Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 2 November is as follows:

Monday 2 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 3 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 4 November—Remaining stages of the Sporting Events Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Railways Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.

The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Tuesday 10 November.

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

Tuesday 10 November—Second Reading of the Financial Services and Markets Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 11 November—Opposition day (fifth allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 12 November—General debate on the 110th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, followed by a general debate on the Nolan principles. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 November—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House very much for that update. As the House will be aware, this is a day of very mixed feelings as we mourn the deaths and injuries sustained in the Spanish high-speed rail disaster yesterday. In a far happier vein, it is impossible not to celebrate the triumphs of Harry Kane in the Ballon d’Or—the first British winner for 25 years—and of giant-killing Fleetwood Town in conquering Arsenal in the Carabao cup.

Just in time for Halloween, we learn that the SNP Government in Scotland have assembled an army of nearly 800 ghost workers on the public payroll, costing taxpayers £27 million a year. The jobs have vanished, but the salaries remain. One of those people has been non-working in the NHS for 17 years. That is the SNP in a nutshell. Needless to say, the Scottish Government have no plans to change that state of affairs, and with hundreds of people being paid to pretend that they have jobs, it is the perfect metaphor for this Labour Government.

So to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who spoke after the usual orgy of pre-briefings to the media yesterday. To his credit, he avoided some of the more lunatic ideas of his colleagues. He tried his best, but frankly Harry Kane or Fleetwood Town—hell, Fleetwood Mac—would have done better with that Budget. It was a Budget for a May general election, not for the future of Britain. As Helen Miller from the Institute for Fiscal Studies put it, there was “lots of fiddling”, but no “clear, coherent vision”. It means that disposable household incomes are falling, the tax burden is at a historic peacetime high, and growth forecasts are falling, with not even the whiff of a strategy for growth yesterday. Worse still, as noted economist Paul Johnson pointed out, the Budget implied back-end loaded spending cuts in

“most areas of public service spending of 2.6% per year between 2028-29 and 2031-32.”

His verdict was that this is

“not honest politics, nor is it honest economics”.

Those are his words, Mr Speaker, not mine, and I think it is well known that Mr Johnson is not a Conservative.

There is something even more troubling here. Britain is walking a fiscal, monetary and security tightrope, but yet again, the Government’s response has been to postpone difficult decisions, spin the plates, ladle on the fudge and hope that nothing goes wrong. Now we have persistent speculation, despite attempted rebuttals, that the Prime Minister may call a general election—what an extraordinary abdication of responsibility that would be. The message would be this: yes, Britain faces profound economic and international uncertainty, so let us add a little extra disruption to that with an entirely unnecessary election, more than two years before one is required and, while we are at it, let us reopen the constitutional turmoil of another EU referendum to boot. The British people would surely say, “We gave you Labour people a majority of more than 170 to sort out the country’s issues. You have replaced your own Prime Minister and your Chancellor. You have failed to deliver the change you promised, and now you want another election because you are simply too frit to make the decisions required.”

Britain needs growth, stability, financial strength and national security. Instead, it is getting short-term fixes, deferred decisions and political manoeuvring. This is not a strategy for governing Britain; it is an absolute failure of leadership. The Chancellor could not even meet his own test for defence spending, over which he supposedly resigned. The Prime Minister has talked endlessly of his desire to “rewire the state”, and the Chancellor said the same in terms yesterday. We have a huge debt burden, stretched public services, rising interest rates and growing defence commitments. There is the escalating threat of external shocks—Ukraine, Iran, inflation, AI, trade wars, extreme weather, another pandemic—so will the Leader of the House now explain, in his usual candid way, without prevaricating or blaming others, why those two men have demonstrated absolutely zero interest in actually taking any of the serious decisions required to address those issues?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our deepest condolences to the people of Spain in the aftermath of yesterday’s horrendous train crash, taking the lives of 68 people and injuring many others. As he said, I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with all those affected.

Last week, we saw some very severe and stormy weather across the UK. I send condolences to the families of those loved ones who lost their lives, and I thank all the emergency service workers who have been working hard to mitigate the effect of the storms.

I am saddened to hear about the passing of Sue Holt. She was a much respected member of staff in the Interparliamentary Relations Office, and I know the whole House will want to send condolences to her family and friends at this time.

Further to the tributes made last week and your words this morning, Mr Speaker, I would like to add my best wishes again to Tom Goldsmith who, after 30 years of outstanding service to the House, is retiring from the office of Clerk of the House today.

I would also like to pay tribute to Ceri King who, after 43 years in the civil service and 19 years as Head of Secretariat and Deputy Clerk of the Privy Council, is leaving her role this week. Ceri was appointed a lieutenant in the Royal Victorian Order in the 2023 new year honours in recognition of her services to the Privy Council. I have greatly valued her advice and guidance in my role as Lord President of the Council and I wish her well.

On an entirely different matter, I congratulate Harry Kane, who this week became the first English player to win the Ballon d’Or since Michael Owen in 2001. As the shadow Leader of the House said, I am sure that Members from across the House will join me in sending congratulations on that well-deserved win and that they found, as I did, his acceptance speech very moving. Young people looking at Harry Kane will see someone entirely committed not just to the sport, but to family and everything else—he really is a hero to many people and I wish him well.

There will be no business questions next week, so I want to mention Remembrance Sunday, which is on 8 November. As we take pause to honour those who gave their lives in defence of our freedoms, let us remember the extraordinary debt that can never fully be repaid.

