The business for the week commencing 20 April will include:
Monday 20 April—Consideration of Lords message on the Victims and Courts Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill.
Tuesday 21 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
Wednesday 22 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill.
Thursday 23 April—General debate on the contribution of allied health professionals, followed by general debate on reform of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 24 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 April includes:
Monday 27 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
Tuesday 28 April—Consideration of Lords messages.
Wednesday 29 April—Consideration of Lords messages.
As the House will know, this has been a week of sporting triumph. I think of the Lionesses’ 1-0 world cup qualifier against the world champions, Italy—or former world champions, I should say—and Rory McIlroy defending his Masters title, which was another great moment. Whether or not we play, watch, or even like golf, it was an extraordinary, gripping achievement.
And he is from Northern Ireland to boot. He is an honest man facing his demons and triumphing. What a contrast with the Prime Minister’s failure to answer, or even to engage with, the question at Prime Minister’s questions. The last four Prime Minister’s questions have focused on the Iran war, fuel duty, North sea oil and gas, and the defence review. Of the 24 responses given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, 23 have ignored the question and changed the subject. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, we even saw the Prime Minister hectoring you in your Chair, on live television, just for doing your job. That is a shameful record, for which the Prime Minister should write to you—and therefore by implication to this House—and apologise. This behaviour is contemptuous—of you, Mr Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, and of all MPs, now and in years gone by.
Our job, however imperfectly we may do it, is to pursue the truth on behalf of those we represent. If we give that up, then heaven help us. It is the Prime Minister’s job to answer, and to hold himself accountable for those answers. No Prime Minister likes to do that, but those are the rules. If the Prime Minister does not like the rules, does not want to offer honest answers, or is not up to it, he should step back and let someone else do the job instead. I thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us for maintaining the traditions of this House. I have three questions for the Leader of the House today, and I ask him first if he shares my view that the Prime Minister’s behaviour is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful of this House.
This is just part of a wider problem to do with accountability and disrespect for Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Gilbert’s parliamentary question of 16 March asked the Government about authorised Budget briefings to the media. Lord Livermore replied on the Government’s behalf:
“Consistent with these principles, there are occasions where the Government will trail and/or announce policy ahead of a Budget to provide context and help the public understand major fiscal events.”
First, my thoughts are with our servicemen and women currently serving in the middle east. As the as the situation unfolds, our highest priority is to ensure the safety of our people in the region. My thoughts are also with those affected by the terrible attempted attack on the Finchley Reform synagogue. I am sure that the House will join me in thanking the police and emergency services for their swift action.
This week has seen the 37th anniversary of the disaster at Hillsborough. My thoughts are with the family and friends of those who died. As the Prime Minister reaffirmed yesterday, the Government are committed to delivering legislation and introducing a duty of candour across all public services.
I also want to pay tribute to Lord Jeremy Beecham. Lord Beecham was an incredibly influential and dedicated politician who was respected across the political divide. His dedication to the city of Newcastle changed the city into what it is today. I know that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to his family and friends.
During recess, we published our plan to halve knife crime. At the core of that plan is prevention, providing safe spaces in communities and supporting schools and families to address root causes. That means giving an alternative path to young people, which will literally save lives.
We have also announced our intention to invest £237 million to expand community diagnostic centres across England. Four CDCs will open, 17 will be expanded and 15 will receive enhancements to boost diagnostic capacity and get patients seen quicker. That means patients will be able to get swifter results, which is really important, and get them closer to home, which again is important. This week, over 500 new free breakfast clubs also began to open their doors, helping parents with the cost of living and giving children a healthy start to the day.
I turn now to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. If I may, I will deal broadly with his first two questions together. He referred first to the way in which the Prime Minister addressed the questions put to him yesterday, and secondly announcements made outside the House and whether the House should be the first to hear. The right hon. Gentleman has been here a very, very long time—[Interruption.] Well, a long time—let me put it that way. Not as long as me, but a long time. Frankly, we have both been here long enough to know better than to ask the questions he did. I know why he did so, and I understand exactly what the point is at the heart of it, but all Prime Ministers deal with Prime Minister’s questions in their own way. It is not unusual for any Prime Minister or any Minister not to give the answer that the Opposition want on a particular day, so let us not kid ourselves that we are entering a new chapter on that.
Stephen Yaxley-Lennon is urging his followers to behave ahead of the “Unite the Kingdom” march on 16 May. The Met police have allowed the fascists the freedom to march in central London. By contrast, the organisers of the annual Nakba march, who provided the Met with details last December, are still waiting to have their route approved. The previous “Unite the Kingdom” march erupted in unacceptable levels of violence, unlike the hugely popular and peaceful anti-genocide marches. The treatment of the two groups by the Met is stark and biased. Will the Leader of the House find the time for a debate on the alarming rise of far-right activity on our streets?
I know that my hon. Friend is a keen campaigner on these matters. I am sure that the Met police will have heard her comments. Where there is the threat of a demonstration turning to violence or disorder, the Met police have a responsibility to take that very seriously indeed, even if it takes a while to agree how, or indeed whether, that march will take place. It does not matter which part of the political spectrum it comes from; what matters is security on our streets, and we trust the Met police to get on with that.
