Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

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

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

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.

[Jesse Norman]

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.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

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.