Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
This King’s Speech is taking place against the most extraordinary backdrop. We knew that the carriages were booked, that the horses were ready and that the King was coming, but would we have a Prime Minister? It is such an honour to be the Leader of the Opposition who gets to respond today. May I start by congratulating the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address on their excellent speeches? I also congratulate the Whips on finding two Back Benchers prepared to support the Prime Minister at this time.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) gave a moving and funny speech. I especially appreciated her comments about black and brown faces on TV—or, as my children say, “Oh look, it’s mummy again.” She only touched lightly on the fact that she is someone who has faced one of the most challenging childhoods imaginable, yet through the strength of her character, has made it to this place. She is made of tough stuff, and that is something we need more of in this House. Anyone who can boast of chewing up and spitting out George Galloway in an election is clearly formidable.
I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on successfully delivering a humorous and warm-hearted speech. As he noted, he is my constituency neighbour. He ran the London marathon last month, raising money for the St Clare hospice, which cares for his constituents and mine, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for doing that. I have become a big fan of his after listening to his speech, especially as he was so generous in his comments about the Harlow Conservatives’ successful election campaign and my councillors’ outstanding work on regenerating the town centre. If things on his side of the House are getting a bit much, he would be very welcome to cross the Floor and help the Conservatives carry on that work. I think we can say that the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address have upheld the best traditions of the House.
I would of course like to pay tribute to His Majesty the King. His Majesty has served through a period of great personal difficulty, and throughout it he has exemplified the virtues of grace, dignity, humour, modesty and resolve in the face of adversity—virtues that were on full display during his hugely successful state visit to the United States. I am sure the whole House will have admired his skilful speech to Congress. It was a speech full of the wisdom and courage needed for our times. Of course, we would never have got to hear it if we had listened to some people in this House who called for the King’s visit to be cancelled—thank goodness no one listens to the leader of the Liberal Democrats.
As for the Prime Minister, when he was young, he called for the end of the monarchy, so I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the error of his ways, because previous King Charleses took a much dimmer view of that kind of thing. I am only sorry that this new-found appreciation of the monarchy and our country’s traditions has come too late, because this is the first parliamentary Session ever without the hereditary peers. Their departure will be keenly felt and our Parliament will be poorer for it, especially when we consider some of the people Labour has been replacing them with—people who have already had the Whip removed before they have even taken their seats.
Mr Speaker, I know that the convention is for this to be a light-hearted debate, but as I have already said, this is a highly unusual moment. The Prime Minister is in office but not in power. Everyone is trying to pretend it is all right—it is not all right. In the past 48 hours, nearly 100 Labour MPs have called for the Prime Minister to resign. Four Ministers have quit. It is clear that his authority has gone and that he will not be able to deliver what little there is in this King’s Speech. This is a Government less than two years in office who have already run out of ideas and run out of road.
So how did we get here? There is a great line in the musical “Hamilton”: “Winning is easy, governing is harder”. Everything that has gone wrong in Labour’s first two years comes back to one problem: it came into office with no plan. It did not understand the difference between winning an election and governing a country. It was very easy to make promises in opposition—promises to freeze council tax, promises to take £300 off energy bills, promises to the WASPI women. Hundreds of Labour MPs took photos with them to post on their Facebook pages, websites and election leaflets, but at no point did they bother to think how they would deliver any of it.
Labour did not spend its time in opposition thinking deeply about the country’s problems. It assumed that governing in the 2020s would be like governing in the 1990s, but it is not. Britain is facing new structural problems. We have an ageing—[Interruption.] Labour Members all shout at me; I know they cannot wait to get back to their plotting, but it is quite important that we hear what is being said. We have an ageing population, a falling birth rate and a welfare bill that is spiralling out of control. We have an information revolution in the shape of AI that threatens to unravel the world of work as we know it, and the cost of energy is driving industry out of the country.
Labour was taken by surprise that we are living in a more competitive and increasingly hostile world. Its manifesto was just a set of misleading promises. It promised no new taxes on working people—fail. It promised to crack down on illegal immigration—fail. It promised to tread more lightly on people’s lives—epic fail. It made promises without knowing how anything works.
