PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 27 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

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

The business for the week commencing 1 December will include:

Monday 1 December—Continuation of the Budget debate.

Tuesday 2 December—Conclusion of the Budget debate.

Wednesday 3 December—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill.

Thursday 4 December—Debate on a motion on the war in Ukraine. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 5 December—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 8 December includes:

Monday 8 December—Consideration of Lords messages to the Employment Rights Bill, followed by consideration of Lords messages to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, followed by consideration of Lords messages to the Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 9 December—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.

Wednesday 10 December—Opposition day (14th allotted day), debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 11 December—General debate on St Andrew’s day, followed by a general debate on the impact of foreign interference on security, trade and democracy. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 12 December—The House will not be sitting.

I am sure colleagues across the House will want to join me in wishing a very happy Lancashire Day to Lancastrians everywhere, and perhaps most especially to the only Lancastrian Speaker of the 158 people to have held that office—there will have to be three more before it reaches the number of Herefordians who have held it. I also wish a very happy Thanksgiving to all our American friends, hosts and families.

No one needs reminding that the Leader of the House is a thoroughly good and sensible man. [Interruption.] “Careful”, he says. We like to keep things orderly at business questions, but I cannot imagine what he can possibly have made of the past few weeks. We have had an entirely unnecessary period of prolonged economic uncertainty; endless media pitch-rolling and U-turns; a relentlessly dismissive attitude to this House from Ministers; repeated breaches of the ministerial code; and even the fiasco of a convenient Office for Budget Responsibility leak on the morning of the Budget.

The House should be in no doubt that yesterday we saw the Government increase taxes to the highest levels since at least 1970, according to the OBR. Between last year and this, the Government have raised something like £100 billion in additional tax revenue, much of which will fall on working people. They have done so not through any coherent tax policy or vision for the UK economy, but through an array of “back of a fag packet” tricks and wheezes, whose inevitable effect will be to make it even harder for businesses to expand and for people to get jobs. As Paul Johnson, lately of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said, it is

“big tax rises but no effort at reform”.

The tax rises are mainly to finance extra spending, and are not because of worse forecasts.

This Government claim to speak for working people, skills, employment and growth, but those are all things they chose to undermine at yesterday’s Budget. Those were their choices. Even now, the Government have failed to please their union paymasters. In the words of Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, the decision to freeze income tax thresholds will result in 10 million workers paying the higher rate of income tax. A stealth tax on workers means that everyday people pay the price again.

What is the point of this Government? What are they for? No one can say, however they vote and whatever their politics. This Chancellor and this Prime Minister came to power last year with no idea and no plan. Even by that standard, they have been a colossal disappointment, but that is not all. As we just noted in the urgent question, this week has also seen a leak of the Justice Secretary’s intention to abolish jury trial for all but the most serious cases. We had the embarrassing sight of the junior Justice Minister, the hon. and learned Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman)—a woman who transparently believes in the importance of jury trial—defending this preposterous proposal. The Justice Secretary is the same man who said in 2020:

“Jury trials are fundamental to our democracy.”

Blackstone, no less, called them

“the glory of the English law”,

and yet they are to be abolished by a Justice Secretary and a junior Justice Minister who both went to Harvard law school and a Prime Minister who spent nearly four decades at the Bar.

The Bar Council has made clear that jury trials are not the cause of any case backlog, destroying the Government’s attempted justification for the policy. The Criminal Bar Association has strongly criticised the proposal, as has the legendary Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws. Many others will doubtless do the same in the coming days. Again, it is inconceivable to me that the Leader of this House supports this decision. I hope that at the very least he will allow time for a Backbench debate soon on this topic.

Both the Budget and the Government’s proposal to abolish jury trial have something fundamental in common. The Chancellor seemed unaware yesterday that in asking people to, as she put it, “make a contribution” to the Budget, she is not inviting them to engage in some voluntary process. She is in fact using the full force of the coercive power of the state to take away their freely owned property in taxes. The removal of jury trial would do the same thing to the involvement of citizens in this country in the exercise of the criminal law—that other supreme coercive power of the state. Whatever the rhetoric, and whatever the smoke and mirrors, both these actions demonstrate that this Government hold the ordinary men and women of this country in profound contempt. No one should be surprised if those actions and this Government are now treated by those people with similar contempt.

I join the shadow Leader of the House in wishing everyone a happy Lancashire Day. I am sure the House will join me in sending our condolences to those affected by the fire in Hong Kong. The tragedy that is unfolding is deeply saddening, and my thoughts are with all those impacted. I am sure that the thoughts of the House are similarly with them.

Before I respond to the points that the shadow Leader of the House has made, I remind the House that this week is UK Parliament Week, which is now in its 15th year. Parliament Week continues to increase its reach each year, engaging schools, youth groups and community organisations in constituencies across the United Kingdom. I have been pleased to be involved in a number of Parliament Week events, and I am sure that a number of colleagues are out doing exactly that as we speak. I know that many Members on both sides of the House have also been involved, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your involvement and your leadership on these matters.

