Business of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and Alan Campbell

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 15 December will include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Sir Alan Campbell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and Alan Campbell

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 8 December will include:

Monday 8 December—Consideration of Lords message to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 9 December—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.

Wednesday 10 December—Opposition day (14th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 11 December—General debate on St Andrew’s day and Scottish affairs, followed by general debate on the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy. The subjects of these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 12 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 15 December will include:

Monday 15 December—Second Reading of the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill.

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

Wednesday 17 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill.

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

The House will rise for the Christmas recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 18 December 2025 and return on Monday 5 January 2026.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may, I would like to express my personal sorrow at the death of Sir John Stanley this week. The House may not know that he was the first person to reach and to comfort the dying Airey Neave, after Neave had been the victim of a bomb from the Irish National Liberation Army, a spin-off of the IRA. Sir John was also a highly effective member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

A couple of weeks ago, I invited the House to join me in supporting our cricketers down under. That was the kiss of death: they instantly lost the first test. So I am now thrilled, and I hope the House will join me in congratulating Joe Root on his majestic hundred in Australia in the present test.

Once again, the past seven days have not been a thing of glory for the Government. Not a single measure in the Budget has been scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility as positive for growth, while the OECD and a host of other experts have warned that the Chancellor’s tax rises last week will actually hold growth back. Except for seven Members, every Labour Member voted in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap in 2024; last week, they voted in exactly the opposite way. Junior doctors will go on strike for the third time this year in the run-up to Christmas. In fairness, though, I should say that there has been one chink of light: the Government have rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill.

Yesterday, we were treated to the inglorious sight of the Prime Minister misusing the engagements question once again to make a party political broadcast at Prime Minister’s questions. We do not have a presidential system in this country, thank the Lord, nor do we insist on a rigid uniformity of practice in this House, but if the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement to Parliament, he may do so in the usual way, giving notice to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Speaker, and taking questions from colleagues in this House on the policy. I therefore ask the Leader of the House, as our spokesman in the Cabinet, to tell the House what he will do to prevent this practice from recurring. I am also asking Mr Speaker to make it clear in public that this will not be tolerated by the Chair in future.

It was reported this week that the Government will be drawing on German start-up companies to fill a supposed drone gap for the British Army. I am sure the whole House will share my view that the UK should seek to offer a welcoming environment for foreign investment, and all the more so after a Budget that has done nothing to support economic growth. I also recognise the value of having leading international companies competitively involved in the testing and development of drones. However, it is a serious concern that there appear to be no plans within the Ministry of Defence to provide strategic leadership, investment and support to start-up drone companies created, led and managed in this country and by British nationals. We have been promised a defence investment plan, but Ministers have been unable to say when this plan will be presented to the House. It looks as though they may be leaving it to the last full week of term, perhaps to avoid a proper measure of parliamentary scrutiny. Experience has repeatedly shown that, in times of crisis, the nation needs to have core capabilities solidly based in UK-owned and led domestic manufacturing. That was one of the lessons of the pandemic. It is hard to imagine a more significant emerging defence need than that of high-quality, high-technology and cost-effective drones. There are superb companies in this country ready to scale, as needed.

Last June, the Prime Minister called for what he termed a “national conversation” on defence. He made it clear, rightly, that the defence of the realm was not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence; the whole of our society, as well as the whole of Government, needed to be mobilised into a better understanding of the threat. Since then, that threat has become only more serious. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is in Lossiemouth today to make an announcement, but the sad fact is that he has said precisely nothing to lead that wider national conversation or raise awareness of the threat. Meanwhile, the public are uncertain on the need and rationale for new spending, and key aspects of our defence and security readiness are, if anything, getting worse. May we, at the very least, have a statement next week on what the Government are planning to do to support the UK drones industry in filling that important strategic need?

Business of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and Alan Campbell

Thursday 13th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 17 November will include:

Monday 17 November—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

Tuesday 18 November—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Border Security, Asylum And Immigration Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Property (Digital Assets) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 20 November—Debate on a motion on the subject of international Men’s day, followed by debate on a motion on an injury in service award. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 21 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 24 November includes:

Monday 24 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day one).

Tuesday 25 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day two).

Wednesday 26 November—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.

Thursday 27 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 28 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 December includes:

Monday 1 December—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 2 December—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

[Jesse Norman]

I am sure I speak for many Members when I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the whole of the Speaker’s Office for the work you have put in to make this past week of remembrance so memorable. The gardens of remembrance, the projection of images from the second world war on to the Elizabeth Tower, the wreath laying in Westminster Hall and much else—all these things, I know, took a huge amount of organisation, co-ordination and hard work, so I thank you and your office. I draw colleagues’ attention to the launch of the project to build the remembrance clock at the national arboretum, and hope that they will dig deep to support that.

