Jesse Norman MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know the whole House will join me in thinking of the victims of the earthquakes in Venezuela, of which we have just had news, and of course the victims of the train crash in Bedford and the victims of what now have been deemed aggravated terrorism-related attacks in Edinburgh. It has been a difficult week, Mr Speaker, but on a brighter note, I am sure that all will want to join me in celebrating Armed Forces Week and thanking all the men and women across this country and abroad who serve His Majesty in the armed forces—a matter of particular interest, I remind the House, in Herefordshire. We weep for the Scotland football team, but perhaps less so for Peter Murrell, who began a five-year sentence this week for theft and embezzlement. The Scottish police asked him in 2024, “What does the SNP need over £19,000 of luxury pens for?” It is quite a good question. One might ask the same about a Jaguar I-PACE, a state-of-the-art motorhome, a men’s slouch pouch onesie, whatever that is—I am not looking for guidance from the Chair on this matter, Mr Speaker. The real question is not just whether Nicola Sturgeon knew or should have known of these thefts, including the sudden appearance of a £2,500 Lalique salt and pepper set on the kitchen table; it is about the culture and probity of a Scottish Government who still refuse to appoint a KC to lead an independent inquiry. While we are on the topic of vehicles, the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has publicly reserved the right to spend the £5 million donation definitely not related to politics from his Thailand-based crypto billionaire on Ferraris if he wishes. It appears that none of that money has been spent on personal security, from what he said, and he has now been referred to the Financial Conduct Authority, alongside the current investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. And so to the Government. I know the House will share my sadness at the tragic decision by the Leader of the House not to stand in the Labour leadership election, resulting in a coronation, alas, of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and, I am sad to say, the rather tawdry sight of Cabinet Ministers trailing their coats. Once again, we can only regret the decision of the Leader of the House not to throw his hat into the ring, but I simply ask, what is the Government’s policy on the defence investment plan? The Prime Minister wants to publish it now. His successor wants a delay, but a defence investment plan that may be reopened within weeks is not a plan; it is a hanging IOU with a NATO deadline attached. I turn now to a matter of the greatest sensitivity: the case of Lucy Letby, members of whose family are my constituents. It is essential to respect the independence of the judiciary in this matter. Nor, crucially, must we ever lose sight of the suffering of the families whose babies died or were gravely injured, but I believe there is also a proper public concern here as to the security of the verdict. Since the convictions, a number of serious and reputable people have raised concerns about the expert scientific and statistical evidence in this case—both the evidence presented to the jury and the evidence that the jury never saw. Those concerns come from neonatologists, pathologists, statisticians and, most recently, from Dame Sue Black, one of the country’s most distinguished forensic scientists. Like me, Dame Sue makes no claim as to whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but she has said in measured terms that she is “troubled” by the conviction and by the apparent lack of forensic evidence. When someone of her public scientific standing speaks in those terms, I do not think the issue she raises can be properly avoided. Her and other expert concerns raise profound questions as to the fairness of the trial and, indeed, the status of the evidential test used by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in considering whether to reopen it. I remind the House that there were no witnesses, no CCTV footage, no forensic evidence and no confession in this case. Everything therefore depended on the testimony of experts, but when it came to the defence, in the words of Dame Sue Black, “there were no medical or statistical experts put forward at all”. I would also highlight that Lucy Letby had had a prior complaint against the consultants in the hospital upheld after a detailed investigation and report, which found that there was absolutely nothing to prevent her from returning to work and that doctors had bullied and harassed her. That evidence, too, was never heard by the jury. The Thirlwall inquiry into the Countess of Chester hospital has yet to publish its final report, despite many delays, but yesterday’s Nottingham University hospitals report is a powerful reminder that in neonatal and maternity settings, grave harm can arise from not only individual malfeasance but systematic clinical failure. [ Interruption. ] If I may conclude, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now considering the Letby case. May I ask—

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is unfortunate that I was not allowed to conclude in the terms that—

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business, perhaps including the business relating to the item just raised under the point of order?