Tuesday was White Ribbon Day, when people around the world stand up against male violence against women and girls. I am pleased that the House is in the process of becoming accredited with White Ribbon UK, demonstrating a commitment to preventing abuse and violence against women and girls by promoting gender equality and encouraging everyone, particularly men, to be part of the solution. Ending violence against women is a top priority for this Government, and the violence against women and girls strategy will be published soon. It will outline how we can halve levels of violence against women and girls within a decade.

The right hon. Gentleman refers to the Budget. Yesterday the Chancellor delivered her Budget statement—a Budget that will ease the cost of living, reduce our national debt and bring down NHS waiting lists. He asks about the purpose of the Budget, and those three things are its purpose. Today we begin the second day of debate on the Budget, with further days to follow, which I am sure many Members will want to contribute to.

I recognise the contribution of Members from across the House who have been strong advocates for a number of measures that were included in the Budget yesterday. For example, the Chancellor announced that the Government will transfer the investment reserve fund in the British Coal staff superannuation scheme to the scheme’s trustees. That will mean that more money is unlocked for members of the scheme, and I recognise the contribution of my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm), for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) and for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), and many others who campaigned on this matter.

The Chancellor also announced that the Government will exempt search and rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty, which will mean that more money can be diverted into critical frontline services. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on advocating for that in business questions. Clearly, the Chancellor heeded his words.

The shadow Leader of the House raises the question of briefings and leaks. I take these matters very seriously, as I know you do, Mr Speaker. It is very important that matters are brought to this House at the earliest opportunity, so that Members can be told first. I understand that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is looking into the wider question of briefings outside this House, and we look forward to seeing its findings.

The right hon. Gentleman also raises the question of the OBR leak. We take that very seriously indeed, and the matter is being investigated.

I return to what I have said previously to the right hon. Gentleman and others on his side of the House on our discussions about the economy and Budgets. After 14 years of failure, my advice is that the best thing they can do is start with an apology. He should apologise, because the very problems that we are seeking to address were partly caused by the legacy of his Government. We are bringing down the cost of living and reducing the national debt, and we will be bringing down waiting lists in the NHS.

Let me finish on the point with which the right hon. Gentleman started: the way in which I take these matters and try to approach being Leader of the House. I do so with seriousness and seek to ensure that there is respect for Members of this House, wherever they sit, so I have to say that I was slightly disappointed yesterday—not about the Budget, which is excellent. Important matters should have been the first order of the day, but we heard from the Leader of the Opposition a speech that, quite frankly, fell short because of the tone that she took. We have talked about ending the knockabout in this place. I just think that yesterday hit the wrong tone, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take that message back.

May I thank the Leader of the House for his kind words about those of us who campaigned for miners’ pensions justice?

There is real momentum for new economic opportunities now that Labour-led councils, the Welsh Labour Government and the UK Labour Government can work in tandem. In Blaenau Gwent, the council has applied for funding to upgrade the A4046 at Cwm. In Caerphilly, the new council leader, Jamie Pritchard, is driving urgent action to repair the land slip on the A469 between New Tredegar and Pontlottyn in the upper Rhymney valley. May I please ask the Leader of the House for a statement on transport interconnectivity and its economic benefits across the UK?

My hon. Friend is correct that having a Labour Government in Wales and a Labour Government in Westminster is the best way these matters can be taken forward. I will raise what he has said with the Secretary of State for Transport, and let us see if some progress can be made.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

First, I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about the fire in Hong Kong. I have many constituents from Hong Kong who will be thinking about their family and friends. I also note that this is UK Parliament Week. I know you are very actively involved, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for your organisational efforts on that front.

It will have been a relief to you, Mr Speaker, to hear the Budget officially delivered on the Floor of the House yesterday. I know that all the leaks over the past few weeks have been a source of frustration, but it did make that long list of taxes a little easier to digest and comprehend. It felt at one point as though almost every section of the economy was getting its own special tax, except of course for those in the banking industry, who, we hear, were popping champagne corks yesterday about avoiding the windfall taxes that the Liberal Democrats were calling for. It just goes to show that all their lobbying efforts have paid off. According to reports, they got away with no new taxes because they are going to be nice about the Budget on behalf of the Chancellor, so let us see if that holds.

One under-reported bit of the OBR analysis yesterday—in the final pages of the Blue Book—is the potential danger to the UK economy of a major correction in the global stock market. There has been lots of talk recently about the potential for an AI bubble, with price to earnings ratios being comparable with those of a dotcom bubble. JP Morgan has done an analysis of current valuations and the physical limits to investment because of the need to build data centres and so on, and it thinks we could be up to about $5 trillion of investment by 2030. That means AI products will need to create an additional revenue of $650 billion a year to give a reasonable return to their investors. To put that into context, that is about 150% of the revenue that Apple makes, or the equivalent of about $35 a month for every customer it has in the world. It is my feeling that eventually investors will cotton on to that, and they will choose to moderate their investment. When that correction comes, the OBR thinks that it could affect the UK current deficit by between £15 billion and £26 billion, so will the Leader of House request that a Minister makes a statement about what contingency planning the Treasury is making for that scenario?

