Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Valerie Vaz

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Let me begin by saying that I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the people of Nepal and all those affected by the recent devastating flash floods, including the loved ones of 36 missing British nationals. As the Prime Minister said to the House on Tuesday, we will do everything we can to support British nationals impacted in the region and we are working closely with the Nepalese authorities.

This summer has seen a significant number of wildfires that have affected many people. I pay tribute to the emergency services who have been on the frontline of tackling the blazes. I also pay tribute to and thank the farmers who have been brave in their work to protect their livelihoods and their whole communities. I put on record our thanks to them.

I also pay tribute to the two police officers who lost their lives in Cleveland, PC Blades and PC Clough. They devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service: protecting their fellow citizens. Policing is not just a profession, but a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us all. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland but across policing, who have lost friends, colleagues and fellow members of the policing family.

As the shadow Leader of the House said, we recently lost a great number of great people from across the world, not least in sport and entertainment, including Billy Boston, one of the greatest and most popular rugby league players of all time—I know that you were a great admirer, Mr Speaker—and Keven Keegan, a football legend who played for Liverpool, Newcastle and England, and who went on to manage the national side. Along with the shadow Leader of the House, I also pay tribute to Dolly Parton. Beyond her legacy as the queen of country music, she will also be remembered through the work of her Imagination Library, which has provided 7 million books to children in the UK, and helped children across the world discover a love of reading.

Earlier this week, the House heard from the new Prime Minister. His Administration will oversee the rewiring of the British state—I will get on to the specifics that the right hon. Gentleman raised in a moment—the rebuilding of the resilience of our communities, and the reindustrialisation of our regions. Later this year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over those essentials, making them work for people and places once again.

I am pleased—as you are, Mr Speaker—that the shadow Leader of the House survived the reshuffle, and I welcome him back to his place. He was generous in his offer to run my campaign to continue in my role, which was a successful campaign on his part. I was ready to reciprocate, but that proved unnecessary. I am not sure that I am pleased with the way he described us, but I am genuinely pleased that he has remained in post. We do have our political differences, which is an obvious thing to say, but we share a deep respect for this place, and I look forward to working with him going forward. I am not sure about his suggestion that we are either Morecambe and Wise or the Two Ronnies—I think he flatters himself about his sense of humour with that—but we shall see.

There is no confusion, as the shadow Leader of the House suggests, about defence spending. The Prime Minister set out clearly what our position is, and we will have a Budget in the not-too-distant future that will set out what those proposals are. The Prime Minister faced this House on Tuesday for three hours and 20 minutes and then came back to do Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, so there was no shortage of an opportunity for the Opposition to find out exactly what this Government are going to do.

On R and R, the shadow Leader of the House knows, as we have talked about it before, that a set of proposals has been put forward. We have thought deeply about the best time to bring them to the House—he should not assume that he will have to wait that much longer for this House to be given the opportunity to make a decision. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one thing, which is that the decision has been delayed for too long. As a result, there are costs to that delay, which we are paying whether the House decides to do something about it for the long term or not. I do not agree that the answer is another delay while we go back and look at it again. We have been around that track so many times, which explains why we have got to this place.

On that subject, it is odd when a member of the shadow Cabinet leaves to run for office in London—to begin his support for London—yet criticises the Government, when the Opposition are actually whipped against the restoration of this place, which is the iconic building in London. It is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. This is work that is long overdue, and it will create jobs and opportunities not only in London but throughout the regions of our country. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

As the Prime Minister has said, it is important that we pursue and indeed go further on the devolution agenda, and setting up No. 10 North will be the biggest transfer of power and decision making out of Whitehall in a generation. I can assure Members that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in charge of the nation’s finances, and he will set out his proposals; having said that, it is important that we get decisions made closer to where those affected will feel the effects.

