5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir John Hayes

   Engagements

   Q5. In an earlier answer, the Prime Minister made it clear that he understands that global uncertainty makes national economic resilience ever more important, and that energy security and food security are central to that, so why is policy making one the enemy of the other? Twelve per cent. of our most fertile and productive land—for the food that we need to feed the nation—is being eaten up by giant industrial developments, including pylons with the accompanying infrastructure and huge solar developments. Will the Prime Minister meet me and colleagues who feel similarly? By corroding Britain’s food security now, we risk compromising our nation’s future.

   Hansard source
2. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Wright

   Engagements

   Q7. Many of us across this House worked hard to pass the Online Safety Act 2023, not because we thought it would be the last word on online safety, but because we believed it was an important step forward in making online platforms more accountable for the content on their services and for the algorithms that curate it. Can the Prime Minister reassure us that whatever his Government decide to do to restrict our young people’s access to social media will not be used as cover by social media companies to do less themselves to keep young people safer online?

   Hansard source
3. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

   I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy on private homeowners. Thank you, Mr Turner, for presiding over this debate on an issue that is having profound life-changing consequences for ordinary families across the country. I also thank the Minister for his interest in the issue. Politics can be very tribal, but I have already met him twice to discuss it, both times with Councillor Jane Austin from my constituency—once in July last year and once in December last year, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I know he wants to solve the issue. The community infrastructure levy, or CIL, was introduced for the best of reasons: to ensure that commercial developers contribute towards the cost of the infrastructure needed as a result of their developments. It was never intended as an extra tax on people doing home extensions, and certainly never as a retrospective tax that people are landed with unexpectedly after the event. Most councils understand that, but one or two have ruthlessly exploited loopholes that allow them to punish homeowners, including Lib Dem-run Waverley in my constituency, which charges over £550 per square metre, one of the highest in the country. But it is not just there. This morning, I heard about a case in Sevenoaks, where the district council pursued a stay-at-home mother relentlessly, in a case championed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). For many families the consequences have been devastating. Some have been forced to sell or remortgage their homes, and the financial burden, alongside the stress and uncertainty, has been immense. Some have fought their councils for years, hitting brick walls at every turn. I am aware of 15 families in Waverley alone who faced unexpected charges, ranging from £26,000 to £235,000. There are now more than 100 known other cases across the country. Here are some examples: Steve Dally and his wife Caroline have been forced to remortgage their home to pay a £70,000 CIL charge on a home extension in Godalming. As they explained to me and local councillor Jane Austin, they are not developers; they simply extended their home. They hit a brick wall when they challenged Waverley and had to risk additional penalties and compounded interest in the process. Another Godalming couple were hit with a £70,000 bill because they were living in rented accommodation while their home was being renovated. In Milford in my constituency, a homeowner was forced to pay a £120,000 CIL bill when forced to submit a retrospective planning application because two walls of his existing home fell down. For failing to give notice of the walls falling down he was charged £2,500 in penalties because he had failed to submit a commencement notice, something he had never heard of. Enton resident Helen Grant reluctantly settled a £56,000 CIL charge on the family home, only to be sent a bill for a further £3,000 in interest charges when the council reviewed her case, which had already been closed. It is not just Waverley; I pay tribute to the CIL Injustice Group, which operates across the whole country. Many of its members are watching from the Gallery today, including people from Wokingham, Tonbridge and Devon.

   Hansard source
4. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

   I thank the hon. Member; he always makes very thoughtful contributions. He makes two very important points. The first is that we do need developers to contribute towards infrastructure costs. The risk of the appalling injustice that I am drawing attention to today is that we lose social consent for very important contributions that enable much-needed infrastructure to be built. Secondly, he is absolutely right to say that not having CIL at all would be very bad. In my area in particular, there is constant concern about the lack of infrastructure to keep pace with new housing developments. I want to return to the CIL Injustice Group, because their accounts are extremely concerning. Some are nervous about dealing with their council because of the bad way they are treated. Others spend thousands of pounds on legal fees, often unsuccessfully. Part of the issue is that CIL is an extraordinarily complex process. Forms must be filled in in the correct order and are subject to strict timetables. Even professionals struggle. It is very unforgiving if someone gets it wrong. They have to pay within 90 days, under threat of seizure of assets and imprisonment, and if they do not comply, they get slammed with thousands of pounds in late charges and interest on top of that. There is effectively no right of appeal, and most importantly, there is no ability to correct errors. Ordinary homeowners inevitably do make errors, but there is no latitude in the system to allow them to correct those errors.

   Hansard source
5. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

   The hon. Member is absolutely right, and he is foreshadowing what I will propose as one of the solutions to this issue: that homeowners should be excluded from the potential ambit of CIL altogether, because that was not its intention. It is a loophole that is being exploited, and I hope to explain why some councils have been so keen to exploit that loophole. We need to remove the root cause if we are going to deal with this issue.

