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

1. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

   I am so happy that the Government are finally waking up to this issue and how serious it is, and that there is a cross-party consensus on the need to ban social media for under-16s. Social media platforms are designed to be addictive; we all know that. Most adults cannot control themselves, so how can we expect our children to? Enforcement will be the key issue, so would the Secretary of State please give her views on what she thinks enforcement could look like and on what she has already learned from our Australian friends, who are leading the charge on this with legislation?

   Hansard source
2. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

   Yemen

   In his statement on 5 January, the Minister referred to the United Arab Emirates’ call then for a ceasefire. What discussions have since taken place with the United Arab Emirates, and is that still its position?

   Hansard source
3. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

   Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

   The evidence will never be perfect on this subject, because this is an effect that is happening right around the world at the same time—there is no control group. Countries are now acting—it is not only Australia; other countries are moving in this direction as well—and I welcome today’s announcement. The Secretary of State will need to make definitional decisions, so it is fair enough to have a consultation to get to the definition of “social media” and to work out what counts as an addictive, compulsive design feature, although I am not sure that that was in her statement. It is fine to have a 12-week consultation, but I am troubled by the possibility that the period after the consultation will stretch, as it sometimes does, in an open-ended way and we will not get the action we need. Will she commit to a deadline after the close of the consultation?

   Hansard source
4. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Dame Caroline Dinenage

   Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

   These arguments are very well rehearsed, and this announcement is long overdue. Last year we did a survey in my Gosport constituency, and 80% of parents agreed that social media is making bullying worse for their children. Last week the Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence from child psychologists about children’s TV and video content. Among the many things they told us, they explained the learning from Australia: it is critical to plan for whatever gap is created. If we reduce screen time for young people, there must be safe places for them to go and activities on which they can spend their time. What is the Secretary of State doing on a cross-Government basis to make sure that these issues are tackled as well?

   Hansard source
5. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Chris Philp

   Chinese Embassy

   Let us be in no doubt about the threat that China poses: MI5 has warned that Chinese intelligence is actively trying to disrupt our democracy; bounties have been placed on the heads of Hong Kong campaigners; Members of this House have been directly spied on by China; China actively supports Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine; and China is infiltrating universities and businesses to acquire sensitive technology, as well as stealing it directly. Yet this Government have failed again and again to take the action needed. This Government failed to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. This Government failed to properly support the case against two men accused of spying for China on MPs in this House. And now this Government have shamefully approved plans for a Chinese super-embassy. Despite everything China has done on our soil, China has been rewarded with exactly what it wants: a super-embassy that will be a base for espionage, not just in the UK but likely across Europe as well. The Government have capitulated to Chinese demands. The Prime Minister himself said to President Xi at the G20 in November 2024, “You raised the Chinese embassy building in London when we spoke on the telephone and we have since taken action by calling in that application.” In other words, the Prime Minister did precisely what President Xi told him to do and then he faithfully reported back afterwards. The decision has serious implications. Last week, The Telegraph published plans showing 208 secret rooms and a hidden chamber just 1 metre from critical data cables. Our economy depends on those cables, so what assurance can the Minister give that those cables will be secure from Chinese interference? In paragraph 97 of his decision notice, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who made the decision, admits that he had not even seen unredacted plans before making his decision. How can he possibly have assessed the risk, as the decision maker, without having seen those plans? He also admits in paragraph 13 that he did not follow our suggestion to hold section 321 closed hearings to take evidence. Once again, how can the Secretary of State possibly have taken the decision in an informed way without having personally assessed the risk? It gets worse, because paragraph 8.63 onwards of the inspector’s report admits that China can legally refuse to allow UK authorities to inspect the building during or after construction—so we are going to have no idea what is being built in there in any event. The Minister referred to the ISC. He said that someone in Government has seen unredacted plans, although we know that that was not the decision maker, the Secretary of State. Has the ISC seen those unredacted plans? It has been suggested to me that it has not. The ISC says that the risks can be mitigated, but mere mitigation is not enough. Mitigation entails only a partial exclusion of risk, and nothing is said about how to manage future developments in China’s capabilities—developments that we cannot anticipate today. The Minister for some reason forgot to quote this, but the ISC also says that the Government process was not robust enough. It says that it lacked clarity on national security, that the key reports lacked the necessary detail and that the Government do not have the “dexterity” required to handle China. Does the Minister accept those elements of the ISC report? Others share those concerns. A US Government source was recently quoted as saying that the UK had “downplayed” the risks. Last week, the White House was reported to be “deeply concerned”, and the chair of the US House of Representatives China committee says that he opposes the plans on the grounds that Americans’ data may be “at risk”. Does the Minister agree with our American allies? It is clear that this decision is timed to be shortly before a planned trip by the Prime Minister to China. He apparently intends to seek some kind of economic deal with China to fix the mess he and the Chancellor have created here, with jobs down and unemployment up since the election. From its timing and from President Xi’s clear demands, this planning consent appears to be linked to the Prime Minister’s imminent visit and to the economic deal. It seems clear to me that the Government are trading national security for economic links, and that this is a shameless capitulation to China’s demands. China is spying on us. It is subverting our democracy, it is repressing people on our soil and it is stealing our technology. Is the truth not this? In those circumstances, giving them what they want is simply the wrong thing to do.

