Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I will speak to the motion and specifically to the amendment in my name on the Order Paper.

As the Leader of the House has said, successive Administrations, in collaboration with the House, have supported across this Chamber the development of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. It was initiated in 2017 under the then Conservative Government, and it has always been developed on a collaborative and cross-party basis.

In that context, it is surprising, disappointing and a pity that the Government should table a motion on the business of the House when it has not been agreed in that collaborative and cross-party way. Indeed, they are whipping their own Members; that is highly unusual for a motion on the business of the House. Our position has always been that these matters should be worked through together, through the usual channels and with other senior bodies of the House in a spirit of consensus. In that spirit, I will not press the amendment in my name to a vote.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I am very concerned that the amendment tabled by Opposition Front Benchers would fly in the face of the body’s independence, so I am glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will not be pushing it to a vote. Will he confirm whether his party supports an independent process and the ICGS? If his party were in government, would it make changes to the scheme or even scrap it?

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the question. Of course, it is a Conservative body in the first instance, developed on a cross-party basis. As far as I am aware, there is no desire in my party to make it anything other than a continuously independent body to suppress and prevent the abuses that occurred before it was brought into being—abuses with which we are all familiar.

In many ways, the ICGS has not been without its problems—it is in the nature of the House’s deliberations and the secrecy and privacy associated with these things that we do not always hear about those problems—but broadly speaking, it has been successful. That means, however, that in the context of the point of conflict between my side of the House and those on the Leader of the House’s side, there is no problem that the motion as drafted seeks to address and cure. Let me explain in more detail.

The motion frames the issue as supposedly not one of policy, but of procedure. As it sets out, the assurance board has many members. It is not simply composed of parliamentarians; it includes the Clerk Assistants of both Houses, Members of both Houses—but on a nominated basis, rather than elected—the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, a lay member of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and members of the human resources teams of both Houses. The proposal before us is that this body should be able to set rules for Members of this House without the House itself having any say in the matter, so this is not about the nature of the board; it is about the question of what say the House has over rules that are being set for everyone affected by the ICGS, but for Members of this House in particular.

It is nonsense to suggest that laying a motion before the House, as we have suggested, would be difficult or need to involve any delay. Our position is extremely simple: there should be a motion before the House to approve or disapprove any decision taken by the assurance board. Such motions can be laid before the House in a very short period of time—literally in a day or two, and perhaps even overnight in some circumstances. There can be no proper suggestion of a delay in the implementation of decisions made by the assurance board, and therefore no reason—at least in my judgment and that of my colleagues—why this should not be a matter for the House to decide.

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

It is extremely surprising that the right hon. Gentleman is taking this position, given that his party is generally associated with deregulation and removing bureaucracy. Does he not agree that the proposal he is describing would create additional bureaucracy around an independent organisation?

[Jesse Norman]

No, that is not true. The motions of this House are not traditionally regarded as a form of bureaucracy; in fact, in many ways they cut through bureaucracy, because they allow us to get to a democratically ratified decision very quickly and transparently. The trouble comes when decisions are made without that transparency, simplicity and speed of action, which is what we are opposed to.

As I have said, the present proposals draw a distinction between policy and procedure, and would mandate the assurance board to act on its own behalf in matters of procedure. Of course, the board contains only one Member of the House of Commons, and as I have said, that person is nominated rather than elected by the House. In other words, the assurance board potentially has wide-ranging and coercive powers, which are to be exercised almost entirely by people who are outside any direct framework of democratic accountability. It potentially has the power to overturn decisions that are ultimately made by an MP’s constituents at the ballot box. The House has rightly been concerned about the exercise of such powers for at least 400 years.

The motion, too, draws a distinction between policy and procedure. Of course, contrary to the suggestion that has been made, procedure includes important substantive matters. Indeed, Paul Kernaghan’s review set out an illustrative table of potential changes, which included changing whether somebody may be accompanied to an ICGS interview. As I have pointed out, this is an issue of powers as well as procedure; the assurance board has the ability to empower people who are under review by the ICGS to bring another person along to an interview, or to prevent them from doing so. In turn, this reflects a tacit or explicit policy decision about what may be fair or just under the circumstances. It is not simply a matter of procedure.

Mr Kernaghan’s review also included, as an illustration of what he called procedure, changing the timing of when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is notified of a misconduct complaint—whether that is before or after an initial assessment. Of course, that too reflects a tacit policy judgment about what a just process would be. Such tacit policy judgments show that there is no hard and fast distinction to be drawn between policy and procedure, and underline that these are not matters for officials—for unelected people—but for Members of this House acting through this House.

I remind the House that the ICGS sets rules not merely for members of Parliament, but for more than 15,000 passholders, and even—although this is slightly unclear, and in my judgment has not properly been resolved—for tourists and visitors to the Palace of Westminster. It is not accountable to any other body. Today’s decision to reject amendment (e)—of course, we are not moving that amendment, so that will be the decision—will be a one-off decision to give up powers of scrutiny, and it will be hard, if not impossible, to reverse that, once those powers are yielded. This is happening at a time when more and more decisions are being taken by people who are not accountable in any direct, genuinely democratic way, through the emergence of what people have often thought of as a kind of bureaucratic or legal sludge. That is absolutely deplorable. All that we in the Conservative party have said is that any decision of this type that is taken by people who are not Members of Parliament should be placed before this House, in line with its constitutional status and the Bill of Rights 1689. It has always been our procedure in this House not to recognise a superior, let alone a bureaucratic or non-democratically elected superior, and we should not do so on this occasion.

[Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I should note for the record that I am proud to serve on the Modernisation Committee, and in my previous role before coming to this place, I gave evidence to Paul Kernaghan.

I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman carefully, and I am struggling slightly to understand his argument. I point to what might be the latest version of the constitution of the Conservative party—I cannot be sure about that, because unlike the Labour party, the Conservative party does not regularly publish its constitution online. I am looking at a version from 2021. The section dealing with ethics, disciplinary investigations and so on says that the governing committee of the Conservative party has empowered an independent ethics and integrity committee to determine matters of conduct, and whether rules have been broken. The committee is made up of a host of independent KCs and the chair of the 1922 committee. This goes to the point that he was making, because paragraph 82.1 says that

“The Committee will be the master of its own procedure”.

If that principle is good enough for the Conservative party, why should it not apply to us in this House?

[Jesse Norman]

I do not know in what capacity the hon. Gentleman gave evidence to Paul Kernaghan, but that is an extraordinarily misconceived idea. This House is a democratically elected Chamber, and it has been the constitutional doctrine of the United Kingdom for hundreds of years that it should have no superior. That is what we are contesting now. What may or may not be the case in some other body that the hon. Gentleman has dragged into this conversation, in a way that rather breaches the spirit of this cross-party discussion, is completely irrelevant. I am surprised that you have allowed that point to be made, Madam Deputy Speaker, since it is so obviously irrelevant to these discussions. That body is not the legislative body democratically elected by the people of this country.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 16 June—Motion relating to the House of Commons independent complaints and grievance scheme, followed by a general debate on Windrush Day 2025. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 17 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day one).

Wednesday 18 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day two).

Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, followed by general debate on incontinence, followed by general debate on water safety education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 June—Private Member’s Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 June will include:

Monday 23 June—General debate on Pride Month.

Tuesday 24 June—Estimates day (2nd allotted day).

Wednesday 25 June—Estimates day (3rd allotted day). At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 26 June—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) (No. 2) Bill, followed by general debate on Armed Forces Day.

Friday 27 June—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

As the House will know, we have incoming news of a terrible disaster involving a flight out of Ahmedabad in India. I know that the Leader of the House will want to say a few words, but, from the Conservative Benches—I am sure that I speak for the whole House—let me wish everyone involved and their families the very best.

It would be a bad day this week if I did not mention the fantastic news of the knighthood of Sir Billy Boston—it is nice to be able to do that. I hope you will admire my restraint, Mr Speaker, in not mentioning your birthday and therefore not giving any incentive to any other Member of the House to mention it in their remarks either.

I had the dubious pleasure, as you did, Mr Speaker, of listening to yesterday’s spending review in this Chamber. It brought to mind President Abraham Lincoln’s immortal line about managing to compress the greatest number of words into the smallest amount of content. I am afraid that the statement was somewhat worse than that. It was, in both its design and delivery, an exercise in distraction and sleight of hand—a document not of economic strategy but of political evasion.

