Business of the House

11:22:00

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

The business for the week commencing 27 January includes: Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries. Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]. Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords], followed by motions relating to the charter for budget responsibility and the welfare cap. Thursday 30 January—General debate on proportional representation for general elections, followed by a general debate on the future of local post office services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the week commencing 3 February will include: Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill. Tuesday 4 February—Motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. Wednesday 5 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports. Thursday 6 February—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee. Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.

Over the past few months, the Labour party has been generous indeed in offering the people of this country regular evidence of its remarkable incompetence, but even by its formidable standards it has excelled itself this week. The Prime Minister said some time ago in terms that he prefers Davos to Westminster, but this week he has left the global hobnobbing and après-ski of the World Economic Forum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist her in her relentless search for growth. Her latest idea is to revive the third runway at Heathrow: a project so toxic to her Labour colleagues that it had been briefed against by the Energy Secretary and publicly rejected by the Mayor of London before it was even preannounced. As so often, I am afraid we will have to wait for the announcement to be made in this House. Meanwhile, the Chancellor’s wizard wheeze of the autumn to set up a new Office for Value for Money was publicly rubbished in the most unsparing terms by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who described it as “an understaffed, poorly defined organisation…set up with a vague remit and no clear plan to measure its effectiveness.” That is from the Chancellor’s own Labour colleague. Spending reviews are always fraught, and this one will be still more so, because the Chancellor has boxed herself in so badly on taxes and spending. What the Government think will be achieved by a couple of dozen hastily assembled newbies and some adolescent management consultants running around—apart from making things even worse—is hard to imagine. In case we forget, Mr Speaker, you and I and everyone else in the Chamber—indeed, every taxpayer—is paying for that. Then we had no less a figure than the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies weighing in. He noted that the Government have done nothing but talk about growth ever since the last general election. He then noted: “At the same time, we have seen the imposition of additional employment regulation, further regulation of rental housing, a hike in stamp duty, a big increase in tax on employers, an inflation-busting rise in the minimum wage, a refusal to contemplate any serious liberalisation of trade or free movement…and, perhaps, a clampdown on immigration.” He asked: “What is this government’s ‘theory of growth’?” He then answered his own question: “Nobody knows”. Those are just three examples of the Government’s absolute lack of seriousness in economics, but, as we have just heard in the urgent question, there is a serious issue in the area of law that they cannot avoid. Let me remind the House what has happened. The Attorney General has been repeatedly asked whether he has or has had a conflict of interest in relation to legal matters that could affect his former client, Gerry Adams. In response, a spokesman for the Prime Minister has highlighted systems to prevent potential conflicts from arising. The Attorney General has cited the convention that Law Officers do not discuss their advice to Ministers and has disclaimed any connection between his work for Mr Adams and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As the Solicitor General has just said, the standard that they are aspiring to is to be beyond reproach. The problem is that none of that addresses whether the Attorney General in fact recused himself. This does not fall either within the Law Officers’ convention or the cab rank principle. He either did recuse himself or he did not. The problem is made worse when one reflects that this Attorney General is the first in the history of the office to have come into Government directly from private practice—that point was completely ignored in the urgent question—and that that practice was not in one of the less political areas of law such as corporate law or chancery but squarely in the highly contentious and political area of human rights, with some of it in Northern Ireland. There is no reason whatever in law or ministerial practice why the Attorney General should not be transparent on this issue, as he has been already in relation to the legacy Act. There is a strong public interest in him doing so. His legacy comment proves that he concedes the point about the importance of clarity in this area. In the independent adviser on ministerial standards’ recent letter regarding the former anti-corruption Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), he highlighted that the ministerial code says: “Ministers…must ensure that no conflict…could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”. That conflict clearly exists now in relation to the Attorney General. Does the Leader of the House share my view that we should have a debate on the standards to be applied in these complex cases where there is a potential conflict between the demands of the ministerial code and the statements made by the Government in defence of the Law Officer concerned?

