Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

I shall, Mr Speaker.

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

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

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

The provisional business for the week commencing 21 April includes:

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

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

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

Friday 25 April—Private Members’ Bills.

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 2 May—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 4 April—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 April includes:

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

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 28 March—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 31 March includes:

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

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

[Jesse Norman]

indicated assent.

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

I shall.

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

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

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

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

Friday 21 March—The House will not be sitting.

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 28 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 6th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 14 March�Private Members� Bills.

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 21 March�The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

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

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

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

Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 14 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

He said that the UK needed

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

Finally, and most notably, he said that

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 24 February includes:

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

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

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

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

Friday 28 February—The House will not be sitting.

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

Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

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

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

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

Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 27 January includes:

Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.

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

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

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

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

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

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

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

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

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

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

That is from the Chancellor’s own Labour colleague.

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

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

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

He asked:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 20 January includes:

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

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

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

Thursday 23 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day.

Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.

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

Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.

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

Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill.

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

Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.

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

[Jesse Norman]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lucy Powell]

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 13 January includes:

Monday 13 January—General debate on hospice and palliative care, followed by a general debate on the impact of food and diet on obesity. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Wednesday 15 January—Remaining stages of the Non- Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.

Thursday 16 January—Motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, followed by a debate on a motion on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee (in unallotted time).

Friday 17 January—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 20 January will include:

Monday 20 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I start by wishing you a very happy new year? I hope that all colleagues in the Chamber had a zestful and restful Christmas. I also pay tribute to those members of the House Service who were honoured in the recent honours list.

The new year is always a time for new starts and fresh beginnings; a time when people step back, look at themselves in the mirror, pinch an inch or two, and perhaps make a few resolutions—lay off the pies, resist the siren call of the cheeseboard, spend less on self-indulgences and more on things that matter, take themselves in hand, and perhaps try to manage things a bit better. The Government might consider adopting these new year’s resolutions for themselves. After all, by any standards, their first six months in office have been pretty catastrophic. They have had six happy months blaming everyone else; now they need to take responsibility and lead.

We have seen how the Budget continues to have devastating effects, both on key sectors and more widely. Just a few weeks ago the National Institute of Economic and Social Research warned that the UK economy did not grow at all in the fourth quarter of last year. High street retailers have reported their worst sales decline since covid, both offline and online. Business confidence is at a four-year low. Employment continues to fall, and job vacancies are at their lowest for three years.

Only this week we saw that long-term interest rates in the gilts market, as very well highlighted by the shadow Chancellor in this morning’s urgent question, have risen to their highest level since 1998, 27 years ago—that was before some Members of this House were born—reflecting severe investor worry about Labour’s spending plans and about increased UK vulnerability to increases in the national debt. The Government cannot blame that on the past. It is a straight judgment on their own credibility, and it is costing this country dearly every day.

The problem is not just that the Government have damaged key parts of the economy with their Budget decisions; it is that the long-term effect of those decisions is so counterproductive. The CBI has calculated that the Government’s raid on inheritance tax will cost £1.25 billion more than it raises. The Chancellor has said:

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

Last month, she specifically ruled out an emergency Budget in the spring.

The effect of these rising interest rates is to reduce fiscal headroom and make new tax rises or spending cuts very possible—indeed, some would say almost inevitable. We must wait to see whether that means emergency tax rises or an unexpected fiscal event in the spring, with a detailed investigation by the Office for Budget Responsibility. That also raises the question: how can the Government plan a spending review at all if they are not in control of the public finances? The damage will not be just to the Chancellor’s own reputation; it will damage the pockets of every person in every household in this country.

As we think about the new year, what resolutions should the House encourage the Government to adopt? I suggest three. First, stop taking politically driven measures that actively hurt the economy. Stop punishing the retail and hospitality sectors, which give so many young people their first jobs. Stop attacking farmers and the rural economy. Stop the madness of the Employment Rights Bill, which will make it harder than ever to start and build a business. We should be celebrating and rewarding drive, energy, aspiration and entrepreneurship, not undermining them.

Secondly, come clean to the people of this country about the Government’s own uncertainty, conflicts and incompetence. We have had endless announcements about new commissions and initiatives, each testimony to Labour’s hopeless lack of planning before the election. We had a delayed autumn Budget and this year we will have a spending review that, if it is not derailed by fiscal events, could easily last until June or July, building up to a full year of stasis and stagnation since the general election.

A final resolution might be to show us some leadership. The Prime Minister pointed out, and rightly so, that in 2010 the incoming Government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair. He said

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

Those are refreshingly honest, cross-party recognitions of the difficulty of government, but when it comes to action, what have we seen? Dither, delay and divisive policy making. Reform of social care is a huge issue for millions of people across this country and could lift huge burdens from the NHS, yet this week we learned that, despite all Labour’s promises of change, it has been kicked into the long grass.

In closing, this Government were elected to own key issues and to address them, not to avoid the hard problems, parrot the usual political lines, blame other people and play nice to their friends in the unions. They need to stop blaming others, get on and show the country they can lead.

[Lucy Powell]

May I, too, wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the whole House a very happy new year? I send all our sympathies to the residents of Los Angeles who are being hit by wildfires—the situation unfolding there is very concerning indeed.

May I also take this opportunity to congratulate a fellow northerner, Luke Littler, on winning the world darts championship? He might support the wrong football team, but he has been a great role model and is making darts a very compelling sport.

It is the new year, but I am afraid it is the same old Tories. Their decision to try to vote down the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill yesterday was another huge misjudgment. They seem to have learned nothing and are incapable of accepting they got things wrong or having what it takes to rebuild trust. The victims of grooming gangs need politicians to hear their voices, to act without fear or favour, and to take all necessary steps to root out and bring justice to perpetrators and enablers, whoever they are. They do not need pathetic and blatant political bandwagon jumping.