I start by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) all the best for his parental leave. Sadly, and particularly for his wife, I have no news to update the House with, but I hope to be able to do so in due course.
I draw the House’s attention to the devastating civil war in Sudan, which sadly entered its fourth year yesterday. This is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, with over 29 million Sudanese facing acute food insecurity. Earlier in the parliamentary Session, the Prime Minister said in response to a question on Sudan from the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), that he does
“not think we discuss it enough in this House.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 806.]
Will the Leader of the House act in the spirit of those words and ask the Foreign Secretary to give a statement on the conflict next week and include an update to the House on her discussions at this week’s Berlin conference?
We continue to reel from the news emerging from the Oval Office. I must confess that I did not have the President of the United States labelling the Pope as “weak on crime” on my 2026 bingo card, but given recent events, perhaps I should have done. His latest AI image released last night of him embracing Jesus Christ reminded me of the immortal words of Brenda from Bristol in April 2017: “Not another one!” In all seriousness, Trump’s chaos is having real impacts here in the UK and in my own constituency of North East Fife. His reckless war in the middle east is hitting families up and down the country in the pocket and at the fuel pumps. Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on the economic impact of Trump’s war and include a consideration of Liberal Democrat proposals for a 10p fuel duty cut? Other countries are providing that certainty on fuel duty now. Is it not time that the Government did likewise?
I join the hon. Member in wishing the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) well, and we await news with bated breath—at least he might get the nursery finished by the time of the arrival.
The hon. Member makes a serious point about the Sudan civil war. The Government are doing everything we can, not just to help to address the humanitarian situation, but to try to get an end to that war. We have committed £146 million in aid to Sudan and have sanctioned Rapid Support Forces commanders. We are doing everything we can, but I join her in hoping that the conflict ends soon. We are not shy in updating the House on this matter and will continue to do so. I will draw her remarks to the attention of the Foreign Secretary.
I will not comment on the President of the United States’ comments and the effect they are having, because I think we can see that play out not just in the hon. Member’s constituency but elsewhere. The real answer from the Government is that we are absolutely focused on doing everything we can in the national interest to see if we can ensure the ceasefire continues, but also to bring an end to the conflict. She is right to point out that the economic situation is very serious, too—possibly the most serious energy crisis in the last half century. The economic impact may well be beginning to be felt and may continue for some time. Again, there are lots of suggestions about what we might do. The Government are absolutely focused on this. We will not rush to judgment about action that we need to take now—we have already taken some targeted measures, not least on heating oil—but we are absolutely focused on that, and I reassure the House that we will continue to do so.
We are looking at all of that, and I am sure that, again, because we are not shy of doing so, when the opportunity arises, there will be an opportunity for further statements on these matters. I hope the House can come together not just to ensure that we have a firm view going forward in the international situation, but on how we can combat the economic issues that I am afraid are likely to continue for some time.
On 28 April, it will be Staffordshire Day across the Houses of Parliament. There will be a marketplace in the Jubilee Room from 12 pm till 2 pm, and there will be Staffordshire oatcakes in the Tea Room for breakfast. Could I, through a question to the Leader of the House, invite the whole House to come and sample some of the delicacies of what I think is the greatest county—after Lancashire, of course, Mr Speaker—in the country? On a serious note, would he consider holding a debate in Government time on the importance of county identities? Given local government reorganisation, county identities are important, as is how we bolster them as we look to the future with our new councils.
It is a tempting offer, and I encourage the House to support my hon. Friend’s efforts to demonstrate what a fantastic part of the country he represents. I share his view about counties and county days—they are, indeed, important. I cannot offer him Government time to do this, but if he seeks an application for a Backbench Business or Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that people who represent counties right across the country will come and share his view about the importance of county identities.
On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I remind the Leader of the House that we await the promised motion to change the Standing Orders for the election of the Backbench Business Committee for the new Session.
In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, next Thursday in the Chamber there will be Select Committee statements from the Environmental Audit Committee and the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. Turning to the business in Westminster Hall. on Tuesday 21 April there will be a debate on the need for an independent national review body overseeing wheelchair provision. On Thursday 23 April there will be a debate on access to education and training for young adult carers, followed by a debate on gambling advertising. On Tuesday 28 April there will be a debate on Government support for park home owners.
I managed to get a private Member’s Bill through this place, which became the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023. We are still awaiting the implementation of that Act, which means that vulnerable people are being exploited by rogue landlords. I understand that the Department has completed the consultation on the regulations to implement the Act, but it is likely that we will not see it implemented until 2027. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement in this place next week on what exactly the Government are doing to implement the Act, which has cross-party support? If there is no statement, Mr Speaker, may I urge you to allow me an Adjournment debate on the subject?