   Hansard source
6. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

   I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who has much more experience of the housing sector than I do. He will know that countries like France—not very far away—that have been much more successful than us in building more houses also have a flourishing small builder sector. In this country, because of the enormous costs involved in the planning process and often the land, it is much harder for small builders to get involved. Of course, one of the other advantages of small builders is that they are more likely to get consent from local communities, because they are often from those local communities. I agree with my right hon. Friend entirely: that is one of the unintended consequences of the problems we have with the community infrastructure levy regime. CIL was drafted with very strong teeth to ensure that developers actually pay up, but for ordinary members of the public trying to do an extension, these Orwellian processes can be utterly terrifying. Some councils—not my own Waverley borough council, alas—recognise the inflexibility of the regulations and have taken a soft-touch approach to prevent homeowners from being captured. To its credit, West Berkshire, which as it happens is also a Lib Dem council, implemented a discretionary review and refunded £400,000 to affected householders. Others have not. I recognise that the difference in councils’ approaches makes the Minister’s job more difficult. So how should we fix the issue? First, we need to reform the highly complex CIL legislation to distinguish between commercial developers and householders. The problem with a system that is based entirely on the floor area of a project is that even a small increase in the size of a project—just a couple of extra metres on a patio—can suddenly mean that an ordinary homeowner is required to get planning permission, perhaps retrospectively, and can become liable, and they may not know it at the time. Homeowners should be outright excluded from the reach of the community infrastructure levy. Secondly, even in the absence of legislation, we need clear guidance from the Government to local councils so that no homeowners anywhere are charged for the community infrastructure levy. Thirdly, we need an effective mechanism for redress and the ability to correct genuine mistakes after a liability notice has been issued. Sadly, zero rating CIL liability does not work because a charge remains on the land, which may render the property unsaleable, so the Government need to find a way not just to avoid injustice but to secure justice for the hundreds of families who have been wronged to date by the problems in the system. Finally, we need to recognise that the root cause of the problem is that councils such as mine have been collecting the community infrastructure levy not just to build infrastructure but so that they can use the interest from unspent CIL as revenue. An estimated £9 billion is sitting in council accounts from unspent contributions by developers, of which an estimated £2.2 billion is unspent CIL. That means that some councils are effectively funding their core services from the human misery of their council tax payers. At a minimum, rules should specify that interest from unspent CIL should go back into the CIL account to avoid a perverse incentive for councils to do the wrong thing. British democracy rests on the principle of consent and fairness, both of which demand justice for those caught unfairly by the CIL system, which was never designed to capture them. All those people deserve clarity, and this should be prevented from happening again. I know the Minister and many other hon. Members here today want just that, and I look forward to hearing the Government plans.

   Hansard source
7. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

   That is quite an unusual thing to be told by the Chair, Mr Turner. I thank you for chairing this important debate and I thank all hon. Members present for some excellent contributions. I particularly want to thank my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for his tenacious campaigning on this issue on behalf of my former constituents in Farnham and Haslemere. He made an excellent contribution. I also want to thank the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), who typically gave a very thoughtful and clear exposition of the issues we face. I also thank hon. Members from other parties who have spoken and intervened. Before I come on to the Minister’s comments, I want to comment on what was said by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), because it was directly about my own local authority. He was right to say that a council cannot lawfully cancel a charge after it has become liable, but that does beg the question why there have been countless injustices in some councils, but not in others, and that is because there has been an element of choice in the way local authorities have decided to go about things. To make the point that I am not being party political here, Lib Dem West Berkshire has chosen to be reasonable, do the right thing and make sure there is justice for people unfairly caught in the CIL trap, but Lib Dem Waverley has not. It has been in power for seven years and Waverley residents, a number of whom are watching this debate, have suffered badly.

   Hansard source
8. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Jeremy Hunt

   Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

   I absolutely accept that. Again, in that spirit of being non-tribal, the hon. Gentleman will know the number of times that his party and other parties have talked about the 14 years in which we had opportunities to fix things that we did not fix, so he will appreciate that the Liberal Democrats in Waverley have had seven years to fix the issue and have failed to do so. That is why so many people from Waverley are looking at this debate carefully. But he is correct to say that all councils have to operate within the law. I want to move on to the Minister’s comments. First, I thank him for the interest that he has shown right from the start. I want to put on the record that the number of people affected is relatively small in the grander scheme of things, and it would have been easy for the Minister to decide there were other priorities. It is about 100 families—maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less—so the Minister could easily have decided to focus on other areas, but he has not. He has spent an enormous amount of time trying to address this. That is the right and proper thing for a Minister in a democracy to do; if there is an injustice that even affects one person, it is incredibly important that Ministers take note, and he has really done that. The Minister also clarified the problems with the 2014 exemptions introduced by the coalition Government, which were designed to ensure that householders were not caught up in these regulations, but did so through such a bureaucratic and cumbersome process that many inadvertently have been. The issue of particular complexity relates to householders’ immediate liability from the moment that building starts, which seems entirely reasonable for a professional developer, but entirely unreasonable for a homeowner who may not be aware of that element of the law. It is extremely welcome that the Government are going to consult on the CIL regulations. As a former Government Minister, I feel a tremendous amount of frustration and pain at the need for endless consultations. They can be of value, but they also slow things down. I recognise that the Minister wants to do this fast—I did groan when he said, “as soon as possible,” but then when he said, “before the summer break,” I took some encouragement. I think this is something that is moving forward. In the options that the Minister consults on—he cannot respond to this, but it is something to take away—could we find a way of removing homeowners from CIL liability altogether? That way we move away from a system that is purely based on the square meterage of a development, to one based on the type of person doing the development. Could we change the regulations so that homeowners can at least always apply for an exemption retrospectively if an error has been made? Not being able to do so offends natural justice, and was an unintended consequence of the complexity of the original regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for confronting head-on the fact that for many people, this is about getting justice for something that has happened, not ensuring that injustice does not continue to happen. He has been very open with me about the legal complexities involved, and I know from my time as Health Secretary how difficult it is to reopen retrospective cases. The Minister’s Department has enormous influence over local authorities, however, not least through setting their grants, so if the Department chose, it could find a way to put councils under pressure, where there are outstanding CIL cases and injustice, so that those cases get solved. I recognise that what I ask is not easy, but it is absolutely the case that local councils are extremely dependent on the Minister’s Department for large chunks of their financing. I ask him to consider what levers he has at his disposal to make this happen, while at the same time thanking him for his ongoing interest and determination to address the issue. The final thing I will say is that I know someone in the Public Gallery got up at 4 am to attend this debate. I thank that person and all the CIL Injustice Group for their tenacious campaigning to try to right a truly awful wrong.

   Hansard source
9. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Simon Hoare

   Violence against Women and Girls

   Violence against women and girls is often focused on what women and girls can do to keep themselves safe, but the Minister will know that the pernicious attitude of toxic masculinity has a huge impact on teenage boys, young women and girls. What can the Government do, preferably cross-party, to send a better message to young men and boys about how to deal with young women in school and elsewhere, in order to preserve safety and dignity?