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I welcome my guests to the Gallery? Part of our job at business questions is to act as a place of record, and this has been a grim week and a week of mourning for us all. First, we mourn for Henry Nowak. The whole House will know the terrible circumstances of his murder and will feel the deepest respect for the dignity of his family in the face of such a loss. We mourn, too, the tragic loss of the three Royal Navy crew killed yesterday when their helicopter crashed in Devon, and the loss of Lance Corporal James Freeman of the Royal Anglian Regiment, who died on Sunday during a training exercise in Erbil. We mourn the early death of Sir Alex Younger, as has already been mentioned in this Chamber. He was a friend to many in and around this House and did so much to protect this country in his long tenure as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. Finally, I hope I may record my personal sadness at the recent deaths of two true Conservative parliamentarians: Sir Alan Haselhurst and Sir Jeremy Hanley, who were both great public servants. In all these cases, we send our deepest condolences to their families, friends and comrades. I have two matters to raise with the Leader of the House. The first is a matter of housekeeping. Colleagues will know of my deep concerns about the current plans for the rebuild of the Palace of Westminster, the lack of scrutiny they have received to date, and in particular the prospect of an uncapped budget potentially running up to an astounding £20 billion to £40 billion. The restoration and renewal client board last met on 2 March. At that meeting, I requested information, and I understood that my request had been agreed. Three months later, nothing has happened, as far as I am aware. I cannot even check the status of my request, because the minutes have not been published in either of the two parallel and apparently unconnected places on the parliamentary website. This is just not good enough. It is a disrespect to the Chamber and to the Palace as a whole. Very soon, the Government are expected to bring forward a motion asking colleagues to endorse a programme that could cost more than the original budget for High Speed 2. Just think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker— I hope all Members will think about it. At present, colleagues are manifestly under-informed and under- prepared. Can the Leader of the House therefore reassure us that there will be proper time for scrutiny, both in the Public Accounts Committee and on the Floor of the House, and that at least three weeks’ notice will be given of any motion so that both Houses may prepare properly? Secondly, I raise a matter of both local and national importance. The Leader of the House will know that thanks to the Hay festival and now HowTheLightGetsIn, every year at the end of May, Hay and its environs in my constituency become the world capital of ideas. As Arthur Miller once described it, Hay is the “Woodstock of the mind”, but it is also Hay-on-Wye, and the Wye—one of the loveliest rivers in Britain—remains in deep ecological distress. I have been campaigning on this issue for six years and progress, alas, has been fitful at best. The previous Government published a River Wye action plan, with up to £35 million earmarked to help deal with poultry manure and nutrient pollution, only for it to be discarded after the general election. But Herefordshire council and neighbouring councils have been working hard with farmers, conservation bodies and local partners, most recently through a new charter for the River Wye, an evocative statement of shared purpose across the catchment. The root problem is a lack of joined-up collective action and a regulatory system that remains woefully insufficient. The river runs through England and Wales, but pollution does not stop at the border, and neither should policy. We have always needed one single approach that brings everyone together, and one source of authority for the river. That is why I am proposing statutory River Wye commissioners, an inexpensive cross-border body for the whole catchment that would be created by an Order in Council, with a single recovery plan, proper shared data, published milestones and the authority to bring all parties—businesses, farmers, campaigners, ecologists, planning, conservation and enforcement—to the same table. May we have a debate in Government time on River Wye commissioners? Perhaps the Government can pick up my River Wye (Cleaning) Bill, so that this wonderful river can be given the clear, accountable and empowered cross-border support that it so urgently needs.

