Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 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 31 August will include:

Tuesday 1 September—Debate on a motion relating to sovereign grants, following the message from His Majesty the King, followed by a debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Wednesday 2 September—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.

Thursday 3 September—Second Reading of the Sporting Events Bill [Lords].

Friday 4 September—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 7 September includes:

Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Health Bill—day one.

Tuesday 8 September—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Health Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business.

This seems a moment for the words of Philip Larkin:

“What will survive of us is love.”

It is a day of sadness and departings. I know that the whole House will want to join me in saluting the England football team. I simply say this to them: you went out to a foreign field, you fought like true lions, and you did us proud. Thank you.

Let us also pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe for her bravery, spirit and independence of mind. There is a book of condolence in the Members’ Library, which I know many Members will wish to sign.

Ann’s politics were not especially my politics, Mr Speaker, but let me tell you a story that illustrates my personal experience of her a little. We were at a dinner of the Holborn and St Pancras Conservatives—a vibrant local organisation—in the time of the late Frank Dobson, where Ann was the guest speaker. At the end of the evening, a bottle signed by her was thrust into my hands and I was asked to invite her to auction it. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that she had just had a bit of a dust-up with the noble Lord Howard on the subject of which she had said that he had “something of the night” about him. Quick as a flash, holding this bottle of whisky, she said, “Ladies and gentlemen, what will you give me for something of the nightcap?” I thought that pretty game, under the circumstances.

This week has featured a certain amount of rancour, as the late Roy Jenkins might have put it. The Government found themselves changing the business twice and cancelling an Opposition day debate they themselves had scheduled and reaffirmed only the previous day on the entirely bogus excuse that they wanted an urgent debate on Iran. That debate was so urgent and important that it was opened by the most junior Minister in Government, finished two hours early and featured precisely three—count them: three—speeches from Labour Back Benchers. I think we can all agree that it will be a tragedy if we lose the Leader of the House from business questions, but if he is not promoted after the embarrassing heroics he has performed this week on behalf of the new Prime Minister, it will be a huge injustice.

But we are not going to cast nasturtiums, in the words of a friend of mine, on any of this nonsense—not even on Baroness Lloyd and the hopeless Building Digital UK, who have entirely failed to address the issue of fibre broadband in neglected parts of my constituency and simply repeated the same language of incompetence and failure to me for more than a year now. I hope that the Leader of the House will pick that up.

No, we will cast no nasturtiums. There will be no rancour from this side of the House. I come to praise the outgoing Prime Minister, not to bury him. He is a transparently decent and honourable man who is dedicated to public service. He rescued the Labour party, and he worked with great diligence to lead this country. No one who has not been close to leadership of that kind can have any idea of how hard it is. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude.

As for the incoming Prime Minister, my advice is simply this: be careful what you wish for. He has had a coronation and an election hustings with just one candidate—a single name on the ballot paper—but on Monday afternoon, he will start to learn the true difficulty of the decisions that face him. There will be hard trade-offs that cannot be abolished by tinkering with the fiscal rules or still more tax and spend. Vibes will not be a solution to these problems. Eyelashes will not suffice. He will have to stand up and say, or perhaps decide, what it is he believes in. We can only hope that he will bring energy, frugality, a long-term focus, and a talented team adequate to the tasks ahead. We wish him very well.

I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and all the staff and Members of the House a summer break full of rest and happiness.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Before I get on to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, let me join him in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. Ann dedicated her life to public service and the causes that she believed in. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing, and my thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with Ann’s family and loved ones.

I cannot claim to have known Ann well. We did not agree on many issues, but we agreed very strongly on the issue of foxhunting, on which she was extraordinarily brave in the stand that she took. We shared a belief in public service and that politics matters to people. I smiled at the anecdote that the shadow Leader of the House told and the reference to the nightcap. I suspect we will read about that in one of his books in the future.

I also pay tribute to Lord Christopher, who passed away this week. He had an incredible career in public service. He was the oldest serving British parliamentarian and the last Member of Parliament to have served in world war two. My thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with his friends and family.

On House matters, this morning the Modernisation Committee published a report on a formal scheme for acting Select Committee Chairs. Select Committees perform a vital role in scrutinising the Government. The recommendations will ensure that Committees can continue their critical work, even if their Chairs need to take a period of absence. It sets out a new framework for the appointment, status and remuneration of acting Select Committee Chairs. I thank the Liaison and Procedure Committees for their work in this regard, and I will put the matter before the House in due course.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the England football team. It was not the result that the nation had hoped for, but the team showed passion and energy, certainly in the previous rounds, and we should be proud of them.

On the Iran debate, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was uncharacteristically churlish. I watched much of the debate, and what I did not watch I read in Hansard. I have to say—maybe after my remarks on Tuesday I need to build some bridges—that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made a really good speech on Iran and set out her party’s position. Crucially, she set out the need for this House to show that we have a bipartisan approach to this issue. I would not want to undermine in any way—I am sure he was not trying to do so—the powerful speeches that were made by Members on both sides of the House. I felt that it was important before the recess to set out very clearly what this House thinks. I fervently hope that we will not need to recall the House over the recess, but if we need to on this or any other matter, we stand ready to do so.

I will take up the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about broadband with the relevant Minister.

I will close by thanking the shadow Leader of the House for his remarks about the Prime Minister, to whom I pay tribute. He has made this country stronger and fairer. The duty of a Prime Minister is to leave the country in a better place than they found it. Without question, the Prime Minister has done that. He leaves a lasting legacy. Just this week, he fulfilled his commitment to the Hillsborough families and secured the future of British Steel. I wish him well, and I wish his family well, for the future.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

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

I cannot come to the Dispatch Box without registering my sadness, and I am sure that of everyone across this House, at the dreadful news about Ann Widdecombe. I am sure that we will talk about this later, but I just wanted to start with that.

The Leader of the House is a good and honourable man, and he will be deeply embarrassed by this fiasco of a procedure today. It is a gross breach of parliamentary protocol and timing to bring a Bill, let alone a Bill of this sensitivity and magnitude, to the House on this very abbreviated notice. Of course, there is concern across the House about the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and their families, but these matters must be properly debated in due season. To do so, with new amendments that have not even yet been published, on no notice and without the ability of Members to amend those amendments or to comment until now, is a further breach.

Why has this happened? It is because the outgoing Prime Minister is desperate to preserve what he sees as a legacy. It is a tragedy that he should be so focused solely on his own political future, such as it is, and I think it is a pity that he has taken this opportunity to sideswipe the incoming Prime Minister, a man who arrives with no scrutiny and no accountability to this House.

I want to raise a few key points. Of course, it is understood that this legislation was being discussed in the Intelligence and Security Committee. It is also understood that this legislation and its implications were being discussed with our Five Eyes allies, with our armed forces, and with the USA in particular. I know that this abbreviation of protocol will attract the attention of the Lords when it arrives in their House.

Why has this Bill been brought forward now, on such an expedited basis? What has changed, and what of substance has caused the Government to want to abbreviate the consideration of these very delicate matters on such a timetable? Have our international partners been consulted on this change in procedure? Have the agencies been consulted? Above all, why, after seven months of grieving families being concerned about its passage, is the Bill suddenly now—as it may appear, with little or no change—being brought before this House?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I agree with the shadow Leader of the House about the tragedy of Ann Widdecombe and I echo his words.

I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s description of the run-up to this change of business and the fact that the Bill will come before us tomorrow. This is an important Bill and we have been signalling for some time that it is coming—as he knows, because we have had a dialogue about it. But only today have I been able to confirm it, as this has been the earliest opportunity, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman talks about amendments. A number of amendments to the Bill have been laid for a long time. The Government have brought forward further amendments and they are in the Vote Office. I regret that there is not a greater length of time for colleagues to scrutinise them, but they are available and I am sure there will be a way of facilitating a full debate tomorrow.