   Hansard source
6. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

   Order. The last time I was in the Chair for a statement on this issue, we ran out of time. It would be really helpful if colleagues ensured that their questions are short.

   Hansard source
7. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

   Order. Just to help Members, I will be calling this statement to an end at 2 o’clock, because we have a lot of business afterwards.

   Hansard source
8. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

   Order. When the hon. Lady makes a point of order, she should address it to the Chair, not to the Secretary of State. The issue she has raised is not a point of order and it is not a matter for the Chair. I am sure she can follow it up with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber or in writing.

   Hansard source
9. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

   Chinese Embassy

   Order. Before I call the Minister, I gently remind shadow Ministers and spokesmen that there is a time limit, which the right hon. Gentleman exceeded somewhat.

   Hansard source
10. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Chinese Embassy

    I respectfully say to the Minister that that was an incredibly long answer—indeed, longer even than the question. Perhaps questions and responses need to be briefer.

    Hansard source
11. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Chinese Embassy

    Order. I am simply not going to have this. There is too much chuntering, and indeed yelling, across the Chamber from a sedentary position. The Minister might like to focus on responding to the question that was asked by the Lib Dem spokesperson, not to heckling from the rest of the Chamber.

    Hansard source
12. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Chinese Embassy

    Order. When questions run to two pages and take a minute, perhaps Members might think about cutting them down slightly.

    Hansard source
13. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Chinese Embassy

    Order. I am hopeful that we can find consensus that questions and answers need to be shorter. I intend to keep the Minister here until all Members have been satisfied this afternoon, but we do need to speed up.

    Hansard source
14. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Point of Order

    I thank the right hon. Gentleman for advance notice of his point of order. He will know that, as Chair, I am not responsible for the answers that Ministers give to written parliamentary questions, although he might also know that the Procedure Committee is currently holding an inquiry into this very issue. I encourage him to provide evidence and to raise his concerns with that Committee.

    Hansard source
15. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Sentencing Bill

    I inform the House that nothing in the Lords amendments engages Commons financial privilege. After Clause 19 Court transcripts of sentencing remarks

    Hansard source
16. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Sentencing Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss: Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 7. Lords amendments 1 to 6 and 8 to 15.

    Hansard source
17. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Bradley Thomas

    Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

    It is quite clear that social media is causing a health and wellbeing crisis among young people. Parents are absolutely terrified about the content that their children are viewing and the amount of time that they are spending online. Just a couple of months ago, 14 and 15-year-olds in my constituency told me about the profound pressure that they feel to be on social media. They feel a compulsion to use it, but they do not want to. Will the Government get off the pot and announce a ban? Perfection really is the enemy of the good here. The evidence is plain to see. We need action, not words.

