Point of Order

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Holmes

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have given the Speaker’s Office advance sight of this point of order on process, following proceedings last night in relation to new clause 82 tabled to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was not put for a separate decision. First, I want to say very clearly that this is no criticism or challenge of the decision of the Clerks, Deputy Chairs or Chairs, for whom I have immense respect, but it is a request for clarification on the process and the decision that was come to last night. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the following.

New clause 82 was accepted for a separate decision yesterday, and it was signed by over 70 Members of Parliament. The Member who tabled the new clause, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), had indicated outside the Chamber before the conclusion of the proceedings that he would not push the new clause to a vote, and that is his right. However, advice was given to the Chair that the Chair has discretion not to mention or put the Question at the conclusion of proceedings, despite the new clause being allocated for separate decision through the usual channels; thus, when the conclusion of proceedings came, there was no mention of new clause 82.

Precedent in this House says that another Member who has signed the amendment can push the new clause to a vote. However, that option was not given to a Member who wished to do so and had signed the amendment. “Erskine May” states under paragraph 28.139, titled “Conclusion of proceedings on consideration”:

“If the time available for debate on consideration under the terms of a programme order has been exhausted, Standing Order No 83E is engaged. In order to bring proceedings to a conclusion, the Speaker must put forthwith the following questions (but no others):

a. any question already proposed from the Chair;

b. any question necessary to bring to a decision a question so proposed;

c. the question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Speaker for separate decision;

d. the question on any amendment moved or motion made by a Minister; and

e. any other question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded.”

Another example comes in Standing Order No. 32, which says in sub-clause (1):

“In respect of any motion or any bill under consideration on report or any Lords amendment to a bill, the Speaker shall have power to select the amendments, new clauses or new schedules to be proposed thereto.”

Sub-clause (5) states:

“The powers conferred on the Speaker by this order shall not be exercised by the Deputy Speaker save during the consideration of the estimates.”

I have a concern that this has set a precedent. Over 70 Members across the House who had signed a new clause did not have the chance to put it to a vote last night. The Member who tabled the clause spoke to it and outlined the measures that it would bring into the legislation. I am worried that Members from all parties across the House who have signed amendments and new clauses will not have the opportunity to put them to a vote just because the Chair decides they have the discretion to eradicate that Question from being put in the proceedings of this House. I would be grateful for your clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, and maybe you could offer a meeting with the Principal Clerk, so that I can discuss my concerns about this issue.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for advance notice of his point of order. I can assure him and the House that nothing irregular or, indeed, unusual took place last night. It is usual for the Speaker to give provisional advance notice of amendments and new clauses that are expected to be selected for separate decision. However, it is not infrequent for the Chair to make changes based on new information that comes to light during the course of the debate, particularly when the lead signatory to an amendment or new clause indicates that they do not wish to move it.

Only an amendment or new clause that has been moved by a Member needs to be withdrawn with the leave of the House before the Question is put. This only applies to the lead amendment or new clause in any group. In this instance, the Member had not been called to move the new clause, so there was nothing to withdraw. It is wholly appropriate and normal for the Chair to decide not to call a new clause or amendment for a separate decision when the lead signatory has indicated they do not wish to move it. Ideally, this indication should have been made in the course of the debate by the Member who tabled the new clause. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) knows very well how to touch base with the Table Clerks and the staff in the Speaker’s Office.

Bill Presented

British Indian Ocean Territory (Sovereignty and Constitutional Arrangements) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Priti Patel, supported by Andrew Rosindell, Wendy Morton, James Cartlidge, Mr Mark Francois, Helen Grant, Jesse Norman, Alex Burghart, Andrew Griffith, Sir Mel Stride, Mr Richard Holden and Mike Wood, presented a Bill to make provision about sovereignty and constitutional arrangements in respect of the British Indian Ocean Territory, also known as the Chagos Archipelago; to prohibit the making of payments of public funds to the government of another country in connection with the sovereignty or constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory, unless authorised by Parliament; to require the Secretary of State to consult and engage with British Chagossians in relation to any proposed changes to the sovereignty and constitutional arrangements of the British Indian Ocean Territory; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 June, and to be printed (Bill 258).

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Holmes

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Paul Holmes]

I thought I just spoke once at the end.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

You just wish to speak at the end—marvellous. [Interruption.]

Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate

Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Paul Holmes

Thursday 12th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, and I think that intervention shows the measure of the man that he will be in this House over the next four years. Judging by a debate in which he participated yesterday, I know that he will be a vocal advocate for his constituency, and that he will make Sir David very proud.

