Business of the House

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

The business for the week commencing 4 March will include:

Monday 4 March—General debate on farming.

Tuesday 5 March—Second Reading of Automotive Vehicles Bill [Lords], followed by motions relating to the shared Parental Leave and Pay (Bereavement) Bill, the British Citizenship (Northern Ireland) Bill and the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill.

Wednesday 6 March—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.

Thursday 7 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Friday 8 March—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 11 March includes:

Monday 11 March—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 12 March—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Colleagues should also be aware that Thursday 14 March will be estimates day. At 5 pm on that day the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

I start by paying tribute to Ronnie Campbell and Sir Patrick Cormack. Ronnie was a larger than life character, proudly and staunchly representing his community and his roots. Although Sir Patrick was an MP before my time, I have read the glowing tributes which all describe him as incredibly kind.

I am also incredibly saddened by the news, just announced, that Dave Myers, one of the Hairy Bikers, has died. He was a hugely popular and much loved figure.

I was going to welcome the motion on the risk-based exclusion of Members that we were due to debate on Monday, as the Leader of the House announced last week, but it appears that she has pulled it. This decision will be met with dismay by Members, staff and unions who have worked on it for more than a year. Can she let us know when the motion will return? I note that some on the Conservative Benches had tabled amendments, which reports suggest is why the motion has been withdrawn. Will she confirm that she still supports the motion as agreed by the House of Commons Commission on which we both sit?

I welcome the new funding and protocols that have been announced to enhance MPs’ security and defend our democracy. We have seen a huge rise in antisemitism, Islamophobia, hate and the intimidation of elected representatives, especially since Hamas’s barbaric attack on Israel on 7 October. I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, and the security services for your leadership. I asked last week, as I have before, for a new cross-party taskforce to address these issues. Can the Leader of the House help to make sure that happens?

We have discussed these issues many times, but does the Leader of the House not agree that it is incumbent on all of us to be mindful of our language and conduct? When we see racism, antisemitism or Islamophobia in our own ranks, we must take action, however difficult the consequences, and we must be clear in calling it out. To that end, I hope she will take this opportunity to say what is very clear for all to see, that the comments of the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the Mayor of London were racist and Islamophobic. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need to uphold the highest standards of conduct towards one another, and that highly personalised and wrong-headed attacks by sections of the media, or by political parties, towards individual Members only fuel hatred, disdain and those who pose security threats? We must strive to do better.

First, let me add my voice to the many tributes that have been paid both to Lord Cormack and to Ronnie Campbell. They were public servants who were thoughtful and committed, both to Parliament and to many other organisations and institutions. I hope that those many tributes bring comfort to their loved ones. I also join in the tribute the hon. Lady paid to Dave Myers, one half of the Hairy Bikers. He brought so much joy to so many people across our country and elsewhere.

The hon. Lady asks me several questions, first about risk-based exclusion. I do not think she has quite processed the full extent of the consequences of what happened last week. The Government gave time to this debate and we want it debated. I am part of the Commission and I want it debated and resolved in this House. Given the current climate and the concerns that hon. Members have raised since the motion was tabled—there have been some serious questions, in particular from learned colleagues—there will be a better opportunity to debate this in the House, and I hope that will be soon.

I am not expecting the hon. Lady to give us any credit at all, as that is not her job. She did not welcome the figures on irregular migration that are out today, which show that our plan is working. She will know that the Budget, which I announced in the business, will be very soon, and I am sure we can all see the progress that has been made and that the Chancellor will set that out in due course.

As for what the hon. Lady says about intimidation, let me repeat what I said last week: this House will not, has not and must not bow to terrorism or intimidation. We are experiencing a new form of an old story. As well as those colleagues slain since 2016, there are others who were murdered and whose shields are on the walls of this Chamber, above the door. There are Members who sit on these Benches who can recall being issued with mirrors to look under their cars in the morning. We are facing a new form of that old threat. It failed then and it is going to fail now, but while we focus on ending that threat, we must not lose sight of the good in our country and what we can all do to help this situation.

I call the Father of the House.

Following the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House about risk-based exclusion, I am glad that motion is not coming forward next week, as there should be more consideration. It is a matter of record that two major newspapers made sex-based accusations against me, but I was not investigated by the police or as a result referred. It is only arrest that makes a difference. It is absurd and naive to think that were someone to be suspended and get a proxy vote, their anonymity could in any sense be guaranteed in this country or not reported in other countries. This is a serious problem. I am not certain we have found exactly the right way of dealing with it.

Will the Government make a statement next week on revisionism and who is the lead designer of the national Holocaust memorial and proposed learning centre? One of the Government’s nominees as chair of the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation was quoted in the Jewish News yesterday saying that Ron Arad is the person responsible. Every Government comment, from 2016 onwards, has acknowledged quite rightly that the main designer is Sir David Adjaye OM—a name that cannot normally be mentioned because of problems I do not want to go into on the Floor of the House. Could Ministers refer Lord Pickles to the press notices that went out in the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation’s name in 2016, 2018 and every year since, because we must get the facts right and not change them?

I reassure my hon. Friend that we are listening to the House. Risk-based exclusion and other such schemes are a matter for the House and all Members need to have confidence in those processes. He has successfully put on record his concerns about that aspect of the Holocaust memorial. I will ensure the Secretary of State has heard what he has said, and he can raise it directly with him on 4 March.

I call the SNP spokesperson.