In the spirit of exchanging news stories that have developed over the past two or three weeks, I will, if I may, set out a raft of intriguing items. Nine former four-star generals have condemned the Government’s treatment of veterans on Remembrance Day. One million more people than a year ago are now claiming universal credit without any requirement to look for a job. The Chancellor gave an unexpected early press conference—apparently to prepare people for major tax rises—and the Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday the rise in national insurance. Junior doctors have announced a five-day strike, starting tomorrow, in pursuit of a 26% pay rise, on top of the woefully inadequate—as they see it—29% received last year. No. 10 Downing Street has insisted that the Prime Minister has full confidence in Morgan McSweeney, and that he—or perhaps Mr McSweeney —will still be Prime Minister at the next election.

It has rightly been said that our country has moved from being post war to being pre-war. In recent weeks, we have seen a marked escalation of the conflict in Ukraine: Russian forces have made gains in and around the city of Pokrovsk, threatening to cut transport routes and displace thousands more civilians, and missile and drone attacks on energy and transport infrastructure have intensified, with serious consequences for Ukraine’s ability to sustain its economy through the winter. These developments follow reports of a significant increase in Russian arms production and continued circumvention of sanctions through covert oil and gas shipments. At the same time, international aid flows have slowed, and Ukrainian forces are facing actual or potential shortages of money, ammunition or equipment.

All that, I suggest, underlines the need for Parliament to take stock. Three years into the conflict, the nature of the war is shifting, and now demands renewed strategic co-ordination among Ukraine’s allies. In that context, I ask the Leader of the House to commit to keeping back 4 December for the Backbench debate on Ukraine requested by my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and agreed by the Backbench Business Committee.

By my calculation, we have not had a general debate on Ukraine on the Floor of the House since February this year, and not on a substantive motion since 2023. The debate would allow the House to review the current worrying state of military preparedness and humanitarian situation, the position on frozen Russian financial assets held in Europe, the status of occupied territories that Russia wrongly claims for itself, and the Government’s approach to long-range defensive support and sanctions enforcement. Right hon. and hon. Members could examine the diplomatic context, test Government policy and cross-departmental co-ordination, and bring the diverse range of expertise and knowledge across the House to bear on a crucial issue facing the entire continent of Europe. Above all, it would allow this House of Commons, as an institution, to brief itself in full and demonstrate the strong sense of unity that exists in this country on the vital defence of our sovereign ally, Ukraine. The House has been steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and rightly so, but, as the conflict evolves, we must ensure our response evolves with it. It is possible that the Leader of the House’s genius for prognostication and intelligence-gathering may have already caused him to form a supportive view of this request, but, if not, I ask very much that he have the Government make time on 4 December for that timely and important debate.

Business of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and Alan Campbell

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 3 November includes:

Monday 3 November—Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

Tuesday 4 November—Opposition day (12th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Wednesday 5 November—Consideration of Lords message to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 5 November and return on Tuesday 11 November.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 November includes:

Tuesday 11 November—General debate on the contribution of the armed forces to mark Remembrance.

Wednesday 12 November—Opposition day (13th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 13 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Friday 14 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 17 November includes:

Monday 17 November—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for that update.

I know the whole House will want to join me in sending our very best wishes to the victims of the hurricane in Jamaica, and now also Cuba, Haiti and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

I want to pay a personal tribute to Prunella Scales, who died this week. She was a magnificent actress, the linchpin of a great acting dynasty and—as was her husband Timothy West—a wonderful reader of audiobooks.

Among the news this week have been the following items: the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), has been elected as deputy leader of the Labour party, and has vowed to work constructively with No. 10 Downing Street; the Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly contradicted the Prime Minister in relation to the collapsed China spying case; the Labour party has fallen in the polls to a record low for a recently elected Government; and Irish citizens may now be forced to have digital identity cards to work in this country under the Government’s new plans.

I would like to raise with the Leader of the House two important issues, one directly relating to the recent business of the House. As a former Chief Whip, he will know that the first question at Prime Minister’s questions always follows a simple formula: the Prime Minister is asked to list their engagements; he or she typically presents public condolences or congratulations and comments on an issue—often an international issue—affecting the whole House; and then says, “This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others,” and so on.

