Jesse Norman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Hon. Members may wish, if they like, to consult works by the shadow Leader of the House on this topic. I doubt whether any other book or any single body of thought has had more effect in improving the lives and livelihoods of people across the world in the intervening 250 years. We celebrate the service of our armed forces and we rightly treat defence matters, wherever possible, as bound by a united focus on the national interest, but it is precisely that focus on the national interest that requires us now to acknowledge that the past two weeks have been a disaster for this country. Our allies in the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and across the Gulf have criticised this country for its “slow” and “weak” response to date. The Cypriot high commissioner and the President of Cyprus have publicly expressed their disappointment and dissatisfaction. Why? Because we have exposed their people and our people to drone attacks as targets, placed weapons systems on their territories, made solemn undertakings to them over many years and now failed to come to their defence in time. It did not have to be this way, so we must ask how this can possibly have happened. Let us review the history. It was being publicly reported by 15 January that America was starting to build a carrier strike force around the USS Abraham Lincoln, targeted at Iran. On 26 January, The Washington Post reported that this force had arrived in the middle east. On 31 January, our own Prime Minister told the BBC: “The aim is that Iran shouldn’t be able to develop nuclear weapons…we support the goal and we are talking to allies about how we get to that goal.” Those remarks come close to an explicit endorsement of the United States on its operation, as they were doubtless intended to. The key point is this: all this happened four full weeks before the start of the attack. Last week, at this Dispatch Box, I highlighted the gaps and inconsistencies in the Government’s position, between their supposedly settled legal view and the last-ditch political decision reportedly taken in Cabinet on the Friday before hostilities began, and secondly between the Cabinet and the Prime Minister, whose original instinct was to support the USA but who was overruled. It is now clear that there has also been a disastrous failure of political leadership. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet knew, or should have known, for a full month that the USA was mustering a vast body of forces to attack Iran, that it could not remain on high readiness indefinitely, and so an attack must surely follow. The Prime Minister himself said last week that the Government had pre-deployed some weapons to the region, yet he failed to give instructions in time to the Navy to prepare HMS Dragon, he failed to notify the Cypriots, and he failed to warn our allies and other friends across the region. Now that they are engaged, our armed forces are discharging their duties with distinction, but the result of this political incompetence has been a fiasco, which brought shame and dishonour on this country. We have the disgraceful sight now of the Government anonymously trashing the Chief of the Defence Staff, in a desperate attempt to deflect responsibility for their own inadequacies, not just via an anonymous leak in The Spectator , repeated in The Telegraph , but by a quoted, but of course unnamed, official to the Financial Times . I cannot recall that a political hatchet job of this kind has ever been performed on a commanding officer in the course of a military operation. It is deeply dishonourable and itself a further sign of failure in No. 10. Will the Leader of the House support an inquiry into these leaks and briefings? Will he support an investigation, in due course, as to how this embarrassing fiasco can have been allowed to happen and what can be done to prevent it from ever happening again?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, let me start by associating myself with your remarks just now from the Chair. It is plain to all Members of the House that the Government Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whip have badly mis-stepped. Indeed, there has been scant respect for the House more generally from the Government Whips Office. I cannot believe that such a thing would have happened when the Leader of the House was Chief Whip. If I may, let me join the Prime Minister yesterday, and I am sure the whole House today, in remembering the dreadful events of 30 years ago in Dunblane and paying tribute to the victims and their families. On a happier note, last Monday saw the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith’s immortal masterpiece “The Wealth of Nations”.

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I will, if I may, start by adding my very warm thanks to, and recognition of, our magnificent Clerk, Tom Goldsmith. Mr Speaker has already been indelicate enough to mention Tom’s extraordinary skill at the jazz piano, but as someone who eats very much at the opposite end of the jazz food chain, may I just say that our loss of him as a Clerk will be more than made up for by his forthcoming history of British jazz? I hope the House will join me in welcoming that, because it will not write itself. Let me start by recognising, on behalf of the whole House, all those men and women from our country and our allies who are engaged in the conflict in and around Iran. We thank them for their bravery and their service. Let us not also forget that our great ally, Ukraine, is fighting for her life in the face of an attempted and unprovoked Russian war of conquest. NATO and this country must not allow themselves to be distracted now from giving Ukraine all the support that we can. As we approach International Women’s Day this Saturday, I note that this week marks the anniversary of