Let me turn to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. The Chancellor set out a very clear plan yesterday in the Budget that gives families and businesses some breathing space from rising costs and supports Britain’s economic growth, not least in the £100 payment to 20 million households in council tax bands A to D in England. It also provides support for businesses, taking around 70,000 more retail, hospitality and leisure businesses out of business rates altogether. At the same time, the Budget supports the housing market, with measures for first-time buyers and social housing and on cutting unnecessary costs and delays for house builders. We have also reaffirmed our commitment to ending homelessness for good.

I have to say that I found the right hon. Gentleman to be uncharacteristically unfair about yesterday’s events. On the question of pre-briefing, in the light of what we have said over a period of time, I was struck and pleased by how little pre-briefing there was about the Budget and how disciplined the Chancellor, his team and everybody else was in ensuring that this House was first to hear the contents of the Budget.

The right hon. Gentleman mentions household incomes. The Government are not complacent about the challenges we will face. I listen very carefully to what is being said about potential changes in household incomes, but I gently remind him and other Opposition Members that we had 14 years of Conservative government, and people were worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. That is the first time in history that that has happened, so we will not take any lessons from him or anyone else. He will know—because it is true—that this Government face international pressures. There are headwinds that we need to face, and a little more understanding of that would be appreciated.

Despite all that, the projection is still that the economy will grow. It will not grow as fast as we want it to grow, which is why the measures in the Budget are there to try to ensure that in getting the foundations right, we can then get on with growth as quickly as possible. We will do all that we can. I also gently point out, without being complacent, that the predictions about growth this year were lower than has turned out to be the case, but we will see what happens, not least in the middle east.

It is noticeable that when a number of very credible organisations talk about the state of the economy, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility, the International Monetary Fund and the Institute for Fiscal Studies, one of the things they pick out is not a lack of political stability, but the fact that the Government have a majority and a Prime Minister with a very clear vision of where he wants to take this country. That is done by ensuring not just that we in this place do everything that we can to boost the economy, but that no regions, towns or cities are left behind. That is why devolution is so important.

The right hon. Gentleman talks about defence. We are spending £14 billion more on defence than the previous Administration; during their time in office, they spent the lowest amount on it since the end of the cold war. The Prime Minister set out a very clear timeline yesterday in which he again committed the Government to spending 3% of GDP on defence and said that we will meet our NATO commitments. What happened yesterday was a recommitment to those things, and we are on track to deliver all of them.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talks about an election. The Prime Minister was very clear in what he said in the last few hours about how he sees the possibility of an election. If the Conservatives are looking for a general election, they should be very careful what they ask for.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 26 October will include:

Monday 26 October—Debate on a motion on the performance of Royal Mail, followed by general debate on the emerging risks of advanced AI. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 27 October—Second Reading of the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill.

Wednesday 28 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.

Thursday 29 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 30 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 November includes:

Monday 2 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 3 November—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 4 November—Remaining stages of the Sporting Events Bill [Lords].

The House will then rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 4 November and return on Tuesday 10 November.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business. As the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and others said yesterday, in this week of the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, let us never forget its victims, including 116 children, and its terrible cost to their families and their community.

On a far happier note, the House will shortly come together in celebration of the Clerk on his retirement, but let me pay a personal tribute to Tom now for his unfailing genius, sense of service and courtesy to the House, and the assistance he has given us all as Members over 30 years. As a jobbing trumpeter, coming very much from the opposite end of the quality spectrum, I can testify that Tom is a superb jazz pianist. Like any great jazzer, he has a remarkable ability to improvise under pressure while never losing sight of the underlying material—as in the gig, so at the Table. That is no small achievement with 650 would-be Miles Davises all playing in different keys.

[Mr Speaker]

And some are more in tune than others.

[Jesse Norman]

Some are more in tune than others, Mr Speaker. Among Tom’s heroes is Art Tatum, who was famous for taking a familiar tune and turning it into something almost unrecognisable. Tom has often performed the reverse feat with Members’ legislative amendments: taking something almost unrecognisable and turning it into something more familiar.

Mr Speaker, I hope that you and the Leader of the House will forgive another toot from me on my constituency trumpet. This week has seen the publication of a brilliantly positive new report by Policy Exchange on our new engineering university in Hereford, NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering. Among other things, the report highlights that, thanks to the university’s accelerated degrees, it offers at least 20% better value for money for students than elsewhere. For local students, it is almost half the cost of an equivalent chartered engineering degree anywhere else.

The report goes further—I think this is a matter of general interest to the House—by identifying 57 suitable towns and cities across the UK, including Hartlepool, Grimsby, Barnsley, Burnley and Scunthorpe in the north alone, in which the model could be rolled out across the country. I would be delighted to discuss with colleagues how we could do so with any areas and constituencies that may be interested.

I end, if I may, on a more serious note. In May 2024, Lord Walney’s report, “Protecting our Democracy from Coercion”, made more than 40 recommendations to tackle political intimidation and disruptive extremism. More than two years into their term of office, this Government have yet to respond fully; indeed, Ministers abolished Lord Walney’s position last year. When they did so, they promised that his report would continue to shape the Government’s approach to political violence, yet they rejected key recommendations in passing the Crime and Policing Act 2026, including stronger powers to prevent particularly harmful marches. They did that despite very strong appeals from Jewish community groups facing the present rising tide of antisemitism—groups that are still more concerned, be it said, after the Green party’s appalling resolution that Zionism is racism.

The threat is clear, and I know that this is an issue of particular concern to you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us. Ninety-six per cent of Members of Parliament responding to the Speaker’s Conference in 2025 reported harassment, intimidation or abuse. It is a matter of public record that, last September, arson destroyed the constituency office of one of our colleagues, and that another and their son received death threats. Peaceful protest is fundamental to democracy, of course, but so is the right of every person to live free from intimidation, and the right of every elected representative and their staff to be able to serve without intimidation, abuse or coercion.

Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to publish a full, recommendation-by-recommendation, response to Lord Walney’s report, and will he arrange a debate in Government time on that response so that the House can collectively scrutinise what the Government are doing and propose to do to meet these dreadful threats?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, I join the right hon. Gentleman and, as he says, the leaders of all parties in reflecting on the anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, which was 60 years ago yesterday. We remember the 116 children and the 28 adults who tragically lost their lives when Tip 7 collapsed on to Pantglas junior school and nearby homes, and we pay tribute to the incredible courage of the rescuers and the enduring resilience of the Aberfan community. I think it is fair to say, Mr Speaker—because you and I are contemporaries—that we are old enough to remember the disaster, and we have been fortunate enough to live 60 years of our lives that 116 of our contemporaries were unable to do. That is sobering, to say the least, but actually it is a tragedy. I want to put on the record that our thoughts are with the Aberfan community and families.

I also want to mention Andy King, the former Member of Parliament for Rugby and Kenilworth from 1997 to 2005, who sadly passed away this week. I am sure the whole House joins me in sending our condolences to his friends and family.

I am also sure that the whole House will join me in condemning the horrific attack on the Australian independent MP Dr Helen Haines, which took place outside her electoral office. My thoughts are with Dr Haines, her family and her team as she recovers from this appalling assault.

On lighter matters, I want to extend my congratulations and those of the House to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) on his recent marriage. I further extend my congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, the right hon. Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), who announced the birth of her son this week; we wish them well.

Today marks the start of the 2026 Royal British Legion poppy appeal, as thousands of volunteers gather across our country to distribute the red poppy. They raise funds for our brave service personnel, veterans and their families, and we thank them all for everything they do.

Turning to other matters, this summer was filled with record high temperatures, but as we are seeing, winter is now drawing in, and the changing climate will bring more severe and uncertain weather in the years to come. We need to ensure that we are fully prepared across the NHS and our transport system, and in relation to our energy security. I think it is fair to say—it is not a party political point; I think it is just true—that the UK has been a bit of an outlier in not looking sufficiently early at this issue right across Government, and I just want to reassure the House that we are putting that right.

We have taken a crucial step forward this week in protecting motorists from unfair enforcement and car sale scams with a new private parking code of practice, providing motorists with the right to challenge unfair private parking charges. This issue has been raised with me several times at business questions. Also, potholes are an issue frequently raised with me in this forum by Members. Data published today shows that more than 7,000 miles of road resurfacing has taken place this year—up 10% on last year, but clearly there is more to do.

On another theme—with your indulgence, Mr Speaker —I have also faced questions on matters of heritage and restoration. I want to mention my constituents Kevin and Alison Wilson, who have been involved in the successful restoration of Cullercoats Watch House, who join us in the Gallery today.

Let me turn to the points raised by the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman). First, he mentioned the success of further and higher education in his constituency. I have said this before and am happy to repeat it: I absolutely commend him for his work, which has been recognised as an excellent model. As he says, I hope that other areas will look at it. The higher education sector is an engine of economic growth in his area and elsewhere, and providers play an essential role in training students not just for jobs now but for the future. I am sure he has spoken to them already, but if he wishes to speak to Ministers to discuss this matter further, I am happy to arrange that. I wanted to put that on the record, because he is right to raise it in the way that he does. This is not and should not be a party political matter. Those on the Government Benches can learn from the best experiences of those on the Opposition Benches, and that is very much in keeping with the practical approach that the Prime Minister wants to see across a number of policies.

The shadow Leader of the House raised another very important matter: security, and tackling and preparing us against terrorism. There is the Speaker’s Conference, which is crucial. There is also the defending democracy taskforce, which continues to look at these issues. I will raise the specific point he made about Lord Walney’s report with Ministers and see whether there is something the Home Secretary needs to update the House or, indeed, the right hon. Gentleman on.

Let me make it absolutely clear that we stand with all faiths, including and particularly those of the Jewish faith as they come under sustained attack. It is a sad fact that both antisemitism and Islamophobia have increased in recent months, and the Government are absolutely committed to tackling that. That means putting money into the physical protection of places of worship, but it also means making social cohesion a top priority. Finally, I will point out that Sir David Bell’s report this week on antisemitism and how schools need to do more is an excellent piece of work, and the Government intend to accept all 27 recommendations.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 19 October will include:

Monday 19 October—Committee of the whole House of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, day one.

Tuesday 20 October—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

Wednesday 21 October—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill, followed by Opposition day, 4th allotted day, first half, followed by a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced.

Thursday 22 October—Tributes to the Clerk of the House, followed by general debate on Black History Month.

Friday 23 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 26 October will include:

Monday 26 October—General debate on the performance of Royal Mail, followed by general debate on the emerging risks of advanced AI. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 27 October—Second Reading of the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill.

Wednesday 28 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.

Thursday 29 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 30 October—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I associate myself with everything that was said in the previous urgent question about the fiasco of the sustainable farming incentive.

We meet today on the fifth anniversary of the death—the murder—of Sir David Amess. I know that all colleagues will want to join me in celebrating David, his perennial optimism, his beaming smile, his enormous gift for friendship, and his unfailing energy in assisting and supporting his constituents. The independent report into his murder led by Sir Robert Buckland cannot come too soon.

I have three matters to raise. The first relates indirectly to David Amess. As the Leader of the House will know, at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister described the man charged with the murder of our former colleague Ann Widdecombe as the man “responsible” for her murder. That statement breached the legal presumption of innocence, discussed a case that is sub judice and misled the House. It must have been inadvertent, but there has been no clarification yet—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We do not accuse each other of misleading the House. “Inadvertently” is the word.