Unfortunately, since taking office last year, the present Prime Minister has increasingly misused his first engagements question. Two weeks ago, he used it to avoid making a full statement to the House about China, which I do not think can have pleased the Speaker’s Office. This week, he used it to try to score a series of partisan political points—by my counting, the eighth time he has tried to do this since taking office. This is an abuse of procedure, and it is a discourtesy to this House. Its effect is to turn an open question into a party political broadcast. It undermines a valuable opportunity to bring the House together every week on a matter of public importance before the usual knockabout of PMQs begins. It is unworthy of the Prime Minister’s office and unworthy of the Prime Minister, who is a very decent human being. Therefore, may I politely invite the Leader of the House to ask the Prime Minister to desist? [Interruption.] And may I wish him good luck in doing so?

My second issue concerns the so-called graduate premium. The Government hold an extremely powerful set of data known as the longitudinal educational outcomes —or LEO data—which link people’s school results, university records and later earnings. Many people in this House—including, perhaps more than any of us, the Leader of the House—will know that education can transform people’s lives for the better. This dataset can show what happens and how it does so in detail, but most of the data remain entirely hidden. Only limited figures have been published, such as average graduate earnings five years after university. The Government also have information on what happens to those who do not go to university, but this too is withheld, so we still cannot answer questions that are crucial for many people. How financially worthwhile is a particular course or a particular institution? How effective are apprenticeships? What difference does university really make?

The secrecy weakens public trust and good public policy. Families and young people are being forced to make major life choices without clear facts, because no member of the public or, indeed, Member of this House can see which courses or institutions genuinely improve this kind of opportunity. It seems that the Government themselves will increasingly use the data to shape policy, but without making those data public. People go to university for many different reasons, and financial returns are only part of the story, but these data are gathered at public expense and describe public outcomes. With the right safeguards, they should be open for review and for public debate and discussion. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has explained exactly how, so will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in the Department for Education to make the LEO data public soon?

Business of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and Alan Campbell

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 27 October will include:

Monday 27 October—Remaining stages of the Victims and Courts Bill.

Tuesday 28 October—Opposition day on a motion in the name of the official Opposition—subject to be announced.

Wednesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Sentencing Bill.

Thursday 30 October—General debate on property service charges, followed by a general debate on the ageing community and end-of-life care. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 31 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 3 November includes:

Monday 3 November—Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

In addition to the tributes that were paid earlier this week, I believe I will be speaking for all Members in mourning the death on Monday of our former colleague Oliver Colvile. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Oliver entered the House with me in that glorious parliamentary generation of 2010. He was nationally famous for taking a wicket in India on live television for the Lords and Commons cricket team, and for his memorable call in 2015 for hedgehogs to become a national emblem of the UK. As he pointed out in this Chamber,

“hedgehogs are prickly in character, have a voracious appetite and a passion for gardens, and have a noisy sex life.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2015; Vol. 602, c. 351.]

He said that he left it to the Deputy Speaker to decide which of those traits he himself possessed.

The Leader of the House has rightly put some distance between himself and his predecessor in electing not to engage in political knockabout, and I am four-square behind him on that. In that spirit, I will content myself by simply noting some of the news this week. The UK has just recorded net borrowing of more than £20 billion in September, the highest of any month since 2021. The Crown Prosecution Service has been forced to abandon the most consequential trial of Chinese spies for many years. Four people have resigned from the grooming gangs inquiry panel and the leading candidate to be chair has withdrawn. Newspapers have been briefed by No. 10 that the new Cabinet Secretary will be removed in the new year, after barely 15 months in his post. A person deported under the Government’s one in, one out programme has immediately returned by dinghy, reportedly citing his terror at being in France.

The Leader of the House may or may not wish to comment on those issues, but there are two specific items affecting many Members of this House that I bring to his attention. The first is the imminent closure of the fruit and vegetables aid scheme. As he will be aware, the UK fresh produce sector is worth more than £3 billion and is a significant part of the UK farm economy. There has been a plan in place for some time to grow that sector rapidly over the next three years through public and private investment in equipment, technology and infrastructure, but the current scheme closes at the end of this year without any movement to date on this crucial issue from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Will the Leader of the House therefore ask the Secretary of State to pick up this issue as soon as possible, push ahead with the plan and make a statement to the House, so as to avoid risk to the horticulture sector, local food production, jobs and national food security?

The second issue relates to the Government’s new local government fair funding review. As the House will know, this is a fraught area of concern for Members across the House, and I declare a particular interest, since it appears likely that Herefordshire council—my own county—will face a funding gap next year of around £27 million, or 11% of its net budget. That is a gigantic sum, which comes on top of the withdrawal of the rural services delivery grant, which supported so many local services. It is entirely unclear what the rationale for such a cut could be, especially for what is a relatively poor and sparsely populated part of the country. I also note, and bring to the attention of colleagues across the House, that the new formula will create serious problems for many local authorities up and down this country, including London boroughs.