I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House and the country will again be with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice, the two teachers, the neighbour and all the children who attended the Taylor Swift dance class in Southport, after the horrific attack and murders last summer. What they faced is truly unimaginable. This tragedy is made all the worse by the fact that it could have been prevented, as the Home Secretary said this week. The House will be aware that the Government are pursuing a number of actions in response: an independent public inquiry that will leave no stone unturned, an end-to-end review of Prevent, stronger measures to tackle online knife sales and knife crime, and a quicker piece of work on the limitations of the current definition of terrorism. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date on those and related matters. The right hon. Gentleman raised issues of standards in public life. As I gently reminded him last week, he may not want to draw on the record of the Conservative Government and compare it with ours. But he raised some important questions, which have just been answered in the urgent question. As he will know, the Cabinet Secretary replied to the shadow Justice Secretary that the Attorney General has properly declared his interest from his previous role as a senior barrister. As a barrister with a wide-ranging legal practice, the Attorney General will have represented many clients. According to Bar association rules, barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behaviour by virtue of representing them. The Cabinet Secretary has explained that as well as the declarations process for all Ministers, the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous system in place to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest. The right hon. Gentleman will know that these arrangements are long-standing and have been practised in successive Administrations. I am not sure whether he is arguing that we should no longer have an Attorney General who has been recently involved in private practice at the highest level —perhaps he will let us know. Today is actually a very special day—perhaps a historic day—because it is the last day that the former Prime Minister could have called a general election. Oh, how different things could have been. The Conservatives would have still been on this side of the House, with three times as many Members as they have now. The right hon. Gentleman would still be enjoying himself on the Back Benches, and the House would not have the delightful presence of the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). Instead, we are six months into a Labour Government. I am sure the Conservatives regret calling the general election early, but I am afraid the country does not. Let us imagine for a moment what the country would be facing today: doctors still on strike, making the NHS winter crisis even worse; public services facing huge cuts due to the Conservatives’ economic plans; waiting lists ever growing, leaving people sick and out of work; the hospital building programme still on the never-never; the asylum backlog rising with no plan to get it down; more and more councils going bust; more trains being cancelled than run; and the black hole in the public finances still going. Let us not even imagine what would be happening with our prisons. The country would be on its knees, with living standards falling, Britain an embarrassment around the world and politics in the doldrums. Thankfully, the former Prime Minister made a big misjudgment for the Tory party but a good decision for the country. He called the election early because he wanted out. We have not been able to put everything right immediately—the problems run too deep—but we have made a lot of progress. We have ended the doctors strike and put record investment into the NHS. We have reset our international relationships, restoring Britain as a global leader. We have tackled the asylum backlog and achieved record numbers of returns. We are giving workers security and dignity. We are turbocharging house building, with new, ambitious targets. We are working towards energy security with lower bills and GB Energy. Trains are now running in the interests of passengers. The right hon. Gentleman might be sorry that he is now sitting on the Opposition Benches, his party still licking its wounds, but the country is getting the change it voted for.

My constituents Mandy and Bernie, along with many other homeowners in Bury North, are facing serious issues with Residential Management Group. Despite dutifully paying their service charges, residents of Wharfside Apartments and Broad Oak have been hit with additional fees and alarming practices that equate to neglect and exploitation: overpricing, sudden price changes, premature bailiff actions and non-compliance with fire safety and accessibility standards, to name just a few. This is not an isolated case; some 70 Members of this House have constituents across the country facing the same level of activity by rogue management companies. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that under Labour, these unscrupulous practices will be tackled, and will she provide time in the House for a debate on this urgent matter?

As ever, my hon. Friend raises important issues to his constituents. I am another of those Members with a high caseload of these issues. As he will know, the Government are committed to ensuring that homeowners are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, which is why we will be bringing forward a draft leasehold reform Bill later in the Session. I will ensure the House is updated on its progress.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I echo the words of the Leader of the House on the Southport attack. May I take this opportunity to welcome the ceasefire in Gaza? Many of my constituents have contacted me about the conflict, and I know it will be a comfort to them to know that bombs are no longer falling in that part of the world—long may the peace last. At the beginning of January, the Care Quality Commission published a report into the maternity services at Broomfield hospital, which serves my constituency. Worryingly, it downgraded the services from “requires improvement” to “inadequate”. A few days ago, the CQC published two more reports about maternity services at the two other major hospitals run by the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, Basildon and Southend, which were both rated “requires improvement”. This is understandably concerning to my constituents, who are served by all three hospitals. When I visited Broomfield’s maternity services a couple of weeks ago, I was pleased to see encouraging signs of improvement, so I hope my constituents will take some comfort from that. It is worth noting that the CQC’s reports in all three cases were based on assessments carried out in March 2024. Does the Leader of the House think it is acceptable for the CQC to take such a long time to report its findings on services that are obviously struggling, and will she grant Government time for a debate to discuss whether the CQC needs better resourcing and support to carry out its important duties?

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the ceasefire in Israel and Gaza; since we last spoke of it last week, it has seemed to be holding to some degree, which is very welcome. I also thank her for yet again raising an issue of such importance to not only her constituents, but those of many Members across the House. Too many women are not receiving the maternity care that they deserve. I am really sorry to hear about the particular case she raises, but I am glad there are now signs of improvement in her local services. Many patients rely on assessments by the CQC to make decisions about their care. The independent Dash review of the CQC highlights serious failings with the watchdog, and the Health Secretary recently said that it is not fit for purpose. The Government are determined to take action so that people can feel the confidence in the service that they need. We are pressing the CQC to raise standards and deliver significant performance improvements. Last week, the chief exec and the chair of the CQC were questioned by the Health and Social Care Committee. I will ensure that the House is continually updated on these important matters.

Last week, I visited Briarwood, an acute dementia care facility run by mental health charity Everyturn in Blaydon. Everyturn runs a wide range of mental health services, including its safe havens, which are open for anyone to start receiving mental health support just by walking in off the street. Today, one opens at George Street Social in Newcastle, serving Tyneside. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the charity on opening this hub, which will provide support to so many people, and can we have a debate in Government time on how to make mental health support easily accessible in our communities?