   Hansard source
10. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Special Educational Needs Support

    4. What steps the Government are taking to support children with SEND at school.

    Hansard source
11. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Robbie Moore

    Special Educational Needs Support

    Last week, I met Alice Jones, the headteacher of Oxenhope primary school, to talk about the funding challenges it is facing in supporting children with SEND and her deep concerns about this Government’s planned SEND reforms, which include shifting EHCPs to individual support plans, therefore limiting protection for EHCPs to only the most complex cases. That will reduce the necessary financial support for children in mainstream schools. What reassurance can the Minister give Mrs Jones, and the many other headteachers in my constituency who have contacted me, who believe that the Government’s SEND reforms will not address the current challenges?

    Hansard source
12. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Rebecca Paul

    Conversion Practices

    I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm exactly what conversion practices she plans to ban.

    Hansard source
13. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. How do I gain your advice on a point of order that is inadvertently misleading about what the Leader of the Opposition said? The Leader of the Opposition—

    Hansard source
14. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    It is the end of this Session, and what a contrast with the beginning. Back in July 2024, the Government Benches were full adoring new MPs asking sycophantic questions; yesterday, the Prime Minister was reduced to begging those same MPs to save his own skin. He has broken his promise to grow the economy; the only thing that has grown is the welfare bill. Can the Prime Minister tell us how many more people are out of work and claiming universal credit since he took office?

    Hansard source
15. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    The Prime Minister does not want to say how many more people are out of work and claiming universal credit since he took office; perhaps he does not know. Let me tell him: it is 1.5 million people. That is the entire population of Leeds, Cardiff and Edinburgh put together. Hard-working people are being taxed more and more to pay for a ballooning benefits bill. Can the Prime Minister tell us why, on his watch, for the first time ever, we are now spending more on welfare than we earn in income tax?

    Hansard source
16. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    That answer was as honest as the Prime Minister’s reason for sacking Olly Robbins; perhaps he would like to apologise for it right now. Let me tell him why we are spending more on welfare than we are earning in tax. It is because of him and his terrible policies—this is all under him. We are spending so much on welfare that we cannot afford to defend the country. If he will not listen to me, perhaps he will listen to the former Labour Defence Secretary, Lord Robertson, who said: “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.” I agree with Lord Robertson. Why doesn’t the Prime Minister?

    Hansard source
17. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    Talking about more defence spending is not the same as giving more money for defence. The Prime Minister has been in office for nearly two years. He has a welfare plan until 2031, but he has not produced a defence investment plan. We have gone backwards on defence under him, because we are borrowing to pay for welfare. Yesterday we learned that the cost of Government borrowing is at its highest in two decades; that is under him. Instead of getting a grip on the economy, the Chancellor is briefing out that there could be rent controls, in order to curry favour with left-wing Back Benchers. This is not a serious way to run the economy. It is time the Prime Minister gave her an easier job, so will he listen to businesses and the country and reshuffle the Chancellor?

    Hansard source
18. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I did not hear the Prime Minister say that he is not reshuffling the Chancellor; it sounds like she’s toast. Meanwhile, the former Deputy Prime Minister is on manoeuvres. This Government are like a bad episode of “Game of Thrones”. The Prime Minister’s own people have turned against him, and all the while, he is holed up in his castle, wetting himself about a visit from the king in the north. Yesterday, one Labour MP actually said that his days are numbered. It was one of them—I wonder who, because they are all looking guilty as hell. Isn’t the real reason the Prime Minister cannot cut welfare that he has squandered all his political capital saving his own skin?

    Hansard source
19. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mrs Kemi Badenoch

    Engagements

    I think the whole country is sick of this man’s tone-deaf, pompous moralising. Last week, we all saw him punch the Speaker’s Chair. This is not a man who is in control. Since the last King’s Speech, it has been one disaster after another: cronyism, jobs for friends of convicted paedophiles, peerages for other friends of convicted paedophiles, broken promises on taxes, and U-turn after U-turn after U-turn. He has lost a Deputy Prime Minister, two chiefs of staff, two Cabinet Secretaries, the support of his Back Benchers and all his credibility. [Interruption.] Labour Members can jeer as much as they like; they are going to have to go to their constituency and explain to all those people why they did what they did last night. The fact is that the Prime Minister was reduced to whipping his MPs to save him, and to pleading with a tax dodger to rejoin his Cabinet. How much longer do we all have to put up with his shambles?

    Hansard source
20. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on two matters relating to the completeness of ministerial answers to this House. On 24 April, in answer to a written parliamentary question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), referred to an attached spreadsheet that was not provided. This is the third time in recent months that this has happened. In addition, I wrote to the same Minister on 2 March, seeking clarification of an earlier written answer in the light of remarks he made in Westminster Hall on 27 January, and I have yet to receive a reply. Could you advise me on how Members can secure timely and complete information when matters referred for answers are—

    Hansard source
21. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Sexual Assault Survivors: Isle of Wight

    As the Minister said, sexual assault survivors from the Isle of Wight and all across the United Kingdom must be heard. Virginia Giuffre took her life just one year ago. She had shared her abuse by convicted paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, the friend of Peter Mandelson. On 16 April, Lisa Phillips—another courageous survivor—supported by Carly and Sam from the Sexual Predator Accountability Institute, came to Parliament seeking transparency from lawmakers. The clear question for the Government is: when will they go from giving platitudes to victims to tackling trafficking and cover-ups and delivering adequate support and justice for all women and girls?

    Hansard source
22. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Kit Malthouse

    Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

    My right hon. Friend is laying out a compelling illustration of the injustices to individuals that this highly complex charge is causing. As he moves on to his solution, will he also reflect on the macroeconomic impact of this complexity and deterrence? I was Housing Minister for a year. Sadly, in those 12 months, I did not get round to sorting out this mess, but it was obvious to me that the small builder sector, which used to produce over 50% of the homes in this country, had been decimated by the crash and never returned. This disincentive to the kind of work that would encourage a really strong small builder sector, which could then contribute more to our economy, is both a brake on growth and a brake on the wider housing aspirations that both Governments have had over the last few years.