[Jesse Norman]

As I think I said, whatever took place was inadvertent, but there has been no clarification from the Prime Minister or any Minister, no withdrawal of the remark and no apology. That is deeply disrespectful of this House and of the Chair. Will the Leader of the House correct the record, withdraw the remark and apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister?

Secondly, as the House will know, Manchester City have been found guilty by an independent commission of 114 of the 115 charges brought against them by the Premier League, including inaccurate financial reporting, undisclosed remuneration and failure to co-operate with the investigations. This week, having previously been neutral on the issue, the Prime Minister sought to distance himself personally from the club and its owners. Otherwise, he and Ministers have remained remarkably quiet, especially since his club, Everton, had an eight-point deduction for two breaches—112 fewer than have been found here—just three years ago. Will the Leader of the House set out the Government’s position? Do they regard the breaches as extremely serious, or do they believe that a few eggs may have been broken, but broadly speaking everything is all right? When will we get a statement from the Sport Minister on the subject?

Finally, last November, I highlighted the severe flooding suffered by Ewyas Harold in my constituency. Homes were inundated, people and businesses were evacuated, and families were left with huge financial and emotional costs. Insurance premiums have gone up—if insurance remains available at all. The school, the doctors’ surgery and access for emergency services were cut off. Other nearby villages, including Clodock, Kentchurch and Allt-yr-ynys were similarly afflicted. Yet now, 11 months later, despite an all-parties meeting that I convened last March and repeated representations to Ministers, the Environment Agency and Herefordshire council, there has been no substantive progress.

The Government Office for Science believes El Niño is likely to be bigger than ever this year. My constituents are deeply anxious that floods this winter will drive them yet again from their homes and businesses. Fixing that does not require some vast engineering project. Better drainage, watercourse maintenance, management of run-off and other practical mitigations could all make the difference. However, the residents are in a Catch-22 situation that will be familiar to many people across this House: no one in authority is taking any responsibility, but people are not allowed by law to help themselves. The works could all be done legally, quickly and effectively this year by local companies at less than half the cost of the EA’s framework contractors, but that is prohibited. No one will come to the aid of these people, but put one foot into the watercourse just to clear the debris, and they risk prosecution.

I have made a formal Budget submission to the Chancellor on that matter. Will the Leader of the House now take it up personally with the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary and make funding this scheme the first order of business for the Government’s new floods resilience taskforce?

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 7 September will include:

Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Health Bill (day one).

Tuesday 8 September—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Health Bill.

Wednesday 9 September—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 10 September—Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill [Lords].

Friday 11 September—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 14 September will include:

Monday 14 September—All stages of the Sovereign Grant Bill, followed by a general debate, subject to be confirmed.

Tuesday 15 September—General debate on the potential merits of a full ban on fracking, followed by general debate on World Sepsis Awareness Month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 15 September and return on Monday 12 October.

[Jesse Norman]

The past few weeks have brought news of the deaths of Dolly Parton, Tim Curry and Wendell Berry. I am sure that many colleagues will share my sense of shock and sadness at the loss of those extraordinary figures, but also give great thanks for their lives.

Truly, we live in a world of change. Rather unexpectedly, we have a new Government, a new Prime Minister and a reshuffle on the Treasury Bench and among the Opposition. Amid all that risk and uncertainty, I am delighted to say that there has been one beacon of stability, one oasis of calm and one single unmoving axel at the still centre of our politics: I refer, of course, to the Leader of the House and myself. Each of us has emerged phoenix-like, blinking but resolute from the ashes of political reconstruction. I rather fear that, given our longevity and at least the level of banter on the Government side of the Dispatch Box, we will be seen over time as the Morecambe and Wise, or perhaps the two Ronnies, of British politics. I will not invite the House to say which of us is which, but I will simply say to you, Mr Speaker, and to all Members returning from recess, it is hello from me and it is hello from him.

Now to more serious matters. I invite the Leader of the House to clarify where the Government stand on defence spending, given the different briefings and public challenges that the Government and the Prime Minister have received over the past two weeks.

I also have two specific questions, the first of which is about restoration and renewal. The Government have had since February to table a motion on this topic. In view of the new Prime Minister’s spending priorities, it now seems highly unlikely that the ruinously expensive current plans will be put to the House before the end of this year. Seven months have already passed with no action. Will the Government now recognise the delay and use it to give the R and R team time to develop a sane and far less costly alternative?

My second question is about an issue at the very heart of the new Government: the status and functions of No. 10 North. As the House knows well, in our system of Government, a Prime Minister may have political power but No. 10 is not a spending Department and it does not possess independent fiscal authority, yet the new Prime Minister has insisted again and again that No. 10 North will not just be a paper exercise. You see the difficulty, Mr Speaker.

Will No. 10 North have real spending powers of its own? If the answer is yes, then this will be a new kind of cross-departmental Ministry—perhaps a territorial Ministry, like a regional Government but with no defined scope or mandate. We will need to see the legal instruments delegating Treasury authority and functions to it. After all, in this scenario the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be fully in charge of the public finances. We will have to have new forms of accountability to this House, with a No. 10 North Select Committee and Question Time, so that Members can press the First Secretary of State, or perhaps the Prime Minister, as the ultimately responsible Minister, should the spending decisions that No. 10 North takes turn out as they plan or, indeed, as they do not plan.

However, if the answer is no, and No. 10 North will not have spending power of its own, then ultimately the Treasury and the Chancellor will continue to sign off on its public spending and on any taxing matters. Decentralisation is really important, but No. 10 North will not be a means of decentralisation in this scenario; it will be just another layer of Government. It does not feel like the Government have thought this issue through at all, so I would be grateful for answers to these questions, both now from the Leader of the House and in writing from the First Secretary of State.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Let me begin by saying that I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the people of Nepal and all those affected by the recent devastating flash floods, including the loved ones of 36 missing British nationals. As the Prime Minister said to the House on Tuesday, we will do everything we can to support British nationals impacted in the region and we are working closely with the Nepalese authorities.