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he forgets the record of the coalition years, when he and his colleagues did nothing to address the issue of the banks that had helped to cause the difficulties that that Government found themselves in. However, he raises an important matter, because we want to ensure long-term financial stability and sustainable growth by setting the global standards for AI governance. The Government are embracing the opportunities that AI brings, while ensuring that we have a robust regulatory framework in place to foster innovation, safety and sustainability, making the UK a global leader in the technology, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Treasury.

I thank the Leader of the House for his warm remarks about my campaign to exempt search and rescue services vehicles from vehicle excise duty.

Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating this coming weekend’s 25th anniversary of the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which was a landmark achievement by the last Labour Government in opening up the countryside for all to enjoy? Can we have a statement from an Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister about what further measures the Government are taking to ensure that there is a uniform, responsible right of access on land and on water across England?

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question and for the work that he does on the all-party group on outdoor recreation and access to nature. I am told that his constituency has some lovely countryside walks, and he is a worthy champion for them. Building on the success of previous Labour Governments in these matters, we will continue to work to reduce the barriers against ordinary people accessing nature. I would encourage him to raise this question at Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions in a few weeks’ time.

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business in the Chamber on Backbench Business days. Will he also confirm that we will have the pre-recess Adjournment debate on Thursday 18 December? In addition, the Backbench Business in Westminster Hall on Tuesday will be a debate on the adequacy of funding to support homeless people, and on Thursday there will be a debate on a comprehensive acquired brain injury action plan, followed by a debated on seafarers’ welfare. On Tuesday 9 December, there will be a debate on consumer-led flexibility for a just transition, and on Thursday 11 December, there will be a debate on the role of Fairtrade certification in UK business and trade, followed by a debate on the future of the oil refining sector. On Tuesday 16 December, there will be a debate on planning policy for quarries, and on Thursday 18 December, a debate on the literary and cultural legacy of Jane Austen, followed by a debate on community audiology.

I join the Leader of the House in expressing horror at what has happened in Hong Kong. The fire has so far killed 59 people, with hundreds missing and firefighters killed. Three business executives have been arrested. This is not unique. There has been a similar fire in Spain at the Santa Lucia hospital, and, just a year ago, we had a fire in Dartford due to unsafe buildings. Across the country, there are unsafe buildings all over the place, including on Merseyside, where I read this morning that residents have had to be moved out of buildings renovated in 2007 because they are unsafe. In an adjacent constituency to mine, Ballymore is trying to put up a development that is denser than in Hong Kong, with more than 29 blocks of flats, of which 20 are above 20 storeys. The London Fire Brigade initially lodged objections. What is clear is that we in this country have to be wise to what could happen—another Grenfell. We must learn the lessons and ensure fire safety in our new and existing buildings is restored.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for updating the House on the important work of the Backbench Business Committee. I assure him that it is absolutely my intention that the pre-recess Adjournment debate will continue.

The hon. Gentleman raises a matter of real and just concern, following on from the fire in Hong Kong. As I said, my thoughts are with everyone affected, but also with those in this country, particularly in Dartford, Grenfell and elsewhere, who will have had terrible memories revived because of the news. The Government are very clear in our approach that we aim to remove all barriers to remediation, so that buildings can be fixed faster and residents can feel safe in their homes. We published an update on the remediation acceleration plan this summer and we will act on all 58 phase 2 Grenfell Tower inquiry recommendations to build a more robust and trusted regulatory system that delivers safe and high-quality homes.

I advise the House that questions will finish at about 12.30. If Members can help each other, we should get everybody in.

Residents of Water Orton in my constituency have been plagued by HS2 works for years. Dust covering their cars and washing and now a really disgusting fishy smell are just some of the problems they are having to put up with. My constituents have told me that this is affecting their health. I have been raising this issue with HS2 since I was elected. Residents in Water Orton have been put through unacceptable levels of disruption. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the impact of HS2 works on local residents’ health?

I am sorry to hear of the case my hon. Friend raises and the impact on her constituents. She is a very strong voice in this place for her constituents and she is right to raise these matters. It is important that impacts are minimised as far as is reasonably practicable. I understand that HS2 is aware of the concerns and is taking action to address them, but of course that needs to be monitored. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears about these specific concerns.

The regulator of social housing has found the Labour-run Leicester city council guilty of serious failings in maintaining safe and decent homes, with thousands lacking basic safety checks. The Court of Appeal has upheld a finding of racial discrimination in the council’s employment practices and the ombudsman has criticised its failures towards homeless families. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how we, as hon. Members, can ensure the Government intervene where councils repeatedly fail in their duty of care to our constituents?

The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns on behalf of her constituents, and I hope that the council has heard what she has said. It is the sort of issue that I would have thought needs more time to expand on than business questions provides, so I invite her to apply for an Adjournment debate.

