Paul Holmes

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 966

1. 2 Nov 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Topical Questions

   Since I last asked the Minister about the Liberal Democrats’ £620 million-worth of debt at Eastleigh borough council, it has got bigger, the external auditors have said that there have been financial misstatements and a lack of management financially, and the Government have now given it <span id="576" class="column-number" data-column-number="576"></span>£150 million for social housing. What will it take for this Minister to come down on Eastleigh borough council and get that debt down?

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this debate. She mentioned accountability and democracy. As she knows, <span id="202WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="202WH"></span>the Government are currently taking the Representation of the People Bill through Parliament. The Bill rightly tries to encourage increased participation and accountability in our electoral system. Does she share my concern that the role of councillors is undermined by these planning changes, that local people will lose confidence in the democratic checks and balances of local government, and that we therefore may see turnout and participation go down?

   Hansard source
3. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this debate, and I welcome the Minister to her position. I have serious concerns about this policy and agenda, and specifically about the future ability of residents to have a meaningful say in the development of their own communities. Now that I am no longer the shadow Housing Minister, I am happy that I can speak about these things in a much freer way than I possibly could at the Dispatch Box, although I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) will be absolutely excellent in his winding up. Like the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover)—he is my hon. Friend, actually—I have very fond memories of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee. I often found myself going home in the evening and thinking, “How could I have agreed so much with the Liberal Democrats?”, but I looked myself in the mirror, had a wash and got over it the next morning.<span id="207WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="207WH"></span> Planning decisions shape our towns and villages for generations to come. They determine where new homes are built, how much pressure is placed on roads, schools and healthcare services, and whether the character of our neighbourhoods is preserved. These decisions have real consequences for the people who live with them every day. It is therefore essential that local residents have a meaningful opportunity to influence them. I say to the Minister that my big concern, which we warned about on the Bill Committee, is that the Government seem ardent on taking those decisions and that influence away from local people. The Government’s proposed approach risks weakening the democratic safeguards that allow communities to have their voices heard. This policy represents a significant shift in the balance between professional planning officers and elected local representatives. One of the most concerning aspects of these reforms is the removal of existing arrangements that allow ward councillors to request committee consideration or that enable an application to be referred automatically when a specified number of objections has been received. Under the new scheme, the volume of objections cannot in itself justify referral to committee. Instead, applications must meet the national criteria, and the nominated officer and nominated councillor must agree that they should be referred. Let us consider what that means for residents who have legitimate concerns about a development in their neighbourhood. They may organise a petition, write detailed objections and encourage their neighbours to participate in the consultation process, yet the strength of their opposition will not in itself guarantee that elected councillors will debate the application in public. Residents retain the right to submit representations, but their ability to secure community scrutiny is restricted. That raises a question: what is the point of encouraging people to participate in local planning consultations if the system provides fewer opportunities for their elected representatives to consider their concerns publicly? If we allow this proposal to go ahead on Saturday, as I suspect it will, many people will ask why they should bother voting for their parish, borough or county councillor. Planning decisions are one of the most public-facing decisions that a councillor makes. Councillors live in their communities. If a housing development is being built round the corner, or if a pub is being closed so that it can be converted into something else, they know what should be referred to their planning committee. That local knowledge is being taken away, so that a faceless officer can make that decision instead. That is not accountable.

   Hansard source
4. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   I absolutely agree. Councils are going through a process to develop a local plan. Alongside officers, they will know which applications should be capable of being called in if a local plan is ratified. If <span id="208WH" class="column-number" data-column-number="208WH"></span>there is no local plan and there are small speculative developments happening across a whole constituency, that soon adds up. If the hon. Lady’s councillors are unable to play a massive part in shaping those developments and crafting those developments, it prompts the question: “What do they serve for?” That will be the question resounding across local government this afternoon. A national framework cannot be expected to capture every local nuance. Although the Government argue that the scheme will create greater consistency and allow committees to focus on significant applications, there is a risk that standardisation will come at the expense of local discretion. The desire for consistency should not prevent councils from responding to the particular needs and concerns of their residents. Minor delegations do not mean that planning decisions are any less important. Let me give the Minister an example from my constituency. The Pear Tree inn in Boorley Green is owned by a brewery that wanted to sell off a huge amount of the local play area and car park so that six houses could be built. Local councillors were dead against it. It is the only local pub in the area and is a very valued asset to the local community. Under this scheme, that proposal could not be referred by a ward councillor and could not be debated by ward councillors who represent the community. As the Member of Parliament, I could make a written representation but would not be able to go to a planning committee led by councillors to make that decision. That is fundamentally wrong. Under the current legislation, a parish councillor can submit the pub for consideration as an asset of community value. If an officer had been making that decision without a referral by a ward member, they would not have come to the same decision. Eastleigh borough council’s excellent decision to refuse planning permission was made by its ward councillors, who are elected by the people who live there. I am not against building new homes and nor am I arguing against the expertise of planning officers; I am arguing for development to take place alongside transparency, public participation and democratic accountability. If the Government want communities to support development, they must recognise that people are more likely to have confidence in decisions when they feel their voices have genuinely been heard. Finally, the Government have spoken hugely, including in today’s Budget, about devolution and empowering local people. The Minister will hear no argument against that from me—I hope her Department brings the mayoral elections for Hampshire forward to 2027. However, she cannot have it both ways; she cannot devolve to local people, while taking away some of the most retail decisions that councils and locally elected people make on behalf of those people—giving with one hand while taking with the other. That is a topsy-turvy world that will cause the Government huge issues, prompting resentment from local people about the public participation processes they are expected to undertake, particularly with mayoral elections. I appreciate that this is not all in the Minister’s brief, but I seriously ask her to report to the Department the strength of feeling that the Government are creating among locally elected councillors. They are not happy, and nor are we or, more importantly, the people we serve.