I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Everyturn charity on all the outstanding work it does to support those with mental health issues and dementia in her constituency. She will know that the Mental Health Bill is currently making its way in the House of Lords. It will be a very good opportunity to debate these issues further when it comes to this place.

I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.

In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House on Backbench Business Committee time, on 6 February in the Chamber there will be a on Government support for coalfield communities, followed by the debate on financial education that was due to take place on Monday but time did not allow. The business in Westminster Hall agreed by the Backbench Business Committee is as follows: on Tuesday 28 January, there will be a debate on road safety for young drivers. On Thursday 30 January, there will be a debate on medicinal cannabis, followed by a debate on a subject we will announce very shortly. On 4 February, there will be a debate on National Apprenticeship Week. On Thursday 6 February, there will be a debate on improving rail services with open access operators, followed by a debate on debt cancellation for low-income countries. With Mr Speaker’s permission, on Tuesday 11 February there will be a debate on the cost of energy. I ask the Leader of the House to advise us, at early notice, of the dates for estimates day debates. On Sunday, many of my constituents gathered and paid for a screening of the film “Emergency” in the Harrow Vue cinema. At about 30 or 40 minutes into the screening of the film, masked Khalistani terrorists burst in, threatened members of the audience and forced the screening to end. I understand that similar disruption took place in Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Slough, Staines and Manchester. As a result, Vue cinemas and Cineworld have pulled the film from being screened. The film is very controversial, and I am not commenting on its quality or content, but I defend the right of my constituents and other Members’ constituents to be able to view it and make a decision on it. It covers the period when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India. It is very controversial and there are certain views that it is an anti-Sikh film, but our constituents should be able to see the film and judge for themselves, and not be threatened by thugs who want to disrupt democratic opportunities to see public films. May we have a statement from the Home Secretary next week on what will be done to ensure that people who want to see such films, which have been passed by censors, can do so in peace and harmony? I absolutely defend the right of people to demonstrate outside cinemas, but not to disrupt viewings.

First of all, I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing forthcoming Backbench Business Committee slots, which will be of great interest to the House. The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter about the relationship between free speech and the right to protest peacefully, and the ability of people to go about their activities freely whatever they choose to do, whether that is seeing a film which, as he says, has been agreed by the censors and all those who look at those issues. I will certainly ensure that he and the whole House get an update on the very important matters he raises.

Research from the Centre for Cities shows that the average wage in the north-east is £17,000 per annum less than here in London, and the gap is likely to be much higher than that in constituencies like mine. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss how the Labour Government will bridge that staggering gap and ensure that there are good, well-paid, secure jobs in the north-east of England?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He is absolutely right that the key reason why we have suffered in this country, over the last 14 years in particular, from stagnant growth and falling living standards is that we have widespread regional inequalities. We have poor productivity, we do not have the high level of skills that we need, and we have deep-seated health inequalities, which also affect people’s ability to work and earn the wages they deserve. That is why this Government have an agenda to ensure that we get the growth the country needs—growth that is shared around the country, is sustainable and is underpinned by a healthy, highly-skilled, productive economy—and that the new jobs of the future are found in his constituency and other parts of the country that deserve to get them.

I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. Lib Dem-controlled Dorset council is proposing to introduce night-time car parking charges. That would have a devastating impact on the market towns of Verwood, Blandford Forum, Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Sturminster Newton in my constituency, bringing into doubt the viability of many businesses providing entertainment and hospitality services. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the proposal to introduce these charges, and will she find Government time for a debate on how Government policy and other policies can support rural market towns and their local economies?

As someone who represents a city centre, I can assure the hon. Member that I am well aware of the issues around car parking charges and the public attention they give rise to. He is right that charges have to be brought in while balancing the needs of independent shops and the hospitality sector in the area. I am sure the local authority has heard his question, but I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response about the matter.

Last week, a broken mains water pipe in my constituency left 40,000 people without water. The engineers worked really hard to fix the repair in challenging circumstances, but despite an incredible community response, too many people face an unacceptable wait for bottled water. We need to get much better at identifying vulnerable people in emergency situations, using the information that we already hold across various Government Departments. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Ministers to meet me to discuss how we can better use data to improve our response during emergencies such as this?

First, I thank my hon. Friend for the fantastic job she did when she stepped in as my Parliamentary Private Secretary in an emergency last week; I could not have got through business questions without her great support. I know that she has been raising the issue of last week’s water outage strongly for her constituents, and my sympathies go to them. She will know that it is the responsibility of water companies to manage such disruption. They do not do that well in many cases, and that is why we have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will drive meaningful improvements in the water industry. The Cabinet Office will soon issue guidance about how to better respond to these local emergencies, and I will ensure that she gets the meeting she has asked for.

The EU offered the UK a youth mobility scheme that would give the invaluable opportunity for our young people to live, work and love across our continent. It was rejected out of hand. Since then, the EU has offered a customs arrangement for the UK Government, which again has been rejected out of hand. Can we have a debate about how the EU reset is going, and will the Leader of the House confirm that we are forever doomed to this chaotic and self-defeating hard Brexit?