Let us look at housing. Just after Labour took office, when I was shadow Housing Secretary, I stood at this Dispatch Box and warned the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), that she had been stitched up and that the 1.5 million new homes Labour promised had been hung like a millstone around her neck. I knew the Government would not be able to meet that target, because they did not understand why more houses were not being built. Sure enough, they are already more than a third down on their target, and well behind what we delivered. Of course, in the end it was not 1.5 million homes that did for the former Deputy Prime Minister; it took just one flat in Brighton to bring her down.
It is so obvious—[Interruption.] I know Labour Members don’t want to hear it. Look at them—they are so arrogant that they want to lead our country, but they cannot even lead a coup. It is so obvious that they cannot handle being in government. They hate the responsibility, and they hate having to take tough decisions. They prefer scratching the itches that they had in opposition: giving inflation-busting pay rises to the unions, with 28% for the doctors who, after nearly two years, are still striking, and handing out more benefits to the only people who will still vote for them, because Labour Members do not understand that poverty is created not by a lack of benefits but by a failing economy.
We spent the last Session listening to Labour MPs telling us how great everything was going, and no doubt we will hear lots of grandstanding speeches this week, telling us what a fantastic job they did. How absurd, given the number of them demanding that the Prime Minister stands down. We counted, Mr Speaker, and there were 24 U-turns in that first parliamentary Session: winter fuel, family farms, grooming gangs, welfare reform, social media for under-16s, day one workers’ rights—the list goes on and on. Every single one of those U-turns had at its core a single issue: the Prime Minister’s total lack of judgment. This is a man who, faced with a crisis of vision, charisma and electoral success, sent for Gordon Brown.
Leadership is about having a vision for this country, and the courage to take difficult decisions, persuading your party that those difficult decisions will pay off in time, and taking responsibility for your mistakes. The Prime Minister has failed on every count. We have had pillars, promises, four-point plans, five-point plans, missions, with none of it achieving anything—reset after reset after reset. Even if the Prime Minister lasts long enough in office for this Loyal Address to be delivered, the Bills announced today do not remotely come close to what the country needs—[Interruption.] Labour Members are chuntering, Mr Speaker, but not a single one of them dares to intervene on me.
I welcome the Government’s ongoing support for Ukraine and their commitment to NATO. In this increasingly dangerous world, it is more important than ever that we stand with our allies in the fight against tyranny. I also commend the Government for their commitment to speed up the delivery of infrastructure such as new nuclear. Too many Governments have been frustrated in their attempts to deliver nuclear projects quickly, and we will support efforts to make the process simpler, faster and cheaper.
I also want to be generous to the Home Secretary, because I see that she is trying to do something about illegal immigration. The elephant in the room is that she almost certainly will not be Home Secretary for much longer, and sadly, no one else in the Labour party looks remotely interested in bringing down illegal immigration. The rest of the offerings in the King’s Speech make it clear that Labour Members have learned no lessons from their mistakes in government so far. All we have is a load of reannounced policies: hounding our brave veterans through the courts; legislating for digital ID—a policy they told us they had dropped; and banning trail hunting, which is just more class war that makes no one’s life better. Scrapping NHS England is something the Prime Minister announced 14 months ago—but I suppose the Health Secretary has been a bit distracted lately, hasn’t he? [Interruption.] He’s chuntering now. Why don’t you just do your job? There is no point in him giving me dirty looks; we all know what he has been up to.
Even worse is what is not in the Gracious Speech. There is no defence readiness Bill, because apparently it is not ready. Where are the plans for welfare reform? There are none, because Labour MPs have blocked them. Where is the plan to make savings? There isn’t one, because Labour Members do not know how to make savings; they only know how to spend money—other people’s money. Where is the plan to support businesses? There isn’t one, because they do not understand that it is business that creates growth, not Government. They have no answers on what really matters: the problems that must be solved to get Britain working again.
