Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 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 27 January includes:

Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.

Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords], followed by motions relating to the charter for budget responsibility and the welfare cap.

Thursday 30 January—General debate on proportional representation for general elections, followed by a general debate on the future of local post office services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 February will include:

Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Tuesday 4 February—Motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.

Wednesday 5 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 6 February—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

Over the past few months, the Labour party has been generous indeed in offering the people of this country regular evidence of its remarkable incompetence, but even by its formidable standards it has excelled itself this week. The Prime Minister said some time ago in terms that he prefers Davos to Westminster, but this week he has left the global hobnobbing and après-ski of the World Economic Forum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist her in her relentless search for growth. Her latest idea is to revive the third runway at Heathrow: a project so toxic to her Labour colleagues that it had been briefed against by the Energy Secretary and publicly rejected by the Mayor of London before it was even preannounced. As so often, I am afraid we will have to wait for the announcement to be made in this House.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor’s wizard wheeze of the autumn to set up a new Office for Value for Money was publicly rubbished in the most unsparing terms by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who described it as

“an understaffed, poorly defined organisation…set up with a vague remit and no clear plan to measure its effectiveness.”

That is from the Chancellor’s own Labour colleague.

Spending reviews are always fraught, and this one will be still more so, because the Chancellor has boxed herself in so badly on taxes and spending. What the Government think will be achieved by a couple of dozen hastily assembled newbies and some adolescent management consultants running around—apart from making things even worse—is hard to imagine. In case we forget, Mr Speaker, you and I and everyone else in the Chamber—indeed, every taxpayer—is paying for that.

Then we had no less a figure than the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies weighing in. He noted that the Government have done nothing but talk about growth ever since the last general election. He then noted:

“At the same time, we have seen the imposition of additional employment regulation, further regulation of rental housing, a hike in stamp duty, a big increase in tax on employers, an inflation-busting rise in the minimum wage, a refusal to contemplate any serious liberalisation of trade or free movement…and, perhaps, a clampdown on immigration.”

He asked:

“What is this government’s ‘theory of growth’?”

He then answered his own question: “Nobody knows”.

Those are just three examples of the Government’s absolute lack of seriousness in economics, but, as we have just heard in the urgent question, there is a serious issue in the area of law that they cannot avoid. Let me remind the House what has happened. The Attorney General has been repeatedly asked whether he has or has had a conflict of interest in relation to legal matters that could affect his former client, Gerry Adams. In response, a spokesman for the Prime Minister has highlighted systems to prevent potential conflicts from arising. The Attorney General has cited the convention that Law Officers do not discuss their advice to Ministers and has disclaimed any connection between his work for Mr Adams and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As the Solicitor General has just said, the standard that they are aspiring to is to be beyond reproach. The problem is that none of that addresses whether the Attorney General in fact recused himself. This does not fall either within the Law Officers’ convention or the cab rank principle. He either did recuse himself or he did not.

The problem is made worse when one reflects that this Attorney General is the first in the history of the office to have come into Government directly from private practice—that point was completely ignored in the urgent question—and that that practice was not in one of the less political areas of law such as corporate law or chancery but squarely in the highly contentious and political area of human rights, with some of it in Northern Ireland. There is no reason whatever in law or ministerial practice why the Attorney General should not be transparent on this issue, as he has been already in relation to the legacy Act. There is a strong public interest in him doing so. His legacy comment proves that he concedes the point about the importance of clarity in this area.

In the independent adviser on ministerial standards’ recent letter regarding the former anti-corruption Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), he highlighted that the ministerial code says:

“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict…could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”.

That conflict clearly exists now in relation to the Attorney General. Does the Leader of the House share my view that we should have a debate on the standards to be applied in these complex cases where there is a potential conflict between the demands of the ministerial code and the statements made by the Government in defence of the Law Officer concerned?

[Lucy Powell]

I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House and the country will again be with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice, the two teachers, the neighbour and all the children who attended the Taylor Swift dance class in Southport, after the horrific attack and murders last summer. What they faced is truly unimaginable. This tragedy is made all the worse by the fact that it could have been prevented, as the Home Secretary said this week.

The House will be aware that the Government are pursuing a number of actions in response: an independent public inquiry that will leave no stone unturned, an end-to-end review of Prevent, stronger measures to tackle online knife sales and knife crime, and a quicker piece of work on the limitations of the current definition of terrorism. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date on those and related matters.

The right hon. Gentleman raised issues of standards in public life. As I gently reminded him last week, he may not want to draw on the record of the Conservative Government and compare it with ours. But he raised some important questions, which have just been answered in the urgent question. As he will know, the Cabinet Secretary replied to the shadow Justice Secretary that the Attorney General has properly declared his interest from his previous role as a senior barrister.

As a barrister with a wide-ranging legal practice, the Attorney General will have represented many clients. According to Bar association rules, barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behaviour by virtue of representing them. The Cabinet Secretary has explained that as well as the declarations process for all Ministers, the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous system in place to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest. The right hon. Gentleman will know that these arrangements are long-standing and have been practised in successive Administrations. I am not sure whether he is arguing that we should no longer have an Attorney General who has been recently involved in private practice at the highest level —perhaps he will let us know.

Today is actually a very special day—perhaps a historic day—because it is the last day that the former Prime Minister could have called a general election. Oh, how different things could have been. The Conservatives would have still been on this side of the House, with three times as many Members as they have now. The right hon. Gentleman would still be enjoying himself on the Back Benches, and the House would not have the delightful presence of the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice).

Instead, we are six months into a Labour Government. I am sure the Conservatives regret calling the general election early, but I am afraid the country does not. Let us imagine for a moment what the country would be facing today: doctors still on strike, making the NHS winter crisis even worse; public services facing huge cuts due to the Conservatives’ economic plans; waiting lists ever growing, leaving people sick and out of work; the hospital building programme still on the never-never; the asylum backlog rising with no plan to get it down; more and more councils going bust; more trains being cancelled than run; and the black hole in the public finances still going. Let us not even imagine what would be happening with our prisons. The country would be on its knees, with living standards falling, Britain an embarrassment around the world and politics in the doldrums.

Thankfully, the former Prime Minister made a big misjudgment for the Tory party but a good decision for the country. He called the election early because he wanted out. We have not been able to put everything right immediately—the problems run too deep—but we have made a lot of progress. We have ended the doctors strike and put record investment into the NHS. We have reset our international relationships, restoring Britain as a global leader. We have tackled the asylum backlog and achieved record numbers of returns. We are giving workers security and dignity. We are turbocharging house building, with new, ambitious targets. We are working towards energy security with lower bills and GB Energy. Trains are now running in the interests of passengers. The right hon. Gentleman might be sorry that he is now sitting on the Opposition Benches, his party still licking its wounds, but the country is getting the change it voted for.