Nancy Astor taking her seat in 1919 as the first woman Member of Parliament—a milestone in the long journey towards wider political representation in this House. This was a week in which three current or former members of the Labour party were arrested on charges of spying for China. The Chancellor of the Exchequer gave a spring statement that explicitly reserved any policy substance for her forthcoming Mais lecture, not for Parliament, and badly misrepresented the economic position that this country is in. We would never know from what she said that we have the highest unemployment in this country since the pandemic and that youth unemployment is in a state of crisis. Meanwhile, the Chancellor failed to mention, let alone publish, the defence investment plan, which her Department, the Treasury, has held up for nine months. The House will note the irony that a Government who have never been willing to acknowledge the economic cost of the pandemic and the energy spike resulting from the war in Ukraine will now have to explain the economic effects of rapidly rising oil and gas prices due to the present conflict in the Gulf. We can only hope against hope that recent events will cause the Energy Secretary—a man with the worst judgment in politics, whom the Prime Minister wanted to sack in the last reshuffle but was too weak to do so—to rethink his dangerously inadequate energy policy and refusal to develop North sea oil and gas. Perhaps we will hear a U-turn in his statement later today. Unlike the Energy Secretary, the Leader of the House is a serious man, and I want to ask him a serious question. The Government’s official story, set out by the Prime Minister at the Dispatch Box yesterday, is that they have been preparing for a US attack for several weeks. These preparations include pre-locating missile and other weapons systems in the middle east, though not sending a Type 45 frigate, which remains in dock at Portsmouth and will not depart for more than a week after the start of the conflict. It is little wonder that our allies have been so critical of the UK response. The Prime Minister has also offered us a pre-prepared line on the legal position, which is that the present Government regard defensive operations as legal, but that it is against international law for the UK, and so presumably in his judgment for the United States and Israel, to take pre-emptive action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, when it is the avowed policy of that state to use those weapons to destroy another sovereign state—Israel. This is, of course, the second time in a year that the US and Israel have acted against Iran, so all these issues have already been widely discussed across Government. Yet it is now reported with some authority, across the newspapers, that the Prime Minister was actually minded to support the US attack on Friday evening but was forced to back down by a group of Ministers including the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and, yes, the Energy Secretary. It is hard to see how these things could all be true, and they raise a host of questions. If the Government have been preparing for an attack by the US and Israel for weeks, how can it be true that their policy was still undecided on Friday night? If the Prime Minister’s view was that he was minded to support the attack, where does that leave the legal position? Legal experts, including the noble Lord Pannick, have criticised the Government’s position as not legally “rational”—that is a quote—but my concern is more basic: whether the Government are making the legal position up as they go along, just as the Blair Government did with the Iraq war in 2003. Finally, it now looks like the Cabinet has taken a decision with which the Prime Minister fundamentally does not agree. How can he exercise leadership under such circumstances? I do not expect the Leader of the House to comment on Cabinet discussions in any detail, of course, but I am sure that the whole House will be grateful for any explanation he can give.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On behalf of all Members, I thank the Leader of the House for giving us those recess dates, which will be widely welcomed. Today is the birthday of Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the greatest of all United States Presidents, so perhaps this is a fitting moment to talk a little bit about public service. I congratulate the Chaplain to the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Rev. Mark Birch, on his new job at Westminster Abbey, and I welcome his successor, the Venerable Andrew Hillier. We thank them for their service. I note that the International Olympic Committee has banned a Ukrainian athlete from wearing a helmet of remembrance for his fellow athletes who have been killed by Russia—talk about public service. Otherwise, the news has once again been filled by a succession of the most appalling misjudgments by the Prime Minister. These include decisions by him to ignore both public evidence and private advice, and to appoint to the House of Lords not one but two men with continuing connections to convicted paedophiles. It has been confirmed today that the Prime Minister was aware that his nominee, Matthew Boyle, had campaigned for a man charged with distributing indecent images of children two months before the Prime Minister appointed him. The fallout from the Mandelson scandal has so far included the departures of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and his head of communications, one after 18 months and the other after just a few weeks in post. We now have the leaked news that the Prime Minister’s personal choice of Cabinet Secretary is being forced to step down after barely a year in post. As they say at the BBC, deputy heads must roll. Of course, no Government are free from scandal—goodness knows, I can say that from personal experience—and