• 4 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 1 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business update and for the news of the debate on Wednesday. That will be an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to put matters on the record—but for scrutiny of the Government, actually, by far the best way is through the questions that will follow the next statement, although I am afraid that the Mandelson files were released publicly only at 2 pm and, at 1,500 pages, no Back-Bench Member can be expected to have mastered them. The Leader of the House recognises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Since those files could have been put in the public domain at 9.30 this morning, could I register with him that we are all owed a slightly higher quality of scrutiny than this has received?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is famously true that our present Prime Minister gets 100 times more animated and passionate about the performance of his football club every weekend than he does about trivial details of social, economic or foreign policy, and still more so when it comes to defeating the enemy from Manchester. So one would have to have a heart of stone not to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of Arsenal football club in winning the premier league—I notice the astonishing lack of reaction from the Labour Benches. As we United fans say, only 11 more premiership wins to go, and Mikel Arteta will still be one short of Alex Ferguson. In this world cup year, we remember with deep warmth and affection the heroes of 1966. I refer, of course, to the band of brothers who were so inspired by England’s world cup victory that they set up Westfields football club in Hereford. I pay special tribute to the legend that is Andy Morris—not ignoring his brilliant wife Sandra—who has been synonymous with Westfields ever since. Whatever happens in Makerfield, it seems inevitable that there will soon be a leadership contest in the Labour party. The markets are spooked, the pundits are pontificating, the pollsters are rampant, but amid all the media speculation, there is one candidate—one extraordinary dark horse—who has not yet even been mentioned. That is why I am delighted, in relation to the leadership of the Labour party, to announce my strong support, in his bid for the top job, for the Leader of the House. Colleagues will have noticed a certain coyness from the Leader of the House about his own position last week in business questions. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is the clear sign of a man preparing to throw his hat into the ring. For months now, I have lived with a secret fear that the Government will have a reshuffle and the Leader of the House will be relegated from the light of the Chamber back into the stygian depths of the Labour Whips Office. Luckily, the Prime Minister has remained far too weak even to contemplate a reshuffle, but I ask colleagues across the House, and especially on the Labour Benches, to contemplate that hideous prospect—that drastic loss of warmth, and wit and wisdom from these proceedings. As Ben Jonson said of Francis Bacon, when he spoke, the fear of everyone was that he would make an end. Some foolish and ill-advised people will say that this leadership bid is an improbable one, and possibly even, in this age of botox, TikTok and Justin Trudeau, that a Prime Minister should be constructed on more youthful, foolish, inexperienced and, dare I say it, sleeker lines. To which I cry shame! Fie upon these unimaginative gloomsters and naysayers. What fools they are. It is precisely that apparently diffident Clark Kent exterior that makes my candidate—our candidate—such a politically electrifying prospect. In a world in which a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously advance the total economic shambles of supermarket food price caps, any move is on the table. The Leader of the House can therefore immediately become leader of the Labour party. It is simple common sense; we barely even need to change the name. Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to know that under my steady hand, the Leader of the House’s Labour leadership campaign is ready to roll. The website is in hand, the baseball caps and T-shirts have been ordered. As Hilaire Belloc said of Lord Lundy: “The stocks were sold; the Press was squared; The Middle Class was quite prepared.” Donors are falling over themselves to associate themselves with this extraordinary political intervention. The one crucial remaining question is what campaign slogan we should use. We thought about “Common sense with Campbell”, “Campbell for the country” or “All in for Alan”, but there are two slogans with which we really cannot fail. When he responds, I know the Leader of the House will want to take the opportunity to formally launch the campaign himself from the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he can also indicate which of these two slogans he prefers: is it to be “Yes, we Cam-bell”, channelling the spirit of Barack Obama, or more inclusively still, “Make Britain Campbell again”? A nation awaits, so may we have a debate in Government time on this vital question?

• 21 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House very much for announcing the business, and I welcome all colleagues back to the House. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating His Majesty the King not only on the Gracious Speech yesterday, but on his glorious triumph in the United States of America, in particular reminding our American cousins of the joy not of monarchy, which they know well enough from recent experience and over the years, but of a genuinely constitutional monarchy. The House will know of my obsession with building NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology & Engineering—our new university in Hereford. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in celebrating its second graduation ceremony last Saturday. Its flagship degree was recently accredited for chartered certification by the prestigious Institution of Engineering and Technology, making its graduates, in that sense, holders of degrees equal to those to be found at Oxbridge or Russell group universities. Its latest crop of graduates have gone on to companies including Airbus, Hitachi Energy and GKN, and there is huge interest from applicants in its new bachelor’s and master’s degrees in autonomous robotics and drone technologies, which start in September. If Members will excuse the pun, as an engineering institution, NMITE is really starting to motor. I strongly encourage any Members who might be interested and wish to know more to drop me a line, because this route to local economic growth is of great potential significance. It is fair to say that we have known quieter weeks than the couple since we last convened. What have we discovered during that period? A previously undisclosed gift of £5 million from a foreign cryptocurrency donor to the leader of Reform UK is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are reassured that it is entirely unrelated to that hon. Member’s recent interest in investing in Bitcoin. The leader of the Green party, Zack Polanski, has admitted that he failed to pay council tax, was not in fact a spokesman for the Red Cross and was never a full member of the National Council for Hypnotherapy, which I am sure will come as a great relief to women across the country. He must be an acute embarrassment to my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and we thank her for her resilience. All that news will come as a surprise to precisely no one. Lest we forget, nearly 100 Labour Members of Parliament, including four Ministers, have gone public with their opposition to the Prime Minister remaining in office. Three Cabinet Ministers have called on him to set a public timetable for his departure. Few Labour MPs, if any, believe that the Prime Minister will lead them into the next election. Mr Speaker, you will be aware, I am sure, of the famous lines: “The boy stood on the burning deck Whence all but he had fled”. It may be that the Leader of the House is the last person to occupy the position of standing on the burning deck when all but he has fled. Others are fleeing, and it is astonishing that Buckingham Palace had reportedly been forced to ask whether the King’s Speech was, in fact, really going ahead. Even now, I notice the slight sparsity of Members—actually, on all sides of the House—in this earlier sitting, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is widely reported to be preparing a bid for the leadership of the Labour party. King Lear asks in his bewilderment: “Who is it that can tell me who I am?” So it is with the Prime Minister. He does not know and nor, it seems, does anyone around him. Amid all this Westminster madness, it falls to me to insert a nugget of something that actually affects every Member of this House in their constituencies—a matter of great local importance. The House will know that the Construction Industry Training Board is meant to be the guardian of construction skills in this country, funded by a statutory levy on the industry. Yet employer confidence is rapidly being eroded by the CITB’s recent behaviour. An Ofsted “requires improvement” judgment, the Farmer review’s call for a “fundamental reset”, poor communications with levy payers, a rarely updated website and a slow, cumbersome booking system all point in the same direction. At the same time, firms report duplication, delay and poor value for money. For some courses—forklift training, for example—the CITB route can cost more than twice as much as the non-CITB route, take considerably longer and yet lead to precisely the same qualification. Many of the courses are not optional. Small construction firms must keep up with industry standards and legal health and safety requirements. They need a system that is fast, clear and good value, not one that makes compliance harder, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that are so crucial to our economy. Meanwhile, the levy is a tax in all but name that must be paid regardless of the services offered. The CITB has expenditures of nearly £300 million, but gives less than half of that away in grants, while its wage bill and headcount steadily rise. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Ministers to write to me explaining how they intend to restore employer confidence in the CITB, particularly among small construction companies, improve course access and value for money, and reform an organisation that appears to be losing its way?

• 14 May 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid you may have been slightly misled by your officials. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and specifically refers to it as something that the Committee was invited to look forward to. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to mention it. The specific point that I am making, if I am allowed to make it, is that we should not defer changes out of an expectation that restoration and renewal, whatever it may be, will be a panacea; we should be getting on with changes as soon as they can be made. One of the things that is so attractive about the work that the House Administration did in responding to the report, and to the Committee, was the energetic way in which it started the process of making changes when they were pointed out. I remember the director general coming forward with several hundred potential changes that could be made, and on which the House Administration had started to make progress. Whatever the future may bring, let there be no delay in making this House as genuinely open and accessible as it possibly can be. Let me congratulate everyone on all the work that has been done so far, the officials who have made it happen and the Committee.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House may not have been in his place, but I suggested that it might be possible to have two debates—a digestive debate and then a debate with a decision. Even if one of those is a Backbench debate, would that be something that he would support?