If Conservative Members were really interested in the victims and justice, their leader would have met with victims, but she has not. When she was Children’s Minister or the Women and Equalities Minister, she could have acted or spoken about the subject in the Chamber, but she did not. If this was really about addressing the root causes and making sure our institutions, culture and laws are fit for purpose, the Conservatives would have started implementing the recommendations of the Jay report, but they did not. Their wrecking tactics last night showed that they would rather play politics instead of supporting measures to safeguard children. I find it quite depressing to watch the official Opposition chase the spectre of Reform. These are very serious issues that require serious attention, with victims and their learnings at the centre.

Yet again, the shadow Leader of the House raises the economy but, as ever, I will take no lectures from him. After all, he admitted that we inherited a “struggling” economy with “anaemic” growth. Our commitment to economic stability, sound public finances and meeting the fiscal rules is non-negotiable, as we have just heard from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. We are borrowing only for investment and we will see net debt fall. As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the cost of debt fluctuates, often because of global markets. That is in stark contrast to the chaos we saw under his Government, when Liz Truss’s kamikaze Budget directly and immediately led to the gilt market crashing, needing the Bank of England to intervene to buy up Government bonds. She might want us to cease and desist, but we will not cease and desist from telling the truth that they crashed the economy.

When we talk about fixing the foundations of our economy, we are talking about tackling the fundamental and huge structural problems we face: years of low growth; very low productivity; chronically low investment; poor connectivity; a labour market with high levels of sickness; a health service on its knees; low skills; and an overreliance on record levels of immigration, which, in turn, puts more pressure on the housing crisis.

There are no quick fixes, but that is why the decisions we have taken, such as those in the Budget, are different and represent our vision of sustainable, shared growth. That begins with investment in health, investment in education and skills, and investment in the jobs of the future. It begins with providing a pay rise for the lowest paid, investment in transport and connectivity, and decent homes for people to live in.

Our approach is fundamentally different from that of the Conservative party, which is based on short-term, deregulatory, trickle-down economics. Opposition Members cannot have it both ways. We would have had cuts now —huge cuts to health and education—if they had been in government. They cannot have the benefits of the Budget without the measures it took to achieve them. Their agenda saw living standards fall for the first time in decades, with stagnant growth, poor productivity, high waiting lists and sickness rates and, perhaps most telling of all, in their last year of office net migration at nearly 1 million. We recognise that it will take time and we are beginning to turn the oil tanker around.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 6 January 2025 includes:

Monday 6 January—Debate on a motion on seizing frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine, followed by a general debate on backlogs in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 7 January—Second Reading of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 8 January—Second Reading of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Thursday 9 January—General debate on tackling violence against women and girls.

Friday 10 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 13 January will include:

Monday 13 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Renters’ Rights Bill.

Wednesday 15 January—Remaining stages of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.

Thursday 16 January—Motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, followed by business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee (unallotted time).

Friday 17 January—Private Members’ Bills.

As it is Christmas, Members may also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, following the House rising for the summer recess at the close of business on Tuesday 22 July, the House will return on Monday 1 September. The House will rise for the conference recess on Tuesday 16 September, and return on Monday 13 October.

[Jesse Norman]

Mr Speaker, may I associate myself very strongly with the remarks you have just made about hospices? You will recall that St Michael’s hospice was the topic of a recent discussion that we had at the Dispatch Box in business questions.

Mr Speaker, I must confess that I feel a slight degree of trepidation and nervousness, because at the weekend I received two massively welcome Christmas presents with the result of the Manchester derby and—dare I say it?—the defeat of Chorley by Hereford in a tough, hard- fought game at Edgar Street. I remain worried that I will need all of your legendary reserves of Christmas loving kindness in order to mention this.

This is the time of year when we think of friends and family, of our armed forces that keep us safe here and overseas, of those who care for others wherever they may be, and of the emergency services that protect us all the year round, but especially over the holiday period.

Mr Speaker, I think you will know that, in relation to this House, Parliament’s own record is not absolutely unblemished when it comes to Christmas. Fuelled by puritan hostility to public celebration and unseemly revelling, the Long Parliament—Parliament, no less—outlawed the celebration of Christmas in the 1640s. People naturally reacted, notably with the plum pudding riots in Canterbury in 1647, which began with a football game, but ended up with a brawl. How very different from the results at the weekend.

Perhaps the worst moment for this House was during the protectorate, when Parliament sat on Christmas day 1655, and Colonel John Desborough attempted to impose a decimation tax while many royalists were out sensibly celebrating the Christmas season. A punitive and partisan tax, and an unpopular, blundering Government up to various tricks and seeking to rush their business through the Commons while the House’s back was turned—how lucky we are that such a thing could never happen today.

However, my personal favourite is 1659, when the supply of French wines was temporarily cut off, creating absolute mayhem in London and other cities across the country. What to do? There could be only one answer: Members of Parliament should drink Herefordshire cider. It was every bit the equal of Burgundy and Bordeaux, as Roger Bosworth, my predecessor as MP for Hereford in the 1659 Parliament, insisted, and it was the ideal remedy for smoothing away troubles. Bosworth was a medical doctor, so he well knew the life-enhancing benefits of Herefordshire cider.

I think the lesson is clear: I doubt the plum pudding riots would have happened at all if the people of Canterbury had had Herefordshire cider to drink after the football. I only hope that the Chorley players were able to do the same after that hard-fought game on Saturday.

Mr Speaker, to you, to the Clerks and the House staff, and to all our colleagues across these Benches and in the other House, I wish a very merry and Herefordshire-filled Christmas and a happy new year.

[Lucy Powell]

Mr Speaker, I too would like to start by wishing you and everybody in the parliamentary community a very merry and restful Christmas. From the Doorkeepers to the cleaners, the police, the Clerks, Hansard and the Lobby, to the hairdressers and the gardeners, there are so many to thank. May I also take this opportunity to thank Katie from my private office who has led all the preparations for business questions for successive Leaders of the House over the last two years? She is leaving for pastures new and we will miss her greatly.

