Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 8 June—Committee of the whole House of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (day one).

Tuesday 9 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

Wednesday 10 June—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

Thursday 11 June—General debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.

Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 15 June includes:

Monday 15 June—The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration, followed by a debate on a motion on NHS dentistry. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 16 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

May I welcome my guests to the Gallery?

Part of our job at business questions is to act as a place of record, and this has been a grim week and a week of mourning for us all. First, we mourn for Henry Nowak. The whole House will know the terrible circumstances of his murder and will feel the deepest respect for the dignity of his family in the face of such a loss.

We mourn, too, the tragic loss of the three Royal Navy crew killed yesterday when their helicopter crashed in Devon, and the loss of Lance Corporal James Freeman of the Royal Anglian Regiment, who died on Sunday during a training exercise in Erbil.

We mourn the early death of Sir Alex Younger, as has already been mentioned in this Chamber. He was a friend to many in and around this House and did so much to protect this country in his long tenure as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service.

Finally, I hope I may record my personal sadness at the recent deaths of two true Conservative parliamentarians: Sir Alan Haselhurst and Sir Jeremy Hanley, who were both great public servants. In all these cases, we send our deepest condolences to their families, friends and comrades.

I have two matters to raise with the Leader of the House. The first is a matter of housekeeping. Colleagues will know of my deep concerns about the current plans for the rebuild of the Palace of Westminster, the lack of scrutiny they have received to date, and in particular the prospect of an uncapped budget potentially running up to an astounding £20 billion to £40 billion. The restoration and renewal client board last met on 2 March. At that meeting, I requested information, and I understood that my request had been agreed. Three months later, nothing has happened, as far as I am aware. I cannot even check the status of my request, because the minutes have not been published in either of the two parallel and apparently unconnected places on the parliamentary website. This is just not good enough. It is a disrespect to the Chamber and to the Palace as a whole.

Very soon, the Government are expected to bring forward a motion asking colleagues to endorse a programme that could cost more than the original budget for High Speed 2. Just think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker— I hope all Members will think about it. At present, colleagues are manifestly under-informed and under- prepared. Can the Leader of the House therefore reassure us that there will be proper time for scrutiny, both in the Public Accounts Committee and on the Floor of the House, and that at least three weeks’ notice will be given of any motion so that both Houses may prepare properly?

Secondly, I raise a matter of both local and national importance. The Leader of the House will know that thanks to the Hay festival and now HowTheLightGetsIn, every year at the end of May, Hay and its environs in my constituency become the world capital of ideas. As Arthur Miller once described it, Hay is the “Woodstock of the mind”, but it is also Hay-on-Wye, and the Wye—one of the loveliest rivers in Britain—remains in deep ecological distress. I have been campaigning on this issue for six years and progress, alas, has been fitful at best. The previous Government published a River Wye action plan, with up to £35 million earmarked to help deal with poultry manure and nutrient pollution, only for it to be discarded after the general election. But Herefordshire council and neighbouring councils have been working hard with farmers, conservation bodies and local partners, most recently through a new charter for the River Wye, an evocative statement of shared purpose across the catchment.

The root problem is a lack of joined-up collective action and a regulatory system that remains woefully insufficient. The river runs through England and Wales, but pollution does not stop at the border, and neither should policy. We have always needed one single approach that brings everyone together, and one source of authority for the river. That is why I am proposing statutory River Wye commissioners, an inexpensive cross-border body for the whole catchment that would be created by an Order in Council, with a single recovery plan, proper shared data, published milestones and the authority to bring all parties—businesses, farmers, campaigners, ecologists, planning, conservation and enforcement—to the same table. May we have a debate in Government time on River Wye commissioners? Perhaps the Government can pick up my River Wye (Cleaning) Bill, so that this wonderful river can be given the clear, accountable and empowered cross-border support that it so urgently needs.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

May I join the right hon. Gentleman in mentioning Henry Nowak? I thank him and many Members from across the House who have dealt with this tragic matter in a sensitive and responsible way. Unfortunately, it is not universal in this House, but in many ways Members have risen to the occasion. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need to respect the wishes of Henry’s family, but above all, we need to respect Henry himself. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has raised this issue.

The right hon. Gentleman has also given a list of other tragic events, and I want to mention some of them. As he says, we send our deepest condolences to the friends and families of the Navy personnel who were tragically killed during the helicopter training exercise yesterday. We also pay tribute to Lance Corporal James Freeman, who was killed in a training exercise in northern Iraq. I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with his family and his unit at this desperately sad time. It underlines just how important it is that we respect our men and women of the services, who do so much on behalf of our country.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I was saddened to hear of the death of Lord Haselhurst. Alan Haselhurst was a distinguished Deputy Speaker, Chairman of Ways and Means and Chair of the Administration Committee. He was a dedicated parliamentarian and was an MP for more than 47 years. I served with him on the Honours Committee from time to time, but more lately I met up with him in the Tea Room, where we invariably discussed cricket, about which he knew a great deal and I clearly did not.

I also pay tribute to Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, who passed away this week. He was a distinguished and dedicated public servant—and the longest serving MI6 chief in 50 years—and our thoughts are with his family at this very sad time.

I also place on record our tribute to Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, who, sadly, has passed away. She lived an extraordinary life, and served as a role model to women everywhere. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to her family and friends.

Lastly, but by no means least, I am sure the whole House will also join me in sending our condolences to the friends and family of Gladys Dickson. She was a much-loved character in the Members Tea Room, and rightly proud of the MBE that she received. She will be deeply missed by Members across the House.