I do feel very sorry for Labour Back Benchers. [Interruption.] It’s true—I do feel sorry for Labour Back Benchers. They arrived here not that long ago with such high hopes. Some of them, in fact, were so talented that they were made Ministers before ever speaking a word in Parliament. So talented! Although one of them has just resigned; I must not forget that. We have watched their growing horror, day after day and week after week, as this hope descended into total chaos; the dread as they are sent out yet again to defend the indefensible; the injustice of feeling like pariahs in their own constituencies—banned from pubs and banned from hairdressers, which is presumably why all the women on the Government Front Bench have the same hairstyle. We have seen the realisation that their legacy is just going to be—[Interruption.] They can complain as much as they like. I was not expecting this to be comfortable for them. They are the ones who are trying to unseat their Prime Minister; they should face that. We have seen the realisation that their legacy is just going to be breakfast clubs and Peter Mandelson.
Labour MPs have been treated as disposable by their leadership: sacked for backing the two-child benefit cap, sacked for opposing welfare changes, sacked for supporting farmers. The Prime Minister then U-turned on all of them. It must be tough when you take a principled stand and have the Whip removed, only for the Government to confirm six months later that they agreed with you all along. It is no wonder that nearly 100 Labour MPs have now called for the Prime Minister to go. I know that there are another 100 who claim to be supporting him, although some of them did not even know that their name was on that list. When you can only get a quarter of your MPs to publicly back you, the game is up, so the starting gun for the Labour leadership contest has been fired.
Let’s have a look at the runners and riders. We have the former Deputy Prime Minister—she is not here—who has giving up vaping but still has not paid her taxes. We have the Health Secretary, who accidentally sent his takeover plans to No. 10—almost as incompetent as leaving them on the photocopier. And we have the Mayor of Manchester, a self-proclaimed winner who has twice failed to win the Labour leadership, including against the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). As one Labour MP said about all the candidates in this race, and I quote:
“We have to face up to the fact that every single one of them is”—
I apologise, Mr Speaker—
“f****** useless.”
I do feel sorry for the poor Labour MPs who will now be subjected to months of peacocking by leadership candidates while the country is not being governed. I have some advice for whichever of them eventually takes over. Getting to No. 10 is not an award for being in a game show. This is not “Strictly Come Dancing” and, despite appearances, it is not “The Traitors” either. If you are a Housing Secretary who cannot work out her housing taxes, if you are a Health Secretary who can only cut waiting lists by deleting names from them, if you are Gordon Brown’s former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and you think the bond markets are a hoax, I can assure you that being Prime Minister is going to be a lot tougher. Too many have failed because they thought that winning an election or a leadership contest was the success, but it is not. The work does not end when you get the job; that is when it starts.
It is absolutely preposterous that the Government are here laying out a programme as their Ministers are resigning and a large proportion of the Labour party is saying that the Prime Minister needs to go. The whole thing is totally illogical. Either Labour MPs agree with this agenda—in which case, why are they trying to get rid of the Prime Minister? Or they do not agree with this agenda—in which case, what on earth are we all doing here?
It is time to be brutally honest. The country is angry with the entire political class—all of us here. They are not happy with how we have been doing politics. It is time to get serious.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady seeks to lecture us on why everyone is so fed up with the political class, but she is using this opportunity not to lay out what the Conservatives would do, but to insult everyone on the Labour Benches. Surely that is not the way to proceed.
Mrs Badenoch
Oh, I am not done yet; there is plenty more to come.
The right hon. Lady says that she is getting a lecture, and she is. We are all getting a lecture, because we are legislators of the United Kingdom. We were sent here to fix difficult things, not to focus on our personal hobby horses, ranging from the petty to the puerile.
Labour Members do not need to be scared of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I am not. He is not the cause of Britain’s problems—[Hon. Members: “You are!”] Labour Members are still delusional. I am sorry to puncture the bubble, but I am not here to pretend that what is happening is not happening. They can all pretend and live in la-la land, but I am going to speak the truth to them. The hon. Member for Clacton is not the cause of Britain’s problems; he is a symptom of the failure of the political class to focus on what matters. If you fix the problems that people care about, he goes away.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady says that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is a symptom of the problem, but does she agree that she and he have something in common? She very loosely agreed that we should race with America into war in Iran, then just a week later she thought, “Maybe that’s not such a good idea.” Does that not prove why she and he are totally unsuitable for speaking from the Government side of the House?
