Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

I shall, Mr Speaker.

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

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

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

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 April includes:

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

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

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

Friday 25 April—Private Members’ Bills.

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 4 April—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 April includes:

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

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

I shall. The business for the week commencing 24 March includes:

Monday 24 March—Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Tuesday 25 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Non-domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Great British Energy Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Wednesday 26 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make her spring statement, followed by remaining stages of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Thursday 27 March—General debate on St Patrick’s day and Northern Irish affairs, followed by general debate on the 10th anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 28 March—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 31 March includes:

Monday 31 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by remaining stages of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 1 April—Second Reading of the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords].

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Jesse Norman]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that you and the House will excuse me if I start on a very personal note.

Almost exactly 24 hours ago, my father, Torquil Norman, died at the age of 91. He was an extraordinary man. He flew Seafires and Sea Furies during his national service in the Fleet Air Arm. He created Polly Pocket, a toy that has brought unbelievable joy to many young people around the House and around the world. He rebuilt the Roundhouse in Chalk Farm in London, not just as an incredible performing arts centre, but as a creative centre for young people from whatever background to be able to find their way into jobs.

The reason I mention that now is that my father stood for values that bear a wider consideration in this House and in our own lives—values of positivity and creativity. He always said that the secret to success in the toy business was to have a mental age of seven and an eye for detail. He had incredible energy but also amazing resilience and focus on the long term. “Turn up at the finishing line” was one of his maxims. Even in his 80s, he was building and creating a new enterprise to develop flat-pack trucks, if you can imagine such a thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that could be sold to countries around the world at low cost, supporting businesses and people.

I think the whole House would agree with me that we need these values today. At a time of difficulty, stagnation and international conflict, we need these values of creativity, ambition, drive, respect for others and, above all, capability —a focus not just on the head, but on the hand and the heart as well. That is something I feel very strongly about. We are trying to build a new specialist technical engineering college in Hereford, precisely to bring those different aspects of the human personality together in the service of better jobs and better possibilities.

I also think that it encourages us all, as a House and as a Parliament, to ask the right questions and to support long-term solutions, even when those questions and solutions may not be ones that we are ideologically or politically drawn to. We are in a world where welfare costs are rising higher than anyone could have wanted; civil service effectiveness is perhaps not as great as we would like; productivity in the NHS is not what we would all want, for whatever reasons that may be, over a very long period; and we need a rapid boost to our defence and security. Those are crucial questions that we, as a House, will need to continue to develop and discuss over the next few years.

I want to ask the Leader of the House whether we and other Members of the Modernisation Committee cannot expand our thinking about those long-term issues and try to push for more scope for co-operation between the parties on them, more consultation and debate on key legislation before it is brought to the House, and more ways to develop closer personal engagement between Members, so that we can build respect and co-operation across the House for the longer term. One of my father’s maxims—you will have discovered that he had many—was, “The secret to success is to take a large bite and then chew it.” I think that we could perhaps do that more as a House and as a country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Before the Leader of the House responds, I wish to put on the record my condolences to the right hon. Gentleman, and my love and prayers. He and I spent some time together in a Department. He was a top gentleman to work with, and his father will have been very proud.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

May I also express my sympathy to the shadow Leader of the House? I knew Torquil, his father, very well for many years. I worked in the toy industry in competition with him and worked with him on many charities. He created some fantastic toys, not just Polly Pocket, but the big yellow teapot, the a la carte kitchen and the big red fun bus.

[Jesse Norman]

Hear, hear!

[Clive Jones]

Torquil Norman created all of those when he started the very successful public company, Bluebird Toys. He brought fun to millions of children across the world and, in doing so, he had the most wonderful life. The right hon. Member and his family will have much to celebrate in the coming weeks and months remembering him. All those associated with the toy industry will have been very sad to hear this news today.

For months, one of my constituents in Wokingham has been trying every morning at 6 am to book a driving test, but is left waiting in an online queue for half an hour with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency system, which suspects that he is a bot. Actual bots somehow get through, buying up test slots and selling them off at a premium. My constituent does everything right, but the system does not work for them. Can we have a debate in Government time on how to address the frustrating shortages of driving tests?

[Lucy Powell]

First, let me thank the hon. Member for his tribute to Torquil Norman. I am sure that if the shadow Leader of the House were able to respond to his question, he would want to do so by thanking him dearly for painting another lovely picture of his father.

[Jesse Norman]

indicated assent.

[Lucy Powell]

I did not realise that Torquil Norman created Bluebird Toys, and all of the toys that that involved, so I think all of us owe him a great debt for inventing such fantastic toys.

The hon. Member raises an important issue about the DVSA on which we get many complaints. People are waiting too long to get their driving test slots. I know that other colleagues have raised that matter with me in the past, and will probably raise it with me today as well. Perhaps they might club together to get a Backbench Business debate on this important matter.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

I shall.

Monday 17 March—Remaining stages of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (day one).

Tuesday 18 March—Remaining stages of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (day two).

Wednesday 19 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, followed by Opposition day (first allotted day, second part). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 20 March—General debate on knife crime among children and young people, followed by a general debate on coastal communities. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 21 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 24 March will include:

Monday 24 March—Second Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Tuesday 25 March—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Great British Energy Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Wednesday 26 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will make her spring statement, followed by remaining stages of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Thursday 27 March—General debate on St Patrick’s Day and Northern Irish affairs, followed by general debate on the 10th anniversary of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 28 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

I am sure the whole House will want to join me in recognising and thanking the salvage and nature recovery specialists who are even now scrambling to clear up after the disastrous collision in the North sea.

