PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 23 April 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
Monday 27 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by consideration of a Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.
Tuesday 28 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
Wednesday 29 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
Thursday 30 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages.
The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
Last weekend, I met the friends and family of Jamie Tweedie as they walked the St Cuthbert’s Way from Melrose to Holy Island, raising over £25,000 for the Scottish Brain Tumour Research Centre of Excellence. Jamie was a local farmer in the Borders who tragically lost his life to a brain tumour just under a year ago. I know their efforts will help advance treatments for that devastating disease.
We are all watching the development of peace talks between the US and Iran. For the good of our economy and in the interests of bringing energy bills down for households and businesses, we all hope to see a swift end to the conflict.
Turning to domestic politics, after weeks of chaos, this may be the lowest point yet for this Government—a Prime Minister putting his own interests above the national interest. He has already had four chiefs of staff, five directors of communications, three Cabinet Secretaries and four principal private secretaries. Does the Leader of the House agree that perhaps the problem lies with the Prime Minister himself? On Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard extraordinary evidence from Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He described a dismissive attitude in Downing Street towards vetting, and “constant pressure” to appoint Peter Mandelson to the most senior diplomatic role. He also told MPs that he was asked to give the Prime Minister’s then director of communications a senior diplomatic post—without informing the Foreign Secretary, it would seem. The Foreign Office is not a redeployment pool for failed political advisers.
Can the Leader of the House tell us whether it was appropriate for No. 10 to apply such pressure over Mandelson’s vetting, or does he accept that due process was not followed? Does he believe the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House? Does the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister continues to make statements that are hard to reconcile with reality? Can the Leader of the House explain why Olly Robbins was sacked? Was it right and fair to sack him?
The Prime Minister has never looked weaker. The Prime Minister is so weak that he has brought forward the moment of Prorogation to avoid another bruising Prime Minister’s questions. He has already lost the confidence of the entire country. When will Labour MPs finally stand up for their constituents and join us in removing this dreadful Prime Minister?
While the Prime Minister is consumed by internal chaos, the issues that matter to our constituents are being ignored. Energy bills are soaring, particularly for those in rural communities who rely on heating oil, people are struggling to find work, and decisions on funding our national defence are being delayed, despite global threats. At the same time, Government Back Benchers and Cabinet members brief against each other, plotting over the Prime Minister’s future. As this parliamentary Session draws to a close, I doubt it will be remembered fondly by those on the Government Benches.
In two weeks’ time, voters will go to the polls in important elections across England and in parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, Labour’s campaign has descended into confusion, illustrated by the remarkable sight of the Prime Minister visiting the nuclear base at Faslane, while avoiding any contact with his own party leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. It seemed that the Prime Minister needed the protection of the nuclear deterrent from his own Scottish Labour colleagues. This Government have found it easier to locate secret Russian submarines in the north Atlantic than to find the Scottish Labour leader in the south side of Glasgow.
Across Scotland, voters are clear: they are tired of an SNP Government distracted from delivery and focused on independence. But people are not powerless. The peach-coloured regional ballot paper gives voters the opportunity to prevent another SNP majority, as they did in 2016 and 2021. The results of another SNP majority in Scotland would be similar to those of the current Labour majority in this House: more broken promises, more chaos and more division. Does the Leader of the House agree that whether at Westminster or at Holyrood, Governments deserve to be judged harshly if they do not stick to their promises and they inflict chaos on our country?
I wish everybody a happy St George’s day today. During this week, we have celebrated the centenary of the birth of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and it has been announced that a trust will be established in honour of the life of the late Queen. The trust will focus on restoring shared spaces in communities, reflecting the late Queen’s commitment to public service, inspired by the belief that everyone is our neighbour—a lesson that we should all seek to live by.
Last week, the Government made clear their commitment to tackling antisemitic attacks. Following the incident this week, I restate our position that attacks on British Jews are an attack on all of us. We will do whatever it takes to stop those who seek to intimidate our Jewish communities.
We are approaching the end of the Session, which, at its conclusion, will have seen the delivery of more than 50 Government Bills. We will continue to build on that in the next Session.