Mrs Badenoch
That was a nice try, but it is not going to work.
You cannot solve the problems of the country unless you have a plan to fix the civil service, the regulators, the legislative straitjacket and the powers transferred from Parliament to the courts. Unless you fix the structures of Government, everyone will continue to fail. Britain is not ungovernable and it is not broken.
The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asked what the plan was. We have published an alternative King’s Speech, and the reason is that we need to take tough decisions to get the country out of the mess we are in by cutting wasteful spending, funding defence, securing our borders and reducing the cost of energy. If you want to bring down bills for families and bring industry back to this country, you need a plan to scrap the net zero legislation that is strangling industry and making energy costs higher. That is why we are proposing a cheap energy Bill to do just that.
If you want businesses to employ people, you need to stop crushing them with thousands of pages of employment laws and stop handing power to the unions. You need to stop hammering businesses with tax rises. That is why we are proposing a get Britain working Bill, which would scrap laws that are no longer fit for purpose and are killing jobs.
If you want to get a grip on illegal immigration and remove foreign criminals from the country, you must have a plan to leave the European convention on human rights and repeal the Human Rights Act. Efforts to get control of our borders have been frustrated because power has been taken out of the hands of Ministers. We need to bring that power back, so that we do not have murderers staying in our country because the courts stop us from deporting them. Our alternative King’s Speech shows how it can be done, letting the Government, not the courts, decide who comes and goes. Prime Ministers are going to keep running into problems until they deal with activist lawyers and international agreements that tie the Government’s hands against the interests of the British public. [Interruption.] Labour Members are chuntering that this is “boring.” Does someone want to stand up and tell us who they are supporting: the plotters or the PM? I know that is what they really want to get to. They are not interested in hearing what the plan for the country should be, because they are too focused on Labour party problems.
Next, we must reduce welfare spending, which is eating every penny that we generate in income tax and more. We must spend much more on defence. Even former Labour Defence Secretaries are pleading with the Government to do so. That is why we are proposing a sovereign defence fund that will overhaul Britain’s defence industrial base. That is what the alternative could be. The alternative King’s Speech makes difficult choices, because that is what leadership is. We have laid out these plans now because we are more than happy for Labour to take them; they might be our political opponents, but we are all citizens of this country. We recognise the enormous challenges facing Britain. We want to see those problems solved, and so do our constituents.
Time and again, I have offered the Prime Minister support to pass difficult legislation. Time and again, he has turned it down. It might be too late for him now, but it is not too late for his successor. It is time to get serious—it is time to deliver. That is what the British public expect, and it is what the Conservative party will do.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Mr Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Gracious Speech of His Majesty, and the radical agenda of this Labour Government that will tear down the status quo that has failed working people and build a stronger, fairer Britain?
In the light of the abhorrent attacks in Golders Green two weeks ago, let me start by briefly addressing that directly. It was the latest in a series of appalling antisemitic attacks; a normalisation of hatred that leads terrorists with warped Islamist ideologies to attack people they have never even met, simply because they are Jewish; a hatred that leads some to march calling for the murder of British Jews, and not to think that there might be something wrong about that.
I have fought that hatred in my own political party, and I have sat with others as they describe what it means for them—the fear, the sense that maybe they should not wear something or do something that might reveal their Jewish identity, just in case. It is time for the silent majority in this country to speak up, to stand with British Jews and to defeat this hatred once and for all, just as we will take on any form of hatred, from left or right, that seeks to divide us. In the words of the Gracious Speech, we will
“defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference under our common flag”.
That is also why, when far-right agitators try to come here this Saturday to spread their poison of hatred, this Labour Government will block them, this time and every time.
The Humble Address was brilliantly proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). Members across the House will have read her remarkable new book, and her list of endorsements is truly impressive, reaching well over 100 Members—at last, a list that we can all get behind. [Laughter.] It is not the first time that she has shown her ability to bring people together. She united her city and many in this House when she sent George Galloway packing.