We should be clear from the outset that this was a spending review, not a Budget. Unlike a Budget, it was not subject to scrutiny by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Chancellor’s figures have, therefore, not been externally verified. Her assumptions have not been stress-tested, and her projections have not been independently reviewed. She was not required to publish the full fiscal implications or to give the embarrassing numbers in her own remarks—and, of course, she did not.

Even within the confines of departmental budgets, the presentation was, I am afraid, somewhat disingenuous. A final year outside the actual spending review period was included, filled with speculative figures designed to suggest rigour and restraint in budgetary control. This is the illusion of discipline without the reality of delivery. In case any Member is interested, this is on page 13 of the document. Elsewhere, baseline figures were conveniently shifted; most comparisons began from the year 2023-24, not the current year, which had the effect of inflating the apparent scale of any increases.

Sizewell C is a classic example. The document trumpets a near 16% increase in investment. In truth, spending over the period is falling by 3.7%. That is on page 44. Similarly, on police funding, the Chancellor was very careful in her language to say that there would be an increase in “police spending power”, but what she meant was that there would be an increase in the local authority precept: in plain English, a tax rise.

The same obfuscation was at work with overseas development aid. The Chancellor has always said that ODA cuts were needed to fund defence, but the reality is that defence increases are almost entirely in capital spending, while ODA is a cash line. Far from funding our national defence, what has actually happened is that overseas development aid has been cut to prop up other Departments’ day-to-day budgets.

The most obvious case is defence spending: we were told in grand rhetoric that it would rise to 2.5%, and later 3%, of GDP at some undefined moment when fiscal circumstances allow. In fact, it is unlikely that even 2.5% will be reached this Parliament. The 2.6% quoted includes the single intelligence account, which suggests that the number is below 2.5%. The defence investment plan—the plan that will release the money—is unlikely to appear until the end of the year. That is nearly 18 months after the 2024 general election—this at a time of war in Ukraine, and with China potentially positioning itself for conflict over Taiwan by 2027.

On Monday NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte, echoed yesterday by no less than Lord Robertson, said that unless NATO members raise defence spending to 3.5%, with an additional 1.5% in wider support, we may as well “start learning Russian”. That is the strategic context. The Government’s response has been to dither and delay.

The Chancellor’s U-turn over the winter fuel payment badly damaged whatever credibility she ever had. Yesterday’s statement has compounded the problem for her and the Government. No mention was made of the estimated 5% annual council tax increases now expected, as flagged by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. No admission was made that the review will add £140 billion in new borrowing. That is an extra £10 billion a year in interest payments, at current rates, by the end of the period. Meanwhile, the supposed efficiency savings of nearly £14 billion are widely regarded as illusory.

As the Chancellor herself said about the spending review, these are her choices. But the truth is plain: there will be a tax cut for the people of Mauritius. For the rest of us, the spending review was a gigantic speculative splurge of spending, presented via smoke and mirrors, which will end up, as it always does with Labour, with higher taxes, and British taxpayers will have to bear the impact.

[Lucy Powell]

I start by saying that the thoughts of the whole House and the Government will be with the families of those travelling on flight AI171 from Ahmedabad in India to London Gatwick, which has reportedly crashed. This is an unfolding story, and it will undoubtedly be causing a huge amount of worry and concern to the many families and communities here and those waiting for the arrival of their loved ones. We send our deepest sympathies and thoughts to all those families, and the Government will provide all the support that they can to those affected in India and in this country.

I congratulate Billy Boston on receiving a knighthood for his services to rugby league—during your birthday week, Mr Speaker. I know that as a former patron of rugby league, you felt very strongly indeed that it was about time rugby league was recognised in this way, and you might want to mention that later.

Given that I know it is of great interest to the House, I am pleased to update colleagues on the ratification of the BBNJ—biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction—oceans treaty. Our oceans are dying, and without urgent action they will be irreversibly destroyed. I am proud to confirm to the House today that this Labour Government will introduce legislation before the end of the year to ratify the high seas treaty and protect marine life around the world. We were all shocked by Sir David Attenborough’s film about the destruction caused by bottom trawling, which this Government will ban in protected British waters.

I am really happy, as ever, to debate the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on the economy. He used to be a Treasury Minister and he is well read. He knows, I am sure, what every economist in this country knows, which is that for many, many years, the UK economy has been defined by low growth and stagnant living standards, because of our comparatively low productivity. That is because we have had years and years of under-investment in our infrastructure, in our services, in our regions and in our people. This Labour Government are finally putting that right with a 10-year renewal plan to rebuild Britain and address the productivity gap. I am not sure whether the Conservatives really understand basic economics, because they are showing no sign of it.

In my part of the world and yours, Mr Speaker, that has been particularly true. Towns and cities across the north and the midlands have been held back by woeful transport infrastructure that would be unacceptable to people in the south; held back by the lack of job opportunities near where they live; held back by poor, insecure and costly housing; held back because they are not getting the training and skills they need; and held back because their life chances are lower as a result of deep-seated inequalities.

That cannot be addressed overnight, and we are not pretending that it will be, but we have a long-term plan for renewal. That includes the biggest investment in affordable and social housing in 50 years; nuclear and renewable infrastructure transforming communities around the country; the north finally getting the rail connectivity it deserves; and every community getting better buses. Schools and hospitals are being rebuilt for the 21st century, based not on fictional budgets and economics but on actual plans to deliver them. We are addressing today’s cost of living crisis, too, with our warm homes plan to bring down bills, by extending free school meals and free breakfast clubs, with more free childcare, with a cap on bus fares and by increasing the wages of the lowest paid—with wages going up more in the first 10 months of this Labour Government than they did in 10 years of the Conservative Government. Finally, we continue to boost the NHS, which has already resulted in waiting lists coming down month after month.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about choices, so let us talk about those choices. We would not have been able to set those things out if we had not made the difficult changes to taxes that we made in the Budget last year. He seems to want more spending for the police and defence—I think that is what he was saying—but he does not want to make the hard decisions about where the money will come from. He mentions yet again the 2.5% of spending on defence, which this Government are delivering, but he might want to remind himself of when defence spending reached 2.5% in the last 20 years. Was it in any of the 14 years for which his Government were in office? No, it was not. It was only when Labour was last in government that we reached the heights of 2.5%.

In contrast to the Conservatives’ fantasy economics, yesterday’s spending allocations were all within the envelope that we set out in the Budget last year, so we are really clear where the money is coming from. As ever, their economic argument is utterly incoherent. On the one hand, they say that we are spending too much, and on the other that we are not spending even more on police and defence. They criticise us on growth, yet they do not want the investment to turbocharge our productivity and, therefore, our growth. We are the party with a plan—a plan to renew Britain, a plan to raise living standards in every part of the country, a plan to get our public services back on their feet and a plan to give people the security they need in their homes.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I shall. The business for the week commencing 9 June includes:

Monday 9 June—Remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (day one).

Tuesday 10 June—Consideration of a Lords message to the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords], followed by remaining stages of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill (day two).

Wednesday 11 June—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will present the spending review 2025, followed by Second Reading of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.

Thursday 12 June—General debate on the distribution of SEND funding, followed by general debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 June—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 June will include:

Monday 16 June—Motion relating to the House of Commons independent complaints and grievance scheme, followed by a general debate on Windrush Day 2025. The subject for that debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 17 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day one).

Wednesday 18 June—Remaining stages of the Crime and Policing Bill (day two).

Thursday 19 June—Motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025, followed by a general debate on incontinence, followed by general debate on water safety education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 20 June—Private Members’ Bills.

Colleagues may also wish to be aware that on Tuesday 24 June and Wednesday 25 June the House is expected to debate estimates.

[Jesse Norman]

Today has a great double significance. As the House may know, it is World Environment Day, when we celebrate the natural world and recommit ourselves as a Parliament to seek to protect it; and it is also the putative date of birth of Adam Smith, one of my great heroes, who did as much as anyone has ever done to explain the world in which we live. If I may move from the sublime to the sublimely incompetent, this week has otherwise been one disaster after another for the Government.