    Hansard source
18. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Bob Blackman

    Gaza and the West Bank: Humanitarian Situation

    The Secretary of State will well know that the terrorist group Hamas refuse to disarm—in fact, they have forced their brutal rule on the Palestinian people. Equally, aid trucks that are desperately needed in Gaza are looted by Hamas terrorists. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that the international aid that we all want to see given to the Palestinians is not looted and diverted to Hamas?

    Hansard source
19. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Chagos Islands: Marine Protection

    6. What assessment she has made of whether the Mauritian Government are able to effectively protect Chagos’ marine environment.

    Hansard source
20. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Chagos Islands: Marine Protection

    I thank the Minister for his response. A recent Yale University report ranked Mauritius last out of 131 states for stringency in relation to its marine protected areas, and a woeful 173th out of 180 for the protection of biodiversity. Mauritius has even admitted that it does not have the capacity to patrol the area, and that it is open to commercial fishing. I recognise the response that the Minister gave, but Britain has kept the Chagos marine environment pristine for 50 years. Why do the Government not want to secure that legacy in law?

    Hansard source
21. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Chinese Embassy

    The Minister will be pleased to know that I am not going to ask him about the FIRS, but he quoted extensively from the weighty tome of the planning approval letter. It says that the Secretary of State “notes that no bodies with responsibility for national security, including HO and FCDO, have raised concerns”, but he did not mention that it goes on to say that the Secretary of State “considers that the lack of objection from these bodies on this issue carries significant weight”. Given that extensive measures had to be put in place to protect sensitive data, will he explain why neither the Home Office not the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office put in any objections to the proximity of the data cables and their vulnerabilities? On the issue of the consolidation of the consular buildings, last week the Government informed me that they had no record of how many properties within London or within the UK are owned by the Chinese state, so how will they keep track on other buildings that are used unofficially by the Chinese state?

    Hansard source
22. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I thank the Minister for giving way and for his detailed explanation of how the calculations have been made. The Government Actuary’s Department clearly stated that this deal would cost £34.7 billion. That figure was then confirmed by his colleague, the Minister for the Middle East, who said that all the figures had been ratified by the Government Actuary’s Department, but his colleague sitting next to him, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, told me that that figure was inaccurate. Will the Minister therefore clarify how much this deal costs?

    Hansard source
23. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children

    Families in my constituency are deeply concerned about the impact of social media on their children’s wellbeing. Just last week a headteacher told me that schools need the Government to act, and young people themselves describe the real damage that social media is doing to their mental health. The Conservative party has shown leadership by calling for clear age limits, because we recognise that protecting childhood is about setting responsible boundaries. Parents are asking for action now, so why are the Government not making a clear commitment today?

    Hansard source
24. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The Bill goes to the very heart of our national security, the safety of the British people, our global reach and our operational effectiveness in two of the most volatile and unpredictable regions of the world: the Indo-Pacific and the middle east. It also raises serious questions about the cost of this deal to the British taxpayer, which amounts to £34.7 billion. Even in the short time since the Bill was first brought to the House, the world has become even more unstable, yet the Government remain content to press ahead with the Bill. I struggle to see how it makes us safer, considering the requirement “to expeditiously inform” Mauritius of operational activity, and considering that Mauritius is a signatory to the Pelindaba treaty. The implications of the Bill for the basing of nuclear weapons, which are vital to our security and to our deterrence, and which have been deployed to Diego Garcia in the past, should concern every Member of the House. We need further clarity and assurance from the Government on that point. That brings me to the £28 billion shortfall in the defence budget that the Chief of the Defence Staff recently presented to the Prime Minister. It does not take a mathematician to see the point that I am making; indeed, the maths is so basic that I suggest that even the Chancellor could work it out.