There has been no abbreviation of the process—it is a sitting programme motion, as was agreed by the House after Second Reading. I want to assure the House that, as will no doubt come out in the debate, the agencies and the families have been central to the process, and that is why we have taken time to get it right. That is why it has been delayed, but it is an important Bill that colleagues on both sides of the House will want to see before the summer recess. That is what we are facilitating.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, I thank you for your gracious words, and I echo your thoughts and thanks to David Weir for all his service.

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 13 July will include:

Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day, third allotted day. Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced, followed by a motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to national security.

Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.

[Jesse Norman]

What a sporting week this has been! Youth, vitality, incredible physical stamina in the most testing of environments—and that is just the Leader of the House, whose birthday it was yesterday. He has never begrudged me my own naivety and inexperience, and I know that everyone present will join me in wishing him a massively happy birthday. In other news, the England football team decisively defeated Mexico at the Azteca, and we look forward with keen anticipation to their taking on Norway on Saturday evening.

We send our congratulations and commiserations to the United States of America on the tragic wrong turn it took towards independence 250 years ago. Edmund Burke famously said:

“In this character of the Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating feature”.

Whatever temporary disagreements we may have, let us never forget this deepest of shared commitments.

Kim Jong Un himself would admire the North Korean precision of the Labour leadership vote, which has opened today, with precisely one candidate on the ballot paper. How very different from the forthcoming by-election in Clacton, which appears to be a choice between a novelty comedy act with no real policies, and Count Binface. It is a long time since we had a count in the House of Commons, and when the time comes—as it surely will—we will have to leave to you, Mr Speaker, the delicate question of whether and how to suspend the rules on headgear in the Chamber for the new Member.

On a more serious note, the House has already expressed its great sorrow at the recent death of Sir George Howarth. I would also like to draw attention to the very sad death on Monday of James Mackay, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, at the age of 99. He was a brave, energetic and imaginative reformer of the law as Lord Advocate in Scotland, and then as Lord Chancellor. It is hard to think of a man more widely respected in public life. We send our very best to his wife Bett and their family.

I have just one item of business today. It is related to the River Wye, which the House will know is not only a particular obsession of mine, but an issue of national importance. When the last Government cancelled the action plan for the Wye, it also cancelled the accompanying commitment to £35 million in clean-up funding, and replaced it with a paltry £1 million, supposedly aimed at research.

I was very distressed to receive the news this week that only £115,000 of that £1 million will actually be spent on research, that even that tiny sum will be spent over three years, and that the balance of the £l million will be consumed by administrative costs. Will the Leader of the House instigate an immediate inquiry and ensure that Ministers clarify to me, my constituents and national campaigners on this issue that the full £1 million will be kept intact and used for the purposes for which it was intended?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank that shadow Leader of the House for his remarks, and particularly for wishing me a happy birthday for yesterday. I advise him and other hon. Members as they approach my age that, generally, the more birthdays you have, the less you have to celebrate—but there we are. I thank him for his kind remarks.

I also join you, Mr Speaker, and the shadow Leader of the House in thanking David Weir for his service to the House over 32 years. I look forward to the play or book based on his experiences in this House.

The shadow Leader of the House mentioned that the Labour leadership contest has started. I am afraid that he has misread the rules, because it is the opening of nominations today. It is therefore presumptive to say there will be only one candidate, because it rather depends on how the next few days play out.

[Jesse Norman]

Oh!

[Sir Alan Campbell]

That is simply a statement of fact, not a statement of anything else. [Laughter.]

I thank the shadow Leader of the House for his kind tribute to Sir George Howarth, who passed away recently. George was a dedicated politician who served his constituency of Knowsley for 38 years, and I am sure the House will join me in sending our condolences to his wife, Julie, and to his family and friends at this sad time. I also echo his words about the death of Lord Mackay.

I am very sad to learn today of the death of Bonnie Tyler. This matter was raised with me at business questions recently, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) for giving us the opportunity to wish her well at that point. I am sure her family and friends are devastated by her loss, and we send them our very best wishes, indeed.

This year marks 21 years since the London 7/7 bombings, which killed 52 people and injured many more. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with those whose lives were changed on that terrible day, and that they will recall the bravery and commitment of our emergency services, particularly the NHS, which continues to show such exemplary service.

Since our last business questions, we have celebrated the second anniversary of the election of this Labour Government. The election saw a huge intake of new and talented MPs on both sides of this House, and we thank them for the contribution they have made thus far. Since that election, we have taken action as a Government to fix the foundations of our country and deliver the long-term change that Britain needs. That means cutting waiting lists, cutting net migration and the asylum backlog, lifting half a million children out of poverty and having the fastest growing economy in the G7.

In reference to what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, we are changing the balance of power in Britain through the Hillsborough law, ensuring that the state can never hide from the people it is supposed to serve. As he outlined yesterday, significant progress has been made, and I hope we can bring the Bill back to the House soon.

Turning to other matters, the veterinary sector has been raised with me during these sessions on a number of occasions. Pets are part of the family, but for too many households the cost of caring for them has become a real worry. Today, we are setting out the biggest reforms to the vet sector in half a century to help owners avoid unexpected bills, compare prices more easily and get the best value from pet care. I know you take a keen interest in this, Mr Speaker.

On the Wye valley, I will raise this matter with the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers. However, I understand that the matter was raised at DEFRA questions earlier today, although I have not seen the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy).

The shadow Leader of the House also raised the Clacton by-election. Let me make it clear from the Dispatch Box that this by-election should not be taking place. When we stand for election to this place, which it is an honour to do, we give an undertaking that the highest standards should be kept, including of openness and transparency about political donations. That is the issue here, and that will be the issue in this unnecessary by-election. Nigel Farage has serious questions to answer, and he cannot run away from them.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Recognising that the real Golden valley is in Herefordshire, 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 6 July will include:

Monday 6 July—Consideration of Lords amendments to the National Security (State Threats) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.

Tuesday 7 July—Opposition day (second allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Wednesday 8 July—Debate on a motion on UK rearmament and war fighting readiness, followed by general debate on corridor care in the NHS. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Thursday 9 July—General debate on a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, followed by debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 10 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 13 July includes:

Monday 13 July—Second Reading of the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Tuesday 14 July—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords amendments to the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

Wednesday 15 July—Opposition day (third allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 16 July—The Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

The House will rise for the summer recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 16 July and return on Tuesday 1 September.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know that he and the whole House will want to join me in congratulating the England football team on their win last night, although I must say I am not sure we should be thanking them for the trauma and heart-stopping cardiovascular workout that I, at least, experienced right to the end.

The Prime Minister was quite punishing about the Liberal Democrats at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday for their sanctimoniousness. Let us be clear: we can all agree that he was spot on. However, the Prime Minister has not exactly been immune to sanctimoniousness himself. He was extremely rude about the state of the public finances after the general election and promised “tough decisions” to “fix the foundations”. The imaginary £22 billion black hole that he inherited needed, he said, candour, discipline and hard choices.

Those tests should also apply here and now with the defence investment plan, which commits £15 billion in additional defence spending over four years, of which £4.7 billion will be confirmed at Budget 2026. In other words, the plan, which comes 394 days after the strategic defence review and on the eve of a NATO summit, is partly unfunded from the moment it is published. That is not what candour, discipline or hard choices look like. Irony of ironies, the further £10 billion reportedly needed for the DIP is itself precisely the kind of unfunded bequest to the next Government that the Prime Minister claims to condemn.

