Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 19th 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 23 March will include:

Monday 23 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill.

Tuesday 24 March—Opposition day (20th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 25 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Victims and Courts Bills.

Thursday 26 March—Debate on a motion on transport accessibility for disabled people, followed by general debate on support for Gurkha veterans. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House of Commons will rise for the Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 26 March and return on Monday 13 April.

[Jesse Norman]

Let me begin by paying tribute to President Zelensky. Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, he gave an extraordinary speech here this week. Like Auden’s “The Shield of Achilles”, it was a speech of poetry and hope, but also of steel. He showed that Ukraine, far from being bowed by Russia, is now sharing its expertise in counter-drone defence with nations across the Gulf and elsewhere.

I give thanks for the swift action that the Government have taken to support households that are now facing sharp and unexpected increases in the cost of heating oil, including many in Herefordshire. As Herefordshire goes, so goes the UK. The events in the middle east have exposed a hard truth: this country is dangerously exposed on energy, and the Government’s policies are compounding that vulnerability. Around a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait of Hormuz. When that is threatened, prices spike, and when prices spike, everything else is hit—heating, electricity, industry and jobs. Every industrialised economy relies on secure and affordable energy, yet this country imports around 60% of the gas we use. We pay far more for it than our competitor nations do—around three times US prices—so when shocks come, the benefits of higher gas prices go to other countries, but our citizens bear the higher costs and added insecurity.

That structural vulnerability has built up over decades under Governments of all the major parties, but this Government are negligently or deliberately making it much worse. They have blocked new North sea licences, and sent a clear signal that domestic oil and gas production is to be run down, regardless of demand. The consequences of these decisions are already visible. The CF Fertilisers plant near Chester has closed thanks to high energy costs, so this country now imports ammonia instead. The Grangemouth refinery is ceasing its refining operations and becoming an import terminal. In Aberdeen, Scunthorpe and Teesside, investment is falling and companies are failing. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and tens of thousands more put at risk. Little wonder that a host of businesses and unions, including Unite, the GMB and even RenewableUK, have expressed their concern.

These are not isolated events; they are the predictable effects of policy decisions taken by Ministers without any serious consideration of the economic and strategic consequences in the current context. The Energy Secretary often says that the problem is global gas prices, and that increasing domestic production makes no difference. Of course that is nonsense, because domestic production actually boosts jobs, public revenues and national resilience while lowering emissions. But that line is also dangerously misleading. Gas prices are regional, not global, because gas, unlike oil, is relatively expensive to ship and store. The Energy Secretary is confusing a global market with global pricing. It is a basic error.

Alas, the Chancellor is no less confused. On Tuesday, she said:

“You see countries like Canada and Norway increasing their production, and every country’s got to play their part”.

But, in her view, that does not include the UK. Her policy is precisely the opposite: not to increase but to reduce oil and gas production. You could not make it up. Shortly we will hear the Business Secretary make a statement on how the Government want to increase domestic steel production, even while they are stopping the domestic oil and gas on which that steel production relies. It is an absolute nonsense.

If we cut domestic production in the face of steady demand, imports will fill the gap, but an increasingly import-dependent system is forced to rely ever more on pipelines, LNG cargoes and interconnectors. These are vulnerable fixed assets that are open to damage and disruption from abroad, and there is a further consequence. Modern conflict is determined by industrial capacity in steel, chemicals, fuels and supply chains, yet the Government are allowing these national sovereign capabilities to erode.

So this is a policy that increases carbon emissions, deprives Britain of tax revenues, worsens the balance of payments, hurts consumers and businesses, and weakens both our energy resources and our national security—that is quite an achievement. It is hard to imagine a more confused or dangerous approach. I do not want a debate on this topic as we can all see what is happening: at some point there must be a U-turn, because Iran is making a fool of the Energy Secretary. No, I desperately want the Leader of the House to get the Prime Minister to see the madness of this approach and get the policy changed as soon as he possibly can.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, may I say that my thoughts are with the friends and families of the young people who have died and others who are currently unwell as a result of the meningitis outbreak in Kent?

I also place on record our tribute to Phil Woolas, who was a greatly respected and admired colleague and played a considerable role in modernising the Labour party. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to his friends and family.

Let me join the shadow Leader of the House in praise of President Zelensky and what he said earlier this week. A new defence pact has been agreed this week between the UK and Ukraine. By deepening our defence partnership, we are strengthening Ukraine’s ability to defend itself from Putin’s ongoing attacks while ensuring that the UK and our allies are better prepared to meet the threats of the future.

As the shadow Leader of the House said, we were honoured to listen to President Zelensky on Tuesday. I must thank you, Mr Speaker, for the role you played in organising the event, as well as in making clear the House’s unwavering support for the Ukrainian people.

I will mention another couple of things, if I may, before I get to the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House. On Monday, the Modernisation Committee launched an inquiry into Backbench Business Committee and Petitions Committee debates as part of an ongoing inquiry on how time is used in this place. Both Committees play a vital role in bringing key issues of local, national and international importance to the House. Members will have received an online form seeking their views. I encourage all Members to engage with the inquiry.

This morning, the response of the House administration to the Modernisation Committee’s report on accessibility in the House of Commons was published. I thank all who contributed to the inquiry and the House authorities for the progress they are making on addressing the important matters raised in the report. As I committed, the House will have the opportunity to consider the report in due course.

Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. First, I thank him for the support he has given for what we have already done on the price of fuel oil. Let me reassure his Herefordshire constituents, and indeed the House, that the Government keep these matters in the forefront of our mind and under close scrutiny, and if necessary we will take further action.

I agree with the shadow Leader of the House on one point: that we should be concerned about potential spikes in fuel prices during crises. I have to say, he made an admirable case for energy independence and the policy of the Government.

The shadow Leader of the House talked about the North sea as a matter of concern. It is a matter of concern for the whole country, and particularly for constituencies in the region that I represent. I have to point out that the North sea is a mature oil and gas area, so some of the things he said have happened there are not surprising. It is mature and, in that sense, declining, but gas and energy from the North sea will be part of the energy transition in the UK for some decades to come. The big lesson that we learn from this crisis is that we have to get off the rollercoaster of oil and gas, which means getting off fossil fuels and on to home-grown clean power. He talked about the Government’s inaction, but we are bringing forward the next auction for renewables, extending solar and accelerating the warm homes plan roll-out.

The shadow Leader of the House talked about the loss of jobs in the area. I have to point out that a 70% fall in jobs in the North sea came about during the time of the Government of which he was a supporter. In terms of turning it around, it would take a decade between starting to explore and extracting oil. Not a single barrel of extra oil extracted from the North sea today will reduce prices for consumers. If he will not take my word for it, let him take the words of the Conservative Energy Minister in 2022, who said that

“more UK production wouldn’t reduce the global price of gas.”

