PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 13 November 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
Monday 17 November—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Bill.
Tuesday 18 November—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Border Security, Asylum And Immigration Bill, followed by Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Property (Digital Assets) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 20 November—Debate on a motion on the subject of international Men’s day, followed by debate on a motion on an injury in service award. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 21 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 24 November includes:
Monday 24 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day one).
Tuesday 25 November—Remaining stages of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill (day two).
Wednesday 26 November—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver her Budget statement.
Thursday 27 November—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 28 November—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 1 December includes:
Monday 1 December—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Tuesday 2 December—Conclusion of the Budget debate.
In the spirit of exchanging news stories that have developed over the past two or three weeks, I will, if I may, set out a raft of intriguing items. Nine former four-star generals have condemned the Government’s treatment of veterans on Remembrance Day. One million more people than a year ago are now claiming universal credit without any requirement to look for a job. The Chancellor gave an unexpected early press conference—apparently to prepare people for major tax rises—and the Prime Minister acknowledged yesterday the rise in national insurance. Junior doctors have announced a five-day strike, starting tomorrow, in pursuit of a 26% pay rise, on top of the woefully inadequate—as they see it—29% received last year. No. 10 Downing Street has insisted that the Prime Minister has full confidence in Morgan McSweeney, and that he—or perhaps Mr McSweeney —will still be Prime Minister at the next election.
It has rightly been said that our country has moved from being post war to being pre-war. In recent weeks, we have seen a marked escalation of the conflict in Ukraine: Russian forces have made gains in and around the city of Pokrovsk, threatening to cut transport routes and displace thousands more civilians, and missile and drone attacks on energy and transport infrastructure have intensified, with serious consequences for Ukraine’s ability to sustain its economy through the winter. These developments follow reports of a significant increase in Russian arms production and continued circumvention of sanctions through covert oil and gas shipments. At the same time, international aid flows have slowed, and Ukrainian forces are facing actual or potential shortages of money, ammunition or equipment.
All that, I suggest, underlines the need for Parliament to take stock. Three years into the conflict, the nature of the war is shifting, and now demands renewed strategic co-ordination among Ukraine’s allies. In that context, I ask the Leader of the House to commit to keeping back 4 December for the Backbench debate on Ukraine requested by my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) and agreed by the Backbench Business Committee.
By my calculation, we have not had a general debate on Ukraine on the Floor of the House since February this year, and not on a substantive motion since 2023. The debate would allow the House to review the current worrying state of military preparedness and humanitarian situation, the position on frozen Russian financial assets held in Europe, the status of occupied territories that Russia wrongly claims for itself, and the Government’s approach to long-range defensive support and sanctions enforcement. Right hon. and hon. Members could examine the diplomatic context, test Government policy and cross-departmental co-ordination, and bring the diverse range of expertise and knowledge across the House to bear on a crucial issue facing the entire continent of Europe. Above all, it would allow this House of Commons, as an institution, to brief itself in full and demonstrate the strong sense of unity that exists in this country on the vital defence of our sovereign ally, Ukraine. The House has been steadfast in its support for Ukraine, and rightly so, but, as the conflict evolves, we must ensure our response evolves with it. It is possible that the Leader of the House’s genius for prognostication and intelligence-gathering may have already caused him to form a supportive view of this request, but, if not, I ask very much that he have the Government make time on 4 December for that timely and important debate.
I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his remarks. I join him in thanking you, Mr Speaker, and indeed all House staff, for this week’s work on remembrance events, which provide an opportunity for us, not just as a House but as a nation, to come together each year to pay collective tribute to those who have served and those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I also join the shadow Leader of the House in drawing the attention of Members to the remembrance clock at the National Memorial Arboretum, which will serve as a permanent memorial to MPs, peers, journalists and staff who died in war, conflict, and because of acts of terrorism. Mr Speaker, I know that you and the Lord Speaker have written to Members regarding this, but I join the shadow Leader of the House in suggesting that, where possible, colleagues may wish to contribute to that fund.
I also draw attention to the fact that the Government have today published their response to the UK Commission on Covid Commemoration, setting out plans to mark that period in our nation’s history. My thoughts, and those of the Government, are with the many families who suffered the devastating loss of a loved one during that time. I know that there are members of Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice in Parliament today, and we thank them for all they do to provide support to others in their grief. The commemorative programme will ensure that, as a country, we do not forget.