They say a conservative is a socialist who has been mugged by reality. If that is so, we are witnessing the extraordinary sight of a Prime Minister who is being visibly mugged by reality in slow motion before our very eyes. The Government’s brand of socialism started well from their point of view, if disastrously for the country: we had the union pay-offs, the rapid settlement of pay disputes in the public sector—for zero apparent efficiency benefits—and a heavily tax-and-spend Budget. The Chancellor was even so bold, as Members will recall, as to announce to the CBI that she would not be raising taxes or increasing debt over the course of the Government. As she said:

“I’m clear…I’m not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”.

However, the Budget started to unravel almost as soon as it was published. We had the bizarre sight of a Government who were ever more committed to talking about growth while clubbing growth to death across a variety of sectors: through the national insurance rise and the £5 billion burden of the Employment Rights Bill, of course, but also through their loss of credibility in the markets, which has pushed up gilt yields by 25% since September. Great British Energy was announced, and did nothing. The Government made an unsuccessful attempt to claim credit for the achievements of the newly rebranded National Wealth Fund, which had been set up only weeks before. The system of infrastructure monitoring and planning has been dismantled, and there has been no news for three months on the decision on small modular reactors, which was due on 1 December or thereabouts. Can the Leader of the House update the House on when we can expect that decision?

Then President Trump got elected, despite—or perhaps because of—the special SWAT team of Labour activists sent over to campaign for his rival, and then the mugging by reality really began. The Energy Secretary was forced to pare back his ruinously expensive zero-carbon energy plans; the Prime Minister had to announce his plan for change; the Government were forced to accelerate their defence spending plans in order to address the situation in Ukraine; and so it continues.

This week, we have heard of the Government’s so-called Operation Chainsaw—or should that be butter knife?—to reshape the civil service. Next week, we will have hasty and almost certainly ill thought through cuts to welfare. Labour was red under the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), became a gentle cerise for voters at the general election and, now that reality is setting in, it is a pleasing shade of purple, with more and more patches of blue. The Prime Minister and the Government are becoming more Conservative by the day.

In sharp contrast, it is the Government’s policy towards rural areas that is most striking. We have seen the family farm tax and the disproportionate effect on hospices and social care services in rural areas arising from the rise in national insurance. Now, in the same week, we have seen new compulsory purchase powers to seize farmland and the abrupt and unexpected end of the sustainable farming incentives scheme. The Government are simultaneously reducing farm incomes, threatening farm holdings and forcing the sale of family farms through their inheritance tax changes. I am sad to say that even the £35 million allocated by the previous Government to clean up the River Wye—one of the natural glories of this country—has been cut to just £1 million. The Labour message is clear: do not be a farmer. Do not feed the country. Do not give us food security. Do not work every hour God sends, whatever the weather—we do not care.

The Leader of the House has been very clear that it is her policy not to answer Opposition questions, or even to answer questions about her policy of not answering questions. She ignored my questions yet again last week, but perhaps she can have a go at these questions now. Why have the Government taken such a punitive approach to the countryside? Are they doing so deliberately, or is it just by accident? Finally, will she come to visit some farmers in Herefordshire with me so that she can see the actual effect of these policies for herself? We will throw in some magnificent Shepherds or Rowlestone ice cream, as well, if that will make any difference.

[Lucy Powell]

I start by congratulating young carers across the country on their day of action yesterday.

I know the whole House will be as hopeful as everybody else in the country about Ukraine, as talks continue this week and over the weekend. I am sure we all welcome the resumption of military aid and intelligence sharing between the US and Ukraine. This really is an important moment for peace in the region and the ball is now firmly in Russia’s court.

The shadow Leader of the House spent most of his speech last week and this week giving a long lecture about why I do not answer his questions while actually failing to ask me very many at all. We had a couple of small questions today at the end of another diatribe that, as ever, took us through various myths and misinformation. He will know that this Government had to take some very difficult decisions to deal with an economy that no Government would want to deal with: high and rising debt; stagnant growth; low productivity; low wages; and public services on their knees. That is why we have had to take some difficult decisions to fix those foundations, but, most importantly, to get that investment back into our public services, as we desire to do.

The shadow Leader of the House again raised the point about national insurance, but I must point out to the House that he was a Treasury Minister when his Government raised national insurance not only on businesses, but on working people as well. I am sorry to tell him that this Government absolutely back British farmers. We are doing what we can to support them: we have increased the farming budget to £5 billion over two years, which is far more than the Conservative Government ever did; we have set out a new deal for farmers; and we are investing in our flood defences. We also have a plan for sustainable food, and he knows better than anybody that the sustainable farming incentive had a capped budget, which his Government did not announce. They failed to spend any of it, and, given the action that we have taken, it has been oversubscribed in the meantime. That is why we have closed that fund, but we are setting out a new fund after the spring statement next week.

I might give the shadow Leader of the House an alternative point of view on recent history. Order Paper aficionados will have noticed that Tuesday marked our 100th sitting day of this parliamentary Session —[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] That is 100 days of boosting our public services, investing in jobs and growth, and reforming the state in favour of people and against vested interest. That is also 100 days of change and 100 days of putting the Government back in the service of working people.

We have had the most ambitious King’s Speech programme of any incoming Government. Ten Bills have now received Royal Assent, including: the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Act 2024, ending the scandal of free cash going to failed rail companies; and the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, ending bonuses for water bosses polluting our waterways. Very soon, we will have Martyn’s law, keeping the promise that we made to Figen Murray. And there is more on the way: strengthening renters’ rights; switching on Great British Energy; introducing new powers to tackle phone thefts; seizing off-road bikes; creating respect orders; banning knife sales; and introducing stronger protections against stalking and spiking. We are unblocking house building and energy infrastructure, which, for too long, has stalled. Yesterday, we completed our Commons stages of the Employment Rights Bill, giving people dignity and security in work. And that is just a few of the things that we have done.