As the shadow Leader of the House said, you could not make it up.

On the question of steel, there will be a statement later today about our steel strategy going forward. The idea that we do not value these national assets is, I am afraid, simply untrue. We have acted already on Scunthorpe, and we will be acting not just on steel, but on other matters of national importance, because they are in our national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which is now on the record.

[Jesse Norman]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could clarify that the House’s position is, and has always been, that we expect Members to show courtesy by informing other Members if they intend to mention them, not their constituency, and that in the normal course of business, Members of this House may always refer to places without any intention of discourtesy towards the Members of Parliament who represents them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. In exchanges during business questions and other proceedings in the Chamber, to which I think he refers, the context in which a question is asked is important. Where a question relates directly to a matter in another Member’s constituency, I encourage Members to show courtesy and let the Member know.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 12th 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 16 March will include:

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.

Wednesday 18 March—Opposition day (19th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition—subject to be announced.

Thursday 19 March—General debate on progress in tackling climate change, followed by a debate on a motion on online harms. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 March includes:

Monday 23 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

Mr Speaker, let me start by associating myself with your remarks just now from the Chair. It is plain to all Members of the House that the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip have badly mis-stepped. Indeed, there has been scant respect for the House more generally from the Government Whips Office. I cannot believe that such a thing would have happened when the Leader of the House was Chief Whip.

If I may, let me join the Prime Minister yesterday, and I am sure the whole House today, in remembering the dreadful events of 30 years ago in Dunblane and paying tribute to the victims and their families.

On a happier note, last Monday saw the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s immortal masterpiece “The Wealth of Nations”.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Declare your interest!

[Jesse Norman]

Hon. Members may wish, if they like, to consult works by the shadow Leader of the House on this topic. I doubt whether any other book or any single body of thought has had more effect in improving the lives and livelihoods of people across the world in the intervening 250 years.

We celebrate the service of our armed forces and we rightly treat defence matters, wherever possible, as bound by a united focus on the national interest, but it is precisely that focus on the national interest that requires us now to acknowledge that the past two weeks have been a disaster for this country. Our allies in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and across the Gulf have criticised this country for its “slow” and “weak” response to date. The Cypriot high commissioner and the President of Cyprus have publicly expressed their disappointment and dissatisfaction. Why? Because we have exposed their people and our people to drone attacks as targets, placed weapons systems on their territories, made solemn undertakings to them over many years and now failed to come to their defence in time.

It did not have to be this way, so we must ask how this can possibly have happened. Let us review the history. It was being publicly reported by 15 January that America was starting to build a carrier strike force around the USS Abraham Lincoln, targeted at Iran. On 26 January, The Washington Post reported that this force had arrived in the middle east. On 31 January, our own Prime Minister told the BBC:

“The aim is that Iran shouldn’t be able to develop nuclear weapons…we support the goal and we are talking to allies about how we get to that goal.”

Those remarks come close to an explicit endorsement of the United States on its operation, as they were doubtless intended to.

The key point is this: all this happened four full weeks before the start of the attack. Last week, at this Dispatch Box, I highlighted the gaps and inconsistencies in the Government’s position, between their supposedly settled legal view and the last-ditch political decision reportedly taken in Cabinet on the Friday before hostilities began, and secondly between the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, whose original instinct was to support the USA but who was overruled.

It is now clear that there has also been a disastrous failure of political leadership. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet knew, or should have known, for a full month that the USA was mustering a vast body of forces to attack Iran, that it could not remain on high readiness indefinitely, and so an attack must surely follow. The Prime Minister himself said last week that the Government had pre-deployed some weapons to the region, yet he failed to give instructions in time to the Navy to prepare HMS Dragon, he failed to notify the Cypriots, and he failed to warn our allies and other friends across the region.

Now that they are engaged, our armed forces are discharging their duties with distinction, but the result of this political incompetence has been a fiasco, which brought shame and dishonour on this country. We have the disgraceful sight now of the Government anonymously trashing the Chief of the Defence Staff, in a desperate attempt to deflect responsibility for their own inadequacies, not just via an anonymous leak in The Spectator, repeated in The Telegraph, but by a quoted, but of course unnamed, official to the Financial Times. I cannot recall that a political hatchet job of this kind has ever been performed on a commanding officer in the course of a military operation. It is deeply dishonourable and itself a further sign of failure in No. 10.

Will the Leader of the House support an inquiry into these leaks and briefings? Will he support an investigation, in due course, as to how this embarrassing fiasco can have been allowed to happen and what can be done to prevent it from ever happening again?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

May I first respond to your words, Mr Speaker, about the events of yesterday evening? I endorse everything that you have said about the need to respect staff—it is absolutely correct that you should say that and I absolutely endorse your remarks. I assure you and the House that not only have the Government heard your words, but they will be acted upon.

May I also associate myself with the remarks that the shadow Leader of the House made about Dunblane? We remember that tragedy. On a personal level, one of the proudest moments in my career was when I voted for a ban on handguns, because that has made a difference to the safety of our communities.

I will turn to the specific remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but the events unfolding in Iran are deeply concerning, and our thoughts are with British citizens and our brave servicemen and servicewomen in the region. The security and safety of British citizens across the region is the Government’s top priority. The first Government-charted flight landed on Tuesday morning, with the second landing on Wednesday. We will continue to explore all options for helping our citizens to return home as swiftly and safely as possible. Drop-in sessions are being held for MPs with concerns. As I said last week, should Members face issues or be unable to get the support that they need for their constituents, I invite them to speak to my office and my officials—we will help in any way we can.

This week, we have launched the social cohesion action plan, which sets out the steps that the Government are taking to improve social cohesion and protect what matters. We will invest in initiatives that create opportunities for connection across backgrounds, and we will expand the Pride in Place programme, which puts more communities at the heart of decision making in their own neighbourhoods. We will develop new tools and powers to safeguard organisations that spread extremism and hate, and that threaten public safety.

It is correct to reflect that last Sunday was Covid-19 Day of Reflection—an opportunity to come together to remember those who lost their lives and to honour the tireless work and acts of kindness shown by many during the pandemic. The Government remain committed to learning the lessons needed from the covid inquiry to protect and prepare us for the future. As a sign of that commitment, just last year the Government held the largest pandemic exercise in British history.

Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I agree with his first point; it is incumbent on us in this House that parties work together in times of crisis, which we are facing. I also agree that a bipartisan approach—if we can get one—is the best approach. That is what we did in opposition, even though some of those decisions were very difficult, so I am disappointed in his remarks today. I am particularly disappointed in the leader of his party, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), because she simply does not seem to acknowledge the importance and responsibility that come with her office.