Of course, the plan is also too small. The Government say that 3% is their ambition for the next Parliament. Getting to 3.5%—the UK’s core NATO commitment—by 2035 requires about £25 billion a year more in today’s terms. The Government have offered no funded pathway to either figure. It is little wonder that the plan has been so roundly criticised by defence experts across the board. The Leader of the House might feel tempted to make comparisons with 2010; perhaps I might remind him that at that time, the UK was reeling from the global financial crisis, a very different US President was in the White House, Ukraine was not at war and Russia was not directly threatening NATO members.

Cost escalation in defence is just part of a wider British problem with major national projects. High Speed 2 is the starkest warning. As far as I am aware—I spent two years at the Treasury trying and failing to stop it—HS2 is still constructing a gigantic so-called bat protector at a cost of more than £100 million in order to protect 20 or so pairs of endangered bats. There is little to no evidence that such a bat protector will do that or, indeed, to suggest that a few nets with some bells on would not be at least as effective. In other words, Edward Lear himself could not make this nonsense up.

Now we have Northern Powerhouse Rail. This week, the Public Accounts Committee reported that the Government still lack a convincing plan to manage, spend or prioritise benefits within the £45 billion rail budget, with unclear scope, optimistic costing, weak governance and late trade-offs. That is how large projects get into serious difficulty. Other nations have shown that they can do it better. Norway built the world’s longest and deepest subsea tunnel for about £450 million at the time of completion; we should be asking why we cannot do the same.

We have got a great model of our own nearby: the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which cost £369 million over 10 years. That is the lesson for restoration and renewal of the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Palace of Westminster, the cost of which is currently estimated at up to an astonishing £12 billion to £19 billion. No one doubts that the Palace of Westminster badly needs restoration, and it needs a decision on that soon. No one disputes those points—the fire risk, asbestos, and failing electrical and mechanical systems are real—but Parliament cannot ask parliamentarians and, through them, the poor, long-suffering taxpayer to support a project of that scale without demonstrating the same disciplines it requires of others: not merely cost forecasts but stated and effective governance, a capped budget, independent challenge and proper named accountability. May we have at least two debates in the House on restoration and renewal, with one to discuss the issues in detail and another in relation to an authorising motion?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Let me join the right hon. Gentleman in sending our congratulations to the England football team—we all look forward to the early hours of Monday morning.

Before I respond, let me pay a personal tribute to my predecessor, Sir Neville Trotter, formerly the Conservative MP for Tynemouth for more than 20 years, who, unfortunately, passed away at the weekend. We had our political differences, but he was a much respected politician who dedicated his life to public service. My thoughts—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—are with his family and friends.

I congratulate Eve Samson on her appointment as the 53rd Clerk of the House. Eve has worked in the House for almost 40 years. She brings a wealth of experience to the role and will be a distinguished successor to Tom Goldsmith. She will also make history as the first woman Clerk of the House.

This week, the youth jobs grant was launched. Businesses who take on jobless youngsters will be offered thousands of pounds in the latest boost to youth employment support. It is a practical step that helps business investment in young people while giving them the confidence, skills, experience and support they need to embark on their careers.

Also this week, the outdated and harmful Vagrancy Act 1824 has been repealed, bringing an end to two centuries of legislation that has criminalised rough sleeping and begging. Repealing the Act is a vital step in ending a system that has failed to address the causes of rough sleeping. It shifts the focus towards prevention and long-term solutions. Many hon. Members, including the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), have raised the issue with me in this forum, and I know they will be pleased to see that the Act has finally been repealed.

Let me turn to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I remind him that, since 2024, tough decisions have been taken, which is why inflation is lower and interest rates have fallen. At the same time, we have invested more in public services. However, we accept that the security situation has deteriorated—the challenges are there—which is why the Government brought forward the defence investment plan, and plans on how we will fund it.

The right hon. Gentleman reminded the House that the situation internationally in 2010 was different—of course, it was—and that the then Government were reeling from the global economic crisis. Let me remind him that in 2024 this Government and the country were reeling from 14 years of Tory mismanagement.

Let me return to the key issue of defence expenditure. The Government have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war and surpassed the promises we made in our manifesto. Our plan provides funding to strengthen military readiness, accelerate drone transformation, boost fighter jets and strengthen our nuclear deterrent. At the same time, we will create nearly 60,000 extra UK industry jobs by the end of the decade.

We inherited a situation where £54 billion a year was being spent on defence, but under this Government that figure will rise to almost £80 billion a year by 2029. Any plan will have its critics, but I note that NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte and the Chief of the Defence Staff have backed our plan. We are on track to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament. The vast majority of this package has already been funded through the right and tough decisions to prioritise departmental spending. This will give the Ministry of Defence the certainty that it needs to get on with the job. The remaining £1 billion a year over four years will be confirmed in the usual way in the Budget.

With regard to R and R, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any major project needs to be managed properly and that where taxpayers’ money is concerned, we must get value for money. In that regard, I hope to bring forward a motion shortly to allow the House a long overdue debate on the next steps with R and R. The right hon. Gentleman is right that there is broadly a consensus in this House about the need to get on with restoration and renewal, and that message comes through in recent public polling; three out of four people want to see us get on and take the necessary action to restore this place. However, there is not consensus about how we will actually do it. I am very keen to build consensus and ensure that we have the right safeguards; the right hon. Gentleman and others are perhaps critical of some of the report that has been produced, but we want to build that consensus. I am very grateful to the NAO for its recent report and to the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to the Committee’s investigation, so that it can bring forward recommendations. I hope that, at the end of it all, the House can come together so that we can get on with this, because it is long overdue.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business, perhaps including the business relating to the item just raised under the point of order?

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

The business for the week commencing 29 June will include:

Monday 29 June—Estimates day (first allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Cabinet Office, in so far as it relates to security and resilience; the Northern Ireland Office; and the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, in so far as it relates to criminal justice.

Tuesday 30 June—Estimates day (second allotted day). There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in so far as it relates to sport and youth services; the Department of Health and Social Care, in so far as it relates to pharmaceutical procurement; and the Department for Work and Pensions, in so far as it relates to spending priorities and performance. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.

Wednesday 1 July—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill, followed by consideration of a Business of the House motion and all stages of the Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill.

Thursday 2 July—Debate on a motion relating to the National Audit Office, followed by a debate on a motion on commonhold and leasehold reform and the regulation of property managing agents. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee, followed by a general debate on access to further education. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 6 July includes:

Monday 6 July—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by a motion to approve the draft Environmental Permitting (Waste Controlling or Transporting) and Relevant Functions of Primary Authorities (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Infected Blood Compensation Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2026, followed by a motion to approve the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I know the whole House will join me in thinking of the victims of the earthquakes in Venezuela, of which we have just had news, and of course the victims of the train crash in Bedford and the victims of what now have been deemed aggravated terrorism-related attacks in Edinburgh. It has been a difficult week, Mr Speaker, but on a brighter note, I am sure that all will want to join me in celebrating Armed Forces Week and thanking all the men and women across this country and abroad who serve His Majesty in the armed forces—a matter of particular interest, I remind the House, in Herefordshire.

We weep for the Scotland football team, but perhaps less so for Peter Murrell, who began a five-year sentence this week for theft and embezzlement. The Scottish police asked him in 2024, “What does the SNP need over £19,000 of luxury pens for?” It is quite a good question. One might ask the same about a Jaguar I-PACE, a state-of-the-art motorhome, a men’s slouch pouch onesie, whatever that is—I am not looking for guidance from the Chair on this matter, Mr Speaker. The real question is not just whether Nicola Sturgeon knew or should have known of these thefts, including the sudden appearance of a £2,500 Lalique salt and pepper set on the kitchen table; it is about the culture and probity of a Scottish Government who still refuse to appoint a KC to lead an independent inquiry.