I want to mention two matters before I get on to the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Patients across England will benefit from more services, treatments and better access to medicines from their local pharmacy under the new £340 million Government-funded deal we announced last week. We are making the most of our highly skilled pharmacists, while boosting access to services and giving patients more care right on their doorstep. I know this issue has been raised many times in business questions, and indeed elsewhere, and I hope that that pressure has influenced this decision and that this announcement will be welcomed.

At the weekend, the biggest train operator, Govia Thameslink Railway, entered public ownership, which means that publicly owned operators will deliver eight out of 10 passenger rail journeys, and millions of passengers will benefit from more accountability and reliable journeys. Railway services are frequently raised by Members with me, and in other ways as well. By setting up Great British Railways, we are putting passengers first, fixing what is broken and delivering a better railway on behalf of the people.

The right hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. He was right to raise, and it is concerning, that the client board has not yet produced the minutes of its meeting. I am sure there is no great conspiracy behind that; it is just that it has not got around to doing so, but I gave him the assurance that it will. I also agree with him that it is really important that we roll the pitch for any decision on R and R. I truly believe that we will need to make a decision one way or the other, because we cannot tread water for very much longer, not least because it is costing us a great deal of money to do so. Whichever route we take, it will cost a great deal of money, but there will be guidance on these governance and financial matters. Keeping tabs on the money is very important—it is at the heart of what we do—and I will therefore be bringing forward a motion, and I heard what he said about its timing. The PAC is looking at this, and we need to learn lessons from the people who have looked at this matter, so that we get the decision we will make absolutely right.

On the Hay-on-Wye festival and the River Wye, I too was at the Hay-on-Wye festival for a day. It is a tremendous event, and I encourage people to go along to it next year. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the state of our rivers. We have a clean water Bill in the King’s Speech, and we are determined to go on cleaning up our rivers and our seas. The Wye, among others, is a very beautiful river indeed, and it is important that it is cleaned up for communities along its route, but also for those visiting that particularly beautiful part of the world. I offer him a meeting with the water Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy)—to make his case for the actions that he proposes and so that he can put forward his proposals for commissioners. If the Government are not forthcoming on that, there are other routes he can take. He mentioned his private Member’s Bill, but there are other routes, and I know he is a determined campaigner for improving that situation.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business update and for the news of the debate on Wednesday. That will be an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to put matters on the record—but for scrutiny of the Government, actually, by far the best way is through the questions that will follow the next statement, although I am afraid that the Mandelson files were released publicly only at 2 pm and, at 1,500 pages, no Back-Bench Member can be expected to have mastered them.

The Leader of the House recognises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Since those files could have been put in the public domain at 9.30 this morning, could I register with him that we are all owed a slightly higher quality of scrutiny than this has received?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I do acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but that is precisely why I just announced Wednesday’s debate, which will be a general debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will respond to some of those points shortly.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 1 June will include:

Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.

Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill.

Wednesday 3 June—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

Thursday 4 June—General debate on Pride Month.

Friday 5 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 8 June will include:

Monday 8 June—Committee of the whole House on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (day one).

Tuesday 9 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

Wednesday 10 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network And Information Systems) Bill.

Thursday 11 June—General debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.

Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

It is famously true that our present Prime Minister gets 100 times more animated and passionate about the performance of his football club every weekend than he does about trivial details of social, economic or foreign policy, and still more so when it comes to defeating the enemy from Manchester. So one would have to have a heart of stone not to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of Arsenal football club in winning the premier league—I notice the astonishing lack of reaction from the Labour Benches. As we United fans say, only 11 more premiership wins to go, and Mikel Arteta will still be one short of Alex Ferguson.

In this world cup year, we remember with deep warmth and affection the heroes of 1966. I refer, of course, to the band of brothers who were so inspired by England’s world cup victory that they set up Westfields football club in Hereford. I pay special tribute to the legend that is Andy Morris—not ignoring his brilliant wife Sandra—who has been synonymous with Westfields ever since.

Whatever happens in Makerfield, it seems inevitable that there will soon be a leadership contest in the Labour party. The markets are spooked, the pundits are pontificating, the pollsters are rampant, but amid all the media speculation, there is one candidate—one extraordinary dark horse—who has not yet even been mentioned. That is why I am delighted, in relation to the leadership of the Labour party, to announce my strong support, in his bid for the top job, for the Leader of the House. Colleagues will have noticed a certain coyness from the Leader of the House about his own position last week in business questions. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is the clear sign of a man preparing to throw his hat into the ring.

For months now, I have lived with a secret fear that the Government will have a reshuffle and the Leader of the House will be relegated from the light of the Chamber back into the stygian depths of the Labour Whips Office. Luckily, the Prime Minister has remained far too weak even to contemplate a reshuffle, but I ask colleagues across the House, and especially on the Labour Benches, to contemplate that hideous prospect—that drastic loss of warmth, and wit and wisdom from these proceedings. As Ben Jonson said of Francis Bacon, when he spoke, the fear of everyone was that he would make an end.

Some foolish and ill-advised people will say that this leadership bid is an improbable one, and possibly even, in this age of botox, TikTok and Justin Trudeau, that a Prime Minister should be constructed on more youthful, foolish, inexperienced and, dare I say it, sleeker lines. To which I cry shame! Fie upon these unimaginative gloomsters and naysayers. What fools they are. It is precisely that apparently diffident Clark Kent exterior that makes my candidate—our candidate—such a politically electrifying prospect. In a world in which a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously advance the total economic shambles of supermarket food price caps, any move is on the table. The Leader of the House can therefore immediately become leader of the Labour party. It is simple common sense; we barely even need to change the name.

Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to know that under my steady hand, the Leader of the House’s Labour leadership campaign is ready to roll. The website is in hand, the baseball caps and T-shirts have been ordered. As Hilaire Belloc said of Lord Lundy:

“The stocks were sold; the Press was squared;

The Middle Class was quite prepared.”

Donors are falling over themselves to associate themselves with this extraordinary political intervention.

The one crucial remaining question is what campaign slogan we should use. We thought about “Common sense with Campbell”, “Campbell for the country” or “All in for Alan”, but there are two slogans with which we really cannot fail. When he responds, I know the Leader of the House will want to take the opportunity to formally launch the campaign himself from the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he can also indicate which of these two slogans he prefers: is it to be “Yes, we Cam-bell”, channelling the spirit of Barack Obama, or more inclusively still, “Make Britain Campbell again”? A nation awaits, so may we have a debate in Government time on this vital question?

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that the most important game is being played on Sunday, between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County. Good luck to Bolton!

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[Mr Speaker]

Top of the morning to you, too. I call the Leader of the House.

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 18 May will include:

Monday 18 May—Continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech, on backing business to create economic growth.

Tuesday 19 May—Continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech, on energy security.

Wednesday 20 May—Conclusion of the debate on the King’s Speech, on defence readiness.

Thursday 21 May—Second Reading of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 21 May and return on Monday 1 June.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 June will include:

Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.

Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House very much for announcing the business, and I welcome all colleagues back to the House. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating His Majesty the King not only on the Gracious Speech yesterday, but on his glorious triumph in the United States of America, in particular reminding our American cousins of the joy not of monarchy, which they know well enough from recent experience and over the years, but of a genuinely constitutional monarchy.

The House will know of my obsession with building NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology & Engineering—our new university in Hereford. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in celebrating its second graduation ceremony last Saturday. Its flagship degree was recently accredited for chartered certification by the prestigious Institution of Engineering and Technology, making its graduates, in that sense, holders of degrees equal to those to be found at Oxbridge or Russell group universities. Its latest crop of graduates have gone on to companies including Airbus, Hitachi Energy and GKN, and there is huge interest from applicants in its new bachelor’s and master’s degrees in autonomous robotics and drone technologies, which start in September. If Members will excuse the pun, as an engineering institution, NMITE is really starting to motor. I strongly encourage any Members who might be interested and wish to know more to drop me a line, because this route to local economic growth is of great potential significance.

It is fair to say that we have known quieter weeks than the couple since we last convened. What have we discovered during that period? A previously undisclosed gift of £5 million from a foreign cryptocurrency donor to the leader of Reform UK is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are reassured that it is entirely unrelated to that hon. Member’s recent interest in investing in Bitcoin.

The leader of the Green party, Zack Polanski, has admitted that he failed to pay council tax, was not in fact a spokesman for the Red Cross and was never a full member of the National Council for Hypnotherapy, which I am sure will come as a great relief to women across the country. He must be an acute embarrassment to my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and we thank her for her resilience. All that news will come as a surprise to precisely no one.

Lest we forget, nearly 100 Labour Members of Parliament, including four Ministers, have gone public with their opposition to the Prime Minister remaining in office. Three Cabinet Ministers have called on him to set a public timetable for his departure. Few Labour MPs, if any, believe that the Prime Minister will lead them into the next election.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware, I am sure, of the famous lines:

“The boy stood on the burning deck

Whence all but he had fled”.

It may be that the Leader of the House is the last person to occupy the position of standing on the burning deck when all but he has fled. Others are fleeing, and it is astonishing that Buckingham Palace had reportedly been forced to ask whether the King’s Speech was, in fact, really going ahead. Even now, I notice the slight sparsity of Members—actually, on all sides of the House—in this earlier sitting, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is widely reported to be preparing a bid for the leadership of the Labour party. King Lear asks in his bewilderment:

“Who is it that can tell me who I am?”

So it is with the Prime Minister. He does not know and nor, it seems, does anyone around him.

Amid all this Westminster madness, it falls to me to insert a nugget of something that actually affects every Member of this House in their constituencies—a matter of great local importance. The House will know that the Construction Industry Training Board is meant to be the guardian of construction skills in this country, funded by a statutory levy on the industry. Yet employer confidence is rapidly being eroded by the CITB’s recent behaviour. An Ofsted “requires improvement” judgment, the Farmer review’s call for a “fundamental reset”, poor communications with levy payers, a rarely updated website and a slow, cumbersome booking system all point in the same direction. At the same time, firms report duplication, delay and poor value for money.

For some courses—forklift training, for example—the CITB route can cost more than twice as much as the non-CITB route, take considerably longer and yet lead to precisely the same qualification. Many of the courses are not optional. Small construction firms must keep up with industry standards and legal health and safety requirements. They need a system that is fast, clear and good value, not one that makes compliance harder, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that are so crucial to our economy. Meanwhile, the levy is a tax in all but name that must be paid regardless of the services offered.

The CITB has expenditures of nearly £300 million, but gives less than half of that away in grants, while its wage bill and headcount steadily rise. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Ministers to write to me explaining how they intend to restore employer confidence in the CITB, particularly among small construction companies, improve course access and value for money, and reform an organisation that appears to be losing its way?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks—well, for some of his remarks. On a serious matter, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families of the three young women who died yesterday in the tragic incident in Brighton. Following the local elections, which took place last week, I wish to put on record my thanks to councillors for their service to their communities, irrespective of parties or of whether they are not party-aligned, and particularly to those who were not re-elected.

