The business for the week commencing 6 July will include:
Monday 6 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.
Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (second allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Wednesday 8 July—Debate on a motion on UK rearmament and war fighting readiness, followed by general debate on corridor care in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Thursday 9 July—General debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know that he and the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the England football team on their win last night, although I must say I am not sure we should be thanking them for the trauma and heart-stopping cardiovascular workout that I, at least, experienced right to the end.
The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness. Let us be clear: we can all agree that he was spot on. However, the Prime Minister has not exactly been immune to sanctimoniousness himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election and promised “tough decisions” to “fix the foundations”. The imaginary £22 billion black hole that he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline and hard choices.
Those tests should also apply here and now with the defence investment plan, which commits £15 billion in additional defence spending over four years, of which £4.7 billion will be confirmed at Budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the strategic defence review and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it is published. That is not what candour, discipline or hard choices look like. Irony of ironies, the further £10 billion reportedly needed for the DIP is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister claims to condemn.
Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in sending our congratulations to the England football team—we all look forward to the early hours of Monday morning.
Before I respond, let me pay a personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Neville Trotter, formerly the Conservative MP for Tynemouth for more than 20 years, who, unfortunately, passed away at the weekend. We had our political differences, but he was a much respected politician who dedicated his life to public service. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and friends.
I congratulate Eve Samson on her appointment as the 53rd Clerk of the House. Eve has worked in the House for almost 40 years. She brings a wealth of experience to the role and will be a distinguished successor to Tom Goldsmith. She will also make history as the first woman Clerk of the House.
This week, the youth jobs grant was launched. Businesses who take on jobless youngsters will be offered thousands of pounds in the latest boost to youth employment support. It is a practical step that helps business investment in young people while giving them the confidence, skills, experience and support they need to embark on their careers.
Also this week, the outdated and harmful Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed, bringing an end to two centuries of legislation that has criminalised rough sleeping and begging. Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping. It shifts the focus towards prevention and long-term solutions. Many hon. Members, including the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), have raised the issue with me in this forum, and I know they will be pleased to see that the Act has finally been repealed.
St Helier hospital has the fourth best maternity unit in the country, the only exclusively NHS-run assisted conception unit in south-west London, and a specialist gynaecology ward where nurses are highly trained in counselling. Yet all that is set to close next May because of the need for emergency repairs. Could the Leader of the House find time for a debate on those vital services, and whether they be temporarily relocated somewhere else on the St Helier site and returned to the current building on completion of the repairs?
My hon. Friend is a strong defender of the interests of her constituents, and I listen very carefully to her concerns. The Government are committed to improving maternity across the country. That is why we have set up a national maternity and neonatal taskforce, and we are very keen to get on with it. If she wishes to apply for an Adjournment debate, she could hear directly from a Minister about how her specific constituency concerns might be addressed, and if she wishes to seek a meeting with Ministers to make her case, I will help her to arrange one.
I join the whole House in congratulating the England team, in particular Tottenham Hotspur academy product Harry Kane for his heroics last night. I am also grateful to the Conservatives for their lecture on sanctimony, though I note that self-awareness was never their strongest trait.
This week my community was rocked by the news that Coughlan’s Bakery—a family-run business that been operating in the local area for 89 years—will close its doors for the last time. In their announcement, they say: “This was so devastating as March was a fantastic month, as was a lot of last year with our growth with new stores opening, but as soon as April’s new Government rules kicked in on national insurance, wages and rates, it instantly hit the high street”. That shows that Government policy is directly killing long-term, family-run businesses.
We warned the Government about this, and when we did we were told that they could not fund public services without the rises in business taxes, but let me make it clear to them: the Government will no longer receive any tax income from this local business anymore, and I fear that the revenue loss will continue to grow over the course of this year. Will the Government organise a statement from the relevant Department explaining what they are going to do about small businesses in distress, outlining how many are at risk and how many have already closed since April?
I am concerned to hear of a business closing, particularly one that has been around for such a long time and which has served a community. I am genuinely sorry to hear that.
Small businesses are at the heart of our local communities and economies, and the Government are committed to supporting them in every way that we can, which is why our small business plan will save businesses time and money, boost access to finance and create new opportunities—but I do understand that for some businesses, there is an alternative scenario. We are also supporting a large number of businesses through a £4.3 billion business rates package.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about national insurance, but the change was made so that we could invest in our public services. He cannot have it both ways; Liberal Democrats constantly talk about the need for more spending on all sorts of things, and yet, when it comes to a difficult decision about voting for the money, they vote the wrong way.
Shabir Ahmed was the ringleader of a disgusting Rochdale grooming gang. He was convicted of serial rapes against young white girls and repeated rapes of a young Asian girl. Today, Shabir Ahmed is being released from prison with a restriction that he should not enter the Rochdale or Oldham boroughs—yet Shabir Ahmed is joint UK-Pakistani national, and he should be deported to Pakistan. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Home Office and the Foreign Office should do everything possible within their power to make sure that people like Ahmed are deported and that their victims never ever have to face them again?
In short: yes, I do. Our thoughts should be with the victims of these appalling crimes. The perpetrators in grooming gangs and sexual abuse cases must face the full force of the law, whoever they are and wherever they come from—let me be absolutely clear about that. If the individual we are talking about breaches the very strict conditions that have been placed upon him, he will be locked up again immediately—I hope he pays heed to that—but I also know that the Government are exploring every option in this case.
The Chairman of the Committee sends his apologies, Mr Speaker. In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, the Committee has agreed two Select Committee statements: one next Thursday from the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee and one the following Thursday from the Work and Pensions Committee. In addition, in Westminster Hall next week, there will be debates on UK aid policy in the context of global funding trends and on the humanitarian impact of conflicts on older people. On Thursday, there will be a debate on Government support for the Lobular Moon Shot Project. The following week, there will be debates on isolation and hidden deprivation in coastal communities, on the impact of the national planning policy framework changes and on capital funding for Changing Places.