While we are on the topic of vehicles, the leader of Reform UK, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), has publicly reserved the right to spend the £5 million donation definitely not related to politics from his Thailand-based crypto billionaire on Ferraris if he wishes. It appears that none of that money has been spent on personal security, from what he said, and he has now been referred to the Financial Conduct Authority, alongside the current investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

And so to the Government. I know the House will share my sadness at the tragic decision by the Leader of the House not to stand in the Labour leadership election, resulting in a coronation, alas, of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), and, I am sad to say, the rather tawdry sight of Cabinet Ministers trailing their coats. Once again, we can only regret the decision of the Leader of the House not to throw his hat into the ring, but I simply ask, what is the Government’s policy on the defence investment plan? The Prime Minister wants to publish it now. His successor wants a delay, but a defence investment plan that may be reopened within weeks is not a plan; it is a hanging IOU with a NATO deadline attached.

I turn now to a matter of the greatest sensitivity: the case of Lucy Letby, members of whose family are my constituents. It is essential to respect the independence of the judiciary in this matter. Nor, crucially, must we ever lose sight of the suffering of the families whose babies died or were gravely injured, but I believe there is also a proper public concern here as to the security of the verdict.

Since the convictions, a number of serious and reputable people have raised concerns about the expert scientific and statistical evidence in this case—both the evidence presented to the jury and the evidence that the jury never saw. Those concerns come from neonatologists, pathologists, statisticians and, most recently, from Dame Sue Black, one of the country’s most distinguished forensic scientists. Like me, Dame Sue makes no claim as to whether Lucy Letby is innocent or guilty, but she has said in measured terms that she is “troubled” by the conviction and by the apparent lack of forensic evidence. When someone of her public scientific standing speaks in those terms, I do not think the issue she raises can be properly avoided. Her and other expert concerns raise profound questions as to the fairness of the trial and, indeed, the status of the evidential test used by the Criminal Cases Review Commission in considering whether to reopen it.

I remind the House that there were no witnesses, no CCTV footage, no forensic evidence and no confession in this case. Everything therefore depended on the testimony of experts, but when it came to the defence, in the words of Dame Sue Black,

“there were no medical or statistical experts put forward at all”.

I would also highlight that Lucy Letby had had a prior complaint against the consultants in the hospital upheld after a detailed investigation and report, which found that there was absolutely nothing to prevent her from returning to work and that doctors had bullied and harassed her. That evidence, too, was never heard by the jury.

The Thirlwall inquiry into the Countess of Chester hospital has yet to publish its final report, despite many delays, but yesterday’s Nottingham University hospitals report is a powerful reminder that in neonatal and maternity settings, grave harm can arise from not only individual malfeasance but systematic clinical failure. [Interruption.] If I may conclude, the Criminal Cases Review Commission is now considering the Letby case. May I ask—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have allowed the time. You are a minute over. Please can you conclude now?

[Jesse Norman]

I think it is unfortunate that I was not allowed to conclude in the terms that—

[Mr Speaker]

We will leave it at that. Sorry, but I am not going to be challenged like that. I think that is totally unfair. I gave a full minute and allowed you to continue. I was going to allow you to come back. I would have expected better from the shadow Leader of the House than to challenge the Chair in that way—I have never had that before. I call the Leader of the House.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 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 next week is as follows:

Monday 8 June—Committee of the whole House of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (day one).

Tuesday 9 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

Wednesday 10 June—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

Thursday 11 June—General debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.

Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 15 June includes:

Monday 15 June—The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration, followed by a debate on a motion on NHS dentistry. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 16 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.

[Jesse Norman]

May I welcome my guests to the Gallery?

Part of our job at business questions is to act as a place of record, and this has been a grim week and a week of mourning for us all. First, we mourn for Henry Nowak. The whole House will know the terrible circumstances of his murder and will feel the deepest respect for the dignity of his family in the face of such a loss.

We mourn, too, the tragic loss of the three Royal Navy crew killed yesterday when their helicopter crashed in Devon, and the loss of Lance Corporal James Freeman of the Royal Anglian Regiment, who died on Sunday during a training exercise in Erbil.

We mourn the early death of Sir Alex Younger, as has already been mentioned in this Chamber. He was a friend to many in and around this House and did so much to protect this country in his long tenure as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service.

Finally, I hope I may record my personal sadness at the recent deaths of two true Conservative parliamentarians: Sir Alan Haselhurst and Sir Jeremy Hanley, who were both great public servants. In all these cases, we send our deepest condolences to their families, friends and comrades.

I have two matters to raise with the Leader of the House. The first is a matter of housekeeping. Colleagues will know of my deep concerns about the current plans for the rebuild of the Palace of Westminster, the lack of scrutiny they have received to date, and in particular the prospect of an uncapped budget potentially running up to an astounding £20 billion to £40 billion. The restoration and renewal client board last met on 2 March. At that meeting, I requested information, and I understood that my request had been agreed. Three months later, nothing has happened, as far as I am aware. I cannot even check the status of my request, because the minutes have not been published in either of the two parallel and apparently unconnected places on the parliamentary website. This is just not good enough. It is a disrespect to the Chamber and to the Palace as a whole.

Very soon, the Government are expected to bring forward a motion asking colleagues to endorse a programme that could cost more than the original budget for High Speed 2. Just think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker— I hope all Members will think about it. At present, colleagues are manifestly under-informed and under- prepared. Can the Leader of the House therefore reassure us that there will be proper time for scrutiny, both in the Public Accounts Committee and on the Floor of the House, and that at least three weeks’ notice will be given of any motion so that both Houses may prepare properly?

Secondly, I raise a matter of both local and national importance. The Leader of the House will know that thanks to the Hay festival and now HowTheLightGetsIn, every year at the end of May, Hay and its environs in my constituency become the world capital of ideas. As Arthur Miller once described it, Hay is the “Woodstock of the mind”, but it is also Hay-on-Wye, and the Wye—one of the loveliest rivers in Britain—remains in deep ecological distress. I have been campaigning on this issue for six years and progress, alas, has been fitful at best. The previous Government published a River Wye action plan, with up to £35 million earmarked to help deal with poultry manure and nutrient pollution, only for it to be discarded after the general election. But Herefordshire council and neighbouring councils have been working hard with farmers, conservation bodies and local partners, most recently through a new charter for the River Wye, an evocative statement of shared purpose across the catchment.

The root problem is a lack of joined-up collective action and a regulatory system that remains woefully insufficient. The river runs through England and Wales, but pollution does not stop at the border, and neither should policy. We have always needed one single approach that brings everyone together, and one source of authority for the river. That is why I am proposing statutory River Wye commissioners, an inexpensive cross-border body for the whole catchment that would be created by an Order in Council, with a single recovery plan, proper shared data, published milestones and the authority to bring all parties—businesses, farmers, campaigners, ecologists, planning, conservation and enforcement—to the same table. May we have a debate in Government time on River Wye commissioners? Perhaps the Government can pick up my River Wye (Cleaning) Bill, so that this wonderful river can be given the clear, accountable and empowered cross-border support that it so urgently needs.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

May I join the right hon. Gentleman in mentioning Henry Nowak? I thank him and many Members from across the House who have dealt with this tragic matter in a sensitive and responsible way. Unfortunately, it is not universal in this House, but in many ways Members have risen to the occasion. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we need to respect the wishes of Henry’s family, but above all, we need to respect Henry himself. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has raised this issue.

The right hon. Gentleman has also given a list of other tragic events, and I want to mention some of them. As he says, we send our deepest condolences to the friends and families of the Navy personnel who were tragically killed during the helicopter training exercise yesterday. We also pay tribute to Lance Corporal James Freeman, who was killed in a training exercise in northern Iraq. I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with his family and his unit at this desperately sad time. It underlines just how important it is that we respect our men and women of the services, who do so much on behalf of our country.

