Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 2 December includes:

Monday 2 December—General debate on the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.

Tuesday 3 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

Wednesday 4 December—Opposition day (4th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 5 December—Debate on a motion on detained British nationals abroad, followed by a general debate on improving public transport. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 December—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 December will include:

Monday 9 December—Remaining stages of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.

Tuesday 10 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day 1).

Wednesday 11 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day 2).

Thursday 12 December—General debate on Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, followed by a debate on a motion on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Thanksgiving day to all our American friends and family, and a happy big birthday today to the Clerk: the Joe Root of the parliamentary estate. Huge thanks to him for his stylish and expert first century—half-century, I should say!

Mr Speaker, a man of your wide culture and extensive learning will doubtless be familiar with the film “Mad Max”. I am no expert, but the image that it conjures up of a desolate, chaotic landscape with wreckage strewn everywhere is the perfect metaphor for the Government’s recent Budget.

Let us take hospices, for example. In Herefordshire, we are blessed to have the extraordinary St Michael’s hospice. St Michael’s supports hundreds of in-patients a year with end of life care, and thousands more as out-patients and with visits in the community. It has a dedicated staff, assisted by some 800 volunteers. This is extraordinary. I shudder to think what it would cost the state to provide that kind and quality of care—certainly more than £20 million a year. What has this Labour Budget done to St Michael’s hospice? The changes to national insurance alone will cost the hospice an extra £250,000 next year, but that is only part of it. At the same time, the Budget has directly and indirectly pushed up the wage bill by a further £450,000. That is £700,000 annually in extra costs—a vast amount for an organisation that offers incredible care, and actually saves the NHS £20 million a year. Hospices in almost every constituency will be affected, and so are the interests of almost every colleague in this House.

This disastrous outcome was clearly never intended by the Treasury. It is another completely unnecessary blunder with potentially tragic consequences. As with GPs, pharmacies and mental health and social care charities, no compensation whatsoever has been offered for this tax raid. When will the Government publish a proper impact assessment and explain why none has been offered?

There is a direct link here to the issue of assisted dying. In the words of the Health Secretary, no less,

“I do not think that palliative care, end-of-life care in this country is in a condition yet where we are giving people the freedom to choose, without being coerced by the lack of support available.”

That care is now being deliberately worsened by his own Chancellor. Personally, I feel strongly pulled in both directions by both sides, but one thing no one can be in any doubt about is that the Government have no business trying to rush this legislation through the House by proxy. The text of the Bill was published barely two weeks prior to our vote tomorrow. No impact assessment or legal issues analysis have been published. Far from public debate preceding legislation, legislation has preceded debate. That is completely the wrong way around.

We can be perfectly clear about this. All Members of Parliament were recently sent a dossier by the promoter of the Bill entitled, “Your questions answered”. Unfortunately, far from answering key questions, the dossier fails even to touch on a whole series of important issues. Those include the Bill’s impact on the medical profession and the relationship between medical staff and patients, its impact on the provision and regulation of the different drugs and drug cocktails required, the record to date and protocols to be used in case an initial attempt at assisted dying fails, and what the inevitable for-profit industry exploiting the new law will look like and how we should feel about it.

As the senior judge Sir James Munby highlighted, there are a host of questions about involving the judiciary in the process and the balance of probabilities test for coercion. Most profoundly of all, there is the question of what choice and dignity actually mean in different contexts. None of those matters is even mentioned in the dossier purporting to give the answers. Whatever one feels about the issue of assisted dying itself—as I say, I feel very pulled in both directions—this absence of debate, especially with so many new Members in the House, is a matter of the gravest public concern. As the House well knows, the Government themselves are all over the place on the issue.

In asking for an assessment of the Bill’s likely impact on the NHS, the Health Secretary was doing exactly the right thing: preparing civil servants and clinicians for what could be a huge change and asking them to look at a crucial question that has not even been addressed, let alone properly answered. As for the Justice Secretary, she was attacked by none other than her own Labour predecessor Lord Falconer of Thoroton for imposing her views, but his lordship somehow missed that she was also making the argument that it was inappropriate in principle for the state to get involved in what many term “assisted suicide”. That too is yet another issue that has barely been discussed. I ask the right hon. Lady whether she shares my view that it is a tragedy that colleagues are being asked to vote without full and proper consideration of the vital issues I have mentioned.

[Lucy Powell]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Clerk of the House on his very special birthday. As someone recently on the other side of that same special birthday—obviously, I know I do not look it—I welcome him to the half-century club, and I hope his party is as good as mine was. We will leave that conversation for another day.

This week, we marked White Ribbon Day. I am proud that this Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls. I am also proud to have announced the debate on Lord Etherton’s review of the treatment of LGBT veterans today. I am particularly pleased for my friend and Manchester resident Carl Austin-Behan, who, after years of decorated service in the RAF, was dismissed the day the RAF found out he was gay. He deserves recognition and much more, as do many others.

I know that the shadow Leader of the House is fairly new to opposition, like most of his colleagues, but I gently say to him that the idea of opposition is to oppose the Government, not his own record in government. Last week he attacked our plans to meet climate goals, yet when he was the Minister with responsibility for decarbonisation, he seemed to take a very different view, touring the studios to champion net zero. Here we are yet again: he is attacking our plans on national insurance contributions, but I checked the record and noticed that when his Government raised national insurance contributions—and not just on businesses but on workers —he was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and said in defence of the measure, from this very Dispatch Box:

“It is a profoundly Conservative thing to do”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 326.]

He seems to have been for it then but is against it now. I am not sure what his position is—I am quite confused about it.

May I say to the hospice that he mentioned, and to the many hospices like it, that we have made a record investment in the NHS? The hospice sector was left on its knees by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. As he knows, the Health Secretary will soon come to the House to explain how the record allocation of resources that he has received will be distributed, including to the hospice sector.

The right hon. Gentleman raises the assisted dying issues that we will discuss tomorrow. I must say, I think it is regrettable that he has chosen this opportunity to raise those matters in such an unnecessarily political fashion. This issue generates very emotive responses on both sides, and I hope that tomorrow’s debate will be conducted in a respectful, considerate, non-partisan and non-political manner. He asks about time and scrutiny, which I have mentioned before. As Leader of the House, I am very confident that the Bill will undergo sufficient scrutiny and will have sufficient time for consideration.

As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the Government will of course implement the will of the House, whatever it may be. And, as I have also said before, should the House choose to give the Bill its Second Reading, the Government will of course work with the Bill’s promoter to ensure that the Bill and the policy are workable, operable and implemented. That will mean working with the promoter on tidying up any measures where necessary. The Department of Health and Social Care is getting to work straightaway on what the Bill will mean in terms of implementation, assessment and the documentation that the right hon. Gentleman highlights. Should the House decline to give the Bill its Second Reading, then of course that work would not happen. As I have said before, after several weeks in Committee, the first opportunity for the Bill to return to the House will not be until the end of April—that is a considerable amount of time for the Government to do that work and consider the Bill further.