Beyond that, we are fixing the big problems that the country faces: with waiting lists finally coming down; more GP appointments; breakfast clubs in school; a 25% increase in returns of people with no right to be here; more affordable housing and restricting the right to buy; finally getting rid of hereditary peers and cracking down on MPs’ second jobs; and the biggest devolution of powers in a generation. And that is just a snapshot of those 100 days.

Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that, in that time, we have made 115 statements to this place, because, like you, I respect the House of Commons and I respect that we make announcements here first. But what a contrast to the previous Conservative Government. They had to be dragged here to make statements. Their last King’s Speech was threadbare. The pinnacle of their ambition was to ban pedicabs in London, and they are not doing much better now, are they Mr Speaker? Hardly any of them turn up to debates. They are barely here for PMQs, although I do not blame them for that. They were a zombie Government, and is not the truth that they are a zombie Opposition now?

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

I shall. The business for the week commencing 10 March includes:

Monday 10 March�Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill.

Tuesday 11 March�Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill, day one.

Wednesday 12 March�Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill, day two.

Thursday 13 March�General debate on the future of farming, followed by a general debate on mental health support in educational settings. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 14 March�Private Members� Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 17 March will include:

Monday 17 March�Remaining stages of the Children�s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, day one.

Tuesday 18 March�Remaining stages of the Children�s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, day two.

Wednesday 19 March�Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill, followed by Opposition day, first allotted day, second part: debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 20 March�General debate on knife crime among children and young people, followed by a general debate on coastal communities. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 21 March�The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

Mr Speaker, may I first associate myself very strongly with your kind remarks about Peter Hipkins and his service to this House?

We join all colleagues in celebration of International Women�s Day this Saturday. I am sure the whole House will also share my deep concern at the latest news in relation to Ukraine and will wish to send all of our best wishes to the Prime Minister and other European leaders in doing everything they can to support that country.

It is now three months or so since I became shadow Leader of the House, and I am sad to say that these joyous Thursday morning sessions seem to have fallen into a little bit of a rut. [Interruption.] �No, no!�, I hear you cry, �Business questions are still as fresh, lively and engaging as they ever were, if not more so,� but sadly I fear that is not true. It is our function on the�Opposition Benches to press public concerns and raise questions about the Government�indeed, as His Majesty�s loyal Opposition, it is not only our function, but our constitutional duty to do so. It is the Government�s job to respond to those questions and concerns and, in so doing, to make the case publicly for the policy choices and decisions they have made and to say whether they have an underlying strategy.

Unfortunately, as you will have noticed, Mr Speaker, the Government are not doing that in our sessions. In fact, the Leader of the House rarely, if ever, responds to the important public questions and concerns that I raise. Instead, I am sorry to say that we get the same endlessly reheated mishmash of standard party political lines, personal jibes and irrelevant comment.

Hon. Members will recall that I first raised this issue at business questions on 5 December, when I highlighted a series of occasions on which the Leader had been unwilling to answer or even address some obvious examples of Government economic incompetence. As I pointed out:

�Many different responses were open to her. She could have said, �I agree with you.�� �[Official Report, 5 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 458.]

She could have said, �The shadow Leader is wrong for the following reasons,� or even, �I don�t know.� If she did not want to respond at that time, she could have said, as so many other Ministers do, �I will look into it,� �I will reply to you,� or, �I will ask a colleague to investigate and respond�. We just heard the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say those things.

In fact, on none of those occasions did the Leader of the House bother to give any kind of proper answer at all. Instead, her approach was to change the subject and attack the previous Government, rather than to defend the record of her own Government�which is, after all, the whole point of these exchanges. More troubling still is that she herself has so often called for transparency from Ministers, and that a failure to be accountable�is itself a breach of the rules of this House, of the Nolan principles and of the ministerial code of conduct.

I wish I could report that anything has changed since December. If anything, however, I am afraid that matters have got worse. A recent low point was at business questions on 13 February, when I raised five important issues relating to the Government�s approach to the rule of law, including the potential clash between domestic and international law, the level of risk that the Government sought to take and their attitude towards judicial review. I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House did not bother to respond to any of those questions: instead, we had yet another series of irrelevant political attacks.

We need a better way to track and monitor those evasions, so, in the spirit of openness and transparency, I propose a new approach, which we can call �Leader�s bingo�. Colleagues get a point every time the Leader of the House blames the previous Government, attacks Members of the Opposition, changes the subject or uses the words �gently remind�, �take no lectures� or similar in her response. I would not for one second suggest that colleagues shout �Bingo!� in the Chamber, but there may be other ways in which they can indicate when they have filled their card.

That is a light-hearted suggestion, but it has a serious purpose. I know how strongly you, Mr Speaker, feel about the importance of parliamentary accountability, transparency and the proper scrutiny of Government decisions. I ask the Leader of the House again if she will reaffirm her commitment to those values and engage properly with the questions I ask in the future.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Bad start.

[Jesse Norman]

Touché, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

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

I say to the gorgeous and brilliant Mr Speaker that I will.

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Tuesday 4 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.

Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (first allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; and the Department for Business and Trade. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 6 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by general debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a debate on a motion on political finance rules. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 March will include:

Monday 10 March—Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill.

Tuesday 11 March—Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill (day one).

Wednesday 12 March—Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill (day two).

Thursday 13 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 14 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure what mental obfuscation is filling my head this morning, but I thank you again. It is my happy task to open by saying that today sees the retirement of Dawn, a stalwart of the Tea Room. I am sure that I speak for the whole House in wishing her a very happy retirement.