The House will know that my hon. Friend is passionate about the measures that this Government are taking to lift half a million children out of poverty, as we all are on this side of the House—it is the pride of these Benches—but the House might not know about her remarkable effort to get Marcus Rashford to champion free school meals and speak to pupils in her constituency. Most of us would have attempted this via the complex world of agents and managers, but my hon. Friend had a different idea. She spoke, as you do, to the sister of Cristiano Ronaldo. I can imagine that the Ronaldo household is used to fielding some pretty big offers—multimillion-pound transfers, billions in brand sponsorships, Piers Morgan calling for the eighth time that day—but I cannot imagine the confusion in the Ronaldo family when they heard my hon. Friend say not, “Is Cristiano Ronaldo available?”, but, “Can you give me the number of Marcus Rashford? I want to invite him to a primary school in Allerton to have some porridge in our free breakfast club.”
On a much more serious note, I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s extraordinary courage, together with her mother, brother and sister. Their story is utterly harrowing, and their strength to survive and deep-rooted determination to fight for change are an inspiration for all of us, and the very best of who we are. My hon. Friend brings a lived experience to our politics—an empathy, a compassion, a humanity, and an understanding of how easy it is to slip from a stable and secure life into one gripped by terrible deprivation.
As my hon. Friend writes in her book:
“Behind every word we utter must lie the foundation of real human experience”.
In that spirit, I am sure she will welcome the measures in this King’s Speech, which will deliver change grounded in that lived experience and the work of the tireless campaigners who have fought for justice, whether that is remediation for those living in homes with unsafe cladding, banning abusive conversion practices, our mission to halve violence against women and girls, or the Hillsborough law, which will bring justice for all. As she says so powerfully,
“equality, fairness and justice must belong to all of us.”
That is the driving purpose of our party, and her speech was in the finest traditions of this House.
The Humble Address was also brilliantly seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We are all proud to represent our constituencies, but few of us so relentlessly name our constituency as those who represent Harlow. Members from previous Parliaments will remember my hon. Friend’s predecessor, Robert Halfon, who seemed to get Harlow into pretty well all of his contributions. Well, my hon. Friend will not be outdone. He has inherited the great Harlow shoehorn, and he is already recognised across this House as a one-man tourist board. I have to thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who is caught in Hansard referring to my hon. Friend as the “Trade envoy to Harlow”—a rare example of a good idea from the Opposition.
No matter the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will find the local connection, whether it is championing the role of Harlow college in dealing with climate change, praising the invention of fibre-optic cables in Harlow, or telling us how Harlow doubled for Paris during an episode of “The Crown”. I remember clearly my hon. Friend saying to me that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, and he is quite right.
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amazing fundraising at this year’s London marathon, as has been mentioned.
I understand his disappointment at being overtaken by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). All I can say is that there is no shame in losing to someone whose training was so extensive that it involved running all the way from North West Durham to Billericay.
It is perhaps no surprise that, as a secondary school maths teacher for 15 years, my hon. Friend has an eye for detail, boundless energy and an ability to handle those on these Benches who are occasionally unruly, but he also has a real passion for young people, a deep and personal understanding of the invaluable role that young carers play, and total conviction in the power of education to change our country, so I know he will welcome the education Bill in the Gracious Speech. When the next series of “Educating Essex” is made, he will rightly be the star, and I thank him for yet another fantastic speech today.
Let me also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the usual warm and generous nature of her contribution. In difficult days, her input is always a ray of sunshine. I particularly like getting tips from her on how to win friends. This is from the party that had previously called us “orcs and goons”; I am a Gooner, so, as usual, she is less than half right. However, we do have one thing in common: both our parties had tough results in the local elections last week. The difference is that she has not noticed. There is another difference: we are in government, and they are no longer even the Opposition.
This King’s Speech is a strike against the status quo, which has failed working people. It is a King’s Speech for the young people whose gifts lie in their hands, and who work hard, want their talents to be recognised, and just want an opportunity in their community. It is a King’s Speech for the children who, under the Conservative party, had to go to school without breakfast, hungry, cold and tired, when they should be focused on their learning. It is a King’s Speech for the backbone of this country; for working people who worry about the cost of living and want their town centre to thrive, their public services to work, and their Government to be on their side—and we are, because at the heart of this programme is a plan to make Britain stronger and fairer.
