Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 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 (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 9 March is as follows:

Monday 9 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Tuesday 10 March—Second Reading of the Courts and Tribunals Bill.

Wednesday 11 March—Remaining stages of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Thursday 12 March—General debate to mark International Women’s Day.

Friday 13 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 March includes:

Monday 16 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Grenfell Tower Memorial (Expenditure) Bill.

Tuesday 17 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

I will, if I may, start by adding my very warm thanks to, and recognition of, our magnificent Clerk, Tom Goldsmith. Mr Speaker has already been indelicate enough to mention Tom’s extraordinary skill at the jazz piano, but as someone who eats very much at the opposite end of the jazz food chain, may I just say that our loss of him as a Clerk will be more than made up for by his forthcoming history of British jazz? I hope the House will join me in welcoming that, because it will not write itself.

Let me start by recognising, on behalf of the whole House, all those men and women from our country and our allies who are engaged in the conflict in and around Iran. We thank them for their bravery and their service. Let us not also forget that our great ally, Ukraine, is fighting for her life in the face of an attempted and unprovoked Russian war of conquest. NATO and this country must not allow themselves to be distracted now from giving Ukraine all the support that we can.

As we approach International Women’s Day this Saturday, I note that this week marks the anniversary of Nancy Astor taking her seat in 1919 as the first woman Member of Parliament—a milestone in the long journey towards wider political representation in this House.

This was a week in which three current or former members of the Labour party were arrested on charges of spying for China. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a spring statement that explicitly reserved any policy substance for her forthcoming Mais lecture, not for Parliament, and badly misrepresented the economic position that this country is in. We would never know from what she said that we have the highest unemployment in this country since the pandemic and that youth unemployment is in a state of crisis.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor failed to mention, let alone publish, the defence investment plan, which her Department, the Treasury, has held up for nine months. The House will note the irony that a Government who have never been willing to acknowledge the economic cost of the pandemic and the energy spike resulting from the war in Ukraine will now have to explain the economic effects of rapidly rising oil and gas prices due to the present conflict in the Gulf.

We can only hope against hope that recent events will cause the Energy Secretary—a man with the worst judgment in politics, whom the Prime Minister wanted to sack in the last reshuffle but was too weak to do so—to rethink his dangerously inadequate energy policy and refusal to develop North sea oil and gas. Perhaps we will hear a U-turn in his statement later today.

Unlike the Energy Secretary, the Leader of the House is a serious man, and I want to ask him a serious question. The Government’s official story, set out by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box yesterday, is that they have been preparing for a US attack for several weeks. These preparations include pre-locating missile and other weapons systems in the middle east, though not sending a Type 45 frigate, which remains in dock at Portsmouth and will not depart for more than a week after the start of the conflict. It is little wonder that our allies have been so critical of the UK response.

The Prime Minister has also offered us a pre-prepared line on the legal position, which is that the present Government regard defensive operations as legal, but that it is against international law for the UK, and so presumably in his judgment for the United States and Israel, to take pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, when it is the avowed policy of that state to use those weapons to destroy another sovereign state—Israel.

This is, of course, the second time in a year that the US and Israel have acted against Iran, so all these issues have already been widely discussed across Government. Yet it is now reported with some authority, across the newspapers, that the Prime Minister was actually minded to support the US attack on Friday evening but was forced to back down by a group of Ministers including the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and, yes, the Energy Secretary.

It is hard to see how these things could all be true, and they raise a host of questions. If the Government have been preparing for an attack by the US and Israel for weeks, how can it be true that their policy was still undecided on Friday night? If the Prime Minister’s view was that he was minded to support the attack, where does that leave the legal position? Legal experts, including the noble Lord Pannick, have criticised the Government’s position as not legally “rational”—that is a quote—but my concern is more basic: whether the Government are making the legal position up as they go along, just as the Blair Government did with the Iraq war in 2003.

Finally, it now looks like the Cabinet has taken a decision with which the Prime Minister fundamentally does not agree. How can he exercise leadership under such circumstances? I do not expect the Leader of the House to comment on Cabinet discussions in any detail, of course, but I am sure that the whole House will be grateful for any explanation he can give.