On a very different note, this week also marks the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We wish the Prime Minister every success in his meetings at the White House today. The Government have come in for some fairly punishing criticism from me at the Dispatch Box in recent months, and rightly so. They came to power loudly advertising their virtue and careful planning, but instead, as the House will know, we have seen a series of entirely avoidable resignations, blunders and mishaps. The Government have talked about growth, but their decisions have managed to reduce the Bank of England’s forecast from 2% to 0.75% growth for this year. It is little wonder when one considers the £25 billion increase in national insurance contributions and the imposition of an Employment Rights Bill with an up-front cost estimated at £5 billion, among much else.

Most bizarre of all has been the lack of foresight in financial planning. The Chancellor talked grandly in her Mais lecture last year about “securonomics”—whatever that is—and the importance of economic security, but as many commentators have noticed, her fiscal rules and other decisions have left her very little room for manoeuvre. After all, it was obvious in the autumn that there could be tariffs on trade and, as Ministers have since acknowledged, an inevitable rise in defence spending. It is almost as though Labour never imagined, or perhaps never wanted to believe, that President Trump would be re-elected. As a result, the Government may be forced to have a mini-Budget next month and then a spending review, which has been so delayed that they will have gone a full year from their election without having any settled spending plans. Meanwhile, they prefer to import oil and gas from abroad, rather than use less expensive domestic energy supplies. Forget securonomics; this is a recipe for insecurity, as well as increasing carbon emissions.

However, it is important to give credit where credit is due. I reported in December that genuine signs of reality were starting to break through in the Government’s so-called plan for change. In it, the Prime Minister said:

“In 2010, the incoming government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair.”

He said that the UK needed

“a profound cultural shift away from a declinist mentality, which has become so comfortable with failure”.

Finally, and most notably, he said that

“we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.”

The Prime Minister was right on all three counts, and he is right now to increase defence spending. It is not untrue to say that he is visibly becoming more conservative before our eyes.

Unfortunately, the real numbers in the defence statement were in fact half what he claimed, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies quickly made clear, and I am sorry to say that the statement was insulting in other ways to this House. It appears to have been leaked to the media, who ran the headline before the Prime Minister had even stood up. Perish the thought that the statement was deliberately redacted so that MPs would be kept in the dark and could not hold the Government to account. The Prime Minister has emphasised all the planning that was involved in this decision. Even so, he was repeatedly unable to answer the simple “yes or no” question of whether funding for the Chagos Islands deal was included in the total.

What is worse is that, in his statement, the Prime Minister tried to aggregate the intelligence services budget into the defence budget. That is grossly misleading, because those budgets are, and have long been, kept separate. What is worse still is that the Prime Minister’s claim that the combination of the two budgets would be 2.6% of GDP seems to imply a cut, not a rise, in the budget for the intelligence services, which currently stands at over 0.15% of GDP. This cannot be correct. Even if the Leader of the House cannot address my question now, I would be grateful if she could write to me with the details in order to answer it for the record and for the benefit of this House.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 24 February includes:

Monday 24 February—Remaining stages of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 25 February—Second Reading of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 26 February—Opposition day (5th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 27 February—General debate on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine, followed by a general debate on St David’s day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 28 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 March will include:

Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

Tuesday 4 March—All stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.

Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (1st allotted day). At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Thursday 6 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

Like some of our leading podcasters, we love a storm cloud or two in business questions. Sure enough, the poor Government have been desperately hoping that recent events in America would drive the storm clouds away from the UK economy. Even though the news from Washington DC has been startling, to say the least, it has not been enough to dispel yet another week of adverse economic headlines. Both the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England have reportedly downgraded their growth forecasts, the latter cutting its by half, to a measly 0.75% for the year. So much for the Chancellor’s much-vaunted dash for growth.

Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has reported that “zero fiscal headroom remains” to deal with any shocks, in the same week that President Trump has announced 25% tariffs on steel. It is easy to see what has happened here: Labour never expected President Trump to win. It sent a team over to campaign for his opponent. The Government passed an anti-growth Budget, and they did not build enough leeway into their financial planning. Indeed, the Chancellor promised no new taxes or spending. Now we are having to live with the consequences.

It was also hard to miss the continuing controversy that the Attorney General is creating, and harder still not to notice the extremely critical words of his Labour colleague, Lord Glasman. I do not propose to repeat those words here, but they point to two issues that demand this House’s full and proper attention. In both cases, the concern is not over the legal positions taken by the Attorney General as such, but the contradictions that they offer to the rest of Government policy. People can agree or disagree about the policy, but the contradictions cannot be fudged. They cannot be blamed on others, and they require explanation.

The first contradiction is in relation to international law. On 3 February, the Attorney General told the Council of Europe that the Government would

“never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or refuse to comply with judgments of the court”.

In doing so, he was simply restating settled UK policy for many decades, a fact that he somehow neglected to mention. The difficulty arises, however, because the Government’s new legislation on small boats appears to retain a measure banning migrants from claiming protections under the modern slavery laws. That is a ban that the Prime Minister went out of his way to denounce when it was first introduced in 2023. In his words:

“It is a crying shame that…we face legislation that drives a coach and horses through our world-leading modern slavery framework, which protects women from exploitation.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 295.]

That is quite a U-turn. You see the deeper problem, Mr Speaker. Which is it to be: will the Government abide by international law in this instance and protect women from exploitation, as the Prime Minister said, or will they reverse his newly adopted position in support of the ban?

The second problem relates to domestic law. Last November, the Attorney General strengthened his official guidance to Government lawyers on possible legal risk. He specifically cautioned against offering legal support for policies that have only a tenable case. Elsewhere, he has pledged to restore checks on Executive—that is, Government—action. This comes at a time when the Prime Minister has specifically pledged to end vexatious litigation while building a huge amount of new housing and infrastructure. You see the problem, Mr Speaker. It was the problem that the noble Lord Glasman was pointing out when he praised the rule of law, but not of lawyers. This edict will have a chilling effect on what I think we can already agree is pretty sluggish decision making by Ministers.