Right now, across the country, people turn on their television and see bombs falling; they go to the petrol station and see prices rising; and they are worried sick about the consequences. We cannot stand here in the House and pretend that this is new. Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now—the 2008 financial crash, the austerity that followed it, Brexit, covid, and the war that still rages in Ukraine—and the response? Their response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to a status quo that failed working people, decimated their public services, and made them pay the price. Our response this time must and will be different—a complete break. We will not simply slump back to the old ways. This King’s Speech gives us the strength we need—the economic security, energy security and national security to control our future in a chaotic world. It is an agenda of radical reform across our major public services. This is an urgent, activist Labour Government who tilt power back to workers, renters and the less fortunate, and give a voice to the working class and to all those whom the status quo has repeatedly ignored and dismissed. We are in favour of a Britain where everyone, whatever their background, can go as far as their talent and effort take them, and where people have a pride in where they live and hope in what lies ahead. That is the change of a Labour Government, and this King’s Speech delivers it.
We will deliver on economic security, and let me be clear: as the conflict in Iran unfolds, we are in a better position because of the action that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took last year—getting inflation down, borrowing down and mortgage costs down. That is why we have been able to cap energy bills, raise the living wage, strengthen workers’ rights and end the shameful two-child benefit limit, lifting half a million children out of poverty.
Faced with challenges, we do not retreat from our Labour values; we use them as our compass—strength through fairness. We will keep supporting those who need it most, including by creating a new national programme to redistribute surplus food, so that no one in this country needs to go hungry because of the conflict overseas. We also need to strengthen our sovereign capabilities, because the days when this country turned its back on our critical industries are over. We have seen that with British Steel, and we will see it with new legislation to clean up our waterways. A failure in the water industry has been going on for decades. It is a disgrace, and this Labour Government will tackle it.
We will take that moral urgency to every part of our nation, with Bills to increase the pace of change in our NHS, in law enforcement, in controlling our borders and more. While immigration is down, we need to do more. While violent crime is down, it needs to be lower. While NHS waiting lists are down, we must go further, rewiring the state so that the working people of this country feel that it serves their interests. We will also build in this country sovereign power in the industries of the future, which will give us greater control in a world being reshaped by artificial intelligence. We will tear down the barriers to growth on planning, on faster infrastructure development and on business regulation, helping our great businesses, large and small.
We will, as a defining act of this Government, rebuild our relationship with Europe, putting Britain back at the heart of a stronger Europe. That is good for growth, and it will reduce the cost of living and strengthen our security. There is no good reason to oppose it, so for our economic security, and for our Labour values, this Government will act.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Prime Minister, in my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we have been subjected for some years to the humiliation of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Yet you, Prime Minister, now seem to want to impose that same denial of democracy on the whole United Kingdom by making us a subservient rule-taker from a foreign Parliament. How is that in the interests of democracy?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to not blame me for the problem. He should not say “you”.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I am very well aware of the tensions in Northern Ireland, and the issues that have to be dealt with in our relations with the EU, but we have to face the fact that promises were made about Brexit that were not true, and which have not borne fruit. It is in our economic interests, our national interests and our defence interests to be closer to Europe. Of course we will navigate carefully, taking on board the issues in Northern Ireland, as he would expect, but it is in our interest to be closer to the EU. That is what we are doing, and we will go further.
This moment demands even greater radicalism on energy security. The British people should not have to pay more in their bills, and their living standards should not be hit, because of a war that they did not vote for and that Britain is not involved in, which is happening thousands of miles away. That is a fundamental argument of this Government, and the Conservatives have no answer to it. For decades they ducked the long-term decisions to make our country, our energy and our economy stronger, so we are going to take control. We are going to declare Britain’s energy independence. That does not mean, and it will not mean, that we turn off the taps in the North sea—oil and gas will be part of the mix for decades—but we have to move so much faster on clean energy, with a whole-society effort and everyone playing their part as we take control of our energy security.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He talks about energy security; he should know that Scotland has an energy surplus—we generate more electricity than we use—and that, in conditions of surplus, prices go down. However, in Scotland, because we are stuck in the GB energy market, we pay for the scarcity of energy in England—not just to the point of equality, but to our detriment, so that there are higher prices for energy in Scotland. Can he explain why that dysfunction exists, and what is in this King’s Speech to fix it?