On Monday, we had to drag the Leader of the House to the Dispatch Box yet again, and she had to apologise—yet again—for the Government’s flagrant disregard for this House of Commons in briefing out the strategic defence review over the weekend. There is no more important issue than the defence of the realm. It is a UK-wide, long-term, all-party matter and has always been treated as such, yet the Government chose to share the document not only with their friends in the media, but with the industry, at least six hours before it came to this Chamber or to Opposition parties. It is a matter of deep embarrassment for the Government and raises serious questions about the private sharing of financially sensitive information. The Leader of the House and the Defence Secretary are both honourable people, and I have no doubt that she has made the case every week in Cabinet for doing such communications properly. It is just extraordinary that these two members of the Cabinet are being hung out to dry every week by the 12-year-olds in 10 Downing Street.

You could have granted an urgent question every single day this week, Mr Speaker, such has been the deluge of important announcements prematurely made outside this House. Today, it is free school meals. Yesterday, it was the reannouncement of Northern Rail spending. The only mitigating factor is that the Government have been so incompetent in handling their slow-motion U-turn on the winter fuel allowance that no one has noticed anything else—though we still await a statement to the House on that issue as well.

What about the strategic defence review itself? We should start by thanking the reviewers for their hard work over many months. I know everyone in this House will want to do that, but if we look at the hard substance of the review, matters become more difficult. First of all, many of the announcements largely repeat the decisions of previous Governments—for example, on submarines, on AUKUS and on warheads. Secondly, and most crucially, where is the funding? Government Ministers have tied themselves in knots over the last few days as to whether the 3% of GDP target is “an ambition”, an aim, or simply to be undertaken “when fiscal circumstances allow” or “in the next Parliament”.

Luckily, General Richard Barrons, one of the SDR reviewers, was more honest, saying that the SDR’s financial profile—the assumptions against which the reviewers were working—assumed that defence will get 2.5% of GDP in financial year 2027-28 and 3% of GDP by no later than 2034. The great irony is that, not three weeks from now, we will have the NATO summit, which will call not for 3%, but for 3.5% plus 1.5%. We are light years away from that commitment. The awful truth is that real money will not begin to flow into the armed forces until the defence industrial strategy and the defence investment plan are announced later this year, hopefully in the proper way to this House. That will be 15 months after the Government took office. It is lucky that we do not have a war in Europe.

Thirdly, where is the threat to our adversaries? No extra cash means no extra commitment, no commitment means no credibility and no credibility means no increased sense of threat to those we face. What do we know? We know that there is a war in Europe in which Russia is moving men and matériel not merely to push on in Ukraine, but to threaten the Baltic states. Ukraine had a glorious victory in the past few days, but we cannot rely on such victories, and we must support it in its struggle against Russia.

What do we know? We know that Xi Jinping has directed the People’s Liberation Army to develop the capability to invade Taiwan by 2027, and we know that NATO allies, who have a collective responsibility to each other, in some cases have a long way to go before they are even at 2% of GDP, let alone 3.5%. Instead of giving real leadership, and putting cash on the table, our own Government are talking about readying the country for war while in reality they continue to dither and delay.

[Lucy Powell]

Mr Speaker, I understand that today is Press Association parliamentary editor Richard Wheeler’s last day in the Gallery. He has covered our proceedings for 12 years, and I am sure we can all agree that that is quite a shift, with Brexit, covid, six Prime Ministers and many interventions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), all having been covered by him.

As I have announced, on Monday 6 June we will debate a motion in my name to implement the recommendations of last year’s independent Kernaghan review of Parliament’s Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. The ICGS was set up in 2018 in response to many serious incidents of bullying, sexual harassment, unacceptable behaviour and poor culture. Through its work and its existence, strides have been made in addressing our reputation and improving working culture. However, we must continue to do better and to respond. That is why I have tabled proposals from the independent review to strengthen and improve the processes of the ICGS. I have asked its director for a fuller briefing, which, upon receipt, I will place in the Library ahead of the debate so that Members can consider these issues more fully.

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for wanting a replay of the urgent question on Monday. Following some of the questions that were put to me then, I did say that, with your permission, Mr Speaker, I would come back to the House on some of the issues that were raised. Without going through the whole thing again, I want to be clear about some of the things that did and did not happen. The Government were endeavouring to act in good faith and to follow the procedure and practice for many previous SDRs—and I have looked at all of the procedures and practices for previous SDRs.

We recognise that there is room for improvement—there always is—but I want to let the House know that advance briefings were offered to all Opposition spokespeople, the Chair of the Defence Committee and a select few from the defence community. An embargoed copy of the full SDR was provided to the Select Committee Clerk shortly after 10 am, and hard copies were provided to the Conservative and Liberal Democrat spokespeople 90 minutes before the statement. As I reiterated on Monday, the full document was laid first in the House in the afternoon. I have spoken with you, Mr Speaker, and the Defence Secretary, who I am sure the whole House will agree takes his responsibilities to this House incredibly seriously. He wants to draw up a clear process for this Government and future Governments to follow, so that the expectations of all concerned are clear.

I really will not be taking advice from the right hon. Gentleman about respecting Parliament. He was a Minister and a Member of Parliament under the previous Government, whom the Supreme Court said had acted illegally by proroguing Parliament. There could be no greater disrespect to this House than that. He also served under the former Prime Minister who was found to have misled Parliament. Again, no worse crime than that could be committed.

The right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about defence spending, but the Conservatives had 14 years in government to get to the 2.5% target. Did they get to 2.5% in any one of those 14 years? No, they did not. When was the last time this country spent 2.5% on defence? Oh yes, it was the last time Labour was in government. That is what we are doing again now, so he might want to look at his own record on that.

I see that today we have had a big move on the economy from the Conservatives—yes, a big move. They want to draw a line under Liz Truss. But where is the apology, because I did not hear one? They finally seem to recognise that crashing the economy was “a big error”, but they do not seem to understand that it is the ordinary working people of this country who are still paying the price for their actions. The Conservatives should be apologising for that, yet the right hon. Gentleman wants to go around spending more money. He does not seem to have got the memo on that.

Let us just be clear. It is really important that we are clear about why we took the decisions we did at the start of this Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman’s Government left no fiscal responsibility—something they now want to try to retain—and they left huge, gaping black holes in the public finances. Borrowing costs were at record highs and there was a cost of living crisis crushing ordinary people. When markets lose confidence, which is what they did under his Government and what they were potentially doing at the start of this Parliament, and the economy crashes, it is those on low, fixed incomes, such as pensioners and families living in poverty, who see the cost of living going up. It is they who pay the heaviest price when the economy crashes. That is why this Labour Government put economic stability first. That was our first priority, because we recognise who pays the heaviest price when that goes wrong.

I welcome the recognition from the shadow Chancellor today, but it does not seem like everybody got the memo. The right hon. Gentleman seems to want to spend even more money from the Dispatch Box, without saying where it will come from. The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), seems to want to get rid of some of the tax increases from the Budget, again without saying where the money will come from.

Now that we have stabilised the economy, we are putting our values into practice further. We are seeing huge investment in the north and in the midlands on key transport infrastructure, investment in the jobs of the future, bringing down waiting lists month after month after month, and 3 million more NHS appointments. The right hon. Gentleman did not want to mention this, but today we are announcing the biggest expansion of free school meals in years, lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. That is the difference a Labour Government make: securing the real incomes of ordinary working people, putting our public services back on their feet and lifting children out of poverty.

Government Announcements

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 2nd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent question): To ask the Leader of the House if she will make a statement on Government announcements outside the House of Commons.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I hear your statement, Mr Speaker. I responded to an urgent question on a similar matter on 14 May. I reiterate the commitments I gave then. The “Ministerial Code” is clear:

“When Parliament is in session, the most important announcements of government policy should be made in the first instance in Parliament.”

That is an important principle that the Government stand by and uphold.

Since that last urgent question on 14 May, the Government have made a number of important oral statements to the House, on the infected blood inquiry, on the cross-Government review of sanctions implementation and enforcement, on the charging of individuals under the National Security Act 2023, and on the legal aid cyber-security incident. The Prime Minister has updated the House on the three trade deals that we have struck in the national interest, the Foreign Secretary has updated it on Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Justice Secretary has responded to the sentencing review, and the Defence Secretary has made a statement on the future of the Diego Garcia military base.