This summer has seen a significant number of wildfires that have affected many people. I pay tribute to the emergency services who have been on the frontline of tackling the blazes. I also pay tribute to and thank the farmers who have been brave in their work to protect their livelihoods and their whole communities. I put on record our thanks to them.

I also pay tribute to the two police officers who lost their lives in Cleveland, PC Blades and PC Clough. They devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service: protecting their fellow citizens. Policing is not just a profession, but a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us all. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland but across policing, who have lost friends, colleagues and fellow members of the policing family.

As the shadow Leader of the House said, we recently lost a great number of great people from across the world, not least in sport and entertainment, including Billy Boston, one of the greatest and most popular rugby league players of all time—I know that you were a great admirer, Mr Speaker—and Keven Keegan, a football legend who played for Liverpool, Newcastle and England, and who went on to manage the national side. Along with the shadow Leader of the House, I also pay tribute to Dolly Parton. Beyond her legacy as the queen of country music, she will also be remembered through the work of her Imagination Library, which has provided 7 million books to children in the UK, and helped children across the world discover a love of reading.

Earlier this week, the House heard from the new Prime Minister. His Administration will oversee the rewiring of the British state—I will get on to the specifics that the right hon. Gentleman raised in a moment—the rebuilding of the resilience of our communities, and the reindustrialisation of our regions. Later this year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over those essentials, making them work for people and places once again.

I am pleased—as you are, Mr Speaker—that the shadow Leader of the House survived the reshuffle, and I welcome him back to his place. He was generous in his offer to run my campaign to continue in my role, which was a successful campaign on his part. I was ready to reciprocate, but that proved unnecessary. I am not sure that I am pleased with the way he described us, but I am genuinely pleased that he has remained in post. We do have our political differences, which is an obvious thing to say, but we share a deep respect for this place, and I look forward to working with him going forward. I am not sure about his suggestion that we are either Morecambe and Wise or the Two Ronnies—I think he flatters himself about his sense of humour with that—but we shall see.

There is no confusion, as the shadow Leader of the House suggests, about defence spending. The Prime Minister set out clearly what our position is, and we will have a Budget in the not-too-distant future that will set out what those proposals are. The Prime Minister faced this House on Tuesday for three hours and 20 minutes and then came back to do Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, so there was no shortage of an opportunity for the Opposition to find out exactly what this Government are going to do.

On R and R, the shadow Leader of the House knows, as we have talked about it before, that a set of proposals has been put forward. We have thought deeply about the best time to bring them to the House—he should not assume that he will have to wait that much longer for this House to be given the opportunity to make a decision. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one thing, which is that the decision has been delayed for too long. As a result, there are costs to that delay, which we are paying whether the House decides to do something about it for the long term or not. I do not agree that the answer is another delay while we go back and look at it again. We have been around that track so many times, which explains why we have got to this place.

On that subject, it is odd when a member of the shadow Cabinet leaves to run for office in London—to begin his support for London—yet criticises the Government, when the Opposition are actually whipped against the restoration of this place, which is the iconic building in London. It is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. This is work that is long overdue, and it will create jobs and opportunities not only in London but throughout the regions of our country. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

As the Prime Minister has said, it is important that we pursue and indeed go further on the devolution agenda, and setting up No. 10 North will be the biggest transfer of power and decision making out of Whitehall in a generation. I can assure Members that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in charge of the nation’s finances, and he will set out his proposals; having said that, it is important that we get decisions made closer to where those affected will feel the effects.

I do have some agreement with the shadow Leader of the House on his point about scrutiny by this House. There is an issue, for instance, around how mayors are scrutinised. As power and decision making are transferred away, it raises the issue of how this House will continue to be able to provide that scrutiny. I will take that issue away and think about it more.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 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 31 August will include:

Tuesday 1 September—Debate on a motion relating to sovereign grants, following the message from His Majesty the King, followed by a debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 2 September—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.

Thursday 3 September—Second Reading of the Sporting Events Bill [Lords].

Friday 4 September—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 September includes:

Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Health Bill—day one.

Tuesday 8 September—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Health Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business.

This seems a moment for the words of Philip Larkin:

“What will survive of us is love.”

It is a day of sadness and departings. I know that the whole House will want to join me in saluting the England football team. I simply say this to them: you went out to a foreign field, you fought like true lions, and you did us proud. Thank you.

Let us also pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe for her bravery, spirit and independence of mind. There is a book of condolence in the Members’ Library, which I know many Members will wish to sign.

Ann’s politics were not especially my politics, Mr Speaker, but let me tell you a story that illustrates my personal experience of her a little. We were at a dinner of the Holborn and St Pancras Conservatives—a vibrant local organisation—in the time of the late Frank Dobson, where Ann was the guest speaker. At the end of the evening, a bottle signed by her was thrust into my hands and I was asked to invite her to auction it. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that she had just had a bit of a dust-up with the noble Lord Howard on the subject of which she had said that he had “something of the night” about him. Quick as a flash, holding this bottle of whisky, she said, “Ladies and gentlemen, what will you give me for something of the nightcap?” I thought that pretty game, under the circumstances.