Will the Government now take less legal risk, as the Attorney General requires? Will their lawyers now require Ministers to act only when they can defeat a legal challenge, or will they curb the judicial reviews and other legal cases that will otherwise inevitably disrupt their building plans? I do not expect the Leader of the House to tell us how the Government plan to resolve those obvious problems today, but the House would be grateful for a debate in Government time on what on earth the Government’s approach will be to resolving them.

[Lucy Powell]

May I first update the House on the work of the Modernisation Committee, which I chair? We established the Committee to rebuild trust in politics, raise standards, improve culture and make Parliament more effective. In recent years, the role of an MP has changed significantly, with many more demands and expectations in the constituency. The make-up of the Commons has changed a great deal too; many more parties are represented and Members better reflect the country we serve. So how we do things needs to change, too. I thank all of those who contributed to our wide-ranging call for views.

Work is already under way, with the Standards Committee’s inquiry on Members’ outside employment and the Procedure Committee’s inquiry on proxy votes and call lists. Today, we have set out three further areas for consideration: improving accessibility; ensuring that the Chamber remains the crucible of national debate; and how we can provide more certainty on parliamentary business.

The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points and gave a list of economic statistics. I might give him some alternative ones, if I may. Inflation is down, mortgage rates are coming down, wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years, business investment is at the highest level for 19 years, and the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are both saying that Britain will be Europe’s fastest growing major economy in coming years. He supported the former Prime Minister —not the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is in his place, but the one who crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates flying and inflation to record highs—so I will not take lectures from him.

Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman raised the Attorney General. Quite honestly, the way in which the Conservatives and their friends in the right-wing media are trying to undermine the Attorney General is pathetic. They were once the party of law and order, and now they seek to undermine law and order at every turn. As someone who works closely with the Attorney General, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is an asset to the Government and a formidable partner in our attempts to restore integrity to how we make and implement laws in this country. The Conservatives’ laws did not fit that remit, and that is why in many cases they never got off the ground. They were challenged time and again in the courts, wasting everyone’s time and money and not delivering the outcomes that they wanted. We will not take lectures from them on that.

The shadow Leader of the House did not want to talk about the substance of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we debated this week. That is because the previous Government lost control of our borders: net migration rose to a record high of almost 1 million in their last year in office, and small boat crossings increased by one hundredfold. To be fair to him, he knew that the Rwanda plan was a gimmick and would not work—he said as much when he resigned as a Minister—but I am at a loss as to why he and Conservative Front Benchers voted against giving the Border Security Command new counter-terrorism powers and other measures. They are chasing the tail of Reform so much that they are going around in dizzying circles, leaving the incredible sight of the modern Conservative party voting against strengthening our borders.

I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take up my invitation last week to celebrate the Leader of the Opposition’s first 100 days in office. Earlier this week, however, he did mark the anniversary of another leader being elected. Those were the days, weren’t they? Back then, the Tory party knew what it stood for—back when it was a serious party and represented large parts of the country. I am not sure Margaret Thatcher would even recognise the Conservative party today. It is no wonder the Conservatives herald and respect their former leaders far more than their current leader. Let us be honest: like their current leader, their party is a shadow of its former self.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 10 February is as follows:

Monday 10 February—Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.

Tuesday 11 February—Consideration of Lords message to the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords], followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Arbitration Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on motions to approve the draft Neonatal Care Leave and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2025 and the draft Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025.

Wednesday 12 February—Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 13 February—General debate on LGBT+ history month.

The House will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February.

The provisional business for the week commencing 24 February will include:

Monday 24 February—Remaining stages of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].

Colleagues may also wish to be aware that the business on Wednesday 5 March is expected to be an estimates day (1st allotted day).

[Jesse Norman]

This week we have seen a Government who talk about growth but have proved themselves unwilling to support transformational investment at the AstraZeneca plant in Liverpool. At the same time, they appear keen to expand the sums being paid in relation to the Chagos islands to a number some 250 times larger than that being considered for AstraZeneca. I can see the degree of shame and embarrassment about that on the Government Benches, and their concern that important cities in this country are being deprived of local investment as a result.

In business questions on 28 November, I raised the issue of the assisted dying Bill and highlighted a host of procedural defects in the way it was being rushed through the House by the Government. The Bill was published barely two weeks before the vote on Second Reading, as the House will recall. No impact assessment or legal issues analysis had been published. The promoter of the Bill had circulated a document purporting to answer questions, but which actually left a host of important questions entirely untouched. Those questions included the Bill’s impact on the medical profession and the relationship between medical staff and patients, and the impact on the provision and regulation of the different drugs and drug cocktails required. The questions included the involvement of the judiciary in the process and the balance of probabilities test for coercion that the Bill proposed.

It is not surprising that the Bill was and is being opposed by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Justice, with the former saying:

“I do not think that palliative care, end-of-life care in this country is in a condition yet where we are giving people the freedom to choose, without being coerced by the lack of support available.”

I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House responded to my remarks in a very patronising way, suggesting that it was somehow inappropriate and “political” for me to raise these matters at all. Of course, that was nonsense. I was not taking and do not take a position on the underlying issue. The whole purpose of business questions is to highlight and debate the passage of legislation through this House. But the Leader of the House’s defensiveness was itself revealing. It showed the extent to which the Government are quietly and wrongly standing behind this private Member’s Bill.