This afternoon, the full conclusions of the important strategic defence review will be published and laid before this House first, with a significant statement from the Defence Secretary to follow. I am satisfied that this Government are coming to the House regularly to keep Parliament informed. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Jesse Norman]

Is that really the best that the Leader of the House can do—an “I speak your weight” autocue recitation of points that she has made in her three previous attempts to deal with occasions when the House has been embarrassed and disregarded over the last three weeks alone? It was a hopeless miscue of a response that bordered on a contempt of Parliament itself—yet another attempt to change the subject, blame others and distract attention from the latest fiasco. Evidently the defence of the realm is not important enough to merit making its way up the list of priorities in the Government’s media handouts. Lord Robertson himself, as you have said, Mr Speaker—and I am amazed that you had to intervene on the Leader of the House during her own remarks—would be ashamed and embarrassed to think that this was being done in his name.

Just three weeks ago, the Leader of the House had to be dragged to the House over the Government’s briefing on the immigration White Paper outside the House. That came just days after they had done the same in respect of prisoner recall, the UK-US trade deal and, of course, the Chagos islands. That followed instances involving tuition fees, planning reforms and even the fiscal rules, on which you, Mr Speaker, had to reprove and chastise the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Now we have seen the unhappy sight of the Secretary of State for Defence, no less, extensively briefing the media on the decisions to deploy airborne nuclear weapons and build the next generation of submarines, before coming to the House. Perhaps, as I have said, they were not important enough to merit a mention beforehand.

Journalists have been able to read the strategic defence review since 10.30 am, while the Opposition were prevented from seeing the document until five minutes ago, precisely in order to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. All this is manifestly in breach of the ministerial code, the Nolan principles and, of course, Labour’s own manifesto, demonstrating the Government’s arrogance and complacency and their disdain for the House and for democratic accountability, and this from—the clue is in the title—the Leader of the House, whose job is to protect and safeguard the House and its Members. Unfortunately, her obvious floundering just now made the point far better than I can.

When did the Leader of the House know about these announcements, and what steps did she take to prevent the media briefings and ensure that the announcements were made to the House of Commons first? Will she now apologise for yet another high-handed Government decision for which she alone is fully responsible, in this instance, to the House?

[Lucy Powell]

It is nice to see the right hon. Gentleman in his place and respecting Parliament today—that is not always the case.

As I have said before, I believe strongly that the Government should be and have been making the most important announcements to the House when Parliament is in session. We have made more oral statements than the previous Government did in their entire last Session—we have made 154 statements in 140 sitting days, compared with their 72 in 101 sitting days—and we have made many written statements and answered parliamentary questions. We had the statement on Diego Garcia on the day that the deal was signed, despite difficulties with the timing. We had a statement on the US economic deal on the day that it was signed, and the Prime Minister updated the House after the EU trade deal.

As I have said, the SDR has now been given to the Opposition and is being laid before the House. There will be time for colleagues to scrutinise it and to question the Defence Secretary on it this afternoon. The Government responses to the sentencing review and to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on the women’s state pension age, as well as many other major announcements, such as the upgrade in defence spending, were all made to the House first.

I am curious to know whether the shadow Leader of the House raised these important issues with the previous Government when he was a Minister or a Back Bencher, because I remember many, many occasions when they disrespected this House, and I do not remember hearing his voice at the time. I remember when the Procedure Committee, I and many others wanted the then Foreign Secretary, Lord Cameron, to be accountable to the House of Commons. The previous Government did nothing about it, and I do not remember the right hon. Gentleman saying anything about that. I recall the then Culture Secretary announcing the end of the BBC licence fee and, separately, the privatisation of Channel 4 on Twitter, with no intention of coming to the House to explain those major policy changes.

The previous Prime Minister, on the first day of a very long recess, announced that he was scrapping the Government’s net zero targets—he did not come to the House to explain that. He also announced the scrapping of High Speed 2 during a conference recess and never came to the House to account for it. During covid, one of the Conservatives’ many Prime Ministers announced major changes to our way of life to the media and not to Parliament, such as the 2020 winter lockdown—he did not come here to talk about that—and the covid vaccine roll-out. When he closed the borders and then reopened them, he announced it to the media and not to Parliament. Let us not forget that the Supreme Court found that Parliament was illegally prorogued by the previous Government. Do you remember when the former Prime Minister was found to have misled Parliament? There is no greater disrespect to Parliament.

Rather than upholding the ministerial code, the previous Government ignored breaches of it time and again, with reports sitting on the Prime Minister’s desk and nothing being done about them. We, by contrast, have strengthened the ministerial code. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) laughs from a sedentary position, but we have given the independent adviser on the ministerial code the power to instigate his own investigations. Therefore, we have strengthened it.

Not only did the previous Government disrespect Parliament; they did not have enough for Parliament to do. They had a threadbare King’s Speech, with banning pedicabs the pinnacle of their ambition in their last year in government. Now that they are in opposition, they seem to be carrying on the same and hardly turn up for work. They could have used any one of their Opposition days to raise these issues, but they did not. They have many other parliamentary devices at their disposal, and they do not use them. They were a zombie Government, and now they are a zombie Opposition. The next time they bring forward an urgent question, they might want to check their own record before giving us lectures.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the future business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I shall. The business for the week commencing 19 May includes:

Monday 19 May—Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 20 May—Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill.

Wednesday 21 May—Opposition day (8th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.

Thursday 22 May—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a general debate on access to NHS dentistry, followed by a general debate on dementia care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 May and return on Monday 2 June.

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

Monday 2 June—Second Reading of the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for her remarks. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, this week saw the tragic and untimely death of Sir Roy Stone. We had a brief moment of recognition of him earlier in the week, but I am keenly aware that many Labour colleagues were not in the House at the time of his flourishing. As such, I wanted to mention in the Chamber today how much we all respected him, and give the Leader of the House the chance to say something about him if she wishes.

More widely, we have had a week of mixed economics, with growth slightly up, weak wage growth, a spike in unemployment—as everyone had predicted in the case of national insurance—and fiscal strains highlighted just today by a former Treasury civil servant. We have also had an immigration policy launched with echoes of Enoch Powell, and a Prime Minister who appears not to know the difference between capital and current spending in relation to hospices that are seeking to support people day to day across this country—people who are literally at death’s door.

I would have moved on from the politics of the week at this point in my remarks, but for the extraordinary series of interventions by Mr Speaker only a few minutes ago on the Government’s failures to announce their policies in the House. Mr Speaker rightly sought—and was eventually given—an apology by the Minister, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for their latest failure, but the irony is absolutely extraordinary. That announcement came just hours after the Leader of the House had to be dragged to this Chamber to answer questions on this very topic. She failed to apologise to this House yesterday; I wonder whether she will take the opportunity to do so today. Whether she does or not, I hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers, will insist on maintaining the primacy of our parliamentary democracy and demanding that Governments are held to account.

Today, I come to the Chamber not to ask about a particular item of policy, but to offer a positive policy idea; not to focus on what may be passing from day to day in the Government’s policies, but to focus on the longer term and to celebrate. I do so in relation to a personal interest of mine—indeed, a mini-obsession, as the House probably knows—which is growth, development and innovation in higher education. This week, we saw the graduation of the first students at our new university in Hereford, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. It is the first greenfield university in this country for 40 years, a specialist, technical engineering university teaching students of every age and background —especially those from less well-off families—in a very intensive and immersive way. It teaches them the hand-on skills of an apprenticeship, but also the rigour of a master’s degree. Its students work in teams, building work habits and working closely with partner companies in defence, security, energy, construction, food and agriculture.

I mention that university now because it highlights what could be considered a lack of ambition in the way that we as a country have thought about higher education over the past 50 years, or possibly even longer. NMITE is an institution that is not just focused on marginal educational gain, but on transformational improvement. It aims to take a person—male or female, young or old—who might never have thought of going to university at all and help them to find their passions, head, hands and heart, and take them as far as they can go. It aims to reinvent not just what students learn, but how they learn, with theory and practice tied together in real-world challenges, forging professionals through immersive and intensive work with a sense of mission and purpose. It aims to build the right habits and prepare those students, not just for the world of work, but for a world of work that is constantly changing.