Advent is approaching. Do you have an Advent calendar, Mr Speaker? If so, is it a traditional one or a chocolate one, or maybe even one filled with wine? If it is filled with wine, the little pouches in it are probably made using technology based in Leighton Buzzard. Those pouches are 125 ml in capacity; because they are sold in an Advent calendar, and there are 24 pouches, that is allowed. Unfortunately, though, we are still not allowed to sell individual 125 ml pouches. Could the Leader of the House explain how I might meet the relevant Minister to see whether we could sell 125 ml pouches, not just at Christmas, but all year round?

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I might duck that one. [Laughter.] We are laughing, but these are serious matters for businesses and firms, and I will therefore ensure that the issue is drawn to the attention of the relevant Minister, and that my hon. Friend gets a response.

Reaching a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union is one of the most significant developments that we are likely to see for farmers and other food producers. It could bring massive opportunities, but also significant risks, especially for arable farmers. Although any agreement will be implemented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is being negotiated by the Paymaster General, so the EFRA Committee invited him to give evidence to the Committee on 9 December. We sent the invitation on 17 September; after four reminders, we eventually received an email on 13 November indicating that the Paymaster General was

“content to decline the kind invitation to give evidence on this occasion.”

The Select Committee is not quite so content with this situation. Will the Leader of the House have a word with the Paymaster General and his diary secretary to see whether he might be able to make himself available for 9 December? This is a basic discourtesy to Parliament.

Order. I did appeal for brevity, so that I can try to get other Members in. If you do not want your colleagues to get in, just tell me which ones you do not want to speak! You are not helping me at the moment.

The House will know that I am a strong advocate for Select Committees, the responsibilities that they hold, and the responsibilities that Members and Ministers have towards them. I will look into the matter; I am content to follow that up with the right hon. Gentleman. I do not know about 9 December—let us see what we can achieve—but I will take the matter up with the Paymaster General. He is doing a great job, and he is very busy, but Select Committees are really important.

Last Thursday, Baroness Hallett issued the second part of her important report on covid, which deals with the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of the Government’s response to covid and the £400 billion spent on it. After the first Hallett report, there was a statement; by now, I would have expected a statement in the House on the second report, and arrangements to have been made for a debate. Can the Leader of the House tell me when the statement will be, and will he arrange for a debate on the subject in Government time?

As my hon. Friend acknowledges, there was a statement after the earlier report. The Government will want to keep the House updated as matters evolve, so I will look at making that happen. I should add, though, that we do not need to wait for that to address some of the issues; the Chancellor is addressing them by pursuing the beneficiaries of dodgy deals, and getting £400 million back to invest in public services.

Hundreds of my constituents work at Scunthorpe steelworks, and I fully support the Government’s actions to support the industry. A written statement on this subject is published each month. The most recent one says:

“We continue to work with Jingye to find a pragmatic, realistic solution for the future of British Steel.”—[Official Report, 11 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 1WS.]

Twice in the past couple of weeks, Ministers have referred to a business plan that exists for the steelworks. Could the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to come to the House and actually give details of the Government’s business plan?

I will draw that to the attention of the relevant Minister, but I also invite the hon. Gentleman to hear about this from Ministers, at first hand. We will arrange an appointment, if he wishes for that to happen.

Happy Lancashire day to you, Mr Speaker, and to all celebrating the historic county in Oldham, Chadderton and Royton. For 15 years, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs mileage rate has been 45p per mile for the first 10,000 miles. In that time, the cost of buying and running a car, and of insurance and repairs, has clearly increased, but HMRC has not caught up. As a result of those cost rises, the NHS uprated its figure and will now pay 56p per mile for the first 3,500 miles.[Official Report, 1 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 8WC.] (Correction) That means we now have a two-tier system, in which healthcare workers working for the NHS will be paid 25% more per mile than the home care worker in social care. Is it not time that HMRC got its act together, updated the rates, and finally treated working people with the respect that they deserve by paying them fairly for the mileage that they incur?

That is a fair point. We owe a great debt to public servants, and it is important that they be treated fairly at work and in their tax matters. If my hon. Friend intends to speak in the Budget debate, he may want to raise this issue then.

Budgets are often about what is not in them, as well as what is; no doubt we will debate that later. A glaring omission from this Budget was a settlement for the women of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. We had a statement in which the Government, presumably fearful of the court case that they are about to lose, said that they would do more, but will the Leader of the House recognise that these women, whom the ombudsman has acknowledged were so badly treated, deserve better? Will he arrange for a statement on when there will be further Government action?

As the Government acknowledged at the time, we do take this seriously, in the light of court judgments and everything else, so we will bring something forward at the earliest opportunity.

Earlier this year, I met representatives of Historic England, local historians and community representatives to address the neglect of the grade 2 listed Crown hotel in my constituency. Once a cornerstone of the community and a place where countless memories were made, it is now crumbling, and bringing the rest of our historical high street down with it. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the protection of listed buildings on our high streets?

We are committed to protecting our national heritage, and have provided £50 million in the last year to protect our heritage buildings. I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are heard by Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, because the Government are committed to developing ways of supporting our high streets, particularly in coastal areas.

