Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, 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 6 July will include:

Monday 6 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.

Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (second allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 8 July—Debate on a motion on UK rearmament and war fighting readiness, followed by general debate on corridor care in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 9 July—General debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July includes:

Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know that he and the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the England football team on their win last night, although I must say I am not sure we should be thanking them for the trauma and heart-stopping cardiovascular workout that I, at least, experienced right to the end.

The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness. Let us be clear: we can all agree that he was spot on. However, the Prime Minister has not exactly been immune to sanctimoniousness himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election and promised “tough decisions” to “fix the foundations”. The imaginary £22 billion black hole that he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline and hard choices.

Those tests should also apply here and now with the defence investment plan, which commits £15 billion in additional defence spending over four years, of which £4.7 billion will be confirmed at Budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the strategic defence review and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it is published. That is not what candour, discipline or hard choices look like. Irony of ironies, the further £10 billion reportedly needed for the DIP is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister claims to condemn.

Of course, the plan is also too small. The Government say that 3% is their ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%—the UK’s core NATO commitment—by 2035 requires about £25 billion a year more in today’s terms. The Government have offered no funded pathway to either figure. It is little wonder that the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board. The Leader of the House might feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010; perhaps I might remind him that at that time, the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis, a very different US President was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war and Russia was not directly threatening NATO members.

Cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. High Speed 2 is the starkest warning. As far as I am aware—I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it—HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so-called bat protector at a cost of more than £100 million in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There is little to no evidence that such a bat protector will do that or, indeed, to suggest that a few nets with some bells on would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up.

Now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. This week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lack a convincing plan to manage, spend or prioritise benefits within the £45 billion rail budget, with unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance and late trade-offs. That is how large projects get into serious difficulty. Other nations have shown that they can do it better. Norway built the world’s longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about £450 million at the time of completion; we should be asking why we cannot do the same.

We have got a great model of our own nearby: the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost £369 million over 10 years. That is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing £12 billion to £19 billion. No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration, and it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes those points—the fire risk, asbestos, and failing electrical and mechanical systems are real—but Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians and, through them, the poor, long-suffering taxpayer to support a project of that scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others: not merely cost forecasts but stated and effective governance, a capped budget, independent challenge and proper named accountability. May we have at least two debates in the House on restoration and renewal, with one to discuss the issues in detail and another in relation to an authorising motion?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in sending our congratulations to the England football team—we all look forward to the early hours of Monday morning.

Before I respond, let me pay a personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Neville Trotter, formerly the Conservative MP for Tynemouth for more than 20 years, who, unfortunately, passed away at the weekend. We had our political differences, but he was a much respected politician who dedicated his life to public service. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and friends.

I congratulate Eve Samson on her appointment as the 53rd Clerk of the House. Eve has worked in the House for almost 40 years. She brings a wealth of experience to the role and will be a distinguished successor to Tom Goldsmith. She will also make history as the first woman Clerk of the House.

This week, the youth jobs grant was launched. Businesses who take on jobless youngsters will be offered thousands of pounds in the latest boost to youth employment support. It is a practical step that helps business investment in young people while giving them the confidence, skills, experience and support they need to embark on their careers.

Also this week, the outdated and harmful Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed, bringing an end to two centuries of legislation that has criminalised rough sleeping and begging. Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping. It shifts the focus towards prevention and long-term solutions. Many hon. Members, including the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), have raised the issue with me in this forum, and I know they will be pleased to see that the Act has finally been repealed.

Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I remind him that, since 2024, tough decisions have been taken, which is why inflation is lower and interest rates have fallen. At the same time, we have invested more in public services. However, we accept that the security situation has deteriorated—the challenges are there—which is why the Government brought forward the defence investment plan, and plans on how we will fund it.

The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the situation internationally in 2010 was different—of course, it was—and that the then Government were reeling from the global economic crisis. Let me remind him that in 2024 this Government and the country were reeling from 14 years of Tory mismanagement.

Let me return to the key issue of defence expenditure. The Government have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war and surpassed the promises we made in our manifesto. Our plan provides funding to strengthen military readiness, accelerate drone transformation, boost fighter jets and strengthen our nuclear deterrent. At the same time, we will create nearly 60,000 extra UK industry jobs by the end of the decade.

We inherited a situation where £54 billion a year was being spent on defence, but under this Government that figure will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029. Any plan will have its critics, but I note that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and the Chief of the Defence Staff have backed our plan. We are on track to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The vast majority of this package has already been funded through the right and tough decisions to prioritise departmental spending. This will give the Ministry of Defence the certainty that it needs to get on with the job. The remaining £1 billion a year over four years will be confirmed in the usual way in the Budget.

With regard to R and R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any major project needs to be managed properly and that where taxpayers’ money is concerned, we must get value for money. In that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps with R and R. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that message comes through in recent public polling; three out of four people want to see us get on and take the necessary action to restore this place. However, there is not consensus about how we will actually do it. I am very keen to build consensus and ensure that we have the right safeguards; the right hon. Gentleman and others are perhaps critical of some of the report that has been produced, but we want to build that consensus. I am very grateful to the NAO for its recent report and to the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to the Committee’s investigation, so that it can bring forward recommendations. I hope that, at the end of it all, the House can come together so that we can get on with this, because it is long overdue.