    Hansard source
23. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on securing this debate. I have applied for a similar debate twice, but clearly I do not have the touch of a former Chancellor in the Westminster Hall lottery. This is a very serious issue. The community infrastructure levy is meant to be simple: developers contribute and that money is used to fund the infrastructure that communities need. That is the principle, and that is the promise, but in parts of my constituency that promise is being broken. The regulations are clear that CIL is intended to support growth through infrastructure, yet we see millions of pounds collected and sitting idle, with little evidence of delivery. The rules exist but the action does not follow. In Waverley where, as we have heard, CIL rates are among the highest in the country, substantial sums are being collected and left unspent—£30 million when we last checked at the beginning of the year. That alone undermines public trust, but the reality is worse than that. The money does not simply sit there; it accrues interest—£125,000 a month in Waverley’s case. That interest is not ringfenced for infrastructure; it is absorbed into the general council spending. It is equivalent to 10% of council tax in Waverley’s case. Residents are told that the money is for community facilities when in reality it is sitting in accounts, quietly supporting day-to-day council spending. At the same time, inflation is eating away at the value of the original CIL pot, so when the council does eventually spend it, it delivers less than it should. Communities lose twice: the infrastructure does not arrive and the money set aside to fund it is steadily diminished. Worse still, the system is being misapplied. Of course, it is right that developers should contribute, but individual homeowners making changes to their own properties were never intended targets of the regime. Pursuing them aggressively, as Waverley borough council does, is not just heavy-handed; it is plain wrong. Let us call it what it is: a cash grab. CIL may be a national framework, but it is administered locally. The contrast within my constituency could not be starker. In East Hampshire, charging rates outside the regeneration zone in Whitehill and Bordon range from £95.94 to £265.68 per square metre. Even with a manual exemption system, the council actively supports residents, contacting them repeatedly by letter, email and phone to make them aware of exemptions, guiding them through the process and clearly warning them of the consequences of failing to submit the correct forms. That is what good administration looks like. Let us compare that approach with that taken by the Liberal Democrat-run Waverley borough council. There, the CIL rates charged to affected homeowners are among the highest in the country. In Farnham, they stand at £547.17 per square metre, rising to just under £570 per square metre in Haslemere and the surrounding villages. With those high rates comes a very different approach. I have been contacted by a number of constituents who together face CIL liabilities of nearly £1 million. They are not developers; they are ordinary residents who feel blindsided, misled and, in some cases, harassed. They are being charged for exemptions they were never supposed to pay. That is not administration. That is extraction. The response from the Liberal Democrat leadership, supported for too long by the Farnham residents group, has been one of inertia and, frankly, contempt. Instead of being helped to navigate a complex system, residents have been left in the dark and presented with life-changing bills. This is not fairness; it is the politics of envy in action, and my constituents are paying the price. Let me give some examples. One constituent who lives on the Surrey-Hampshire border has an East Hampshire postcode but her property falls within Waverley. She was hit with a £48,000 charge, which has now risen with interest to £60,000. In Haslemere, another constituent received a £94,000 charge because an agent failed to submit the correct forms. He was forced to put his home on the market, with the only alternative to divert the majority of his pension to pay the bill. In Lower Bourne, a couple were issued with a £54,000 charge two days before Christmas in 2024. That led to delays and additional restart costs of between £15,000 and £20,000. Also in the Bourne, a resident faces a charge of £150,000. In Moor Park, another faces a charge of close to £100,000, triggered by a mid-project planning amendment. Even minor administrative issues are treated with zero flexibility. A Farnham resident now faces a £25,000 charge, along with £5,000 in legal costs, following a change-of-use application for a granny annexe. These are not speculative, rapacious developers; they are people improving their homes, supporting their families and planning for their futures. The human cost is real and growing. As has been pointed out, last year my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash and I met the Minister to discuss these issues. At the time, he appeared sympathetic, so I ask him today: what progress has been made? At that meeting, we urged the Minister to issue clear guidance to local authorities to prevent further harm while the regulations were reviewed. Unfortunately, that idea was not taken forward. I understand the concern about overreach, but what we are seeing now is not restraint; it is injustice. I support my right hon. Friend’s proposed solutions. With that in mind, I ask the Minister three fairly straightforward questions. First, what progress has been made on reforming the CIL regulations? Secondly, will he issue clear guidance to ensure that councils do not exploit the rules to the detriment of ordinary homeowners? Thirdly, will those who have been wrongly charged be refunded? Under the current system, once development has commenced, there is effectively no right to appeal. It is a rigid and unforgiving mechanism. Most councils choose not to wield it in this way, but Waverley borough council has. The spirit of the law is being ignored, and the balance has been lost. My constituents are being treated not as residents to be supported, but as revenue to be extracted. This is not what the levy was designed to do. It was meant to build stronger communities, not penalise them. The law may permit what is happening, but it was never intended to enable it. It is time we put that right.

    Hansard source
24. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

    Before the hon. Member moves on, I should correct what he said: CIL was introduced in Waverley in 2019, and the Liberal Democrats took over the council one month later. The idea that the Conservatives brought it in is utter nonsense. The Liberal Democrats have now had seven years to try to fix it, and they have not. I ask the hon. Member to use his influence on his fellow Liberal Democrats to encourage them to operate a system far more like those in other parts of the country that we heard about from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), which operate with more flexibility.