    Hansard source
25. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I will make progress, because we are nearly out of time. Instead of pursuing the Bill, the Government could withdraw it, and redirect the vast sums involved towards addressing that shortfall and genuinely strengthening our national security.

    Hansard source
26. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Aphra Brandreth

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    We are short of time. Ultimately, the Lords amendment is about accountability to Parliament and to the electorate. There is no mandate for the Bill. If the Government choose to force it through using their majority, they must, at the very least, be accountable for the cost. British Chagossians are the forgotten people of this Bill. They may have been forgotten by the Government, but they have not been forgotten by Conservative Members. We continue to oppose the Bill with them firmly in our minds. The Prime Minister has rightly stated that Greenland’s sovereignty and right to self-determination rest with the people of Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark. The question is simple: why is that same right not afforded to the British Chagossians? The Bill has profound implications for our national security and public expenditure. The amendments tabled by Opposition peers are there for a reason: not for political gain, but to make a bad Bill slightly less damaging, to introduce safeguards, to offer some reassurance to the British taxpayer, and to ensure that the voices of the British Chagossian people are finally heard.

    Hansard source
27. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Andrew Bowie

    Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Carer’s Assistance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Sir Christopher. The consequential modifications are uncontroversial in and of themselves, serving only to substitute wording across existing legislation and update previous regulations to reflect the change in the definition of carer support payments. As the Minister set out, the order amends the defined terms in social security legislation to reflect the introduction of carer support payments, as introduced in the Carer’s Assistance (Carer Support Payment) (Scotland) Regulations 2023 and the Carer’s Assistance (Miscellaneous and Consequential Amendments, Revocation, Transitional and Saving Provisions) (Scotland) Regulations 2025, as provided for by the Scottish Government’s Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018. Although the order itself is technical and necessary, and we will not stand in its way, I would like to speak to the wider context of the instrument. The order follows the introduction of the 2023 regulations, an instrument of the Scottish Parliament that acted to replace the carer’s allowance in Scotland, originally administered under the Department for Work and Pensions, with a new type of benefit that served the same original purpose, administered by Social Security Scotland. The 2023 legislation epitomises the Scottish Government’s bureaucratic tendencies at the expense of Scottish taxpayers. In the wake of the failed bid for independence in 2014, the Smith commission set out provisions for greater devolution, and the resulting powers for devolution were set out in the Scotland Act 2016. From that flawed experiment, we now know that it matters not how much is given—for the nationalists, it will never be enough. Where devolution serves simply to duplicate work that is already undertaken, more efficiently and at lower cost, by the Department for Work and Pensions, we must ask whether the Scottish equivalent represents value for money for taxpayers or is simply yet another a marketing exercise for those who wish to create more separation between us. The division of payments for carers into a parallel system creates a new level of bureaucracy and adds complication in the system that we think is quite unnecessary. Those who are already in receipt of carer’s allowance would have to reapply for the carer support payment if they relocated to Scotland. This creates barriers within the United Kingdom, just as NHS Scotland, which is unable to share data and records with NHS England, prevents seamless care across the United Kingdom. We do not wish to stand in the way of this statutory instrument, which seeks to make technical adjustments to existing legislation as a result of the 2023 and 2025 regulations. However, I wish to put on the record the official Opposition’s frustration with the Scottish Government’s endless duplication, waste and inefficiency, which is costing Scottish taxpayers dear.

