PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 27 February 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)
Debate Detail
The business for next week is as follows:
Monday 3 March—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
Tuesday 4 March—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill.
Wednesday 5 March—Estimates day (first allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department of Health and Social Care; the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office; and the Department for Business and Trade. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 6 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by general debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a debate on a motion on political finance rules. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 March—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 10 March will include:
Monday 10 March—Second Reading of the Crime and Policing Bill.
Tuesday 11 March—Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill (day one).
Wednesday 12 March—Remaining stages of the Employment Rights Bill (day two).
Thursday 13 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 14 March—Private Members’ Bills.
On a very different note, this week also marks the third anniversary of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. We wish the Prime Minister every success in his meetings at the White House today. The Government have come in for some fairly punishing criticism from me at the Dispatch Box in recent months, and rightly so. They came to power loudly advertising their virtue and careful planning, but instead, as the House will know, we have seen a series of entirely avoidable resignations, blunders and mishaps. The Government have talked about growth, but their decisions have managed to reduce the Bank of England’s forecast from 2% to 0.75% growth for this year. It is little wonder when one considers the £25 billion increase in national insurance contributions and the imposition of an Employment Rights Bill with an up-front cost estimated at £5 billion, among much else.
Most bizarre of all has been the lack of foresight in financial planning. The Chancellor talked grandly in her Mais lecture last year about “securonomics”—whatever that is—and the importance of economic security, but as many commentators have noticed, her fiscal rules and other decisions have left her very little room for manoeuvre. After all, it was obvious in the autumn that there could be tariffs on trade and, as Ministers have since acknowledged, an inevitable rise in defence spending. It is almost as though Labour never imagined, or perhaps never wanted to believe, that President Trump would be re-elected. As a result, the Government may be forced to have a mini-Budget next month and then a spending review, which has been so delayed that they will have gone a full year from their election without having any settled spending plans. Meanwhile, they prefer to import oil and gas from abroad, rather than use less expensive domestic energy supplies. Forget securonomics; this is a recipe for insecurity, as well as increasing carbon emissions.
However, it is important to give credit where credit is due. I reported in December that genuine signs of reality were starting to break through in the Government’s so-called plan for change. In it, the Prime Minister said:
“In 2010, the incoming government inherited public finances in desperate need of repair.”
He said that the UK needed
“a profound cultural shift away from a declinist mentality, which has become so comfortable with failure”.
Finally, and most notably, he said that
“we cannot tax our way to prosperity or spend our way to better public services.”
The Prime Minister was right on all three counts, and he is right now to increase defence spending. It is not untrue to say that he is visibly becoming more conservative before our eyes.
Unfortunately, the real numbers in the defence statement were in fact half what he claimed, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies quickly made clear, and I am sorry to say that the statement was insulting in other ways to this House. It appears to have been leaked to the media, who ran the headline before the Prime Minister had even stood up. Perish the thought that the statement was deliberately redacted so that MPs would be kept in the dark and could not hold the Government to account. The Prime Minister has emphasised all the planning that was involved in this decision. Even so, he was repeatedly unable to answer the simple “yes or no” question of whether funding for the Chagos Islands deal was included in the total.
What is worse is that, in his statement, the Prime Minister tried to aggregate the intelligence services budget into the defence budget. That is grossly misleading, because those budgets are, and have long been, kept separate. What is worse still is that the Prime Minister’s claim that the combination of the two budgets would be 2.6% of GDP seems to imply a cut, not a rise, in the budget for the intelligence services, which currently stands at over 0.15% of GDP. This cannot be correct. Even if the Leader of the House cannot address my question now, I would be grateful if she could write to me with the details in order to answer it for the record and for the benefit of this House.
As the Prime Minister attends a very important meeting with President Trump today, I know that he has the support of the whole House behind him in the national interest. The peace and security that we have enjoyed in recent generations has shifted significantly in the last few years, not least because of Russia’s aggression and its illegal invasion of Ukraine. The Prime Minister has shown determined leadership on the world stage to ensure that our national security is protected in the long term.
The whole House has also come together once again this week to show our unity and strength in supporting Ukraine. Three years since Russia’s full-scale illegal invasion of Ukraine, we stand in solidarity with its people. We support their bravery and their democratically elected President, and we stand firm for their sovereignty and lasting security, free from threats from Russia. The cross-party unity on display this week, which I know will be on display again this afternoon, shows this House at its best and gives the Prime Minister great strength in his negotiations and discussions.
As the shadow Leader of the House said, the Prime Minister also announced this week—to Parliament first—that to respond to the changing and growing threats we face, defence spending will increase to 2.5% of GDP by 2027 and grow to 3% in the next Parliament. This marks the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, going further than commitments we made in our manifesto. It is vital not just for our own capabilities, but for maintaining peace and security beyond our shores. Other European countries must also step up at this crucial juncture. I was really pleased that the announcement of the increase to 2.5% was universally welcomed across the House.
