Business of the House

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) back to his place, and I wish him a happy birthday for earlier this week.

I join him in sending our condolences to the people of Venezuela and those caught in the earthquake. Our thoughts are with the victims and their families. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, our thoughts are also with those injured in the rail collision last Friday, and the friends and family of the driver who lost his life, and I send my deepest sympathies at this dreadful time. As the shadow Leader of the House said, our thoughts are also with those injured in the horrific anti-Muslim attack in Edinburgh, and we send our thanks and appreciation to all the emergency services who responded to both incidents with bravery and professionalism in very difficult circumstances.

I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s words about the importance of Armed Forces Week—we will mark Armed Forces Day this weekend. Events are taking place across the country to celebrate the work of our armed forces, and show our support for the men and women who make up the armed forces community. I also thank you, Mr Speaker, for the events that you put on in Parliament this week.

Members across the House will be pleased to know that the Great British summer of saving has started. Families across the UK can take advantage of lower prices on children’s days out, meals and travel. We are cutting VAT to reduce the cost of children’s restaurant meals, children’s tickets for theatres and cinema, and all tickets for attractions such as soft play, amusement parks and museums. In August, children aged between five and 15 will be able to travel on local bus services in England for free, keeping the cost down further.

Before I turn to the right hon. Gentleman’s specific remarks, let me say that I very much welcome the three new Members to the House this week. I wish them all well, irrespective of whichever party they serve. It has in many ways been a momentous week following the Prime Minister’s announcement on Monday. He will leave office with a record of stabilising the economy, driving down waiting lists in the NHS, lifting half a million children out of poverty, as well as a proud record on the international stage and defending our national interest.

Standing for election and representing our community and country is the essence of politics. We would do well to remember that, regardless of party affiliation, at the heart of this are human beings for whom toxic political discourse only makes the job harder, and it can take a toll on them and their families. I hope we all bear that in mind, and recognise that the onus is on all of us to moderate political discourse, and ensure that it does not cross the line into abuse or intimidation. Reflecting on that, and on Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, made me even more grateful for the tone of the shadow Leader of the House. During these sessions, despite our party political differences, we share good-natured exchanges, for which I thank him. It is a habit of an old Chief Whip, or an old habit of a Chief Whip, that while exchanges are taking place in Prime Minister’s questions, I tend to watch the faces of Conservative Members, including the right hon. Gentleman. I think I am safe in saying that staring at the ground, or looking at a phone, is one way of demonstrating that he is not very happy with the tone that has been set by the leader of that party.

On Peter Murrell, as the Prime Minister made clear, the SNP should step up to the mark and address the matter, as should the necessary appropriate authorities where that work needs to be done. Similarly, I expect that the leader of Reform will be held to account, and that his account of what the £5 million was all about will be tested, as I suspect that it does not really hold water.

As the Prime Minister said, the defence investment plan will be published before the NATO summit, and I would expect that a statement will be made to the House once it is published. I reassure the House that the Prime Minister, and any future Labour Prime Minister, will be absolutely committed to the defence of our country, and to finding the money to pay for it.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the serious matter of the Lucy Letby case, which I know is a concern for both Government and Opposition Members. It is important that the decision was sound and safe, so I will raise it with ministerial colleagues. Should he wish to express his concern directly to ministerial colleagues, I will arrange that for him too.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I reassure my hon. Friend that this Government have increased the amount spent on defence by a record amount since the end of cold war, and we are determined to ensure that we have proper funding for defence. I hear what she says about the role played by companies across our constituencies. Since we came into office, 1,400 major contracts have been agreed, 86% of which are with British businesses, so colleagues across the House, including my hon. Friend, should be reassured that this Government’s intention is to ensure that British businesses benefit from that spending and, crucially, that our armed forces have the means that they need to defend our country in these very difficult times.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson —welcome back.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Venezuela, Edinburgh, Bedford and our armed forces. I acknowledge his comments about the summer of saving, but ask him: a summer of saving who?

Paternity leave has been a joy. I know it will not make me popular with new parents, but mercifully my daughter has been sleeping pretty well, so far—[Interruption.] Mum is doing well too. As hon. Members may know, our journey to this point has not been straightforward. I shared our story of miscarriage in the baby loss debate last year. Telling that story was the start of hearing from thousands of women across the country about their experiences, which was truly humbling. It connected me with organisations such as Tommy’s, which is proposing a new model for graded levels of care for miscarriage. Shockingly, at the moment, those who go through a miscarriage experience are not offered support—they have to wait until their third miscarriage to get support. Tommy’s is campaigning for access to graduated support from day one. I note that the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) has written a cross-party letter to the Government about this, which I support.

We received information about maternity services in Nottingham yesterday, but we still await the final report on the national maternity and neonatal investigation, led by Baroness Amos. She gave interim findings earlier this year, from which we discovered that lots of women feel as if they are not listened to, that there is a postcode lottery for services and that many women are being treated in inadequate buildings. Will the Leader of the House confirm when that report will be published? We were told last August that there would a rapid investigation, so I hope it will be published this side of the summer recess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My hon. Friend is a champion for the rights of his constituents, and I pay tribute to him. I recognise the concern that he has raised. Everyone, including trans people, should have the right to access the services and facilities that they need in a respectful way that protects dignity and privacy. Trans people continue to be protected under the Equality Act 2010, which we on the Labour Benches are particularly proud of. I will write to Ministers on his behalf and see whether we can arrange the meeting that he seeks.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business that we have scheduled. In addition to the business he has announced, on Thursday 9 July there will be a debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by a further debate on which we await confirmation from the sponsor. On Thursday 16 July, assuming that we are given that date, there will be the annual Sir David Amess pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is very popular with all colleagues.

As we await the implementation of the new Government, it seems that Government business is reasonably light. Early notice of any extra dates that we might get before the recess would be appreciated, as we have only just cleared requests for debates in the Chamber dating back to December. We have a large queue.

Let me turn to the debates in Westminster Hall next week. On Tuesday 30 June, there will be a debate on Government support for removing unlawful storefronts and regenerating local high streets. On Thursday 2 July, there will be a debate on reducing premature deaths from heart disease and stroke, followed by a debate on Government plans to tackle air pollution. On Tuesday 7 July, there will be a debate on UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends.

On Thursday 9 July, there will be a debate on Government support for the lobular moonshot project, and a further debate to be confirmed. I can announce in advance that on Thursday 16 July in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on the impact of national planning policy framework changes, followed by a debate on capital funding for Changing Places toilets.

Given the recent hot weather, I have been inundated with reports of individuals trapped in their flats in high-rise buildings, lifts going out of action and people being trapped in stairwells and collapsing because of the heat. That is particularly prominent in social housing. Given that this is about the design and upkeep of properties, can we have an urgent statement from one of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Ministers on what action the Government will take to protect these very vulnerable people? I have to say that they are often from visible ethnic minorities and often have no recourse to the support that they need. This is an urgent matter. Given that the hot weather is likely to continue for some time to come over the summer, we must take urgent action.