I will not join the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) in mentioning the derby match at the weekend if he does not mind, but as this is the last business questions of the year, let us reflect. It is out with the old and in with the new. I ended the last Parliament paying tribute to outgoing Members from that Parliament and we did lose some very big figures from this place, but come July we gained the biggest intake of new Members in modern history and it has been really energising to see so many enthusiastic, committed and talented new colleagues. They have all got to work so quickly, and many feel like old hands already. It has been a whirlwind for them and all of us arriving in Government and I think we all deserve a proper break over Christmas.

It has been not just a huge change for Parliament but a big change in Government too. It has been difficult, of course, as we face unprecedented challenges and a very difficult legacy. Trying to return Government to the service of ordinary working people, not vested interests, is a big task for us to undertake, but the oil tanker, as they say, has started to move. We are taking on the water bosses to end the scandal of bonuses over investment. We are for the first time ensuring our home-grown energy supplies meet our ambitious targets for clean energy by 2030. We are addressing the housing need and the housing crisis with bold action, bringing in new rights for workers and renters, and creating a transport system in service of passengers not profit. And we are restoring our health and education into world-class services with record levels of investment.

Many hon. Members will no doubt be in Santa’s—or perhaps I should say Mr Speaker’s—Christmas good books: colleagues who ask short topical questions; those who speak through the Chair and make sure they are in the Chamber for wind-ups; those who wear appropriate shoes; the judges of Purr Minister for crowning Mr Speaker’s cat, Attlee, the champion; and, of course, anyone mentioning Chorley or rugby league in a positive sense.

But there will perhaps be some who will not be getting a visit from Mr Speaker’s Santa this year: Ministers who do not make statements to Parliament first and instead go on the BBC; hecklers in Prime Minister’s questions; Members with pointless points of order; anyone who announces to the media their intention to secure an urgent question; those who cross in front of a Member as they are speaking; and, lest we forget, any Member drinking milk in the Chamber.

As I was, until July, the shadow Leader of the House, I might give the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire a little advice for these sessions, based on some of his previous appearances: if he does want me to answer questions, perhaps he could make them a little less long-winded; perhaps for next year, he might not want to contradict his own previous positions quite so often; and going into 2025, he might want to reflect a little more on why his party lost the election.

If you will forgive me, Mr Speaker, given that it is Christmas time, perhaps we can take one final opportunity to look at the Conservatives’ legacy: 12 hour A&E wait times; 11% inflation; 10 Lords defeats on Rwanda; 9 million inactive workers; 8,000 bus routes cancelled; 7 million people on waiting lists; six councils bankrupt; five Prime Ministers toppled; 4 million children in poverty; three broken pledges; two nurses’ strikes; and a Prime Minister at a lockdown party.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 16 December includes:

Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 17 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

Wednesday 18 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords], followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 19 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming 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 19 December and return on Monday 6 January 2025.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 January will include:

Monday 6 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Further business will be announced in the usual way.

[Jesse Norman]

What a marvellous time of year it is when I see the Christmas tree in New Palace Yard, and the trilling sounds of the parliamentary and Salvation Army choirs to boot. On a slightly more sober note, you will recall, Mr Speaker, that the story of this Government so far has been one of early scandal, a first reset and a delayed Budget, and now what we can expect to be a delayed spending review. We must hope that at some point the Government will get round to actually making policy.

I am afraid that this week has brought further confirmation of the disastrous effects of the November Budget. As Members will recall, the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicted at the time that the rise in national insurance would hit lower-wage and more labour-intensive parts of the economy hardest, and predicted that the Chancellor may need to raise taxes again soon. The Chancellor’s reaction, as she told the CBI, was:

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

We will see how long that promise lasts. Only this week, the Financial Times reported that hiring has fallen more sharply in the UK than in other major economies over the past year, including the US, France, Germany, Canada and Australia.

Luckily, however, we now have the Government’s new plan for change. I think the whole House should welcome the fact that the Government now have a plan, only 14 years and seven months after they first started in opposition, and that their plan is to change direction. I would describe the plan for change as a fine, fat Herefordshire beef cow that has been inadequately fed with the Reform party’s favourite anti-methane feed supplement, Bovaer: it is a beast full of nutrition, but with a certain amount of unnecessary flatulence. A lot of media commentators have had fun with the Government’s blizzard of to-do lists, including their six first steps, six milestones, five national missions and three foundations, but I am afraid that they have missed the Christmas spirit of the thing—all we need now are policy announcements on turtle doves and partridges in pear trees to complete their new initiatives advent calendar.

I jest, Mr Speaker. I come not to bury Caesar, but to praise him. I am not going to indulge in the easy mockery of the commentariat: on the contrary, I can report genuine signs of reality breaking through in the plan for change—something rarely seen in a document from this Government. The Prime Minister says:

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

He is absolutely right: public finances in 2010 were in desperate need of repair. He also says that we need

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

and again, I think he is absolutely right. Finally, and most notably, he says that

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

Not only that, but the Government have sensibly dropped their commitment to 100% clean energy by 2030, as Conservative Members have called for, and as I specifically highlighted only a couple of weeks ago.

The plan for change is a revolutionary gospel indeed: honest about the poor performance of the previous Labour Government, realistic in not seeking to blame Governments for wider global events, seeking to adopt a longer-term approach and recognising the need to limit tax and spending. All we can hope now is that someone spreads this revolutionary gospel, in the Christmas spirit, to the rest of the Government.

But I also have various concerns about the plan for change that I would like to put to the House. It barely mentions the crucial short-term issue—and long-term issue—of defence, highlighted once again this week by events in Syria, or the vital long-term issue of social care, which all parties concede has been inadequately handled over the past 30 years. These are extraordinary omissions in what purports to be an inclusive, long-term reset for the Government.

There are more fundamental questions to be addressed, too. The idea of a mission is a fashionable one in policy circles, but it implies a total commitment to the goal. How will that be reconciled with the obligation of the civil service, and the Prime Minister’s new efficiency tsar, to demonstrate short-term value for money? How will all this be reconciled with the Government’s intense desire to campaign aggressively against those they see as their political enemies, rather than recruiting them soberly to a political consensus that could provide a sustainable basis for these missions? I would be very interested to know what the Leader of the House thinks on these issues, and how they will shape her approach to the conduct of future business in this House.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

I shall. The business for the week commencing 9 December will include:

Monday 9 December—Remaining stages of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.