A statement was made to the House to provide an update on Capita and civil service pensions. I know that Members across the House will have welcomed that update. I assure hon. Members that the issues that they raise with me in this forum are heard by the Government and, where we can, the Government act.
Before I turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), may I wish everyone taking part in the London marathon this Sunday, including all the Members of the House who are participating, the very best of luck?
I join the hon. Gentleman in saying how saddened we are to learn about the death of Jamie Tweedie, which came far too soon. His friends and family are ensuring that we remember him and that he is not forgotten, and his untimely death leaves a legacy of which they should be proud.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the peace talks. I join him in hoping that they are successful. We want the ceasefire to continue. We want to ensure that the strait of Hormuz is open; otherwise, as he points out, it will prolong the expected economic damage, not just to our economy but to others. I want to put it on the record that what has unfolded in that part of the world demonstrates that the Prime Minister’s judgment on not joining the war in the first place was absolutely correct. He has spent his time making diplomatic efforts, working with others, to ensure that the strait of Hormuz is open at the earliest opportunity.
Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on domestic politics. He is perfectly entitled to make his case, but let me remind the House that the Prime Minister came here at the earliest opportunity on Monday and faced questions on Peter Mandelson for two and a half hours. That was followed by an emergency debate for three hours on Tuesday in which Members had an opportunity to make their case and ask their questions. Yesterday, the Prime Minister faced Prime Minister’s questions for about 45 minutes, in which he was questioned extensively on the issue. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing its job in holding decision makers to account. There have been numerous opportunities—including at Cabinet Office questions, which has just finished—for other questions to be put. I and the Government cannot be held responsible for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been so hopeless during these events that she cannot hold the Government to account effectively. [Interruption.]
Let me just mention the question of Prorogation, because the hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading too many newspapers. I have just read out to the House that the business next week—[Interruption.]
I have just read out the business, which includes, if necessary, Wednesday and Thursday, when we will be dealing with Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman asked about PMQs; if the House is still sitting, PMQs will take place. I would imagine, too, that business questions will take place if we are still sitting on Thursday. Nothing in what I read out suggests anything that is not usual.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the record of this Government and went on to talk about what is happening in Scotland. Let me disagree with him about the way in which this Government will be judged. The borrowing figures show that we are borrowing less than at any time in the past four years, unemployment has come down, inflation and interest rates were falling, and waiting lists are coming down, too. I accept that we are facing the turmoil of the fallout from the situation in the middle east, but when such events happen, as a result of the action that we have taken in the last two years, this country is much better placed to see out those challenges than we were under the previous Government.
Finally, I agree with the hon. Gentleman in what he said about the situation north of the border, at least as it pertains to the SNP. Voters suggest that they are tiring of the SNP Government; after two decades in government, it is time for change. The SNP Government have had the biggest settlement since devolution, and they are failing across the board on public services. I expect that voters will want to take the opportunity to make their position clear. Let me finally disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the way to do that is to vote Labour.
Yesterday, the Public Accounts Committee published a report that raises serious concerns about the resilience of the new hospital programme. This project has already been riddled with delays and spiralling costs, and it now faces further risk from a volatile global economy. The Office for National Statistics inflation figures, which were also released yesterday, add to the concerns, as they confirm what many feared: “Trumpflation” is having an effect on our economy. UK prices rose by 3.3% in the 12 months to March, driven largely by the biggest increase in fuel costs for over three years—a direct consequence of Trump’s reckless war in Iran and the effective closure of the strait of Hormuz.
Capital infrastructure projects, such as the new hospital programme, are acutely vulnerable to exactly that kind of supply disruption and inflationary pressure. In my area, Stepping Hill hospital already faces a £130 million repair backlog, crumbling buildings, flooded corridors and years of broken promises. Will the Government make time for a debate on the impact of global economic instability on UK investment and public infrastructure, and on their plan to ensure that patients, including those depending on hospitals such as Stepping Hill, are not left waiting even longer for the facilities they need?