Above all, the university seeks to keep the benefits of being small in size—something we have lost in so much of higher education—with agility, accountability, personal engagement, teamwork and friendships and a sense of belonging and community, so that our students grow as morally serious human beings who can readily and resiliently deal with complexity and uncertainty, and who are deeply aware of the power and responsibility that comes with being an engineer. Does it work? These students are studying for a masters in engineering, certified independently as being of very high quality. The first cohort are going into jobs at a rate of almost 100% in companies such as Balfour Beatty, Kier, Cadbury, BAE, AWE, Safran and local companies at an average salary of £34,000, drawing national needs and local needs together. It is the small modular reactor of British higher education.

I raise this example because I want to invite the Government and Members from across the House to consider whether we could not do it elsewhere. There are at least 50 small cities and large towns in this country that lack higher education and higher economic growth. There is a huge need for specialist science, technology, engineering and mathematics skills. We have vast amounts of talent deprived of opportunity, and this can be part of the solution. I do not know whether any colleagues would like to be involved, but each could be, in their own area and their constituency, leading on the creation not just of a campus, but of a new university designed for local people, local businesses and national economic opportunity. That is the opportunity. I invite the House and the Government to consider it.

[Lucy Powell]

I will take this opportunity to also pay tribute to Sir Roy Stone, the former principal private secretary to the Government Chief Whip. He was very much known as the “usual channels”, and I think he embodied that with distinction. I did not know him personally, but I know of his reputation and of the love and esteem in which he was held by many Members across the House. We send our thoughts to his family and friends again at this time.

The thoughts of many across the House will also be with those living in Gaza. We see the intolerable suffering, death and starvation on our screens most evenings, and it must stop now. Food is not reaching starving people, airstrikes are killing civilians and hostages are still being held. I know that this whole House wants to see a change of course, meaningful aid getting in, an urgent ceasefire and a path to a durable peace.

I also heard Mr Speaker’s statement this morning about the Government giving statements to this House in a timely fashion, and I absolutely hear what he says. As I said yesterday in the House, I will ensure that that message is relayed, as I do on many occasions, to our Cabinet colleagues. I just remind the House that the Lord Chancellor laid a long written ministerial statement yesterday afternoon, as did the Home Secretary earlier in the week, but we can and we must do better. The right hon. Gentleman, as I said yesterday in the House, should remember that we have given 146 oral statements in just 133 sitting days, and that far outstrips what happened under his Government when, frankly, they disrespected Parliament time after time. I will not be taking any lectures from him on that.

I hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about the new technical university in his constituency in Herefordshire. It sounds like an important and good innovation to provide technical education and engineering pathways, particularly for people from certain backgrounds who might not otherwise access such education. My eldest son is currently studying engineering at one of the universities that I represent—Manchester Metropolitan University—and I hope he and many others have a pathway into work. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that when higher education joins much more closely with the place of work and the skills that are needed for the jobs of the future, that is when we get much more bang for our buck, and our young people have the opportunities in life that they need.

I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did just about mention the economy again this week. He did not seem to want to welcome the good news on growth figures out this morning, and he did not mention the interest rate cut last week either. Nor did he mention the 200 jobs that we have created since the election. I do not know if he noticed what the former Chancellor, George Osborne, said last week about the stance of the Conservatives under their current leader: that they are more interested in culture wars than in having a serious economic plan. He is right, isn’t he?

The right hon. Gentleman talks about getting figures wrong, but what a way for the Leader of the Opposition to get her figures wrong during Prime Minister’s questions yesterday—by a factor of 100. I do not know if the right hon. Gentleman wants to set the record straight on that. She also did not seem to grasp the importance and value of the trade deals that we have struck in the last week or so, and of the billions of pounds that they will bring into the economy. Thankfully, though, there are still a few true Conservatives on the Back Benches who really understand the core conservative idea of free trade. His former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), welcomed those trade deals. His former Brexit Secretary, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), welcomed them too. Even Kwasi Kwarteng, the former Chancellor, said that the US-UK deal is a success. George Osborne is right, isn’t he? The Conservatives have no idea where they stand on the economy, and they have no plan. We have a plan for growth, a plan to improve living standards and a plan to put money back in people’s pockets, and people are starting to see the fruits of that today.

Ministerial Code: Compliance

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

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

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for raising this urgent question. As she has highlighted, there is a consistent pattern of failure to report first to this House, as is required by the ministerial code. She has rightly drawn attention to the farcical scenes that we had with the Trade Minister being required to deliver a statement, then having to be UQ’d the following Monday. He tried to give the same statement, without any recognition, and was rebuked by Mr Speaker for not knowing the difference.

Back in October we had the embarrassing sight of the Chancellor announcing intended changes to the Government’s fiscal rules to the media before informing Parliament, and having to be publicly rebuked by Mr Speaker for doing so. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has mentioned a number of other cases. I would highlight the Secretary of State for Education announcing tuition fees to the press before Parliament in November, the Deputy Prime Minister announcing planning reforms before the final national planning policy framework update was publicly available, and a Ministry of Defence leak on the global combat air programme in December.

As we all know, the ministerial code—the Government took great credit for seeking to strengthen it on entering office—makes very plain what the rule is. It does not say, “Judgments are to be made.” It says, “The first announcement must be made to Parliament when the most important announcements of government policy are made.” It does not say, “By the way, you can prioritise these things.” Does anyone seriously think that an announcement on trade, on planning, on tuition fees or on the global combat air programme would not be of the first importance to this House? No, because every single one of those would be vital.

It is not just a matter of the ministerial code and ministerial accountability. These decisions are made in breach of the Nolan principles of openness and the requirement for accountability, and they are made in breach of Labour’s own manifesto promise to

“restore confidence in government and ensure ministers are held to the highest standards.”

Will the right hon. Lady encourage the independent adviser to make an inquiry, and will she look to the Cabinet Secretary to do the same with civil servants? Will she and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, look to Mr Speaker for adequate enforcement of the present rules, which are being widely flouted?

[Lucy Powell]

I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the ministerial code says that

“when Parliament is in session”,

announcements will be made to this House first. I also remind him that announcements can be made via written ministerial statements and other things as well. There is a balance to be struck, and we try to do that in the best interests of the House.

The right hon. Gentleman describes this as business question bingo. I will give him bingo: I am not going to take a lecture from him on these matters. This Government have done twice as many oral statements as his Government did in the same number of sitting days. We are ensuring that there is proper time to scrutinise Government bills—something that they did not do. We are answering significantly more written parliamentary questions than his Government ever did.

I have to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government illegally prorogued Parliament when they could not get their own way—something that he went out and defended to his constituents. The Conservatives had a Prime Minister who was found guilty of misleading this House—something that the right hon. Gentleman also defended. When an MP broke the standards rules, the Conservatives tried to change them. They had to be dragged here time and again. This Government respects Parliament. We stand up for the rights of Parliament. His Government traduced them.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 12 May includes:

Monday 12 May—Remaining stages of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.

Tuesday 13 May—Opposition day (7th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Wednesday 14 May—Consideration of Lords message on the Great British Energy Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by motion to approve the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Thursday 15 May—General debate on solar farms, followed by general debate on long-term funding of youth services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 16 May—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 19 May will include:

Monday 19 May—Second Reading of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 20 May—Second Reading of the Victims and Courts Bill.

Wednesday 21 May—Opposition day (8th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 22 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 22 May and return on Monday 2 June.

[Jesse Norman]

This is of course the 80th anniversary of VE Day, when all Britain rejoiced at the defeat of fascism and the end of the war in Europe. I am sure I speak for the whole House in putting on record once again our profound thanks and our celebration of the immortal memory of that extraordinary generation who—through their courage, their selflessness and their sense of duty—made victory in Europe possible. Let us all pray that we can be worthy of their memory.

If I may turn back from the sublime sweep of history to the mundane business of our politics, the Government have made valiant efforts to crowd the airwaves on trade this week, but the unfortunate truth is that they have had another dire week in office. The financial facts of life have not changed: growth is stagnant, as a nation we have to raise defence spending rapidly and the Government have made themselves a prisoner of their fiscal rules. Before the Leader of the House starts in on the local election results, may I remind her that, for all the horrors of last week, the Opposition still ended up with three times as many council seats as the Government?

Let us look at those cost pressures a bit more closely. Just eight months after a 22.3% increase in pay for junior doctors—an increase described at the time by the British Medical Association as

“a good enough first step”,

the House will recall—the BMA has now announced it will ballot its members to strike for more pay.

