Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 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 24 February includes:

Monday 24 February—Remaining stages of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 25 February—Second Reading of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 26 February—Opposition day (5th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 27 February—General debate on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine, followed by a general debate on St David’s day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 28 February—The House will not be sitting.

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

Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Tuesday 4 March—All stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.

Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (1st allotted day). At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

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

Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

Like some of our leading podcasters, we love a storm cloud or two in business questions. Sure enough, the poor Government have been desperately hoping that recent events in America would drive the storm clouds away from the UK economy. Even though the news from Washington DC has been startling, to say the least, it has not been enough to dispel yet another week of adverse economic headlines. Both the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have reportedly downgraded their growth forecasts, the latter cutting its by half, to a measly 0.75% for the year. So much for the Chancellor’s much-vaunted dash for growth.

Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has reported that “zero fiscal headroom remains” to deal with any shocks, in the same week that President Trump has announced 25% tariffs on steel. It is easy to see what has happened here: Labour never expected President Trump to win. It sent a team over to campaign for his opponent. The Government passed an anti-growth Budget, and they did not build enough leeway into their financial planning. Indeed, the Chancellor promised no new taxes or spending. Now we are having to live with the consequences.

It was also hard to miss the continuing controversy that the Attorney General is creating, and harder still not to notice the extremely critical words of his Labour colleague, Lord Glasman. I do not propose to repeat those words here, but they point to two issues that demand this House’s full and proper attention. In both cases, the concern is not over the legal positions taken by the Attorney General as such, but the contradictions that they offer to the rest of Government policy. People can agree or disagree about the policy, but the contradictions cannot be fudged. They cannot be blamed on others, and they require explanation.

The first contradiction is in relation to international law. On 3 February, the Attorney General told the Council of Europe that the Government would

“never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or refuse to comply with judgments of the court”.

In doing so, he was simply restating settled UK policy for many decades, a fact that he somehow neglected to mention. The difficulty arises, however, because the Government’s new legislation on small boats appears to retain a measure banning migrants from claiming protections under the modern slavery laws. That is a ban that the Prime Minister went out of his way to denounce when it was first introduced in 2023. In his words:

“It is a crying shame that…we face legislation that drives a coach and horses through our world-leading modern slavery framework, which protects women from exploitation.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 295.]

That is quite a U-turn. You see the deeper problem, Mr Speaker. Which is it to be: will the Government abide by international law in this instance and protect women from exploitation, as the Prime Minister said, or will they reverse his newly adopted position in support of the ban?

The second problem relates to domestic law. Last November, the Attorney General strengthened his official guidance to Government lawyers on possible legal risk. He specifically cautioned against offering legal support for policies that have only a tenable case. Elsewhere, he has pledged to restore checks on Executive—that is, Government—action. This comes at a time when the Prime Minister has specifically pledged to end vexatious litigation while building a huge amount of new housing and infrastructure. You see the problem, Mr Speaker. It was the problem that the noble Lord Glasman was pointing out when he praised the rule of law, but not of lawyers. This edict will have a chilling effect on what I think we can already agree is pretty sluggish decision making by Ministers.

Will the Government now take less legal risk, as the Attorney General requires? Will their lawyers now require Ministers to act only when they can defeat a legal challenge, or will they curb the judicial reviews and other legal cases that will otherwise inevitably disrupt their building plans? I do not expect the Leader of the House to tell us how the Government plan to resolve those obvious problems today, but the House would be grateful for a debate in Government time on what on earth the Government’s approach will be to resolving them.

[Lucy Powell]

May I first update the House on the work of the Modernisation Committee, which I chair? We established the Committee to rebuild trust in politics, raise standards, improve culture and make Parliament more effective. In recent years, the role of an MP has changed significantly, with many more demands and expectations in the constituency. The make-up of the Commons has changed a great deal too; many more parties are represented and Members better reflect the country we serve. So how we do things needs to change, too. I thank all of those who contributed to our wide-ranging call for views.

Work is already under way, with the Standards Committee’s inquiry on Members’ outside employment and the Procedure Committee’s inquiry on proxy votes and call lists. Today, we have set out three further areas for consideration: improving accessibility; ensuring that the Chamber remains the crucible of national debate; and how we can provide more certainty on parliamentary business.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points and gave a list of economic statistics. I might give him some alternative ones, if I may. Inflation is down, mortgage rates are coming down, wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years, business investment is at the highest level for 19 years, and the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are both saying that Britain will be Europe’s fastest growing major economy in coming years. He supported the former Prime Minister —not the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is in his place, but the one who crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates flying and inflation to record highs—so I will not take lectures from him.

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman raised the Attorney General. Quite honestly, the way in which the Conservatives and their friends in the right-wing media are trying to undermine the Attorney General is pathetic. They were once the party of law and order, and now they seek to undermine law and order at every turn. As someone who works closely with the Attorney General, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is an asset to the Government and a formidable partner in our attempts to restore integrity to how we make and implement laws in this country. The Conservatives’ laws did not fit that remit, and that is why in many cases they never got off the ground. They were challenged time and again in the courts, wasting everyone’s time and money and not delivering the outcomes that they wanted. We will not take lectures from them on that.

The shadow Leader of the House did not want to talk about the substance of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we debated this week. That is because the previous Government lost control of our borders: net migration rose to a record high of almost 1 million in their last year in office, and small boat crossings increased by one hundredfold. To be fair to him, he knew that the Rwanda plan was a gimmick and would not work—he said as much when he resigned as a Minister—but I am at a loss as to why he and Conservative Front Benchers voted against giving the Border Security Command new counter-terrorism powers and other measures. They are chasing the tail of Reform so much that they are going around in dizzying circles, leaving the incredible sight of the modern Conservative party voting against strengthening our borders.

I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take up my invitation last week to celebrate the Leader of the Opposition’s first 100 days in office. Earlier this week, however, he did mark the anniversary of another leader being elected. Those were the days, weren’t they? Back then, the Tory party knew what it stood for—back when it was a serious party and represented large parts of the country. I am not sure Margaret Thatcher would even recognise the Conservative party today. It is no wonder the Conservatives herald and respect their former leaders far more than their current leader. Let us be honest: like their current leader, their party is a shadow of its former self.