Tuesday 10 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day one).

Wednesday 11 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day two).

Thursday 12 December—General debate on Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, followed by debate on a motion on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 16 December will include:

Monday 16 December—Second Reading of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 17 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

Wednesday 18 December—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Lords Spiritual (Women) Act 2015 (Extension) Bill [Lords], followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and International Committee of the Red Cross (Status) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 19 December—General debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming 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 19 December and return on Monday 6 January 2025.

[Jesse Norman]

It is great to see that Christmas has come to the Palace of Westminster. I hope, Mr Speaker, that you enjoyed the Christmas fayre yesterday, and that you loaded up on goods from Frank’s Luxury Biscuits from Herefordshire just as heavily as I did—

[Jesse Norman]

And just in time for Small Business Saturday, too.

I understand that the Prime Minister will deliver a speech later today setting out his plan for change. I must say, I am delighted—I am sure we all are—to hear that the Government are at last adopting a plan and are trying to change. As we have so often noted at business questions, the Government’s first five months have been a festival—no, a carnival, a supermarket sweep, a fill-your-boots, all-you-can-eat blunder-fest—of delay and incompetence.

You, Mr Speaker, more than any Member of this House, will be aware that the effective functioning of Parliament rests on its ability to hold Ministers to account. That has been true since its origins in the 13th century, and arguably since even before that. As you will know, the practice of seeking reasons and explanations for official actions, be they the passage of Bills or the raising of taxation, is not some useful add-on or afterthought; it is absolutely foundational to the whole idea of Parliament as a deliberative assembly, so I am sure that you will understand my disappointment that the Leader of the House has been so persistently unwilling to answer, or even address, the simple questions that I have put to her in recent weeks.

On 14 November, I drew attention to the Government’s incompetence in combining at the same time three measures on national insurance and the minimum wage in a way that drastically raises the cost of hiring entry-level staff, and I asked for an assessment of the total impact of those measures. I am afraid that the Leader of the House’s response was to blame the previous Government, and to talk about employers who will pay no additional national insurance, a completely different group—quite irrelevant to the question asked. On 21 November, I again highlighted this problem, and got the same response: blame the last Government and change the subject. I also extended my concern about the Government’s incompetence to include their decision to bring the clean energy commitment forward from 2035 to 2030, and highlighted a vast array of public and official worries about whether this was either achievable or financially viable. In response, I am sorry to say, the Leader of the House again did not engage with either question, instead accusing me of political opportunism.

Last week, we saw the same thing once more. For the third time, I raised the question of Labour’s triple whammy in combining changes to national insurance rates and thresholds with changes to the minimum wage. This time, the Leader of the House did not simply duck the question and change the subject; she also gave me the benefit of a little homily on the duties of the Opposition. It is true that the duties of the Opposition are a topic on which, unlike the duties of Government, she has built up considerable expertise over more than a decade, but the real point is this: for a month now, I have been putting to the Leader of the House basic questions about the incompetence of this Government. Many different responses were open to her. She could have said, “I agree with you.” She could have said, “I don’t know,” “I will look into it,” “I will reply to you,” “I will ask a ministerial colleague to investigate and respond,” or “I will come back to the House with a proper account,” but on no occasion has she bothered to give any kind of proper answer at all.

Instead—and I fear the same will be true this week—the Leader of the House’s approach has been to change the subject and attack the previous Government, rather than defend the record of her Government, which is the whole point of these exchanges. Let us see what she says when she stands up shortly. If the Government had made a decent start, of course she might want to talk about that, but the truth is that the Government have made a dreadful start. They have been beset by petty scandals from the beginning; they have destroyed business confidence through a Budget that is visibly unravelling before our eyes, and only this week, they have lost a Cabinet Minister to new revelations about a criminal conviction for fraud. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister wants a reset.

The Leader of the House’s unwillingness to engage, and to recognise and respond to questions, is arguably more important than any aspect of policy, because it strikes at the heart of the very idea of our parliamentary democracy. It is a discourtesy—indeed, possibly even an insult—to you, Mr Speaker, to all our colleagues and their constituents, and to this House. It is made worse because the Leader of the House is responsible for parliamentary business and procedure, and should, one might think, set an example of openness. It is worse still for two further reasons: because she herself has so often called for transparency from Ministers, and because a failure to be accountable is itself a breach of the rules of this House, of the Nolan principles and of the ministerial code of conduct. That is quite a combination, so I ask her whether she plans to continue as she has done, or whether she will change this unfortunate habit and start to engage with the serious questions that I have been asking.

[Lucy Powell]

First, I put on record that Tuesday was International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and note that the House of Commons now has more disabled Members than ever before. I commend their contribution, and look forward to working with them through the Modernisation Committee, and with you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that this place and our politics are as accessible as they can be. As has been mentioned, this Saturday is Small Business Saturday, when we celebrate the heart of all our high streets. In these sessions, I like to hear about many of our constituents’ great cafés, and in particular their bars, especially when an invitation for me to visit follows.

I also put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for the way proceedings were handled last Friday, and to all of those who took part in the debate on assisted dying, or were in the Chamber for it. That debate was respectful, considered and thoughtful. Whatever view we each took, it was a moment when huge attention was on us, and I thought our democracy and our Parliament showed itself at its best.

Members will see that there are lots of important issues and much important business in the run-up to Christmas. Two thirds of the Bills that we announced in our King’s Speech are now making their way through Parliament. The rail franchising Bill has received Royal Assent; the Renters’ Rights Bill has completed Committee; and our important Budget measures will soon be passed. We are fixing the foundations and getting on with the job. As has been noted, copies of the “Plan for Change” will be available in the Vote Office shortly, ahead of the statement later today.