Like the right hon. Gentleman, I was saddened to hear of the death of Lord Haselhurst. Alan Haselhurst was a distinguished Deputy Speaker, Chairman of Ways and Means and Chair of the Administration Committee. He was a dedicated parliamentarian and was an MP for more than 47 years. I served with him on the Honours Committee from time to time, but more lately I met up with him in the Tea Room, where we invariably discussed cricket, about which he knew a great deal and I clearly did not.

I also pay tribute to Alex Younger, the former head of MI6, who passed away this week. He was a distinguished and dedicated public servant—and the longest serving MI6 chief in 50 years—and our thoughts are with his family at this very sad time.

I also place on record our tribute to Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, who, sadly, has passed away. She lived an extraordinary life, and served as a role model to women everywhere. I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to her family and friends.

Lastly, but by no means least, I am sure the whole House will also join me in sending our condolences to the friends and family of Gladys Dickson. She was a much-loved character in the Members Tea Room, and rightly proud of the MBE that she received. She will be deeply missed by Members across the House.

I want to mention two matters before I get on to the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks. Patients across England will benefit from more services, treatments and better access to medicines from their local pharmacy under the new £340 million Government-funded deal we announced last week. We are making the most of our highly skilled pharmacists, while boosting access to services and giving patients more care right on their doorstep. I know this issue has been raised many times in business questions, and indeed elsewhere, and I hope that that pressure has influenced this decision and that this announcement will be welcomed.

At the weekend, the biggest train operator, Govia Thameslink Railway, entered public ownership, which means that publicly owned operators will deliver eight out of 10 passenger rail journeys, and millions of passengers will benefit from more accountability and reliable journeys. Railway services are frequently raised by Members with me, and in other ways as well. By setting up Great British Railways, we are putting passengers first, fixing what is broken and delivering a better railway on behalf of the people.

The right hon. Gentleman raised two specific points. He was right to raise, and it is concerning, that the client board has not yet produced the minutes of its meeting. I am sure there is no great conspiracy behind that; it is just that it has not got around to doing so, but I gave him the assurance that it will. I also agree with him that it is really important that we roll the pitch for any decision on R and R. I truly believe that we will need to make a decision one way or the other, because we cannot tread water for very much longer, not least because it is costing us a great deal of money to do so. Whichever route we take, it will cost a great deal of money, but there will be guidance on these governance and financial matters. Keeping tabs on the money is very important—it is at the heart of what we do—and I will therefore be bringing forward a motion, and I heard what he said about its timing. The PAC is looking at this, and we need to learn lessons from the people who have looked at this matter, so that we get the decision we will make absolutely right.

On the Hay-on-Wye festival and the River Wye, I too was at the Hay-on-Wye festival for a day. It is a tremendous event, and I encourage people to go along to it next year. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the state of our rivers. We have a clean water Bill in the King’s Speech, and we are determined to go on cleaning up our rivers and our seas. The Wye, among others, is a very beautiful river indeed, and it is important that it is cleaned up for communities along its route, but also for those visiting that particularly beautiful part of the world. I offer him a meeting with the water Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy)—to make his case for the actions that he proposes and so that he can put forward his proposals for commissioners. If the Government are not forthcoming on that, there are other routes he can take. He mentioned his private Member’s Bill, but there are other routes, and I know he is a determined campaigner for improving that situation.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

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.

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 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 June will include:

Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.

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

Wednesday 3 June—Remaining stages of the Railways Bill.

Thursday 4 June—General debate on Pride Month.

Friday 5 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 8 June will include:

Monday 8 June—Committee of the whole House on the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill (day one).

Tuesday 9 June—Conclusion of Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

Wednesday 10 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network And Information Systems) Bill.

Thursday 11 June—General debate on the legacy of Jo Cox.

Friday 12 June—The House will not be sitting.

[Jesse Norman]

It is famously true that our present Prime Minister gets 100 times more animated and passionate about the performance of his football club every weekend than he does about trivial details of social, economic or foreign policy, and still more so when it comes to defeating the enemy from Manchester. So one would have to have a heart of stone not to congratulate the Prime Minister on the success of Arsenal football club in winning the premier league—I notice the astonishing lack of reaction from the Labour Benches. As we United fans say, only 11 more premiership wins to go, and Mikel Arteta will still be one short of Alex Ferguson.

In this world cup year, we remember with deep warmth and affection the heroes of 1966. I refer, of course, to the band of brothers who were so inspired by England’s world cup victory that they set up Westfields football club in Hereford. I pay special tribute to the legend that is Andy Morris—not ignoring his brilliant wife Sandra—who has been synonymous with Westfields ever since.

Whatever happens in Makerfield, it seems inevitable that there will soon be a leadership contest in the Labour party. The markets are spooked, the pundits are pontificating, the pollsters are rampant, but amid all the media speculation, there is one candidate—one extraordinary dark horse—who has not yet even been mentioned. That is why I am delighted, in relation to the leadership of the Labour party, to announce my strong support, in his bid for the top job, for the Leader of the House. Colleagues will have noticed a certain coyness from the Leader of the House about his own position last week in business questions. Make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is the clear sign of a man preparing to throw his hat into the ring.

For months now, I have lived with a secret fear that the Government will have a reshuffle and the Leader of the House will be relegated from the light of the Chamber back into the stygian depths of the Labour Whips Office. Luckily, the Prime Minister has remained far too weak even to contemplate a reshuffle, but I ask colleagues across the House, and especially on the Labour Benches, to contemplate that hideous prospect—that drastic loss of warmth, and wit and wisdom from these proceedings. As Ben Jonson said of Francis Bacon, when he spoke, the fear of everyone was that he would make an end.

Some foolish and ill-advised people will say that this leadership bid is an improbable one, and possibly even, in this age of botox, TikTok and Justin Trudeau, that a Prime Minister should be constructed on more youthful, foolish, inexperienced and, dare I say it, sleeker lines. To which I cry shame! Fie upon these unimaginative gloomsters and naysayers. What fools they are. It is precisely that apparently diffident Clark Kent exterior that makes my candidate—our candidate—such a politically electrifying prospect. In a world in which a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer can seriously advance the total economic shambles of supermarket food price caps, any move is on the table. The Leader of the House can therefore immediately become leader of the Labour party. It is simple common sense; we barely even need to change the name.

Mr Speaker, you will be relieved to know that under my steady hand, the Leader of the House’s Labour leadership campaign is ready to roll. The website is in hand, the baseball caps and T-shirts have been ordered. As Hilaire Belloc said of Lord Lundy:

“The stocks were sold; the Press was squared;

The Middle Class was quite prepared.”

Donors are falling over themselves to associate themselves with this extraordinary political intervention.

The one crucial remaining question is what campaign slogan we should use. We thought about “Common sense with Campbell”, “Campbell for the country” or “All in for Alan”, but there are two slogans with which we really cannot fail. When he responds, I know the Leader of the House will want to take the opportunity to formally launch the campaign himself from the Dispatch Box, but perhaps he can also indicate which of these two slogans he prefers: is it to be “Yes, we Cam-bell”, channelling the spirit of Barack Obama, or more inclusively still, “Make Britain Campbell again”? A nation awaits, so may we have a debate in Government time on this vital question?

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that the most important game is being played on Sunday, between Bolton Wanderers and Stockport County. Good luck to Bolton!

Business of the House

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[Mr Speaker]

Top of the morning to you, too. I call the Leader of the House.

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

The business for the week commencing 18 May will include:

Monday 18 May—Continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech, on backing business to create economic growth.

Tuesday 19 May—Continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech, on energy security.

