PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 13 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
Monday 24 February—Remaining stages of the Crown Estate Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 25 February—Second Reading of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 26 February—Opposition day (5th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.
Thursday 27 February—General debate on the third anniversary of the war in Ukraine, followed by a general debate on St David’s day. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 28 February—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 3 March will include:
Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 4 March—All stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.
Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (1st allotted day). At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 6 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.
Meanwhile, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has reported that “zero fiscal headroom remains” to deal with any shocks, in the same week that President Trump has announced 25% tariffs on steel. It is easy to see what has happened here: Labour never expected President Trump to win. It sent a team over to campaign for his opponent. The Government passed an anti-growth Budget, and they did not build enough leeway into their financial planning. Indeed, the Chancellor promised no new taxes or spending. Now we are having to live with the consequences.
It was also hard to miss the continuing controversy that the Attorney General is creating, and harder still not to notice the extremely critical words of his Labour colleague, Lord Glasman. I do not propose to repeat those words here, but they point to two issues that demand this House’s full and proper attention. In both cases, the concern is not over the legal positions taken by the Attorney General as such, but the contradictions that they offer to the rest of Government policy. People can agree or disagree about the policy, but the contradictions cannot be fudged. They cannot be blamed on others, and they require explanation.
The first contradiction is in relation to international law. On 3 February, the Attorney General told the Council of Europe that the Government would
“never withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights, or refuse to comply with judgments of the court”.
In doing so, he was simply restating settled UK policy for many decades, a fact that he somehow neglected to mention. The difficulty arises, however, because the Government’s new legislation on small boats appears to retain a measure banning migrants from claiming protections under the modern slavery laws. That is a ban that the Prime Minister went out of his way to denounce when it was first introduced in 2023. In his words:
“It is a crying shame that…we face legislation that drives a coach and horses through our world-leading modern slavery framework, which protects women from exploitation.”—[Official Report, 8 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 295.]
That is quite a U-turn. You see the deeper problem, Mr Speaker. Which is it to be: will the Government abide by international law in this instance and protect women from exploitation, as the Prime Minister said, or will they reverse his newly adopted position in support of the ban?
The second problem relates to domestic law. Last November, the Attorney General strengthened his official guidance to Government lawyers on possible legal risk. He specifically cautioned against offering legal support for policies that have only a tenable case. Elsewhere, he has pledged to restore checks on Executive—that is, Government—action. This comes at a time when the Prime Minister has specifically pledged to end vexatious litigation while building a huge amount of new housing and infrastructure. You see the problem, Mr Speaker. It was the problem that the noble Lord Glasman was pointing out when he praised the rule of law, but not of lawyers. This edict will have a chilling effect on what I think we can already agree is pretty sluggish decision making by Ministers.
Will the Government now take less legal risk, as the Attorney General requires? Will their lawyers now require Ministers to act only when they can defeat a legal challenge, or will they curb the judicial reviews and other legal cases that will otherwise inevitably disrupt their building plans? I do not expect the Leader of the House to tell us how the Government plan to resolve those obvious problems today, but the House would be grateful for a debate in Government time on what on earth the Government’s approach will be to resolving them.
Work is already under way, with the Standards Committee’s inquiry on Members’ outside employment and the Procedure Committee’s inquiry on proxy votes and call lists. Today, we have set out three further areas for consideration: improving accessibility; ensuring that the Chamber remains the crucible of national debate; and how we can provide more certainty on parliamentary business.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of points and gave a list of economic statistics. I might give him some alternative ones, if I may. Inflation is down, mortgage rates are coming down, wages are growing at their fastest rate in three years, business investment is at the highest level for 19 years, and the International Monetary Fund and the OECD are both saying that Britain will be Europe’s fastest growing major economy in coming years. He supported the former Prime Minister —not the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who is in his place, but the one who crashed the economy and sent mortgage rates flying and inflation to record highs—so I will not take lectures from him.