It is another week, and another misjudged and confused contribution from the shadow Leader of the House. He really does need to work out what the Conservative strategy for opposition is. Is it to tell people across the country that they never had it so good as when the Conservatives were in office, or to learn from defeat and accept that they got things wrong? I gently advise them to listen to the voters, because acting as if they did nothing wrong and accepting no responsibility will not do them any good at all. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to take my advice, perhaps he should listen to his own, because he said that the Conservatives suffered from

“many disastrous recent failures of policy and leadership”,

and I agree. He said we inherited a “struggling” economy and “anaemic” growth; I agree with that, too. I also agreed with him when he was a champion of net zero, and when he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, he was right to care about economic stability. I agreed with him; does he still agree with him? I am not quite sure.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about scrutiny of legislation and debate, but I gently remind him that we have had many debates on the Finance Bill, on the Budget, and the on the national insurance contributions Bill, which is coming back to the House next week and before Christmas. I must remind him yet again, I am afraid, that he was Financial Secretary to the Treasury when the national insurance contributions were raised not just on business but on workers; he said that was a thoroughly “Conservative thing to do.” He was also a Treasury Minister when the minimum wage was raised. He has had plenty of time to come to this House and explain why he thought that was okay then but not okay now.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the topic of the economy, but he failed to mention one of the big economic forecasts out this week, from the OECD, which shows that the UK is now forecast to be the fastest growing European economy in the G7 over the next three years. He did not mention that when he was talking about the economy. We have always been clear that growth only matters when ordinary people right around the country feel better off and see public services improve; that is the difference between our economic plans and his.

We have a plan for change; the Conservatives have yet to change—they are yet to learn their own lessons. We are laying out today how we will deliver our clear outcomes. The right hon. Gentleman might not like them, because the Conservatives failed on all their measures, which is why they lost the election. While he and the rest of his party shout from the sidelines and try to rewrite history, we are delivering the real change that the public voted for.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 28th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 2 December includes:

Monday 2 December—General debate on the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.

Tuesday 3 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

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

Thursday 5 December—Debate on a motion on detained British nationals abroad, followed by a general debate on improving public transport. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 December—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 9 December will include:

Monday 9 December—Remaining stages of the Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill.

Tuesday 10 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day 1).

Wednesday 11 December—Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill (day 2).

Thursday 12 December—General debate on Lord Etherton’s independent review into the treatment of LGBT veterans, followed by a debate on a motion on the performance of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 December—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Thanksgiving day to all our American friends and family, and a happy big birthday today to the Clerk: the Joe Root of the parliamentary estate. Huge thanks to him for his stylish and expert first century—half-century, I should say!

Mr Speaker, a man of your wide culture and extensive learning will doubtless be familiar with the film “Mad Max”. I am no expert, but the image that it conjures up of a desolate, chaotic landscape with wreckage strewn everywhere is the perfect metaphor for the Government’s recent Budget.

Let us take hospices, for example. In Herefordshire, we are blessed to have the extraordinary St Michael’s hospice. St Michael’s supports hundreds of in-patients a year with end of life care, and thousands more as out-patients and with visits in the community. It has a dedicated staff, assisted by some 800 volunteers. This is extraordinary. I shudder to think what it would cost the state to provide that kind and quality of care—certainly more than £20 million a year. What has this Labour Budget done to St Michael’s hospice? The changes to national insurance alone will cost the hospice an extra £250,000 next year, but that is only part of it. At the same time, the Budget has directly and indirectly pushed up the wage bill by a further £450,000. That is £700,000 annually in extra costs—a vast amount for an organisation that offers incredible care, and actually saves the NHS £20 million a year. Hospices in almost every constituency will be affected, and so are the interests of almost every colleague in this House.

This disastrous outcome was clearly never intended by the Treasury. It is another completely unnecessary blunder with potentially tragic consequences. As with GPs, pharmacies and mental health and social care charities, no compensation whatsoever has been offered for this tax raid. When will the Government publish a proper impact assessment and explain why none has been offered?

There is a direct link here to the issue of assisted dying. In the words of the Health Secretary, no less,

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

That care is now being deliberately worsened by his own Chancellor. Personally, I feel strongly pulled in both directions by both sides, but one thing no one can be in any doubt about is that the Government have no business trying to rush this legislation through the House by proxy. The text of the Bill was published barely two weeks prior to our vote tomorrow. No impact assessment or legal issues analysis have been published. Far from public debate preceding legislation, legislation has preceded debate. That is completely the wrong way around.

We can be perfectly clear about this. All Members of Parliament were recently sent a dossier by the promoter of the Bill entitled, “Your questions answered”. Unfortunately, far from answering key questions, the dossier fails even to touch on a whole series of important issues. Those include the Bill’s impact on the medical profession and the relationship between medical staff and patients, its impact on the provision and regulation of the different drugs and drug cocktails required, the record to date and protocols to be used in case an initial attempt at assisted dying fails, and what the inevitable for-profit industry exploiting the new law will look like and how we should feel about it.

As the senior judge Sir James Munby highlighted, there are a host of questions about involving the judiciary in the process and the balance of probabilities test for coercion. Most profoundly of all, there is the question of what choice and dignity actually mean in different contexts. None of those matters is even mentioned in the dossier purporting to give the answers. Whatever one feels about the issue of assisted dying itself—as I say, I feel very pulled in both directions—this absence of debate, especially with so many new Members in the House, is a matter of the gravest public concern. As the House well knows, the Government themselves are all over the place on the issue.

In asking for an assessment of the Bill’s likely impact on the NHS, the Health Secretary was doing exactly the right thing: preparing civil servants and clinicians for what could be a huge change and asking them to look at a crucial question that has not even been addressed, let alone properly answered. As for the Justice Secretary, she was attacked by none other than her own Labour predecessor Lord Falconer of Thoroton for imposing her views, but his lordship somehow missed that she was also making the argument that it was inappropriate in principle for the state to get involved in what many term “assisted suicide”. That too is yet another issue that has barely been discussed. I ask the right hon. Lady whether she shares my view that it is a tragedy that colleagues are being asked to vote without full and proper consideration of the vital issues I have mentioned.

