Business of the House

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

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.

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.

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.

I refer the Leader of the House to the public office standards Bill, better known as the Hillsborough law, which is how I would like to refer to it. She will know my history in what happened at Hillsborough and, subsequently, with the independent panel report, and the involvement I had in the negotiations between Ministers, families and others. From what we are hearing, it seems that we are approaching a similar situation, where Whitehall is finding reasons to find problems with the law, rather than delivering it. It was only when we had the intervention of the then Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, and then Baroness May of Maidenhead, when she became Home Secretary, that we got things moving again. Can I ask the Leader of the House to talk to her Government colleagues to ensure that the duty of candour, parity of funding for families at inquest and other issues that we agreed on will be included in that Bill and that it will be published soon?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I know of his long history with the Hillsborough disaster—indeed, I understand that he was there that day. He and all the families affected want to see justice, and they want to see the Hillsborough law coming into effect. This Government remain committed to bringing forward legislation in that regard, as we have said, but we want to ensure that it reflects the full range of concerns and experiences of those affected, and that is the most important thing with this legislation. We remain committed to working with the families and all those affected to make sure, as we work at pace on that piece of legislation, that it meets their expectations. We will be setting out our next steps shortly.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

The Government’s welfare changes, announced in yesterday’s spring statement, will see 150,000 carers losing half a billion pounds of support by 2030. Carers receive precious little support already, so removing what little they get will do nothing to help people into work. Instead, it will just put more pressure on already overstretched carers, social care and, as we all know, the NHS. These changes come when the NHS is in a state of flux and uncertainty. Integrated care boards who run local health services have been told to make eye-watering cuts of 50% to their running costs, but the Government have not published an impact assessment on these ICB cuts or set out what the effect will be on patients.

Are we to assume that the Government are doing this in the dark? Should we assume, perhaps, that they are closing their eyes and hoping for the best, while in reality not having a clue what it will mean for patients, carers or people in their time of need? Surely if they had properly assessed their proposals, and it was all going to be fine, they would waste no time in telling us.

The alternative, of course, is that the Government know exactly how bad these cuts will be and what they will mean for our struggling health and care services. Either way, it is right that this House and the public should know what the Government know about the impact of their plans. Will the Leader of the House therefore grant Government time to discuss the impact on our NHS of cutting carer support and of their rushed cuts to integrated care boards?

On carer’s allowance and the reforms to welfare that have been set out to this House in a number of statements and urgent questions, our guiding principles are to ensure that the safety net is there for the most in need, that there is better support for those who can work to get back into work, and that our welfare system and payments, such as personal independence payments and the associated carer’s allowance and other things that sit alongside it, are there for the long term. Frankly, the situation as it stands today means that aspects of that are not sustainable into the long term. For example, we are seeing more than a thousand new people a day being awarded personal independence payments, and that is simply not sustainable.

However, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that such reforms need to be done carefully, with compassion and in a managed way. We need to consider all aspects, especially in relation to what might be considered passported benefits. Primary legislation will be coming forward on these issues shortly, so they will be fully debated on the Floor of the House. I am sure that Members will take time to consider those measures.

The hon. Lady raises some questions about ICBs and the changes we are making to the national health service and NHS England. Our intention and our aim is to get more money back into frontline services and have less being spent on management and duplication in the back-office systems. Again, some of those aspects will need primary legislation. That will be brought forward, and therefore impact assessments and other things will come to light at that time.

The UK has one of the worst paternity offers in Europe, and nowhere is that more apparent than in the police force, where new research from the Dad Shift shows that many frontline officers are taking just one week of paternity leave, because that is all they are entitled to on full pay. Does the Leader of the House agree that when the Government present their review of paternity leave to this place, a better deal for dads who serve on the frontline in the force should be an important consideration?

May I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this issue, which I know he has raised in other ways, and also commend the Dad Shift for its campaigning? Police officers work tirelessly for all of us to keep our streets safe on behalf of the whole country, and they should be entitled to proper paternity leave. He is right to say that we have a review under way. The Employment Rights Bill is passing through Parliament at the moment, and I will ensure that these issues are considered as part of that review.

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, it would be very helpful if we were told whether we will get Thursday 24 April in the Chamber, because we have debates requested. Equally, she has announced that there will be general debates on Monday 7 April, but we now have a queue of 37 debates waiting to be heard in the Chamber. By my calculations, that will take us up to the November recess, even if there are no further applications. It would be very helpful if we could get some of those debates allocated.

The business in Westminster Hall next week will include a debate on eating disorder awareness on Tuesday 1 April. On Thursday, there will be a debate on waste incinerators, followed by a debate on Government support for Thames Water. On Tuesday 8 April, there will be a debate on the persecution of Christians. I will follow up with the debates after the Easter recess next week.

On 13 April 1919, families gathered peacefully in the Jallianwala Bagh to enjoy the sun and a day out. On behalf of the British Army, General Dyer marched his troops in and ordered them to fire on innocent people until they ran out of ammunition. At the end of the massacre, 1,500 people were dead and 1,200 injured. Eventually, General Dyer was disgraced for that stain on the British empire. In 2019, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, recognised that this event was a stain on British colonial rule in India. The anniversary of the massacre will be on 13 April, when we are in recess. Could we have a Government statement admitting to what went wrong and formally giving an apology to the people of India?

As ever, I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for arranging so much Back-Bench business and for announcing it here today, which I appreciate. As we have discussed in private and in these sessions, I will continue to endeavour to give him as much notice as possible of future slots for his Committee.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important matter of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre. As he says, it is one of the most notorious and shameful episodes in the history of British colonialism, particularly in India. I will ensure that Foreign Office Ministers have heard his question, and I will suggest that they bring forward a statement in advance of the anniversary.

At the Copeland Street car park in my Derby South constituency, people are getting ripped off with parking charges time after time. Too often, broken parking machines or apps that will not load mean that well-intentioned drivers are fined. Too many of these unfair fines go unchallenged, with parking companies pocketing the cash. Could the House please be updated on the Government’s plan to introduce a parking code of practice so that we can protect drivers from rip-off companies?

As constituency MPs, we can absolutely recognise what my hon. Friend has said, and many of us share his anger and frustration at how cowboy outfits operate. They are ripping people off, as he says. We are determined to drive up standards across the sector. A private parking code of practice will be published in due course, and I will ensure that this House is the first to hear about it.