certainly not the previous ones, as the House will know well, but let there be no deflection or fudge on this matter. There has been nothing to compare with this catalogue of personal misjudgments by a Prime Minister for perhaps 60 years. Every sitting day, the chaplain leads the House in prayer for public service, that we as a House may “never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices”. Every Member of the House knows those words, but that is precisely what these people have failed to do. I will end on a positive note with a truly uplifting story from this week. Some years ago, my constituents, Sam and Emily Stables, set up a brilliant charity called We are Farming Minds in Herefordshire. It is dedicated to supporting farmers struggling with poor mental health. Sam is a sheep farmer himself, and he knows only too well from personal experience how immensely difficult, stressful and lonely life can be on a farm—still more, given all the recent troubles that farmers have had to endure, including outbreaks of tuberculosis and other diseases, a dysfunctional farm payments system, increasingly burdensome regulations, and of course, most recently, the farm tax. On average, a farmer commits suicide every week in this country. On Monday, however, Sam embarked on a walk of hope from Ross-on-Wye to London in support of Yellow Wellies’ Mind Your Head Week and of greater public awareness of mental health in the farming community. By my calculations, he is coming through the Chilterns right about now, heading for High Wycombe. With luck, I will find him this afternoon on the trail around Beaconsfield. That is what real public service looks like. Let us all take this opportunity to send our deep thanks to Sam and Emily, and to their volunteers and supporters, for their extraordinary work.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that this is a moment for normal business. I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the Leader of the House and all Members, will join me in taking this moment to remember the victims of Jeffrey Epstein: the young women and girls who were systematically trafficked and abused by him and his associates over many years—both those who have come forward and those who have not felt able to do so. Today, I will talk about Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. I have no doubt that the Leader of the House and colleagues across this Chamber feel the same way that I do. He and they will understand that this is a matter that far transcends party politics. Peter Mandelson, when Business Secretary, advised Jeffrey Epstein that Jamie Dimon, the CEO of J. P. Morgan, should “mildly threaten” the Chancellor at the time—his colleague, Alistair Darling—over the planned tax on bankers’ bonuses, as Jamie Dimon, still the chief executive of J. P. Morgan, duly did. Mandelson forwarded market-sensitive information to Epstein that related to the 2009 sale of up to £20 billion in state assets, describing the internal Downing Street memo—internal, I stress—as an “Interesting note that’s gone to the PM.” Mandelson gave Epstein advance notice of the EU’s 2010 €500 billion bail-out the night before the official announcement, and he warned him in advance of the departure of Gordon Brown from No. 10 Downing Street —a further highly market-sensitive piece of information. In 2008, Jeffrey Epstein was convicted in Florida under a state plea bargain on two sample felony counts: solicitation of prostitution from a minor and procurement of a minor for prostitution. The Prime Minister was specifically asked at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday whether he knew that Mandelson had continued his friendship with Epstein after the conviction. He said: “when we drafted Humble Addresses in opposition, we always included an exemption for national security”. —[ Official Report , 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.] Unfortunately, that is plainly untrue—it must be inadvertent. When the Labour party presented its Humble Address for impact assessments on Brexit to be released on 1 November 2017, that address did not mention national security at all. The second name on that motion was that of the Prime Minister. I hope the Leader of the House will encourage the Prime Minister to correct the record when he next appears at the Dispatch Box. The Prime Minister also said yesterday: “we went through a process. There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services. What was not known was the sheer depth and the extent of the relationship. Mandelson lied about that to everyone for years.” —[ Official Report , 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 259.] Let us think about that for a moment. The Prime Minister is saying that if only he had known about the depth and the extent of the relationship between Mandelson and Epstein as it continued after 2008, he would have rejected the appointment. It was not enough that he knew Mandelson had a continuing relationship with this convicted paedophile and sex trafficker. He knew it—indeed, the fact that Mandelson had stayed in Epstein’s mansion had been reported to him by public sources, and he ignored it. Not only that, but the Prime Minister had the public information further confirmed and reinforced by the security vetting that was done after the appointment but before Mandelson had signed his contract of employment. That was a further chance for the Prime Minister to reject the appointment, and he ignored that too. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), asked the Prime Minister yesterday: “can he tell us whether he thought at all about Epstein’s victims?” —[ Official Report , 4 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 262.] Those victims are the many dozens—perhaps hundreds—of girls and young women who were trafficked and abused by and through Jeffrey Epstein. It is clear that the Prime Minister did not consider them at all, or he could not have possibly taken the decision he did. So why did he choose Mandelson? Why did he take that decision? He did so because Morgan McSweeney told him to. McSweeney was Mandelson’s protégé, and McSweeney was paying back his long-time mentor and political sponsor for all those good works with his appointment. This whole episode has done incredible damage to the already fragile nature of trust in politics. Every Labour Prime Minister since 1997 has given Peter Mandelson a senior job and been betrayed by him. The present Prime Minister will be seen to have had his own reputation destroyed by this scandal. But let us be clear: every Member of this House and our entire political system have been harmed by it and will continue to be until effective measures are taken to clean it up. I ask two questions. Can the Leader of the House give an undertaking that the documents to be provided to the Intelligence and Security Committee will not be redacted? In order to reassure the House, can he ask the Cabinet Secretary to review the appointment procedure undertaken in this case—both the public due diligence and the developed vetting process—and set out in writing why those failed so badly in this case and how they will be improved?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House very much for the business. As the House will know, this is the week of Holocaust Memorial Day, and I am delighted that we will be debating it in this Chamber later today. I am sure colleagues will have visited the extraordinary exhibition of shoes in Portcullis House. I visited Auschwitz in 1988, when Poland was under communist control, and saw the originals of that exhibition—it was a profoundly moving experience. I know that everyone present will share my sense of sorrow and remembrance for all those who died. This is also the week in which we note with great sadness the death of Captain Philip Muldowney in a live-fire exercise. We send our very best to his fellow soldiers, his friends and his family. I also put on record my personal sadness on the death of Howard Flight, Lord Flight, a dedicated servant of this House and the other place over many years. This week, the Prime Minister demonstrated his genius and political touch once again by getting Andy Burnham barred from standing in the Gorton and Denton by-election, in which he would almost certainly have been hammered if he had stood—problem solved. Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation has calculated that the extra uncertainty created by the Chancellor’s repeated U-turns has already cost, or will cost, this country £8.2 billion, which will only increase over time. The figure is based on official Office for Budget Responsibility numbers and includes the Government’s U-turns on personal independence payments, universal credit and the winter fuel allowance, but not the additional uncertainty created by their recent U-turns on business rates for pubs and inheritance tax rules for farmers. Those will take the cost closer to £9 billion-worth of unnecessary extra burden on the people of this country created by the Government since July 2024. And lest we forget, even without any U-turns, the extra cost of servicing UK Government debt since July 2024 has been, and remains—again, thanks to the Chancellor of the Exchequer —higher than in either the US or the eurozone. That is according to Labour’s own friendly think-tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research. Finally, extraordinarily—irony of ironies—we hear that Sir Tony Blair will sit on President Trump’s so-called board of peace for the reconstruction of Gaza, to which one can only say, in the words of the late, great Tom Lehrer, “Satire is dead.” This is the man who took this country to war in the middle east on a false prospectus. One must ask: have the people of Gaza not suffered enough? I note that AstraZeneca is accompanying the Prime Minister on his trip to China. As the House will know, AstraZeneca is the single biggest investor in research and development in the United Kingdom. Its best-selling, global best-in-class breast cancer drug, Enhertu, is available for reimbursement in America, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and Japan. Within these islands, it is available for reimbursement in Scotland, but not in England, outside a few special cases. That is an insult to AstraZeneca, but still more to the 46,000 women a year who are diagnosed with breast cancer in England, and the millions more who have had breast cancer, who are at risk and who are unable to be treated affordably as a result. There is deep concern among all Members of the House about this issue. Does the Leader of the House share my view of it, and will he take up the matter urgently with his Cabinet colleagues? Finally, data from this week shows that over the last year police numbers have fallen sharply. Between September 2024 and September 2025, the number of full-time equivalent police officers fell by 1,318. Police staff were down 529, and police community support officers were down 204. The number of special constables was down 514, and police volunteers were down 429. In total, around 3,000 fewer people are now involved in policing our communities. Those figures compare the same point in both years, precisely because recruitment happens in cycles, so there can be no statistical disguising. I actually rather agree with Commissioner Rowley, who has said that police should be judged by outputs rather than inputs—a very welcome corrective to the endless tendency started, I am afraid, under Messrs Blair and Brown to trumpet increased spending as though it is the same thing as results—but that hardly applies to the number of volunteers and specials, both of which are down. In general, fewer officers and staff mean fewer crimes investigated, fewer patrols on our streets and slower responses to 999 calls. The Home Secretary’s announcement earlier this week was silent on protecting overall police numbers, so could the Leader of the House spell out whether the Government’s policy is to allow police numbers to decline over time? Could the House have an up-to-date statement on that specific issue?