Wednesday 20 May—Conclusion of the debate on the King’s Speech, on defence readiness.

Thursday 21 May—Second Reading of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.

The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 21 May and return on Monday 1 June.

The provisional business for the week commencing 1 June will include:

Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.

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

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Leader of the House very much for announcing the business, and I welcome all colleagues back to the House. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating His Majesty the King not only on the Gracious Speech yesterday, but on his glorious triumph in the United States of America, in particular reminding our American cousins of the joy not of monarchy, which they know well enough from recent experience and over the years, but of a genuinely constitutional monarchy.

The House will know of my obsession with building NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology & Engineering—our new university in Hereford. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in celebrating its second graduation ceremony last Saturday. Its flagship degree was recently accredited for chartered certification by the prestigious Institution of Engineering and Technology, making its graduates, in that sense, holders of degrees equal to those to be found at Oxbridge or Russell group universities. Its latest crop of graduates have gone on to companies including Airbus, Hitachi Energy and GKN, and there is huge interest from applicants in its new bachelor’s and master’s degrees in autonomous robotics and drone technologies, which start in September. If Members will excuse the pun, as an engineering institution, NMITE is really starting to motor. I strongly encourage any Members who might be interested and wish to know more to drop me a line, because this route to local economic growth is of great potential significance.

It is fair to say that we have known quieter weeks than the couple since we last convened. What have we discovered during that period? A previously undisclosed gift of £5 million from a foreign cryptocurrency donor to the leader of Reform UK is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are reassured that it is entirely unrelated to that hon. Member’s recent interest in investing in Bitcoin.

The leader of the Green party, Zack Polanski, has admitted that he failed to pay council tax, was not in fact a spokesman for the Red Cross and was never a full member of the National Council for Hypnotherapy, which I am sure will come as a great relief to women across the country. He must be an acute embarrassment to my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and we thank her for her resilience. All that news will come as a surprise to precisely no one.

Lest we forget, nearly 100 Labour Members of Parliament, including four Ministers, have gone public with their opposition to the Prime Minister remaining in office. Three Cabinet Ministers have called on him to set a public timetable for his departure. Few Labour MPs, if any, believe that the Prime Minister will lead them into the next election.

Mr Speaker, you will be aware, I am sure, of the famous lines:

“The boy stood on the burning deck

Whence all but he had fled”.

It may be that the Leader of the House is the last person to occupy the position of standing on the burning deck when all but he has fled. Others are fleeing, and it is astonishing that Buckingham Palace had reportedly been forced to ask whether the King’s Speech was, in fact, really going ahead. Even now, I notice the slight sparsity of Members—actually, on all sides of the House—in this earlier sitting, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is widely reported to be preparing a bid for the leadership of the Labour party. King Lear asks in his bewilderment:

“Who is it that can tell me who I am?”

So it is with the Prime Minister. He does not know and nor, it seems, does anyone around him.

Amid all this Westminster madness, it falls to me to insert a nugget of something that actually affects every Member of this House in their constituencies—a matter of great local importance. The House will know that the Construction Industry Training Board is meant to be the guardian of construction skills in this country, funded by a statutory levy on the industry. Yet employer confidence is rapidly being eroded by the CITB’s recent behaviour. An Ofsted “requires improvement” judgment, the Farmer review’s call for a “fundamental reset”, poor communications with levy payers, a rarely updated website and a slow, cumbersome booking system all point in the same direction. At the same time, firms report duplication, delay and poor value for money.

For some courses—forklift training, for example—the CITB route can cost more than twice as much as the non-CITB route, take considerably longer and yet lead to precisely the same qualification. Many of the courses are not optional. Small construction firms must keep up with industry standards and legal health and safety requirements. They need a system that is fast, clear and good value, not one that makes compliance harder, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that are so crucial to our economy. Meanwhile, the levy is a tax in all but name that must be paid regardless of the services offered.

The CITB has expenditures of nearly £300 million, but gives less than half of that away in grants, while its wage bill and headcount steadily rise. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Ministers to write to me explaining how they intend to restore employer confidence in the CITB, particularly among small construction companies, improve course access and value for money, and reform an organisation that appears to be losing its way?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks—well, for some of his remarks. On a serious matter, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families of the three young women who died yesterday in the tragic incident in Brighton. Following the local elections, which took place last week, I wish to put on record my thanks to councillors for their service to their communities, irrespective of parties or of whether they are not party-aligned, and particularly to those who were not re-elected.

The King’s Speech opened our new parliamentary Session. Members will have heard your words, Mr Speaker, about how we should conduct ourselves. I fully support those remarks and thank you for setting them out to the House. This Session will be about economic growth, building infrastructure, improving public services and strengthening our national security. I have published a written ministerial statement this morning, which lists the Bills that we have announced, and Members will have an opportunity to debate the King’s Speech over the coming days. This is a serious, long-term plan, bringing about change and putting the country back in the service of working people.

Curiously, and in contrast, the Opposition brought forward an alternative King’s Speech, which, like most of the country, I had failed to notice until the Leader of the Opposition referred to it yesterday. I have a copy here, if anyone needs any night-time reading to put them to sleep. I read it with interest. The shadow Leader of the House is a distinguished author—I have read some of his works—who writes with genuine interest, clear thinking and even wit sometimes. All that demonstrates is that he had absolutely nothing to do with this alternative King’s Speech. The alternative King’s Speech is no more than a description of the long-term ills of our country, which merely serves to remind us that the previous Government had 12 legislative programmes and 14 long years to test these ideas, and they failed, so we will take no lectures from them.

I draw the House’s attention to the report published by the Modernisation Committee this morning. The report recommends a new pilot to allow Members to participate virtually in Select Committee meetings in limited circumstances. That is part of the Committee’s ongoing work to ensure that the House’s procedures remain effective, accessible and resilient. A motion will be brought forward in due course to allow the House to consider those proposals, which I hope will be supported.

Let me turn to the other remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I certainly congratulate NMITE in his Hereford constituency. I have said this before, but I will say it again: the success of that organisation is due not least to the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and leadership on this matter, and we should congratulate him on that.

I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House on the matter of the donation to the leader of Reform. These are serious allegations. I welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is looking into this, and I also welcome the independent Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in our democracy.

As for the other comments that the shadow Leader of the House makes about the current political situation, I encourage him to stop doomscrolling. The Prime Minister and the Government are getting on with the job of governing, and this King’s Speech is spreading opportunity and building a fairer Britain. On the CITB levy, this is a serious issue, and I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister and get them to write to him.

Modernisation Committee Report: Access to the House of Commons

Jesse Norman Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for his remarks, and fully echo both their detail and their sentiment. As he says, accessibility should never be an afterthought. In the case of the House of Commons, there is not just the common decency that goes with trying to support anyone with a disability or another need. A vital aspect of being an effective parliamentarian is that every single Member of Parliament, whatever their background and personal needs, should be able to discharge their full capabilities on behalf of their constituents. That is why it is so central to what we do as a House.

Let me join the Leader of the House in welcoming the report. I also very much welcome the response from the House Administration, which is a very constructive document, by and large. We on the Committee are grateful for the constructive way in which the House Administration engaged with our concerns all the way through. I pay tribute not just to the current and previous members of the Committee, but to the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), and indeed to the current Leader of the House for steering this ship home to port.

I have a couple of reflections to add on this topic. Of course, when we think about accessibility, it is very easy just to think of physical changes to the structure of the House of Commons, but the Leader of House was absolutely right to think about not just Members but visitors, staff and people who use this building in many different ways, and about accessibility in relation to the public’s understanding of what we are trying to do.

