, on a local and national level, the Government and Labour-run Birmingham city council have failed to address the situation soon enough. As has already been mentioned here today, the waste management dispute began in March 2025, with some residents having had no collections since Christmas 2024. At the risk of stating the obvious, it is now January 2026 and the Government have stood idly by. This Government shamefully still fail to recognise the importance of this issue. On 13 January they referred to the waste dispute as a “local issue” and left it to their failing colleagues at Birmingham city council. The industrial action taking place in Birmingham has left residents without their rubbish collected for well over a year. That is simply not good enough; it is chaotic and shambolic. The issue is much more than bins not being collected; as colleagues have highlighted, there are serious implications for public health. As the hon. Member for Leeds East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, there are commissioners in Birmingham city council, and the Government put those commissioners into the local authority. The Government have legislative cover to commission and start talks for negotiations to end the strike. So far, the political leadership of this Government have determined not to do that. That is a stain on the character of this Government, and it has caused a reduction in services for the people of the great city of Birmingham. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills outlined, the fiscal ineptitude of Birmingham city council is deeply concerning. It has allowed taxes to soar and effectively bankrupted itself through extra spending and the using up of its reserves. In other words, it has deeply let down residents in Birmingham and the west midlands. There is a clear need for Government intervention. Instead, Birmingham is set to receive one of the most generous payouts from the Government’s unfair funding review—a review designed to benefit poorly run, Labour-run urban councils. That narrative explains itself.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Waste Collection: Birmingham and the West Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister answer this question for me? Since she or even her predecessor took office, what specific advice has she sought from officials to see whether she has the cover—as a Minister of the Crown, through legislation—to get those people in a room? Does she or do the Government have that power?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way; every time he comes to the House, he is most courteous. He mentioned the example of the former Prime Minister, but the former Prime Minister stated very clearly that the negotiations had to result in a “mutually beneficial” agreement. That did not happen, and therefore the Government ended those negotiations. Today, this Government are expecting us to vote on Third Reading for a deal that our greatest ally—an ally that the Minister has advocated for through this whole process—has turned its back on. How can he expect the House to do that when the circumstances have fundamentally changed?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is talking in numbers, but out there on the doorsteps and in the streets and high streets, I have met a café owner and a publican whose businesses are busier than ever—they are selling more drinks and more food—but whose top line is shrinking because of the decisions being made by this Government. One landlady was in tears as she spoke to me about whether she should carry on, directly because of this Government’s policies. What advice would the Minister give her?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that, like me, my hon. Friend has been to quite a few pubs in his constituency. Many of my publicans are saying that because of the decisions the Government are making, they have a choice, which is to try to get more customers or to lay off staff. This is affecting pubs who are busy—pubs at their capacity are now really worried about whether they will be able to survive another year. Has he heard that from his local publicans?

• 12 Jan 2026 · New Homes · Hansard source

  More

  With a new year often come new year’s resolutions. Will the Secretary of State make a new year’s resolution to accept the truth that the Government will not meet their 1.5 million housing target, which he set out? Will he confirm that he still thinks his job is on the line if he does not achieve that? Huge focus has been placed on rural areas with no infrastructure, but cities—often Labour cities—have been left off the hook, so will he commit to changing the formula to make it fairer and, more importantly, more deliverable?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that these tax rises are damaging to our middle earners? The number of people who are being dragged into taxation—essentially, a fiscal drag—will increase from 15% in 2010 to 24% by 2030. Does he agree that that is bad for the economy?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. The question many will be asking out there today is: what does this Labour Government have against democracy? Only two days ago, when asked, the Secretary of State said that all local elections were going ahead. He either hid his decision until today or has changed his mind in the past 48 hours. Which was it? Voters will now potentially be denied the right to elect their own representatives, and not for the first time under this Labour Government. This is the second year in a row that Ministers have scrambled to postpone elections. Now, while many people gather around their screens to watch movies like “How the Grinch Stole Christmas”, we are sitting here discussing how Labour is trying to steal the elections. There is no mandate for the Government’s botched reorganisation plan, and they have behaved as the sole actor, forcing local council leaders to reorganise, with little regard for local people and their democratic rights. Has the Electoral Commission been consulted on these latest changes, or has it been ignored once again? Just as the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted when mayoral elections were previously cancelled, the commission exists to protect the integrity of our electoral system, but time and