[Lucy Powell]

I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Clerk of the House on his very special birthday. As someone recently on the other side of that same special birthday—obviously, I know I do not look it—I welcome him to the half-century club, and I hope his party is as good as mine was. We will leave that conversation for another day.

This week, we marked White Ribbon Day. I am proud that this Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls. I am also proud to have announced the debate on Lord Etherton’s review of the treatment of LGBT veterans today. I am particularly pleased for my friend and Manchester resident Carl Austin-Behan, who, after years of decorated service in the RAF, was dismissed the day the RAF found out he was gay. He deserves recognition and much more, as do many others.

I know that the shadow Leader of the House is fairly new to opposition, like most of his colleagues, but I gently say to him that the idea of opposition is to oppose the Government, not his own record in government. Last week he attacked our plans to meet climate goals, yet when he was the Minister with responsibility for decarbonisation, he seemed to take a very different view, touring the studios to champion net zero. Here we are yet again: he is attacking our plans on national insurance contributions, but I checked the record and noticed that when his Government raised national insurance contributions—and not just on businesses but on workers —he was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time, and said in defence of the measure, from this very Dispatch Box:

“It is a profoundly Conservative thing to do”—[Official Report, 8 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 326.]

He seems to have been for it then but is against it now. I am not sure what his position is—I am quite confused about it.

May I say to the hospice that he mentioned, and to the many hospices like it, that we have made a record investment in the NHS? The hospice sector was left on its knees by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government. As he knows, the Health Secretary will soon come to the House to explain how the record allocation of resources that he has received will be distributed, including to the hospice sector.

The right hon. Gentleman raises the assisted dying issues that we will discuss tomorrow. I must say, I think it is regrettable that he has chosen this opportunity to raise those matters in such an unnecessarily political fashion. This issue generates very emotive responses on both sides, and I hope that tomorrow’s debate will be conducted in a respectful, considerate, non-partisan and non-political manner. He asks about time and scrutiny, which I have mentioned before. As Leader of the House, I am very confident that the Bill will undergo sufficient scrutiny and will have sufficient time for consideration.

As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, the Government will of course implement the will of the House, whatever it may be. And, as I have also said before, should the House choose to give the Bill its Second Reading, the Government will of course work with the Bill’s promoter to ensure that the Bill and the policy are workable, operable and implemented. That will mean working with the promoter on tidying up any measures where necessary. The Department of Health and Social Care is getting to work straightaway on what the Bill will mean in terms of implementation, assessment and the documentation that the right hon. Gentleman highlights. Should the House decline to give the Bill its Second Reading, then of course that work would not happen. As I have said before, after several weeks in Committee, the first opportunity for the Bill to return to the House will not be until the end of April—that is a considerable amount of time for the Government to do that work and consider the Bill further.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 21st November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

The business for the week commencing 25 November will include:

Monday 25 November—Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.

Tuesday 26 November—Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Wednesday 27 November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 28 November—Debate on a motion on the international status of Taiwan, followed by a debate on a motion on freedom of religion in Pakistan. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 29 November—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 2 December includes:

Monday 2 December—General debate on the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 2 report.

Tuesday 3 December—Second Reading of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill.

Wednesday 4 December—Opposition day (4th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 5 December—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 December—Private Members’ Bills.

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

I associate hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House with the comments made about Lord Prescott’s death.

I am delighted to hear that the House administration is aiming to win the National Autistic Society’s autism friendly award. I know that all colleagues will want to join me in wishing the House team good luck with that.

In last week’s episode of this long-running saga, I drew attention to the Government’s incompetence in having a Budget that managed to raise the rate of national insurance, lower the NI threshold and increase the minimum wage all at the same time. I described that as a “terrible blow” to the retail and hospitality sectors and asked if the Treasury would publish an assessment of the total effect of those measures before they came to the House. Well, I need hardly have bothered, because barely five days later, what did we find? A letter from Tesco, Marks and Spencer, Sainsbury’s, all the major supermarkets and many of the biggest names in the retail industry highlighting the Budget’s impact in forcing shop closures and job losses.

The sad truth is that there is nothing surprising here. It was completely obvious to everyone except the Government that this unplanned triple whammy was likely to have this effect. I ask the Leader of the House again: will we see an analysis of its effects when the Finance Bill comes to the House next week or alongside the forthcoming National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill?

Otherwise, I think we should turn our attention to energy. The Government have proclaimed their intention to make Britain a 100% clean energy producer by 2030. A couple of weeks ago, the new National Energy System Operator published a report on how that might be done. I must say that I am feeling a degree of embarrassment, as I had been under the impression that the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero was a slightly clownish figure, unable to eat a bacon sandwich without causing an international incident and with a political style closely modelled on Wallace and Gromit, but actually I was quite wrong. In fact, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State may need to update his CV. I now realise that he is a heroic figure; the titan of transition.

In fact, I will go further. The Energy Secretary is a modern Clark Kent, whose slightly bumbling, comedic exterior is merely a disguise concealing a range of astonishing superpowers. Think of what he will have to achieve if the UK is, as he promises, to have entirely carbon-free energy in just over five years’ time. He will have to build twice as many pylons and cables in those five years as we have built in the last 10. He will have to get all the transmission infrastructure built on time and reshape the planning rules, or the taxpayer will be forced to pay for wind turbines that stand idle. Like the Greek god Aeolus, this great baron of breeze will need to ensure that the winds blow and contract as much offshore wind capacity in the next two years as in the last six combined. He will also need to ensure that the global price of carbon doubles or triples just to make the sums add up. That is before one considers the effects of unexpected inflation, skills shortages, dependency on foreign energy technologies and intermittency of supply. What could possibly go wrong?