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for that update. The House will know that I am obsessive about improving education, skills and life opportunities for young people; I know that the Leader of the House, with his own background, shares that passion. I cannot let this week pass without noting that on Tuesday our new specialist technology and engineering university in Hereford, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, formally launched its new autonomous robotics degree, which is sponsored, designed and delivered in collaboration with the British Army. I thank the Defence ministerial team, and in particular the Minister for the Armed Forces, for coming up to Hereford and supporting that. I believe that it is the UK’s first undergraduate drones technologies degree. It starts in September 2026, which is light speed compared with the normal progression of these things in higher education. It will be of inestimable value not only to young people up and down the country, but to the defence of the realm and in a host of other sectors, including food and agriculture, infrastructure and energy. Otherwise, what a week this has been! Rising international tensions, heated public disagreement, desperate attempts at diplomatic solutions—and that is just Brooklyn Beckham’s Instagram account. Talking of elites, we have had the amusing spectacle this week of that self-proclaimed friend of the people, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), hoovering up the free food and glugging down the champagne with the global bullshiterati in Davos.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to exercise my quadriceps on several occasions. Yes, of course I unhesitatingly withdraw that appalling term from the record. All this, I should say, comes from the hon. Member for Clacton after a lifetime spent denouncing Davos as a hub of evil globalist elites where, in his words, there is “no space for the little man”. At least we know that that is not true any more. Oh, the irony of it all, Mr Speaker! A wildly anti-establishment figure and long-time member of the Reform club—no relation—now joining the globalist elites. Can it be long before he aspires to join the Garrick club, or indeed joins the Prime Minister in professing publicly that he prefers Davos to Westminster? Amid all this nonsense, other, very serious changes are under way. Last week, the Government published the results of the latest auction for renewable energy, which set a floor price for renewables of £91 per kilowatt-hour. No one in this House disputes the importance of green energy, or the importance of renewables in the energy mix— [ Interruption. ] Few sane people dispute the value of green energy, but energy prices are already unfeasibly high for British businesses and, despite the Government’s promises, are set to go higher still, especially once the cost of new nuclear is added in. The effect of the policy will be to punish taxpayers, and of course bill payers, but it is also a form of corporate welfare, because the only benefits will come to the better-off. Meanwhile, the Government have decided to ignore North sea oil and gas, gravely damage the north-east of Scotland, undermine the employment of thousands of skilled workers, in disagreement with their own unions, and import gas from overseas at greater cost, with more carbon and more carbon miles. In its own way, this is a repetition of the private finance initiative scandal of 30 years ago, in which the country paid tens of billions of pounds more than it should have for public infrastructure, and a lot of wealthy people in the City of London—now resident in overseas countries—made out like bandits. In 1919, John Maynard Keynes wrote a little book called “The Economic Consequences of the Peace” about the disastrous effects of the treaty of Versailles and the demands that it made for payment from the other side in the first world war. I am not suggesting for a second that there is any comparison between these times and those, in Weimar Germany and the rest of it, but I will say that we are facing severe economic constraints as a result of energy prices. I therefore ask the Leader of the House whether we can have a debate on the economic consequences of the Energy Secretary.

• 22 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for the clarity he has given us on the business of the House, and in particular for the rescheduling of the Diego Garcia Bill immediately after it was going to be debated, following the changes made to the Hillsborough law. I know the whole House will want to join me in expressing our continuing concern for the people of Iran in the face of the vicious repression that they have faced and apparently may continue to face. If I may, I want to raise two issues: one that is big and one that is small but, in its own way, also big. First, on defence and security, the Chief of the Defence Staff was in front of the Defence Committee this week. He revealed that the strategic defence review was not fully costed, despite all the assurances that were given to the Committee and to Parliament at the time. As a result, the defence investment plan has been repeatedly delayed—until March, as it appears—because the Treasury is apparently seeking to come to terms with the fact that we are in a pre-war situation and that the actual cash spending power of many of our armed forces will barely grow over the next two years. This is an enormously important topic for the whole House. I would be grateful for the assurance of the Leader of the House that he will speak to No. 