In terms of the story that the shadow Leader of the House has set out, let me say that we sent assets to the region at the beginning of the year, and HMS Dragon has been dispatched. As I just said, we hold the safety and security of British citizens and servicemen and servicewomen very highly indeed.

On the wider issue that the shadow Leader of the House raises, I simply remind him that his Government left our defences in a shocking state, not least in the diminished surface fleet, with defence expenditure going down. Our task is to rebuild our defences, and we are committed to increasing spending to keep our servicemen and servicewomen safe. In terms of an inquiry, we are in the midst of an international crisis. If such an inquiry is necessary in the future, it should wait until we ensure that our citizens and our servicemen and servicewomen are safe.

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.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 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 23 February will include:

Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal Of Two Child Limit) Bill.

Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced, followed by debate on a motion relating to the charter for Budget responsibility.

Wednesday 25 February—General debate on Ukraine.

Thursday 26 February—General debate on St David’s day and Welsh affairs, followed by general debate on Government support for bereaved children. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 27 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 March includes:

Monday 2 March—Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill.

Tuesday 3 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make her spring forecast statement, followed by consideration of Lords amendments.

Wednesday 4 March—Estimates day (4th allotted day). At 7pm, the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 5 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill, followed by general debate on contributions of Commonwealth troops in world war one, followed by debate on a motion on the future of palliative care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 March—The House will not be sitting.

The House will no doubt be interested in recess dates going forward. Members may wish to know that subject to the progress of business, and further to the dates that have already been announced, the House will rise for the summer recess at the close of business on Thursday 16 July 2026 and return on Tuesday 1 September 2026. The House will rise for the conference recess at the close of business on Tuesday 15 September 2026 and return on Monday 12 October 2026. The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the close of business on Thursday 17 December 2026 and return on Monday 4 January 2027.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Tuesday 1 September clashes with my birthday, but we can discuss that later. I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Jesse Norman]

On behalf of all Members, I thank the Leader of the House for giving us those recess dates, which will be widely welcomed.

Today is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the greatest of all United States Presidents, so perhaps this is a fitting moment to talk a little bit about public service. I congratulate the Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rev. Mark Birch, on his new job at Westminster Abbey, and I welcome his successor, the Venerable Andrew Hillier. We thank them for their service.

I note that the International Olympic Committee has banned a Ukrainian athlete from wearing a helmet of remembrance for his fellow athletes who have been killed by Russia—talk about public service.

Otherwise, the news has once again been filled by a succession of the most appalling misjudgments by the Prime Minister. These include decisions by him to ignore both public evidence and private advice, and to appoint to the House of Lords not one but two men with continuing connections to convicted paedophiles. It has been confirmed today that the Prime Minister was aware that his nominee, Matthew Boyle, had campaigned for a man charged with distributing indecent images of children two months before the Prime Minister appointed him.

The fallout from the Mandelson scandal has so far included the departures of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and his head of communications, one after 18 months and the other after just a few weeks in post. We now have the leaked news that the Prime Minister’s personal choice of Cabinet Secretary is being forced to step down after barely a year in post. As they say at the BBC, deputy heads must roll.

Of course, no Government are free from scandal—goodness knows, I can say that from personal experience—and certainly not the previous ones, as the House will know well, but let there be no deflection or fudge on this matter. There has been nothing to compare with this catalogue of personal misjudgments by a Prime Minister for perhaps 60 years. Every sitting day, the chaplain leads the House in prayer for public service, that we as a House may

“never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices”.

Every Member of the House knows those words, but that is precisely what these people have failed to do.

I will end on a positive note with a truly uplifting story from this week. Some years ago, my constituents, Sam and Emily Stables, set up a brilliant charity called We are Farming Minds in Herefordshire. It is dedicated to supporting farmers struggling with poor mental health. Sam is a sheep farmer himself, and he knows only too well from personal experience how immensely difficult, stressful and lonely life can be on a farm—still more, given all the recent troubles that farmers have had to endure, including outbreaks of tuberculosis and other diseases, a dysfunctional farm payments system, increasingly burdensome regulations, and of course, most recently, the farm tax.

On average, a farmer commits suicide every week in this country. On Monday, however, Sam embarked on a walk of hope from Ross-on-Wye to London in support of Yellow Wellies’ Mind Your Head Week and of greater public awareness of mental health in the farming community. By my calculations, he is coming through the Chilterns right about now, heading for High Wycombe. With luck, I will find him this afternoon on the trail around Beaconsfield. That is what real public service looks like. Let us all take this opportunity to send our deep thanks to Sam and Emily, and to their volunteers and supporters, for their extraordinary work.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House are with the two children stabbed in the horrific attack at Kingsbury high school in Brent. My heart—and I am sure the hearts of the whole House —goes out to those affected by this tragedy. I also send my condolences to those affected by the horrific attack in Tumbler Ridge in Canada. Again, the thoughts of the whole House will be with the people there as they mourn their family, friends and loved ones. We wish all those injured a speedy recovery.

I join the shadow Leader of the House in welcoming the Venerable Andrew Hillier, who has been appointed as the new Speaker’s chaplain. I, too, thank the outgoing chaplain, the Rev. Mark Birch, for the support that he provided to everyone across the community, whether they were people of faith or not.

I also want to mark National Apprenticeship Week. Apprenticeships give young people real experience, real prospects and a real route into good careers. The Government are committed to delivering 50,000 more apprenticeships for young people, backed by the growth and skills levy.

As it is National Apprenticeship Week, it is appropriate to draw Members’ attention to the ambitions set out in the report on “Delivering restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster”, which was published last week, to support 1,000 apprenticeships and traineeships in addition to the thousands of full-time roles required to deliver the works. If they have not already done so, I encourage Members, whatever their view on the way forward for Parliament, to attend briefings by the R&R client team and to read the report in full.

Finally, before I turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, I wish all Members and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, an enjoyable recess. I hope that Members get some time to spend with their family and their constituents. They should also remember that it is pancake day, and I wish them well in that regard.

I very much join the shadow Leader of the House in congratulating Sam Stables and wishing him well. He is a keen farming campaigner. Knowing the shadow Leader of the House’s constituency, Sam will have needed his wellies, whatever their colour, given the amount of water that has fallen in the area. I understand that donations have come in from far and wide, including from the Prince of Wales. Let me say, in supporting Sam, that the Government are stepping up and playing our part. We are supporting farmers’ access to specialist mental health services by funding the farmer welfare grant and, more widely, doing all we can to invest in sustainable farming. I wish Sam all the very best indeed.

Let me turn to the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks on what has happened in the last couple of weeks—and let me do so without any deflection or fudge, as he said. First, Matthew Doyle has had the Labour Whip withdrawn. The Labour party has started an investigation, and it is right that that is allowed to take place. I will not enter into speculation about the Cabinet Secretary, but we read what we read.