The King’s Speech opened our new parliamentary Session. Members will have heard your words, Mr Speaker, about how we should conduct ourselves. I fully support those remarks and thank you for setting them out to the House. This Session will be about economic growth, building infrastructure, improving public services and strengthening our national security. I have published a written ministerial statement this morning, which lists the Bills that we have announced, and Members will have an opportunity to debate the King’s Speech over the coming days. This is a serious, long-term plan, bringing about change and putting the country back in the service of working people.

Curiously, and in contrast, the Opposition brought forward an alternative King’s Speech, which, like most of the country, I had failed to notice until the Leader of the Opposition referred to it yesterday. I have a copy here, if anyone needs any night-time reading to put them to sleep. I read it with interest. The shadow Leader of the House is a distinguished author—I have read some of his works—who writes with genuine interest, clear thinking and even wit sometimes. All that demonstrates is that he had absolutely nothing to do with this alternative King’s Speech. The alternative King’s Speech is no more than a description of the long-term ills of our country, which merely serves to remind us that the previous Government had 12 legislative programmes and 14 long years to test these ideas, and they failed, so we will take no lectures from them.

I draw the House’s attention to the report published by the Modernisation Committee this morning. The report recommends a new pilot to allow Members to participate virtually in Select Committee meetings in limited circumstances. That is part of the Committee’s ongoing work to ensure that the House’s procedures remain effective, accessible and resilient. A motion will be brought forward in due course to allow the House to consider those proposals, which I hope will be supported.

Let me turn to the other remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I certainly congratulate NMITE in his Hereford constituency. I have said this before, but I will say it again: the success of that organisation is due not least to the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and leadership on this matter, and we should congratulate him on that.

I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House on the matter of the donation to the leader of Reform. These are serious allegations. I welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is looking into this, and I also welcome the independent Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in our democracy.

As for the other comments that the shadow Leader of the House makes about the current political situation, I encourage him to stop doomscrolling. The Prime Minister and the Government are getting on with the job of governing, and this King’s Speech is spreading opportunity and building a fairer Britain. On the CITB levy, this is a serious issue, and I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister and get them to write to him.

Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his remarks, and fully echo both their detail and their sentiment. As he says, accessibility should never be an afterthought. In the case of the House of Commons, there is not just the common decency that goes with trying to support anyone with a disability or another need. A vital aspect of being an effective parliamentarian is that every single Member of Parliament, whatever their background and personal needs, should be able to discharge their full capabilities on behalf of their constituents. That is why it is so central to what we do as a House.

Let me join the Leader of the House in welcoming the report. I also very much welcome the response from the House Administration, which is a very constructive document, by and large. We on the Committee are grateful for the constructive way in which the House Administration engaged with our concerns all the way through. I pay tribute not just to the current and previous members of the Committee, but to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and indeed to the current Leader of the House for steering this ship home to port.

I have a couple of reflections to add on this topic. Of course, when we think about accessibility, it is very easy just to think of physical changes to the structure of the House of Commons, but the Leader of House was absolutely right to think about not just Members but visitors, staff and people who use this building in many different ways, and about accessibility in relation to the public’s understanding of what we are trying to do.

There is a tradition in British political thought that the House of Commons should have not merely an efficient aspect to it, as Bagehot would put it, but a dignified aspect to it and even a certain mystique. I think there is some truth to that—as a Conservative, I would say that, wouldn’t I? There is some benefit to sticking with procedures that have proven their worth, even if it requires a little bit of effort to understand them. As a result, I would be very suspicious and concerned, on behalf of the House as an institution, about anything that I thought was dumbing down, but I do not think that is what is at stake here. What is at stake here are intelligent simplifications of language and presentation that allow Members to understand from the get-go how they can contribute constructively and effectively to what we are doing. Although the changes that were put through by previous House Administration officials in relation to the Order Paper did not come out of this process, I think that they were very constructive and helpful. The Order Paper is now unrecognisably better than what it was when I entered Parliament just a few years ago.

Let me say a couple of other things. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and it is important to keep these two things separate. The House will know that I am an extreme sceptic on the restoration and renewal process. The content of what is being proposed is poorly conceived, and there is a lack of a fixed budget. I am also sceptical about the process that has been followed and the lack of what I consider genuinely effective governance, but it is important to recognise that the report talks about that in order to reflect the importance of accessibility to that process. Whatever decision the House makes on restoration and renewal—I hope it will go for a drastically different version of what we are talking about—it will respect the need for full accessibility to this House and the House of Lords. I do not think that is on the table or up for negotiation at all, but one key point is that when we discuss this, we should not regard restoration and renewal as any substitute—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I gently point out to the shadow Leader of the House, and to anybody else planning on contributing, that this is not a debate on restoration and renewal. Although reference to it is of course acceptable, perhaps the substance of Members comments’ should not focus on that.

[Jesse Norman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid you may have been slightly misled by your officials. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and specifically refers to it as something that the Committee was invited to look forward to. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to mention it.

The specific point that I am making, if I am allowed to make it, is that we should not defer changes out of an expectation that restoration and renewal, whatever it may be, will be a panacea; we should be getting on with changes as soon as they can be made. One of the things that is so attractive about the work that the House Administration did in responding to the report, and to the Committee, was the energetic way in which it started the process of making changes when they were pointed out. I remember the director general coming forward with several hundred potential changes that could be made, and on which the House Administration had started to make progress.

Whatever the future may bring, let there be no delay in making this House as genuinely open and accessible as it possibly can be. Let me congratulate everyone on all the work that has been done so far, the officials who have made it happen and the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a couple of words about the excellent contributions to the debate.