I urge Members to take part in the Sir David Amess debate, which the Leader of the House mentioned. It is an opportunity to raise any constituency matters and perhaps to avoid having to come to the Backbench Business Committee, where we have to find more time for those debates. In addition, will the Leader of the House give the Committee early notice of debating time in September, particularly if it is on the first day back?
Moving on to my own question, I am sure the Leader of the House will be aware of the long-running campaign by the National Association of Retired Police Officers in respect of the injustice to widows and widowers, who can be deprived of their pension if they remarry. I have raised the matter in the House previously. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister to come here and outline the Government’s plans? I know that would please many of my constituents and others across the country.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving an update on what the Committee is planning, and I thank the Committee for its work. We were able to provide more time in response to the Chairman’s request last time, and it is good to see that coastal communities are getting a hearing. I am pleased to confirm, as I did in my statement, that the Sir David Amess debate is taking place, and I echo the hon. Gentleman’s words that it is a good opportunity for colleagues to raise any concern. I will give early notice, where I can, of plans for when we return in September.
The hon. Gentleman has been an assiduous campaigner on police pensions. The 1987 police pension scheme is now closed and has been superseded by the 2015 scheme, and there are no plans for further improvements to the benefits accrued under it. However, I will make sure that Ministers have heard his concerns; should he wish to raise them with Ministers personally, I will help him to arrange a meeting.
I declare a non-pecuniary interest as the chair of the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group. The Leader of the House and many Members will know that since the payment of civil service pensions was outsourced, there has been near chaos; many civil servants have been unable to retire because they have not received information about their pensions, and retired civil servants have not even been receiving their pension. A written ministerial statement yesterday said that there will be an update to Parliament shortly, and that, with regard to Capita,
“the Government will not hesitate to take firm action for continued underperformance.”
Will my right hon. Friend convey to the Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office that the update should include a commitment to returning the administration of civil service pensions to public control—and that means insourcing?
I thank my right hon. Friend for his campaigning on this matter, which has been raised often with me in this Session. I had hoped that there would be an update to the House; I still have that hope, and I hope that it happens very soon indeed. What the Minister will say is, of course, a matter for the Minister, and I do not want to pre-empt that, but we should expect that update, during which my right hon. Friend and others can raise concerns directly with the Minister.
20 of 111 shown
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July includes:
Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.
Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.
Of course, the plan is also too small. The Government say that 3% is their ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%—the UK’s core NATO commitment—by 2035 requires about £25 billion a year more in today’s terms. The Government have offered no funded pathway to either figure. It is little wonder that the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board. The Leader of the House might feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010; perhaps I might remind him that at that time, the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis, a very different US President was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war and Russia was not directly threatening NATO members.
Cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. High Speed 2 is the starkest warning. As far as I am aware—I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it—HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so-called bat protector at a cost of more than £100 million in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There is little to no evidence that such a bat protector will do that or, indeed, to suggest that a few nets with some bells on would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up.
Now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. This week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lack a convincing plan to manage, spend or prioritise benefits within the £45 billion rail budget, with unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance and late trade-offs. That is how large projects get into serious difficulty. Other nations have shown that they can do it better. Norway built the world’s longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about £450 million at the time of completion; we should be asking why we cannot do the same.
We have got a great model of our own nearby: the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost £369 million over 10 years. That is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing £12 billion to £19 billion. No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration, and it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes those points—the fire risk, asbestos, and failing electrical and mechanical systems are real—but Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians and, through them, the poor, long-suffering taxpayer to support a project of that scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others: not merely cost forecasts but stated and effective governance, a capped budget, independent challenge and proper named accountability. May we have at least two debates in the House on restoration and renewal, with one to discuss the issues in detail and another in relation to an authorising motion?
Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I remind him that, since 2024, tough decisions have been taken, which is why inflation is lower and interest rates have fallen. At the same time, we have invested more in public services. However, we accept that the security situation has deteriorated—the challenges are there—which is why the Government brought forward the defence investment plan, and plans on how we will fund it.
The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the situation internationally in 2010 was different—of course, it was—and that the then Government were reeling from the global economic crisis. Let me remind him that in 2024 this Government and the country were reeling from 14 years of Tory mismanagement.
Let me return to the key issue of defence expenditure. The Government have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war and surpassed the promises we made in our manifesto. Our plan provides funding to strengthen military readiness, accelerate drone transformation, boost fighter jets and strengthen our nuclear deterrent. At the same time, we will create nearly 60,000 extra UK industry jobs by the end of the decade.
We inherited a situation where £54 billion a year was being spent on defence, but under this Government that figure will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029. Any plan will have its critics, but I note that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and the Chief of the Defence Staff have backed our plan. We are on track to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The vast majority of this package has already been funded through the right and tough decisions to prioritise departmental spending. This will give the Ministry of Defence the certainty that it needs to get on with the job. The remaining £1 billion a year over four years will be confirmed in the usual way in the Budget.
With regard to R and R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any major project needs to be managed properly and that where taxpayers’ money is concerned, we must get value for money. In that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps with R and R. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that message comes through in recent public polling; three out of four people want to see us get on and take the necessary action to restore this place. However, there is not consensus about how we will actually do it. I am very keen to build consensus and ensure that we have the right safeguards; the right hon. Gentleman and others are perhaps critical of some of the report that has been produced, but we want to build that consensus. I am very grateful to the NAO for its recent report and to the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to the Committee’s investigation, so that it can bring forward recommendations. I hope that, at the end of it all, the House can come together so that we can get on with this, because it is long overdue.