I do have some agreement with the shadow Leader of the House on his point about scrutiny by this House. There is an issue, for instance, around how mayors are scrutinised. As power and decision making are transferred away, it raises the issue of how this House will continue to be able to provide that scrutiny. I will take that issue away and think about it more.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

May I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a debate in Government time on the best use of public money? Some £50 million has been allocated for a free school—against Government policy and against the evidence. Some £38 million has been drawn down by Oak academy trust, which was set up under covid, so it is not clear why it is needed now, and which distorts the publishing market. There is also the contentious transaction involving Walsall College and the closure of Walsall Leather Museum—none of this benefits my constituents, who do not want any of this. Could we have a debate on the best use of public money?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My right hon. Friend is a great champion of her local community. We have previously talked about the issue of schools in her area. This Government are committed to empowering local leaders to take action and spend money where communities require it, and they are the best judge of how that money should be spent. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard her contribution. She may wish to seek a Westminster Hall debate to raise this issue, which I know has been going on for quite some time; alternatively, if she would like to meet a Minister, I will help her to arrange that.

Business of the House

Debate between Alan Campbell and Valerie Vaz

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Let me begin by joining the shadow Leader of the House in his tribute to Prunella Scales, who was a fantastic actress, and in his remarks about the effects of Hurricane Melissa. The UK is offering full support to Jamaica and many Caribbean countries in the aftermath of the hurricane. The Foreign Office is delivering humanitarian assistance to affected areas, including through specialist rapid deployment teams in the region to provide consular assistance to British nationals. Our thoughts are obviously with the people of the affected area but they are also with those in this country of Caribbean heritage, who will be particularly worried at this time.

This week, the House marked 75 years since the House of Commons Chamber was rebuilt from ruins after it was bombed during the second world war, and I thank Mr Speaker for the events that he has organised this week to mark this important anniversary. As we approach Remembrance Sunday, I was pleased to announce the general debate on the contribution of our armed forces, which will take place on Armistice Day. At this time each year, our nations come together to give profound thanks to the men and women of our armed forces and veterans—heroes who sacrifice so much for our country.

I also thank Mr Speaker for the Speaker’s Conference, which has brought forward its second report, with recommendations aimed at tackling abuse and intimidation towards MPs and candidates. I thank the conference for this important work. The Government will look closely at the recommendations, not least through my role on the defending democracy taskforce.

I would like to express my personal thanks to Mike McCarthy BEM, who is departing from the Government Whips Office this week, having served every Government since 1987. I hope the whole House will join me in wishing him well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

On the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks about the recent election of a new Labour deputy leader, I would gently point out that this was done by taking the matter to the members of the party, who made their choice—and a very good choice, indeed. That stands in stark contrast to what has happened on the Opposition Benches, where the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has simply foisted himself on the Conservative party as the unofficial deputy leader.

On Prime Minister’s questions, if what the Prime Minister is doing is not in order, I would expect whoever is in the Chair to point that out. However, to some extent my right hon. and learned Friend cannot win, because if he does not comment on the matter of the day or matters of urgency, people will ask him why, and if he does, he gets called out for it.

On the shadow Leader of the House’s point about school results, I know he is a passionate advocate for education, including higher education. I absolutely agree that school results and education are transformational in people’s lives. I will draw to the attention to the Secretary of State for Education, who shares our view on the transformation that education can bring, his point about what further data can be usefully made public.

Let me just add—and before the shadow Leader of the House calls me out for knockabout, this is not knockabout, but simply mentioning some of the things he might have added—that this week the Government announced an £8 billion deal to supply Typhoon fighter jets to Turkey, supporting 20,000 jobs, with nearly 6,000 workers at Warton now knowing that their jobs are secure; Awaab’s law has come into force, improving lives for tenants living in 4 million social rented homes across England; and today’s announcement of 60,000 knives being taken off our streets is very good news, along with the news that knife crime is falling. I hope lives will be changed as a result. This is what the Government mean by our plan for change in action: making defence a driver of growth in the economy, and also driving renewal and opportunity up and down our country.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

May I place on record my thanks to the Leader of the House for all his support? He was a brilliant Chief Whip, and at least now the nation gets to share his wit and wisdom.

May we have an urgent debate on the accountability of institutions for the use of public money? Walsall College and Walsall council are closing the iconic Leather Museum against the wishes of local people, but no financial information is available. Please could we have such a debate on financial information and accountability?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My right hon. Friend is a great champion for her local community, and she is right that local people need to be involved in decisions that affect their local community. She has put on record her concerns, but I would encourage her to go even further on this matter, perhaps by applying for an Adjournment debate.