PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 24 April 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
Monday 28 April—Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 29 April—Remaining stages of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
Wednesday 30 April—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill, followed by motion to approve the draft Licensing Act 2003 (Victory in Europe Day Licensing Hours) Order 2025, followed by motion to approve a money resolution relating to the Crime and Policing Bill.
Thursday 1 May—General debate on Parkinson’s Awareness Month, followed by general debate on prisoners of conscience. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the early May bank holiday at the conclusion of business on Thursday 1 May and return on Tuesday 6 May. The provisional business for the week commencing 5 May will include:
Tuesday 6 May—General debate on the 80th anniversary of victory in Europe and victory over Japan.
Wednesday 7 May—Remaining stages of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 8 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 9 May—The House will not be sitting.
If I may, I would like to start with something small but important. My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) recently asked the Secretary of State for Education, in a written parliamentary question, whether she had visited any private schools since July last year. The junior Education Minister, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), replied that
“the Secretary of State for Education and the wider ministerial team visit a wide variety of education settings, including private schools. The Secretary of State for Education prioritises visits to our state schools, which serve 93% of pupils in England.”
All that is no doubt true but it is not an answer to the question that was put. All ministerial visits are logged by the Department, so it would have been and remains easy to compile the numbers. The Leader of the House has made clear on many occasions her commitment and belief that Members of this House should receive proper answers to their questions. Will she take up the matter with the Secretary of State for Education and see that a proper answer is given?
A few weeks ago I talked about how the Prime Minister was steadily being mugged by reality, and we have seen this again in the last few days with the Government’s U-turn on the ban on sourcing photovoltaic cells built with slave labour in China. The same can be said for the Government’s energy policy as a whole. It is important to put before the House the fact that Labour’s 2024 manifesto promised to cut bills, boost energy security and create cheaper, zero-carbon electricity by 2030, accelerating to net zero by 2050. It tried to allay public concerns by promising
“a phased and responsible transition in the North Sea that recognises…the ongoing role of oil and gas in our energy mix.”
Nine months on, we can see how that is going. The Government have already had to U-turn on their infeasible commitment to zero carbon electricity by 2030. Most recently, the situation with British Steel in Scunthorpe has underlined the deeper incoherence of their overall approach. By banning new oil and gas licences and preventing new exploration, the Government are committing the UK to greater dependency on imported oil and gas at higher cost, with higher emissions and under less democratic control. In so doing, they are not advancing environmental justice or economic resilience; they are accelerating a decline in energy sovereignty that will leave this country more polluting, less secure and, ultimately, poorer.
If we do not produce our own oil and gas, we will have to buy it. The difference is that it will come from overseas, and imported energy is not only more expensive but has a far higher carbon footprint. I remind the House that, for example, importing liquefied natural gas involves cooling gas to 160° below zero, shipping it thousands of miles from Qatar and regasifying it at a port in this country. The net emissions are up to four times higher than those from North sea gas. Crucially, UK territorial emissions go down, but overall emissions, including imports, are higher than they would be. This is not an honest policy.
Labour’s manifesto talked about the importance of energy security, but refusing to allow new exploration does not reduce our vulnerability; it increases it. Energy, after all, is national security. It is industrial strategy. It is heating our houses and fuelling our cars. The idea that a major economy should voluntarily give up control of its energy supply before alternatives are well advanced is not progressive—it is reckless.
The problem goes somewhat wider. The Government talk about a green industrial revolution, but the more expensive imported energy we have, the harder that will be to achieve. Not just steel but chemicals, ceramics and fertilisers all require large amounts of gas and will do for years to come. If energy is unreliable or unaffordable, those industries will continue to struggle whatever the fond imaginings of the Secretary of State. Worse still, the Government’s policy will squander capital and skills that might have gone into safely managing the UK’s remaining hydrocarbon assets. The extra revenues that would have helped fund the transition will now be lost to the many other countries that welcome such investment, while the Government turn their back on a sector that still employs 200,000 people and contributes billions in tax revenue.
I ask the Leader of the House whether she shares my view that we badly need some common sense here. We all want an effective and just energy transition, but that starts with one principle: control what we can and use our own resources responsibly and transparently while building the clean energy system of the future. Instead, the Government have chosen a path that will increase emissions, raise costs, weaken the economy and tie Britain’s future to foreign powers and volatile markets. That is not leadership; that is an abdication.