10 and the Cabinet Office to ensure that my shadow Cabinet colleagues continue to receive the appropriate security briefings that they require to do their job. Secondly, the issue of pubs and hospitality has consumed so much of the power, concern and interest of the House. We are always apt to get lost in generalities. In a way, that is a condition of politics: we debate the laws and the general issues of the country. It is also important, however, to zero in on a particular factual situation from time to time and use that to get a wider sense of what is happening. I will put before the House the facts of a specific case relating to hospitality. In my constituency, the Bay Horse Inn is a great country pub that sits on the outskirts of Hereford. It supports local people and serves my constituents. From April, its business rates are scheduled to rise from £31,000 to over £51,000 a year—a 67% increase. The landlord Neil tells me that energy costs have also risen to £5,500 a month. Unlike households, there is no price cap for commercial energy. Indeed, pubs are charged risk premiums and are locked into prices of nearly 40p a unit, while domestic customers pay around 28p. The pub already pays above the minimum wage. Neil estimates that the rise in the national living wage will add £18,000 a year to his costs. Meanwhile, monthly national insurance contributions have risen by nearly 170%, and that is made worse because the higher employer contributions now exhaust the employment allowance more quickly. That is a direct tax on employing people, especially young people, and it lands hardest on small, labour-intensive businesses such as pubs. Neil has a few guest rooms at the Bay Horse, so he does not even know if he will be helped by the latest rumoured U-turn on rates support. That is the reality of the Government’s unwillingness or inability to join up policy in relation to a key set of sectors in the economy that affect hospitality. All those increases are the result of current ministerial decisions. Every Member of the House—including every Government Member—will have pubs and hospitality businesses in their constituency in the same situation. The Bay Horse is not just a business: it has raised over £60,000 for the Hereford Lions club; it installed a defibrillator at the landlord’s expense; it provides a place for supervised, responsible drinking; and it supports schools, the hospice and local causes year after year, yet Government policy treats it as expendable. When will Ministers start talking to each other? When will they put away the rhetoric of helping and actually get on with assisting small businesses? Can we have a debate in the House that goes into not just the specific issue of hospitality, but the generality of all the different Government policies across different Departments that make life so difficult for these hard-working, struggling local businesses?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and for advance notice of it, but I think it should be noted by the House that this—I am sure he would agree—is a bit of a mess. The Public Office (Accountability) Bill was in Committee in December, and amendments should have been filed by the Government on Wednesday of last week, but in fact they came on Friday, too late for colleagues to be able to address them. Now we have had a sudden emergency rejig of business tomorrow, and we know not what is going to happen to the ping-pong that was planned for next Monday. Instead will be debating this Bill. Can the Leader of the House explain why this has happened and what has gone wrong here? Can he also explain what will happen to the legislation and motions that were originally to be debated on Monday 19 January? Finally, can he assure the House that when these matters are brought in front of the House next Monday, the Minister will give a full explanation as to both the ministerial snafu and the substantive issues that have caused this in the first place?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A key theme of business questions has been the need for the Government and, indeed, the whole country to be resolute in the face of Russian aggression in Ukraine. In that context, I know the whole House will want to join me again in expressing our profound sorrow for the death of Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment. He was clearly an exemplary soldier. We salute his courage and his service, and we send our deep regrets and condolences to his friends and family. You will have noted, Mr Speaker, that I have inaugurated a chink-of-light moment at business questions, recognising a time when, accidentally, deliberately or under compulsion, the Government have done something right. Last week, they quite rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. In that same spirit, I express my very strong support for work under way on the need for European nations to collaborate on immobilising, freezing and utilising Russian financial assets for the benefit of Ukraine. Will the Leader of the House make inquiries with the relevant Ministers to ensure that the Government are taking every conceivable measure to do the same immobilisation, freezing and utilisation for any Russian assets controlled by UK financial institutions or passing through the jurisdiction of the City of London? I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a fan of the film “Casablanca”. The House will recall the immortal moment in which the morally flexible chief of police, Captain Renault, professes himself “Shocked, shocked” to discover that there is gambling going on in Rick’s casino, even while he trousers his own winnings. So it is with the Chancellor, who told the Treasury Committee this week of how angry and upset she was at the level of leaking of the Budget that had taken place. It was, as she put it, “incredibly damaging”, and she had initiated an immediate leak inquiry. I