PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 30 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
Monday 3 November—Second Reading of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.
Tuesday 4 November—Opposition day (12th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Wednesday 5 November—Consideration of Lords message to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
The House will rise for the November recess at the conclusion of business on Wednesday 5 November and return on Tuesday 11 November.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 November includes:
Tuesday 11 November—General debate on the contribution of the armed forces to mark Remembrance.
Wednesday 12 November—Opposition day (13th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 13 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.
Friday 14 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 17 November includes:
Monday 17 November—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
I know the whole House will want to join me in sending our very best wishes to the victims of the hurricane in Jamaica, and now also Cuba, Haiti and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
I want to pay a personal tribute to Prunella Scales, who died this week. She was a magnificent actress, the linchpin of a great acting dynasty and—as was her husband Timothy West—a wonderful reader of audiobooks.
Among the news this week have been the following items: the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), has been elected as deputy leader of the Labour party, and has vowed to work constructively with No. 10 Downing Street; the Director of Public Prosecutions has publicly contradicted the Prime Minister in relation to the collapsed China spying case; the Labour party has fallen in the polls to a record low for a recently elected Government; and Irish citizens may now be forced to have digital identity cards to work in this country under the Government’s new plans.
I would like to raise with the Leader of the House two important issues, one directly relating to the recent business of the House. As a former Chief Whip, he will know that the first question at Prime Minister’s questions always follows a simple formula: the Prime Minister is asked to list their engagements; he or she typically presents public condolences or congratulations and comments on an issue—often an international issue—affecting the whole House; and then says, “This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others,” and so on.
Unfortunately, since taking office last year, the present Prime Minister has increasingly misused his first engagements question. Two weeks ago, he used it to avoid making a full statement to the House about China, which I do not think can have pleased the Speaker’s Office. This week, he used it to try to score a series of partisan political points—by my counting, the eighth time he has tried to do this since taking office. This is an abuse of procedure, and it is a discourtesy to this House. Its effect is to turn an open question into a party political broadcast. It undermines a valuable opportunity to bring the House together every week on a matter of public importance before the usual knockabout of PMQs begins. It is unworthy of the Prime Minister’s office and unworthy of the Prime Minister, who is a very decent human being. Therefore, may I politely invite the Leader of the House to ask the Prime Minister to desist? [Interruption.] And may I wish him good luck in doing so?
My second issue concerns the so-called graduate premium. The Government hold an extremely powerful set of data known as the longitudinal educational outcomes —or LEO data—which link people’s school results, university records and later earnings. Many people in this House—including, perhaps more than any of us, the Leader of the House—will know that education can transform people’s lives for the better. This dataset can show what happens and how it does so in detail, but most of the data remain entirely hidden. Only limited figures have been published, such as average graduate earnings five years after university. The Government also have information on what happens to those who do not go to university, but this too is withheld, so we still cannot answer questions that are crucial for many people. How financially worthwhile is a particular course or a particular institution? How effective are apprenticeships? What difference does university really make?
The secrecy weakens public trust and good public policy. Families and young people are being forced to make major life choices without clear facts, because no member of the public or, indeed, Member of this House can see which courses or institutions genuinely improve this kind of opportunity. It seems that the Government themselves will increasingly use the data to shape policy, but without making those data public. People go to university for many different reasons, and financial returns are only part of the story, but these data are gathered at public expense and describe public outcomes. With the right safeguards, they should be open for review and for public debate and discussion. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has explained exactly how, so will the Leader of the House ask his colleagues in the Department for Education to make the LEO data public soon?
This week, the House marked 75 years since the House of Commons Chamber was rebuilt from ruins after it was bombed during the second world war, and I thank Mr Speaker for the events that he has organised this week to mark this important anniversary. As we approach Remembrance Sunday, I was pleased to announce the general debate on the contribution of our armed forces, which will take place on Armistice Day. At this time each year, our nations come together to give profound thanks to the men and women of our armed forces and veterans—heroes who sacrifice so much for our country.
I also thank Mr Speaker for the Speaker’s Conference, which has brought forward its second report, with recommendations aimed at tackling abuse and intimidation towards MPs and candidates. I thank the conference for this important work. The Government will look closely at the recommendations, not least through my role on the defending democracy taskforce.
I would like to express my personal thanks to Mike McCarthy BEM, who is departing from the Government Whips Office this week, having served every Government since 1987. I hope the whole House will join me in wishing him well. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
On the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks about the recent election of a new Labour deputy leader, I would gently point out that this was done by taking the matter to the members of the party, who made their choice—and a very good choice, indeed. That stands in stark contrast to what has happened on the Opposition Benches, where the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has simply foisted himself on the Conservative party as the unofficial deputy leader.
On Prime Minister’s questions, if what the Prime Minister is doing is not in order, I would expect whoever is in the Chair to point that out. However, to some extent my right hon. and learned Friend cannot win, because if he does not comment on the matter of the day or matters of urgency, people will ask him why, and if he does, he gets called out for it.