On the wider issue of standards in public life, I agree absolutely with the shadow Leader of the House that there can be no prevarication on these matters. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on Monday setting out the action that we are taking. Since entering government, we have delivered on our manifesto promises to strengthen the role of the independent adviser and set up the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We are also publishing Ministers’ interests, gifts and hospitality more frequently, and changing the process for relevant direct ministerial appointments, including politically appointed diplomatic roles. But we understand that we need to go further, and we are working with the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission to ensure that we reach the highest possible standards in public life.

Let me leave the House with this remark, because it has been a difficult time for us all, not least for the Prime Minister himself. I regard the Prime Minister as a man of integrity and a man of public service. When someone stands up and says that they got it wrong and regret what has happened, we should take that at face value and redouble our efforts to ensure that, going forward, standards in public life are even higher.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 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 February will include:

Monday 9 February—General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement, followed by debate on a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026.

Wednesday 11 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 12 February—General debate on LGBT+ History Month, followed by debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House of Commons will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 February includes:

Monday 23 February—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill.

Tuesday 24 February—Opposition day (18th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Subject to be announced.

For the convenience of the House, the debates on estimates are expected to take place in the week commencing 2 March.

[Jesse Norman]

I do not think that this is a moment for normal business. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and all Members, will join me in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years—both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do so.

Today, I will talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and colleagues across this Chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did.

Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an

“Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.”

Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street —a further highly market-sensitive piece of information.

In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said:

“when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”.—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box.

The Prime Minister also said yesterday:

“we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years.”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.]

Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too.

The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday:

“can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?”—[Official Report, 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 262.]

Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment.

This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up.

I ask two questions. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for the way he has addressed these matters this morning. He is fully entitled to do so. In fact, I would go so far as to say that he is right to do so, because I agree that there is palpable anger, outrage and a degree of sadness about the way these events have unfolded.

I would normally, on such occasions, start by running through the series of events, but today I am going to reverse that order and first deal directly with the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, because they are so important. Then, with your forgiveness and leave, Mr Speaker, I will make some remarks about other matters.

The shadow Leader of the House raises some very important points. He talked about yesterday’s Humble Address and the remarks of the Prime Minister. I think there is an assumption with Humble Addresses—I have drafted a few in my time—that national security matters will be exempted from them, but as I think we found out yesterday, there is a degree of confusion about that. I am grateful that as the debate continued yesterday, we did listen to the mood of the House and ensured that what was put before the House at the end of the day reflected what the House was seeking. So if it was imperfect at the beginning—I gently suggest that the right hon. Gentleman’s motion was also, to some extent, imperfect —we got to the right place. In terrible circumstances, that was a good moment for the House, ensuring that that is what was put before the House.

The shadow Leader of the House asks about the actions of the Prime Minister, and that will, of course, be part of the outcome of investigations and inquiries. We must ensure not simply that a robust inquiry is in place, but that we trust people to get on with it. He mentioned the documents that go to the ISC. I expect the ISC to get whatever it asks for, and in the form in which it asks for it. It may have been missed yesterday, but the National Security Act 2023 states that the ISC can ask for documents. I hope we do not get to this situation, but if the ISC does not get those documents, it ends up in court with a judge deciding on such matters. I would not recommend anybody trying to over-redact or leave out documents, because I think we are in a situation where everything, however painful, needs to be out.

It is important to put on record the actions that have been taken since these further matters came to light. Let me say—I should also have said this at the beginning—that I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House not just on how awful this is, but that the victims of Epstein should always be at the forefront in our deliberations. They are brave, and we must ensure that we rise to the challenge of ensuring that they get some kind of justice at the end of it all.

The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that Peter Mandelson should not be a Member of the House of Lords, and although Mandelson has himself retired, we will be bringing forward legislation to strip him of his title—as ever with these matters, it is slightly more difficult to achieve that than it is for me to say it from the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister has agreed with the King that the former Lord Mandelson should be removed from the Privy Council. The matter has been referred to the Metropolitan police. They have requested that they be allowed to get on with the job, and I absolutely endorse that.

Over this week we have had a statement from the Dispatch Box on these matters, then Prime Minister’s questions, which was rightly dominated by them, and yesterday we had the not extraordinary but still unusual circumstances of six hours of debate on them, giving Members the opportunity to have their say. We have listened, and we are listening to the House, and indeed to the country more widely, to ensure that we get to the right place in what is an absolute tragedy, not just for the victims but also for the political process itself. I hope that I have made that position clear.

Let me return briefly to some other points. I pay tribute to Lord Triesman, a former general secretary of the Labour party. As the former chairman of the Football Association, he campaigned against racism in sport and was a vocal supporter of women’s football. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his friends and family.

I pay tribute to Lord Wallace, who also died this week. He was ever-present in Scottish politics for almost four decades, a leading architect of devolution and a tireless advocate for his constituency of Orkney and Shetland for over 30 years. We remember him with fondness and send condolences to his friends and family.

I also pay tribute to the campaigner Nathaniel Dye, who has died after a long battle with cancer. I met Nathaniel Dye. He was a brave and courageous campaigner whose life ended too soon. His family and friends should be proud, even in their grief, that his campaign made a real difference to the future wellbeing of others. Yesterday was National Cancer Day and we published our national cancer plan. It owes much to healthcare professionals, but it also owes much to ordinary people—extraordinary people, actually—like Nathaniel Dye who told their stories, and the stories of their friends and families. The plan outlines how thousands of people will receive more timely treatment, and the Minister for Public Health and Prevention, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), will make a statement shortly.

We have announced the roll-out of 500 new free breakfast clubs in schools across the country, which will mean a free breakfast club now operates in 1,250 schools and is available for 300,000 children.

Today is Time to Talk Day, which is an opportunity to break through the stigma that often comes with having conversations about mental health experiences. That comes ahead of Children’s Mental Health Week, which is next week. Children’s mental health is crucial for fostering positive life outcomes, and I know that there will be lots of activity in constituencies across the country to raise awareness.

Finally, hon. Members will note with interest that Parliament’s restoration and renewal costed proposals report will be published by the House this afternoon. The Palace of Westminster is part of a UNESCO world heritage site, and it is also a symbol of our democracy. It is in much need of significant work to maintain the upkeep of the building, and to make it safe for people who work in and visit the building. I hope that hon. Members will take time to read the detailed report and, in due course, we will be bringing forward the matter for debate and decision, not just by this House but by the other place too.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 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 2 February will include:

Monday 2 February—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill, followed by motions relating to the High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill.

Tuesday 3 February—Second Reading of the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill.