Meanwhile, the Energy Secretary’s plans for small modular reactors have been delayed while he plunges ahead with his plans to cut off gas turbines and leave us dangerously reliant on expensive foreign energy imports. Those plans are not simply heroic; they are fanciful. They are magical thinking. What is worse, they are likely to be ruinously expensive both for the taxpayer and for the electricity user. It is little wonder that top business and union leaders have come together to describe them as “just not feasible” and “impossible”.

We have been here before with the three-day week of the 1970s, and the result was blackouts and energy rationing. Should we expect that again? This is the rub: power reveals. We are seeing not merely a lack of competence but an Energy Secretary who has still not made any statement on the NESO report that I mentioned. He is deliberately refusing to account for his actions to this House on this foundational matter, and he is holding the Commons in contempt. When can we expect a statement from the Energy Secretary on the NESO report? When will he be forced to come to the Dispatch Box to explain and defend this folly?

[Lucy Powell]

First of all, I join Mr Speaker and others in marking the sad loss of John Prescott. He was a true legend, and one of the best campaigners of our movement. He put climate change and real, meaningful levelling up at the top of the political agenda long before they were fashionable. He was groundbreaking and huge fun, and he will be greatly missed. We send our condolences to Pauline and the whole family. As Mr Speaker said, there will be an opportunity for tributes next week.

I am sure the whole House will also join me in marking Parliament Week, when we open our door on how we work in this place. Today is “Ask Her to Stand” day, when we encourage more women to seek elected office.

Let me take this opportunity to point the House to a motion that I have tabled today, which makes some important changes to proxy votes for Members. One of my priorities as Leader of the House is to make Parliament more family friendly. We have more women than ever in this place, and more parents of small children, those with caring responsibilities and disabled Members. We need to change the way that we do things to reflect the times. I have asked the Procedure Committee to continue its wider review of the proxy vote system, and the Modernisation Committee will consider these issues in due course. However, I have heard from Members that the current system has not met some immediate needs, so I am extending the childbirth, miscarriage or baby loss proxy provisions to explicitly cover complications during pregnancy or ongoing fertility treatment. Under this scheme, reasons for proxies remain confidential and are self-certified, requiring no onerous paperwork. I am making the default for all proxies seven months, and I hope the whole House will welcome that.

The right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) raised a number of issues, but I must say I am losing track of the Opposition’s arguments. They attack our Budget measures, yet they support all the investment. They do not like our decisions, yet they took many of the same ones in government. They duck the difficult issues, yet criticise us for dealing with them. Yes, we have had to make some big choices, but we stand by them because we are on the side of ordinary people, the NHS and public services. We are operating in the interests of economic stability, unlike his party. We will see the impact of the Budget over time, but the Conservatives really must decide whether they support the investment and the extra spending on our public services, or whether they do not want any of it and are against that support.

The right hon. Gentleman picks on the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, but there is not a more accomplished member of the Cabinet. He is driving forward his agenda. He is forthcoming to this House on many occasions, and every time he appears in this House, he wipes the floor with his opponent. Yet again, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of history. We have a very ambitious mission to become a clean energy superpower by 2030—one that we are driving forward. It is vital that we do that. That means taking on some of the inherent issues that they ducked: our infrastructure; the grid; our planning laws; getting the investment where it is needed, which we are announcing that all the time; unlocking new power supplies in nuclear, solar, hydrogen and elsewhere; and establishing Great British Energy, which is well under way, to ensure much needed homegrown production. Taken together, those measures will lower bills, create jobs, and give us the energy security that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government failed to give us.

Is not the truth that Opposition Members are becoming political opportunists? They spent years in government ducking the difficult decisions, leaving a huge black hole and a big mess for us to clean up. Public services were on their knees, strike action was costing £15 billion in lost productivity, pay deals were on Ministers’ desks with not a penny accounted for, and not a single penny was set aside for the compensation schemes. The reserves were spent three times over, and on their watch inflation was at 11%. Living standards fell for the first time in our history under the Conservatives. Now they want to have their cake and eat it at the same time. They want all the benefits from the Budget, but not the hard calls needed to pay for them. In a few short weeks, they have gone from the party of government to the party of protest.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Jesse Norman

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House present the forthcoming business?

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

The business for the week commencing 18 November includes:

Monday 18 November—Second Reading of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill.

Tuesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Passenger Railway Services (Public Ownership) Bill, followed by a general debate on the infected blood inquiry.

Wednesday 20 November—Second Reading of the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill.

Thursday 21 November—Debate on a motion on strategic lawsuits against public participation and freedom of speech, followed by a debate on a motion on International Men’s Day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 22 November—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 25 November will include:

Monday 25 November—If necessary, consideration of Lords message, followed by Second Reading of the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill.

Tuesday 26 November—Second Reading of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.

Wednesday 27 November—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

Thursday 28 November—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 29 November—Private Members’ Bills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

[Jesse Norman]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in wishing a very happy birthday today to His Majesty the King.

The last few days in global politics have been extraordinary, featuring one of the most incredible comebacks of modern times. It was wildly hard to predict, many people have panicked at the possible consequences, and some are still in a state of denial—but even so, I must say that I am delighted to have been appointed as shadow Leader of the House of Commons.

I pay tribute to my immediate predecessors: the Luke Skywalker of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), and the great Obi-Wan Jedi sabre-wielding master—or mistress—of the Despatch Box herself, the former Member for Portsmouth North, Penny Mordaunt. As it was with the Galactic Empire, so it is with the Labour party. Recent events have reminded us of the truth of the ancient saying: power reveals.

So it is with this new Government. What have their first chaotic few months in office revealed? First, we know that they like to say one thing and do another. They talk about supporting working people, but the rise in national insurance will hit all working people. They talk about growth, but have imposed the largest tax rise for a generation, pushing up both interest rates and inflation. Only last week, we saw a reported 64% rise in companies filing for insolvency compared with the same week last year—and that is before all the red tape of the new Employment Rights Bill, which will make it harder than ever to give somebody a job and grow a business.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is so much sheer incompetence here. To take one example, the Government have raised employer national insurance, lowered the income threshold and increased the minimum wage, all at the same time. No one seems to have noticed that the combined effect of those measures is to raise the cost of hiring an entry-level employee not by 2% but by something closer to 12%. That is a terrible blow, especially to the retail and hospitality sector. I ask the Leader of the House: was that deliberate or just a mistake? Will she ask the Treasury to publish an assessment of the total impact of those three measures before any legislation comes to this House?