I take this opportunity, which I do not think has been done yet in the House, to pay tribute to Rory McIlroy on finally getting one of the greatest sporting achievements —the golf grand slam—and being the first European to do so. The resilience and mental strength he showed was unbelievable, and he was a role model of great sportsmanship. I also wish good luck to all those taking part in the London marathon this weekend.
The shadow Leader of the House raises a number of points about the Government’s energy and climate change strategy, but he misunderstands the economics of the situation. The way we will get energy security and lower bills in the future and over the long term is by having our own energy security and our own clean energy supplies. We have to get ourselves off fossil fuels because to get that energy security, we have to become a price maker, not a price taker. Home-grown energy is the only way we will get control over our prices and get off the fossil fuel roller coaster. As a country, we have great assets: we are an island nation with an ability to generate offshore and onshore wind, tidal and nuclear energy.
This Government have wasted no time. We have lifted the ban on onshore wind. We have established Great British Energy. We have approved nearly 3GW of solar, delivered a record-breaking renewables auction, kick-started carbon capture and got the nuclear planning reforms under way. That is how this country will bring down energy bills and get the energy security we need. We have to get ourselves off the fossil fuel rollercoaster. The shadow Leader of the House needs to look at the economics of the situation.
I notice that the Chamber is very busy today—unlike many Members—as we look forward to the local elections. The shadow Leader of the House did not want to use this opportunity to make his party’s pitch for the forthcoming local elections, perhaps because the Conservatives are not quite sure what their pitch is. People have not forgotten the chaos and decline that his party left this country in after 14 years of failure and sleaze.
The Labour party is putting money in people’s pockets with our boost to the living wage, with wages rising faster than prices; we are fixing the NHS, with waiting lists down for six months in a row and cut by 220,000 since July; our new free breakfast clubs will give kids the start to life that they need; we are taking back control of our trains and buses; and, as I saw at the weekend, we are taking swift action to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour by seizing and crushing off-road bikes, which I did myself. That is the difference that Labour makes in power.
I am still not quite sure what the Conservative party’s strategy is at the elections. Perhaps the shadow Leader of the House would like to enlighten us. Is it what has been proposed by the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), in the form of an alliance with Reform? If that is not their strategy, why has he not been sacked? The Leader of the Opposition used her flagship election interview on the “Today” programme this week to tell us of her one big achievement: Tory party unity. I nearly spat out my tea! Tory Members can barely muster a cheer for her at Prime Minister’s questions, and the shadow Justice Secretary is in open leadership campaign mode.
In fact, this week I have seen a letter that the shadow Justice Secretary sent to all Conservative local election candidates with his clear leadership pitch and the offer of “lunch with Robert”. By the way, it was all on House of Commons-headed paper, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is highly questionable. It is blatant manoeuvring, and a strong leader would have sacked him by now. Is it not the truth that, at the elections next week, a vote for the Conservatives is a vote for Reform, and a vote for Reform is a vote for the Conservatives?
This is extremely worrying and has far-reaching and concerning implications. To be clear, my hon. Friend had not been made aware that she would not be welcome in Hong Kong, and it was a purely private visit. The Liberal Democrats are concerned that this could have a chilling effect on all parliamentarians who speak up for freedom and democracy. We cannot and must not accept our democracy being undermined by allowing the intimidation of UK parliamentarians. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on how the Government intend to engage in a clear-eyed manner with authoritarian countries that appear to be creating hidden blacklists of British parliamentarians?
The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) is right to say that it is unacceptable for a Member of Parliament to be denied entry to another country simply for being a Member of Parliament, albeit on a private visit in this case. The Government have relayed our deep concerns over this incident to the Hong Kong and Chinese authorities, and we will continue to press these issues with them over the coming months. She is right to say that our democracy and our ability as Members of Parliament to speak freely in this place, and to not have that jeopardised when we travel abroad, is fundamental to what the House of Commons is all about.
In terms of the business, I commend the Clerks who support our Committee on the work they have been doing to try to get colleagues to agree to having a debate next Thursday.