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for his remarks, and fully echo both their detail and their sentiment. As he says, accessibility should never be an afterthought. In the case of the House of Commons, there is not just the common decency that goes with trying to support anyone with a disability or another need. A vital aspect of being an effective parliamentarian is that every single Member of Parliament, whatever their background and personal needs, should be able to discharge their full capabilities on behalf of their constituents. That is why it is so central to what we do as a House. Let me join the Leader of the House in welcoming the report. I also very much welcome the response from the House Administration, which is a very constructive document, by and large. We on the Committee are grateful for the constructive way in which the House Administration engaged with our concerns all the way through. I pay tribute not just to the current and previous members of the Committee, but to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and indeed to the current Leader of the House for steering this ship home to port. I have a couple of reflections to add on this topic. Of course, when we think about accessibility, it is very easy just to think of physical changes to the structure of the House of Commons, but the Leader of House was absolutely right to think about not just Members but visitors, staff and people who use this building in many different ways, and about accessibility in relation to the public’s understanding of what we are trying to do. There is a tradition in British political thought that the House of Commons should have not merely an efficient aspect to it, as Bagehot would put it, but a dignified aspect to it and even a certain mystique. I think there is some truth to that—as a Conservative, I would say that, wouldn’t I? There is some benefit to sticking with procedures that have proven their worth, even if it requires a little bit of effort to understand them. As a result, I would be very suspicious and concerned, on behalf of the House as an institution, about anything that I thought was dumbing down, but I do not think that is what is at stake here. What is at stake here are intelligent simplifications of language and presentation that allow Members to understand from the get-go how they can contribute constructively and effectively to what we are doing. Although the changes that were put through by previous House Administration officials in relation to the Order Paper did not come out of this process, I think that they were very constructive and helpful. The Order Paper is now unrecognisably better than what it was when I entered Parliament just a few years ago. Let me say a couple of other things. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and it is important to keep these two things separate. The House will know that I am an extreme sceptic on the restoration and renewal process. The content of what is being proposed is poorly conceived, and there is a lack of a fixed budget. I am also sceptical about the process that has been followed and the lack of what I consider genuinely effective governance, but it is important to recognise that the report talks about that in order to reflect the importance of accessibility to that process. Whatever decision the House makes on restoration and renewal—I hope it will go for a drastically different version of what we are talking about—it will respect the need for full accessibility to this House and the House of Lords. I do not think that is on the table or up for negotiation at all, but one key point is that when we discuss this, we should not regard restoration and renewal as any substitute—

• 16 Apr 2026 · Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a couple of words about the excellent contributions to the debate. I will, if I may, pick up on a couple of points. I do not think that anything more needs to be added to what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said about properly accessible toilets; he was absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made a well observed point about the diversity of experience and views among wheelchair users. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his gracious words about his predecessor, the brilliant Robert Halfon. I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for the sceptic’s view on restoration and renewal. I ask the Leader of the House whether it might be possible to have two debates on that. We could first have what one might call a digestive debate, to discuss the actual process of R and R, how it will work and what might be involved, and then a second debate on the motion. The figure of £40 billion is so big that it would be helpful for the House to pre-consider the matter, before considering the motion. I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) very much for his moving remarks about his experience on the assisted dying private Member’s Bill. Finally, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) reminded us how difficult it is to replicate the specific experience of individual disabled MPs, and how important it is to listen to what they have said. With all that in mind, I thank the Committee and the Leader of the House for all the work they have done, and the Administration for its response.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

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

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  And he is from Northern Ireland to boot. He is an honest man facing his demons and triumphing. What a contrast with the Prime Minister’s failure to answer, or even to engage with, the question at Prime Minister’s questions. The last four Prime Minister’s questions have focused on the Iran war, fuel duty, North sea oil and gas, and the defence review. Of the 24 responses given by the Prime Minister to the Leader of the Opposition, 23 have ignored the question and changed the subject. Yesterday, Mr Speaker, we even saw the Prime Minister hectoring you in your Chair, on live television, just for doing your job. That is a shameful record, for which the Prime Minister should write to you—and therefore by implication to this House—and apologise. This behaviour is contemptuous—of you, Mr Speaker, of the Leader of the Opposition, and of all MPs, now and in years gone by. Our job, however imperfectly we may do it, is to pursue the truth on behalf of those we represent. If we give that up, then heaven help us. It is the Prime Minister’s job to answer, and to hold himself accountable for those answers. No Prime Minister likes to do that, but those are the rules. If the Prime Minister does not like the rules, does not want to offer honest answers, or is not up to it, he should step back and let someone else do the job instead. I thank you, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all of us for maintaining the traditions