The previous Government’s ambition to deliver 40 new hospitals by 2030 was not achievable; neither was it funded properly. We have conducted a review of the programme and, alongside the record £13.6 billion of capital investment in the NHS last year, we have put the new hospital programme on a sustainable footing and a more realistic timetable. We are keeping delivery on track, responding to changes in healthcare needs, and working closely with the relevant NHS trusts to accelerate progress wherever possible, but the hon. Lady is right to remind us of the potential economic fallout from the volatile international situation.
The Chancellor updated the House earlier this week on the Government’s response to events in the middle east, because the war in Iran will come at a cost. However, the Government have had the right economic plan to keep costs down and, at the same time, to invest in public services, and we will continue to do so. I except that as the situation unfolds, the Chancellor will want to keep the House updated.
I suspect that these will be the last business questions before Prorogation. As is usual at the end of a Session, I shall write to the Leader of the House, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, with a list of debates that are still on our waiting list. We have debates for the Chamber until the Christmas recess; for Tuesday mornings in Westminster Hall until the November recess; and for Thursdays in Westminster Hall until the conference recess. If the Leader of the House wants to have any general debates before the Committee is reconstituted following state opening, there is a long list of them. I thank him for laying the Standing Orders, but when will they be considered by the House? I pay tribute to the members of the Backbench Business Committee, the Clerks and the other support services, who have done such a brilliant job assisting us in formulating the debates that we have had.
There have been recent attacks on Jewish communities across north London. The recent arrests of individuals that have taken place are welcome, but Jewish people will be thinking twice about whether they should go to synagogue this weekend and whether they will be safe. It is imperative that the Government not only take measures to reassure Jewish people in this country, but take prompt action. The individuals perpetrating these evil attacks are controlled by Iranians; it is often Iranian diplomats or other third parties who are directing these operations. We must put a stop to what is going on in radicalising our young people and using them as stooges for the Iranian regime. Will the Leader of the House encourage the Security Minister to take prompt action to round up the individuals instructing these evil people so that Jewish people can feel safe once again in this country?
Let me say something about Brian Jones. He was in a different party to me, but that does not matter, because people like him are important not just in their communities, but for the working of local politics. We need to appreciate that, and I join the hon. Gentleman and all Members in sending our condolences to Brian’s friends and family.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the Backbench Business Committee motions, and he is right that we have tabled them. He seeks to draw me on when they will be dealt with, so let me use a parliamentary term: shortly. In this case I really mean “shortly”, so he can work out whatever that means.
I join the hon. Gentleman in his remarks about antisemitism, because the House shares the view that all religious hatred is abhorrent and has no place in our society. We are shocked by the recent attacks and, as I said in my opening remarks, we stand with the Jewish community. We thank counter-terror officers for their work, and we are working with the Community Security Trust to keep the community safe.
The hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention previously to the question of whether legislation is robust enough. We are bringing forward new legislation in the Crime and Policing Bill, but should we need to go further, I will draw his remarks to the attention of the Security Minister.
Secondly, as the Leader of the House knows, the exemptions set out in the Humble Address that relate to the Intelligence and Security Committee are about redactions that need to be made to protect either national security or international relations. Beyond that, the Government produced a document to go along with the first disclosure of material on 11 March, which set out a number of grounds on which the Government would also seek to redact information. If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, I will quote what they are. The document mentions
“Individuals’ email addresses and phone numbers; the identities of junior civil servants; personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the motion; and legal professional privilege.”
It also makes reference to a
“small amount of Peter Mandelson’s personal data”,
and then says that
“It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including commercially sensitive information.”
I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that if the Government intend to do so, they need to come to this House to explain what those grounds for redaction will be, because—as I hope he will agree—they are not covered by the terms of the Humble Address as it stands. It is important that the House has the chance to validate the Government’s view that further redactions would be appropriate.
My third point is about redactions on grounds other than national security or international relations. As the Leader of the House knows, the Committee I am part of is going through documents now to confirm that the redactions the Government propose to make are appropriate on the grounds of national security or international relations, but no one is doing the same work in relation to redactions that the Government seek to make for other reasons. Should they not be, and should there not be an opportunity for someone in this House to look at the unredacted versions of those documents, to confirm that the redactions the Government are seeking to make are appropriate?