This week has featured a certain amount of rancour, as the late Roy Jenkins might have put it. The Government found themselves changing the business twice and cancelling an Opposition day debate they themselves had scheduled and reaffirmed only the previous day on the entirely bogus excuse that they wanted an urgent debate on Iran. That debate was so urgent and important that it was opened by the most junior Minister in Government, finished two hours early and featured precisely three—count them: three—speeches from Labour Back Benchers. I think we can all agree that it will be a tragedy if we lose the Leader of the House from business questions, but if he is not promoted after the embarrassing heroics he has performed this week on behalf of the new Prime Minister, it will be a huge injustice.

But we are not going to cast nasturtiums, in the words of a friend of mine, on any of this nonsense—not even on Baroness Lloyd and the hopeless Building Digital UK, who have entirely failed to address the issue of fibre broadband in neglected parts of my constituency and simply repeated the same language of incompetence and failure to me for more than a year now. I hope that the Leader of the House will pick that up.

No, we will cast no nasturtiums. There will be no rancour from this side of the House. I come to praise the outgoing Prime Minister, not to bury him. He is a transparently decent and honourable man who is dedicated to public service. He rescued the Labour party, and he worked with great diligence to lead this country. No one who has not been close to leadership of that kind can have any idea of how hard it is. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

As for the incoming Prime Minister, my advice is simply this: be careful what you wish for. He has had a coronation and an election hustings with just one candidate—a single name on the ballot paper—but on Monday afternoon, he will start to learn the true difficulty of the decisions that face him. There will be hard trade-offs that cannot be abolished by tinkering with the fiscal rules or still more tax and spend. Vibes will not be a solution to these problems. Eyelashes will not suffice. He will have to stand up and say, or perhaps decide, what it is he believes in. We can only hope that he will bring energy, frugality, a long-term focus, and a talented team adequate to the tasks ahead. We wish him very well.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and all the staff and Members of the House a summer break full of rest and happiness.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Before I get on to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, let me join him in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. Ann dedicated her life to public service and the causes that she believed in. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing, and my thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with Ann’s family and loved ones.

I cannot claim to have known Ann well. We did not agree on many issues, but we agreed very strongly on the issue of foxhunting, on which she was extraordinarily brave in the stand that she took. We shared a belief in public service and that politics matters to people. I smiled at the anecdote that the shadow Leader of the House told and the reference to the nightcap. I suspect we will read about that in one of his books in the future.

I also pay tribute to Lord Christopher, who passed away this week. He had an incredible career in public service. He was the oldest serving British parliamentarian and the last Member of Parliament to have served in world war two. My thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with his friends and family.

On House matters, this morning the Modernisation Committee published a report on a formal scheme for acting Select Committee Chairs. Select Committees perform a vital role in scrutinising the Government. The recommendations will ensure that Committees can continue their critical work, even if their Chairs need to take a period of absence. It sets out a new framework for the appointment, status and remuneration of acting Select Committee Chairs. I thank the Liaison and Procedure Committees for their work in this regard, and I will put the matter before the House in due course.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the England football team. It was not the result that the nation had hoped for, but the team showed passion and energy, certainly in the previous rounds, and we should be proud of them.

On the Iran debate, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was uncharacteristically churlish. I watched much of the debate, and what I did not watch I read in Hansard. I have to say—maybe after my remarks on Tuesday I need to build some bridges—that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made a really good speech on Iran and set out her party’s position. Crucially, she set out the need for this House to show that we have a bipartisan approach to this issue. I would not want to undermine in any way—I am sure he was not trying to do so—the powerful speeches that were made by Members on both sides of the House. I felt that it was important before the recess to set out very clearly what this House thinks. I fervently hope that we will not need to recall the House over the recess, but if we need to on this or any other matter, we stand ready to do so.

I will take up the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about broadband with the relevant Minister.

I will close by thanking the shadow Leader of the House for his remarks about the Prime Minister, to whom I pay tribute. He has made this country stronger and fairer. The duty of a Prime Minister is to leave the country in a better place than they found it. Without question, the Prime Minister has done that. He leaves a lasting legacy. Just this week, he fulfilled his commitment to the Hillsborough families and secured the future of British Steel. I wish him well, and I wish his family well, for the future.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

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

I cannot come to the Dispatch Box without registering my sadness, and I am sure that of everyone across this House, at the dreadful news about Ann Widdecombe. I am sure that we will talk about this later, but I just wanted to start with that.

The Leader of the House is a good and honourable man, and he will be deeply embarrassed by this fiasco of a procedure today. It is a gross breach of parliamentary protocol and timing to bring a Bill, let alone a Bill of this sensitivity and magnitude, to the House on this very abbreviated notice. Of course, there is concern across the House about the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families, but these matters must be properly debated in due season. To do so, with new amendments that have not even yet been published, on no notice and without the ability of Members to amend those amendments or to comment until now, is a further breach.

Why has this happened? It is because the outgoing Prime Minister is desperate to preserve what he sees as a legacy. It is a tragedy that he should be so focused solely on his own political future, such as it is, and I think it is a pity that he has taken this opportunity to sideswipe the incoming Prime Minister, a man who arrives with no scrutiny and no accountability to this House.

I want to raise a few key points. Of course, it is understood that this legislation was being discussed in the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is also understood that this legislation and its implications were being discussed with our Five Eyes allies, with our armed forces, and with the USA in particular. I know that this abbreviation of protocol will attract the attention of the Lords when it arrives in their House.