Wednesday 4 February—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 5 February—General debate on road safety, followed by a general debate on obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 February includes:

Monday 9 February—General debate on the UK-India free trade agreement, followed by a debate on a motion on increasing survival rates of brain tumours. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 10 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, followed by a debate on motions to approve the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2026 and the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2026.

Wednesday 11 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 12 February—General debate on LGBT+ History Month, followed by a debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House of Commons will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 12 February and return on Monday 23 February.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House very much for the business.

As the House will know, this is the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, and I am delighted that we will be debating it in this Chamber later today. I am sure colleagues will have visited the extraordinary exhibition of shoes in Portcullis House. I visited Auschwitz in 1988, when Poland was under communist control, and saw the originals of that exhibition—it was a profoundly moving experience. I know that everyone present will share my sense of sorrow and remembrance for all those who died.

This is also the week in which we note with great sadness the death of Captain Philip Muldowney in a live-fire exercise. We send our very best to his fellow soldiers, his friends and his family. I also put on record my personal sadness on the death of Howard Flight, Lord Flight, a dedicated servant of this House and the other place over many years.

This week, the Prime Minister demonstrated his genius and political touch once again by getting Andy Burnham barred from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, in which he would almost certainly have been hammered if he had stood—problem solved.

Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation has calculated that the extra uncertainty created by the Chancellor’s repeated U-turns has already cost, or will cost, this country £8.2 billion, which will only increase over time. The figure is based on official Office for Budget Responsibility numbers and includes the Government’s U-turns on personal independence payments, universal credit and the winter fuel allowance, but not the additional uncertainty created by their recent U-turns on business rates for pubs and inheritance tax rules for farmers. Those will take the cost closer to £9 billion-worth of unnecessary extra burden on the people of this country created by the Government since July 2024. And lest we forget, even without any U-turns, the extra cost of servicing UK Government debt since July 2024 has been, and remains—again, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer —higher than in either the US or the eurozone. That is according to Labour’s own friendly think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research.

Finally, extraordinarily—irony of ironies—we hear that Sir Tony Blair will sit on President Trump’s so-called board of peace for the reconstruction of Gaza, to which one can only say, in the words of the late, great Tom Lehrer, “Satire is dead.” This is the man who took this country to war in the middle east on a false prospectus. One must ask: have the people of Gaza not suffered enough?

I note that AstraZeneca is accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to China. As the House will know, AstraZeneca is the single biggest investor in research and development in the United Kingdom. Its best-selling, global best-in-class breast cancer drug, Enhertu, is available for reimbursement in America, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and Japan. Within these islands, it is available for reimbursement in Scotland, but not in England, outside a few special cases. That is an insult to AstraZeneca, but still more to the 46,000 women a year who are diagnosed with breast cancer in England, and the millions more who have had breast cancer, who are at risk and who are unable to be treated affordably as a result. There is deep concern among all Members of the House about this issue. Does the Leader of the House share my view of it, and will he take up the matter urgently with his Cabinet colleagues?

Finally, data from this week shows that over the last year police numbers have fallen sharply. Between September 2024 and September 2025, the number of full-time equivalent police officers fell by 1,318. Police staff were down 529, and police community support officers were down 204. The number of special constables was down 514, and police volunteers were down 429. In total, around 3,000 fewer people are now involved in policing our communities. Those figures compare the same point in both years, precisely because recruitment happens in cycles, so there can be no statistical disguising.

I actually rather agree with Commissioner Rowley, who has said that police should be judged by outputs rather than inputs—a very welcome corrective to the endless tendency started, I am afraid, under Messrs Blair and Brown to trumpet increased spending as though it is the same thing as results—but that hardly applies to the number of volunteers and specials, both of which are down. In general, fewer officers and staff mean fewer crimes investigated, fewer patrols on our streets and slower responses to 999 calls. The Home Secretary’s announcement earlier this week was silent on protecting overall police numbers, so could the Leader of the House spell out whether the Government’s policy is to allow police numbers to decline over time? Could the House have an up-to-date statement on that specific issue?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First of all, through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may we send our best wishes to Mr Speaker and wish him a speedy recovery from his recent injury?

As the shadow Leader of the House said, Tuesday was Holocaust Memorial Day. During Cabinet we heard from Mala Tribich, who shared her testimony. She actually sat in the Cabinet Room, which is the first time a Holocaust survivor has done that. Yesterday I had the honour of joining Annick Lever in speaking at an event in the Cabinet Office. Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us that societies who do not learn from the mistakes of the past run the risk of repeating them. We must stand together against hatred, prejudice and intolerance wherever it occurs. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “Bridging Generations”. The theme is a reminder that the responsibility of remembrance belongs not only to survivors but to us all.

I echo the sentiments of the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to those who have died. I want to add a tribute to Sir Christopher Jenkins, the former first parliamentary counsel in the Cabinet Office, who died recently. Sir Christopher was renowned for his mastery in drafting legislation and worked on many important pieces, including the Summer Time Act 1972 and the first devolution Bills for Scotland and Wales. He will also be remembered for pioneering explanatory notes, which clearly explain the purpose of the Bill. I am sure that the whole House will join me in passing on our condolences to his friends and family. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

That gives me an opportunity to reflect on the work of those in the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. They work tremendously hard behind the scenes supporting Ministers in bringing forward legislation. I want to take this moment to pass on my thanks to them for all their hard work.

Speaking of legislation and Government action, this week the Government published the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, which will deliver on our manifesto commitment to reform the commonhold model, making it easier for existing leaseholders to convert to commonhold and banning the use of leasehold for most new flats. It will significantly improve the current system for over 5 million existing property owners, ensuring a better deal for future generations of homeowners in England and Wales.

We also published a police reform White Paper, which the shadow Leader of the House referred to, announcing the largest reforms to policing since the police service was founded around 200 years ago. The reforms will create a police service that is more rooted in local communities and remove the barrier that prevents police from focusing on what really matters to our constituents.

Let me turn to the specific points raised by the shadow Leader of the House. He referred to the cost of what he calls U-turns. I notice that he did not welcome in his remarks the changes that we made to farmers’ inheritance tax and, indeed, the help that we brought forward for pubs. He cannot have it both ways. He talks about the cost of borrowing. It is, of course, important that that cost, and indeed borrowing, is brought down so that money is spent on better things, including public services. I gently ask him, however: who ran up the borrowing in the first place? Why is the cost of borrowing so high in this country? The answer is that it is because of the Truss Budget, which crashed and trashed the economy.