As the hon. Member will know, we have been absolutely clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement, and we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme. That is because we feel that we can make great progress in resetting our relationship with the European Union, which is under way, and that the country does not need further disruption in this area but needs us to make sure we get the trade agreements and the relationship with the EU that will get better outcomes for those in Scotland and elsewhere.

In South Derbyshire, we have an incinerator in Drakelow. Just outside my patch, in neighbouring Derby, there is an incinerator in Sinfin. Despite that, there has been an application to build another incinerator 9 miles from the one in Sinfin and just 4.8 miles from the one in Drakelow. It has already been rejected by both the district and county councils and, most importantly, by my constituents. Community Against the Swadlincote Incinerator is a data-driven and facts-based campaign led by Dr Tracey Wond. It is not just that we do not want the incinerator; given the numbers, we do not need it, especially as it would not be significant infrastructure of national importance and the Government are seeking to reduce waste. Will the Leader of the House please consider having a debate in Government time on where we should agree to build new incinerators? There is certainly no sense in building another one in South Derbyshire.

I think this is my hon. Friend’s first business question, and she is a fantastic new MP for South Derbyshire who is yet again raising an issue of concern for her constituents. She will know that the Government are committed to delivering a package of reform to transition to a circular economy, which will dramatically reduce our reliance on waste incineration. We will back new waste incineration projects only where they meet strict new conditions, which we recently set out. This issue gets raised many times in business questions, and I can see that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is still in his place. My hon. Friend should get together with other colleagues and try to secure a broader debate on the matter.

Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the importance of volunteering, to celebrate community spirit? Coldstream community council recently hosted a senior citizens’ Christmas party in the town’s community centre. Over 100 local residents enjoyed a belated Christmas meal and entertainment, but it would not have happened had it not been for the hard work of the volunteers. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Fiona Shepherd, the community council and the team from Presenting Coldstream for making that event happen, and for everything they do to support the Coldstream community?

I absolutely will join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating those people and organisations from his constituency—Coldstream community council, Fiona Shepherd and others. The Christmas lunch sounds like a wonderful way of bringing people together. The hon. Gentleman attends these sessions regularly, and I am waiting for an invitation to his constituency to see the great things that he often describes. He has highlighted another one today.

My constituents in Brent East work extremely hard, and some are able to purchase a smartphone. Yesterday, we heard from the Met that an estimated 64,000 phones were stolen across London in 2023; I think one mobile phone is stolen every four minutes in Westminster. The Met and the Mayor of London are working together to combat the escalation, but more work is needed, especially with providers such as Apple and Google. Will the Leader of the House please consider having a debate in Government time to discuss this important issue?

My hon. Friend raises a really important matter. Mobile phone theft can be incredibly traumatic, and it is a really bad problem for not just the individuals who face it, but society as a whole. Antisocial behaviour chips away at communities’ sense of confidence and pride, which is why this Government are taking strong action to stop antisocial behaviour by bringing in respect orders and a number of other measures. I will ensure that the relevant Minister gives her a full response on this matter, and I am sure that it would make a very good topic for a debate.

Many of our professionals, including doctors, teachers and police officers, are struggling with recruitment and retention. They all serve our communities with dedication and selflessness, and we rely on them, but they are affected by the rules relating to their pensions. In the case of doctors, it is costing them money to work additional hours for the NHS. In the case of long-standing teachers and police officers, changes to their pensions partway through employment can mean that they owe money or are trapped and unable to claim pensions, due to legislative change. Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate in Government time on public sector pensions?

The hon. Lady will know that the issue of public sector pensions, and the disincentives that often apply to those in senior roles, has been a matter of debate over recent years. I understand that most of the issues have been resolved, but I will certainly get an update for her. If there are matters that still need wider discussion, I will ensure that the House is made aware of them.

My neighbours in Ilford South and I are concerned about reports of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in Pakistan. Reports of female political candidates being harassed and intimidated to get them to stand down, male candidates being imprisoned, journalists going missing and protesters losing their lives have sadly become the norm. Pakistan is a human rights priority country for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which is committed to ensuring human rights, democracy and the rule of the law in Pakistan. Does the Leader of the House agree that we must continue to work towards guaranteeing the rights of all people in Pakistan? Can we have Government time for a debate on this important issue?

The Government urge Pakistan to uphold its international obligations and human rights. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), visited Pakistan in November and highlighted our concerns about the need for it to uphold its democratic values in relation to protests and military courts, and to uphold its fundamental functions. We continue to urge Pakistan to address concerns about the fairness of the February 2024 elections and to uphold its obligations under international law. I will ensure that the House is kept updated on these important matters.

Replies to my parliamentary questions are often late. They are often evasive and often refer to websites that are infrequently updated, and sometimes they are even overtly political. I know that the Leader of the House cares passionately about improving performance in this area, so will she make a statement to update the House on how she is working to get better responses from Departments to parliamentary questions?

The hon. Lady is right that I take these issues incredibly seriously. The House and its Members have a right to timely, proper and full replies to parliamentary questions. I regularly remind members of the Cabinet about their duties in this regard, and I wrote to them recently. The hon. Lady will know that the Procedure Committee also takes seriously its responsibility for monitoring the timeliness of replies to parliamentary questions. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of written parliamentary questions tabled since the general election, but that is no excuse for what she describes. I encourage her and any other Member to let me know when they receive a particularly poor or late reply to a parliamentary question.