Why has this Bill been brought forward now, on such an expedited basis? What has changed, and what of substance has caused the Government to want to abbreviate the consideration of these very delicate matters on such a timetable? Have our international partners been consulted on this change in procedure? Have the agencies been consulted? Above all, why, after seven months of grieving families being concerned about its passage, is the Bill suddenly now—as it may appear, with little or no change—being brought before this House?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I agree with the shadow Leader of the House about the tragedy of Ann Widdecombe and I echo his words.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s description of the run-up to this change of business and the fact that the Bill will come before us tomorrow. This is an important Bill and we have been signalling for some time that it is coming—as he knows, because we have had a dialogue about it. But only today have I been able to confirm it, as this has been the earliest opportunity, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman talks about amendments. A number of amendments to the Bill have been laid for a long time. The Government have brought forward further amendments and they are in the Vote Office. I regret that there is not a greater length of time for colleagues to scrutinise them, but they are available and I am sure there will be a way of facilitating a full debate tomorrow.

There has been no abbreviation of the process—it is a sitting programme motion, as was agreed by the House after Second Reading. I want to assure the House that, as will no doubt come out in the debate, the agencies and the families have been central to the process, and that is why we have taken time to get it right. That is why it has been delayed, but it is an important Bill that colleagues on both sides of the House will want to see before the summer recess. That is what we are facilitating.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your gracious words, and I echo your thoughts and thanks to David Weir for all his service.

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 13 July will include:

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

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

Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day, third allotted day. Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to national security.

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

What a sporting week this has been! Youth, vitality, incredible physical stamina in the most testing of environments—and that is just the Leader of the House, whose birthday it was yesterday. He has never begrudged me my own naivety and inexperience, and I know that everyone present will join me in wishing him a massively happy birthday. In other news, the England football team decisively defeated Mexico at the Azteca, and we look forward with keen anticipation to their taking on Norway on Saturday evening.

We send our congratulations and commiserations to the United States of America on the tragic wrong turn it took towards independence 250 years ago. Edmund Burke famously said:

“In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature”.

Whatever temporary disagreements we may have, let us never forget this deepest of shared commitments.

Kim Jong Un himself would admire the North Korean precision of the Labour leadership vote, which has opened today, with precisely one candidate on the ballot paper. How very different from the forthcoming by-election in Clacton, which appears to be a choice between a novelty comedy act with no real policies, and Count Binface. It is a long time since we had a count in the House of Commons, and when the time comes—as it surely will—we will have to leave to you, Mr Speaker, the delicate question of whether and how to suspend the rules on headgear in the Chamber for the new Member.

On a more serious note, the House has already expressed its great sorrow at the recent death of Sir George Howarth. I would also like to draw attention to the very sad death on Monday of James Mackay, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at the age of 99. He was a brave, energetic and imaginative reformer of the law as Lord Advocate in Scotland, and then as Lord Chancellor. It is hard to think of a man more widely respected in public life. We send our very best to his wife Bett and their family.

I have just one item of business today. It is related to the River Wye, which the House will know is not only a particular obsession of mine, but an issue of national importance. When the last Government cancelled the action plan for the Wye, it also cancelled the accompanying commitment to £35 million in clean-up funding, and replaced it with a paltry £1 million, supposedly aimed at research.

I was very distressed to receive the news this week that only £115,000 of that £1 million will actually be spent on research, that even that tiny sum will be spent over three years, and that the balance of the £l million will be consumed by administrative costs. Will the Leader of the House instigate an immediate inquiry and ensure that Ministers clarify to me, my constituents and national campaigners on this issue that the full £1 million will be kept intact and used for the purposes for which it was intended?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank that shadow Leader of the House for his remarks, and particularly for wishing me a happy birthday for yesterday. I advise him and other hon. Members as they approach my age that, generally, the more birthdays you have, the less you have to celebrate—but there we are. I thank him for his kind remarks.

I also join you, Mr Speaker, and the shadow Leader of the House in thanking David Weir for his service to the House over 32 years. I look forward to the play or book based on his experiences in this House.

The shadow Leader of the House mentioned that the Labour leadership contest has started. I am afraid that he has misread the rules, because it is the opening of nominations today. It is therefore presumptive to say there will be only one candidate, because it rather depends on how the next few days play out.

[Jesse Norman]

Oh!

[Sir Alan Campbell]

That is simply a statement of fact, not a statement of anything else. [Laughter.]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his kind tribute to Sir George Howarth, who passed away recently. George was a dedicated politician who served his constituency of Knowsley for 38 years, and I am sure the House will join me in sending our condolences to his wife, Julie, and to his family and friends at this sad time. I also echo his words about the death of Lord Mackay.

I am very sad to learn today of the death of Bonnie Tyler. This matter was raised with me at business questions recently, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for giving us the opportunity to wish her well at that point. I am sure her family and friends are devastated by her loss, and we send them our very best wishes, indeed.

This year marks 21 years since the London 7/7 bombings, which killed 52 people and injured many more. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with those whose lives were changed on that terrible day, and that they will recall the bravery and commitment of our emergency services, particularly the NHS, which continues to show such exemplary service.

Since our last business questions, we have celebrated the second anniversary of the election of this Labour Government. The election saw a huge intake of new and talented MPs on both sides of this House, and we thank them for the contribution they have made thus far. Since that election, we have taken action as a Government to fix the foundations of our country and deliver the long-term change that Britain needs. That means cutting waiting lists, cutting net migration and the asylum backlog, lifting half a million children out of poverty and having the fastest growing economy in the G7.

In reference to what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, we are changing the balance of power in Britain through the Hillsborough law, ensuring that the state can never hide from the people it is supposed to serve. As he outlined yesterday, significant progress has been made, and I hope we can bring the Bill back to the House soon.

Turning to other matters, the veterinary sector has been raised with me during these sessions on a number of occasions. Pets are part of the family, but for too many households the cost of caring for them has become a real worry. Today, we are setting out the biggest reforms to the vet sector in half a century to help owners avoid unexpected bills, compare prices more easily and get the best value from pet care. I know you take a keen interest in this, Mr Speaker.