Breast cancer drugs, which the right hon. Gentleman raised, are a very important matter. I accept that there is concern, but this Government are determined to do more to address not just breast cancer but other cancers. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman mentions police numbers, but forgets that the number of police officers fell by 22,000 under the Government he supported. When they did recruit officers, they put them into offices—they were not on the frontline. The Home Secretary has been absolutely clear that we need to get more officers on to the frontline and we are determined to do that. The right hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out our ambitions for that, but he will need to wait slightly longer. I have just announced the business, which includes a debate on police funding on 11 February, when we will not only be able to spell out our plans for increasing the number of police officers, but be happy to compare our record against that of his Government.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 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 26 January will include:

Monday 26 January—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.

Tuesday 27 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill.

Wednesday 28 January—Opposition day (16th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition; subject to be announced.

Thursday 29 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 30 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 February will include:

Monday 2 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

Tuesday 3 February—Second Reading of the Universal Credit (Removal Of Two Child Limit) Bill.

Wednesday 4 February—Opposition day (17th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition; subject to be announced.

Thursday 5 February—General debate on road safety, followed by a general debate on obligation to assess the risk of genocide under international law in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 February—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for that update.

The House will know that I am obsessive about improving education, skills and life opportunities for young people; I know that the Leader of the House, with his own background, shares that passion. I cannot let this week pass without noting that on Tuesday our new specialist technology and engineering university in Hereford, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, formally launched its new autonomous robotics degree, which is sponsored, designed and delivered in collaboration with the British Army. I thank the Defence ministerial team, and in particular the Minister for the Armed Forces, for coming up to Hereford and supporting that. I believe that it is the UK’s first undergraduate drones technologies degree. It starts in September 2026, which is light speed compared with the normal progression of these things in higher education. It will be of inestimable value not only to young people up and down the country, but to the defence of the realm and in a host of other sectors, including food and agriculture, infrastructure and energy.

Otherwise, what a week this has been! Rising international tensions, heated public disagreement, desperate attempts at diplomatic solutions—and that is just Brooklyn Beckham’s Instagram account. Talking of elites, we have had the amusing spectacle this week of that self-proclaimed friend of the people, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), hoovering up the free food and glugging down the champagne with the global bullshiterati in Davos.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. No, no, no, no.

[Jesse Norman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

No, I have not even spoken.

[Jesse Norman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I am going to speak first. I want temperate language, and I am sure you would love to withdraw that little message you had for us.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to exercise my quadriceps on several occasions. Yes, of course I unhesitatingly withdraw that appalling term from the record.

All this, I should say, comes from the hon. Member for Clacton after a lifetime spent denouncing Davos as a hub of evil globalist elites where, in his words, there is

“no space for the little man”.

At least we know that that is not true any more. Oh, the irony of it all, Mr Speaker! A wildly anti-establishment figure and long-time member of the Reform club—no relation—now joining the globalist elites. Can it be long before he aspires to join the Garrick club, or indeed joins the Prime Minister in professing publicly that he prefers Davos to Westminster?

Amid all this nonsense, other, very serious changes are under way. Last week, the Government published the results of the latest auction for renewable energy, which set a floor price for renewables of £91 per kilowatt-hour. No one in this House disputes the importance of green energy, or the importance of renewables in the energy mix—[Interruption.] Few sane people dispute the value of green energy, but energy prices are already unfeasibly high for British businesses and, despite the Government’s promises, are set to go higher still, especially once the cost of new nuclear is added in. The effect of the policy will be to punish taxpayers, and of course bill payers, but it is also a form of corporate welfare, because the only benefits will come to the better-off.

Meanwhile, the Government have decided to ignore North sea oil and gas, gravely damage the north-east of Scotland, undermine the employment of thousands of skilled workers, in disagreement with their own unions, and import gas from overseas at greater cost, with more carbon and more carbon miles. In its own way, this is a repetition of the private finance initiative scandal of 30 years ago, in which the country paid tens of billions of pounds more than it should have for public infrastructure, and a lot of wealthy people in the City of London—now resident in overseas countries—made out like bandits.

In 1919, John Maynard Keynes wrote a little book called “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” about the disastrous effects of the treaty of Versailles and the demands that it made for payment from the other side in the first world war. I am not suggesting for a second that there is any comparison between these times and those, in Weimar Germany and the rest of it, but I will say that we are facing severe economic constraints as a result of energy prices. I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate on the economic consequences of the Energy Secretary.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The shadow Leader of the House has clearly had his Weetabix this morning.

Through you, Mr Speaker, may I wish everyone well who is celebrating Burns night this coming Sunday? This weekend is also the annual Big Garden Birdwatch, when the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds asks people to observe their garden for an hour and count the number of birds they see. I understand, however, that Members on the official Opposition Benches have been warned not to take part by the Leader of the Opposition, who says that they should be spending less time watching the bird table and more time watching the shadow Cabinet table. There is clearly concern about more migration from her party to join the lesser spotted Member for Clacton, but surely there is a limit to the number of cuckoos that will fit into the Reform nest.

Before I get on to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, let me turn to some other things that have happened this week. We have announced a consultation on further measures to keep children safe online. It will consider the options of banning social media for children below a certain age and raising the digital age of consent. We are committed to keeping children and young people safe online, and colleagues from all parts of the House will have heard from their constituents on this matter, and the Government are listening to those concerns.

The Government also published the water White Paper, setting out a new vision for water and transforming the water system for good. It sets out clear powers for a new regulator, delivering tougher oversight and stronger accountability for water companies, which is consistently raised with me at business questions. We also published the warm homes plan, and we are doubling down on support for home upgrades. We have set out our plans to help households and support thousands through more clean energy jobs.

In response to the shadow Leader of the House, I certainly congratulate his constituency on the developments in higher education. He is a man who hides his light under a bushel—perhaps not quite so much this morning—because he has played a huge role in those developments in higher education in his constituency, and we should recognise that.

The shadow Leader of the House said that no one disputes the importance of green energy, but I think he is stretching the point a bit. It is not simply Members of Reform; there are still Members in his party who dispute the importance of green jobs. He talks about the benefit to the better off, but I remind him that every household will benefit from the £150 cut to energy bills, and it is not just households that will benefit. The other side of it is the thousands of green jobs, not least in my constituency and my region. Finally, I welcome his conversion, perhaps belatedly, to Keynesianism. It is perhaps another sign of his not quite fitting in with the mainstream of his party.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 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 19 January will include:

Monday 19 January—Remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

Tuesday 20 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Sentencing Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Holocaust Memorial Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

Wednesday 21 January—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.

Thursday 22 January—General debate on Government support for the fishing industry, followed by a general debate on the impact of import standards on the agricultural sector. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 23 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 26 January includes:

Monday 26 January—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill.

Tuesday 27 January—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill.

Wednesday 28 January—Opposition day (16th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 29 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 30 January—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the clarity he has given us on the business of the House, and in particular for the rescheduling of the Diego Garcia Bill immediately after it was going to be debated, following the changes made to the Hillsborough law.