The need for reform is clear, but the Government are still consulting barely six months before the new formula is due to be rolled out. Haste is the last thing anyone needs in an area of this complexity and delicacy. May I impress on the Leader of the House the need for care and deliberation from the Government in how this consultation is carried out and then implemented? Will he in turn express this concern to ministerial colleagues and give proper time for these issues to be debated at the length they deserve in this Chamber?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am pleased to see the shadow Leader of the House back in his place this week. I just inform him, if he did not already know, that last week we discovered in his absence that he has a highly capable deputy in the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who may or may not be joining us in deliberations later.

I join the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Oliver Colvile, who the House will remember fondly as the MP for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport from 2010 to 2017. Our thoughts are with his family. Apart from his other achievements, not least in seeking to save hedgehogs, my understanding is that he never broke his party’s Whip and therefore would have been a Chief Whip’s dream, I can assure the House.

We also remember this week that it is 59 years since the Aberfan disaster, when 144 people lost their lives, including 116 children. We must never forget. Today also marks the launch of the Royal British Legion poppy appeal. We remember those who served and gave their lives in the service of our country, including those who were Members of this House.

I also pay tribute on a personal level and give my thanks to Kate Wilson, who is leaving the Cabinet Office this week. Her career has spanned three decades, and she supported successive Governments’ work in Parliament on behalf of the office of the Leader of the House of Commons and the Government Chief Whip’s office, and I hope the whole House will join me in wishing Kate the best in her future endeavours.

I also join with you, Mr Speaker, in wishing England all the very best in their rugby league match on Saturday against Australia. We wish England well.

I turn to the shadow Leader of the House’s points. First of all, it is true that we need to get the balance right in these questions between serious matters and, from time to time, knockabout. I have spoken to him privately about this, and I am committed to ending some of the knockabout—but given the list that he presented, he is tempting me. As some of the issues might come up in questions later, the only thing I will say is on my starting point last week on questions about the economy: any Conservative Member who asks a question on the economy should begin with an apology.

On the substantive matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises—the food and vegetable aid scheme—he is a strong advocate for the industry and particularly for his beautiful county of Herefordshire, where I understand it has been a great year for apples, but not always for other veg and fruit. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the DEFRA Minister, who I am sure will be happy to meet him if he seeks a meeting, and who will also keep the House updated on that matter.

On local government funding, I will respond by saying that the current system of local authority funding has left some places behind—there is no doubt about that. It is not a fair system. The previous Government understood this very well in their fair funding review, but, as with many issues, they just did not deliver on it. We will make good on our commitment to introduce improvements to align funding with need, and that will be the first time that has happened since 2013. We will also publish our response to the fair funding review 2.0 later this autumn, which will be followed by the publication of the provisional multi-year settlement. In the usual way, there will be plenty of time to debate that.

Business of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and Alan Campbell

Thursday 11th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I welcome the new Leader of the House and thank the previous Leader of the House. I am looking forward to this session!

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

Probably more than I am, Mr Speaker. [Laughter.] The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 15 September—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Employment Rights Bill.

Tuesday 16 September—Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill.

The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 16 September and return on Monday 13 October.

The business for the week commencing 13 October includes:

Monday 13 October—General debate on baby loss. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 14 October—Remaining stages of the Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 15 October—Remaining stages of the Sustainable Aviation Fuel Bill.

Thursday 16 October—Second Reading of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.

Friday 17 October—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 20 October includes:

Monday 20 October—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business.

On this 24th anniversary of 9/11, I know the whole House will want to join me and, I am sure, the Leader of the House in sending our best wishes to the families and the friends of the victims of those horrendous terrorist attacks.

So, too, our best wishes go to those grieving the murder of Charlie Kirk in the USA, and to our own great colleague, the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for the terrible news she has had this morning.

I thank the recently departed Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell). She and I had our disagreements; I do not think there is much doubt about that. She supported the wrong football team, and I struggled to get her to answer my questions, but she was diligent and effective in responding to Members across the House, as well as in Committee. Without getting too teary about it, I will even miss her appalling puns.

But it is an ill wind that blows nobody any good. Hurricane tax dodge blew away the Deputy Prime Minister and destroyed the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted phase two, but it has brought us the former Labour Chief Whip! He was a history teacher, and there cannot be many better forms of public service than that. After his distinguished career channelling industriously away in the usual channels, I warmly welcome him blinking into the bright lights of the Dispatch Box.