again the Government seem content to brush aside its advice when it becomes inconvenient. Do the Government still believe in the Gould principle—the long-standing agreement that election rules and practices should not be changed within the six-month period of a scheduled election—or is that expendable whenever Labour finds itself politically vulnerable? The Opposition accept that there is a precedent for a single-year delay, but that is not what we face. Do the Government accept the clear advice of the Electoral Commission that further delays are unacceptable? It said that scheduled polls should be postponed only in exceptional circumstances —what are the exceptional circumstances in this case? We know the answer: Labour’s rushed, chaotic and flawed local government reorganisation plan. It is the Government’s fault, not local leaders’ fault. Have the Government undertaken or commissioned any up-to-date research into the costs of restructuring? Again, we know the answer, and it is a resounding no. What assessment has been made of the paralysis that the restructuring risks causing in local plan preparations? At a time when the Government claim they want to speed up planning, how does freezing governance structures help? Will this disruption not make the Government’s beleaguered 1.5 million homes target even harder to achieve? What about social care? What assessment has been made of the impacts of breaking up counties on adult and children’s social care provision? The broader narrative is clear. Yes, some councils have expressed an interest in restructuring, but Labour’s process has been rushed and deeply flawed, local residents have not been properly consulted and this Labour Government have put a gun to the heads of local council leaders. The Opposition support council leaders who have engaged with the process, such as Kevin Bentley, the leader of Essex county council, who has stated clearly in the public domain that he will not ask for elections to be delayed in Greater Essex. I am pleased to say that my authority, Hampshire county council, does not support the move, either. In December 2024, the Conservatives set out several clear tests; Labour has failed every single one of them. Is this a genuine choice for councils and communities, or are councils being compelled and punished if they do not comply? Will they be more accountable as a result? Will this reorganisation keep council tax down and improve services or simply add new layers of cost? Will it avoid disruption to social care at a time of immense strain? On all counts, the answer is no. Earlier this month, Labour cancelled mayoral elections because it was worried it would not win them. Now it is doing the same with local elections, pausing the democratic process to serve its own political interests, creating for itself a true nightmare before Christmas. The process has been a mess from start to finish. It is not wanted, not in Labour’s manifesto and centrally dictated. It should be scrapped today.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made that point, I was about to make it, and the hon. Gentleman’s Liberal Democrat colleagues also made it, so there is universal acclaim for his claim, but it is also absolutely correct. I hope the Minister addresses that. As the amount of housing increases, community infrastructure and resources must be expanded accordingly. That means more schools, GP surgeries, train and bus stations, hospitals, paved roads, bin collections and street lighting, to name just a few of the essentials. The list goes on and on; those are just some of the things we need to consider when looking at where to build. We must get better at prioritising those vital services, while recognising that not every development is right for the area it is proposed for. We all know that under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, local authorities can secure investment to fund new services and infrastructure in the local area, but the system is struggling to keep up with demand. Over a third of all section 106 agreements took longer than 12 months to finalise. Some 76% of local authorities reported an average timeline exceeding a year, and in over a third of councils it was over 500 days. In 2024-25, 45% of local planning authorities had agreements finalised that had taken over 1,000 days to complete. Dose the Minister agree that in order to unlock some of the housing that is needed, we need a simplified and standardised method for section 106 notices across the country? [ Interruption. ] He says yes from a sedentary position. I look forward to his affirming that in his comments shortly, but we would support that.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on raising this important issue for debate today. He and I—as well as our hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) —represent stunning Hampshire constituencies, with renowned countryside walking routes and picturesque towns and villages. I still reckon I have the better deal, as my constituents have the “Costa del Hamble”, but I know that my right hon. Friend would definitely say the same about his patch. May I briefly respond to something that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), said? I do not know whether he planned it as an early Christmas present for me, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) walked in while he was speaking. That was a good thing to see. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has instilled in me a sense of déjà vu, which demonstrates the length of time that he has been campaigning on these issues for his constituency. We had a Westminster Hall debate before, and he is right that he cross-examined the Minister, who gave a very pithy response yesterday in the NPPF statement. I know that my right hon. Friend works very hard for his constituents, to make sure that he can get them the acquiescence that they seek from the Government. I congratulate East Hampshire council on developing a local plan and, now, taking the responsible step of renewing it. That shows the kind of leadership that is needed. However, my right hon. Friend raised a number of important points, and I hope that the Minister will answer them. First, he asked about affordability, and about the rise in speculative development because of the lack of five-year housing supply, but the new targets have completely ripped up and undermined the plan-led approach to spatial planning, which the Government are rightly seeking and which I would argue forms the backbone of the planning system. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon said that planning is a huge issue in his postbag. I, too, have that issue, and I suspect that Members from across the House who made brilliant speeches this afternoon also have that issue in their constituencies. It is love of our communities and respect for their unique characters that brought us all here to the Chamber today. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire and I know that our constituents are not against building more homes in principle—there is a clear need to build many more houses up and down the country; that is a simple fact—but people are asking for the right houses to be built in the right places, and for community resources and infrastructure to be invested in to sustain a growing population, a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made in his contribution. That is why it is so important that we properly assess the impacts of housing development. When multiple housing developments are lumped together, they overwhelm communities, stretch scarce resources and dilute the character of our towns. Over time, people begin to lose their vital sense of belonging and communities lose their identity. The house building sector makes a substantial contribution to the economy. In 2023, new house building generated £53.3 billion in economic output across Great Britain, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs in house building firms and their contractors, as well as the wider supply chain. But economic benefit depends on stability, confidence and deliverability, and an approach that relies on unrealistic targets, rising costs and declining affordability risks undermining the very industry the Government claim to champion. The impacts of housing developments manifest in numerous key areas. One huge concern, which I receive countless emails about from my constituents—no doubt all Members present can say the same—is the environmental impact of housing developments. The Government had the chance to address such concerns through Lords amendments 38 and 40 to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which my Conservative colleagues in the other Chamber supported. However, the Government chose to ignore them, leaving unanswered questions about the environmental harm of their planning process. We know and agree that ripping up the green belt is not the answer. Once the green belt is lost, it is lost forever, and that is why my Conservative colleagues and I have called for the swift redevelopment of brownfield sites, something that—to give the Minister credit—he did address yesterday in the NPPF update. The Campaign to Protect Rural England’s “State of Brownfield” report showed that we have more brownfield land now than in previous years. It highlighted that in a substantial number of local authorities, there is enough brownfield land with planning permission to meet the housing targets set by the Government’s standard method for calculating housing need for at least the next five years. The Government’s plan for new homes disproportionately places the responsibility on rural communities to reach their target, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire outlined. The 2024 reforms to the national planning policy framework, introducing mandatory housing targets and a new standard method for calculating local housing need, redistributed top-down housing targets to rural areas from urban areas by Government diktat. As my right hon. Friend outlined, East Hampshire council’s targets doubled, while London’s housing allocations were cut by 11%, Birmingham’s by 38% and Coventry’s by 55%. In Eastleigh in my constituency, which has already built more than is required, the allocation is up by 42%, and in Fareham in the other half of my constituency, it is up by 62%. That is particularly concerning given that, as my right hon. Friend outlined, many younger people whom we want to achieve and get on the housing ladder want to live in metropolitan urban centres. I am pleased that the Government listened to the calls of the Conservative Opposition on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill Committee. We called for an incentive for densification in urban centres; it was rejected by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), but now the Government have come forward with one, which we welcome. The point that my right hon. Friend made is that Government regulations and Government legislation are competing against each other. I hope that the Minister will answer my right hon. Friend’s challenge. The new NPPF will designate and allow urban densification, but housing targets in rural areas have massively increased, acting as a competing objective. Which is more important—the NPPF or the housing targets? If housing in towns, in which it is much easier to regenerate and to increase housing numbers, is to be increased, housing targets cannot be uplifted greatly in rural areas but reduced in urban centres.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  I disagree with the hon. Gentleman slightly. I remember that in the last Parliament, under the Conservative Government, there absolutely was a commitment from Planning Ministers and Secretaries of State to prioritise brownfield development. That was announced during our time in government by the former Prime Minister but three, and by a number of Ministers in the MHCLG.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Housing Development: Cumulative Impacts · Hansard source

  More

