Business of the House

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

The business for next week will include:

Monday 29 January—Second Reading of the Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 30 January—Remaining stages of the Media Bill.

Wednesday 31 January—Motion to approve the draft Electoral Commission strategy and policy statement, followed by a motion to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2024, followed by a motion to approve the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2024.

Thursday 1 February—General debate on miners and mining communities, followed by debate on a motion on freedom and democracy in Iran. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 2 February—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 5 February includes:

Monday 5 February—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.

I thank the Leader of the House for the business.

I begin by paying tribute on the sad loss of Lord John Tomlinson, who served as an MP, MEP and peer for over six decades. He was a formidable force and an effective campaigner. Our thoughts are with his family.

With Holocaust Memorial Day this weekend, and ahead of this afternoon’s debate, more than ever we must never forget the horror of the holocaust and other genocides.

It has now been over a month since the publication of the House of Commons Commission’s proposals on the risk-based exclusion of Members of Parliament. I thank you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House, the Commission, staff and unions for all their work thus far. When will the Leader of the House table a motion on this important issue? It was first promised before last summer, and then before the end of 2023. The Commission is in agreement, the proposal has wide support across the House, and others are looking to us to take action on the culture in this place.

While we are on the topic of culture in Parliament, I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in welcoming the recommendations of the Jo Cox Foundation’s report on civility in politics. I know that some recent exchanges in this place have caused offence to others, as we did not model the good behaviour that we should. Will she join me in reminding Members of this, and that Parliament should be the exemplar of respectful and cordial debate?

We saw the House and politics at their best this week with the moving, heartfelt, cross-party tributes to Sir Tony Lloyd. He reminds us that we can have strongly held, differing views while remaining dignified and respectful.

The Procedure Committee has now published its report on Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords, which I welcome. I commend the Committee for its work, and we will shortly be hearing from its Chair, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley). The Leader of the House has reassured us many times since Lord Cameron’s appointment that he will be “forward-leaning”, and she promised:

I thank all colleagues who will be marking Holocaust Memorial Day this week and, in particular, those taking part in the debate later. Clearly, it has additional significance this year.

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to Lord John Tomlinson, and I thank her for her tribute. I also send my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Sir Graham Bright, the former Member for Luton East and for Luton South. He served this House and his constituents for 18 years, and this included being John Major’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. He is perhaps best known for his private Member’s Bill that became the Video Recordings Act 1984, which required all commercial video recordings offered for sale or hire within the UK to carry a classification. Legend has it that during the passage of the Bill he had to explain to the Prime Minister of the day what particular acts performed on camera warranted particular ratings. Given that that Prime Minister was Margaret Thatcher, that alone would have warranted his knighthood. Many colleagues have spoken very fondly of him over the past few days, and he will be much missed.

Let me also thank two delegations to Parliament this week: the families of Liri Elbag, Eliya Cohen, Idan Shtivi, and Ziv and Gali Berman, who are five of the many hostages still held in Gaza—we must not rest until they are all home—and the Ukrainian delegation, to whom I conveyed our deepest respect and solidarity for all they are doing to protect our freedom. I wish President Zelensky, “Z dnem narodzhennya” and all in the House a happy Burns night.

Let me turn to the hon. Lady’s points. She spoke about the work the House of Commons Commission, on which we both serve, has been doing on the exclusion of Members of Parliament who are considered to be a risk to others on the estate. She will know, because she is on the Commission, that we agree with the proposal that has been brought forward. We were waiting for a motion to be brought to us by the House. That happened late last week, and we will shortly table that motion for Members to see and then bring it forward.

That brings me to a slightly difficult problem. Bob Blackman is meant to be representing the Backbench Business Committee, to tell us about its business, but unfortunately he is not here, so I now call the spokesperson for the Scottish National party.

I associate myself with the remarks about Holocaust Memorial Day. I ask the House to note that tonight is Burns night, when we celebrate the work of Scotland’s great national bard.

A new year, a new Tory civil war—just what the UK needs—with talk of doom loops, massacres and extinctions. If only Members of the Leader of the House’s party had listened to her the last time she wooed them for leadership. She warned them that if they voted for the former Chancellor as leader it would “murder the party”. I know that the Leader of the House is furiously busy with all her “Minister for clickbait” responsibilities—those anti-Scottish articles and sneering videos do not write themselves—but as her Government grind, punch-drunk and exhausted, to an election, should we not debate some of the key legacies of the last 14 years of Tory rule?

Where should we start? There are still the scandalously unresolved scandals, such as infected blood, the WASPI women—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and Post Office Horizon, to name a very few, but has the Leader of the House had time to reflect on recent comments from Sir Michael Marmot, professor of public health at University College London? He said that Britain in 2024 is starting to suffer from Victorian diseases again, and that

“Britain has become a poor country with a few rich people…it’s worse to be poor in Britain than in most other European countries…. Poor people in Britain have a lower income than Slovenia.”

Perhaps the Leader of the House will cast her eye over the latest Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, which says that more than one in five people were in poverty in 2021-22, with about 6 million in “very deep poverty” that same year. Has she not managed to look at that yet? That is unsurprising, as the Tories seem genuinely untroubled by poverty in the UK. My colleagues and I have asked them about it many times, but their eyes just glaze over—comfortable, I guess, with the choices they have made, as the PM has said.

Perhaps we should start our Tory legacy debates with an emerging threat. The Electoral Commission chair warned recently that the Government’s strict new rules on voter ID risk excluding certain voter groups and leave the Conservative party open to the charge of bias. I and many others have thought for some time that this was simply an attempt at voter suppression from the Government, so does the Leader of the House agree with an erstwhile Cabinet colleague that the new Tory rules are simply, as he put it, an attempt at “gerrymandering”? Will she bring a debate on this important issue to the House before the next general election?