On the Wye valley, I will raise this matter with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. However, I understand that the matter was raised at DEFRA questions earlier today, although I have not seen the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy).

The shadow Leader of the House also raised the Clacton by-election. Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that this by-election should not be taking place. When we stand for election to this place, which it is an honour to do, we give an undertaking that the highest standards should be kept, including of openness and transparency about political donations. That is the issue here, and that will be the issue in this unnecessary by-election. Nigel Farage has serious questions to answer, and he cannot run away from them.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

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

The business for the week commencing 6 July will include:

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

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

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

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

Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July includes:

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

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

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

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Alan Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business, perhaps including the business relating to the item just raised under the point of order?

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

The business for the week commencing 29 June will include:

Monday 29 June—Estimates day (first allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Cabinet Office, in so far as it relates to security and resilience; the Northern Ireland Office; and the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, in so far as it relates to criminal justice.

Tuesday 30 June—Estimates day (second allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in so far as it relates to sport and youth services; the Department of Health and Social Care, in so far as it relates to pharmaceutical procurement; and the Department for Work and Pensions, in so far as it relates to spending priorities and performance. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Wednesday 1 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by consideration of a Business of the House motion and all stages of the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill.

Thursday 2 July—Debate on a motion relating to the National Audit Office, followed by a debate on a motion on commonhold and leasehold reform and the regulation of property managing agents. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee, followed by a general debate on access to further education. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 July includes:

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

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know the whole House will join me in thinking of the victims of the earthquakes in Venezuela, of which we have just had news, and of course the victims of the train crash in Bedford and the victims of what now have been deemed aggravated terrorism-related attacks in Edinburgh. It has been a difficult week, Mr Speaker, but on a brighter note, I am sure that all will want to join me in celebrating Armed Forces Week and thanking all the men and women across this country and abroad who serve His Majesty in the armed forces—a matter of particular interest, I remind the House, in Herefordshire.

We weep for the Scotland football team, but perhaps less so for Peter Murrell, who began a five-year sentence this week for theft and embezzlement. The Scottish police asked him in 2024, “What does the SNP need over £19,000 of luxury pens for?” It is quite a good question. One might ask the same about a Jaguar I-PACE, a state-of-the-art motorhome, a men’s slouch pouch onesie, whatever that is—I am not looking for guidance from the Chair on this matter, Mr Speaker. The real question is not just whether Nicola Sturgeon knew or should have known of these thefts, including the sudden appearance of a £2,500 Lalique salt and pepper set on the kitchen table; it is about the culture and probity of a Scottish Government who still refuse to appoint a KC to lead an independent inquiry.

While we are on the topic of vehicles, the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has publicly reserved the right to spend the £5 million donation definitely not related to politics from his Thailand-based crypto billionaire on Ferraris if he wishes. It appears that none of that money has been spent on personal security, from what he said, and he has now been referred to the Financial Conduct Authority, alongside the current investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

And so to the Government. I know the House will share my sadness at the tragic decision by the Leader of the House not to stand in the Labour leadership election, resulting in a coronation, alas, of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and, I am sad to say, the rather tawdry sight of Cabinet Ministers trailing their coats. Once again, we can only regret the decision of the Leader of the House not to throw his hat into the ring, but I simply ask, what is the Government’s policy on the defence investment plan? The Prime Minister wants to publish it now. His successor wants a delay, but a defence investment plan that may be reopened within weeks is not a plan; it is a hanging IOU with a NATO deadline attached.

I turn now to a matter of the greatest sensitivity: the case of Lucy Letby, members of whose family are my constituents. It is essential to respect the independence of the judiciary in this matter. Nor, crucially, must we ever lose sight of the suffering of the families whose babies died or were gravely injured, but I believe there is also a proper public concern here as to the security of the verdict.

Since the convictions, a number of serious and reputable people have raised concerns about the expert scientific and statistical evidence in this case—both the evidence presented to the jury and the evidence that the jury never saw. Those concerns come from neonatologists, pathologists, statisticians and, most recently, from Dame Sue Black, one of the country’s most distinguished forensic scientists. Like me, Dame Sue makes no claim as to whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but she has said in measured terms that she is “troubled” by the conviction and by the apparent lack of forensic evidence. When someone of her public scientific standing speaks in those terms, I do not think the issue she raises can be properly avoided. Her and other expert concerns raise profound questions as to the fairness of the trial and, indeed, the status of the evidential test used by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in considering whether to reopen it.

I remind the House that there were no witnesses, no CCTV footage, no forensic evidence and no confession in this case. Everything therefore depended on the testimony of experts, but when it came to the defence, in the words of Dame Sue Black,

“there were no medical or statistical experts put forward at all”.

I would also highlight that Lucy Letby had had a prior complaint against the consultants in the hospital upheld after a detailed investigation and report, which found that there was absolutely nothing to prevent her from returning to work and that doctors had bullied and harassed her. That evidence, too, was never heard by the jury.

The Thirlwall inquiry into the Countess of Chester hospital has yet to publish its final report, despite many delays, but yesterday’s Nottingham University hospitals report is a powerful reminder that in neonatal and maternity settings, grave harm can arise from not only individual malfeasance but systematic clinical failure. [Interruption.] If I may conclude, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now considering the Letby case. May I ask—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have allowed the time. You are a minute over. Please can you conclude now?

[Jesse Norman]

I think it is unfortunate that I was not allowed to conclude in the terms that—

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave it at that. Sorry, but I am not going to be challenged like that. I think that is totally unfair. I gave a full minute and allowed you to continue. I was going to allow you to come back. I would have expected better from the shadow Leader of the House than to challenge the Chair in that way—I have never had that before. I call the Leader of the House.

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.