Paul Maynard MP requests to have Hansard corrected re ‘extremists’ comment

The debate last week was a great day for Pat’s Petition team, and other campaigning groups. The MPs who spoke in favour of our petition could not have done more to support us. And it is a massive change to have the full support of the Labour Front Bench for the first time. This only the beginning.

The only sour note was the extraordinary accusation from Paul Maynard that
we were ‘extremists’. The term is offensive to us.

We contacted Mr Maynard for further explanation. We were pleased that, as a result of these communications, he agreed for the word ‘extremist’ be excised from the record. However, Hansard have now replied to him saying this is not possible. We have therefore asked him to write a correction on the copy of Hansard in the House of Commons library. (Awaiting response)

Wednesday 10th July was a great day for the whole disability movement and once this issue has reached a satisfactory conclusion,  we would like to move forward and make sure that the government ‘stop and review the cuts to benefits and services which are falling disproportionately on disabled people, their carers and families ’

Exchange with Mr Maynard below.

Letter to Mr Maynard July

Reply from Mr Maynard

Letter to Mr Maynard

Reply from Mr Maynard today

Cross over of emails

Letter to Mr Maynard      22nd July

Letter from Mr Maynard    22nd July







  1. Well done all involved pats petition and for being the voice for so many at best I believe the gentleman concerned should write a written apology because I for one along with many others found it very offensive I think all of us get a little tired of the various labels bestowed on us I’m fast getting used to these rather ignorant idiots

  2. It would be wrong for Hansard to remove this guys comments. Not only that but I saw his speech and he clearly meant them! It has always been the way of the establishment to label those who disagree with it as “extremists”. Then they legislate to use the law to control those people. To make things they may say or do illegal. They use the court process to intimidate and “punish” people and that is why they often insist on prosecuting even when it seems a total waste of everyones time and money. And that is what we are up against. It’s what the unions have always been up against and it is what the Labour Party was up against before it turned into the pale blue shadow of its former self. But think of it this way —– Nelson Mandella was considered an extremist and worse!

  3. What a wonderful result – very well done to all. In Solidarity :-)

  4. The word “corrected” here is entirely wrong. Hansard’s job, which it has done, is to record what was said in the Chamber. it will correct things that it has got wrong, but will not change the record later to what someone might simply prefer to have said. Imagine if a government minister came to it and said, “Actually, the NHS wasn’t safe in our hands in the slightest. Can we just delete that bit?”

    If Paul Maynard’s comment was wrong and/or offensive (and it was clearly both, obviously), it is up to him to publicly retract his words. If he does this in the Chamber, Hansard will faithfully record it. That is the extent of what Hansard is allowed to do.

    The fact that you didn’t realise this is how it works is understandable, as much of the way that Parliament works is not generally known. However, the fact that, as an MP, Paul Maynard didn’t realise that what he was asking was impossible shows that he hasn’t a clue how the system works and calls into question whether he fully understands what he’s doing in the building in the first place.

  5. Quite right webofevil. It was not Hansards mistake but Paul Maynard almost certainly deliberately trying to discredit Pats petition. He really should be made to retract the statement and apologise in the House.

  6. It is strange that an M P does not know the rules on Hansard. It is to report verbatim what is said in the House. Naive of him not to know this don’t you think? he needs to apologise and it is sad that the speaker did not ask him to retract the statement.



  1. WOW, impact assessments and consultation | Law Geek's Blog - [...] with language usually attached to religious fundamentalists and terrorists. In fairness to Maynard, Carer Watch has reported he regrets …
  2. Why is there silence on the impact of welfare cuts on disabled people? | paultmillington - […] complaints from the aforementioned, he’d later ask for his words to be struck from […]

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>