In a letter to me from 2 October, a Work and Pensions Minister stated that the Department was undertaking a review of the child maintenance calculation, and that it would be published “late this year”. Given that it is almost December, could the Leader of the House confirm whether that is still the timeline, and if it is, when the proposals will be published?

The Department has made clear what it proposes to do, and I am sure that it will bring forward the review at the earliest opportunity—if appropriate, before the end of the year.

From one Lancastrian to another, happy Lancashire day to you, Mr Speaker. Last week, Owen Charnley from Rochdale completed a solo charity walk of more than 4,200 miles from Azerbaijan to his home in Ogden. Owen braved torrential rain, searing heat and several attacks by stray dogs on his trip through 17 countries. He walked 21 miles a day over 233 days, all to raise much-needed funds for two Greater Manchester homelessness charities: Barnabus and the Booth Centre. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Owen on this amazing feat of kindness as well as endurance?

I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Owen and others for the efforts they are making. We are backing them by investing over £1 billion in tackling homelessness in the next year. My hon. Friend may wish to attend the Westminster Hall debate on Tuesday 2 December on the adequacy of funding for the support of homeless people, to highlight and amplify Owen’s efforts.

The Leader of the House will know from his own teaching experience that challenges faced by schools do not respect administrative boundaries. Dudley and Staffordshire schools in my constituency get hundreds of pounds less per pupil than the same pupils would attract if they went to neighbouring schools in Wolverhampton or Sandwell. Might we have a debate in Government time on the national school funding formula, so that we can ensure that all children get fair funding, wherever their school is?

I encourage the hon. Member to call for an Adjournment debate on this matter, because a number of Members across the House may share his concerns. We take the view that every child, wherever they are, should get the support that they need, but he has to acknowledge, as the previous Government did, that need is greater in some areas than others.

Solar geo-engineering is the idea of injecting particles into the Earth’s atmosphere to dim or reflect the light of the sun and cool the planet, and it has been the subject of science fiction and conspiracy theories for many years. However, recent reporting by the respected Politico journalist Karl Mathiesen has thrown light on an Israeli company, which is developing technology that it says could halt global warming temporarily. Given the potential risks of the technology, may we have a debate on how Britain will work with other countries to regulate experiments with the Earth’s atmosphere, and to ensure that we co-operate with other countries on solutions that actually tackle the root cause of climate change?

We are not in favour of solar radiation modification, given the uncertainty around the risks that it poses for the climate and environment, and we work closely with the international research community to evaluate the latest scientific evidence. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the point, however, at Department for Science, Innovation and Technology questions next month.

May I also wish you a happy Lancashire day, Mr Speaker? I thank you for ensuring that the historical county flags are flown from New Palace Yard. It is great to see the Lancashire flag flying today.

If I may go on to an Essex question, the Leader of the House should be aware that the Metropolitan police are reducing the opening hours of 25 police stations across Greater London. Romford police station’s opening times will be cut to four hours. That comes on top of the closure of all other functioning police stations throughout Havering, leaving my constituents with limited access to local police stations, and limited opportunity to meet a constable face to face to seek advice or report a crime. That is unacceptable. Once again, Havering is getting an unfair allocation of police resources, thanks to the Mayor of London, who seems to have no interest in our borough. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in the House on the detrimental policy of closing police station front desks across the London region?

Many constituents will look at what the hon. Gentleman has said and recognise the concerns. I know that face-to-face contact with police officers is very valuable. However, over time, the usefulness of big, and often old, police stations has become questionable, particularly given the use of new technology. It is about balance. As for making decisions about police stations and front counters, that is a matter for the commissioner. I also gently refer to the historical underfunding of the police across our country in general in the last 14 years.

I am pleased to see that the Employment Rights Bill is coming back to us shortly. It has been eight and a half months since we first sent it to the other place, and the Lords keep blocking it. Now the Greens have joined the Tories and Lib Dems in blocking our manifesto commitment. I am worried that we will not get Royal Assent in time for the important changes to statutory sick pay, which will benefit millions of people, to come into force in April. Will the Leader of the House look at what he can do this side of Christmas to clear the diary and make sure that we get that Bill over the line, so that we can deliver on our manifesto promises?

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on the Bill, and on getting it this far. We expect that the other place, which has a right to look into these matters, will respect the judgment of this House and act in a timely fashion. I have announced in future business what the next step will be, and I hope that my hon. Friend’s wish that the Bill will get through before Christmas can be achieved.

The A41 in Shropshire has seen many deaths and injuries over many years. It is a very dangerous road. Three years ago, I secured funding, with the help of the Conservative police and crime commissioner, to get average speed cameras put on the road, to reduce injuries and deaths. Unfortunately, Liberal Democrat-led Shropshire council and Labour-led Telford and Wrekin council have effectively vetoed that plan, saying that there is no case. Putting party politics aside, will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the issue, so that we can get people working together to reduce injuries and deaths on the A41?

These are ultimately, as the right hon. Member says, matters to be resolved locally. It is important that public bodies work together where they can, especially where a road may be particularly dangerous. I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Department for Transport to see whether anything can be done to get the action he wants.