Secondly, we know that the Government are willing—even keen—to play the politics of division. They have favoured public sector workers over private sector ones. They have driven away entrepreneurs and business creators. As we have heard this morning, they have been punitive on rural areas. The rise in national insurance puts huge pressure on already struggling rural GPs, care homes, dentists, pharmacists and hospices. Mental health and disability charities have already expressed their deep concern. We heard from the Dispatch Box just now that the Government hear the concerns, but if they did understand them, why have they not done anything so far? Why did they not address those concerns in advance?

Meanwhile, the agricultural tax changes will afflict vastly more farming families than the Treasury estimates—families who work all hours, whatever the season, on very low margins. I can see the embarrassment written all over the faces of Government Members, many of whom represent rural areas for the first—and very likely now the last—time.

Thirdly, we know that the Government seem to have zero appetite to take on vested interests or reform our hugely pressured public services. They have shovelled out cash to their union friends, who have been delighted to stick to their fax machines and similarly ancient working practices. What have the Government got in return for all those millions? No commitments to make any efficiencies whatever. Nor do the Government seem much interested in legislation. They have not presented many Bills and the Bills so far have often included not carefully drafted law, but simply a vague and sweeping arrogation of new powers. This is what Governments do when they do not know what to do.

The Government are even hiding behind the very early presentation of a private Member’s Bill on assisted dying—one of the most sensitive and complex issues that we face. The Prime Minister himself promised Esther Rantzen in March that he would make time to debate these issues, but yesterday he refused the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) to give the Bill more time on Report. Will the Leader of the House now give that commitment?

The astonishing fact is that after 14 years in opposition, the Labour party came into office with almost no real plans. Instead, we have a Government who have already lost their way—a Government with no real sense of urgency, and no positive flavour or theme of any kind. I ask the Leader of the House this: we know what and who this Government are against, but what is this Government for?

[Lucy Powell]

I also wish His Majesty the King a very happy birthday.

This is Islamophobia awareness month—a chance for us all to come together to tackle all forms of religious and racial hatred. It is also transgender awareness week, which started yesterday, celebrating our trans heroes. It is a chance to remind ourselves that the trans community is one of the most abused, suffers high levels of mental health problems, and is more likely to be homeless or ostracised.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on his big promotion to the shadow Cabinet. As I said last week, the Leader of the Opposition does indeed love a tryer, and the right hon. Gentleman’s many talents are at long last being recognised. I also warmly welcome the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) to his place in what I think is his first ever contribution to Business questions in his quite long parliamentary career. I have to say that there has been a slight upgrade in the jokes in comparison with those of some of his predecessors.

I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is a biographer of Edmund Burke, who is seen as a founder of modern Conservatism and modern politics. As such I am very much looking forward to working with him on the Modernisation Committee and the agenda of modernising this Parliament. I cannot promise him that all our dealings will be quite that highbrow, because I am afraid his responsibilities bring other things with them, and he might find himself getting bogged down with the state of the toilets or complaints about the wi-fi, but I look forward to working with him.

May I take this opportunity to thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill? Many colleagues have asked me about the process, and whether there will be sufficient time for further debate and scrutiny of this important Bill, so perhaps I may take this opportunity to explain further some of the issues around it. I know that people care deeply about this issue, and there are strongly held views on both sides. As such, it is a matter for Members to consider personally and freely. I know from the last debate on this issue held in the House that it can be the best of moments for Parliament, with considered, thoughtful and respectful debate. It is not a Government Bill. Similar issues such as legalising abortion and homosexuality have come about via private Member’s Bills in the past, and I believe that is the appropriate way to consider matters of conscience, with a free vote and a neutral Government position.

As the Bill will be the first item of business on 29 November, it is highly likely that the debate on Second Reading will last for the full five hours. That is comparable to proceedings on any other Bill—perhaps longer—and I am sure the House would want that to be the case. Should the House agree to its Second Reading, the Bill would then be considered in Committee, probably for several weeks. The whole House will also have further opportunities to debate and vote on those matters on Report and again on Third Reading, which will not be until April at the earliest.

The Government have a duty to ensure that any Bill that passes through Parliament is effective and can be enforced. That is why if any Bill is to be supported by the House, we would expect to work with the promoting Member to ensure that it is workable. This is a matter for the House to decide, and the Government will implement the will of the House, whatever it so chooses. I hope that will help Members when considering these issues.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about a number of Budget measures, but I am afraid the cat really was let out of the bag this week, because we finally learned that the Conservative party supports all the benefits that the Budget brings, but does not support any of the measures that will pay for them. We are now seeing a return to the magic money tree economics pursued by his predecessor Liz Truss.

We have had to make difficult choices to balance the books, so that there is no return to austerity and so that we can invest in the economy and renew our public services for the long run. I am afraid that the shadow Leader of the House is scaremongering with a number of the issues that he raises. He will know that more than half of employers will see no change at all or will pay no additional national insurance from this package. He failed to mention the important changes we are making to business rates, which will support many high street businesses. He might want to include that in his future calculations. Charities, GPs and other healthcare providers, as has just been said at the Dispatch Box by my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, have been put in an incredibly precarious position after 14 years of chronic under-investment and mismanagement by the Conservatives. We will do what we can, and further announcements will be made about the distribution of health funding.

I put on record that the NHS has received its single biggest increase in spending power for many years. Is that something that the shadow Leader of the House supports or rejects? I am not clear what his party’s position on the Budget is any more. We have had to make tough choices because of the poisoned chalice and inheritance left by his party. That was once described as a “struggling” economy and “anaemic” growth. Those are not my words, but his.