PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 16 January 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
Monday 20 January—General debate on the impact of food and diet on obesity, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 21 January—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024.
Wednesday 22 January—Motion to agree a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, followed by Second Reading of the Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 23 January—General debate on Holocaust Memorial Day.
Friday 24 January—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 27 January will include:
Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.
Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill.
Thursday 30 January—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.
For the convenience of the House, and in view of the three important statements that are taking place today, the motion on the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024 will not be moved today.
Back at home, all one can say is that it has been another extraordinary week for the Government, though possibly not in the way that they would have wanted. We have had the Government’s anti-corruption Minister herself being named for corruption by another country in the face of an international investigation into embezzlement of development and other funds. We have had the unusually unlovely sight of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a desperate search for growth that has taken her to Beijing and back—though with precious little result, it seems. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales said this week that stagflation—that toxic combination of recession and inflation—is now “a live risk”. Even the very, very modest GDP growth reported for November was below expectations.
At some point, the Government’s current spending splurge will doubtless start to nudge growth upwards over the coming year, but in the meantime we will have to look forward to the grim prospect of the national insurance changes in April and the horrors of the Employment Rights Bill, which even by the Government’s own estimates will cost employers an extra £5 billion a year. So dire has the Chancellor’s position become that she has been forced to ask Cabinet colleagues for ideas of growth. Given the galaxy of business talent around the Cabinet table, how can that possibly go wrong?
Meanwhile, the Prime Minister has been forced not only to express “full confidence” in the Chancellor—always a death knell—but to insist that she will remain in post for the full period of this Government. Let us see how that works out. It has been extraordinary, in particular, to see her attacked by her own colleagues, who have said:
“we’re going back to austerity in all but name.”
Luckily, the Government were able to announce some good news in the form of the latest results of the national wealth fund, which has apparently generated more than 6,000 jobs and £1.6 billion in private investment over the last six months—except that the announcement is, I am afraid, entirely disingenuous. As Lord Livermore said in a debate in the other House in October, the national wealth fund is, in fact, the UK Infrastructure Bank with a new name and a bit more capital. I know something about the UK Infrastructure Bank, because I set it up in 2021 when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury. It has an absolutely world-class leadership team and I am not remotely surprised to see it doing so well. But the idea that its recent success is attributable to a Labour Government who have done little more than rebrand it is an embarrassing joke. Its success has been powered by good institutional design, a top team, tonnes of talented employees and more than four years of hard work.
One recalls the Government’s attempt to claim credit for £63 billion of international cash in the October investment summit. I know the Leader of the House is a strong believer in transparency and accountability, so will she have the Treasury update the House on what form that investment has taken, how much of it has been received and where it is being spent? Frankly, it is more than doubtful that three months of post-election chaos in the Government had any such effect in boosting investment, but we will see when the Government publish the numbers, as I am sure they will. If it turns out like the so-called national wealth fund, we will know that the Labour Government are more than happy to take credit for at least some of the work of the previous Government, provided that they can put their own name on it.
First, I will explain one of the pieces of business I have just announced, and set out why the Government will table a money resolution relating to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill next week. In order for a Bill Committee to consider any clauses that could have spending implications, the Government must first table a money resolution. That is not the Government agreeing to fund the measures in a Bill; it is purely to enable the Bill to be debated in Committee. In the case of this Bill, this relates to one small component that is yet to be debated and agreed. Without the motion being agreed to, that debate could not happen and that component could not remain in the Bill. The Government have taken the view that that would act against our commitment to remain neutral on the Bill. The House should debate and decide on these matters for itself. I hope that, as with Second Reading, colleagues will focus on the substance and not the processes of this sensitive private Member’s Bill.
It really has been quite incredible to watch the collective display of amnesia on the Conservative Benches over recent weeks—it is like the past 14 years did not happen. I see that the Leader of the Opposition is out today in what has been briefed as her finally telling the truth about the Conservatives’ record: they did not have a plan for growth, they were not honest with the British people, and they negotiated a bad Brexit deal. However, it sounds like the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) did not quite get that memo.
It sounds like the right hon. Gentleman did not get the memo about the Conservatives needing to be honest about their record on standards either. If he wants to compare the previous Government’s record on losing Ministers, I am quite happy to do so. Boris Johnson had 36 of his own Ministers resign in 24 hours—the highest number on modern record. Even the very nice right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) lost four of his senior Ministers in his first few months, including his party chairman and Deputy Prime Minister, for breaking the ministerial code. Even when there were investigations on Ministers, they were often ignored. This Government have strengthened the ministerial code and now have an adviser who is able to initiate investigations. We have brought in new rules for Members of Parliament on outside interests, and we will go further.