“we will release that further material shortly, subject to the processes ongoing with the Metropolitan police”—
which I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman understands—
“and the Intelligence and Security Committee, and we will continue to keep Members updated as we make progress.”—[Official Report, 21 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 235.]
The Prime Minister has been very clear that he expects us to make progress as quickly as possible, but as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are literally mountains of documents to wade through.
As for what the ISC was asked to do, I do not believe that that has fundamentally changed. My view, which I have expressed in one of these sessions, is that the Government would be wise to get as much information as possible out as quickly as possible, and to do as little redaction as possible. However, if I have understood him correctly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman raises an interesting question about what the Government have subsequently said about what they might or might not do. I want to go away and think about that, because from what he has said—and I trust him absolutely on these matters—it does seem somewhat at odds. Were the Government to change those terms, I would expect them to come to this House and do so.
As the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have both said, we are keeping the situation under review. We are also keeping under review the cost of red diesel, which I know will be more important in some areas, in particular rural areas, than it might be in others. We have also taken action on heating oil, which again is probably more of a prevalent concern in areas like hers than it is in some urban areas.
To respond to what the hon. Lady said about the money that the Chancellor is meant to be getting in through taxation as a result of rising fuel prices. That is false economics; it does not exist. It may be that the receipts are coming in through one door, but they are going out through another because costs to Government rise, too. We should not try to—I know she is not trying to—kid people that somehow this is a benefit to the Chancellor. The Chancellor does not want this to happen and it is not as straightforward as the hon. Lady has said.
My constituent Milly Mulcahy is a wheelchair user who is entirely reliant on a lift maintained by Lancashire county council to enter and leave her home. Since being installed six years ago, this lift has broken down constantly; every time it breaks down, Milly is trapped in her own home. It was completely broken for two months over Christmas, with the county council failing to respond to multiple requests. Engineers have confirmed that the lift will never work reliably and simply needs replacing, but the county council has refused to engage in a long-term solution. This flies in the face of common sense—thousands of pounds have been spent on engineer call-outs with nothing to show for it. Will the Leader of the House agree with me on calling on the Reform leadership at Lancashire county council to stop dodging the issue, do the job properly and give Milly the freedom she deserves?
One of the causes of flooding is lack of maintenance of ditches by riparian owners. Even when the agency is able to raise it with owners, it has insufficient funding to take enforcement action, relying instead on neighbourly good will. As our climate changes and we have more frequent and severe flooding, will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time on the remit and capacity of the Environment Agency to keep us all safe?
I understand the concerns about the Environment Agency when such things happen, but a lot of Environment Agency staff are doing a really good and really tough job, day in and day out, and we should send them our support.
I have to be diplomatic in wishing all the communities, including Chorley and Slough, well in their quest to be the town of culture. Even if they are not the outright winner, taking part in the process and being a runner-up is a considerable achievement, and it is often a boost to local people.
Before I sit down, Mr Speaker, I also want to mention that North Shields has a very strong case.
The Believe in Bedworth board manages the £20 million Pride in Place investment from the Government, and we are holding a St George’s day celebration this Saturday. There will be free activities for children, as well as food vendors and stalls. It will be a great day out for everyone, and I am really looking forward to it. Can I ask the Leader of the House if the Government will make time for a debate on the importance of community events like this for cohesion in our areas and to celebrate days like St George’s day and Warwickshire day?
Reform-run Lancashire county council, which borders my Bolton West constituency, has threatened residents with care home closures, put gritting depots on the chopping block and attempted to withhold money given by this Labour Government to support local nurseries. With vital local elections on Thursday 7 May, does the Leader of the House agree that my constituents will look askance at the chaos over the border in Reform-run Lancashire, listen to their neighbours and conclude that once voters have had a taste of Reform in power, they do not go back for seconds?
With the House’s indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I correct the record? In answer to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire), I said that we have already rolled out 700,000 emergency dental appointments. What I should have said is that we have started rolling out 700,000 emergency dental appointments. The work began this month. I want to ensure that when I misspeak, I put the record right at the earliest opportunity.
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.