I will, if I may, pick up on a couple of points. I do not think that anything more needs to be added to what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said about properly accessible toilets; he was absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made a well observed point about the diversity of experience and views among wheelchair users. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his gracious words about his predecessor, the brilliant Robert Halfon.

I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for the sceptic’s view on restoration and renewal. I ask the Leader of the House whether it might be possible to have two debates on that. We could first have what one might call a digestive debate, to discuss the actual process of R and R, how it will work and what might be involved, and then a second debate on the motion. The figure of £40 billion is so big that it would be helpful for the House to pre-consider the matter, before considering the motion.

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) very much for his moving remarks about his experience on the assisted dying private Member’s Bill. Finally, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) reminded us how difficult it is to replicate the specific experience of individual disabled MPs, and how important it is to listen to what they have said. With all that in mind, I thank the Committee and the Leader of the House for all the work they have done, and the Administration for its response.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I hope to take a little bit of time responding to them, because although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been a very useful one.

Let me first comment on the shadow Leader of the House’s speech. I thank him for his remarks and the way that he made them. It is abundantly evident from the time that we have worked together that he cares deeply about this place, as do I, as he knows. We are, to some extent, adversaries in a system that is adversarial; but at heart, we share a deep respect and love for this place, not least because, as he knows, we are both passing through. It was here before we got here, and it will be here after we leave.

That means that we work well on the Committee. What has struck me, in the relatively short time that I chaired the Committee, is that it works in a cross-party way; in fact, it works in a non-party way. Given the varied experience and the varied party labels of people around the room, it is amazing how often we actually understand the problem, analyse it and get to the right conclusion. That is not as rare in this place as people think; indeed, it is why it works very well indeed.

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that dumbing down can be a problem if we are not careful. This is not about dumbing down; it is about making this place more accessible, but also about how we do things. Where I do not agree with him, as he knows, is on restoration and renewal; on that, we are on different sides. However, as has been pointed out, today’s short debate is about now. It is about how we conduct ourselves now and for the foreseeable future, because even if the House takes a particular view on R and R and moves forward, it will still be quite a long time before some of the issues come to fruition. I believe that accessibility must be at the core of what we are doing now, but it must also be at the core of what happens after a decision is made on R and R.

Let me turn to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). I commend him on the excellent work that he does on his all-party groups, which I know comes from his deep personal interest in these matters, his experience and his commitment. The personal experience of these issues that he brings to this debate is important; it is abundantly clear that instead of observing these things from a distance and seeing them in our own way, we should learn from a position of experience. I very much value his contribution to modernisation. He is a strong advocate; if he has a strong view, he will voice it, and I absolutely commend him for that.

The issues with booking that my hon. Friend spoke about are not acceptable. I give him a commitment that we will look into that and see what more can be done. The story of what happened at that recent event illustrates the problem, and shows how important this investigation and report are. However—I will return to this point in my closing remarks—this is a work in progress. The report is a step along the way, not the end point.

Like other Members, my hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of our hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). As I know from personal experience, on matters of policy and everything else, she is a very strong advocate. I value her contribution and her knowledge on these matters very much indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford raised the issue of changing places and toilet facilities and, interestingly, pointed to the National Portrait Gallery. I have found out that, as Leader of the House, I am a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery— I have more than found it out; I have actually participated in the trustee role, to some extent. The next time I visit, I will once again remind them that there is a portrait of a former Member for Tynemouth—Dame Irene Ward, who was also the longest-serving woman MP—in the gallery, and I recently surpassed the length of time that she served in that seat. I am just letting them know that there is a certain logical conclusion that follows, but so far, they have not taken the hint—although I will not be wearing the hat that she is wearing in her photograph. [Interruption.] Well, it will be very popular.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), the Lib Dem spokesperson, who drew on her experience of this period of the Session, when there is ping-pong and Lords amendments. It is a difficult course that we have to navigate. I do not want to stress this too much, but I have been around quite a long time, and I can assure hon. Members that every time we get to Lords amendments, I have to go to the Clerks and ask whether I am right in what I think. I am not going to say that every time I navigate this, I get a different answer, but it is notoriously difficult. However, she is right; there are things that we should be able to do to inform Members of where we have got to.

I agree with the hon. Lady’s remarks about thinking about how and why we do things, because it is really important—other Members also picked this up—that the way we conduct our affairs in this place evolves, although we should also be careful about how that happens. We need to be—if hon. Members do not mind me saying so on this occasion—conservative with a small c. There should be a good reason before we change things. I fear that she might be correct, in that some of the changes will not be quick, but that does not mean— I know that she accepts this—that we should not get on with them. We do get on with them; we knock down the barriers and, where we can, quicken things up.

The hon. Lady has mentioned on a number of occasions that she is running the London marathon. I commend her for that, and for her hard sell on sponsorship. I would encourage people to run it; most of us, not least me, will not be doing that, but she is, and that is great. She talked about how the Modernisation Committee works. It is right that we share a space with other Committees, but they bring an expertise to what we do. I think that works quite well, because we can and do work effectively with other Committees.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the impact of covid, which had a massive effect on the way that this place works. We have spent a great deal of time trying to get back some of the things that were lost during covid—and they were lost. It was not just the way that this place conducts its votes that changed; it was, for example, the way that speeches were made. When most people, apart from the Whips, vacated this place and we moved to virtual speeches, I for one expected that nobody would want to speak. In fact, everybody wanted to speak, because they were speaking from their kitchen and making a three-minute speech. As a result, and with all due respect to new Members, there are now far more people trying to get in on debates, and far more time limits. It is now quite unusual to listen to a speech like this, that lasts more than three minutes. There were lasting effects from that time. However, there are lessons here, not just on this issue, but on other things we do. I would say to the hon. Lady that we are not going back to what we regarded as normal. We need to move forward and make things better.

