Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important issue, and I am sure we all share the frustration that he describes with many arm’s length bodies—quangos, as they are known—not being open and accountable in the way that they should be. Frankly, the Government think there are too many of them and we are taking steps to streamline them. It is in the DNA of this Government to make sure that people have recourse and accountability. That is why we have introduced Bills such as the Football Governance Bill, the Renters’ Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and what is now the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025. We want to give ordinary people more rights and recourse in respect of bodies that take decisions on their behalf. I will ensure that the right hon. Gentleman gets a reply from UKRI, and I am sure that it has heard his question.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Adam Jogee.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I extend my sympathies to you and your family on the recent death of your mother?

Last Sunday, people from across Staffordshire, including many from the heart and soul of our ancient county, Newcastle-under-Lyme, came together at Lichfield cathedral for a celebration of Sir Ian Dudson’s service as lord lieutenant of Staffordshire. Sir Ian and Lady Dudson have served the county, and particularly Newcastle-under-Lyme, very well for well over a decade. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Sir Ian and Lady Dudson for their service to the county and wishing them and their family well for their retirement?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

I am sure many Members across the House share my hon. Friend’s frustrations about water companies operating in their constituencies. Frankly, some of the bad behaviour of those water companies has gone on for too long, and there has not been enough accountability or action on the issues that matter to us all. That is why we brought in the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 and established the commission on the future of water governance. Further legislation on this matter will come forward in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Leader of the House for her responses this morning.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Debate between Lucy Powell and Caroline Nokes

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Policy Framework and ICGS Assurance Board (HC 579), further notes the Decisions of the Commission on 12 May, and agrees:

(1) That the ICGS Policy Framework in respect of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct annexed to the Commission report shall have effect from 14 July 2025.

(2) There shall be a body called the ICGS Assurance Board.

(3) The ICGS Assurance Board shall conduct assurance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme on behalf of the parliamentary community, in accordance with terms of reference published by the House of Commons Commission on 17 December 2024.

(4) The terms of reference of the Assurance Board may be varied by agreement between the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission.

(5) The ICGS Assurance Board shall consist of:

(a) the Clerk Assistant,

(b) the Clerk Assistant of the House of Lords,

(c) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,

(d) the Chair of the Independent Expert Panel,

(e) a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission,

(f) a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission,

(g) a representative of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and

(h) a representative of the human resources department from each House Administration.

(6) The ICGS Assurance Board shall have authority to approve ICGS Procedures, in accordance with the ICGS Policy Framework, provided that:

(a) nothing in the ICGS Procedures document may amend or override provisions in the Policy Framework;

(b) procedures cannot create new obligations for individuals’ conduct.

(7) The policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct endorsed by the House on 19 July 2018 and amended on 17 July 2019, 28 April 2021 and 26 April 2022 shall cease to have effect on 14 July 2025, save that they shall continue to apply to any complaints received on or before 13 July 2025.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this we shall discuss the following:

Amendment (a), in paragraph (1), after “2025” insert

“, subject to the removal of paragraphs 7.1, 9.4, 10.3, 13.2, 14.3, 17.7, 17.8 and 18.7”

Amendment (b), in paragraph (5)(e), leave out—

“a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission”

and insert—

“two Members of the House of Commons, elected by the House of Commons”

Amendment (c), in paragraph 5(f), leave out—

“a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission”

and insert—

“two Members of the House of Lords”

Amendment (d), leave out paragraph 5(h).

Amendment (e), leave out paragraph (6) and paragraph 1.4 of the ICGS Policy Framework.

[Lucy Powell]

The establishment of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, known as the ICGS—the first scheme of its kind in any legislature in the world— was an important step forward in tackling inappropriate behaviour in Parliament. Its establishment was agreed in 2018 with cross-party support.

The ICGS provides a dedicated, independent mechanism for handling complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct in both Houses. It deals with those complaints assiduously and anonymously, with a professional, well-resourced team, and has a range of appropriate sanctions and mechanisms at its disposal. The ICGS works alongside the independent expert panel, which determines appeals and sanctions for cases that have been brought against Members of Parliament. These arrangements ensure complaints are investigated fairly, objectively and to a high standard.

The ICGS has been an important driver in establishing higher standards and improved culture in Parliament and we should all support it. I thank the ICGS for its continued work, and in particular the contribution of its director, Thea Walton, who will be stepping down from her role later this year.