do not think that I am revealing a state secret in telling the House that that inquiry will not name any individuals as responsible or, indeed, discover that anyone was at fault at all, let alone in the nest of singing skylarks now occupying Downing Street. It is, however, offensive to think that the head of the Office for Budget Responsibility can investigate and review the leak there and resign within a matter of hours while this nonsense drags on. We must therefore conclude that, as with Captain Renault, the whole thing is a sham confected for the benefit of the Government. Even so, it is quite a revealing sham. One does not normally think of the Chancellor as a philosopher of language—though doubtless that will soon be added to her CV—but she drew an interesting distinction in her testimony between what she called authorised and unauthorised leaks. What, one might ask, is an authorised leak supposed to be? Given how damaging leaks are to the markets, should we think of authorised leaks as somehow not having those damaging effects? Under some circumstances, the act of leaking can itself be a criminal offence, or does that apply only to unauthorised leaks? If it does, perhaps someone should inform the Metropolitan police. I ask the Leader of the House to encourage the Chancellor to complete her inquiry within days and to make a statement to the House once the inquiry has reported, setting out its approach and results and explaining in plain English what an authorised leak is supposed to be. Let me go further. Thanks to some excellent—indeed, forensic—detective work by my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), it appears that two Government leak inquiries are still outstanding many months after they were launched. The first is in the Department for Education on the leaking of the tuition fee increases, dating back a full year to November 2024, and the second is in the Cabinet Office on the leaking of the Prime Minister’s defence statement in February—a topic on which you, Mr Speaker, had some very pithy words for the premier. It is a total embarrassment to the Government that these leak inquiries are still outstanding after so long. They underline what a charade this whole process has become. I cannot imagine that the Leader of the House feels any differently about all of this, so will he please sort it out as soon as possible?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  If I may, I would like to express my personal sorrow at the death of Sir John Stanley this week. The House may not know that he was the first person to reach and to comfort the dying Airey Neave, after Neave had been the victim of a bomb from the Irish National Liberation Army, a spin-off of the IRA. Sir John was also a highly effective member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. A couple of weeks ago, I invited the House to join me in supporting our cricketers down under. That was the kiss of death: they instantly lost the first test. So I am now thrilled, and I hope the House will join me in congratulating Joe Root on his majestic hundred in Australia in the present test. Once again, the past seven days have not been a thing of glory for the Government. Not a single measure in the Budget has been scored by the Office for Budget Responsibility as positive for growth, while the OECD and a host of other experts have warned that the Chancellor’s tax rises last week will actually hold growth back. Except for seven Members, every Labour Member voted in favour of keeping the two-child benefit cap in 2024; last week, they voted in exactly the opposite way. Junior doctors will go on strike for the third time this year in the run-up to Christmas. In fairness, though, I should say that there has been one chink of light: the Government have rightly dropped day one protections in the Employment Rights Bill. Yesterday, we were treated to the inglorious sight of the Prime Minister misusing the engagements question once again to make a party political broadcast at Prime Minister’s questions. We do not have a presidential system in this country, thank the Lord, nor do we insist on a rigid uniformity of practice in this House, but if the Prime Minister wishes to make a statement to Parliament, he may do so in the usual way, giving notice to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, or to the Speaker, and taking questions from colleagues in this House on the policy. I therefore ask the Leader of the House, as our spokesman in the Cabinet, to tell the House what he will do to prevent this practice from recurring. I am also asking Mr Speaker to make it clear in public that this will not be tolerated by the Chair in future. It was reported this week that the Government will be drawing on German start-up companies to fill a supposed drone gap for the British Army. I am sure the whole House will share my view that the UK should seek to offer a welcoming environment for foreign investment, and all the more so after a Budget that has done nothing to support economic growth. I also recognise the value of having leading international companies competitively involved in the testing and development of drones. However, it is a serious concern that there appear to be no plans within the Ministry of Defence to provide strategic leadership, investment and support to start-up drone companies created, led and managed in this country and by British nationals. We have been promised a defence investment plan, but Ministers have been unable to say when this plan will be presented to the House. It looks as though they may be leaving it to the last full week of term, perhaps to avoid a proper measure of parliamentary scrutiny. Experience has repeatedly shown that, in times of crisis, the nation needs to have core capabilities solidly based in UK-owned and led domestic manufacturing. That was one of the lessons of the pandemic. It is hard to