I also endorse what the hon. Lady said about the great job that the education team does, particularly with younger children, and the daunting experience of trying to explain to them how this place works. I had that experience when children from Marine Park first school came down recently. Before I spoke to them, they had been in St James’s Park, having their packed lunch. I expected the first question to be, “Have you ever met the King?”, or “How much do you get paid?,” but it was, “Have you ever had your sandwich stolen by a duck?”, which brought politics down to a different level. I had not, actually, but unfortunately the child had, and she clearly remembered it.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I agree with his appreciation of the work of the previous Member for Harlow. We did not agree along political lines, but I learned a great deal from him; he was an excellent Member of Parliament.

I also agree with my hon. Friend about accessibility for all. It is not just about making this place accessible but making politics accessible. It is also not just about the people who are here now, who often had a greater struggle than some of us to get here, but the people in future who might want to get here but think that there are literally physical barriers in their way. Everybody has the right to get here, or at least to aspire to—it is up to the electorate to decide whether they are coming or not.

My hon. Friend also made an interesting point about Portcullis House. To some of us, Portcullis House is very new, yet it was the very place that was identified as being inaccessible. This is a battle that will continue over a long period of time. I echo the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made that procedure is important, and the history of this place is important. It is quite interesting what happens when new Members turn up—I know because I was one once. We think that things are going to change rapidly and that the House is going to change, but when we settle in a bit we realise why we do what we do. That is why we need to proceed at speed with some of these changes, but—if it is not the opposite—we also need to proceed with a degree of caution.

Turning to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I look forward to his contribution when the debate on R and R comes around. I think he thought that that is what this debate was going to be about. I cannot tell him when it will be, but there will be a debate. To some extent it has already been postponed, but that has been done for the right reason. He and I are on opposite sides on this, but I want Members to have absorbed the report. It is a big, far-reaching and powerful report, and I want Members to have the time for it to sink in.

I am very conscious that the situation is going to be brought into greater focus in the difficult international and economic situation we are living through. Considerations about how we spend taxpayers’ money will come into greater focus, so it is absolutely right that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office are looking at this. It is right that we get reports from them and are able to see in a more authoritative way—it is their job to do this—whether the proposals on the table are ones that we want to back or change. I can say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House two things: first, there will be a debate, and, secondly, Members in this place and in the Lords will make the decision on this. It will not be a decision taken behind closed doors.

[Jesse Norman]

The Leader of the House may not have been in his place, but I suggested that it might be possible to have two debates—a digestive debate and then a debate with a decision. Even if one of those is a Backbench debate, would that be something that he would support?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly support people having their say and being informed by debates. I will give it some thought; I am not rejecting it out of hand. But there will be a moment and there will be a motion, and then we will have to decide. As I say, I will be on a different side because, going back to what I have said about this remarkable place, this is an iconic building. It is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. Despite how legalistic the terms are, it is not owned by the Government but by the nation.

People will look at the numbers, and the numbers are eye-watering—I give them that—and the timescale is eye-watering too, but we will not save any money by delaying the vote to decide to either get on with it or not. Time and again when people were asked, they said that they want to see this place survive. It is the crucible of their politics. They want to be able to access it safely, and currently it is not safe in many ways. We are going to have to address this, but I give the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House my word that we will have a vote at some point in time.

Let me turn to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I do remember the event that he talked about. I am sorry that we were not able to find a way through that situation. He raised the different aspects of why he felt that he was in that situation, and I do think that we need to go away and reflect on that. The proxy system is evolving, but we should take away examples and see whether we need to make some changes.

This is not an excuse for what happened, but it was a set of unusual circumstances in the sense that it was not just a private Member’s Bill but a hotly contested private Member’s Bill. People felt personally committed to it, and I remember a huge number of emails about. There was also an expectation that people would be here. Therefore, the thing that we can do—to decide not to be here and not to vote—was not really an option for many people. When it came to trying to get someone to pair or finding some other way, I could not find a way through it at that time.

Briefly, I want to say that this is not just about changing a system—for example, proxy voting, which I would be open to looking at, and I think the Modernisation Committee would be too. I am a great advocate of the usual channels. I am a great advocate of the bit that people think is very suspicious and that makes them wonder why on earth we have such a system. Actually, it makes this place work. It is the oil that makes the engine of this place work. There are things that can be done through the usual channels that are never seen but that make life better for people—for MPs.

I will not go into the realm of the divisive politics that we have just lived through, but I will say that it is not just about covid. Covid is one part of it, but I have lived through recent times where politics has been more divisive. Therefore, it has been more difficult to get Opposition parties to accept the Government position, and the Government are finding it difficult to accept the perspective of the Opposition parties. I have to say, if this place is going to work better, we have to do it better. That is not to say that we have to resurrect the usual channels as it always was, but we have to find ways of better working, and that includes—I am not ashamed to say this—the personal relationships that make the usual channels work. That is certainly my approach, and it will continue to be so as long as I have the opportunity to contribute.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) was right to say that there was a huge turnover at the general election. In fact, it was said to me that 80% of Members now have less than seven years’ experience. Even when there was a massive change in 1997 and, indeed, 2010, it was not on that scale. The effect is that we have lost some of the institutional memory of this place, and that, as far as I am concerned, is a deficit.