Last year, Parliament published the findings of an independent review into the effectiveness of the ICGS, conducted by Paul Kernaghan. The review broadly praised the ICGS’s performance, with Kernaghan being clear the ICGS is making a difference to standards in Parliament, and has demonstrated its ability to hold people to account for unacceptable behaviour. He said that the ICGS is something

“the parliamentary community should take pride in”.

The review found that the scheme has continued to take positive steps to improve timeliness and the quality of its service. Of course there is always more work to be done. It should rightly have the ambition to be the gold standard in workplace grievance schemes. In total, the review made 26 recommendations. Of those, eight have already been delivered, and a further eight will be taken forward should the motion before the House be agreed. Work on the remaining recommendations is under way. These are recommendations from an independent review of the independent grievance scheme of this House: they really should not be contentious.

Kernaghan’s first recommendation is to consolidate the various policy and procedure documents into one policy document and one procedure document, and that the existing ICGS assurance group should become a permanent ICGS assurance board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

It is important that we advertise this service—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to do that. Any member of staff, any Member of Parliament or anybody working in the broader parliamentary community who has been subject to bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct should get in touch. There is a helpline, and there are well-advertised ways of getting in touch with the ICGS, not just to make a complaint but to get advice about whether a complaint is in scope and can be taken forward. As I said earlier, the ICGS has a range of means: it does not always involve a full investigation with sanctions. The ICGS might often come to some resolution, and there are other means through which any such behaviour could be resolved. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, because it is important.

To be absolutely clear with the House, the policy framework of the ICGS remains a matter for this House. That includes the definitions, parameters, obligations and key rights and permissions of the scheme as well as its scope. I have laid in the Library and attached to the motion on the Order Paper a letter from the ICGS that sets out the difference between policy and procedure, because I know that is of concern to people.

Colleagues may want an update on a couple of other recommendations from the Kernaghan review that are not a matter for the motion today. Recommendation 3, which asks that political parties work more closely with the ICGS when dealing with complaints through a memorandum of understanding, is being taken forward by the Modernisation Committee with the co-operation of the political parties, and I thank all those concerned for that. The House has also taken forward recommendations on behaviour training. As of the end of March 2025, 639 out of 650 new and returning MPs have attended behaviour training.

Taken together, the recommendations from the Kernaghan review will improve ICGS performance and accountability, provide greater clarity about where complaints should go and how they should be dealt with, and speed up necessary changes to its day-to-day procedure. In total, they will improve behaviour and culture in this place. This is an important moment for the House to come together, I hope, on a cross-party basis, to show that we stand behind the ICGS, what it stands for and the work it does, and to show that we will improve and take forward the independent recommendations to keep improving its work.

I am disappointed that Opposition Front Benchers have broken with years of consensus on this matter to oppose some of the changes proposed, which came from an independent reviewer. I see that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not in his place, despite his amendments being selected. His amendments, which are supported by Members on the Conservative Front Bench, undermine the integrity of the Kernaghan review recommendations, and I cannot support them. I hope the shadow Leader of the House will take the opportunity to distance himself from those amendments. The reputation of Parliament is low, with poor trust in politics and politicians, and it is for all of us to turn the page on that era.

The safety of those who work on the estate is paramount. I am clear, as I am sure everybody is clear, that there is no place for bullying, harassment or sexual harassment in Parliament. Those who perpetrate it should be accountable and sanctioned where necessary. I commend these recommendations to the House and call on all Members from all parties to support these improvements.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Leader of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

The issue of scope was covered in the Kernaghan review. Kernaghan made it clear that the scope of the ICGS in when a case involves any two or more members of the parliamentary community. Perhaps there have been times when that scope has been unintentionally narrowed operationally. What the Modernisation Committee is considering is recommendation 3, which relates to a memorandum of understanding between the political parties and the ICGS in relation to how they deal with complaints. I think we can all agree that when complaints are within the scope of the ICGS, they should go to the ICGS and not to political parties, which, unfortunately, have shown themselves not able to deal with such complaints in the same way. That is not just a matter for the Modernisation Committee; it is a matter for the political parties as well, and we are making progress in that regard—particularly with the Labour party, which is keen to engage with the issue.