If we fast-forward two months, what do we find? A Supreme Court justice has told the Bill Committee that it is not clear what the judge’s role is supposed to be in this legislation. They called the judicial protection “largely illusory” and echoed many other legal experts in highlighting the lack of capacity in the High Court. The Government’s own chief medical officer specifically warned the Bill Committee that the NHS should not be rushed into becoming what would amount to a death service and said that most doctors would not wish to take part in the final stages of an assisted dying process, and emphasised the medical vagueness of the idea of qualifying people as terminally ill. We have heard about the serious potential for misdiagnosis through the horrendous case of Peter Sefton-Williams, who was incorrectly diagnosed with motor neurone disease and given as little as six months to live. Those were not my words; they are testimony on the Bill by leading experts from a range of fields.

All this has been made much worse by the rushed and secretive way in which the Bill Committee has been handled. The membership is disproportionately weighted towards supporters of the Bill. The schedule has been highly congested, with back-to-back sittings that do not allow MPs to prepare. Some of the sessions have been held in private. Attempts have been made to prevent key institutions, such as the Royal College of Psychiatrists, from appearing in front of the Committee at all. The effect of all these measures is to impede and inhibit external and internal scrutiny, and we now hear that the impact assessment will now not be published before Report stage. All these things are shocking attempts to undermine and short-circuit the proper scrutiny of the legislation.

The Leader of the House has said in terms that the Government are not supporting the legislation. She should therefore have an undiluted interest in ensuring that such an important and controversial Bill is properly handled. After all, she, more than any other, is supposed to be the custodian of proper parliamentary scrutiny of legislation. Will she therefore now act to address these obvious failures, or will she stick to her position that everything is fine and there is nothing to see here?

[Lucy Powell]

May I start with a couple of business questions updates? After my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) asked me to join her in congratulating “Bake Off” star Dylan Bachelet, they both joined me this week to taste some delicious cakes in my Leader of the House’s office bake-off. Dylan is not only an inspiration to young people from Aylesbury; I can report that he has extremely good taste, because he chose my lemon drizzle as the winner.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) for coming to see me this week with a copy of a Stone Roses record after we had exchanged nice words about Revolver Records in his constituency. I hope that hon. Members across the House can see that I am open to nice invitations celebrating constituencies and communities.

This week marks LGBT+ History Month, which is a chance for us to reflect and remember the contribution of the LGBT community and the discrimination that they still too often face. The Labour party is proud to be the party of equality, having abolished section 28 and introduced civil partnerships, the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 among other things.

Turning to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. First, let me take head on some of his misleading allegations about the process for the assisted dying Bill. As he is well aware, the House agreed by a clear majority that the Bill should proceed from Second Reading to Committee. That was the will of the House. That Committee is now convening, and in an unprecedented procedure for a private Member’s Bill it has been taking written and oral evidence to begin with. It will begin many weeks of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, which is again unprecedented; it will be a lengthy Committee stage.

The make-up of the Committee, as set out in the Standing Orders, reflects the vote on Second Reading and the party make-up of the House. Many would argue that its make-up has been overly conscious of that. As I have said at the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, while the Government have a neutral position on the principles of the Bill, we have a responsibility to ensure that any Bill passed by the House is workable and operable. That is the role that we will play through the Ministers representing the Government on that Committee.

It is extremely regrettable and ill-advised of the shadow Leader of the House to use his privileged position at the Dispatch Box to give such a political, one-sided and misleading account of what is a difficult, technical, important issue of conscience to the country and to the House. On the day of the Bill’s Second Reading and since, I think every colleague across the House—perhaps apart from him—has recognised that we and our procedures showed themselves at their very best in debating that important matter.

The right hon. Gentleman could have used his moment at the Dispatch Box to mark another important anniversary. It may have escaped people’s notice, but next Monday will mark 100 days since the Leader of the Opposition took office. I wondered how the right hon. Gentleman thought that was going. I am not sure why he did not celebrate all her brilliant achievements—perhaps it is because, like the rest of her leadership, they have gone completely unnoticed.

Oh no, sorry, we have learned a few things about the Leader of the Opposition: we now know what she is against. She is against maternity leave; the triple lock; abolishing hereditary peers; our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will protect young people from abusers; rights and security for workers; investment in the NHS; and—oh!—sandwiches for lunch. She has got a couple of things right: she admitted that her party made mistakes in government—indeed it did—and accepted that it had no plan for growth. This morning, despite saying that there would be no new policy until 2027, she has finally come up with one.

I gently advise the shadow Leader of the House that until the Conservatives accept that they got it badly wrong on immigration and that all their rhetoric and targets in the last Parliament were just hot air, I do not think that anyone will take the Leader of the Opposition’s ideas seriously. One hundred days is normally a moment for reflection and consideration, so he might want to reflect on that and agree that his party picked a bit of a dud.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 27 January includes:

Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.

Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords], followed by motions relating to the charter for budget responsibility and the welfare cap.

Thursday 30 January—General debate on proportional representation for general elections, followed by a general debate on the future of local post office services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 February will include:

Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Tuesday 4 February—Motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.

Wednesday 5 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 6 February—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

Over the past few months, the Labour party has been generous indeed in offering the people of this country regular evidence of its remarkable incompetence, but even by its formidable standards it has excelled itself this week. The Prime Minister said some time ago in terms that he prefers Davos to Westminster, but this week he has left the global hobnobbing and après-ski of the World Economic Forum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist her in her relentless search for growth. Her latest idea is to revive the third runway at Heathrow: a project so toxic to her Labour colleagues that it had been briefed against by the Energy Secretary and publicly rejected by the Mayor of London before it was even preannounced. As so often, I am afraid we will have to wait for the announcement to be made in this House.

Meanwhile, the Chancellor’s wizard wheeze of the autumn to set up a new Office for Value for Money was publicly rubbished in the most unsparing terms by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who described it as

“an understaffed, poorly defined organisation…set up with a vague remit and no clear plan to measure its effectiveness.”