    Hansard source
25. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gareth Bacon

    Community Infrastructure Levy: Homeowners

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to take part in this debate about the impact of the community infrastructure levy on private homeowners. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) for securing the debate; he has campaigned on this topic diligently and relentlessly alongside his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford). I am sure those in the Chamber will agree that both of them have made powerful and persuasive speeches this morning. The community infrastructure levy—more commonly abbreviated to CIL—is clearly not being enforced reliably, consistently or appropriately enough. What should be, and was introduced as, a sensible alternative or addition to section 106 payments has become, for many homeowners, a financial burden far beyond their wildest nightmares. CIL was specifically designed to be a levy on developers in mitigation of the impact of new developments to ensure that they contribute to local infrastructure. It was designed with safeguards, such as the fact that the levy can apply only in areas where a local authority has consulted on and approved a charging schedule that sets out the levy rates, and published that on its website. The rates were to be decided by the local authority to ensure an added democratic oversight to the whole process. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, CIL was established with sensible exemptions—at least on paper. Primarily, it was meant to be the case that only new developments that create net additional floor space of 100 square metres or more, or create a new dwelling, are potentially liable for the levy. That should have meant that most residential annexes and extensions, house or flats built by self-builders, local authority or housing association-provided affordable housing and charity developments are exempt. Most importantly in the context of this morning’s debate, if a householder development is over 100 square metres, an exemption can still be secured if it is applied for, but that is not a straightforward process. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash said in his opening speech, it is a rather onerous and complicated process of submitting myriad forms against tight deadlines before any building work can start. Many people are caught out, having filled out the forms incorrectly or late. In many cases, homeowners were not even aware of the existence of CIL until it was too late. Even in the case of an entirely innocent mistake where council determines an application to be retrospective, the householder will become liable for CIL. The CIL Regulations 2010, which were created under the Planning Act 2008, fail to adequately safeguard those exemptions and have therefore not properly protected homeowners from exorbitant bills from local authorities failing to properly discharge the collection of the levy. It is important to note that this is not happening everywhere. Around 200 councils operate CIL. As has been acknowledged in earlier speeches, some take a pragmatic, common sense and humane approach to its application. Others, however, demonstrably do not, and have followed the legislation to the letter without any regard for its overriding intention. That prompts the question: if some councils can adopt the regulations more flexibly, why cannot others? The Sunday Times has reported cases involving large sums of money being charged to residents in Surrey, Sevenoaks, London, Shropshire, Horsham, Bracknell Forest, Basingstoke, Chester and East Sussex. The Government have not issued any official guidance to local planning authorities on the enforcement decisions on CIL charges that have previously been levied on householder developers. We have heard powerful and devastating examples from my hon. and right hon. Friends here today: the details of the homeowners often improving their greatest and proudest assets—their homes—and finding themselves with a bill for life-changing amounts of money that they were never told they were at risk of incurring. That is a deeply troubling scenario to play out in our local areas, and it is made worse when we consider that in some cases the residents in question found themselves not only facing financial ruin but doing so with no right of appeal against the charge. This has led to people handing over their life savings or even their pensions, funding their debt through huge amounts borrowed from friends, family or sometimes unscrupulous lenders, remortgaging their homes or, in some of the most shocking cases, selling their homes to pay off the local authority, and finding themselves with nowhere to live and nowhere to go. Let me be clear: the Opposition are not saying the original intention was wrong, nor are we saying that this situation has come about by deliberate design, because it is important that local infrastructure is not only protected from the strain of increasing housing stock, but, vitally, upgraded to match new levels of demand. However, in too many cases, CIL is simply not working that way. Even beyond the heinous examples shared today, residents who are exempt from CIL but live in an area where it is being levied are not seeing its benefits. According to research carried out by the Home Builders Federation, that is because local authorities in England and Wales are currently sitting on an accumulative total of around £2 billion in unspent CIL money. These deposits are earning the local authorities in question millions of pounds of interest, which they are using to support their revenue budgets. The closest alternative, section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, is not much better. It allows local authorities to secure investment in central infrastructure arising from development, similar to but not exactly the same as CIL. Based on another piece of research from the HBF, across England more than £1.5 billion of section 106 contributions are made each year towards funding, facilities and services. However, according to the Urban Mobility Partnership, £5.3 billion of those annual contributions remain unspent in the accounts of local authorities in England and Wales. Even when they are spent, the HBF has shown that last summer local authorities reported a 20% rise in section 106 negotiation timelines, with 35% of all section 106 agreements taking more than 12 months to finalise and more than a third of councils having an average timeframe of more than 500 days. It is clear that our systems for supporting infrastructure in our local communities are failing private homeowners on two counts: first, and most shockingly, they are landing frighteningly large Bills on the doorsteps of unsuspecting homeowners who are seeking only to improve the homes that they have worked hard to buy, sustain and improve; and secondly, the benefits of the payments are not being felt by the local community. The Minister is a decent man, and I know he shares my concerns about this issue. He has said before that he “recognises that procedural requirements relating to exemptions for housebuilder applications under the 2010 CIL regulations have had financial consequences for some homeowners.” He further stated that “a series of households across the country have been very badly hit by this. It is very clear to us that the CIL regulations in question are not intended to operate in this way. We are giving very serious consideration to amending them to ensure that no one else is affected in this manner.” I do not doubt his sincerity. The Government must address those points and do so quickly. Perhaps the Minister could commit today to finding much needed time in the next parliamentary session to solve this crisis, back homeowners and undo this regulatory mess. Would he be prepared to put a timeframe on that today? It is vital that more is done to help homeowners facing these bills and to ensure that funds find their way into the beneficial causes in our local communities, and for the Government to ensure that these outcomes are realised quickly.

    Hansard source
26. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Violence against Women and Girls

    Jean Taylor set up the organisation Families Fighting for Justice after her daughter, Chantel Taylor, was violently and savagely murdered. The murderer then desecrated and concealed her body. Jean Taylor wants to make sure that that is a crime in its own right, not just an aggravating factor. Not only could she not grieve for her daughter or bury her—Chantel’s three children could not do so either—but serious evidence was hidden by the hiding of the body. The murderer is now out on the streets. Will the Minister please meet me and Jean Taylor to discuss a Chantel’s law?