   Hansard source
5. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   The hon. Member will know, as the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, that a cross-party delegation of Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and Greens on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill Committee came up with sensible amendments to try to make sure there was a balance between efficiency in the planning system and the criteria under which officers could make more decisions, and still involving local councillors. Can the hon. Member elaborate on where the balance should be between councillors and planning officers?

   Hansard source
6. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   My hon. Friend makes a good point. Another concern of mine is that, when looking at infrastructure such as healthcare facilities or larger-scale road networks, local councillors and MPs quite often work together to secure the funding from central Government and maybe a county council. Does he share my concern that in some of the larger schemes that will be decided by planning officers, the ability to get that multi-layered approach to funding will not be there, because there will not be the political will to do it?

   Hansard source
7. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   National Scheme of Delegation of Planning Functions

   I thank the Minister for giving way and I will not intervene on her any further. She talks about giving people certainty, but this Government could have created certainty by standardising the planning system in favour of councillors making the decisions that they were sent to local councils to make. Does she agree that the reason the Government have not done that is because they have made a political decision to take that power away?

   Hansard source
8. 22 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Retirement of the Clerk of the House

   It is a genuine pleasure to speak on behalf of the official Opposition to support the motion on the Order Paper and offer the warmest of tributes to Tom Goldsmith as he retires after 30 years of distinguished service to this House. There are many people who contribute to the work of Parliament, but there are relatively few whose work underpins everything that we do. I have seen that contribution by Tom in my role in the Government Whips Office, the Opposition Whips Office and now in my short tenure—hopefully longer—as joint Opposition Deputy Chief Whip. For Members of Parliament, the House of Commons is where we come to debate, scrutinise the Government and, ultimately, represent the people who sent us here. It is a place of passion and, occasionally, a little theatricality, but behind all of that stands an institution whose <span id="1311" class="column-number" data-column-number="1311"></span>authority depends on its procedures, traditions and the integrity of those who uphold them. Tom has devoted his professional life to ensuring that those foundations remain strong. Since joining the House service in 1996, when I was eight—<em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> I know, I do not look it. Since 1996, Tom has served Parliament in a variety of important roles, including as Secretary to the House of Commons Commission, Head of the Committee Office, and Principal Clerk of the Table Office, before becoming Clerk of the House in 2023. He was also Clerk to the Foreign Affairs Committee, and if anyone can keep my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) in check, they are a very special man. That is a remarkable record of service and one that delivers the gratitude of Members on both sides of the Chamber. The office of Clerk of the House is not an ordinary job. It requires an extraordinary command of parliamentary procedure, a deep understanding of our constitution and, perhaps most importantly, the ability to provide clear, impartial advice when the political temperature in this place is rising—and we all know that the political temperature in this place can rise rather quickly. The Clerk must serve every Member equally, regardless of party, political persuasion or the strength of the argument being advanced at the Dispatch Box. That impartiality is fundamental to our democracy. No tribute to a Clerk of the House would be complete without recognising the qualities that can sometimes be taken for granted: patience, discretion, courtesy and the ability to offer advice with calm authority, even when the circumstances are anything but calm. Those qualities matter enormously in an institution where strong disagreements are not simply inevitable but essential to our democracy and the running of this House. Thirty years is a considerable period of service, and much has changed in that time, in Parliament, in the wider world and in our country. Through that period, the need for impartial, effective and trusted parliamentary administration has remained constant. Retirement from Parliament today will undoubtedly give Tom the opportunity to pursue new challenges and spend more time away from the demands of this place. His love of playing jazz piano has been mentioned. Like the Leader of the House, I am not somebody who would necessarily see him play—I much prefer musical theatre in the west end—but I look forward maybe to seeing him at my 40th birthday party in two years’ time. May I also suggest a career in professional poker? If he manages to keep that exact straight face as he does when I tell him my own interpretation of the Standing Orders, he really will go far. On a more serious note, I hope that Tom’s retirement brings him considerable happiness, good health and the freedom to enjoy those pursuits that a career of such commitment may not always have allowed him time to pursue. I hope that the whole House—I know that they will—will join me in wishing Tom every happiness in his retirement and thanking him for his outstanding service to the House of Commons. On behalf of all MPs and those wider House staff who serve in this unique and special community, thank you, Tom, and we wish you every best for the future.<span id="1312" class="column-number" data-column-number="1312"></span>

   Hansard source
9. 20 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Topical Questions

   I recently visited Newmedica in my constituency to see the vital role that independent providers have in offering NHS-funded eye surgery and care. With the Health Bill progressing, what assurances can the Minister provide that it will strengthen the right to choose across all providers and ensure that ICBs make full use of all the choices, which my ICB is not?

   Hansard source
10. 14 Oct 2026·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Inheritance Tax

    The hon. Lady is making an excellent case for her leadership campaign. If the Liberal Democrats got into government and put these policies forward, does she believe that the leader of the Liberal Democrats would be there to do it?

    Hansard source