Meanwhile, the somewhat unlikely pairing of Tony Blair and Gary Smith, the general secretary of the GMB trade union, have both denounced the Government’s decision to ban offshore licences in the North sea. Blair described it as an “irrational” policy “doomed to fail”, the backlash to which threatened to “derail the whole agenda”. He said it was caused by Ministers afraid of being cast as “climate deniers”. He is not talking about the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, of course; he is talking about all the Ministers and MPs on the Government Benches who know better, but are too frit to say so.

Gary Smith said that “climate fundamentalism”—that is the Secretary of State for Energy—would

“accelerate the decline of domestic oil and gas production and increase our dependency on gas imports”,

directly contrary to the Government’s supposed growth strategy. As he pointed out:

“Across society, bill-payers will question why they are subsidising a domestic clean power sprint that is offshoring UK jobs and value.”

Only today, we have had the news that Ørsted is mothballing its giant new offshore wind farm, as it has made it clear it is holding out for even greater subsidies, knowing that the Secretary of State has no choice, and has in effect said that he has no choice, if he wants to hit his targets. We all want a just and rapid energy transition, but does the Leader of the House not think that the words of Tony Blair and Gary Smith are simple common sense?

There is one other issue that I think we should highlight. The Leader of the House has received universal condemnation for dismissing concerns about grooming gangs as “dog-whistle politics”. In response, she put out a tweet that conspicuously did not contain an apology for what she had said. The Secretary of State for Health said that her remarks were “indefensible”, but the truth is that she has talked in the same way about grooming gangs from the Dispatch Box, when she accused people of jumping on bandwagons on 9 January this year in business questions.

I hope we can agree now that this is an extremely serious national issue and that no one, whether or not they hold public office, should be deflecting or denying its seriousness. I hope that in her response now, the Leader of the House will put aside party politics, avoid criticising others and speak from the heart. So I ask her: has she now watched the Channel 4 documentary, and if so, how does she feel about it? Does she agree that the dismissal of these entirely valid concerns has been one of the factors behind what even today remains a huge continuing national scandal. Will she now back the call of many victims for a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs. Finally, would she like to take this opportunity to speak directly to the hundreds of vulnerable women involved, and say sorry?

[Lucy Powell]

Mr Speaker, further to your statement, talks on the US trade deal developments continue at pace. With your permission, the House will be updated later today. I will come on to VE Day shortly, but may I first address the remarks of the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising what I said on an episode of “Any Questions” last week, so that I can be absolutely clear with the House today, and especially to the victims and survivors of child sexual abuse and grooming gangs, that I am very sorry for those remarks, as I made clear over the weekend. I, and every member of this Government, want your truth to be heard, wherever that truth leads. Your truly appalling experiences need to be acted on, for those responsible to be accountable and face the full force of the law, and for justice to be served. I would never want to leave the impression that these very serious, profound and far-reaching issues, which I have campaigned on for many years, should be shied away from and not aired—far from it. No stone will be left unturned.

What the victims want, first and foremost, is for action to be taken and for the many, many recommendations from previous inquiries to be implemented in full, including mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse, for which I have called for nearly a decade. Shockingly, those recommendations remained sitting on the shelf until we came into government last year. Baroness Louise Casey, who conducted the no-holds-barred inquiry into Rotherham, is carrying out an audit on the scale, nature and characteristics of grooming gangs. She will be reporting soon. It will include the questions on ethnicity. Every police force in England and Wales has been asked to look again at historic grooming gangs cases. They will be reopened, where appropriate, to get the perpetrators behind bars. I hope the House is left in no doubt about my commitment to these issues and my apology to those victims for any distress I have caused them.

I was surprised to hear the shadow Leader of the House try to claim some success in the local elections for his party. I am not quite sure that that is what those on the Conservative Benches are feeling.

Let me address the issue of our need to move to being a clean energy superpower. I am afraid that yet again at the Dispatch Box the right hon. Gentleman and his party are showing a serious misunderstanding of the economics and the reality of the transition to net zero. We face the worst cost of living crisis in generations, because his party left this country exposed to international fossil fuel markets as a direct result of their failure to invest in clean energy. It is only by investing in clean energy that we will bring down bills in future. He might want to remind himself of what his former Prime Minister, Theresa May, said about this issue:

“the sceptics say that the green transition will cripple business, we say they could not be more wrong.”

This is a global race for the jobs of the future, to get bills down, and that is exactly what we are doing.

The right hon. Gentleman should know better than anybody that new oil and gas in the North sea will not take a penny off bills, because oil and gas is traded on the international markets and therefore we are locked in. The only way to decouple that is by investing in cheaper renewable energies, as the Government are doing. It was a previous Conservative Energy Minister who said in 2022:

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

The right hon. Gentleman might want to remind himself of that.

We have all come together in the Chamber today to honour our veterans and all those who played their part in securing peace and victory in Europe and ending the second world war. Today, we mark the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, and will shortly recreate the procession of Members from the Chamber to a service of thanksgiving on 8 May 1945. In addressing the House on that day, Winston Churchill conveyed his

“deep gratitude to this House of Commons, which has proved itself the strongest foundation for waging war that has ever been seen in the whole of our long history. We have all of us made our mistakes, but the strength of the Parliamentary institution has been shown to enable it at the same moment to preserve all the title deeds of democracy while waging war in the most stern and protracted form.”—[Official Report, 8 May 1945; Vol. 0, c. 1869.]

As we represent our parliamentary democracy today, these words ring as true now as they did then. We will never forget the sacrifice, bravery and spirit and the millions of lives lost in defeating fascism.

Today, we also remember Her late Majesty the Queen, whose youthful, joyous celebration symbolised VE Day, and whose long reign shaped the peace and prosperity that followed it. Today and every day, we remember the immense contribution of the second world war generation and thank them for their service.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

The business for the week commencing 28 April includes:

Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 29 April—Remaining stages of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Wednesday 30 April—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Crime and Policing Bill.

Thursday 1 May—General debate on Parkinson’s Awareness Month, followed by general debate on prisoners of conscience. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the early May bank holiday at the conclusion of business on Thursday 1 May and return on Tuesday 6 May. The provisional business for the week commencing 5 May will include:

Tuesday 6 May—General debate on the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and victory over Japan.

Wednesday 7 May—Remaining stages of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 8 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

Could there be a local election coming up? I very much hope that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and everyone here had a perfectly spectacular Easter. I am sure I speak for the whole House in recording my sadness at the death of His Holiness the Pope, who was, in his work and in his life, the embodiment of faith, hope and charity.

If I may, I would like to start with something small but important. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) recently asked the Secretary of State for Education, in a written parliamentary question, whether she had visited any private schools since July last year. The junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), replied that

“the Secretary of State for Education and the wider ministerial team visit a wide variety of education settings, including private schools. The Secretary of State for Education prioritises visits to our state schools, which serve 93% of pupils in England.”

All that is no doubt true but it is not an answer to the question that was put. All ministerial visits are logged by the Department, so it would have been and remains easy to compile the numbers. The Leader of the House has made clear on many occasions her commitment and belief that Members of this House should receive proper answers to their questions. Will she take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Education and see that a proper answer is given?

A few weeks ago I talked about how the Prime Minister was steadily being mugged by reality, and we have seen this again in the last few days with the Government’s U-turn on the ban on sourcing photovoltaic cells built with slave labour in China. The same can be said for the Government’s energy policy as a whole. It is important to put before the House the fact that Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to cut bills, boost energy security and create cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero by 2050. It tried to allay public concerns by promising

“a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises…the ongoing role of oil and gas in our energy mix.”

Nine months on, we can see how that is going. The Government have already had to U-turn on their infeasible commitment to zero carbon electricity by 2030. Most recently, the situation with British Steel in Scunthorpe has underlined the deeper incoherence of their overall approach. By banning new oil and gas licences and preventing new exploration, the Government are committing the UK to greater dependency on imported oil and gas at higher cost, with higher emissions and under less democratic control. In so doing, they are not advancing environmental justice or economic resilience; they are accelerating a decline in energy sovereignty that will leave this country more polluting, less secure and, ultimately, poorer.

If we do not produce our own oil and gas, we will have to buy it. The difference is that it will come from overseas, and imported energy is not only more expensive but has a far higher carbon footprint. I remind the House that, for example, importing liquefied natural gas involves cooling gas to 160° below zero, shipping it thousands of miles from Qatar and regasifying it at a port in this country. The net emissions are up to four times higher than those from North sea gas. Crucially, UK territorial emissions go down, but overall emissions, including imports, are higher than they would be. This is not an honest policy.