The right hon. Gentleman yet again raised the Government’s economic record. Let us have a look at that record once again, shall we? Interest rates have come down three times in a row, mortgage rates are also going down, wages are going up, and the lowest-paid will receive a big pay rise from 1 April. He may not be interested in pay and work as dignity and security, but this party is, and we are not ashamed to say so. He talked about energy prices, and he will know that this country, under his Government, was uniquely and specifically exposed to global energy markets. The only way for us to get lower bills in the long term—sustainable lower bills—is to make sure that we have clean energy generated in this country, and that is what this Government are embarking on.
Unfortunately, the right hon. Gentleman wants to open up a difference on defence spending, but I gently remind him that the last time we spent 2.5% on defence was under the last Labour Government. His Government made promise after promise on the never-never, but it never happened and it was not a credible plan, so I gently remind him of that.
It is another week of business questions, and another week that the shadow Leader of the House has failed to say anything supportive about his own leader. I keep giving him ample opportunity to do so at these sessions each week. I thought he might want to highlight some of the recent speeches and interventions she has made, given that they have had so little coverage. She advised us to stop hiding behind “vapid statements”. I am not sure that we are making vapid statements; I think that may be her. Was he not taken with her claim that only the
“Conservatives are the guardians of Western civilisation”?
I know he takes his history very seriously, so what does he make of that claim?
Did the right hon. Gentleman not want to take the opportunity to restate the claim that the Prime Minister’s big moves this week were all down to a letter he received from the Leader of the Opposition, or does he, like the rest of us, realise that that is obviously absurd? What about her suggestion that her leadership stint is akin to that of Donald Trump in his second term? I mean, come on! I think we can all see that it is not quite going the way the Conservatives hoped. I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman is a card player, but I am sure he agrees with me that they are not really holding the Trump card, but more of a busted flush.
On top of that, Ofgem has taken the decision to increase the cap for the price of energy bills by 6.4% in April 2025, which is higher than the 5% increase that even those in the sector expected. This is the third increase since October 2024. The latest price rise means that households will be forced to pay about £600 a year more for their gas and electricity than before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine three years ago.
The Liberal Democrats have been gravely concerned about the Government’s delays to tackling poorly insulated homes over this winter and to implementing the new future homes standard. As a result, an estimated 6 million households are still in fuel poverty.
It is clear that to tackle the joint issues of climate change and ever-increasing energy prices, the Government must be bold. The Liberal Democrats want a 10-year emergency upgrade programme to make homes warmer and cheaper to heat, including free insulation and heat pumps for those on low incomes. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time to discuss what more can be done to support those struggling to stay warm, in a way that also supports decarbonisation?
I am sure hon. Lady will agree that the only way to tackle the issue is to ensure that we have home-grown, cheaper renewable power and that we reduce demand, as she says, by the better insulation of our homes, which account for a huge amount of our energy use. Household energy prices are lower than they were last year, but we need to go further and faster. We announced an extension of the warm home discount scheme, which means an extra £150 for nearly 3 million additional people, and we have committed £3.4 billion over the next three years for home insulation. We will continue to go further and faster, and I will ensure that she and the House are kept updated.
In addition to the business the Leader of the House has announced, on Thursday 13 March in the Chamber, there will be a debate on the future of farming, followed by a debate on mental health support in educational settings, and on Thursday 20 March, if we are given that date, there will be a debate on knife crime among children and young people, followed by a debate on coastal communities. In Westminster Hall, on Tuesday 4 March, there will be a debate on the cultural heritage of market towns, and on Thursday 6 March, there will be a debate on the financial sustainability and governance of English football, followed by one on ambulance service response times. There will be debates in Westminster Hall on Tuesday 11 March on the governance of English rugby union, and on Thursday 13 March on educational opportunities for young carers.
Yesterday, the International Atomic Energy Agency announced that Iran is getting very, very close to having enriched uranium, which will enable it to have an atomic weapon. This is obviously a direct threat to peace in the middle east, British interests and those across the world. The Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary are currently in the United States, but I hope we can have a statement next week on the actions the Government will take to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and to confirm that snapback arrangements will, if necessary, be put in place, with the necessary implication of ensuring that Iran does not acquire nuclear weapons, as it would destabilise the entirety of the middle east and beyond if it did.
The hon. Gentleman raises the important issue of the continued threat that we face—not just in this country, but to our near neighbours and around the world—from Iran and its increasing aggression and actions. The Government are taking this matter very seriously and are taking action; there will, I am hoping, be a statement on this matter imminently. I will let the hon. Gentleman know.
The hon. Lady makes a good point. In my time as the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, I felt strongly about those matters too. We keep under constant review the allocation of oral questions with Mr Speaker and the most appropriate division of that, so I will certainly take on board what she says.
We know that mass transit systems have enormous benefits for local economies. In Nottingham, a tram line was able to generate £100 million in investment for local businesses. That is why I am so pleased that the Government have indicated their support for a mass transit system in West Yorkshire and in Leeds, because we have been waiting far too long for one. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the urgent need to get that mass transit system built so that we can have investment in our businesses and benefit from economic growth across our region?
Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.