A lot has happened since the Leader of the House and I last faced each other, and I commend her for her intervention in last week’s events. She acted, as she said, to defend the rights of minority parties. That was the right thing to do, but what a dismal reflection on Westminster that the rights of minority party MPs in this place now need protecting and defending. The whole House knows how we got here. At some point we will get to the bottom of what pressure there was, exactly what dealings were done behind Victorian screens, and what “simply urging the Speaker” actually meant. To be fair, some Labour figures were fessing up at the weekend, or perhaps gloating, about their tactics—all because the SNP wanted to debate an immediate ceasefire in Gaza.

People might ask why I am not tackling the Leader of the House today on her Government’s economic policies, Brexit or child poverty. We will return to our normal business questions exchanges of course, but at the core of our work as MPs is that all Members and parties must be treated fairly, and seen to be treated fairly. For as long as Scotland sends MPs here, we will expect and demand that. No one party can be allowed to change the rules by bullying. There is not a great deal that the Leader of the House and I agree on, but I know that on this we do. What use can she make of her offices to ensure that we never find ourselves in that sorry procedural mess again, and can she tell us when the replacement SNP Opposition day will be?

Finally, after the giant lobby of Parliament by campaigners yesterday, I must again raise the Government’s repeated delays in delivering full and fair compensation to those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal. I know that the Leader of the House recognises the fully justified depth of anger about this. Can she tell us what progress has been made ahead of the Budget to set up the structures of the compensation scheme transparently and in consultation with victims and their families, so that it is ready to start allocating funds at the earliest opportunity?

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I understand why people will have to wait for normal combat to be resumed between us. I disagree with one thing that she, and other hon. Members, have said: that this Chamber, and Westminster collectively, did not cover itself in glory last week. I think that the issue has been about the actions of particular individuals and what they have done. Many Members of this House did a good thing last week by standing up to protect the rights, the foundation and the rulebook that we operate on. With regard to those who were caught up in something else, many Members have recognised that that was the wrong thing to do, and that we need to address that. The Government will give the SNP more time to have the debates that it ought to have. I understand that you, Mr Speaker, have commissioned the Procedure Committee to look at the particular procedural issues that happened last week. I understand that the scope of that work is narrow, so it should be done swiftly. I hope that it will be concluded before the SNP has its next debate, so that it can have confidence in how that debate will run.

On the hon. Lady’s final, very important point, we have just heard from the Paymaster General, who is leading on the issue of infected blood on behalf of the Government. She is right that I have very strong views about this, but they are shared by the Paymaster General and all those on the Government Benches. That is why we set up the inquiry, and why we set up the compensation study to run concurrently with it, so that we would not have to wait any longer before people got proper redress. I know that the Paymaster General is working on this very swiftly. He updates me on a regular basis, and we will keep the House informed.

On the first anniversary of the coming into force of the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, I am very concerned to learn that child marriages are still taking place, and that those with safeguarding responsibilities are failing to prosecute. It is my understanding that the relevant authorities are failing to interpret the law correctly, particularly in relation to marriages taking place overseas. Can we have a statement on what further education is required as a matter of urgency, so that all those with safeguarding responsibilities have the necessary knowledge and skills to protect children?

I thank my hon. Friend for all her work in this area. She has been an absolute force for good. We would not have brought forward that legislation without her great efforts. She is right that we want to ensure that people—particularly those with safeguarding responsibilities—are taking this issue seriously. She will also know that a private Member’s Bill is looking at the responsibilities of statutory authorities in this regard. I will make sure that the Department has heard the hon. Lady’s concerns on this matter, and I am sure that, given her reputation, they will be listened to.

I thank the Leader of the House for our meeting yesterday and for the business statement confirming the timing of the estimates debates for Thursday 14 March. Let me inform the House that applications for those debates must be with the Clerk of the Committee by lunch time on Monday, so we do not have much time to sort this out—so, that is this coming Monday, 4 March, at lunch time. The applications will be before the Committee on Tuesday afternoon at our normal meeting.

May I let the Leader of the House know that I have now received a letter from the Procedure Committee regarding the proposal to change the timings of debates in Westminster Hall? I am hopeful that she will have that imminently.

May I add my penn’orth in memory of my friend, Ronnie Campbell? I have been a Member of this House for only 14 years, but I knew Ronnie for more than 40 years. I will be at his funeral in Blyth tomorrow and will certainly pass on the best wishes of the Members of this House to his wife, Deirdre, and sons when I see them.

I thank the hon. Member for delivering our messages at Ronnie’s funeral tomorrow. I also thank him for the helpful advert for the work of his Committee. He will know that we are keen to ensure that the new innovation in the sitting hours of Westminster Hall can be brought into effect and he has my commitment to that. I will also ensure that we are giving him good notice on future timings for his Committee. I am very conscious, as we discussed yesterday, that debates have been moved for understandable reasons—for example the debate on coalmining communities was moved because of important matters relating to Northern Ireland—and we want to ensure that there is time for those matters to be heard.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for hosting a dinner for OnSide in your apartments this week. That made me think that it is high time that we had a debate in this House about the contribution that youth zones make to east Lancashire. The centre of that debate, Mr Speaker, will be not the Chorley youth zone, as fine as it is, but the brand-new youth zone that is about to be built in Darwen. The £3.3 million project to help all our young people is supported by this Government as part of our £120 million town deal to transform Darwen.

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on another success that he has had with his wish list for his constituents? I congratulate everyone involved in that project. These are vital community facilities, and we all send our congratulations and good wishes for this latest project in this area.

I thank the Leader of the House for an opportunity to raise this question on freedom of religion or belief. The all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, which I chair, visited Tunisia last May to highlight some of the issues that are relevant to our all-party group. On Sunday past, a mob in Tunisia burned a synagogue in the city of Sfax. Thankfully no one was injured. Will the Leader of the House join me and others in denouncing this attack and calling for closer monitoring of the issues relating to freedom of religion or belief?