Last week, I visited Leeds City college at the invitation of University and College Union reps, and I heard about the great work they do on campuses across the city, including at Temple Newsam in my constituency, in very challenging circumstances. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of the further education sector? Alongside the UCU’s demand for the restoration of national pay bargaining, it is important that the FE sector is not seen as a poor relation of the higher education sector. The FE sector does a vital job for people in our communities, as well as for our economy and our infrastructure as a whole.

The hon. Member is right that the further education sector does an immense job in ensuring that this country’s young people have the skills, the ambition and the pathways to get into the great jobs of both the future and today. Historically, further education has often been seen as a Cinderella sector, but that is not this Government’s view, which is why we gave a record settlement to the FE sector in the recent Budget. We have Education questions coming up at the end of January, but I am sure this would also make a good topic for a debate.

John Cross, a Bromsgrove pharmacist who believed in the importance of vaccines, took his own life after suffering paralysing complications after receiving the covid vaccine. John’s widow Christine and their children have been campaigning for justice in his memory, including seeking compensation from the vaccine damage payment scheme. Unfortunately, their claim has been rejected. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on the Floor of the House about the vaccine damage payment scheme in relation to covid vaccines? Will she assist me in brokering a meeting between the Cross family and the Health Secretary?

I am really sorry to hear of what happened to John Cross and all that his family must be going through subsequently, as well as their challenge in getting the compensation they deserve. I will certainly arrange for a ministerial response and a ministerial meeting with the family.

My constituency is among the UK’s worst hotspots for deaths linked to a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work, with 344 deaths since 1980. Indeed, in the last five years 16 men and five women have died from cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. The Labour Government passed the Compensation Act 2006 to make it easier for people diagnosed with mesothelioma to claim full compensation, with the need to find just one negligent employer rather than them all. However, the Act does not apply to those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate in Government time to address that injustice and help deliver full and fair compensation for all those who are not protected from asbestos exposure at work?

I thank my hon. Friend greatly for raising the issue of those who have been exposed to asbestos and those suffering from mesothelioma, which is now coming through strongly. In previous Parliaments we had a number of hon. Members who strongly led on those issues. They are no longer in the House, so I encourage my hon. Friend to become a parliamentarian leader in order to get the debates and continue to raise those issues, as I will now do on his behalf with Ministers, to ensure that we get further action.

I declare my interests as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital and as having a family member with shares in a medical company. My constituents are heartbroken by the Government’s decision to push the start date of the Royal Berks’s reconstruction to 2037. That decision will disappoint many patients and staff. There is a £400 million total of maintenance backlogs, statutory improvements and other capital expenditure that the Royal Berkshire hospital requires over the next 10 years. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there are future opportunities, in Government time, to debate the progress of the campaign so that maintenance issues caused by the delay to the rebuild can be raised?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be disappointed with what is happening to his local hospital. However, I am sure that he will recognise that the previous Government’s commitment to 40 new hospitals was not funded, there were no timelines and they were on the never-never. That is why this Government have had to take the decision to be completely honest with people and to have a programme that we think is deliverable and that there is money for. That, unfortunately, means that the timeline for some hospitals is longer than the fictional ones they were previously presented with. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care gave a lengthy statement on the matter earlier this week, and I know that he will want to keep the House strongly updated on these issues.

I have a 13-year-old constituent who suffers with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease that he was diagnosed with at age 11, which is very late, due to what is called a spontaneous mutation. None the less, the condition has progressed rapidly. There is medication—givinostat—that can delay the advancement of the illness. It is being made available free to the NHS, but the hospitals that want to use it on their patients need some financial assistance to roll it out as part of an early access programme. May we have a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care on the issue, so that we can make representations on behalf of our constituents who suffer with Duchenne?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising Duchenne and the much-needed treatment that his constituent needs. I am pleased to hear that the treatment is being made available to the NHS for free, but I hear what he says about hospitals being able to access it speedily so that his constituent can get it. I will absolutely ensure that the relevant Minister has heard his question today and, if a response is not to my hon. Friend’s liking, I will help him to secure some time on that.

I had intended to raise today the appalling decision of the Planning Inspectorate to allow a battery energy storage system on Chapel Lane in my constituency, and to ask for a debate. However, just this morning I received the deeply disappointing and disturbing news of the closure of Aldridge police station. How on earth is that decision by the Labour police and crime commissioner compatible with the Prime Minister’s stated intention of strengthening neighbourhood policing?

I am sorry to hear of the closure of a police station, but the right hon. Lady will know that we are absolutely strengthening neighbourhood policing. We are putting 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers on the frontline. Part of the way we are funding that is by ensuring that we are delivering services efficiently and effectively in local areas. I will get her a response on that, and I look forward to her raising in future the local battery storage unit in her constituency.