The Prime Minister
What is in this King’s Speech to fix that is moving faster to our energy independence. That is the way that we get off the international markets. That is the way that we take control and reduce bills for people across the country.
We will, of course, also strengthen our country’s defence security. That starts with the fundamentals, and a recognition that it is not in the interests of this country to rush into a war without any thought of the consequences. That is my position, and that has always been my position, regardless of the pressure—a test of judgment that some in this House have failed. It continues with our commitment to NATO, the most successful defensive alliance in history, and a proud achievement of this party that others would throw away.
Today, faced with even greater threats, we need to strengthen NATO, we need to invest in our defence capabilities, and we need to strengthen the European element of NATO, because this nation is stronger when it stands with others, not just in word, but in deed. We are prepared to lead from the front; to bring nations together in this moment of danger; to support Ukraine, including through the coalition of the willing; and to act with our allies to reassure shipping in the strait of Hormuz. We are not content merely to manage the fallout from the Iran crisis; instead, we are building an international effort to solve it and end the economic harm.
Of course, standing up for the defence and security of the United Kingdom depends on one thing above all else: ending 14 years of Tory defence austerity with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. We will go further with the measures outlined in the King’s Speech and our upcoming defence investment plan. We will develop the capabilities that our nation needs. We will also deepen our partnerships to fire up our industries and make sure that British skill, British pride and British resolve are converted into British jobs in a stronger, fairer Britain.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Prime Minister has used a lot of words about the defence investment plan. I think it was due in the autumn of last year, so when is he going to sign it?
The Prime Minister
I will take no lectures from the Conservatives. They hollowed out defence spend. Defence spend was 2.5% when they came into power, and 2.3% when they left power. The investment plan is being finalised and will be published soon. However, strength is the foundation, and that is the way we maintain our control, even in the storms of this world.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Prime Minister quite rightly prioritises the defence of the country. We have depended for decades on the courage, honour and loyalty of our soldiers. However, some of our best units are now losing soldiers, because this Government are undermining them and allowing them, under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, to be prosecuted and persecuted for alleged crimes—that were not carried out—from decades ago.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Member knows very well that the provisions for Northern Ireland are intended to strike the right balance between what needs to be done and protecting our veterans. We are, of course, proud of all those who have served and do serve our country, but the legislation put forward by the last Government was struck down, leaving no protection whatsoever.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On that point, will the Prime Minister give way?
The Prime Minister
I will make some progress. The way we change our country—[Interruption.]
Mr Francois
The Prime Minister will know that in the recent Supreme Court Dillon judgment the Court ruled that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 overwhelmingly was not incompatible with the Human Rights Act—he knows that. He referenced the awful events in Golders Green, rightfully, and he defended the police officers against attacks and the leader of the Green party, rightfully, and said that they had to take split-second decisions. If Northern Ireland veterans had to take split-second decisions to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland, what is the difference?
The Prime Minister
I have been in control rooms in Northern Ireland, watching decisions being taken on the use of fatal force. I am well aware of the nature of the decisions that have to be taken, the circumstances in which they are taken and how difficult those decisions are. That is not the same as the issues in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it.
Strength is the foundation: it is the way we maintain our control even in the storms of this world, and the way we change our country rather than just manage the crisis. More than anything, change means a Britain where every child can go as far as their talent or effort allows. It is a beautiful idea, one that I know is shared across the House, but as representatives we need to see the country as a whole to make sure we see every child, including the children growing up in poverty, the children who have special educational needs, the young people who cannot get a job, and the people who are ignored and excluded from our highest aspirations because they do not want to go to university. This is a King’s Speech to change that once and for all.