Since July, I have been assisting my constituent who is the victim of stalking by a foreign national. After correspondence, proposed legislative amendments and a ministerial meeting, we were promised some support. The situation has recently deteriorated, placing her in danger. Despite numerous attempts to seek help via the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, nothing has changed. Will my right hon. Friend please use his good offices to intervene and help us?

These are very serious matters, and the Government take stalking very seriously indeed. I will meet my hon. Friend and see what further we can do.

The Chichester district council local plan was finally adopted this summer after years of speculative development in our area in the wrong places and without the right infrastructure to go with it. This robust local plan was hard fought for by local councillors, but this Government’s new housing targets are putting more pressure on areas such as mine to deliver more homes, and it could render the local plan essentially meaningless. Appeals are being won for development on greenfield sites and farmland that were not identified in this hard-fought-for local plan. Will the Leader of the House please make time to debate the effectiveness of the Government’s planning policy, which disproportionately affects constituencies such as mine?

I understand the concern of residents, particularly in areas where there is a local plan. The Government have brought forward robust measures to ensure that house building takes place, and I gently remind the hon. Member that people do need places to live. We need more houses, and housing will be one of the engines that drives economic growth. It is a matter of balancing these matters, so I understand her constituents’ concerns, but it is about building the houses where people need to live.

Forty-one years ago, 37 Cammell Laird workers were imprisoned for protecting their jobs and protecting shipbuilding on Merseyside, and they are still waiting to clear their names. Last year, the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Swindon South (Heidi Alexander), said that her Department would consider and explore options for review and provide an update, but there has been no update, no review and still no justice for these men who were wrongfully criminalised for standing up for their rights in the workplace. Can the Leader of the House set aside Government time for a full debate on the Cammell Laird 37 and ensure that Ministers finally set out what action they will take to deliver exoneration for the Cammell Laird 37?

I will draw the matter to the attention of Ministers, because my hon. Friend is right that the people involved deserve an answer, and we will see what Ministers can do to provide that.

A game of manoeuvres, tactics and at times outright brinkmanship —that might sound familiar to some members of the Cabinet, but I am of course talking about chess. Meadow View primary school in my constituency has qualified for the London chess classic on 2 December. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them and wishing them the very best of luck?

I am happy to do so. I wish them luck, but of course I wish all the other schools involved luck as well.

Schools in Brent and Ealing, which neighbour my constituency in Harrow, are able to offer teachers an extra £1,000 to work in their schools because of the inner London weighting. Given that the cost of living in Harrow is little different from the cost of living in inner London, and given that my schools occasionally lose skilled teachers to schools less than half a mile away because of this now unfair pay differential, may we have a debate on how the School Teachers’ Review Body might improve pay for teachers and support staff in schools in Harrow?

It is right that teachers, wherever they are and whoever they are, are paid fairly for the vital service they do. We promised change for working people, and we are delivering: teachers and others are getting pay awards above inflation for the second year in a row. I will draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the Minister, but he may also wish to raise them directly with Ministers on Monday.

Lloyds bank is to close the last bank in Ammanford on 12 January, leaving a banking desert in the second-largest town in my constituency. As we are all being encouraged to bank online and become digital, we forget the 39% of Lloyds’ Ammanford customers who do not bank online. Despite Ammanford having levels of deprivation seen in many post-industrial towns, a large number of young people not in education, employment or training, and high unemployment, Link does not feel that the town requires a banking hub, despite an appeal from me and colleagues. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the importance of banking hubs in rural and post-industrial areas such as mine?

I invite the hon. Lady to apply for an Adjournment debate as this matter has been raised a number of times in business questions. I know that there has been an attempt to get a banking hub, but I suggest that she pursues that and draws that to the attention of Ministers. We changed the law to ensure that, where they are necessary, face-to-face banking can take place through banking hubs, so I would not give up on it.

Recent figures from Police Scotland show that Paisley now has the highest sickness absence rate of any police area in our country, which is a clear sign that our dedicated officers are being pushed to the brink by relentless workloads and constant pressure. The fallout is hitting my constituency hard, with antisocial behaviour in Paisley town centre putting people off visiting our beautiful town and hammering local shops that should be thriving. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling out the SNP’s reckless mismanagement of Police Scotland and urge it to invest in our public services the £10 billion that it has had from this Labour Government since we were elected?

I hope that the SNP has heard my hon. Friend’s remarks, because keeping people safe is the first responsibility of any Government. It is important that we support the police in both the powers and the resources we give them. Our Crime and Policing Bill will equip the police in England with new, stronger powers to tackle the crimes that matter most to communities. I urge the SNP Government to listen carefully as, after all, they received the largest funding settlement since devolution at the recent spending review.

The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that £6 billion of costs associated with special educational needs and disabilities provision has not been catered for in the Budget. Given that, it suggests that there will be an effective 4.9% cut in mainstream school spending per pupil. That is a massive concern for colleagues across the House. As SEND is such a tough issue to resolve, will the Leader of the House consider time for a debate on this matter so that we can resolve what has happened in the Budget?