This month also marks a number of important awareness campaigns. November is Men’s Mental Health Month, which raises awareness, tackles stigma surrounding men’s mental health and encourages men to seek help and support when they need it. We also recognise Islamophobia Awareness Month. Islamophobia has no place in our society; the Government are clear that we must challenge and eradicate all forms of Islamophobia and ensure that everyone feels safe in their community.
I will come to the shadow Leader of the House’s points in a moment, but I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming the Transport Secretary’s announcement yesterday about plans aimed at reducing long waiting lists for driving tests and preventing slots being sold on at inflated prices. That is good news as not only do many of our constituents take a keen interest in the issue, but many Members across the House have raised it during business questions and on other parliamentary occasions. It is evidence, if we needed it, that the Government are listening to those concerns and are taking action.
I will turn now to the shadow Leader of the House’s remarks and, to some extent, put aside his knockabout—except to point out, of course, that it is true that more people are moving across to universal credit, because it was always planned that people would move across in the new system. There is no great surprise there.
On the more serious point that the right hon. Gentleman raises, we stand firm in our support for Ukraine and its sovereignty. I am talking not just about this Government but this House: it is important that we get an opportunity to discuss these matters. I will take seriously his reasonable request that we have a debate—certainly before the end of this year—because the Government do stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine. We have a good record of bringing the matter back to the House, particularly through statements, so that the House is updated on any developments, but I do want to give the House an opportunity to debate the matter more fully.
I, too, would like to focus on Ukraine this week. Russia’s war is rumbling on and we are about to enter a long and cold winter, in which it looks like temperatures will drop below minus 20°C. We hear that Vladimir Putin has a vicious plot to attack the energy infrastructure of Ukraine, threatening the heat supply to the very homes in which families are trying to survive. As Russia makes advances, it feels like Britain and its allies have reached a bit of a stalling point. We are standing around worrying whether it is legitimate to seize Russian assets, and we are worried about potential future legal claims by the Russian state. All the while, Putin is pouring petrol into his war machine. I feel that the time for deliberation is surely over. Several legal routes have been proposed, and it is now time to act.
In the meantime, one of the weapons that we have in our armoury is the sanctions regime against Russia. It is important not only to impose these sanctions, but to enforce them. It was quite shocking to learn this week that the Government were unable to explain why over £30 million-worth of Russian planes were imported into the UK. I note that the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation is much smaller than its equivalents in the US and the EU. In the debate that we may have about Ukraine before the end of the year, I wonder whether we could focus on the role of OFSI and determine whether it is adequate, and whether it has the resources to properly deal with the scale and importance of the UK sanctions regime.
The hon. Gentleman mentions sanctions. We are pleased that the United States has joined the UK in sanctioning Lukoil and Rosneft, which is very important, but as he points out, it is important that we enforce those sanctions. He raises some interesting points about whether the regime is robust enough. If we are to have a debate before the end of the year, this is the very sort of thing that he might want to raise himself.
In addition to the debates that the Leader of the House has announced in the Chamber next week, in Westminster Hall there will be a debate on Tuesday 18 November on the 80th anniversary of UNESCO, and debates on Thursday 20 November on inequalities faced by unpaid carers and World COPD—chronic obstructive lung disease—Day. I urge Members who want debates to coincide with specific events to apply early, because we are now looking to allocate time for debates in February and March.
Turning to my own question to the Leader of the House, yesterday—I am sure along with many other Members—I attended the drop-in session organised by Samaritans and the Centre for Countering Digital Hate. I was shown the template letters produced by AI that, in effect, encourage particularly young and vulnerable people to consider suicide, which is an appalling state of affairs. I recognise that Ministers are looking at all aspects of the digital world and so on, but I am sure the whole House agrees that we must take urgent action to combat this. I hope the Leader of the House will arrange a statement by a Minister on how the Government intend approaching it.
On the hon. Member’s second point, I thank him not just for raising that question, but for the tone in which he raised it. He has done a lot of work on these matters, which are incredibly serious because of their impact on our constituents. I, too, commend Samaritans, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate and all other organisations that support people on these issues. I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister on what we intend to do to combat this matter, and if it is appropriate, a statement to the House.
That company is video game publisher Rockstar Games, which has fired at least 30 employees across its UK studios, including Rockstar North in Edinburgh. Several of my constituents have been directly affected, and some came to express their concerns to me last week. They claim that they have been sacked because they were trying to unionise and discuss working conditions in private. Rockstar accused them of distributing confidential information and sacked them for gross misconduct. I have written to Rockstar to ask for information on this matter, but I wonder whether I might have a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss what steps can be taken to support the workforce, and to ask what action the Government are taking—
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.