    Hansard source
27. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Engagements

    Q10. Please could the Prime Minister explain to the House why, if he has done nothing wrong and process has been followed, he needed to force his MPs to vote against an investigation? Is it because he is worried that they do not believe his version of the truth?

    Hansard source
28. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    Nurses have been hounded and harassed by the NHS simply for stating that biological sex is real. The Minister met some of them at my request, and I am grateful for that, but that was months ago. What has happened since? Has she got an answer from the Nursing and Midwifery Council about how many more nurses face such witch hunts? Has she got a date from the Health Secretary for when the NHS will ensure single-sex changing rooms for staff? In short, what can she say to those hard-working nurses whose lives have been ruined by senior people in the NHS?

    Hansard source
29. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Claire Coutinho

    Topical Questions

    I thank the Minister, but this is the classic problem. She is not on top of her brief. She is absolutely allowed to write to regulators and ask whether they are breaking the law. Let me try another question. The Muslim Vote campaign is telling people how to vote, depending on what God they pray to. This is divisive, sectarian and has no place in Britain. The last time I asked the Minister to condemn that, she said that she was not aware of what I was describing, but in these local elections, the Muslim Vote has once again endorsed the Green party and Plaid Cymru. I will give her another chance: will she condemn this group and the divisive sectarian role it is playing in British politics?

    Hansard source
30. 29 Apr 2026·Parliament·Alan Mak

    In-Person Banking Services

    I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the delivery of in-person banking services; to require the Financial Conduct Authority to set standards for the provision of in-person banking services; and for connected purposes. In places such as Hayling Island and Emsworth in my constituency, if individuals cannot bank online or travel to the next town, they cannot bank at all. Across the country, this is not an isolated problem; it is the reality for millions of people. There are now nearly 50 constituencies —represented by Members on both sides of the House—without a single bank branch left, and over 90 more are down to their final branch. Since 2015, more than 6,600 bank branches have closed. That is around two thirds of the network we once had. In-person, face-to-face banking services have, in many places, simply disappeared. While online banking works for many, it does not work for everyone. The latest Financial Conduct Authority figures confirm that more than 3 million people in the UK do not use online banking. When it comes to older people in particular, Age UK reports that nearly four in 10 over-65s who have a bank account do not manage their money online, and three quarters still want to carry out at least some banking in person. Which?, the consumer rights organisation, makes the important point that when branches close, people do not just lose a building; they lose access to help when things go wrong. For older people, people with disabilities, small businesses handling cash and people in rural, suburban and coastal communities, it is not about convenience, but independence, practicality, dignity and fairness. I have so far outlined some of the challenges, but I should also state that significant progress has been made. It was the last Conservative Government who took action. Through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, we protected access to cash and supported the roll-out of banking hubs across the country. Today, those banking hubs are a Conservative success story. The trade body UK Finance reports that nearly nine in 10 customers would recommend using a hub. I recognise the vital role that banks have played in this transition. Many have worked together to support and fund the roll-out of banking hubs, and they continue to provide services in communities where branches are closed, such as through mobile banks and pop-ups. I pay tribute to the post office network and its staff, who play a vital role in providing access to cash and basic banking services in communities across the country represented by Members across this House. The introduction of banking hubs was the right approach. It was necessary, and it is already making a difference, but we now face the next challenge. Post offices and cash machines are an important part of the system and provide access to cash, but they were never designed to replace the full range of services provided by a bank branch. Now we must go further and protect access to face-to-face banking, because banking is not just about paying in or withdrawing money; it is about fixing a blocked card, resolving a failed payment, sorting out fraud, and getting advice and help when it matters most. There are 3 million fraud cases a year, and most begin online. When something goes wrong, having someone to help in a face-to-face context can be the difference between stopping the fraud early and someone losing their life savings. For those who are offline, it is not just a theoretical issue. A pensioner with a frozen account should not have to travel miles just to speak to a human being. A small business should not be left waiting on hold when it needs to pay its customers, suppliers or staff. A first-time buyer should not have to navigate the complex mortgage market from just an app. Those are just some of the gaps in the current system, and this Bill would address those gaps and more. The Bill would develop a model that is not only fair but sustainable, and that works for consumers, banks and the long-term future of our high streets and communities. It would shift the focus away from access to cash to access to wider in-person banking services, and it would ensure that banking hubs provide what people actually need: help to manage their money face-to-face when it matters most. I have seen this issue play out at first hand in my Havant constituency. Since 2015, we have lost more than 90% of our bank branches. Barclays, HSBC, NatWest, Halifax and Lloyds have all closed, leaving just one building society branch—Nationwide—in Havant town centre. I have worked with residents, Ministers and Link over several years to secure a new banking hub for our community, and it is due to open in the coming weeks. That progress shows that the model can work, but it also highlights its limitations, because under the current law, hubs are only delivered when access to cash is judged to be inadequate. If there is an ATM on the high street or a post office providing deposit and withdrawal services, a banking hub may not be deemed necessary, despite the lack of wider banking services in the area. In practice, that means that many people, including in places such as Emsworth and Hayling Island, cannot get basic banking services or basic banking problems resolved. They are still travelling miles, still struggling to speak to someone, and still left without the support that they need. This is not a failure of the idea; it is a gap in its design, which this Bill would resolve. It is worth being clear that the Bill is not about mandating a return to the old model of bank branches on every high street. Instead, it is about ensuring that the modern banking system that we have created works for everyone. In developing the Bill, I have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders including the Post Office, UK Finance, Which? and Age UK, all of which recognise the need to go further in ensuring access to in-person banking services outside traditional branches. In return, I have aimed to be equally pragmatic when drawing up the Bill and leading the campaign for more banking hubs. For example, I recognise that many people can rely solely on mobile or online banking and rarely have to step into a bank branch or a banking hub. I am also not wedded to a banking hub being a bricks-and-mortar building with fixed high costs. A hub could be a modular building, a pop-up, a mobile unit or located inside existing buildings such as a supermarket, a post office or a community centre. What is important is the ability to speak to someone face to face. The Bill is not about turning back the clock, resisting innovation or looking to the past. Instead, the Bill and my wider campaign are about the practical evolution of a system that is already working—a timely refinement to reflect how people actually use banking services today. In fact, the Bill is about making sure that progress works for everyone, because we cannot allow a two-tier system to emerge, with one for those who can navigate apps and algorithms and another for those who cannot. I welcome the constructive engagement that I have had with the Treasury and the City Minister on this issue. There is clear recognition on both sides of the House that more must be done to expand banking hubs. The Bill offers a practical, proportionate and sustainable way forward. Let us build on what works and fix what does not, and let us ensure that banking hubs deliver not just access to cash but access to banking, because no one should be locked out of managing their own money simply because they cannot do it online. I urge colleagues across the House to support the Bill, and I commend it to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Alan Mak, Sir Jeremy Hunt, John Glen, Joy Morrissey, Andrew Griffith, Claire Coutinho, Laura Trott, Jack Rankin, Nick Timothy, John Cooper, Neil O’Brien and Lewis Cocking present the Bill. Alan Mak accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 8 May, and to be printed (Bill 442). Business of the House (Today) Ordered, That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House, if a Message from the Lords Commissioners is expected, until that Message has been received.—(Stephen Morgan.)