That is from the Chancellor’s own Labour colleague.

Spending reviews are always fraught, and this one will be still more so, because the Chancellor has boxed herself in so badly on taxes and spending. What the Government think will be achieved by a couple of dozen hastily assembled newbies and some adolescent management consultants running around—apart from making things even worse—is hard to imagine. In case we forget, Mr Speaker, you and I and everyone else in the Chamber—indeed, every taxpayer—is paying for that.

Then we had no less a figure than the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies weighing in. He noted that the Government have done nothing but talk about growth ever since the last general election. He then noted:

“At the same time, we have seen the imposition of additional employment regulation, further regulation of rental housing, a hike in stamp duty, a big increase in tax on employers, an inflation-busting rise in the minimum wage, a refusal to contemplate any serious liberalisation of trade or free movement…and, perhaps, a clampdown on immigration.”

He asked:

“What is this government’s ‘theory of growth’?”

He then answered his own question: “Nobody knows”.

Those are just three examples of the Government’s absolute lack of seriousness in economics, but, as we have just heard in the urgent question, there is a serious issue in the area of law that they cannot avoid. Let me remind the House what has happened. The Attorney General has been repeatedly asked whether he has or has had a conflict of interest in relation to legal matters that could affect his former client, Gerry Adams. In response, a spokesman for the Prime Minister has highlighted systems to prevent potential conflicts from arising. The Attorney General has cited the convention that Law Officers do not discuss their advice to Ministers and has disclaimed any connection between his work for Mr Adams and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As the Solicitor General has just said, the standard that they are aspiring to is to be beyond reproach. The problem is that none of that addresses whether the Attorney General in fact recused himself. This does not fall either within the Law Officers’ convention or the cab rank principle. He either did recuse himself or he did not.

The problem is made worse when one reflects that this Attorney General is the first in the history of the office to have come into Government directly from private practice—that point was completely ignored in the urgent question—and that that practice was not in one of the less political areas of law such as corporate law or chancery but squarely in the highly contentious and political area of human rights, with some of it in Northern Ireland. There is no reason whatever in law or ministerial practice why the Attorney General should not be transparent on this issue, as he has been already in relation to the legacy Act. There is a strong public interest in him doing so. His legacy comment proves that he concedes the point about the importance of clarity in this area.

In the independent adviser on ministerial standards’ recent letter regarding the former anti-corruption Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), he highlighted that the ministerial code says:

“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict…could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”.

That conflict clearly exists now in relation to the Attorney General. Does the Leader of the House share my view that we should have a debate on the standards to be applied in these complex cases where there is a potential conflict between the demands of the ministerial code and the statements made by the Government in defence of the Law Officer concerned?

[Lucy Powell]

I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House and the country will again be with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice, the two teachers, the neighbour and all the children who attended the Taylor Swift dance class in Southport, after the horrific attack and murders last summer. What they faced is truly unimaginable. This tragedy is made all the worse by the fact that it could have been prevented, as the Home Secretary said this week.

The House will be aware that the Government are pursuing a number of actions in response: an independent public inquiry that will leave no stone unturned, an end-to-end review of Prevent, stronger measures to tackle online knife sales and knife crime, and a quicker piece of work on the limitations of the current definition of terrorism. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date on those and related matters.

The right hon. Gentleman raised issues of standards in public life. As I gently reminded him last week, he may not want to draw on the record of the Conservative Government and compare it with ours. But he raised some important questions, which have just been answered in the urgent question. As he will know, the Cabinet Secretary replied to the shadow Justice Secretary that the Attorney General has properly declared his interest from his previous role as a senior barrister.

As a barrister with a wide-ranging legal practice, the Attorney General will have represented many clients. According to Bar association rules, barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behaviour by virtue of representing them. The Cabinet Secretary has explained that as well as the declarations process for all Ministers, the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous system in place to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest. The right hon. Gentleman will know that these arrangements are long-standing and have been practised in successive Administrations. I am not sure whether he is arguing that we should no longer have an Attorney General who has been recently involved in private practice at the highest level —perhaps he will let us know.

Today is actually a very special day—perhaps a historic day—because it is the last day that the former Prime Minister could have called a general election. Oh, how different things could have been. The Conservatives would have still been on this side of the House, with three times as many Members as they have now. The right hon. Gentleman would still be enjoying himself on the Back Benches, and the House would not have the delightful presence of the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice).

Instead, we are six months into a Labour Government. I am sure the Conservatives regret calling the general election early, but I am afraid the country does not. Let us imagine for a moment what the country would be facing today: doctors still on strike, making the NHS winter crisis even worse; public services facing huge cuts due to the Conservatives’ economic plans; waiting lists ever growing, leaving people sick and out of work; the hospital building programme still on the never-never; the asylum backlog rising with no plan to get it down; more and more councils going bust; more trains being cancelled than run; and the black hole in the public finances still going. Let us not even imagine what would be happening with our prisons. The country would be on its knees, with living standards falling, Britain an embarrassment around the world and politics in the doldrums.

Thankfully, the former Prime Minister made a big misjudgment for the Tory party but a good decision for the country. He called the election early because he wanted out. We have not been able to put everything right immediately—the problems run too deep—but we have made a lot of progress. We have ended the doctors strike and put record investment into the NHS. We have reset our international relationships, restoring Britain as a global leader. We have tackled the asylum backlog and achieved record numbers of returns. We are giving workers security and dignity. We are turbocharging house building, with new, ambitious targets. We are working towards energy security with lower bills and GB Energy. Trains are now running in the interests of passengers. The right hon. Gentleman might be sorry that he is now sitting on the Opposition Benches, his party still licking its wounds, but the country is getting the change it voted for.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 20 January includes:

Monday 20 January—General debate on the impact of food and diet on obesity, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.