Yet again, the right hon. Gentleman raised the Attorney General. Quite honestly, the way in which the Conservatives and their friends in the right-wing media are trying to undermine the Attorney General is pathetic. They were once the party of law and order, and now they seek to undermine law and order at every turn. As someone who works closely with the Attorney General, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is an asset to the Government and a formidable partner in our attempts to restore integrity to how we make and implement laws in this country. The Conservatives’ laws did not fit that remit, and that is why in many cases they never got off the ground. They were challenged time and again in the courts, wasting everyone’s time and money and not delivering the outcomes that they wanted. We will not take lectures from them on that.
The shadow Leader of the House did not want to talk about the substance of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which we debated this week. That is because the previous Government lost control of our borders: net migration rose to a record high of almost 1 million in their last year in office, and small boat crossings increased by one hundredfold. To be fair to him, he knew that the Rwanda plan was a gimmick and would not work—he said as much when he resigned as a Minister—but I am at a loss as to why he and Conservative Front Benchers voted against giving the Border Security Command new counter-terrorism powers and other measures. They are chasing the tail of Reform so much that they are going around in dizzying circles, leaving the incredible sight of the modern Conservative party voting against strengthening our borders.
I also noticed that the right hon. Gentleman did not take up my invitation last week to celebrate the Leader of the Opposition’s first 100 days in office. Earlier this week, however, he did mark the anniversary of another leader being elected. Those were the days, weren’t they? Back then, the Tory party knew what it stood for—back when it was a serious party and represented large parts of the country. I am not sure Margaret Thatcher would even recognise the Conservative party today. It is no wonder the Conservatives herald and respect their former leaders far more than their current leader. Let us be honest: like their current leader, their party is a shadow of its former self.
In Woking, for example, successive Conservative administrations at the council racked up £2 billion of debt with absolutely no plan for how to pay it off. In Greater Essex, Conservative-run Thurrock ran up debts of around £1.5 billion largely due to investments in a solar farm that did not exist. With both Essex and Surrey now on the fast track for local government reorganisation, what will happen to those debts?
Last week, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon), wrote a letter to all the leaders of the two-tier councils and unitary authorities in Essex, in which he said:
“there is no proposal for council debt to be addressed centrally or written off as part of reorganisation…proposals should reflect the extent to which the implications of this can be managed locally.”
Will the Leader of the House ask the Minister to come forward with a statement to confirm that what he really means is that residents across places such as Essex and Surrey will be forced to pay for the incompetence of previous Tory administrations of other councils, and that they are likely to see reduced services and higher council tax bills simply because this Labour Government are determined to press ahead with local government reorganisation but not prepared to offer any financial support to alleviate that?
We have given local government a significant settlement this year, but we recognise that more needs to be done. We need to fix the long-term problems; we need multi-year settlements. I know the transition will be difficult, but the devolution revolution—giving local areas more say and more powers over how they spend and raise their revenue—will, in time, lead to more secure and sustainable funding for local government. I will ensure the relevant Minister comes to this House with regular updates.
In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House, on 6 March there will be a debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a debate on political finance rules. On Thursday 13 March, if we are given the time, there will be a debate on the future of farming, followed by a debate on knife crime among children and young people. On a rough calculation, with the queue of applications we have for the Chamber, we have enough business to allocate until the end of June, provided we are given every single available Thursday.
In Westminster Hall when we come back, on Tuesday 25 February there will be a debate on maternity services, followed on the Thursday by a debate on rural crime and a debate on women’s health. I will leave the other business for when we come back.
On Sunday 23 February, when we are due to come back after recess, the renowned hate preacher Mohamed Hoblos is due to speak in this country. He has been banned in Germany and Holland. The shadow Home Secretary has written to the Home Secretary asking that he be banned from this country. Given that antisemitism is at its highest peak ever and that anti-Muslim hatred is at a peak, it is clear that the last thing we want is someone coming along stirring up racial and religious hatred. Will the Leader of the House use her good offices to encourage the Home Secretary to issue a banning order to prevent this man from coming to this country?