Labour’s manifesto talked about the importance of energy security, but refusing to allow new exploration does not reduce our vulnerability; it increases it. Energy, after all, is national security. It is industrial strategy. It is heating our houses and fuelling our cars. The idea that a major economy should voluntarily give up control of its energy supply before alternatives are well advanced is not progressive—it is reckless.

The problem goes somewhat wider. The Government talk about a green industrial revolution, but the more expensive imported energy we have, the harder that will be to achieve. Not just steel but chemicals, ceramics and fertilisers all require large amounts of gas and will do for years to come. If energy is unreliable or unaffordable, those industries will continue to struggle whatever the fond imaginings of the Secretary of State. Worse still, the Government’s policy will squander capital and skills that might have gone into safely managing the UK’s remaining hydrocarbon assets. The extra revenues that would have helped fund the transition will now be lost to the many other countries that welcome such investment, while the Government turn their back on a sector that still employs 200,000 people and contributes billions in tax revenue.

I ask the Leader of the House whether she shares my view that we badly need some common sense here. We all want an effective and just energy transition, but that starts with one principle: control what we can and use our own resources responsibly and transparently while building the clean energy system of the future. Instead, the Government have chosen a path that will increase emissions, raise costs, weaken the economy and tie Britain’s future to foreign powers and volatile markets. That is not leadership; that is an abdication.

[Lucy Powell]

I am sure the thoughts of the whole House will be with Catholics in this country and around the world as they grieve Pope Francis. As the shadow Leader of the House said, Pope Francis embodied the very best of us with his deep faith and commitment to the poorest, the weakest and those dealing with conflict and destitution. I once again put on the record my thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Mr Speaker and to all the House staff for the professional and speedy way they recalled Parliament for us over the Easter recess. They have dedication and professionalism at their core.

I take this opportunity, which I do not think has been done yet in the House, to pay tribute to Rory McIlroy on finally getting one of the greatest sporting achievements —the golf grand slam—and being the first European to do so. The resilience and mental strength he showed was unbelievable, and he was a role model of great sportsmanship. I also wish good luck to all those taking part in the London marathon this weekend.

The shadow Leader of the House raises a number of points about the Government’s energy and climate change strategy, but he misunderstands the economics of the situation. The way we will get energy security and lower bills in the future and over the long term is by having our own energy security and our own clean energy supplies. We have to get ourselves off fossil fuels because to get that energy security, we have to become a price maker, not a price taker. Home-grown energy is the only way we will get control over our prices and get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. As a country, we have great assets: we are an island nation with an ability to generate offshore and onshore wind, tidal and nuclear energy.

This Government have wasted no time. We have lifted the ban on onshore wind. We have established Great British Energy. We have approved nearly 3GW of solar, delivered a record-breaking renewables auction, kick-started carbon capture and got the nuclear planning reforms under way. That is how this country will bring down energy bills and get the energy security we need. We have to get ourselves off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. The shadow Leader of the House needs to look at the economics of the situation.

I notice that the Chamber is very busy today—unlike many Members—as we look forward to the local elections. The shadow Leader of the House did not want to use this opportunity to make his party’s pitch for the forthcoming local elections, perhaps because the Conservatives are not quite sure what their pitch is. People have not forgotten the chaos and decline that his party left this country in after 14 years of failure and sleaze.

The Labour party is putting money in people’s pockets with our boost to the living wage, with wages rising faster than prices; we are fixing the NHS, with waiting lists down for six months in a row and cut by 220,000 since July; our new free breakfast clubs will give kids the start to life that they need; we are taking back control of our trains and buses; and, as I saw at the weekend, we are taking swift action to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour by seizing and crushing off-road bikes, which I did myself. That is the difference that Labour makes in power.

I am still not quite sure what the Conservative party’s strategy is at the elections. Perhaps the shadow Leader of the House would like to enlighten us. Is it what has been proposed by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), in the form of an alliance with Reform? If that is not their strategy, why has he not been sacked? The Leader of the Opposition used her flagship election interview on the “Today” programme this week to tell us of her one big achievement: Tory party unity. I nearly spat out my tea! Tory Members can barely muster a cheer for her at Prime Minister’s questions, and the shadow Justice Secretary is in open leadership campaign mode.

In fact, this week I have seen a letter that the shadow Justice Secretary sent to all Conservative local election candidates with his clear leadership pitch and the offer of “lunch with Robert”. By the way, it was all on House of Commons-headed paper, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is highly questionable. It is blatant manoeuvring, and a strong leader would have sacked him by now. Is it not the truth that, at the elections next week, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for Reform, and a vote for Reform is a vote for the Conservatives?

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the future business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I shall, Mr Speaker.

Monday 7 April—General debate on road maintenance, followed by a general debate on neighbourhood policing and tackling town centre crime.

Tuesday 8 April—General debate on the potential merits of awarding a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne, followed by a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 8 April and return on Tuesday 22 April.

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 April includes:

Tuesday 22 April—Second Reading of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill.

Wednesday 23 April—Opposition day (6th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats—subject to be announced.

Thursday 24 April—Remaining stages of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords].

Friday 25 April—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 April will include:

Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 29 April—Remaining stages of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Wednesday 30 April—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill.

Thursday 1 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

It is some weeks away yet, but this is the last moment I will have to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all Members of this House and staff a very happy Easter; I hope I may do so. Easter is a joyous occasion, full of families and possibly inappropriate amounts of chocolate. I will be making the shadow Leader of the House’s legendary hot cross buns—not very much of the mix actually makes it into the oven, but that is part of the joy.

It is lucky, however, that we have several weeks to look forward to Easter, because this week has not been one of joy. We will be debating tariffs later, and we have also had the impact of the national insurance rises, which have pushed up costs, raising inflation, making it harder than ever to hire a new employee and blocking routes into work for young people.

My question, however, is this: what on earth is happening in Birmingham? As the House will recall, Birmingham city council is now in the fifth week of a strike with the union Unite over bin collections. Apparently this matter concerns just a few dozen out of some 9,500 city council employees. As the House has heard, 17,000 tonnes of rubbish has piled up so far, growing by a reported 900 tonnes a week. Let us not forget that Birmingham’s bin collections were reportedly three and a half times worse than the worst of other councils even before this strike. The public health implications are now so dire that the council has declared a major incident.

The strike comes on top of two other recent fiascos. First, the athletes’ village in Perry Barr was built by the city council to host competitors during the Commonwealth games in 2022 but was never used, and has been sold at a reported loss to taxpayers of about £320 million. Secondly, Birmingham city council tried to install a shiny new Oracle IT system, resulting in a disaster whose costs are set to reach £216-odd million by 2026, according to a report by academics at Sheffield University.

As a city, Birmingham is technically bankrupt. It has been controlled by Labour for well over a decade, but my point is not about the council—it is about the Government. The Minister for Local Government let the cat out of the bag in his statement on this topic on Monday, when he said:

“Birmingham’s waste service has been in urgent need of modernisation and transformation for many years… Practices in the waste service have been the source of one of the largest equal pay crises in modern…history, resulting in costs of over £1 billion to the residents of Birmingham. This situation simply cannot continue.”—[Official Report, 31 March 2025; Vol. 765, c. 45.]

The Prime Minister went further in his own remarks yesterday, saying:

“The situation in Birmingham council is completely unacceptable”.—[Official Report, 2 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 294.]

However, neither the Minister nor the Prime Minister has yet offered any criticism at all of Unite, whose action is the cause of all this rotting refuse in the streets.

Unite was Labour’s biggest union donor before the general election, giving £553,900 to a total of 86 MPs—although not to the Leader of the House, I am very pleased to say. Does she think there could be any relationship between the Government’s reluctance to call out Unite on the disastrous situation in Birmingham and the half a million pounds in donations their MPs have just received? Some Members of the House may see this whole situation as eerily reminiscent of the 1970s, especially Labour’s winter of discontent in 1978-79, when striking binmen caused refuse to pile up across major cities, including in Birmingham. My worry, however, is about not the past but the future. Labour consistently backed public sector union strikes when they were in opposition—a point the Prime Minister conveniently forgot to mention yesterday—but now they are in power they have thrown money at the unions hand over fist with little or no negotiated improvements. Let us not forget that Northern Rail negotiators have even said that their agreements with the union require them to use fax machines.