On the shadow Leader of the House’s point about school results, I know he is a passionate advocate for education, including higher education. I absolutely agree that school results and education are transformational in people’s lives. I will draw to the attention to the Secretary of State for Education, who shares our view on the transformation that education can bring, his point about what further data can be usefully made public.
Let me just add—and before the shadow Leader of the House calls me out for knockabout, this is not knockabout, but simply mentioning some of the things he might have added—that this week the Government announced an £8 billion deal to supply Typhoon fighter jets to Turkey, supporting 20,000 jobs, with nearly 6,000 workers at Warton now knowing that their jobs are secure; Awaab’s law has come into force, improving lives for tenants living in 4 million social rented homes across England; and today’s announcement of 60,000 knives being taken off our streets is very good news, along with the news that knife crime is falling. I hope lives will be changed as a result. This is what the Government mean by our plan for change in action: making defence a driver of growth in the economy, and also driving renewal and opportunity up and down our country.
May we have an urgent debate on the accountability of institutions for the use of public money? Walsall College and Walsall council are closing the iconic Leather Museum against the wishes of local people, but no financial information is available. Please could we have such a debate on financial information and accountability?
Earlier this week, we were treated to the delight of a Conservative Opposition day, and the main thing we learned is that the Conservatives do enjoy being in opposition. We had the shadow Housing Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), decrying the housing crisis that their Government left behind, and the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), committing to reducing the welfare bill that went up on their watch.
We hear that we are to get yet another Conservative Opposition day next week. The Conservatives are set to get 17 days to the Liberal Democrats’ three in this parliamentary Session. We would just gently suggest that, if we want to elevate the debate in this Chamber, we may want to redress that balance in the next Session.
I know that the Government are set to release a fraud strategy soon, but there are worrying reports that a key component is about to be ditched. British banks pick up the tab for fraud in this country. They are the ones who reimburse the victims, even though the vast majority of fraud these days happens on online platforms. The Prime Minister himself recognises this, saying before the election that tech companies have a clear obligation and should have a clear financial incentive to tackle fraud. That commitment is what we are worried about being dropped—apparently to appease American President Donald Trump.
The Government sent a gushing letter to big tech CEOs over the summer congratulating them on their efforts in tackling fraud, but UK Finance and the Financial Conduct Authority both disagree and say that big tech companies are not doing enough. Can the Government publish their fraud strategy and commit to holding big tech companies to account, ensuring that they are hit in the pocket for not tackling fraud?
I thank the hon. Member for raising the fraud strategy. Fraud is a hugely important matter for many of our constituents, and it remains a huge challenge and one of the most commonly experienced crimes in our country. As he points out, we will bring forward a new strategy later this year to protect consumers and businesses. We need everyone to play their part in that, and we continue to urge tech and social media companies to take stronger action to stop consumers being defrauded when using their sites. Writing to and asking them to do that does not necessarily equate with ditching any pledge we have made.
In Westminster Hall, there will be a debate next Tuesday on the impact of reductions in official development assistance on international development. On 11 November, there will be a debate on support for dyslexic pupils at school. On 13 November, there will be a debate on modern day slavery in Pakistan. On 18 November, there will be a debate to mark the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and on 20 November, debates on inequalities faced by unpaid carers and World COPD Day.
Turning to my own question, I have raised on a number of occasions the impact on my local community of the possible closure of Lindsey oil refinery. There is growing concern among union representatives, the local community and possible investors in the refinery, that the Government do not favour a bid that takes in the entire site and continues refining products. Indeed, one potential investor is considering a judicial review of the process. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the relevant Minister in the next few days?
I also commend the hon. Gentleman for his dedication to his constituency and for again raising this important matter. Our thoughts remain with the future of the Lindsey oil refinery workers at what we understand is a very difficult time for the community. I know he continues to raise this matter with Ministers. I will raise it with Ministers and ensure that he and, where appropriate, the House are updated on any developments.
“Business confidence has plumbed new depths”.
Ahead of Small Business Saturday on 6 December, will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate to celebrate and recognise the business owners working so hard and making great personal sacrifices to support jobs and services in our communities?
Last week, I had the pleasure of attending the national curry awards here in Parliament. Penn Tandoori, which is just down the road from where I live in my constituency, was named Wolverhampton restaurant of the year. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Penn Tandoori for its well-deserved win, and does he agree that it is crucial that the Government invest in and support our local hospitality businesses so that they can continue to grow and thrive?
I persevered, and I did so because Morley running club has raised £20,000 for good causes over the past four years. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Morley running club, to the firefighters who were raising money for their charity—firefighters in full kit were outpacing me—and perhaps grant a debate on the need to support these running clubs to run more charitable races, but perhaps ones that are less punishing on the knees?
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.