of this House. I have three questions for the Leader of the House today, and I ask him first if he shares my view that the Prime Minister’s behaviour is wholly inappropriate and disrespectful of this House. This is just part of a wider problem to do with accountability and disrespect for Parliament. My noble Friend Lord Gilbert’s parliamentary question of 16 March asked the Government about authorised Budget briefings to the media. Lord Livermore replied on the Government’s behalf: “Consistent with these principles, there are occasions where the Government will trail and/or announce policy ahead of a Budget to provide context and help the public understand major fiscal events.” This is nonsense. The rules are perfectly clear: major events must be announced first to this House. To do otherwise is a breach of the rules of this House, a flagrant violation of the ministerial code and contempt of Parliament. Previous Governments, as we all know, have done this on occasion, since 1997 at least, and previous Chancellors of the Exchequer have been fired for inadvertent briefings to the media before a Budget, but never before has it been a Government’s declared policy to ignore Parliament. The deeper constitutional point is, of course, that in our representative system of government, the people are Parliament, and Parliament is the people. Nothing good can come of an attempt to undermine the British constitution by this means. I ask the Leader of the House, secondly, to comment on this, and to set out what he will do to get this policy of non-announcement of major measures withdrawn and revoked. Finally, Lord Robertson spoke of the “corrosive complacency” of current political leadership, and of putting our country at risk. He said, “We cannot defend Britain with an ever-expanding welfare budget.” No one has more experience and expertise on defence across the whole of Parliament, in both Chambers. This man, the noble Lord Robertson, was a political activist for Labour since 1961. Just think. He is the last person one could imagine wanting to offer public criticism of a Labour Prime Minister, let alone in these terms—a man Labour to his boots, but a patriot first. It is impossible to blame previous Governments for this. This Government and this Prime Minister created the defence review and the defence investment plan—no one else. It is their choice and their decision. It matters because in every constituency across the country there are companies wanting to know what the Government have decided. They are waiting for leadership. They need to know the numbers and the commitment, and, of course, our adversaries need to know that we are serious in our resolve, and they need to see the measure of that seriousness. My great fear—perhaps it is also Lord Robertson’s great fear—is that the Government will never publish this document, or they will do so in a completely insubstantial and lightweight way, and that 10 months of delay will end in nothing, and it will all have been a colossal waste of time and energy. The Prime Minister has been utterly hopeless on this. He told the Liaison Committee weeks ago that the document was on his desk, yet nothing has happened. I leave it to colleagues to judge the truth of his remarks. I ask the Leader of the House, thirdly, if he will give this House a cast-iron guarantee on behalf of the Government that the defence investment plan will be published, and not simply shelved and forgotten. The one-year anniversary is in July.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  As the House will know, this has been a week of sporting triumph. I think of the Lionesses’ 1-0 world cup qualifier against the world champions, Italy—or former world champions, I should say—and Rory McIlroy defending his Masters title, which was another great moment. Whether or not we play, watch, or even like golf, it was an extraordinary, gripping achievement.

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

  More

  Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful if you could clarify that the House’s position is, and has always been, that we expect Members to show courtesy by informing other Members if they intend to mention them, not their constituency, and that in the normal course of business, Members of this House may always refer to places without any intention of discourtesy towards the Members of Parliament who represents them.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Let me begin by paying tribute to President Zelensky. Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, he gave an extraordinary speech here this week. Like Auden’s “The Shield of Achilles”, it was a speech of poetry and hope, but also of steel. He showed that Ukraine, far from being bowed by Russia, is now sharing its expertise in counter-drone defence with nations across the Gulf and elsewhere. I give thanks for the swift action that the Government have taken to support households that are now facing sharp and unexpected increases in the cost of heating oil, including many in Herefordshire. As Herefordshire goes, so goes the UK. The events in the middle east have exposed a hard truth: this country is dangerously exposed on energy, and the Government’s policies are compounding that vulnerability. Around a fifth of the world’s oil and liquefied natural gas passes through the strait of Hormuz. When that is threatened, prices spike, and when prices spike, everything else is hit—heating, electricity, industry and jobs. Every industrialised economy relies on secure and affordable energy, yet this country imports around 60% of the gas we use. We pay far more for it than our competitor nations do—around three times US prices—so when shocks come, the benefits of higher gas prices go to other countries, but our citizens bear the higher costs and added insecurity. That structural vulnerability has built up over decades under Governments of all the major parties, but this Government are negligently or deliberately making it much worse. They have blocked new North sea licences, and sent a clear signal that domestic oil and gas production is to be run down, regardless of demand. The consequences of these decisions are already visible. The CF Fertilisers plant near Chester has closed thanks to high energy costs, so this country now imports ammonia instead. The Grangemouth refinery is ceasing its refining operations and