I will not detain colleagues much longer, but I will pick up on a few points that have been raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for her brilliant contribution, and for all the work that she is doing on the House of Commons Commission and the assurance board. As ever, I thank my colleague on the commission and the Modernisation Committee, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), who made an excellent contribution on why the amendments are gutting amendments, which we should not support.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner), I put on record my thanks to the trade union reps who operate in this House. They should absolutely be involved, through the stakeholder group, in a formal consultation about any changes to procedure. After this debate, I will approach the ICGS to ask it to consider allowing the trade unions to attend meetings of the assurance board in the same capacity in which they come to the House of Commons Commission to make representations, because that will be important.

Finally, I want to take on the arguments made by the shadow Leader of the House. First, these are not my proposals—they are not Government proposals. This is a motion on the business of the House in my name, because that is how such motions get to the Floor of the House. These proposals were put forward by an independent review—to which all political parties and all Members of this House had the opportunity to contribute—of an independent grievance scheme, which has rightly improved behaviour and standards. They are not my proposals; they are independent proposals. This body will not be setting the rules—that is just wrong. It will be looking at procedures, and at how they can be streamlined and made more effective. As I have just said, the rules—that is, the policies—will continue to be set by this House.

It is about time we moved on from the age-old argument that Members of this House have a right to behave however they want and the only time they are accountable for that is at the ballot box five years later. That is the argument that the shadow Leader of the House was proposing—I am sorry, but we put that argument to bed a long time ago, as I think the Chair of the Committee on Standards agrees.

If colleagues, cross-party, support the ICGS and the improvements in behaviour and culture that it has brought to this House, and if they want to see that body becoming more effective and having more timely and quality investigations, they really need to support today’s motion. As others have said, we all have a duty to ensure that this is a workplace where people can work safely and securely, free from bullying, harassment and bad behaviour.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Amendments (a) to (e) have been selected for separate decision. However, I understand that no Member wishes to move them, so I will move straight to the main Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the report of the House of Commons Commission entitled Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme: Policy Framework and ICGS Assurance Board (HC 579), further notes the Decisions of the Commission on 12 May, and agrees:

(1) That the ICGS Policy Framework in respect of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct annexed to the Commission report shall have effect from 14 July 2025.

(2) There shall be a body called the ICGS Assurance Board.

(3) The ICGS Assurance Board shall conduct assurance of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme on behalf of the parliamentary community, in accordance with terms of reference published by the House of Commons Commission on 17 December 2024.

(4) The terms of reference of the Assurance Board may be varied by agreement between the House of Commons Commission and the House of Lords Commission.

(5) The ICGS Assurance Board shall consist of:

(a) the Clerk Assistant,

(b) the Clerk Assistant of the House of Lords,

(c) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards,

(d) the Chair of the Independent Expert Panel,

(e) a Member of the House of Commons who is a member of the House of Commons Commission, appointed by the Commission,

(f) a Member of the House of Lords who is a member of the House of Lords Commission,

(g) a representative of the House of Lords Conduct Committee, and

(h) a representative of the human resources department from each House Administration.

(6) The ICGS Assurance Board shall have authority to approve ICGS Procedures, in accordance with the ICGS Policy Framework, provided that:

(a) nothing in the ICGS Procedures document may amend or override provisions in the Policy Framework;

(b) procedures cannot create new obligations for individuals’ conduct.

(7) The policies and procedures relating to bullying and harassment and sexual misconduct endorsed by the House on 19 July 2018 and amended on 17 July 2019, 28 April 2021 and 26 April 2022 shall cease to have effect on 14 July 2025, save that they shall continue to apply to any complaints received on or before 13 July 2025.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 15th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Absolutely. I join my hon. Friend in welcoming those from Astwood Bank’s Royal British Legion to Parliament today. I am sure the whole House is grateful for the work that they have done, for the thousands of pounds that they have raised, and for all the service that they have given over many years.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I echo the Leader of the House’s words about the intolerable and increasingly unsurvivable situation in Gaza. I urge the Government to do everything in their power to help remedy the situation.

My Chelmsford constituent, who is self-employed, regularly has to deal with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. He recently wrote to me about the unacceptable waiting times on HMRC’s customer service helpline. In his experience, this issue has been going on for years but has recently grown considerably worse. He tells me that he sometimes has to wait for up to 40 minutes before giving up and hanging up. It is all very well having services online, but if they are not fully accessible, people will still need an HMRC helpline that is responsive. Sadly, that is not the case.