There is a very serious point here, Mr Speaker. At this moment, the Government are abolishing NHS England and taking direct control of the NHS. Does anyone seriously think that a Government who are incapable of calling out their union donors over bin collections will have any ability at all to withstand pressure from the same and other union donors on the NHS? What will that do to cost control and productivity, to public spending and inflation? I would be grateful if the Leader of the House reflected on those issues in her remarks.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I shall. The business for the week commencing 31 March includes:

Monday 31 March—Consideration of Lords message on the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 1 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages, followed by Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 2 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infrastructure Planning (Onshore Wind and Solar Generation) Order 2025, followed by a motion to approve the draft Motor Vehicles (Driving Licences) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025, followed by a motion to approve the draft Whiplash Injury (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Thursday 3 April—General debate on the impact of digital platforms on UK democracy, followed by a general debate on access to sport and PE in schools. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 4 April—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 April includes:

Monday 7 April—General debates: subjects to be confirmed.

Tuesday 8 April—General debate on the potential merits of awarding a posthumous Victoria Cross to Blair Mayne, followed by a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the Easter recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 8 April and will return on Tuesday 22 April.

[Jesse Norman]

May I start by thanking the whole House for their wonderful messages of condolence during last week’s business questions? I could not be more grateful. I single out, in particular, the Leader of the House for her very gracious remarks.

I turn from fathers to mothers, as this Sunday, of course, is Mother’s Day. The infant shadow Leaders of the House have been instructed—not that they needed it—on how to manage the occasion. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in celebrating mothers at the weekend, and expressing ourselves in all kinds of ways to thank our mothers and the mothers we have among us for all the work they do.

This has been the week of the spring statement. The House will recall the October Budget in November of last year. It was described as a once-in-a-generation Budget, with no tax rises to follow. This week we have seen that the Chancellor’s own growth forecast just four months later has been halved, and she has increased cuts to welfare benefits. That follows the interesting strategy of abolishing NHS England, having just fired all the team running it. The tax burden is on track to hit a record high in 2027-28.

We should give credit where credit is due—the Chancellor has protected capital investment, which is a very important and correct decision—but there have also been wheezes. I am sorry to say that she has somewhat pulled the wool over the eyes of the Office for Budget Responsibility in relation to housing growth, which is the Government’s new “get out of jail free” card. It has never been included in an OBR estimate before, and it is very doubtful and unlikely that it will happen in any case, even at those levels—the target has already been downgraded from 1.5 million houses to 1.3 million houses—because of the planned upheaval in local government. Meanwhile, the immensely damaging Employment Rights Bill goes entirely unscored economically by the OBR. We will see what it says about that piece of legislation next time around.

The brutal fact is that although the Government claim to prioritise growth, growth has halved since they came into power. They have talked about little else, but even their own forecasts do not show growth getting back even to 2% by the end of the decade, and every major independent expert forecast of the economy’s future growth is lower than that of the OBR.

What do we see if we look more closely? The spring statement is not really about work at all; it is about moving people from welfare into lower-paying welfare. The cut to universal credit announced last week has been followed by a freezing of universal credit—why? It is because that appears to hit the Chancellor’s own fiscal headroom number to the decimal point. Last week we heard all the rhetoric about the moral case for nudging people back into work, but now it seems that this is actually an accounting exercise, and the economic and moral justification for the policy has been lost sight of.

The second point is the question whether artificial intelligence, which the Government have greatly emphasised, will actually have the effect of increasing growth. The Chancellor suggested that this idea was somehow obvious and conventional wisdom, but that is very far from true. The Nobel prize-winning economist Bob Solow famously said that the effects of the IT revolution could be seen everywhere except in the economic numbers. Other countries are scaling and deploying artificial intelligence with massive speed, and many experts believe that AI could increase unemployment and inequality, and raise the costs of retraining people and reintegrating them into the workforce. Far from creating economic growth, the advent of AI could end up forcing a Government—possibly this Government—into even more spending than they presently contemplate.

Finally, we get to the vexed and much-discussed issue of so-called fiscal headroom—or, to use a more technical phrase, the goolies-in-a-vice problem. It has been suggested that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. So far, we have seen minimal fiscal adjustment at the statement, and meanwhile the Chancellor has managed to recreate the same constraining conditions that existed beforehand. This is a situation entirely of the Government’s own making. It was the Chancellor’s decision to choose these fiscal rules, and it was her decision then to take measures that undermined economic growth. She has staked her own credibility and that of the Government on those decisions. The result is that we will now have endless uncertainty and avoidable speculation about the fiscal position every week, through the comprehensive spending review and into the autumn Budget.

The Chancellor has refused to rule out making more cuts to spending. Even so, she may have to impose tax rises, and those tax rises could come even sooner than anticipated if the US decides to go ahead with the tariff it has suggested. As such, my question is this: what will the Leader of the House feel in her own heart, and what will she say to her Cabinet colleagues over the next few weeks, as the full effects of these terribly damaging decisions become clear?

[Lucy Powell]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in saying that it was really heartwarming to hear so many tributes paid to his father at last week’s business questions. Such moments show the House at its best, and I thank him for bringing his eulogy to the Floor of the House. I also join him in looking forward to Mothering Sunday—maybe I will get some rest on that day, but we will see. First, I will have to pay a visit to my own mum, who I pay tribute to as well. Her very favourite phrase, which has stuck with me throughout my life, is “Them who does nowt does nowt wrong.” I will leave that to linger with a few colleagues.

As the right hon. Gentleman says, yesterday we heard the spring statement. We heard that this Labour Government are taking on the unprecedented long-term challenges that this country faces—I know that he and Conservative Members do not want to acknowledge it, but I am afraid that is the reality. The problems that we face run deep. There is huge global uncertainty, as he knows; there have been years of under-investment in infrastructure and in people, leading to low productivity and low growth; there are the effects of covid, to which we were particularly exposed, and which his Government did not address, leaving a generation of working-age adults consigned to benefits and 1 million young people not in education, training or work; and our economy remains in the long shadow of Liz Truss, who destroyed fiscal confidence, leaving high and costly debt, high interest rates and ordinary people paying the price. That, I am afraid, is the legacy we are trying to address.

We are facing up to those realities and putting this country on a path to improved living standards, secure work, an NHS that is back on its feet, affordable homes to live in, and security through defence and our global leadership. That is going to take time—there is no denying it—but the forecasts published yesterday, which the right hon. Gentleman took a selective view of, show the green shoots of recovery. He might not want to hear it, but as the OBR said yesterday, growth forecasts after this year have been upgraded as a result of our policies.

Britain is now set to be the second-fastest growing economy in the G7 this year and next year. I am glad that the shadow Leader of the House is welcoming the boost in capital investment, after years and years of under-investment and a downward trajectory in capital spending by his Government. That has led to another £2 billion extra earmarked for defence, another £2 billion more for affordable and social housing, and a transformation fund that will help reform our public services and deliver those better outcomes.

After the right hon. Gentleman’s Government left millions languishing in the aftermath of covid—that is what they did—we have got a plan to get people back to work, and we are making sure that the welfare safety net is sustainable for the long term. That is a far cry, I am afraid, from his Government. Our plan includes a pay rise for the lowest earners, coming in next week. The Employment Rights Bill, which we on the Government Benches are proud of, will give dignity and security in work. We have protections for the most in need and the biggest back to work programme in a generation. Even in the long shadow of Liz Truss—a very long shadow—which looms large over our fiscal credibility, interest rates are coming down, inflation is now under control and stability is restored.

The shadow Leader of the House asked about the headroom, but I gently remind him that the headroom that the Chancellor set out yesterday is 50% more than the headroom she inherited from her predecessor. One of the most shocking aspects of what we inherited was the eye-watering cost of servicing our enormous debt. We now spend £100 billion a year servicing debt, which is more than we spend on defence, justice and the Home Office combined. That is what we inherited from the Conservatives. Even in the face of those challenges, the Labour Chancellor announced yesterday that the Government’s day-to-day spending will be going up above inflation each year for this forecast, and that will help restore our public services and give support to those who need it most. Those are Labour values in practice, making different choices for this country in the interests of working people. That is what Labour values are all about.