  Well, I believe the hon. Gentleman will have watched the news. I would be the first to acknowledge that we had quite a few in the last Parliament, but there absolutely was prioritisation of brownfield sites first. We prioritised building houses where they were needed, not where they were not. What steps do the Government plan to take to protect rural communities feeling the adverse effects of increased housing development? If the Government are serious about building homes and maintaining public confidence in the planning system, they must take cumulative impacts seriously, plan infrastructure properly and ensure that developments work with communities, not against them—something that the Liberal Democrats and my party have been very clear will be removed by the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and the English devolution Bill. I have been very clear about my concerns regarding the Government’s housing targets and the credibility of the 1.5 million homes ambition, which is now being questioned by a number of experts. If the Government are serious about supporting the house building sector and securing its economic benefits, they must ensure that housing delivery is realistic, properly planned and supported by the necessary infrastructure. Crucially, this requires a far greater focus on the cumulative impact of development so that growth is sustainable, communities are supported, and the long-term economic and social benefits of house building are not undermined. Finally, Mr Twigg, I wish you, the Clerks and staff, the Minister, and even the Liberal Democrats a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way briefly before she concludes?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) on securing the debate, which is vital to me and my constituents. Over the past six years, since being elected in 2019, I have been fighting against a proposal for an aggregate quarry down Hamble Lane in my constituency, which was recently given permission by the planning inspectorate on appeal. In the four minutes that I have to speak, I want to get across to the Minister that the planning system is fractured, disjointed and weighted against local communities. It does not take into account the true nature of quarries or the stuff that they produce; it does not take into account air quality or water run-off that will go into the River Hamble. The Planning Inspectorate is also culpable in not looking at regulations set down by locally elected planning authorities. In my case, it has been acknowledged in local planning authority notices that the Hamble Lane highway—which has one lane going in and out that 200 lorries a day will have to use—is already oversaturated and at capacity, and yet the minerals and waste authority has granted that permission. We have a slightly strange process in Hamble that I want to outline briefly. As I said, we will have 200 lorries a day, but there has been a lack of consultation by Cemex, the company proposing the quarry. I will go as far as to say that Cemex are cowboys and bullies of local communities. There was not one physical consultation with people during covid, the company treats the community with utter disdain, and it treats the planning process as one of its personal toys that it can afford to challenge and manufacture. The Minister needs to be aware of that. The quarry in Hamble is being proposed 50 metres from a primary school and 100 metres from a secondary school. That was not taken into account at all by the planning system. Physical highways data has not been taken account of since covid, but since then hundreds of houses have been built on Hamble Lane. That was not taken into account. Even more concerning is what happened after the regulatory committee of the minerals and waste authority refused the quarry: when 300 of my constituents turned up to attend the final meeting, the minerals and highways authority chose not to defend the reasons for refusal of democratically elected councillors without telling me or a single person in the community. That meant it went to an appeal. My local residents group, the Hamble peninsula residents group, has done a fantastic job in raising funds to defend the appeal, but it was based on flawed data. At no time in my six years as an MP have I been consulted and no one on my local council—I have been working very closely with the Liberal Democrat administration on Eastleigh borough council—has been consulted. That is not good enough.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. His situation sounds very similar to mine. I do not blame the Minister, as she has inherited a system that has been in place for decades, but what confidence can local people have in maintaining high standards when they are not in the guidance? What confidence can local people have in challenging the impact of quarries if the democratic body that refused permission in the first place is overturned by an unelected inspector, with the rug pulled out from under the local authority? Will the Minister commit to meet me to discuss the circumstances of this case? There is a clear democratic deficit in the way in which this has been granted. It was handled by officers who superseded locally elected councillors. We are going to seek a statutory review, but that is now at the cost of the local community. That is not good for local people. People feel absolutely let down in Hamble, as they do across the country. I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to meet me in the coming months to discuss this case specifically.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. She will recall that in my speech I did not attack the Government at all, so I am not sure why her tone this morning is quite dismissive of other Members of Parliament. I think she should reflect on that. I asked specifically whether a Minister in the Department would meet with me about my case and she has not answered that. I wonder if she could, please.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is actually worse than that, is it not? In my case, the quarry is 50 metres from a local school. Parents are already talking about taking their children out of two very successful schools, which adds to the pressure on communities and the associated infrastructure.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Quarries: Planning Policy · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I am desperately sorry, and I am not usually this kind of politician, but a number of Members have raised specific issues and contributed lived experiences, which relate directly to what the Minister is saying, yet she is not giving way. I seek your advice on how we can interact with the Minister and get some answers from her.