This weekend, I will be taking part in a run with people from Active Fusion—[Interruption.] Don’t sound so surprised. Active Fusion is a charity in my constituency that works with education, charity and community providers to help deliver physical education activities for young people across Doncaster. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the fantastic work done by Active Fusion, and will she make time for a debate on how the Government can better support charities and organisations to deliver mental and physical health activities for young people who so desperately need it?

I wish my hon. Friend luck on her run—I am glad that she did not ask me to join her, because that is not something the public are quite ready for yet. She is absolutely right that it is the many voluntary organisations such as Active Fusion that do the vital work of making sure that young people and others remain active, fit and healthy, and that they are given fun ways to do that. That is vital for the future health of the nation. And these organisations often do all of this work as volunteers, or for free.

Ambulance crews strive every day to provide the very best care for their patients, but ambulances are not arriving to the most serious emergencies quickly enough. An 89-year-old Somerton constituent recently had a fall at home and was left lying on the floor in agony for 10 hours. Sadly, that is all too common, as South Western Ambulance Service has among the worst records for waiting times across the UK. May we have a debate in Government time on ambulance waiting times in Somerset?

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Ambulance wait times, which are closely linked to A&E wait times, which in turn are closely linked to what is happening in many of our hospitals, are the big legacy in the NHS that this Government have inherited. There is no greater symptom of an NHS in crisis than the unacceptably long wait times that she describes. That is why we have put record investment into the NHS this year, and we will continue to prioritise the NHS in further spending rounds. We want to get A&E and ambulance wait times right down, because these waits are completely unacceptable and are putting lives at risk.

In the Hillhead, Waterside, Harestanes and, in particular, Twechar parts of my constituency, the issue of buses—or, more accurately, the lack of them—is continually being raised with me. My constituents cannot get access to local services, whether it is going to the bank or going to church. They need to change buses and wait for up to an hour for a connecting service—that is if the connecting service ever turns up. I wish to request a debate in Government time on the need for bus services in local communities.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are introducing the Bus Services Bill, which is currently making its way through the Lords. She will know that in Scotland, under the Scottish National party, bus routes have been almost halved since 2006, and local authority franchising has been delayed for five years, which has been failing communities. However, as a result of our Budget, the Scottish Government will receive their largest settlement, in real terms, of any time since devolution. This must now be used by Scotland to put in place the bus services and other services that her constituents so desperately need.

Despite stating in 2021 that it was in “strong financial health”, Labour-controlled Bradford council now wants to put up council tax for my constituents by a whopping 15%. This is a shocking situation, resulting from continuous mismanagement by our council leaders, who have splashed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on Bradford city centre projects, including £50 million on a music venue that is finished but not yet open, despite our city of culture status. All the while, the council has let children’s services degrade to an unacceptable level, despite the last Conservative Government stepping in and issuing it a bail-out just last year. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on how to stop local people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, the Worth valley and my wider constituency paying the price for Bradford council leaders’ failures?

I have to gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the failures were under the previous Conservative Government, who left local government on its knees, with years of austerity moving money away from areas of high need, such as his Bradford constituency, to areas of lower need. He will know that the cost of children’s services has gone up and up in recent years, with a huge rise in demand, but central Government failed to provide any of the funding or support that local authorities needed to get a grip of the situation. That is why we introduced our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—a Bill that I think he voted against the other week—which will begin to address some of the chronic costs for local authorities in providing children’s services. It is also why the Government are putting local government finances back on an even keel and ensuring that we deliver on the basis of need, not of politics.

Yesterday I received one of the best emails that I have received since becoming a Member of Parliament. It came from my constituent Gareth Stewart and related to his son Hugo, who has finally secured a place at the Royal School for the Deaf in Derby. Hugo is deafblind, and it took two years for his parents to secure an education, health and care plan for him. It had to go to tribunal because it was consistently blocked. Even though the school had agreed to Hugo’s place, ready for September, the county council continued to fight his parents, so the resolution came only yesterday. I have spoken to Gareth several times about his case, because it is so serious. He was content with me raising it on the Floor of the House on the condition that, in his words, I used it to speak about the wider problems that we have in Staffordshire with the special educational needs and disabilities system. Too many parents face the same challenges. They often use the phrase “delaying tactics” to me regarding the need to go to tribunal, and the consistent arguments at every step of the process. Will the Leader of the House update us on her discussions with Cabinet colleagues about introducing a Bill to fix our broken SEND system, and will she bring forward a debate on the shocking number of wrongful council decisions on SEND support that end up being overturned at tribunal?

Receiving that email from Gareth Stewart about his son’s place at the Royal School for the Deaf is an early reminder for my hon. Friend of how fulfilling the job of being a Member of Parliament can be; it does not happen all that often, but hopefully it will happen often in his case. He and his constituent are right to raise the chronic challenges faced by our special educational needs system, which a recent National Audit Office report found was at the point of crisis. Costs and demand are rising, yet outcomes continue to fall. This really is a broken system, and the Government are committed to addressing that. As an initial step, we put an extra £1 billion into SEND in the recent Budget. There have already been seven debates in this Session on SEND, which reflects the great importance of these matters to the House. I will ensure that the House is constantly updated on our plans.