On the other hand, we have a great number of new MPs with varied backgrounds, with all sorts of experiences, and also with varied needs. That is good, because we need to keep moving through that generational change. There is always a bit of a price to pay, but there is always an advantage to getting there as well. It is important that we take that into account. There are solutions to many of the issues that have been raised, but as I say, this report is not the end of the story. We will continue to work on this.

I understand the points that have been made about lots of votes, the time it takes and how exhausting it can be—and that is not to trivialise the experience of people who have additional needs. But going back to what I just said about the usual channels, I cannot remember a time when we had as many votes. When it comes to the responsibility of this place and the relationship between us and the other place, yes, they have every right to send lots back, and we have every right to kick it back too, but at some point they have to start giving something and the Government have to start giving something too. It is how Parliament works. It is how democracy works.

We do not have to have as many votes in this place as we do. They do not have as many votes down the corridor as we do here on a day-to-day basis. We do not have to have a vote at the end of Second Reading. Even if Members do not agree with a Bill, they do not have to vote against it on Second Reading. They can vote it down on Third Reading. The point of listening and making a speech against a Bill on Second Reading is that it will go to Committee, where changes can be made. If hon. Members do not like it, they can have a go on Report, and if they still do not like it they can vote it down on Third Reading. We spend a great deal of time on Divisions when we pretty well know what the results will be in most of them. [Interruption.] I am wandering a bit now, I can see that, but these are all issues where there are different solutions from those that might appear obvious. However, I will take that away and think about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich also made an important point about gender. Long may she continue to do so, because that is very important indeed.

We clearly have a long way to go on modernisation. We have seen some encouraging progress, and the report is part of that. We will continue to monitor all sorts of issues, including accessibility. I look forward to working in a collegiate way with colleagues to make progress and to make this an even greater place to work and for visitors to visit. I thank the House authorities for their ongoing work and commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the First Report of the Modernisation Committee, Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, HC 755, and the House Administration response, HC 1726.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 20 April will include:

Monday 20 April—Consideration of Lords message on the Victims and Courts Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill.

Tuesday 21 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

Wednesday 22 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill.

Thursday 23 April—General debate on the contribution of allied health professionals, followed by general debate on reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 24 April—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 27 April includes:

Monday 27 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages.

Tuesday 28 April—Consideration of Lords messages.

Wednesday 29 April—Consideration of Lords messages.

[Jesse Norman]

As the House will know, this has been a week of sporting triumph. I think of the Lionesses’ 1-0 world cup qualifier against the world champions, Italy—or former world champions, I should say—and Rory McIlroy defending his Masters title, which was another great moment. Whether or not we play, watch, or even like golf, it was an extraordinary, gripping achievement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

And he is from Northern Ireland.

[Jesse Norman]

And he is from Northern Ireland to boot. He is an honest man facing his demons and triumphing. What a contrast with the Prime Minister’s failure to answer, or even to engage with, the question at Prime Minister’s questions. The last four Prime Minister’s questions have focused on the Iran war, fuel duty, North sea oil and gas, and the defence review. Of the 24 responses given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, 23 have ignored the question and changed the subject. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, we even saw the Prime Minister hectoring you in your Chair, on live television, just for doing your job. That is a shameful record, for which the Prime Minister should write to you—and therefore by implication to this House—and apologise. This behaviour is contemptuous—of you, Mr Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, and of all MPs, now and in years gone by.

Our job, however imperfectly we may do it, is to pursue the truth on behalf of those we represent. If we give that up, then heaven help us. It is the Prime Minister’s job to answer, and to hold himself accountable for those answers. No Prime Minister likes to do that, but those are the rules. If the Prime Minister does not like the rules, does not want to offer honest answers, or is not up to it, he should step back and let someone else do the job instead. I thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us for maintaining the traditions of this House. I have three questions for the Leader of the House today, and I ask him first if he shares my view that the Prime Minister’s behaviour is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful of this House.

This is just part of a wider problem to do with accountability and disrespect for Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Gilbert’s parliamentary question of 16 March asked the Government about authorised Budget briefings to the media. Lord Livermore replied on the Government’s behalf:

“Consistent with these principles, there are occasions where the Government will trail and/or announce policy ahead of a Budget to provide context and help the public understand major fiscal events.”

This is nonsense. The rules are perfectly clear: major events must be announced first to this House. To do otherwise is a breach of the rules of this House, a flagrant violation of the ministerial code and contempt of Parliament. Previous Governments, as we all know, have done this on occasion, since 1997 at least, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have been fired for inadvertent briefings to the media before a Budget, but never before has it been a Government’s declared policy to ignore Parliament.

The deeper constitutional point is, of course, that in our representative system of government, the people are Parliament, and Parliament is the people. Nothing good can come of an attempt to undermine the British constitution by this means. I ask the Leader of the House, secondly, to comment on this, and to set out what he will do to get this policy of non-announcement of major measures withdrawn and revoked.

Finally, Lord Robertson spoke of the “corrosive complacency” of current political leadership, and of putting our country at risk. He said,

“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”

No one has more experience and expertise on defence across the whole of Parliament, in both Chambers. This man, the noble Lord Robertson, was a political activist for Labour since 1961. Just think. He is the last person one could imagine wanting to offer public criticism of a Labour Prime Minister, let alone in these terms—a man Labour to his boots, but a patriot first.