I know the whole House will want to join me in expressing our continuing concern for the people of Iran in the face of the vicious repression that they have faced and apparently may continue to face.

If I may, I want to raise two issues: one that is big and one that is small but, in its own way, also big. First, on defence and security, the Chief of the Defence Staff was in front of the Defence Committee this week. He revealed that the strategic defence review was not fully costed, despite all the assurances that were given to the Committee and to Parliament at the time.

As a result, the defence investment plan has been repeatedly delayed—until March, as it appears—because the Treasury is apparently seeking to come to terms with the fact that we are in a pre-war situation and that the actual cash spending power of many of our armed forces will barely grow over the next two years. This is an enormously important topic for the whole House. I would be grateful for the assurance of the Leader of the House that he will speak to No. 10 and the Cabinet Office to ensure that my shadow Cabinet colleagues continue to receive the appropriate security briefings that they require to do their job.

Secondly, the issue of pubs and hospitality has consumed so much of the power, concern and interest of the House. We are always apt to get lost in generalities. In a way, that is a condition of politics: we debate the laws and the general issues of the country. It is also important, however, to zero in on a particular factual situation from time to time and use that to get a wider sense of what is happening.

I will put before the House the facts of a specific case relating to hospitality. In my constituency, the Bay Horse Inn is a great country pub that sits on the outskirts of Hereford. It supports local people and serves my constituents. From April, its business rates are scheduled to rise from £31,000 to over £51,000 a year—a 67% increase. The landlord Neil tells me that energy costs have also risen to £5,500 a month. Unlike households, there is no price cap for commercial energy. Indeed, pubs are charged risk premiums and are locked into prices of nearly 40p a unit, while domestic customers pay around 28p.

The pub already pays above the minimum wage. Neil estimates that the rise in the national living wage will add £18,000 a year to his costs. Meanwhile, monthly national insurance contributions have risen by nearly 170%, and that is made worse because the higher employer contributions now exhaust the employment allowance more quickly. That is a direct tax on employing people, especially young people, and it lands hardest on small, labour-intensive businesses such as pubs. Neil has a few guest rooms at the Bay Horse, so he does not even know if he will be helped by the latest rumoured U-turn on rates support.

That is the reality of the Government’s unwillingness or inability to join up policy in relation to a key set of sectors in the economy that affect hospitality. All those increases are the result of current ministerial decisions. Every Member of the House—including every Government Member—will have pubs and hospitality businesses in their constituency in the same situation.

The Bay Horse is not just a business: it has raised over £60,000 for the Hereford Lions club; it installed a defibrillator at the landlord’s expense; it provides a place for supervised, responsible drinking; and it supports schools, the hospice and local causes year after year, yet Government policy treats it as expendable. When will Ministers start talking to each other? When will they put away the rhetoric of helping and actually get on with assisting small businesses? Can we have a debate in the House that goes into not just the specific issue of hospitality, but the generality of all the different Government policies across different Departments that make life so difficult for these hard-working, struggling local businesses?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our thoughts to the people of Iran and the region at this very difficult time.

I also send our congratulations to Lord Forsyth, who was announced as the new Lord Speaker earlier this week, and I pay tribute to Lord McFall, the outgoing Lord Speaker, for his service and commitment.

I am glad to welcome the shadow Leader of the House back to his place. Last week he was on a shadow Cabinet awayday. I thought that he might want to give us a read-out on that and whether a place was set at the top table for the Leader of the Opposition’s new adviser, Nadhim Zahawi, who shortly afterwards had his own awayday when he defected to Reform. I understand from breaking news that things have got worse for the Leader of the Opposition, who has just sacked her rival and shadow Justice Secretary amid rumours that he was about to join Reform too. We watch developments with interest.

The shadow Leader of the House raised the issue of defence. As a member of the Defence Committee who takes a keen interest in these matters, he will know how difficult these decisions are, but the Government are committed to increasing defence expenditure and to taking whatever decisions are necessary to defend our country. As far as briefings are concerned, he raises an important matter about access to the information that the official Opposition require. He knows that I am a strong advocate of the role of the official Opposition—I spent quite a long time in opposition myself. It is important that the Opposition get access and I will take back to No. 10 and others his request and ensure that that happens.

The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to raise the issue of pubs, and there are some fantastic pubs in his constituency and that part of the country. I would gently remind him that 7,000 pubs closed under the Conservatives, and in the Budget we put in £4.3 billion of support over three years to help pubs deal with the transition from the support that they previously received. On top of that, other measures that we have taken include easing licensing to help pubs offer drinks more flexibly, maintaining our cut to draught alcohol duty and capping corporation tax. We do recognise that pubs are still worried and many of them are in a difficult situation, and that is why the Chancellor has commissioned work examining a pub support package. That is not just words, as the shadow Leader of the House suggested: it is action.

In terms of joined-up policy across Government, of course the Government are joining up our approach, especially on the economy. The House may have noticed this morning that performance statistics show that waiting lists are down by 312,000, and more people are being treated within 18 weeks. November saw the second biggest monthly drop in waiting lists in 15 years. The Government also announced this week that we will deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, a multibillion pound investment that will create a turn-up-and-go railway across the northern growth corridor of Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, Sheffield and York. We have also launched the first ever town of culture competition, which will boost local pride and celebrate the unique stories of our towns, not just in urban areas but in rural areas. Today is national pothole day—although the Leader of the Opposition may think it is national dig-yourself-into-a-hole day—and the Government have provided a record £7.3 billion of funding for local roads, announced in the Budget, allowing councils to get on and fix our roads. That demonstrates that this Government are getting on with the job.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for advance notice of it, but I think it should be noted by the House that this—I am sure he would agree—is a bit of a mess. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill was in Committee in December, and amendments should have been filed by the Government on Wednesday of last week, but in fact they came on Friday, too late for colleagues to be able to address them. Now we have had a sudden emergency rejig of business tomorrow, and we know not what is going to happen to the ping-pong that was planned for next Monday. Instead will be debating this Bill.

Can the Leader of the House explain why this has happened and what has gone wrong here? Can he also explain what will happen to the legislation and motions that were originally to be debated on Monday 19 January? Finally, can he assure the House that when these matters are brought in front of the House next Monday, the Minister will give a full explanation as to both the ministerial snafu and the substantive issues that have caused this in the first place?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I appreciate the shadow Leader of the House’s comments, not least because we spoke earlier at the earliest opportunity. He will be aware, as will the House, of the importance and sensitivity of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. I recognise that it is not ideal for Members when we have to change business at short notice. Last Friday the Government tabled a series of amendments to further strengthen the Bill’s provisions. We continue to listen to stakeholders on all sides of the debate, to ensure that our amendments strike the careful balance that is required and, where necessary, make changes. For that reason, I decided that we would move the Bill from tomorrow to next Monday. I am not going to provide a running commentary on what the changes might be, but the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), is sitting next to me and has heard what the shadow Leader of the House has said. We will be tabling new amendments tomorrow. The Government will continue to keep all Members updated on this, and on Monday we will have an opportunity to debate these important matters fully.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 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 (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 15 December will include:

Monday 15 December—Consideration of a Lords message to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill.