It is a genuine honour to follow the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). I declare an interest, because I know the hon. Lady very well indeed. We were both on Southampton City Council, as councillors and in leading positions, and we both graduated from Southampton University. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Chris Elmore), the Whip on duty who will respond at the end of the debate—I am sure it is coming—should probably close his folder now and leave this out of his notes, but I was actually the best man at the hon. Lady’s wedding. And on my phone I have video evidence of how good she is at dancing, of how bad her husband Ben is at dancing, and of how good a partyer she is at 2 o’clock in the morning.

I often call the hon. Lady “Mrs Southampton”, because that is what she is. We both care about Southampton genuinely and passionately. She was a groundbreaking council leader; she cares about her city and she cares about her constituents; and she will be a groundbreaking Member of Parliament. I will just remind her that I secured more votes in Southampton Test than she did when I stood in 2017—but I did lose by 12,500, so she did a lot better than me.

As is customary, I wish to raise a few issues on behalf of my constituents. I promise that I will not take too long, because I know that other Members want to make their maiden speeches, and today is a day for them—particularly the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), my constituency neighbour, and my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I am watching him because he is in my flock in the Opposition Whips Office and I will be marking his homework later, and I know that he has two very special people waiting in the Gallery who probably want a cup of tea, so I will keep my speech short.

I have always spoken in these debates because I think it important to be able to raise issues on behalf of my constituents—very quickly but also, I hope, very thoroughly. The first issue is one on which I have been campaigning for five years in the House: the Access for All funding that the last Government awarded to a number of stations—including two in my constituency, Hedge End and Swanwick—and the vital importance of ensuring that our train stations are accessible to people who are less able-bodied than we are, and to people with children, particularly those with pushchairs. Following that five-year campaign and two Adjournment debates, we finally received the award, but under the present Government I have been told in a letter that the feasibility study funding is under review.

That is a disappointment to me and to my constituents, living in an area where there is excessive development built by the leadership of my local council. As the area grows, it is difficult for my constituents to travel to and from work using Hedge End station; they have to get off the train at Southampton Airport Parkway, 9 miles away. I really hope that the hon. Member for Bridgend will speak to the Department for Transport to ensure that Members on both sides of the House whose local stations have been awarded Access for All funding are given urgent clarification of whether they will receive it, because many people in our constituencies will rely on it. I am disappointed that the Government have chosen to place this under review. Hedge End will not require a massive amount of money. I do not want to hear about a £22 billion black hole; this is not enough money to make a difference to in-year spending. That is the last party-political point that I shall make, but the issue is important in my constituency and many others throughout the United Kingdom.

The next issue is broadband and mobile phone signal. A lot of new developments have been built in Whiteley, in my new constituency of Hamble Valley. It has the infrastructure of a number of old, chocolate-box villages that I inherited from the old constituency of Winchester. Many young professionals have bought homes along the Curbridge corridor and down into Burridge, and, in this world of working from home, they want to be able to conduct their business and their work life at home. A number of them receive fines because they cannot pay their bills, and a number are getting into trouble because they cannot turn up to work. I am very interested in hearing from the Government on the investment—maybe not necessarily today, but I hope they can allocate some time to debate the really important issue of digital deserts across the United Kingdom, which is vital. My new constituency is more rural than my old one, and I have picked up this issue across the whole of the constituency since I became its Member of Parliament on 5 July.

I want to raise an issue that the Government will hear about from me in a number of debates over the next five years: we need a walk-in centre in Whiteley in my constituency. We have the fantastic Fareham community hospital, which has a great diagnostic team. It opens its doors to the local community and takes some of the pressure off the primary care services that we have in other areas of the constituency, but we need to have more services at the hospital. It is a fantastic site and, with its excellent leadership and staff, has the capability to provide more primary care and more acute care. I hope that the Government will look at allocating funding for walk-in centres at Fareham community hospital and in Whiteley shopping centre.

Lastly, people who are watching us from the Gallery or on television—I suspect there are not many—do not see the hard work of the staff of this House. I particularly thank my office staff—they are paid by me, so they should expect to do all the hard work—and the House staff, who are really important. They include the Clerks and the Doorkeepers, who make sure that I get to meetings from time to time and that I know where I am going. New Members will find them particularly useful. I also thank all the catering staff and the people who make our lives here easier. I wish them a wonderful break as we go to argue things out at our party conferences. I hope they get a rest.

May I wish all Members from across the whole House, who represent a vast array of different parties, a wonderful recess? Go and have a good argument at various seaside locations across the United Kingdom.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I must put on record my thanks to the staff in the Tea Room, particularly Margaret, Godfrey and Gemma; otherwise, they will not make me a good cup of tea.

I call Sally Jameson to make her maiden speech.