PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Business of the House - 1 June 2026 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

With permission, I will make a short business statement about the remainder of this week’s business.

Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House for the Armed Forces Bill.

Wednesday 3 June—General debate on the Government’s response to the Humble Address on the appointment of Lord Mandelson.

Thursday 4 June—General debate on Pride Month.

I will announce further business in the usual way on Thursday.

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

I thank the Leader of the House very much for that business update and for the news of the debate on Wednesday. That will be an opportunity for Back-Bench Members to put matters on the record—but for scrutiny of the Government, actually, by far the best way is through the questions that will follow the next statement, although I am afraid that the Mandelson files were released publicly only at 2 pm and, at 1,500 pages, no Back-Bench Member can be expected to have mastered them.

The Leader of the House recognises the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Since those files could have been put in the public domain at 9.30 this morning, could I register with him that we are all owed a slightly higher quality of scrutiny than this has received?

I do acknowledge what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but that is precisely why I just announced Wednesday’s debate, which will be a general debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister will respond to some of those points shortly.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I rise only to pass on the frustrations from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from my residents that the important legislation planned for Wednesday will now be delayed, and that the incredibly important improvements to rail services that our residents are calling out for will be further delayed. Parkinson’s law suggests that work expands to fill the space available for its completion. May I suggest Mandelson’s law—that, when he is appointed to a Government, his scandals will expand to fill the time available for their discussion? Does the Leader of the House agree that this scandal will be the defining legacy of the Starmer premiership, and that it shows clearly how the change and service agenda promised after the scandal and sleaze of the last Tory Government were as much empty words as the suggestion that proper process was followed in Mandelson’s appointment?

I will not respond to those empty words. I expect to announce the rescheduling of the remaining stages of the Railways Bill in my statement on Thursday, and I anticipate that the House will be able to consider those stages of the Bill during next week’s business.