That is quite a bid, Mr Speaker— I have not heard that one before. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of the Committee and for updating us on the business.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Standing Orders. As he knows, we are bringing forward a number of Standing Orders relating to the work of his Committee. I made a commitment that we would do that before the end of this Session, and we are committed to sticking with that. I cannot tell him the exact day, but I am committed to doing that, so that is what we will do.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way in which he got his private Member’s Bill through this place, because it was quite an achievement. I am sorry to hear that the Act has not yet had the anticipated effect. I know that he remains an assiduous campaigner on these matters—I think he has met Ministers and continues to press them. I cannot guarantee him Government time, so I hope that you will listen carefully to his plea, Mr Speaker, and then he can hear directly from the relevant Minister about what the plan is. In the meantime, I will take it up with the Minister because, as the hon. Gentleman points out, his concern is shared by Members across the House.
20 of 116 shown
This is nonsense. The rules are perfectly clear: major events must be announced first to this House. To do otherwise is a breach of the rules of this House, a flagrant violation of the ministerial code and contempt of Parliament. Previous Governments, as we all know, have done this on occasion, since 1997 at least, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have been fired for inadvertent briefings to the media before a Budget, but never before has it been a Government’s declared policy to ignore Parliament.
The deeper constitutional point is, of course, that in our representative system of government, the people are Parliament, and Parliament is the people. Nothing good can come of an attempt to undermine the British constitution by this means. I ask the Leader of the House, secondly, to comment on this, and to set out what he will do to get this policy of non-announcement of major measures withdrawn and revoked.
Finally, Lord Robertson spoke of the “corrosive complacency” of current political leadership, and of putting our country at risk. He said,
“We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.”
No one has more experience and expertise on defence across the whole of Parliament, in both Chambers. This man, the noble Lord Robertson, was a political activist for Labour since 1961. Just think. He is the last person one could imagine wanting to offer public criticism of a Labour Prime Minister, let alone in these terms—a man Labour to his boots, but a patriot first.
It is impossible to blame previous Governments for this. This Government and this Prime Minister created the defence review and the defence investment plan—no one else. It is their choice and their decision. It matters because in every constituency across the country there are companies wanting to know what the Government have decided. They are waiting for leadership. They need to know the numbers and the commitment, and, of course, our adversaries need to know that we are serious in our resolve, and they need to see the measure of that seriousness. My great fear—perhaps it is also Lord Robertson’s great fear—is that the Government will never publish this document, or they will do so in a completely insubstantial and lightweight way, and that 10 months of delay will end in nothing, and it will all have been a colossal waste of time and energy. The Prime Minister has been utterly hopeless on this. He told the Liaison Committee weeks ago that the document was on his desk, yet nothing has happened. I leave it to colleagues to judge the truth of his remarks.
I ask the Leader of the House, thirdly, if he will give this House a cast-iron guarantee on behalf of the Government that the defence investment plan will be published, and not simply shelved and forgotten. The one-year anniversary is in July.
The shadow Leader of the House talked about announcements to the House. He actually said that the previous Government “on occasion” made announcements outside the House. On occasion? I think it was on occasion that they actually made the announcements in the House.
But there is a serious point, which I will address. I am absolutely clear, and I have said from the Dispatch Box before, that serious announcements should be made at the earliest convenience in the House. But we understand that politics is done in a different environment from how it was done a decade or two decades before: to some extent, it is a moving environment, and Government is working in that environment, too. However, I do take the shadow Leader of the House’s point, and I have said that announcements should be made in the House at the earliest opportunity.
Let me turn to the comments of Lord Robertson. The Prime Minister made his and the Government’s view clear on that. The shadow Leader of the House asked about the defence plan. It will be delivered, and the House will have an opportunity to debate the plan. I do accept that perhaps it has taken longer than any of us would have wished; let me give the House three reasons why that is so. The first is that we inherited a defence budget that was totally out of control and which had been mismanaged for the past 14 years. It had been, in the words of a previous Defence Secretary, hollowed out—and that was not a previous Labour Defence Secretary but a previous Conservative Defence Secretary. That is the first reason why it takes time to put this right and turn it around.
The second reason, and I think the shadow Leader of the House knows this because he is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, is that we inherited an economic mess. If we are going to put defence right, we have to have the money to do that. Again, the right hon. Gentleman understands that, because he has all but admitted in this place that he is a secret Keynesian at heart. [Interruption.] He has admitted to it. Don’t worry; he has owned up to it. The point is that he understands, as do most people, that our economic inheritance was absolutely appalling, and we have to get that right too before we can press ahead with our commitments to properly fund defence.
The third point that is relevant here is that the botched Brexit deal left us diplomatically isolated, and the Prime Minister has personally invested a great deal of his time and energy to build alliances with our allies, not least in Europe. Those alliances are important as we look at the question of defence in a moving international situation and of where defence will be as we move forward. I cannot accept the analysis or the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that somehow, at the election, it was day zero and nothing that happened before that has any impact on the way in which this Government are forced to face up to those difficult decisions. We will publish the plan and there will be an opportunity to debate it.
Let me finish on this: I understand the shadow Leader of the House’s point about companies, and obviously there needs to be some certainty. However, let me just rid him of the suggestion that everyone is waiting for announcements and nothing is happening. Contracts are being issued all the time, and more than 80% of contracts in the last two years have gone to British companies, which is in stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government.