The unacceptable level of customer service has been the subject of cross-party criticism in this House many times over the years. This year, the Public Accounts Committee agreed that the situation has indeed got worse. It found that 44,000 HMRC customers were cut off while waiting more than 70 minutes to reach an adviser—more than six times the figure for the whole of the 2022-23 financial year. I am sure the whole House will agree that spending time on the phone while waiting to resolve tax issues is not something that many of us or our constituents particularly enjoy doing, and it does not do anything to help productivity. Businesses need to spend their time selling their goods and services and generating tax receipts for the Treasury, not languishing on the end of a phone. Will the Leader of the House ask for a statement to be made about when we can expect to see improvements?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Powell]

This issue is raised with me regularly at business questions, and by my own constituents, as I represent many leaseholders across Manchester Central. The situation my hon. Friend describes is all too familiar, and I am sorry to hear what FirstPort is doing in her constituency. She will know that this Government have real ambitions for leasehold reform. We want to end the feudal system of leasehold and bring forward a system of commonhold. That is why we have published the White Paper, and we have also laid regulations to make it easier for leaseholders to get the right to manage. Later this year, we will bring forward a draft leasehold reform Bill, which will be a comprehensive package to change the system for good.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

In addition to the business that the Leader of the House has announced, in the Chamber next week there will be a statement from the Business and Trade Committee. When we come back after the Whitsun recess, if we are granted the time, on 5 June there will be a debate on high street banking closures and banking hubs, followed by a debate on safety regulations in the construction and planning of battery energy storage sites. If we are given the time, on 12 June there will be a debate on the distribution of special educational needs and disabilities funding, followed by a debate on the fifth anniversary of the covid-19 pandemic.

In Westminster Hall next week, on Tuesday there will be a debate on pensions for people living overseas, and on Thursday there will be a full three-hour debate on the UK-EU summit results. When we come back, on Tuesday 3 June there will be a debate on the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, and on Thursday 5 June there will be a debate on the police presence on high streets, followed by a debate on the contribution of maths to the UK. On Tuesday 10 June there will be a debate on the US aid funding pause and the impact on UK international development, and on Thursday 12 June there will be a debate on the legal recognition of humanist marriages, followed by a debate on long-term conditions.

Today is the last day for people to respond to the consultation by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on my private Member’s Bill, which was given Royal Assent in 2023, on supported housing exempt accommodation. Unfortunately, over the last two years rogue landlords have continued to exploit vulnerable people, but I am delighted that the Government have taken up the regulations we had prepared before the general election. I urge individuals who wish to respond to the consultation to do so without delay. Will the Secretary of State make a statement after Whitsun on what action the Government will take, how many responses have been received and when we can expect the regulations to be brought into force, so that vulnerable tenants do not continue to be exploited?

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 20th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Those issues absolutely remain central to our diplomatic relations. The Foreign Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West), are here, and they will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question. We stand firm on human rights; we make that very clear in our discussions with China, and with anybody else.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We have a very important statement coming in just one minute. Final question: Chris Webb.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

The Blackpool pleasure beach in my constituency was named the best seaside park at the UK theme park awards. World-class attractions such as the pleasure beach brought an estimated 23 million people to Blackpool last year. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising the pleasure beach and all the attractions in Blackpool, and encourage everyone to have a staycation in the UK this year?

[Lucy Powell]

I can absolutely encourage everyone to go to Blackpool, have fish and chips on the promenade, and perhaps go on the Big One, which I am too scared to go on. I look forward to joining my hon. Friend there soon.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for her responses this morning.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)]

I shall. The business for the week commencing 3 February includes:

Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.

Tuesday 4 February—Debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, followed by debate on motions to approve the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025 and the draft Child Benefit and Guardian’s Allowance Up-rating Order 2025.

Wednesday 5 February—Motions related to the police grant and local government finance reports.

Thursday 6 February—General debate on Government support for coalfield communities, followed by a general debate on financial education. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 10 February will include:

Monday 10 February—Second Reading of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill.

Tuesday 11 February—If necessary, consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration in Committee and remaining stages of the Arbitration Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 12 February—Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords].

Thursday 13 February—General debate. Subject to be announced.

The House will rise for the February recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 13 February and return on Monday 24 February.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call Joy Morrissey, I think it appropriate to wish her a happy birthday.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that the House will join me in offering thoughts and prayers for victims and their families following the collision this morning when an American Airlines plane crashed into the Potomac following a collision; but I believe that the Leader of the House will join me in rejoicing at the return of more of the Israeli hostages today.