I had somehow thought that, having plumbed the depths of incompetence over the summer, the Government would now settle down a bit. How naïve—how desperately foolish—I was. The No. 10 team were obviously taking the mickey. They were laughing at us. “You think this is incompetent?”, they said, “We have hardly got going. We can do vastly better than that. Resets are for wimps—let’s have a full-blown crash reshuffle. Let’s have a new Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, as well as a new Deputy Prime Minister. And let’s undermine the Chancellor of the Exchequer by ostentatiously lining up the former Chief Secretary to replace her. The markets will really welcome that. Even better—let’s have an election for deputy leader of the party. People are already scared to death about all the taxes coming in the Budget, but they will be completely reassured if we run a Labour leadership election at the same time. Ideally, we can make the deputy leader a former Cabinet Minister whom the Prime Minister has just abruptly fired. That’ll be good for stability. Oh, and we can go further! We can actively undermine relations with our closest ally if we throw in a major scandal over the Prime Minister’s personal choice as ambassador to the USA.”

If only this were a joke—instead, it is a tragedy. It is like we are trapped in an unending episode of “The Office”, with the Prime Minister as David Brent. The unions are ratcheting up their pay demands. The RMT is holding seven days of rolling walk-outs. The tube has come to a standstill. The only people who probably will not be affected are junior doctors in London, who have voted to have strikes until the new year, so they will be staying at home anyway. As the former director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies remarked, it all shows how “staggeringly unprepared” Labour was for government, and it is we across this House and all our constituents who are paying the price for their arrogance and negligence.

The Leader of the House will only just be coming up to speed now, of course—one perfectly understands that—but, if I may, I would make one early request of him, with the utmost seriousness. He will know that many thousands of veterans, including hundreds in my constituency and in his, have had their lives thrown into uncertainty and bad—desperate, in some cases—anxiety by the Government’s decision to repeal the Northern Ireland veterans legislation, the Northern Ireland (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. That was more than a year ago now. The Government promised a legally sound and effective legislative solution to the problem they had created, so could the Leader of the House let us know—now or in a written update before the recess—when the Northern Ireland Secretary will come to the House and publish that solution?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, may I add my tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for her excellent work as Leader of the House over the last year? She spearheaded the revival of the Modernisation Committee, which was a manifesto commitment, and oversaw the packed legislative programme that formed the basis of this Government’s first King’s Speech. I know that I am among many MPs across the House who want to thank her for her diligence and hard work.

I would also like to express my thanks to Colin Lee, the Clerk of Legislation, who retires this week, having joined the House service in 1988. MPs from across the House have valued his wise counsel over many years, and I know the whole House will wish him well.

I know that the House will also share my sadness about the death of Sir Roger Sands, who was Clerk of the House from 2003 to 2006. Sir Roger was a distinguished servant of the House for 41 years, and the House will want to convey our condolences to Lady Sands and Sir Roger’s family.

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for welcoming me to my place. Before I turn to his remarks, I should caution him, and indeed the House, that the last time I answered a question at the Dispatch Box was in the same year that the iPad was released. Both you and I, Mr Speaker, had a little more hair and of a darker hue. At the time the average price of a pint of beer was £2.91—there are people sat behind me who were not even old enough to buy alcohol then.

I am looking forward to these sessions with the shadow Leader of the House. We have been in the House together for a decade, but I cannot claim to know him particularly well, so I also went to Wikipedia to find out a bit more. He is a philosopher, a historian and an author of note. It is clear that he is a thinking Conservative, which is an increasingly rare commodity.

I associate myself with the right hon. Gentleman’s comments about the anniversary of 9/11, and about the death of Charlie Kirk. Let us remember that, in these circumstances, Mr Kirk’s family have been robbed of a father and a husband. There is no justification at all for political violence, whatever the views of the person involved.

I know that there will inevitably be a degree of knockabout about the state of the Government, and indeed of the Opposition, at business questions. I am happy, any day, to have a debate on the comparison between this Government’s 14 months and the right hon. Gentleman’s disastrous Government of 14 years. The only thing that we were unprepared for was the scale of the state that this country was in.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s substantive point about Northern Ireland, he knows that those are difficult matters and that the Government have given a commitment to bringing forward legislation. It is important that reassurances are in place, and I can tell him that the Government will be saying something shortly.

Let me finish with this. The shadow Leader of the House and I both have a deep respect for Parliament. I can give him and the House the reassurance that I take my responsibility, both as the Government’s representative in Parliament and as the House’s representative in Government, very seriously indeed.