What a bunch of rotters we are, with our anti-Scottish articles. It appears that the hon. Lady is planning to follow in the footsteps of many a great antipodean election guru by using a brilliant new strategy of equating criticism of the SNP’s performance with criticism of Scotland itself. The latter is a landmass of approximately 30,000 square miles, populated by brilliant, creative, stoic people; the former is a ramshackle separatist movement, full of people who have turned maladministration into an art form.

There is one tiny flaw in this new political tactic from the SNP: if we Conservatives dislike Scotland so much, for some reason the hon. Lady never gets round to explaining, why on earth would we strive so hard to keep it part of the Union of the United Kingdom? Why would this Conservative Government give Scotland the largest funding settlement it has ever had? Why would we have offered its citizens who were waiting for NHS treatment additional help and options, which the Scottish Government turned down?

If I wanted to do Scotland down, I would join, donate and campaign for the SNP, to whose members I would point out that the trailblazer for bringing back Victorian diseases to Britain is Glasgow. Watching the hon. Lady’s inaction, and that of her party, is like watching your much-loved neighbourhood being clobbered by a bunch of gangsters—let us call them the “hole in the budget” gang—hitting businesses, taking your cash, making your life a misery and keeping the local police force very busy. This new political strategy from the SNP, like everything else that it does, will fail.

I call the Father of the House.

Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to make a statement next week on the instructions to the advocate for his Department at the Holocaust Memorial Bill Select Committee? Yesterday, on a number of occasions, the lead advocate said that the design had not been awarded to Sir David Adjaye, or that he was not the architect.

I refer the Leader of the House to the press notice on 24 October 2017, in which the Department and the Cabinet Office said that Sir David and his team would design the memorial; the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir Sajid Javid), and the Mayor of London congratulated Sir David; and Sir David was quoted as saying that it was “architecture as emotion”.

I believe that the advocate may have inadvertently told the Committee things that are clearly contradicted by the facts six years ago, and by every other quotation until Sir David Adjaye became a name that could not be mentioned.

Will the Leader of the House please ask the Secretary of State to consider making a statement to correct what was said to the Committee yesterday, and perhaps acknowledge the four holocaust survivors who gave evidence, and look at what they said?

I thank my hon. Friend for again diligently raising this important issue; I understand that the forums in which he can do so are limited, which is why he brings it to the Floor of the House each week. He has put those points on the record, as well as his thanks to those survivors for their important intervention. As the Secretary of State will not take questions until 4 March, I will again ensure that he has heard what my hon. Friend has said.

Stratford market village in my constituency has provided space for more than 60 much-loved independent local businesses to ply their trade since about 1974. They are the kinds of businesses that reflect the entrepreneurship, drive and diversity in Newham, but on 10 January, with no warning at all, the traders received an email telling them that the market village was closed with immediate effect. The company that owns it is going into administration, leaving viable, much-loved businesses in limbo, out of pocket and without a home. I thank our Assembly Member Unmesh Desai and Newham Council for their work on the matter so far, and I hope that it bears fruit, but I know that many similar communities have faced similar problems. May we have a debate in Government time on whether our councils have the resources and powers they need to effectively step in and save much-loved local spaces and businesses when this kind of thing happens?

I thank the hon. Lady for her helpful suggestion of a debate. I am sorry to hear about the situation in her constituency. Such markets are often a stepping stone for many businesses to getting additional premises of their own. The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and its high streets team have been collecting good practice about where other people have faced such situations. There are some good examples of what local authorities and other groups can do to ensure that continuity. As the next question time is a little way off, I will ask officials in the Department to contact the hon. Lady to see what more can be done to assist.

May we have a debate on the Government’s massive expansion of free childcare so that we can really scrutinise progress on delivering it, in order to ensure that people can access it, that we tackle workforce shortages, and that the initial stages of implementation go as smoothly as possible in April and September?

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and remind the House that we had an urgent question on that matter on Monday. We are rolling out the single largest expansion in childcare in England’s history, ensuring that working parents receive 30 hours of free childcare a week, starting at nine months and going all the way up to their child starting school. She will know that we have increased hourly funding rates with a £204 million cash boost this year and more than £400 million next year to support the childcare sector to deliver this, but I know that hon. Members will want to follow that progress very carefully.

On 5 January, Bath received a red flood alert warning, the highest alert warning, which means risk to life. Fortunately, thanks to good management by local agencies and the council, no life was lost, but the damage was still substantial. Yet my council was told that it was not eligible for funding through the flood recovery framework, because not enough properties were flooded internally. That is no comfort to flood victims or to the council, because the clean-up operation and the repair to external damage are still very substantial. My council has still not received any information from the Government. May we have a statement on why certain council areas are excluded from the funding through the framework, what the thinking is behind that, how they can be supported, and what else the Government can do to help councils that have been substantially damaged by flooding?

The hon. Lady’s question affords me the opportunity, on behalf of us all, to thank all those emergency services and others who have been working to protect our communities through snow, floods and high winds in the past few weeks. I am sorry to hear that she has not had information through from the relevant Department. I did write last week on a similar matter about eligibility criteria, and I will make sure that she gets a copy of that answer from the Department. As departmental questions are a couple of months away, I will raise the issue with the Secretary of State.

Could we want for any better evidence that the mandate for the covid inquiry is already out of date than hearing that the evidence of serving and former Cabinet Ministers, and of the former Prime Minister, about the origin of the covid virus has been ruled out of order? Let us have a statement from the Government about updating the mandate for the covid inquiry two years on from when it was set up, so that it can properly deal with the origins of the disease, the efficacy of both the vaccines and the lockdowns, and the huge number of NHS excess deaths. This is an inquiry that must serve the people of this country and the victims of this terrible disease, and it is already out of date.