The claim, as reported, that schools will be required to cover SEND costs is not correct. We are clear that any deficit will be absorbed within the overall Government budget. Funding for future years will be confirmed in the next spending review. I have just announced—including today—three days of Budget debate, and I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to use that time to make those points.

In my constituency, residents living near the B5013 at Blithfield reservoir have raised serious concerns about speeding and dangerous driving. There have been multiple fatalities on this stretch of road, and in August a man in his 20s unfortunately lost his life. May I ask the Leader of the House if we can find Government time for a debate on how we can hold local authorities to account for their responsibilities specifically on rural roads to protect communities such as mine?

I am sorry to hear of that case. These are important matters, and work is under way to deliver an updated strategic framework for road safety—the first in over a decade—to reduce road deaths and injuries. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives an update on that work. He may wish to look for an Adjournment debate, because I am sure that his concerns will be shared by many hon. Members across the House.

A care provider in my constituency recently closed, leaving vulnerable patients without care, and leaving staff who fulfil roles in that vital sector, and who are there on sponsored visas, in limbo. We have people who need care, and we have people who can provide it but are not able to do so. Will a Minister make a statement to the House on what will be done to protect sponsored visas from the changes in the visa system?

The hon. Lady raises an important question, and I will ensure that she gets an explanation from the appropriate Minister.

I associate myself with hon. Members’ comments about the horrific fire in Hong Kong.

My constituents’ vulnerable son died recently after attempting suicide in his prison cell at Forest Bank prison and later succumbing to his injuries. His mother is understandably devastated and appalled about the standard of care that he received prior to his death. Some 27 inmates at Forest Bank—a private prison run by Sodexo—have now died in the past five years alone, which is deeply troubling. Might we have a debate in Government time on the standard of private prisons that receive Government contracts?

I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the friends and family of my hon. Friend’s constituents—and indeed to all friends and family who have been affected by deaths in custody, which are always a tragedy. Prisoners at risk of suicide and self-harm are supported through individual case management, but the case that my hon. Friend raises is worrying. I will ensure that the Justice Secretary hears his concerns, and I invite him to request a meeting—which I will facilitate—with the appropriate Minister.

Electric and plug-in car drivers in Hinckley and Bosworth in north-west Leicestershire have woken up angry and anxious this morning. They were told to do the right thing by getting electric cars, yet the Chancellor is going around this morning saying that they will be charged per mile and that the money will go into improving roads. The Leader of the House, a learned man, will know that that link was broken in 1937. There is some consternation about how the charges will affect the second-hand car market, whether vehicles will need trackers, and what happens when charges are passed over. Those are serious considerations for my constituents, who are trying to understand how the scheme will work. May we have a debate in Government time on how the electric vehicle charges will work?

The hon. Gentleman raises important matters. I am sure that the Government will bring forward a full explanation of how the charges will work. Following yesterday’s Budget, I invite him to spend this period of Budget debate raising those matters so that he can hear the answer he seeks from Ministers themselves.

The Employment Rights Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that will safeguard the hard-won protections of workers up and down the country. Prior to its implementation, however, some companies are racing to undercut workers’ rights. I am appalled on behalf of workers at Tetrosyl in my constituency, which is engaging in shameful fire-and-rehire practices. What more can we in this House do to give voice to workers who are now facing deep financial uncertainty before Christmas?

As my hon. Friend rightly says, we are committed to ending unscrupulous fire-and-rehire practices through the Employment Rights Bill. I hope that the company she refers to has heard her comments. She may wish to raise these matters during the Budget debate or in the upcoming Christmas Adjournment debate, so that, if necessary, she can call the company out.

Last year, gig ticket scams cost music lovers over £1.6 million, as fans were exploited by greedy ticket touts. The money they paid for fake tickets often went on to fund serious organised crime groups. That makes people less willing to buy tickets for live events, which undermines that important industry, particularly in areas like Glastonbury and Somerton. May we have a debate in Government time on the ticket resale market and ticket scams?

As the hon. Lady will know, the Government are committed to bringing forward measures to address those issues. When we do so, there will be ample time to debate the points that she raises.

Tomorrow, Tony Wright, my constituent and the founder and chief executive officer of Forward Assist, a local veterans charity, is retiring. Tony is a veteran and trained social worker, and he has provided support and advocacy for veterans across the region and the country for well over a decade. It is no exaggeration to say that the tireless work and research that he has led has changed and saved lives. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Tony and wishing him all the best in his retirement?

I will take great pleasure in doing so. I have had the honour of knowing Tony Wright. As I said to him recently, his work has improved people’s lives for the better, including the lives of people he will never have met. I am sure that many Members across the House will not only wish Tony the best and thank him for his work, but acknowledge the impressive veterans in their own constituencies who, like Tony, do such fantastic work on behalf of the veteran community—indeed, on behalf of the whole community. These sessions are a good opportunity to highlight that work, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for doing so.