Wednesday 22 January—Motion to agree a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 23 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 27 January will include:

Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.

Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill.

Thursday 30 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

For the convenience of the House, and in view of the three important statements that are taking place today, the motion on the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 will not be moved today.

[Jesse Norman]

I am sure that the Leader of the House and every Member will join me in welcoming the news overnight of a ceasefire in Gaza. Let us hope and pray that it is as effective, comprehensive and long-lasting as possible.

Back at home, all one can say is that it has been another extraordinary week for the Government, though possibly not in the way that they would have wanted. We have had the Government’s anti-corruption Minister herself being named for corruption by another country in the face of an international investigation into embezzlement of development and other funds. We have had the unusually unlovely sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a desperate search for growth that has taken her to Beijing and back—though with precious little result, it seems. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said this week that stagflation—that toxic combination of recession and inflation—is now “a live risk”. Even the very, very modest GDP growth reported for November was below expectations.

At some point, the Government’s current spending splurge will doubtless start to nudge growth upwards over the coming year, but in the meantime we will have to look forward to the grim prospect of the national insurance changes in April and the horrors of the Employment Rights Bill, which even by the Government’s own estimates will cost employers an extra £5 billion a year. So dire has the Chancellor’s position become that she has been forced to ask Cabinet colleagues for ideas of growth. Given the galaxy of business talent around the Cabinet table, how can that possibly go wrong?

Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has been forced not only to express “full confidence” in the Chancellor—always a death knell—but to insist that she will remain in post for the full period of this Government. Let us see how that works out. It has been extraordinary, in particular, to see her attacked by her own colleagues, who have said:

“we’re going back to austerity in all but name.”

Luckily, the Government were able to announce some good news in the form of the latest results of the national wealth fund, which has apparently generated more than 6,000 jobs and £1.6 billion in private investment over the last six months—except that the announcement is, I am afraid, entirely disingenuous. As Lord Livermore said in a debate in the other House in October, the national wealth fund is, in fact, the UK Infrastructure Bank with a new name and a bit more capital. I know something about the UK Infrastructure Bank, because I set it up in 2021 when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has an absolutely world-class leadership team and I am not remotely surprised to see it doing so well. But the idea that its recent success is attributable to a Labour Government who have done little more than rebrand it is an embarrassing joke. Its success has been powered by good institutional design, a top team, tonnes of talented employees and more than four years of hard work.

One recalls the Government’s attempt to claim credit for £63 billion of international cash in the October investment summit. I know the Leader of the House is a strong believer in transparency and accountability, so will she have the Treasury update the House on what form that investment has taken, how much of it has been received and where it is being spent? Frankly, it is more than doubtful that three months of post-election chaos in the Government had any such effect in boosting investment, but we will see when the Government publish the numbers, as I am sure they will. If it turns out like the so-called national wealth fund, we will know that the Labour Government are more than happy to take credit for at least some of the work of the previous Government, provided that they can put their own name on it.

[Lucy Powell]

I, too, am sure that the whole House will welcome the developments between Israel and Gaza over the past hours and days, with a long-overdue ceasefire and the release of hostages now looking like a real possibility, although that is still to be confirmed. This will hopefully now lead to much-needed aid getting in,usb the end of the killing, the hostages being released, and, I hope, what will be the beginning of a long-term political solution for the region. We will hear shortly from the Foreign Secretary with further details on that.

First, I will explain one of the pieces of business I have just announced, and set out why the Government will table a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill next week. In order for a Bill Committee to consider any clauses that could have spending implications, the Government must first table a money resolution. That is not the Government agreeing to fund the measures in a Bill; it is purely to enable the Bill to be debated in Committee. In the case of this Bill, this relates to one small component that is yet to be debated and agreed. Without the motion being agreed to, that debate could not happen and that component could not remain in the Bill. The Government have taken the view that that would act against our commitment to remain neutral on the Bill. The House should debate and decide on these matters for itself. I hope that, as with Second Reading, colleagues will focus on the substance and not the processes of this sensitive private Member’s Bill.

It really has been quite incredible to watch the collective display of amnesia on the Conservative Benches over recent weeks—it is like the past 14 years did not happen. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is out today in what has been briefed as her finally telling the truth about the Conservatives’ record: they did not have a plan for growth, they were not honest with the British people, and they negotiated a bad Brexit deal. However, it sounds like the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) did not quite get that memo.

It sounds like the right hon. Gentleman did not get the memo about the Conservatives needing to be honest about their record on standards either. If he wants to compare the previous Government’s record on losing Ministers, I am quite happy to do so. Boris Johnson had 36 of his own Ministers resign in 24 hours—the highest number on modern record. Even the very nice right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) lost four of his senior Ministers in his first few months, including his party chairman and Deputy Prime Minister, for breaking the ministerial code. Even when there were investigations on Ministers, they were often ignored. This Government have strengthened the ministerial code and now have an adviser who is able to initiate investigations. We have brought in new rules for Members of Parliament on outside interests, and we will go further.

The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not get the memo on the Conservatives’ record on the economy, and is instead trying to attack our plans. The Leader of the Opposition, his party leader, is now telling the country that they did not have a plan for growth. That is the truth of the situation, isn’t it? The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about the fundamental weaknesses in our economy, and they did nothing. In fact, they made those weaknesses even worse: stagnant growth, low productivity, low wages, low skills, high mortgages, high debt, poor health, poor housing, woeful transport, deep-seated inequalities, and no ambition under the previous Government to gain the jobs of the future. We are beginning to tackle those deep-rooted weaknesses, and that is the truth that he and his party leader should be telling the country.