    Hansard source
31. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    International Parental Child Abduction

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) on securing this important debate, shining a light on the topic of international parental child abduction and providing an opportunity to highlight the devastating impact that it has on families. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as ever, for his very thoughtful contributions. As we have heard, and as many hon. Members in this place know, cases of international parental child abduction are truly horrific and deeply distressing. The breakdown of relationships is often traumatic for all involved, especially for children, but when a parent has their child abducted and taken abroad, the consequences are profound. It is not only emotionally devastating, but financially draining for parents who are forced to fight, often for years, simply to secure contact with their child, let alone their safe return. Navigating courts, legal systems and bureaucratic processes across multiple jurisdictions is complex, it is costly and far too often it is unsuccessful. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead has set out how deeply concerning and troubling these cases can be, and has illustrated the scale and severity of the problem. I pay tribute to those in the Public Gallery, but I acknowledge that there are many more outside this place who are also be affected by this issue, and many hon. Members who are not in this Chamber, but who will have had similar items of casework in their constituency inboxes. I am reminded of a case in my constituency. I had not long come to this place when someone from my constituency came to see me. Her child had been abducted. She, together with her family, the Foreign Office and particularly the ambassador in the country concerned, worked tirelessly over many months. In that case, they were successful and that child was safely returned to the UK, but I acknowledge that that is not the case for everyone. I also recognise that Ministers across successive Governments, alongside diplomats and officials, have worked and are working to raise such cases with the Governments concerned. I remember some of them from my time as a Minister in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; they were often some of the most troubling cases that we could try to imagine. Progress in securing outcomes and in reuniting children with their families in the UK is often unacceptably slow. Parents continue to fight tirelessly for their rights, yet their efforts are frequently obstructed, sometimes by the very authorities that should be upholding international law. My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the shadow Foreign Secretary, has a constituency case that is known to the Minister and the FCDO, and she has asked me to raise it in this debate. The case of Mr Tom Toolan highlights the challenges very starkly. Mr Toolan’s daughter, Rhian, was taken to Poland in 2018 by his former partner, despite a court order explicitly prohibiting her removal from the UK. Over the past eight years, he has been unable to secure her return. Rhian is now 12 years old. During that time, Mr Toolan has endured the anguish of missing his daughter grow up. He has missed birthdays, Christmases and countless irreplaceable moments. I am sure we would all agree that that is truly heartbreaking. At every stage he has faced frustration and delay. Despite the provisions of the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, despite sustained diplomatic engagement and despite even the issuing of a return order by the courts involved, Rhian has still not been returned home, and Mr Toolan’s ordeal continues. He has said: “The Hague Convention was designed to ensure that children unlawfully abducted would be returned within six weeks. But we all know that this does not work—particularly when appeals and procedural delays are used to prevent the return of an abducted child.” Having incurred legal costs exceeding £160,000, Mr Toolan deserves answers, and so do others in similar situations. I will use this debate to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, what further steps are being taken to support efforts to bring Rhian home? More broadly, can the Minister outline the latest discussions he has had with international counterparts on improving the operation and effectiveness of the Hague convention? What assurances has he received and what concrete actions will follow? Will the Government establish stronger mechanisms to support the return of British children abducted overseas? We know Mr Toolan’s is not an isolated case. The number of international parental child abduction cases has risen significantly in recent decades. Official figures show an increase from 272 cases in 2003-04 to 580 in 2012-13. Sadly, the true figure today may well exceed 1,000 annually—we do not necessarily know the full picture. Can the Minister provide an updated figure for the number of cases currently known to the Government? How many are being directly supported by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office? Previous Governments undertook awareness campaigns to deter parents from taking children abroad unlawfully. What further preventive measures are now being considered? In addition, what steps are being taken to strengthen the enforcement of court orders designed to prevent abduction, particularly through the use of border controls and travel restrictions? Finally, can the Minister set out the Government’s approach to holding countries accountable where they fail to comply with the Hague convention? In particular, how are the Government working with both signatory and non-signatory states to ensure that international obligations are respected, while strengthening co-operation and preventing delays in the return process? This issue demands urgency, resolve and sustained international co-operation. For the families affected, time lost is time that can never be recovered.

    Hansard source
32. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    International Parental Child Abduction

    Perhaps, if it is in order, the Minister could provide a written update to my right hon. Friend.

    Hansard source
33. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Fuel Costs: Support for Motorists

    14. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of fuel duty on the cost of living.

    Hansard source
34. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Fuel Costs: Support for Motorists

    Labour is at war with motorists, and Reform’s idea of protesting about fuel prices was revealed at their non-event yesterday—and, indeed, its members are not even here today. Only we on the Conservative Benches are standing up for our motorists and our constituents. Will the Chancellor take this opportunity to help our constituents, our businesses and our motorists, and adopt our plan to extend fuel duty relief—yes or no?