imagine a more significant emerging defence need than that of high-quality, high-technology and cost-effective drones. There are superb companies in this country ready to scale, as needed. Last June, the Prime Minister called for what he termed a “national conversation” on defence. He made it clear, rightly, that the defence of the realm was not just a matter for the Ministry of Defence; the whole of our society, as well as the whole of Government, needed to be mobilised into a better understanding of the threat. Since then, that threat has become only more serious. I am delighted that the Prime Minister is in Lossiemouth today to make an announcement, but the sad fact is that he has said precisely nothing to lead that wider national conversation or raise awareness of the threat. Meanwhile, the public are uncertain on the need and rationale for new spending, and key aspects of our defence and security readiness are, if anything, getting worse. May we, at the very least, have a statement next week on what the Government are planning to do to support the UK drones industry in filling that important strategic need?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure colleagues across the House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Lancashire Day to Lancastrians everywhere, and perhaps most especially to the only Lancastrian Speaker of the 158 people to have held that office—there will have to be three more before it reaches the number of Herefordians who have held it. I also wish a very happy Thanksgiving to all our American friends, hosts and families. No one needs reminding that the Leader of the House is a thoroughly good and sensible man. [ Interruption. ] “Careful”, he says. We like to keep things orderly at business questions, but I cannot imagine what he can possibly have made of the past few weeks. We have had an entirely unnecessary period of prolonged economic uncertainty; endless media pitch-rolling and U-turns; a relentlessly dismissive attitude to this House from Ministers; repeated breaches of the ministerial code; and even the fiasco of a convenient Office for Budget Responsibility leak on the morning of the Budget. The House should be in no doubt that yesterday we saw the Government increase taxes to the highest levels since at least 1970, according to the OBR. Between last year and this, the Government have raised something like £100 billion in additional tax revenue, much of which will fall on working people. They have done so not through any coherent tax policy or vision for the UK economy, but through an array of “back of a fag packet” tricks and wheezes, whose inevitable effect will be to make it even harder for businesses to expand and for people to get jobs. As Paul Johnson, lately of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said, it is “big tax rises but no effort at reform”. The tax rises are mainly to finance extra spending, and are not because of worse forecasts. This Government claim to speak for working people, skills, employment and growth, but those are all things they chose to undermine at yesterday’s Budget. Those were their choices. Even now, the Government have failed to please their union paymasters. In the words of Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, the decision to freeze income tax thresholds will result in 10 million workers paying the higher rate of income tax. A stealth tax on workers means that everyday people pay the price again. What is the point of this Government? What are they for? No one can say, however they vote and whatever their politics. This Chancellor and this Prime Minister came to power last year with no idea and no plan. Even by that standard, they have been a colossal disappointment, but that is not all. As we just noted in the urgent question, this week has also seen a leak of the Justice Secretary’s intention to abolish jury trial for all but the most serious cases. We had the embarrassing sight of the junior Justice Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman)—a woman who transparently believes in the importance of jury trial—defending this preposterous proposal. The Justice Secretary is the same man who said in 2020: “Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy.” Blackstone, no less, called them “the glory of the English law”, and yet they are to be abolished by a Justice Secretary and a junior Justice Minister who both went to Harvard law school and a Prime Minister who spent nearly four decades at the Bar. The Bar Council has made clear that jury trials are not the cause of any case backlog, destroying the Government’s attempted justification for the policy. The Criminal Bar Association has strongly criticised the proposal, as has the legendary Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. Many others will doubtless do the same in the coming days. Again, it is inconceivable to me that the Leader of this House supports this decision. I hope that at the very least he will allow time for a Backbench debate soon on this topic. Both the Budget and the Government’s proposal to abolish jury trial have something fundamental in common. The Chancellor seemed unaware yesterday that in asking people to, as she put it, “make a contribution” to the Budget, she is not inviting them to engage in some voluntary process. She is in fact using the full force of the coercive power of the state to take away their freely owned property in taxes. The removal of jury trial would do the same thing to the involvement of citizens in this country in the exercise of the criminal law—that other supreme coercive power of the state. Whatever the rhetoric, and whatever the smoke and mirrors, both these actions demonstrate that this Government hold the ordinary men and women of this country in profound contempt. No one should be surprised if those actions and this Government are now treated by those people with similar contempt.