Far too many children face eating development issues and conditions, and they often feel that they do not get the relevant support from the NHS. Parents feel stigmatised, are told that their children will grow out of it, and often feel that their parenting is being condemned by healthcare professionals. The Feeding Trust in my constituency is doing excellent work to raise awareness of this issue. Will the Leader of the House endorse the representations I have made to the Health Secretary asking that the matter be a front-and-centre priority for the NHS? The Government must ensure a joined-up approach with the Department for Education, schools and the curriculum.

The Government recognise what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Indeed, we are taking action and are committed to ensuring that there is provision not just across the community but in schools. The Mental Health Bill will present the hon. Gentleman with an opportunity to raise those concerns. Of course, we also have the NHS 10-year plan. These are difficult issues for parents, and he is absolutely right to raise them on the Floor of the House.

The end of November is nigh, so dodgy moustaches across the land will finally disappear—but not before thousands of us MoBros have raised millions for Movember, which does brilliant and much-needed work for men’s health. Donations are still gratefully received, of course. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating all MoBros across the House and beyond, as well as everybody who has raised money for men’s health this month, and will he grant time for a debate on the three missions of Movember: mental health, prostate cancer and testicular cancer awareness?

I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Members who support Movember, not least because of the money that they raise for important causes. I am heartened that those issues get the awareness that they deserve. I congratulate him on what he is doing, and thank him for what was a very moving contribution to the debate on International Men’s Day.

Niagara Falls was the venue for this year’s world kickboxing championships. Andy Crittenden’s martial arts centre put Rossington firmly on the global map, winning four bronze, one silver and five gold medals. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Andy’s triumph and congratulating all the contestants who took part, and in thanking the coaches and volunteers up and down the country who bring children and young adults’ sporting dreams to life?

I am pleased to hear about the success of the young martial arts athletes from Rossington, and I am grateful for the opportunity to thank Andy and all the sports coaches across our country who help to make achievements like this possible.

I am deeply concerned by the growing and systematic discrimination faced by Christians in Algeria, including the closing of churches and the aggressive abuse of blasphemy legislation against Christian converts. Will the Leader of the House urge the Foreign Secretary to outline what concrete actions the Government will take to ensure the protection of Christian communities and the promotion of freedom of religion and belief in Algeria as a fundamental priority?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising such a serious issue, as he always does. As he knows, we are committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all. We monitor the human rights situation in Algeria and routinely meet religious groups there to determine how best to support freedom of religion and belief. I understand that the relevant Foreign Office Minister met the Algerian Government last month to discuss this very issue. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

Forth Valley College recently announced that its Alloa campus risks closure due to SNP cuts. The prospect is devastating for Forth valley and is a direct threat to the opportunities of thousands of working-class Scottish kids from Stirling, Falkirk and especially Clackmannanshire. Reform Falkirk took a different view, commenting recently:

“The College sector needs slimmed down too much focus on woke ideologies.”

Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a ludicrous insult by Reform to our vital Scottish further education sector, which educates the people who make up our local economy and public services?

I join my hon. Friend, who is a great champion of education and opportunity for young people in his constituency and his area. He is absolutely right that Reform’s message on the closure of important courses at the Alloa campus is an insult to not only lecturers and teachers, but to the choice that students themselves make. Scotland has a proud tradition and record on education, and it is unfortunate that Reform UK seems determined to undermine it and talk it down.

It is Family Business Week. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Natalie Couper Dance Academy? Whether it is for jazz, hip-hop, lyrical, freestyle, acrobatics or any kind of dance, those who come to the academy are treated like family by Natalie and Korrie. It is fantastic that they are expanding their business again in January 2026, and I loved visiting them and taking part in a dance session—even though Natalie’s granny Maggie said I had two left feet, which was correct.

I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Natalie Couper Dance Academy on its growth and thanking it for everything it does. I am frankly not surprised that he has been recognised as a man of the left, because he has been proclaiming it for such a long time. Local businesses like dance academies can add so much to a local community, and I am pleased to hear that it is expanding its business again.

I recently presented a petition to restore Falmouth’s pool, which we lost three years ago. It got 5,754 wet signatures—over a quarter of the population of the town. We have a very active community interest company and private business support, and the mayor has just swum the length of the channel—in a different pool a 40-minute drive away—to raise money. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to meet the mayor and me as part of the response to our petition and grant Government time for a debate on Government support for pools?

My hon. Friend is a fierce campaigner for her constituency, and I commend her for that. I understand that she has raised this issue with the Department before. We are committed to ensuring that communities can benefit from high-quality sports facilities, and we are investing £400 million in new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities, including swimming pools, across the UK. I will ensure that she gets the meeting she requests from the Minister.

My colleague, Professor Malcolm Reed, the former chair of the Medical Schools Council, has been trying to address the serious issue of sexual misconduct in medical schools. When students undertake placements in NHS or other non-university settings, an accountability gap exists, as they fall outside both university and NHS misconduct policies. How can we ensure there is the co-operation required to address this between the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care?

My hon. Friend raises a very important matter and a very worrying issue. I will raise that with Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care as a starting point and encourage them to meet my hon. Friend, so that he can expand on the issue he raises.

That concludes business questions. I will give the Front Benchers a few moments to swap over.