Tuesday 16 December—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Wednesday 17 December—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message, followed by Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, followed by if necessary, consideration of a Lords message.

Thursday 18 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the Christmas Adjournment. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 18 December and return on Monday 5 January 2026, when the provisional business for that week will include:

Monday 5 January—Debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 6 January—Second Reading of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

A key theme of business questions has been the need for the Government and, indeed, the whole country to be resolute in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. In that context, I know the whole House will want to join me again in expressing our profound sorrow for the death of Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment. He was clearly an exemplary soldier. We salute his courage and his service, and we send our deep regrets and condolences to his friends and family.

You will have noted, Mr Speaker, that I have inaugurated a chink-of-light moment at business questions, recognising a time when, accidentally, deliberately or under compulsion, the Government have done something right. Last week, they quite rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. In that same spirit, I express my very strong support for work under way on the need for European nations to collaborate on immobilising, freezing and utilising Russian financial assets for the benefit of Ukraine. Will the Leader of the House make inquiries with the relevant Ministers to ensure that the Government are taking every conceivable measure to do the same immobilisation, freezing and utilisation for any Russian assets controlled by UK financial institutions or passing through the jurisdiction of the City of London?

I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a fan of the film “Casablanca”. The House will recall the immortal moment in which the morally flexible chief of police, Captain Renault, professes himself “Shocked, shocked” to discover that there is gambling going on in Rick’s casino, even while he trousers his own winnings. So it is with the Chancellor, who told the Treasury Committee this week of how angry and upset she was at the level of leaking of the Budget that had taken place. It was, as she put it, “incredibly damaging”, and she had initiated an immediate leak inquiry.

I do not think that I am revealing a state secret in telling the House that that inquiry will not name any individuals as responsible or, indeed, discover that anyone was at fault at all, let alone in the nest of singing skylarks now occupying Downing Street. It is, however, offensive to think that the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility can investigate and review the leak there and resign within a matter of hours while this nonsense drags on. We must therefore conclude that, as with Captain Renault, the whole thing is a sham confected for the benefit of the Government.

Even so, it is quite a revealing sham. One does not normally think of the Chancellor as a philosopher of language—though doubtless that will soon be added to her CV—but she drew an interesting distinction in her testimony between what she called authorised and unauthorised leaks. What, one might ask, is an authorised leak supposed to be? Given how damaging leaks are to the markets, should we think of authorised leaks as somehow not having those damaging effects? Under some circumstances, the act of leaking can itself be a criminal offence, or does that apply only to unauthorised leaks? If it does, perhaps someone should inform the Metropolitan police. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Chancellor to complete her inquiry within days and to make a statement to the House once the inquiry has reported, setting out its approach and results and explaining in plain English what an authorised leak is supposed to be.

Let me go further. Thanks to some excellent—indeed, forensic—detective work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), it appears that two Government leak inquiries are still outstanding many months after they were launched. The first is in the Department for Education on the leaking of the tuition fee increases, dating back a full year to November 2024, and the second is in the Cabinet Office on the leaking of the Prime Minister’s defence statement in February—a topic on which you, Mr Speaker, had some very pithy words for the premier. It is a total embarrassment to the Government that these leak inquiries are still outstanding after so long. They underline what a charade this whole process has become. I cannot imagine that the Leader of the House feels any differently about all of this, so will he please sort it out as soon as possible?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our condolences to the friends and family of Lance Corporal Hooley, who died while serving our country and in the cause of keeping the flame of freedom alive.

As we approach Christmas, I want to recognise the contribution that charities make across our country. Homelessness charities in particular provide an invaluable service in supporting those experiencing homelessness throughout the year, but particularly as the temperatures fall. I draw the House’s attention to the launch of the Government’s homelessness strategy today, which aims to halve the number of people sleeping rough long term by 2029 and which will rewire the system to ensure that support is where it is most needed. My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness will provide further details to the House in her statement later today.

I also want to mention the charity Citizens UK, which does a fantastic job across the country, including in my constituency, and which has been selected by The Guardian for its charity appeal this year. As a result of Citizens UK’s successful campaign, it has helped to triple the number of living wage employees across the north-east region and launched a citizens commission on mental health, particularly for young people. It has had a direct influence on the excellent work that the Government are doing in that regard. I want to place on the record, as the Member of Parliament for Tynemouth, my thanks to the Reverend Simon Mason and Father Chris Hughes, who provide fantastic leadership on these matters.

I am pleased to announce today the publication of the Modernisation Committee’s first report with recommendations to improve accessibility across the parliamentary estate. It is simply not acceptable that some MPs, staff and visitors are prevented from engaging in some aspects of parliamentary life due to this place’s inaccessible nature. As the crucible of our democracy and national debate, the House of Commons must be accessible for all, and I am happy to say that work is under way, but much more needs to be done. I thank all members of the Committee and the former Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for their work on the inquiry.

On wider matters, last week the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 received Royal Assent, which will protect vulnerable animals by strengthening the rules on pet travel to ensure that animals imported into the country for sale are healthy, treated with care and transported humanely. I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) on navigating the Bill successfully to Royal Assent, which underlines, as we approach a second Session at some point in the new year, how important private Members’ Bills can be. They can be highly effective and can provide an invaluable opportunity for Members to promote the causes they support, to change the law and—certainly in this case—to help deliver Government priorities.

If the shadow Leader of the House wants to take credit for some changes, I am pleased to let him live in a world in which he can do that. On Russian assets, the Government continue, as he knows, to consider how Russian assets might be used, particularly in support of Ukraine. We are working very closely with allies to make progress on that. I can assure him that we are constantly aware of what might be happening in our own country and therefore take these domestic issues very seriously indeed.

The shadow Leader of the House mentioned leaks and what the Chancellor said to the Treasury Committee yesterday. She made her views on leaks and briefings, including what happened with the OBR ,very clear to the Committee. Of course, any Government have a responsibility around Budget time to take market reaction into account, but I gently remind the shadow Leader of the House that the reaction of the markets to the Budget was actually quite positive—I want to ensure that that is on the record. If anything emerges from the inquiries that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor talked about yesterday, I am sure that Ministers will want to update the House about those matters—they would be absolutely right to do so—but I gently remind the House that, although all these discussions about process are important, the Budget was about cutting the cost of living, balancing the books and getting growth in our economy, and those are the matters of most interest to people in our constituencies.