From Bude to Bodmin, and across my constituency, my constituents express their anger at having to pay astronomical fees to property management companies that provide little to no service. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the right of freeholders to challenge fees through arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms when services are simply not delivered?

The hon. Gentleman is right: unscrupulous managing agents are a plague for many leaseholders and homeowners in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) also raised this matter, which suggests a good potential cross-party application to the Backbench Business Committee. The Government are committed to tackling the scourge of unscrupulous managing agents and putting power back in the hands of leaseholders. That is why we will publish a draft leasehold reform Bill later this year.

At the request of several of my constituents in Wolverhampton West, this morning I attended a National Autistic Society event about the constant fight that autistic people face for support across health—including mental health—social care, education and employment. What strikes me is the general ignorance about autism and what autistic people require. Will the Leader of the House please agree to a general debate in Government time about autism and the inequalities faced by autistic people, to ensure that early diagnosis and support for those who are autistic is a policy priority for the Government?

Absolutely. This is an important issue, and the Government want autistic people to succeed in all aspects of their lives. The Government provided £4.3 million this financial year to improve services for autistic children, but clearly much more needs to be done, and done better and faster. I think that it would make an extremely good topic for a debate.

This week, we saw the tragic murder of Leo Ross, who was just 12 years old. Two weeks ago, 14-year-old Kelyan Bokassa was also murdered. The fatal stabbing of a child has become an all-too-familiar occurrence. The number of teenagers murdered by knife has doubled in the past decade. Teenagers are twice as likely to be fatally stabbed as any other demographic. The Government have pledged to halve knife crime, legislating to ban zombie knives, but they account for only 3.6% of murders involving a knife. Kitchen knives account for over 52.6%, and everybody has access to a drawer full of those in their own home. We desperately need a conversation about the root causes of knife crime, why the situation is now worse than ever, and why our children are, shockingly, prepared to kill other children—why they find it so easy to take a life. Will the Leader of the House make time in the parliamentary schedule to discuss the causes of knife crime?

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about yesterday’s awful news of the stabbing and murder of Leo Ross, who was just 12 years old, in the west midlands. I have a child that age, as will, I am sure, many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others watching. The Government are committed to halving knife crime over the next decade. That is an incredibly ambitious agenda, which drives much of our activity in this space. In September, the Prime Minister brought together a coalition in No. 10 Downing Street to tackle knife crime. We have taken very quick action to ban zombie knives and dangerous ninja swords. Further measures will be introduced in the Policing and Crime Bill later this year, but the hon. Gentleman is right that it will take a strategic, holistic, wide approach that also looks at preventive measures, education and youth services, and brings all the players in our communities together, to tackle the scourge of knife crime.

I was disappointed to hear of plans to close the Old Chainyard pub in Coseley in my constituency to make way for yet another convenience store. Will the Leader of the House give her support to campaigners in Coseley fighting the closure of their local, and will the Government make time for a debate on the vital role of local pubs in local communities?

Local pubs play an absolutely vital role in local communities as a social hub, gathering place, centre point and focal point for community get-togethers. This Government support our local pubs. That is one of the reasons why we reduced alcohol duty on draught products in the recent Budget, and it is also why we are committed to the regeneration and support of our town centres and high streets. That would make an extremely good topic for a debate, and I look forward to her raising it.

My train got cancelled on my commute home last night from Waterloo to Sunbury, but that gave me the wonderful opportunity to catch up on one of my favourite radio programmes—that of Mr Matt Chorley on BBC Radio 5 Live. My joy was only increased when I had the opportunity to listen to a rare interview given by the Leader of the House, during which she said, “We are not going for the sugar rush of quick growth”. Given that since the Government were elected the economy has not grown at all, could I on behalf of the people of Spelthorne congratulate her on her mastery of understatement and ask her what sort of growth she is going for and when it will come?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for listening to my interview. I would not say that it was that rare an interview, and obviously I am in the House once a week being fully accountable to him and colleagues for all my comments, which I happily do today. I think the hon. Gentleman is the constituency successor to the Chancellor who crashed the economy—is that right? Maybe not; maybe I will get a letter asking me to desist from saying that ever again. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on replacing the former Chancellor; I am sure he is better. This Government want sustainable, long-term, productive, high-skill, high-wage growth with an economy that is healthy. The challenges we have inherited are so deep and profound, which is why it is taking time to turn the oil tanker around, as the hon. Gentleman will know. His Government’s record of living standards falling for the very first time in our history over the course of the previous Parliament is perhaps a record he should reflect on more before he raises it with me.

In my surgery in Drighlington, I met a constituent who has been suffering terribly as a result of mesh implants. Despite having multiple surgeries to remove them, she still suffers with long-term health consequences and now has cancer in the affected area, which she attributes to the mesh implants. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) hosted a Westminster Hall debate on the matter in December, but those affected are still waiting for justice and an answer. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in the Chamber in Government time on the urgent need to support those suffering with long-term health consequences as a result of mesh implants?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. Last month’s debate was an opportunity to hear those powerful testimonies, and I commend him and the campaigners for continuing to raise this important issue, which was a live one in the last Parliament as well. The Government are carefully considering the work done by the Patient Safety Commissioner and the resulting Hughes report, and I will ensure that the House is updated at the earliest opportunity on the Government’s reflections. I encourage him to apply for a Backbench Business debate on the Floor of the House on those important matters, because I know they would be well attended.