The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) raises a serious matter, as he often does, about how we tackle antisemitism and hate speech, and how we take action to ensure that those who are spreading hate and antisemitism are prevented from doing so. I shall certainly raise the matter with the Home Secretary and make sure that he gets a full response.
This year, rugby league celebrates its 130th anniversary. In all that time, no representative of the sport has ever received the highest honour of a knighthood or damehood, although there have been many worthy candidates for those honours and recipients of others, including Billy Boston, Alex Murphy and Kevin Sinfield. Does the Leader of the House share my dismay, frustration and surprise at this oversight? Can she advise me on how best to raise it, and who with, to ensure that our great game and some of the outstanding individuals who represent it receive the recognition that they deserve?
It is indeed a surprise that rugby league players have not been honoured in the way that others have. As my hon. Friend will know, I cannot comment on the right of individuals to be awarded honours, but I too think that Kevin Sinfield has been an incredible ambassador not just for sport but for charitable fundraising, and he is definitely someone I think we should all consider. I shall ensure that the powers that be have heard my hon. Friend’s comments, and I will help him to make representations.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are absolutely committed to working towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but he is right to point out that defence spending has been too low to meet our country’s strategic needs. He will also know that the last time Government spending on defence reached 2.5% of GDP was under the last Labour Government. It never reached that level under his party.
The Deputy Prime Minister recently agreed to nip up the road to Fylde to have a pint with me to discuss an issue, so could I tempt the Leader of the House with an ice cream, to come for a walk with me on St Anne’s beach to see this project, to meet some of the fantastic people who have put in more than 10,500 hours of volunteering, and to discuss coastal life?
I had heard about the project to restore the dunes, but I had not appreciated that so many Christmas trees were being buried. I am always happy to accept such a lovely invitation, but perhaps we can wait until the weather is a bit nicer.
If we are to meet net zero, we need to address the CO2 emissions from our housing stock. We have some of the oldest housing stock in Europe, and it accounts for 17% of our CO2 emissions. As I understand it, one issue is that houses in conservation areas and grade II properties cannot be changed to double glazing or secondary glazing. Can we have a debate on the hundreds of thousands of affected homes across this country? These households want to do the right thing for this country by reducing their CO2 emissions, and they want to reduce their bills. That means changing their glazing—it is as simple as that—so we need to change our planning legislation.
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and there is always a balance to be struck between keeping people’s homes warm and their bills down, while retaining heritage and other matters. He is right to raise this point, and I will ensure that he gets a full response.
We need a clear statement from the Government that, instead of regulation, they will return Thames Water to public ownership so that the people of London and the whole region can enjoy clean water, and so that our seas will no longer be polluted.
“If he wants to do a pop quiz, he can use Google.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 155.]
Google says that plans for 10 pathways are being considered. Here is why it matters: the plan had one example that was found to be unsafe, was met with outcry from doctors, and has been removed. How can this House and the public hold the Government to account if we do not get answers to questions? I know that the Health Secretary has been under a lot of pressure. He has lost a Health Minister, and Prime Minister Llama—I mean Starmer—has produced a new one, but that is no excuse for the Health Secretary not being across the detail. Will the Leader of the House kindly write to him to ask what 10 tests are being considered, so that we can scrutinise them properly in this House?
“I hope I killed someone. Oh well, you know what, I will get three, four, five years. Hopefully I killed them.”
Despite his admission of guilt at the scene and there being no doubt as to his crime, he was still entitled to a one third reduction in his sentence as a result of his guilty plea, so 15 years were reduced to 10 years, and with good behaviour he could serve as little as six years and eight months in prison. Bethany’s family do not believe that that reflects the severity and heartbreak of his crime. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on sentencing policy?
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.