becoming an import terminal. In Aberdeen, Scunthorpe and Teesside, investment is falling and companies are failing. Thousands of jobs have been lost, and tens of thousands more put at risk. Little wonder that a host of businesses and unions, including Unite, the GMB and even RenewableUK, have expressed their concern. These are not isolated events; they are the predictable effects of policy decisions taken by Ministers without any serious consideration of the economic and strategic consequences in the current context. The Energy Secretary often says that the problem is global gas prices, and that increasing domestic production makes no difference. Of course that is nonsense, because domestic production actually boosts jobs, public revenues and national resilience while lowering emissions. But that line is also dangerously misleading. Gas prices are regional, not global, because gas, unlike oil, is relatively expensive to ship and store. The Energy Secretary is confusing a global market with global pricing. It is a basic error. Alas, the Chancellor is no less confused. On Tuesday, she said: “You see countries like Canada and Norway increasing their production, and every country’s got to play their part”. But, in her view, that does not include the UK. Her policy is precisely the opposite: not to increase but to reduce oil and gas production. You could not make it up. Shortly we will hear the Business Secretary make a statement on how the Government want to increase domestic steel production, even while they are stopping the domestic oil and gas on which that steel production relies. It is an absolute nonsense. If we cut domestic production in the face of steady demand, imports will fill the gap, but an increasingly import-dependent system is forced to rely ever more on pipelines, LNG cargoes and interconnectors. These are vulnerable fixed assets that are open to damage and disruption from abroad, and there is a further consequence. Modern conflict is determined by industrial capacity in steel, chemicals, fuels and supply chains, yet the Government are allowing these national sovereign capabilities to erode. So this is a policy that increases carbon emissions, deprives Britain of tax revenues, worsens the balance of payments, hurts consumers and businesses, and weakens both our energy resources and our national security—that is quite an achievement. It is hard to imagine a more confused or dangerous approach. I do not want a debate on this topic as we can all see what is happening: at some point there must be a U-turn, because Iran is making a fool of the Energy Secretary. No, I desperately want the Leader of the House to get the Prime Minister to see the madness of this approach and get the policy changed as soon as he possibly can.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on his excellent speech and on securing this debate, and all those who have participated in it. I thank the Minister for allowing me a few words. On your behalf, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will mention your constituent Steve Mawby, because he has been a key campaigner in this important and very difficult area. I first got involved in it before I became a Member of Parliament in 2007, and I pay particular tribute to the late Roy Harries and Les Collard, because they brought to my attention the injustice that had been perpetrated on older pensioners by the Special Metals Wiggin pension fund. Hundreds of people were affected by that, and, alas, many of them are now dead. They were almost invariably widows, who were left receiving half of a much-diminished pension. These pensioners have not received a single penny in top-up payments since the legislation kicked in, because the company’s trustees have decided not to pay any discretionary bonuses at any point. The result is that those pensioners’ incomes are 55% lower than they would have been, and, for widows, half of that. It is an absolute outrage and a great historical injustice, and as the hon. Member says, the fact that an injustice occurred in the past does not mean that it is not important to address it now. Of course, there was a clear blunder in the legislation. I have raised this issue in the House over the years, and it is a matter of great embarrassment that previous Conservative Administrations and the coalition Government did not address it, but there is now the opportunity to do so. On the Special Metals Wiggin pension fund, I recognise that the trustees are often directly or indirectly controlled by the company, regardless of whether they are formally independent. The company has not paid any bonuses or top-ups, and it is now owned by a large American company, Precision Castparts Corp., which is itself owned by Warren Buffett and Berkshire Hathaway. I have written to Buffett, who has said that he is not willing to help either. It is a source of great sadness to me that even such a great philanthropist and entrepreneur such should have failed to do so. My question to the Minister is this: given that the Special Metals Wiggin pension fund has been in surplus for many years, could he, as well as considering the question of historical injustice, consider the question of whether the trustees should be required, out of the surpluses they have, to pay top-ups to the pensioners? I hope they will consider doing so retrospectively but, if not, they should do so in way that is generous, that recognises the terrible injustice that has been done, and that pays proper tribute to Les Collard, Roy Harries and all the great men and women of the Wiggin pensioners, who we justly celebrate and whose injustice we seek to fight.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I will not detain the Minister long. If a group of trustees never pays a discretionary bonus, even though the scheme is in surplus, it starts to look like it is a policy of theirs to discriminate against a subset of their beneficiaries, and I think that is illegal. I would be grateful for his guidance on that.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I can understand why the Minister thinks those cases are harder; in some respects, they are less hard, because in those cases changes have been made reflecting circumstances. In the cases that I am talking about, there is a policy to discriminate against a settled group of beneficiaries. That is the bit that I think is potentially illegal.