It is an honour to respond to the right hon. Lady. Serving with her on the Modernisation Committee, I have observed the energy that she puts into bringing this House into the second quarter of the 21st century. We are lucky to have someone so persuasive in her position, someone who really listens to Members. [Hon. Members: “But—”] No buts, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I approach this session of business questions in that spirit. One innovation that would be very welcome would be a commitment from the Leader of the House to providing our dates for Opposition day debates, which we have still not received. Another extremely welcome innovation would be the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero finding time to reply to numerous letters sent by Opposition Members; perhaps the Leader of the House could persuade him to do so, but perhaps she would have more luck with the Chancellor.

As each week passes, our constituents face more and more negative consequences from the Chancellor’s disastrous Budget. Last week the Office for National Statistics revealed that there had been a staggering 47,000 drop in employment in December, the sharpest fall since the pandemic. Job vacancies have also collapsed. The day before the Chancellor’s Budget, in which she launched her attack on British businesses, there were 858,000 job vacancies in our economy; now the number has fallen to just 740,000, a drop of 14% in just two months. I know that she is proud of being the first female Chancellor, but would it not be even better for her to be known as the Chancellor who was brave enough to change course? Because of her Budget, business confidence has collapsed. Because of her Budget, growth has collapsed. Because of her Budget, employment is falling and unemployment is rising. Because of her Budget, UK gilt yields are at an eye-watering level. Because of her Budget, mortgage rates are now rising, despite her promise that she would bring them down.

We have seen a glimmer of hope with the Chancellor’s U-turn on her non-doms policy, which has caused some of the UK’s biggest taxpayers to flee her socialist nightmare. It is a welcome U-turn, but I feel for the Leader of the House and for Labour Members. I cannot imagine that they ever thought they would be explaining why a Labour Government had U-turned on punishing non-doms, but not on punishing pensioners. Will the Leader of the House seek to persuade the Chancellor to be bold, change course again, and spare British pensioners, farmers, businesses, workers and households from more economic pain?

May we have a debate in Government time to explore the many areas in which a Chancellor U-turn would indeed be welcome? If not, will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on punishing pensioners, and reinstate their winter fuel payment? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to spare family farms that have put food on our tables from her tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn to save businesses that create jobs, wealth and growth in this country from her catastrophic national insurance tax raid? Will she ask the Chancellor to be bold and U-turn on her 1970s-style tax and borrowing spree, to protect the households that now face rising mortgage costs because of her? That is a task that I hope the Leader of the House will agree is in the interests of the House, its Members, and the people of this country.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I know from my own constituency experience that the people of the north have been let down over many years of under-investment and mismanagement by Northern, and its current performance is unacceptable. That is why we have a plan to take the franchises back into public ownership, so that we can improve reliability and ensure that people can get the trains that they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

And now, a final pithy question from Sir John Hayes.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Problem gambling first breaks people and then costs lives. It is a far cry from the weekly pools coupon of my father’s day, and it is devastating people in Lincolnshire and elsewhere. Given the announcement of a new £30 million statutory gambling levy, will the Leader of the House arrange a debate so that we can discuss how to guarantee that that money is spread fairly, and is not eaten up by organisations sponsored by the gambling industry?

[Lucy Powell]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. Online gambling in particular has completely changed the whole industry and increased people’s susceptibility to problems such as gambling addiction. This Government are taking forward the recommendations made previously to tackle the scourge of gambling, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister comes to the House at some point to talk about these issues.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the Leader of the House for a comprehensive session of business questions.

Business of the House

Debate between Lucy Powell and Caroline Nokes

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

May I welcome my hon. Friend back to her place? She was always vocal and committed in the last Parliament, and I have no doubt she will be so again in this Parliament. As she rightly points out, our education and care systems are not meeting the needs of children with special educational needs, often leaving them without the support they need to thrive. That is one of the issues being tackled in our children’s wellbeing Bill, announced by His Majesty the King yesterday. As she will have heard this morning, there will be a debate on education in the business next week.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

Immediately prior to Dissolution, the excellent Backbench Business Committee had granted a debate in the Chamber to discuss the performance of Southern Water. I know that the right hon. Lady will want to respond about sewage, but in fact the debate was to be about its failure to deliver clean water to significant parts of my constituency in addition to its failures on sewage. Will she please reassure me that in the absence of the Backbench Business Committee and the Petitions Committee, the Government will find time for Back Benchers to bring forward important issues that we wish to debate in the Chamber?