    Hansard source
28. 20 Jan 2026·Parliament·Alicia Kearns

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Some “very tiny islands”. That is how this Government’s National Security Adviser described Diego Garcia and the Chagos islands. I am afraid that that contempt is consistent with how they continue to treat those people. The former Foreign Secretary never once met Chagossians. There is no evidence that the current Foreign Secretary has ever met Chagossians. I am afraid that the Minister at the Dispatch Box met Chagossians only on 30 September and 3 October, after the deal was done, and refused to discuss the deal with them—unless he is saying that those who are here today are lying. By contrast—before anyone starts to heckle—I have had many meetings with representatives of the Chagossian community and organised roundtables with them. We urgently need Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6 on financial oversight of this £34.7 billion bill the British people are about to have to foot. The clawback option is the bare minimum the Government should accept for the eventuality that Mauritius breaks the conditions of this appalling deal, because it is quite likely that we will see mistreatment of the Chagossian people. It is also important that the clawback is there because we will need to review and understand the surge of Chagossians who came to the UK after the deal was announced. The Government tried to dismiss it, and claimed that the increase had nothing to do with the deal. That is wrong and we will continue to see that. This is a bad deal. The agreement is legally illiterate: there was an ICJ opinion, not a ruling. It is historically illiterate, because the Chagos islands have never belonged to Mauritius. This is a bad deal, ceding territory not to those hailing from those islands, but to a country that has consistently mistreated Chagossians and legislated to criminalise their views. The Bill cements the shameful treatment of the Chagossian people into law. Anyone who votes against the clawback tonight should be ashamed of themselves, because they should want to put in place the minimum protections for the people of the Chagos islands—those people who have come this evening to hear us debate, because their voices have not been heard in this Chamber and they have been denied by a Government who would not meet them, a Government who have no interest in supporting them, and a Government who tonight will vote against the only protections that might make sure that their voice is heard.

    Hansard source
29. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Stuart Anderson

    Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

    I am speaking to loads of business owners across South Shropshire in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, who are telling me the polar opposite of what the Minister is saying from the Dispatch Box, showing that the Government are completely detached from reality. There is a U-turn coming on this policy, but many business owners are lying awake at night worrying about how they are going to get through this. Can the Government make that U-turn quickly?

    Hansard source
30. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Steve Barclay

    Statutory SEND Duties: Intervention Powers

    In the Secretary of State’s letter to me of 11 January, she said that the much-needed special educational needs school, Lime academy in March, could proceed if the Lib Dem county council responds by 27 February to say that it is a priority. Could the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box that funding will be allocated for that priority school if the local authority, run by the Lib Dems, confirms to the Government its desire to do so?

    Hansard source
31. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if she will make a statement on the planned changes to business rates for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors.

    Hansard source
32. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Mel Stride

    Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

    That was a complete non-response. The Minister says he will make a statement in future in the usual way; we can only assume that that will be via the media, not this House. Of all the excuses for a U-turn that we have heard from the Government, this one beggars belief. The Minister expects us to accept that the Government simply did not know what the impact of the changes would be when they announced them. That is astonishing. Why did they announce crippling rises in business rates without bothering to check who would be hit the hardest? Worse still, we now know from the chief executive of the Valuation Office Agency, who appeared before the Treasury Committee last week, that Ministers were provided with the data on revaluations before the Budget. We are left with questions not only about whether the Government’s excuse is reasonable, but about whether it is indeed correct. Can the Minister clarify what specific information was given to Ministers on the level of increases that businesses would be facing, and when? Businesses are now in a terrible limbo over what their bills will look like in the coming years. The Government have indicated that changes will be announced for pubs at least, but there has been no official statement, which is why we have had to drag the Minister to the House this afternoon, so will he answer the following additional questions? Can the Minister at least make it clear which sectors will be in line for further support? Will it be just pubs? If so, why are the Government refusing to help businesses in the wider retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, some of which are seeing even higher rates increases? Will the new support be a temporary or permanent cut in bills, as we have called for? How much will it cost, and will it be funded by yet more Government borrowing? Will the Minister apologise now to the thousands of local businesses up and down our country that have been so sorely let down by this shambolic Labour Government?

