Speeches by Atkinson.

“I understand that you cannot speculate about individual sites and discussions about that. The Government have stated that they want to come out of hotels over the term of this Parliament. When can the Committee and others expect further announcements about large-scale sites, whichever ones they may or may not be? When …”

“It should align but, in percentages, regardless of the number, what is the level of matching in numerical terms between the two? If you are finding 99% compliance but the Home Office is finding 80% compliance, it is a significant discrepancy.”

“Even if coming out of hotels did not require large-scale sites, you would still deliver the large sites because you think it is important that they are part of the mix, and that would allow a further reduction in dispersed accommodation, for example?”

“You and colleagues have plans to tackle every stage of that process—appeals, potential legislation coming forward, and so on. Do you expect there to be a reduction from those interventions that would allow people to exit from hotels without these further large-scale sites?”

“Do you think 60,000 overall is the normal level that you are aiming for?”

“Minister, you have said that you intend to expand the total number of bed spaces in large sites. How far is the Government’s commitment to coming out of hotels dependent on doing that?”

“If you were to come back in, say, six months’ time, would you expect to have agreement on the core standards and, therefore, no reason why your internal compliance assessment would differ from the Home Office’s external compliance assessment?”

“What steps are you taking to resolve that?”

“Are you consistently assessing any KPIs as being compliant that the Home Office is consistently assessing as being less compliant?”

“For the reason that you have identified, you think there is value in their own right, even if they are not necessary?”

“Thank you.”

“My hon. Friend is right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). I have heard it said that it was inappropriate for this issue to be brought as a private Member’s Bill, but equally we know that it would have been inappropriate for it to be included in any party’s manifesto. I see opponents of …”

“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 752673 relating to the timely progress of bills through Parliament. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward, and to open this important debate as a member of the Petitions Committee. I want to start by being clear about what this petition, and…”

“I agree that private Members’ Bills provide an important avenue for democratically elected Members of the Commons to seek important legislative change. For decades, they have been a long-established precedent in how this country introduces social change—whether that is the decriminalisation of homosexuality and abortio…”

“I will introduce the petitioners first, because they ultimately prompted the debate; I will then be happy to take further interventions. The petition was initially proposed by Nathaniel Dye, a man who felt the urgency for change and looked at his Parliament to deliver it. Nat was a music teacher, and after being diagno…”

“I agree entirely. I absolutely respect the fact that others, including opponents of the Bill, reach different judgments on this difficult issue. Ultimately, as I said, in our parliamentary democracy that is for Parliament to resolve, on the balance of judgment of its constituent-elected MPs. That is explainable to our …”

“I am not here to speak for the sponsor of anything; I am here to speak for parliamentary democracy. Fundamentally, on Third Reading, MPs clearly backed the Bill. That was the final chance for MPs to have their say. In all those debates, my hon. Friend made his points well and ably, as I made mine, in Committee and beyo…”

“Yes, I agree. I will come on to talk about future consideration of the legislation. The arguments against the process—that the consideration was somehow flawed—were widely debated before Third Reading, and the Commons reached a conclusion on that. All MPs had to make a judgment, independent of the Whips, on whether the…”

“It is always a pleasure to receive an intervention from the hon. Gentleman; he is much more experienced in this place than I am. However, over 16 days of debate in the House of Lords, the will of the Lords was not tested once. There were no Divisions. If the will of the peers was so overwhelmingly against the Bill, the…”

“I will just finish this point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) mentioned, Lord Falconer—the Bill’s sponsor in the Lords—made clear that he would sit down and discuss amendments with peers: indeed, he accepted and supported amendments that responded to genuine concerns with the…”