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. Let me begin by saying that protecting the integrity of our democratic system from foreign interference is not a partisan issue. It goes to the heart of public trust in our elections. Interference in our elections by foreign actors is something that we must all be vigilant against. I concur fully with what he said about Nathan Gill, and join the Secretary of State in giving sincere thanks to the CPS and the police. Any such crime deserves full condemnation from all Members of this House. The Government announced their election strategy back in July, a strategy that affects all of us in this House. However, there was no consultation of political parties before the strategy was released. There has also been no formal consultation since it was announced. December marks the first time that the Government have engaged with the parliamentary parties panel. We do, however, welcome the announced independent review led by Philip Rycroft, and we wish him well in his work. Will the Minister commit to all parties being consulted during the new independent review’s work? Does he also accept the long-standing convention that Governments should not unilaterally impose changes to the law affecting political parties without proper consultation and cross-party engagement? On electoral resilience, last week the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission noted that the commission was not consulted at all on the cancellation of the 2026 mayoral elections. Will the Secretary of State update us on whether council elections are going ahead, or will he cancel more elections at the last minute? Will he give electoral officials plenty of notice, whatever he chooses to do? Delving into the Government’s statement, I note that the Government have signalled their intention to introduce “know your customer”-style checks on political donations, but political parties are not banks or the taxman. During the passage of the National Security Bill, the last Government committed to looking at greater powers for information sharing between relevant agencies and with political parties, precisely to identify irregular funding sources. Does the Secretary of State agree that such information sharing would help political parties to meet these new duties? I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on cryptocurrencies, and the clarity that they will be in scope of the independent review. The Secretary of State is absolutely right to mention Russia. The last Government legislated for a foreign influence registration scheme to stop covert foreign influence. Can the Minister explain why the Government have repeatedly refused to extend the scheme to China? What reasons are there for leaving such a gap in our national security framework, and will China be included in the scope of the independent review? Unfortunately, that decision sits uneasily alongside the Government ramming through the planning application for the Chinese embassy. How is that meant to convince Members of this House that the Government take seriously foreign interference from all malign powers across the globe? There are clear loopholes that the Government need to address. Loopholes created by the Scottish and Welsh Governments allow Chinese residents in Scotland and Wales to make donations to UK political parties and politicians. What steps are the Government taking to close those loopholes, and to ensure that safeguarding is consistent throughout the whole United Kingdom? Finally, protecting our democracy requires transparent cross-party discussion. Centralised power that bends the knee to the Chinese does not have the United Kingdom’s national interests as a priority. The Secretary of State now has an opportunity to set the record straight, and reassure the House of this Government’s commitment to taking seriously foreign interference by any malign influence. I hope that the concerns I have outlined are directly addressed today.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Like me, the shadow Secretary of State will have been out in the constituency speaking to small businesses, and I am sure that Labour MPs will have been doing the same over the weekend. A local publican told me that that she would have to lay off staff in January because of the extra taxes that the Chancellor had come back for—more taxes, though she said at the last Budget that she would not introduce more. I wonder whether the shadow Secretary of State has had the same experience when talking to hospitality businesses, which particularly employ young people.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being characteristically courteous. She is entirely correct in outlining the choices and some of the policies that her Government have made, but does she not agree that those choices and policies will be delivered on the back of higher taxation? As a result, employers have less money to employ people, so the proceeds of growth do not mean that there will be better public services. The hon. Lady is right that her Government are spending more money, but that is on the basis of taxation, because of the policies that her Government are advancing, and not on the basis of growth or entrepreneurship.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  As usual, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is out here defending the Chancellor. I feel quite sorry for him. He has reeled off a number of policies that his Chancellor and his Government have made a choice about, but before the election, the Chancellor said that those choices would be on the back of a fully costed manifesto. Instead, taxes have gone up to pay for those choices, and that means that the manifesto was not fully costed. The motion therefore is correct, is it not, that the Chancellor misled the country before the election and in this Budget?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. In 2020, the Justice Secretary said:“Criminal trials without juries are a bad idea”,and the Prime Minister himself has said that there should be “a right of trial by jury in all criminal cases”,but now they want to scrap trials by jury. With a Chancellor who cannot count and a Justice Secretary who has lost count of the number of people he has let out of prison, is it any wonder that the people of this country cannot ever again trust a single word this Prime Minister or Government say?