    Hansard source
33. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Iran: Protests

    Last Tuesday afternoon, President Trump took a short break from attacking America’s NATO allies to write on Truth Social the following: “Iranian Patriots, KEEP PROTESTING—TAKE OVER YOUR INSTITUTIONS!!!” He added: “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.” Have the Government the faintest idea of what he was talking about?

    Hansard source
34. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Local Elections: Cancellation

    If a future political researcher decides to write a thesis about the influence of adverse opinion polls on the cancellation of local elections in Britain, will the Minister, amiable as she always is, make herself available?

    Hansard source
35. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Proposed Chinese Embassy

    The Intelligence and Security Committee was set up specifically to fill a gap in oversight whereby this House could not directly look at highly classified and sensitive information. Having chaired that Committee throughout the previous Parliament, when we undertook our very detailed and sensitive inquiry into China—the published version of which was quite well received, to put it mildly—I can assure the Minister that absolutely no aspect of this matter could not be shared with the ISC. Can she tell the House whether the National Security Adviser has discussed with the ISC and briefed it on the security aspects of this proposal, the proceeding of which enjoys such hostility on both sides of the House?

    Hansard source
36. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

    As well as pubs, hotels and restaurants, is the Minister aware that many grassroots music venues, some of which have never been liable for rates, now face demands for thousands of pounds? The Music Venue Trust has said that these are not bills but “closure notices”. Will he ensure that grassroots music venues are included in any relief he provides, and are recognised as critical creative infrastructure?

    Hansard source
37. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir John Whittingdale

    Local Elections: Cancellation

    A year ago, Ministers told council leaders in Essex that it was necessary to postpone elections in order to facilitate reorganisation to “the most ambitious timetable”. A year later, there has been absolutely no progress and we do not even know how many authorities are proposed. Was it not wrong to cancel elections last year and wrong to cancel them again this year?

    Hansard source
38. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Local Elections: Cancellation

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the cancellation of scheduled local government elections in May 2026.

    Hansard source
39. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Local Elections: Cancellation

    This Government have moved seamlessly from arrogance to incompetence, and now to cowardice. Some 3.7 million people are being denied the right to vote. It was the Government who rushed through a huge programme of local government reorganisation, imposing new structures and timetables, and it is the Government who are failing to deliver them. Rather than take responsibility for their own failure, the Secretary of State has chosen to dump the consequences of their incompetence on to the laps of local councils. The Government’s own local election strategy said: “The right to participate in our democracy…should not be taken for granted.” Cancelling elections was not part of that strategy. The Electoral Commission has been clear that the scheduled elections should go ahead as planned and that capacity constraints are not a legitimate reason for delay. Why was the Electoral Commission not consulted on these cancellations? Why is this being done at the last possible moment? Do the Government accept the Gould principle that at least six months’ notice should be given for any changes to election administration? Ministers say that they are following the wishes of local councils, and the Minister said at the Dispatch Box that the Secretary of State has written to, among others, Essex county council. The leader of Essex county council has been clear that these elections should go ahead, yet the Secretary of State still cites Essex, among others, to justify the cancellations. It is all well and good for the Secretary of State to write to councils basically to ask them the same question, but they have already given an answer. When does the Secretary of State intend to lay the statutory instruments for these areas, and does he think it is appropriate to use secondary legislation under the Local Government Act 2000? Did Parliament really allow Ministers to run scared and cancel elections at will? I have always said that these elections should go ahead, but the Secretary of State was the one who called these elections “pointless”, so why does he not have the courage of his own convictions, take responsibility for his own ineptitude and stop laying the blame on local councils?

    Hansard source
40. 19 Jan 2026·Parliament·Sir James Cleverly

    Local Elections: Cancellation

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred earlier, and did so again in her final comments, to the cancellation or delay of the 2020 local government elections as being justified by the reorganisation of local government. That is a factual error; they were, quite unambiguously, delayed because we were in the middle of a global pandemic. How is it best to correct the record with regard to the reason those elections were delayed?

    Hansard source