    Hansard source
35. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Park Home Owners

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing such an important debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who is here beside me, is unable to speak in the debate, but I want to put on the record how important park homes are in her constituency. It is important to raise that. Let us say that a couple of relatively modest means want to move to a park home. They will probably look first at Shropshire, a beautiful county where we have 39 outstanding park home sites. I do not want to downplay the rest of Shropshire, but obviously they will choose South Shropshire, the most beautiful constituency in the country. They purchase a park home, but as we know, circumstances change: they can plan for the next five or 10 years, but something could happen in a matter of months that means they have to resell that park home. The current 10% commission on sales means that, if they have to move within the next six or 12 months, they will lose that 10%, which they will have to pay out of the sale price. In no other housing market in the UK would we expect—unless there is a significant rise or a crash during that time—to move because of personal circumstances and lose 10%. I have spoken to park home owners in Hollins Park and Highley Park Homes who feel that that traps them into their park homes and that they are unable to get out. The information is available when they set out to purchase, but if their circumstances change, that causes an issue. This blatantly discriminates against park home owners compared with owners in the rest of the UK housing market. People argue that commission is based on the value of the land as a form of stamp duty, but sellers do not pay stamp duty; buyers do. There is also a taper mechanism for stamp duty in the UK, which is not the case with commission. On top of that, park home owners pay pitch fees as well as site fees. I have met various site owners and know that some look after their park homes excellently, such as in Homelands Park in Chorley, but other sites have unsurfaced roads and huge problems. In 2002, a study reported that commission makes up only 17% of site owners’ income. I am aware that they need a viable business model, but it should not be the commission model that comes on the back of my park home owners. This problem has been raised across the many sites in South Shropshire. Park home residents deserve a far better deal than they get. I want the Minister to look seriously at the position of park home owners in South Shropshire, to ensure that they get a fair deal and to get this commission scrapped, because it does not work. It is an outdated model and I would love to see it go.

    Hansard source
36. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Park Home Owners

    I will make three brief points. The first is on fit and proper persons. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) indicated, the legislation is on the statute book. Peter Aldous did a super job to get it there, but it now needs to be properly implemented. The problems we have heard about this morning tend to be generated by cowboy owners, who are not fit and proper people and should never, ever have been allowed to acquire park homes in the first place. Secondly, on licensing, it is absolutely clear that local authorities often lack the expertise to enforce the legislation that is already on the statute book. We must have licensing officers who understand the terms and conditions of the licences granted for the operation of these parks, and who know how to enforce them. Many of the problems that I have experienced in my constituency arise from a lack of enforcement, when cowboy operators could and should be brought to book. Thirdly, I will make myself the most unpopular person in the room—

    Hansard source
37. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Park Home Owners

    I will be in a minority of one. If we are to address the 10% commission issue, and we must, we have to understand that it is part of the business model. Park home owners have the opportunity to read the lease they take out; they know what they are buying and what they are signing, and the commission is a significant part of the model. If it is going to be revised, and I accept that there is a strong case for revision, we have to take account of the fact that those costs will fall elsewhere.

    Hansard source
38. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    At the start of the debate, when Mr Speaker was in the Chair, he reminded the House that this was not a trial of the Prime Minister, but a debate about whether or not an issue should be put to the Privileges Committee; I do think we all need to remember that. He also said that when the debate became repetitive, he might consider taking a closure motion. I am sorely tempted to move one, Madam Deputy Speaker—but not yet. It saddens me deeply that we are where we are today. It saddens me that the motion has been presented by some Members on the Government Benches as a ruse before the local government elections. This is about something very fundamental to many of us; it is about the truth, the probity and the integrity of this House, and every man and woman who sits in it. I have heard some very courageous speeches from the Government Benches this afternoon, and I applaud each and every one of the people who made them, because I know just how difficult this is. Mr Johnson has been referred to frequently. I was one of the first—possibly the first—to call publicly for him to resign as Prime Minister. That was not a happy circumstance—I did not enjoy it, as I do not like taking on my own side—but I believed then, as I believe now, that that man was not fit to be Prime Minister. I know that what I did and said was right, as I believe those hon. Members on the Government Benches who have spoken in support of the motion are doing what they believe to be right. I am horrified to have to believe that House business is being whipped. It should not be. It has been said repetitively that the sensible thing would have been for the Prime Minister to refer himself to the Privileges Committee. If that is not going to happen, we all need to understand that there are people out there who are waiting to see what we do and if we can be trusted—never mind if the Prime Minister can be trusted. Can we be trusted to take the right and proper decision tonight? Every single one of us is going to get up in the morning and look in the mirror, either to put on make-up or to shave—

    Hansard source
39. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Roger Gale

    Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

    My right hon. Friend reminds me that he said, incorrectly, that the vote on the call for Johnson to resign was not taken until after the Privileges Committee had released its findings. He is quite wrong: that call was made well before it went to the Privileges Committee. Let me come back to what I was trying to say. Every single one of us has to be able to look in the mirror and live with ourselves. I hope very much that the Government Whips will withdraw the whipping tonight, so that hon. Members can vote according to their conscience. I believe that if that is done, then this matter will be referred, entirely properly, to the Privileges Committee, and then after the King’s Speech we can get on with our job and devote our concerns to the cost of living, fuel prices and the manner in which hospitality businesses are being destroyed, and to all the matters that we ought to be discussing today, rather than discussing this. I beg my friends on the Government Benches to do the right thing tonight.

    Hansard source
40. 28 Apr 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Topical Questions

    In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) on borrowing, the right hon. Lady suggested that she was following a strict deficit reduction plan. I think she made reference to a reduction in the deficit of £20 billion year on year—but, of course, it is easy to reduce something if you pump it up recklessly in the first place. Could she tell the House how much more borrowing this Government will undertake across this Parliament compared with the plans that she inherited from the last Government?

    Hansard source