A year ago today, the former MPs Theresa May and Sir George Howarth launched their inquiry report into type 1 diabetes and disordered eating. The report made a number of recommendations to ensure the funding and continuation of the T1DE pilot services that have been started around the country. Since then, two services have shut down, in London and on the south coast in Bournemouth, and the remaining five pilot sites, including in the Humber and North Yorkshire, are set to run out of funding in March. If that happens, vulnerable patients will be put at risk. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this issue as a matter of urgency?

I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the former Prime Minister and, I think, former Leader of the House on their campaigning on type 1 diabetes. He is absolutely right that ensuring we have community-led preventive services for type 1 diabetes and other infections or diseases is the focus of this Government, and that is absolutely as it should be. I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response about the closing of those services, what has caused that and what plans the Government have to take that forward, and I will ensure that he is updated.

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of meeting the Friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport at Little Bawtry’s restaurant. That incredible group of volunteers has supported the airport since its original opening back in 2005, and they cannot wait to be volunteering again once those doors reopen. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the vital role that volunteers like Friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport play in ensuring the success of local projects right across the country? Will she join me in wishing them and the campaigners success in their continued efforts to get that airport reopened?

My hon. Friend is quickly making a name for himself as Mr Doncaster airport—there is no question about that. Like him, I look forward to the skies of Doncaster being filled again with aircraft coming into that important airport in his constituency, and I look forward to him raising it again and again at these sessions until it happens.

It is a real pleasure to ask the Leader of the House a question on an issue of urgent concern—such questions may be similar, but they are none the less important. There has been an alarming, violent increase in the number of killings of Christians in Nigeria; there were 63 deaths between 27 November and 25 December alone. Of those, half occurred over two days in late December. On 22 December, 15 people were killed in the Plateau state in Nigeria, and on 25 December—of course, when we were all celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ—12 people were killed in the Benue state. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those murders and killings and ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to address the escalating violence against Christians in Nigeria and ensure the safety of citizens there?

As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important issue. Terrorist groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province have sought to undermine the right to freedom of religious belief in Nigeria. That is why we are providing £38 million in programming to strengthen peace and resilience in Nigeria to help tackle the root causes of violence in the region. I will ensure that he is constantly updated on those matters.

Before Christmas, I received a lovely letter—as opposed to an email—from Maisie Fox, a six-year-old pupil at St John’s primary school in Rosyth. Maisie was very concerned about the safety of her walk and her route to school, as she was unable to use her scooter or bike while crossing the busy A985 in Rosyth. I accompanied Maisie on her walk to school a couple of weeks ago and, indeed, it was incredibly dangerous. Will the Leader of the House congratulate Maisie on being a young person with an interest in politics—something we should always encourage in young people—and do everything she can to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that roads are safer for routes to school?

I congratulate Maisie on being mentioned in the Chamber and getting her name in Hansard. I am sure my hon. Friend will get a copy to her. She raises the important issue of safe walking routes to school. We want to encourage young people to walk to school on their own, where possible, and that is why it is important that we take issues of road traffic, safety and safe walking routes to school incredibly seriously. As raised here again today, the Scottish Government now have the funds they need to take some of those issues as seriously as we do.

I often joke that my time between being an MP and being re-elected was less a career break and more a sabbatical. During that time, I had the pleasure and great opportunity of working at a fantastic facility—Leigh Spinners Mill. We created affordable spaces for local businesses and community organisations to set up and thrive. Remarkably, 80% of those businesses are owned by women—an inspiring example of inclusive talent and growth. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need more research and debate on how to better support and nurture future women entrepreneurs? Will she arrange a debate on women in business?

We greatly missed my hon. Friend when she was on her political sabbatical—one that she did not want to take, but which I think she enjoyed—and I hope that she never takes another. It is great to see her back in her place. Thanks to her work during that time, I know about the great work that the Leigh Spinners Mill does. It is great to hear that so many women entrepreneurs are using that platform to take their businesses forward.

For the final question, I call Neil Duncan-Jordan.

Sunseeker International is a luxury boat-building company in my constituency, and it employs around 2,000 people in the local area. Just before Christmas, it issued temporary lay-off notices to more than 100 workers, with the promise that they would come back to work on 27 January. As that date approaches, those workers now fear the worst. Throughout this difficult time, the company has failed to tell its staff what is happening. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our Employment Rights Bill will ensure that employers must consult and inform their workers when they face such challenges, and will she agree to a debate in Government time on the role and importance of shipbuilding in the UK economy?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government have introduced, through the Employment Rights Bill, a huge boost to workers’ rights in such situations. The Bill will shortly come back to the Chamber on Report, when we can discuss at great length the action that we want to take against fire and rehire and to support workers in the difficult circumstances that he describes.