The business on Thursday 8 May will include a debate on St George’s day, which should have been held today, but for the fact that Government business takes precedence. On Thursday 15 May there will be a debate in the Chamber on solar farms. Next Tuesday there will be a debate in Westminster Hall on compensation for criminal injuries. We are not proposing to have debates in Westminster Hall next Thursday because it is the day of local elections. On Tuesday 6 May there will be a debate on parking regulation, and I remind the House that it will take place at 11.30 am, because we will be on Monday hours. There will be further debates in Westminster Hall.
On Tuesday we saw the systematic murder of Hindu pilgrims in Pahalgam in India. The sad reality is that the terrorist group thought to be responsible for this, Lashkar-e-Taiba, is a Pakistani organisation that deliberately targets innocent people in Jammu and Kashmir. Already the Indian Government have revoked visas, closed the border and expelled officials from Pakistan as a result. Probably most importantly, they have suspended the Indus waters treaty. We need the Foreign Secretary to make a statement to the House on what could end up being a quickly escalating situation between India and Pakistan.
Tonight there will be a vigil outside the Indian high commission. I will be representing the Opposition, and I understand that there will be representatives of the Government as well. We must give our reassurance and support to the Government of India in ensuring that they apprehend these terrorists and that those responsible for supporting them are also brought to justice. My understanding is that the Pakistani Government and the Pakistani military have condoned these attacks. I am sure the Leader of the House will join me in condemning these terrorist atrocities and will agree on the need to ensure that people who visit Jammu and Kashmir are held safely and do not have to suffer such incidents yet again.
“Cars travel very fast. We often run across the road, and I’ve nearly been hit several times.”
William has launched a petition calling for Lancashire county council to install a safe crossing. He says:
“We should not have to wait for an accident to happen before something is done.”
I could tell a similar story about the safety of roads around almost every other primary school in Rossendale and Darwen. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating William on his initiative? Given how oversubscribed Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates on this subject have been, will she agree to a debate in Government time?
“The only thing that you absolutely have to know, is the location of the library.”
Libraries are more than just a place of knowledge—they are the lifeblood of local communities, bringing people of all backgrounds together. However, in Leicester, the Labour mayor is looking to slash library services in some of the most economically deprived areas of my great city, and I know the same will be happening in other constituencies up and down the country. Cutting our library services disproportionately affects the most vulnerable in our society, so will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in which we can praise our public libraries and the work of our wonderful librarians across the country, and urge the Government to give more support to local authorities to protect those crucial services?
In a brief exchange about NHS dentistry on 13 March, as part of the formidable campaign being waged by the National Federation of Women’s Institutes on that subject, I was quite impressed when the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that the problem requires,
“not simply tinkering with the system as it is, but fundamentally rethinking it”—[Official Report, 13 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 1298.]
I am sure he is absolutely right about that, so will the Leader of the House urge him to make a statement to the House on what progress he anticipates making on this very important issue?
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that dentistry has been broken in this country, that access to NHS dentists is not what we would want it to be, and that more fundamental change is needed to ensure that we get more dentist appointments and look at the dental contract—I am lobbied about this issue by my own dentist every time I go. I will ensure that the House is kept updated on progress.
[That this House congratulates Balerno Farmers Market on celebrating its 20th anniversary on 12 April 2025, marking two decades of consistent service to the local community and surrounding areas; recognises the market’s vital contribution to promoting local food, sustainable farming and small independent producers, while strengthening the sense of community and supporting the local economy in Edinburgh South West constituency; commends the dedication of the organisers, stallholders, volunteers and community partners whose continued efforts have made the market a well-loved and successful monthly event since its founding in 2005, which helps define Balerno; acknowledges that the market has grown into a community hub, supporting not only local commerce but also arts, culture, fairtrade and environmental awareness, reflecting the values of resilience, sustainability and civic pride; and congratulates all those involved in the Balerno Farmers Market on this significant milestone, wishing it continued success in the years ahead.]
The early-day motion highlights that the market is vibrant and defines Balerno. It supports the local economy and, through the Fairtrade group, also supports sustainable farming right across the world. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Balerno farmers market a happy 20th birthday, and suggest that Emma bakes a slightly bigger cake next time?
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.