It is impossible to blame previous Governments for this. This Government and this Prime Minister created the defence review and the defence investment plan—no one else. It is their choice and their decision. It matters because in every constituency across the country there are companies wanting to know what the Government have decided. They are waiting for leadership. They need to know the numbers and the commitment, and, of course, our adversaries need to know that we are serious in our resolve, and they need to see the measure of that seriousness. My great fear—perhaps it is also Lord Robertson’s great fear—is that the Government will never publish this document, or they will do so in a completely insubstantial and lightweight way, and that 10 months of delay will end in nothing, and it will all have been a colossal waste of time and energy. The Prime Minister has been utterly hopeless on this. He told the Liaison Committee weeks ago that the document was on his desk, yet nothing has happened. I leave it to colleagues to judge the truth of his remarks.

I ask the Leader of the House, thirdly, if he will give this House a cast-iron guarantee on behalf of the Government that the defence investment plan will be published, and not simply shelved and forgotten. The one-year anniversary is in July.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, my thoughts are with our servicemen and women currently serving in the middle east. As the as the situation unfolds, our highest priority is to ensure the safety of our people in the region. My thoughts are also with those affected by the terrible attempted attack on the Finchley Reform synagogue. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking the police and emergency services for their swift action.

This week has seen the 37th anniversary of the disaster at Hillsborough. My thoughts are with the family and friends of those who died. As the Prime Minister reaffirmed yesterday, the Government are committed to delivering legislation and introducing a duty of candour across all public services.

I also want to pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham. Lord Beecham was an incredibly influential and dedicated politician who was respected across the political divide. His dedication to the city of Newcastle changed the city into what it is today. I know that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his family and friends.

During recess, we published our plan to halve knife crime. At the core of that plan is prevention, providing safe spaces in communities and supporting schools and families to address root causes. That means giving an alternative path to young people, which will literally save lives.

We have also announced our intention to invest £237 million to expand community diagnostic centres across England. Four CDCs will open, 17 will be expanded and 15 will receive enhancements to boost diagnostic capacity and get patients seen quicker. That means patients will be able to get swifter results, which is really important, and get them closer to home, which again is important. This week, over 500 new free breakfast clubs also began to open their doors, helping parents with the cost of living and giving children a healthy start to the day.

I turn now to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. If I may, I will deal broadly with his first two questions together. He referred first to the way in which the Prime Minister addressed the questions put to him yesterday, and secondly announcements made outside the House and whether the House should be the first to hear. The right hon. Gentleman has been here a very, very long time—[Interruption.] Well, a long time—let me put it that way. Not as long as me, but a long time. Frankly, we have both been here long enough to know better than to ask the questions he did. I know why he did so, and I understand exactly what the point is at the heart of it, but all Prime Ministers deal with Prime Minister’s questions in their own way. It is not unusual for any Prime Minister or any Minister not to give the answer that the Opposition want on a particular day, so let us not kid ourselves that we are entering a new chapter on that.

The shadow Leader of the House talked about announcements to the House. He actually said that the previous Government “on occasion” made announcements outside the House. On occasion? I think it was on occasion that they actually made the announcements in the House.

But there is a serious point, which I will address. I am absolutely clear, and I have said from the Dispatch Box before, that serious announcements should be made at the earliest convenience in the House. But we understand that politics is done in a different environment from how it was done a decade or two decades before: to some extent, it is a moving environment, and Government is working in that environment, too. However, I do take the shadow Leader of the House’s point, and I have said that announcements should be made in the House at the earliest opportunity.

Let me turn to the comments of Lord Robertson. The Prime Minister made his and the Government’s view clear on that. The shadow Leader of the House asked about the defence plan. It will be delivered, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the plan. I do accept that perhaps it has taken longer than any of us would have wished; let me give the House three reasons why that is so. The first is that we inherited a defence budget that was totally out of control and which had been mismanaged for the past 14 years. It had been, in the words of a previous Defence Secretary, hollowed out—and that was not a previous Labour Defence Secretary but a previous Conservative Defence Secretary. That is the first reason why it takes time to put this right and turn it around.

The second reason, and I think the shadow Leader of the House knows this because he is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, is that we inherited an economic mess. If we are going to put defence right, we have to have the money to do that. Again, the right hon. Gentleman understands that, because he has all but admitted in this place that he is a secret Keynesian at heart. [Interruption.] He has admitted to it. Don’t worry; he has owned up to it. The point is that he understands, as do most people, that our economic inheritance was absolutely appalling, and we have to get that right too before we can press ahead with our commitments to properly fund defence.

The third point that is relevant here is that the botched Brexit deal left us diplomatically isolated, and the Prime Minister has personally invested a great deal of his time and energy to build alliances with our allies, not least in Europe. Those alliances are important as we look at the question of defence in a moving international situation and of where defence will be as we move forward. I cannot accept the analysis or the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow, at the election, it was day zero and nothing that happened before that has any impact on the way in which this Government are forced to face up to those difficult decisions. We will publish the plan and there will be an opportunity to debate it.

Let me finish on this: I understand the shadow Leader of the House’s point about companies, and obviously there needs to be some certainty. However, let me just rid him of the suggestion that everyone is waiting for announcements and nothing is happening. Contracts are being issued all the time, and more than 80% of contracts in the last two years have gone to British companies, which is in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 23 March will include:

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

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

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

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Alan Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

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

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 16 March will include:

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

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

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

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

Friday 20 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 23 March includes:

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Declare your interest!

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Alan Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 13 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 March includes:

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 23 February will include:

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

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

Wednesday 25 February—General debate on Ukraine.

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

Friday 27 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 March includes:

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

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

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

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

Friday 6 March—The House will not be sitting.

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Alan Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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