The right hon. Gentleman obviously did not get the memo on the Conservatives’ record on the economy, and is instead trying to attack our plans. The Leader of the Opposition, his party leader, is now telling the country that they did not have a plan for growth. That is the truth of the situation, isn’t it? The Conservatives had 14 years to do something about the fundamental weaknesses in our economy, and they did nothing. In fact, they made those weaknesses even worse: stagnant growth, low productivity, low wages, low skills, high mortgages, high debt, poor health, poor housing, woeful transport, deep-seated inequalities, and no ambition under the previous Government to gain the jobs of the future. We are beginning to tackle those deep-rooted weaknesses, and that is the truth that he and his party leader should be telling the country.
In Westminster Hall, next Tuesday there will be a debate on the provision of auditory verbal therapy, next Thursday there will be a debate on the United Nations International Day of Education followed by a debate on innovation in the field of rare retinal diseases, on Tuesday 28 January there will be a debate on road safety for young drivers, and on Thursday 30 January there will be a debate on medicinal cannabis.
In addition, may I point out that the Palestine Solidarity Campaign has organised hate marches across London over many months since 7 October? The Metropolitan police have finally decided that it is unacceptable for the campaigners to form up at midday 100 yards from a synagogue where Jewish people were threatened when leaving or joining the Shabbat service, and have insisted that the route of the marches must not go near any synagogue. However, the campaigners have said that they will defy the police and form up outside the synagogue again. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary reinforcing the view that if that happens, those individuals should face the full force of the law and the cost of policing the demonstration to ensure that public order is protected?
As for the other issue, the hon. Gentleman will know that decisions about the policing of protests and demonstrations are a matter for the police—they are operational matters—but he is right to say that public safety should be at the fore, along with ensuring that no one is subject to antisemitism or any other kind of hate as a result of any demonstration.
The flag of our nation—my nation—is precious. When I look at the red of the St Patrick’s cross in the background of that flag, I think of the blood of those whose lives were given in the defence of Northern Ireland and this great nation. When I see the publication’s mistake, it grieves me to see how we are regarded by so many. I wish to make it clear that we do not live under the flag of the Republic of Ireland, despite the view of those who do not take their seats here. However, it seems that their influence is greater than that of those in this Chamber. The flag of Northern Ireland is the Ulster banner or the Union flag, and it means something to many people.
We cannot allow this disgraceful incident to pass. I ask the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, to ensure that there is a correction. Perhaps the staff at The House also need to be educated about the basics of the state of the Union, including its geography; they need to understand the wee simple things, given that it purports to be a political magazine that is focused on the business of this House. Will the Leader of the House show her displeasure with the erroneous depiction? May I ask her to ensure that a correction is made immediately, and that geographic training for staff at The House magazine will take place?
This Government inherited really poor flood defence systems, which is why we have put in place a floods resilience taskforce. My hon. Friend is right to highlight insurance costs and other issues, and I will ensure that the House is kept constantly updated on flooding and its impacts.
“understand the idea of a consultation.”—[Official Report, 13 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 55.]
I hate to admit it, but I am long enough in the tooth to say that I genuinely do understand what a consultation is and how to recognise one that does not appear to be genuine and that has a foregone conclusion.
The point is that we need to be able to articulate questions on behalf of our constituents and on behalf of sectors that contribute so much to the UK economy, and receive a response that has dignity and respect at its heart. I am sure the Leader of the House agrees that this place should be no place for mansplaining.
I am happy to apologise on behalf of any Minister who may have inadvertently not used the appropriate tone. I know that the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology respects the hon. Lady greatly, and I am sure he did not mean to cause any offence. I am sure it was meant humorously, which is obviously not how it has been taken. I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s comments are passed back.
Constituents across Mid Sussex really enjoy and appreciate having access to our coastline and seas, and they rightly expect our oceans to be clean and healthy. The UN global ocean treaty is the world’s only road map for protecting at least a third of the world’s oceans by 2030. The UK has committed to ratifying the treaty, but the next step is for the Government to introduce a short Bill to pass it into UK law. Will the Leader of the House please update us on when the Government plan to introduce the legislation?
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.