There is a tradition in British political thought that the House of Commons should have not merely an efficient aspect to it, as Bagehot would put it, but a dignified aspect to it and even a certain mystique. I think there is some truth to that—as a Conservative, I would say that, wouldn’t I? There is some benefit to sticking with procedures that have proven their worth, even if it requires a little bit of effort to understand them. As a result, I would be very suspicious and concerned, on behalf of the House as an institution, about anything that I thought was dumbing down, but I do not think that is what is at stake here. What is at stake here are intelligent simplifications of language and presentation that allow Members to understand from the get-go how they can contribute constructively and effectively to what we are doing. Although the changes that were put through by previous House Administration officials in relation to the Order Paper did not come out of this process, I think that they were very constructive and helpful. The Order Paper is now unrecognisably better than what it was when I entered Parliament just a few years ago.

Let me say a couple of other things. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and it is important to keep these two things separate. The House will know that I am an extreme sceptic on the restoration and renewal process. The content of what is being proposed is poorly conceived, and there is a lack of a fixed budget. I am also sceptical about the process that has been followed and the lack of what I consider genuinely effective governance, but it is important to recognise that the report talks about that in order to reflect the importance of accessibility to that process. Whatever decision the House makes on restoration and renewal—I hope it will go for a drastically different version of what we are talking about—it will respect the need for full accessibility to this House and the House of Lords. I do not think that is on the table or up for negotiation at all, but one key point is that when we discuss this, we should not regard restoration and renewal as any substitute—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I gently point out to the shadow Leader of the House, and to anybody else planning on contributing, that this is not a debate on restoration and renewal. Although reference to it is of course acceptable, perhaps the substance of Members comments’ should not focus on that.

[Jesse Norman]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid you may have been slightly misled by your officials. The report mentions restoration and renewal, and specifically refers to it as something that the Committee was invited to look forward to. Therefore, it is not inappropriate to mention it.

The specific point that I am making, if I am allowed to make it, is that we should not defer changes out of an expectation that restoration and renewal, whatever it may be, will be a panacea; we should be getting on with changes as soon as they can be made. One of the things that is so attractive about the work that the House Administration did in responding to the report, and to the Committee, was the energetic way in which it started the process of making changes when they were pointed out. I remember the director general coming forward with several hundred potential changes that could be made, and on which the House Administration had started to make progress.

Whatever the future may bring, let there be no delay in making this House as genuinely open and accessible as it possibly can be. Let me congratulate everyone on all the work that has been done so far, the officials who have made it happen and the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a couple of words about the excellent contributions to the debate.

I will, if I may, pick up on a couple of points. I do not think that anything more needs to be added to what the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) said about properly accessible toilets; he was absolutely right about that. The hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) made a well observed point about the diversity of experience and views among wheelchair users. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his gracious words about his predecessor, the brilliant Robert Halfon.

I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for the sceptic’s view on restoration and renewal. I ask the Leader of the House whether it might be possible to have two debates on that. We could first have what one might call a digestive debate, to discuss the actual process of R and R, how it will work and what might be involved, and then a second debate on the motion. The figure of £40 billion is so big that it would be helpful for the House to pre-consider the matter, before considering the motion.

I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) very much for his moving remarks about his experience on the assisted dying private Member’s Bill. Finally, the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) reminded us how difficult it is to replicate the specific experience of individual disabled MPs, and how important it is to listen to what they have said. With all that in mind, I thank the Committee and the Leader of the House for all the work they have done, and the Administration for its response.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I hope to take a little bit of time responding to them, because although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been a very useful one.

Let me first comment on the shadow Leader of the House’s speech. I thank him for his remarks and the way that he made them. It is abundantly evident from the time that we have worked together that he cares deeply about this place, as do I, as he knows. We are, to some extent, adversaries in a system that is adversarial; but at heart, we share a deep respect and love for this place, not least because, as he knows, we are both passing through. It was here before we got here, and it will be here after we leave.

That means that we work well on the Committee. What has struck me, in the relatively short time that I chaired the Committee, is that it works in a cross-party way; in fact, it works in a non-party way. Given the varied experience and the varied party labels of people around the room, it is amazing how often we actually understand the problem, analyse it and get to the right conclusion. That is not as rare in this place as people think; indeed, it is why it works very well indeed.

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s concern that dumbing down can be a problem if we are not careful. This is not about dumbing down; it is about making this place more accessible, but also about how we do things. Where I do not agree with him, as he knows, is on restoration and renewal; on that, we are on different sides. However, as has been pointed out, today’s short debate is about now. It is about how we conduct ourselves now and for the foreseeable future, because even if the House takes a particular view on R and R and moves forward, it will still be quite a long time before some of the issues come to fruition. I believe that accessibility must be at the core of what we are doing now, but it must also be at the core of what happens after a decision is made on R and R.

Let me turn to the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). I commend him on the excellent work that he does on his all-party groups, which I know comes from his deep personal interest in these matters, his experience and his commitment. The personal experience of these issues that he brings to this debate is important; it is abundantly clear that instead of observing these things from a distance and seeing them in our own way, we should learn from a position of experience. I very much value his contribution to modernisation. He is a strong advocate; if he has a strong view, he will voice it, and I absolutely commend him for that.

The issues with booking that my hon. Friend spoke about are not acceptable. I give him a commitment that we will look into that and see what more can be done. The story of what happened at that recent event illustrates the problem, and shows how important this investigation and report are. However—I will return to this point in my closing remarks—this is a work in progress. The report is a step along the way, not the end point.

Like other Members, my hon. Friend paid tribute to the work of our hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). As I know from personal experience, on matters of policy and everything else, she is a very strong advocate. I value her contribution and her knowledge on these matters very much indeed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford raised the issue of changing places and toilet facilities and, interestingly, pointed to the National Portrait Gallery. I have found out that, as Leader of the House, I am a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery— I have more than found it out; I have actually participated in the trustee role, to some extent. The next time I visit, I will once again remind them that there is a portrait of a former Member for Tynemouth—Dame Irene Ward, who was also the longest-serving woman MP—in the gallery, and I recently surpassed the length of time that she served in that seat. I am just letting them know that there is a certain logical conclusion that follows, but so far, they have not taken the hint—although I will not be wearing the hat that she is wearing in her photograph. [Interruption.] Well, it will be very popular.

Let me turn to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), the Lib Dem spokesperson, who drew on her experience of this period of the Session, when there is ping-pong and Lords amendments. It is a difficult course that we have to navigate. I do not want to stress this too much, but I have been around quite a long time, and I can assure hon. Members that every time we get to Lords amendments, I have to go to the Clerks and ask whether I am right in what I think. I am not going to say that every time I navigate this, I get a different answer, but it is notoriously difficult. However, she is right; there are things that we should be able to do to inform Members of where we have got to.

I agree with the hon. Lady’s remarks about thinking about how and why we do things, because it is really important—other Members also picked this up—that the way we conduct our affairs in this place evolves, although we should also be careful about how that happens. We need to be—if hon. Members do not mind me saying so on this occasion—conservative with a small c. There should be a good reason before we change things. I fear that she might be correct, in that some of the changes will not be quick, but that does not mean— I know that she accepts this—that we should not get on with them. We do get on with them; we knock down the barriers and, where we can, quicken things up.

The hon. Lady has mentioned on a number of occasions that she is running the London marathon. I commend her for that, and for her hard sell on sponsorship. I would encourage people to run it; most of us, not least me, will not be doing that, but she is, and that is great. She talked about how the Modernisation Committee works. It is right that we share a space with other Committees, but they bring an expertise to what we do. I think that works quite well, because we can and do work effectively with other Committees.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the impact of covid, which had a massive effect on the way that this place works. We have spent a great deal of time trying to get back some of the things that were lost during covid—and they were lost. It was not just the way that this place conducts its votes that changed; it was, for example, the way that speeches were made. When most people, apart from the Whips, vacated this place and we moved to virtual speeches, I for one expected that nobody would want to speak. In fact, everybody wanted to speak, because they were speaking from their kitchen and making a three-minute speech. As a result, and with all due respect to new Members, there are now far more people trying to get in on debates, and far more time limits. It is now quite unusual to listen to a speech like this, that lasts more than three minutes. There were lasting effects from that time. However, there are lessons here, not just on this issue, but on other things we do. I would say to the hon. Lady that we are not going back to what we regarded as normal. We need to move forward and make things better.

