Business of the House

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

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).

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.

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.

As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age 2), I have had the privilege over the past few months to meet leaders from across society who have incredible passion and energy for Government policy that relates to babies from pregnancy to age two. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate on the impact of all angles of Government policy on babies from pregnancy to age two, given the significant impact of that time on long-term health and wellbeing outcomes?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue and for all her campaigning on these matters, which she takes incredibly seriously. This Government consider the early years to be really important, as well as maternity and paternity leave and ensuring that parents can do their jobs and be parents. The early years are the most important in a child’s life. I look forward to working with her on that.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I draw the attention of the House to the register of my interests. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made a statement to this House in which she said that she had agreed to delay the local elections in some areas for one year. I must confess that I am a bit confused, because my local council, Essex county council, is one of those areas. The briefing papers for the extraordinary full council meeting of Essex county council that took place on 10 January state:

“The Leader is minded to support the proposal to postpone the elections in order to maximise capacity for the transition process, whilst noting that this would lead to a two or three year postponement.”

That is rather longer than the one year that the Secretary of State announced yesterday. Essex county councillors are usually elected for a four-year term and a postponement —really, a cancellation of elections for three years—would extend their terms of office by 75%. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the principles of democracy in the United Kingdom?

First of all, I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue of police community support officers in Essex last week. I am sure that she and many colleagues across Essex will be pleased with the news, subsequent to her raising the issue last week—I am sure that is not unrelated—that those PCSOs have been saved from the axe. In fact, last Friday the Government doubled the money available for neighbourhood policing.

The hon. Lady raised the elections that are now not going to happen in Essex. We set a very high bar for the postponement of any elections this year. This is a one-year postponement. In the case of Essex, it is so that the greater Essex mayoral authority can be established. The intention is for elections for that mayoral authority to take place in May 2026. I know that these changes take time and can cause difficulties in local areas, but the devolution revolution that is coming her way through those changes will bring extra jobs, growth, better services, better transport and more power to her communities in Essex. I hope she will welcome that.

I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent comments about supporting and enabling the expansion of nuclear power stations in the UK through small modular reactors. The science and technology is well proven but other aspects must be developed alongside, including the provision of appropriate grade nuclear fuel and a permanent solution for nuclear waste. In recent days, I have met representatives of Urenco, a specialist provider of uranium enrichment and fuel and Nuclear Waste Services, which is developing plans for the UK’s first geological disposal facility. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on all aspects of the nuclear jigsaw, to ensure a joined-up and sustainable energy future?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the nuclear industry and nuclear waste disposal. We need to put some rocket boosters under nuclear power in this country. It is vital to our future energy security. He is right that we have to do that alongside rigorous safety standards for waste disposal and other matters. I will ensure that he and the House are kept updated on these important matters.

In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 11 February there will be a debate on the cost of energy, and on Thursday 13 February there will be a debate on HIV Testing Week, followed by a debate on the prevention of cardiovascular disease. When we return after the recess, on Tuesday 25 February there will be a debate on maternity services, and on Thursday 27 February there will be a debate on rural crime, followed by a debate on women’s health.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the date of the estimates day debate. I am aware that at least six Select Committees are considering putting in a request. For new colleagues, estimates days are an opportunity to debate the work and spending of Government Departments. Applications do not have to come via a Select Committee; the Backbench Business Committee has put the application form on our website, and applications will close, because of the recess, on Friday 21 February. We will consider applications on Tuesday 25 February.

We have a queue of debates for the Chamber; in fact, as things stand, we could allocate debates for every Thursday through to beyond May. I note that the Leader of the House has not yet announced what time the Backbench Business Committee will be allowed after the recess, but in the event that we are offered Thursday 27 February, we have pre-allocated a debate on the three-year anniversary of the war in Ukraine, followed by a debate on St David’s day. If we are offered Thursday 6 March, we will have a debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a debate on political finance. I suggest that the Leader of the House would be well advised not to upset any of those sponsors.

The Leader of the House does excellent work in advising Government Departments on responding not only to the questions that we raise in the Chamber but to letters and questions raised elsewhere. However, this week the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), met a group of Hindus from Bangladesh because of the atrocities in Bangladesh. I raised the matter in business questions, and Mr Speaker allowed an urgent question on the subject the following week. I think it would be courteous of the Minister to give a statement to the House on what subsequent action she is taking. Equally, I gently ask the Leader of the House to ensure that when we ask questions and she diligently writes to Departments, we actually get answers to our questions, because both the quality and the length of time that it takes to get a question answered seem very poor at the moment.

I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for, as ever, advertising his forthcoming business, and for explaining how estimates days work. That is especially important for new colleagues, for whom the forthcoming debate will be the first such occasion. I hear his lobbying about the allocation of days, which I will take very seriously, as I always do, especially in relation to International Women’s Day. I do not want to upset the sisterhood by any means.

The hon. Gentleman continues to raise many issues relating to the Hindu community, in this case in Bangladesh. He was successful in getting some responses. I will raise with the Foreign Office whether further information could be given in a statement, and ask that the House is kept updated. He is right that I take extremely seriously the timely and proper response that I expect from Ministers to parliamentary questions and correspondence. I will always chase those responses. I keep track of the letters that I send after business questions and matters that are raised with me, and I take them up robustly. I gently say to him and other colleagues that we have seen an over 50% increase in the number of parliamentary written questions since the election, as well as a huge increase in correspondence, so a bit of time is needed to deal with that. If anybody wants to raise a matter with me, I will chase those letters. I have quite a good track record of getting responses when they are not otherwise forthcoming.

I am sure you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I hope the Leader of the House is, that we are currently undergoing a digital refresh of computer equipment and laptops here in the House of Commons. I was rather disturbed to learn that the equipment that is handed in is crushed and sent to landfill. Digital poverty is a multifaceted issue that impacts all aspects of life: for younger children, educational platforms cannot be accessed; job opportunities are harder to access, because 90% of jobs are only advertised online; and for older people, healthcare services and supporting information are all severely restricted without digital access. Therefore, may we have a debate on what we can do—not just as a Government, but this House, too—to increase access to the internet and the digital services that are essential to lifting people out of poverty?

My hon. Friend raises the really important issue of the digital divide. Digital inclusion is vital. More and more services are moving to digital platforms as we are in the digital age. If they are not accessible to everybody, then they are not able to serve everybody and we should absolutely address that. I am not aware of the particular issue he raises—the digital hardware of the House not being wiped and reused, and instead going to landfill—but I will look at it immediately after business questions and get back to him on what more can be done.

I am hugely concerned, my constituents are hugely concerned and the Cheshire police force is hugely concerned about the rising number of serious sexual attacks by those here illegally in this country and those who have been housed in immigration centres in Cheshire. May we have a debate on the rising risk in Cheshire, a review of legislation to remove foreign offenders, and the risk assessments undertaken on the threat posed by individuals placed in accommodation centres in Cheshire?

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising this issue. I am aware of some of the incidents that have happened in Cheshire and how alarming they must be for the local community and the local police force. They are absolutely totally abhorrent and unacceptable in all those cases. She is right to say that there is a range of issues that can be taken further. We have brought forward the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which will make returning those who are here illegally and those who commit crimes when they are here much easier. We are making great strides on that. We are taking real action on violence against women and girls, ensuring criminal sanctions are appropriate, and we are putting more police on the streets. There are also particular issues with asylum hotels and the companies that run them, which I will take up for her.