I also endorse what the hon. Lady said about the great job that the education team does, particularly with younger children, and the daunting experience of trying to explain to them how this place works. I had that experience when children from Marine Park first school came down recently. Before I spoke to them, they had been in St James’s Park, having their packed lunch. I expected the first question to be, “Have you ever met the King?”, or “How much do you get paid?,” but it was, “Have you ever had your sandwich stolen by a duck?”, which brought politics down to a different level. I had not, actually, but unfortunately the child had, and she clearly remembered it.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I agree with his appreciation of the work of the previous Member for Harlow. We did not agree along political lines, but I learned a great deal from him; he was an excellent Member of Parliament.

I also agree with my hon. Friend about accessibility for all. It is not just about making this place accessible but making politics accessible. It is also not just about the people who are here now, who often had a greater struggle than some of us to get here, but the people in future who might want to get here but think that there are literally physical barriers in their way. Everybody has the right to get here, or at least to aspire to—it is up to the electorate to decide whether they are coming or not.

My hon. Friend also made an interesting point about Portcullis House. To some of us, Portcullis House is very new, yet it was the very place that was identified as being inaccessible. This is a battle that will continue over a long period of time. I echo the point that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) made that procedure is important, and the history of this place is important. It is quite interesting what happens when new Members turn up—I know because I was one once. We think that things are going to change rapidly and that the House is going to change, but when we settle in a bit we realise why we do what we do. That is why we need to proceed at speed with some of these changes, but—if it is not the opposite—we also need to proceed with a degree of caution.

Turning to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I look forward to his contribution when the debate on R and R comes around. I think he thought that that is what this debate was going to be about. I cannot tell him when it will be, but there will be a debate. To some extent it has already been postponed, but that has been done for the right reason. He and I are on opposite sides on this, but I want Members to have absorbed the report. It is a big, far-reaching and powerful report, and I want Members to have the time for it to sink in.

I am very conscious that the situation is going to be brought into greater focus in the difficult international and economic situation we are living through. Considerations about how we spend taxpayers’ money will come into greater focus, so it is absolutely right that the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office are looking at this. It is right that we get reports from them and are able to see in a more authoritative way—it is their job to do this—whether the proposals on the table are ones that we want to back or change. I can say to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House two things: first, there will be a debate, and, secondly, Members in this place and in the Lords will make the decision on this. It will not be a decision taken behind closed doors.

[Jesse Norman]

The Leader of the House may not have been in his place, but I suggested that it might be possible to have two debates—a digestive debate and then a debate with a decision. Even if one of those is a Backbench debate, would that be something that he would support?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly support people having their say and being informed by debates. I will give it some thought; I am not rejecting it out of hand. But there will be a moment and there will be a motion, and then we will have to decide. As I say, I will be on a different side because, going back to what I have said about this remarkable place, this is an iconic building. It is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. Despite how legalistic the terms are, it is not owned by the Government but by the nation.

People will look at the numbers, and the numbers are eye-watering—I give them that—and the timescale is eye-watering too, but we will not save any money by delaying the vote to decide to either get on with it or not. Time and again when people were asked, they said that they want to see this place survive. It is the crucible of their politics. They want to be able to access it safely, and currently it is not safe in many ways. We are going to have to address this, but I give the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and the House my word that we will have a vote at some point in time.

Let me turn to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. I do remember the event that he talked about. I am sorry that we were not able to find a way through that situation. He raised the different aspects of why he felt that he was in that situation, and I do think that we need to go away and reflect on that. The proxy system is evolving, but we should take away examples and see whether we need to make some changes.

This is not an excuse for what happened, but it was a set of unusual circumstances in the sense that it was not just a private Member’s Bill but a hotly contested private Member’s Bill. People felt personally committed to it, and I remember a huge number of emails about. There was also an expectation that people would be here. Therefore, the thing that we can do—to decide not to be here and not to vote—was not really an option for many people. When it came to trying to get someone to pair or finding some other way, I could not find a way through it at that time.

Briefly, I want to say that this is not just about changing a system—for example, proxy voting, which I would be open to looking at, and I think the Modernisation Committee would be too. I am a great advocate of the usual channels. I am a great advocate of the bit that people think is very suspicious and that makes them wonder why on earth we have such a system. Actually, it makes this place work. It is the oil that makes the engine of this place work. There are things that can be done through the usual channels that are never seen but that make life better for people—for MPs.

I will not go into the realm of the divisive politics that we have just lived through, but I will say that it is not just about covid. Covid is one part of it, but I have lived through recent times where politics has been more divisive. Therefore, it has been more difficult to get Opposition parties to accept the Government position, and the Government are finding it difficult to accept the perspective of the Opposition parties. I have to say, if this place is going to work better, we have to do it better. That is not to say that we have to resurrect the usual channels as it always was, but we have to find ways of better working, and that includes—I am not ashamed to say this—the personal relationships that make the usual channels work. That is certainly my approach, and it will continue to be so as long as I have the opportunity to contribute.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) was right to say that there was a huge turnover at the general election. In fact, it was said to me that 80% of Members now have less than seven years’ experience. Even when there was a massive change in 1997 and, indeed, 2010, it was not on that scale. The effect is that we have lost some of the institutional memory of this place, and that, as far as I am concerned, is a deficit.

On the other hand, we have a great number of new MPs with varied backgrounds, with all sorts of experiences, and also with varied needs. That is good, because we need to keep moving through that generational change. There is always a bit of a price to pay, but there is always an advantage to getting there as well. It is important that we take that into account. There are solutions to many of the issues that have been raised, but as I say, this report is not the end of the story. We will continue to work on this.

I understand the points that have been made about lots of votes, the time it takes and how exhausting it can be—and that is not to trivialise the experience of people who have additional needs. But going back to what I just said about the usual channels, I cannot remember a time when we had as many votes. When it comes to the responsibility of this place and the relationship between us and the other place, yes, they have every right to send lots back, and we have every right to kick it back too, but at some point they have to start giving something and the Government have to start giving something too. It is how Parliament works. It is how democracy works.

We do not have to have as many votes in this place as we do. They do not have as many votes down the corridor as we do here on a day-to-day basis. We do not have to have a vote at the end of Second Reading. Even if Members do not agree with a Bill, they do not have to vote against it on Second Reading. They can vote it down on Third Reading. The point of listening and making a speech against a Bill on Second Reading is that it will go to Committee, where changes can be made. If hon. Members do not like it, they can have a go on Report, and if they still do not like it they can vote it down on Third Reading. We spend a great deal of time on Divisions when we pretty well know what the results will be in most of them. [Interruption.] I am wandering a bit now, I can see that, but these are all issues where there are different solutions from those that might appear obvious. However, I will take that away and think about it.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich also made an important point about gender. Long may she continue to do so, because that is very important indeed.

We clearly have a long way to go on modernisation. We have seen some encouraging progress, and the report is part of that. We will continue to monitor all sorts of issues, including accessibility. I look forward to working in a collegiate way with colleagues to make progress and to make this an even greater place to work and for visitors to visit. I thank the House authorities for their ongoing work and commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the First Report of the Modernisation Committee, Access to the House of Commons and its Procedures, HC 755, and the House Administration response, HC 1726.