My late brother had difficulties learning, and he had to fight every day just to be seen. There are millions of people like him: people who are ignored by a system and a status quo that has no expectations for them. This King’s Speech will make sure that no child is left behind, because everyone has something to contribute to the success of this nation. Every child must succeed if we are to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is how we tear down the status quo preserved by the Conservative party—a status quo that failed working people, a status quo that left Britain’s economy exposed, a status quo that made our country weak.
There are some in this country—some even in this House—who would feed the frustration with that status quo into a politics of grievance and division. This King’s Speech sets a different course, a more hopeful course, and a course that sees the conflict in Iran, a war on two fronts, not as something to wring our hands about, but as an opportunity we must take to shape our country’s future, to end the status quo that has failed working people, and to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is what this King’s Speech delivers and I commend it to the House.
Sir Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to contribute to this King’s Speech debate at such an early point. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and I want to express strong support for what he said about the determination of the Government and of the whole of Parliament to crack down on antisemitism. I hope that he will have carried everyone in this House in the words he used.
It is also a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on their brilliant speeches, which entertained and amused the House. The hon. Member for Harrow West said that it was an honour to be in the same party as both of them, but I think all of us can say that it is an honour to be in the same Parliament as both of them, and they certainly did very well. I have to admit that it is now 34 years since, in 1992, I had the privilege of seconding the Queen’s Speech from the Government Benches. On that occasion, I referred to myself as an
“oily young man on the make”—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 56.]
Those were the days!
There are three points I wish to contribute briefly to the debate, all of which came off the doorsteps in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield during the recent elections, when I was listening carefully to my constituents—elections, incidentally, which were extremely successful for the Conservatives in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we hold now all 10 seats on Birmingham city council, having got rid of the last vestiges of the Labour party in the royal town.
That clean sweep in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield was not echoed across the city of Birmingham, where six significant parties are now represented on the council, making governance even more difficult than it was before. I urge those on the Treasury Bench, in particular the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to be on red alert about what happens now in the city of Birmingham. They are, I think, going to need to give the commissioners far greater powers. Vulnerable people, old and young, depend on Birmingham city council turning a page and becoming a more effective giver of good local governance. The words of the Conservative leader of the Conservative group on Birmingham city council, Robert Alden, are important. He said that the group would try to
“work with people across the political spectrum”
to deliver these priorities.
Birmingham has languished under a profoundly inadequate Labour administration, which even the Labour party nationally did not think was doing a proper job. It will now require a herculean effort of restraint and good will to deliver the governance that the people of Birmingham are entitled to receive. That will involve devolving more power locally. Governance is always best when it is closest to the people it seeks to serve, and certainly the royal town of Sutton Coldfield’s town council, under its outstanding leader Simon Ward, is ready for more devolution, which we think will make life better for local people.
My second point is about defence, because although the words are in the King’s Speech, an awful lot more needs to be done. Ukraine and President Trump have ushered in a new era on defence—and, incidentally, thank goodness the last Conservative Government were so fast to realise, arm and train the Ukrainians ahead of and during the early days of the illegal invasion by Russia. The Prime Minister complains—he may or may not have some justice in doing so—that the armed forces have been hollowed out over many years by both parties. However, it is on his watch that these acute problems have come to pass. George Robertson, who was respected on both sides of the House over many years, has made clear that we must now rearm and increase our spending on defence, and I very much hope that the Government will provide far more urgency than they are providing at the moment to that cause.
President Trump was not the first person to complain about Europe failing to pull its weight financially in NATO, but he is the first American President to take action. Britain needs to step up. We need to lead European NATO with France and Germany, but also with Poland and in co-operation with Ukraine, whose technology has redefined modern warfare. Australia and Canada are significantly increasing their spending, and I very much hope that the Government will now entertain far greater urgency in addressing these matters.
I am pleased that Gordon Brown is now at the heart of this Labour Government. I hope he will explain the importance of soft power being the other side of the defence coin. Many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are experts on defence, and they know that the Government made a terrible mistake in cutting further the amount that we spend on development. Development is a very important arrow in the defence quiver, and I very much hope that Gordon Brown will be able to explain to the Government why this is so important, and why they have made such a mistake.
My third and final point is about welfare, which is now consuming every penny that we raise in income tax. We simply cannot go on like that. The Government always appear to be caught in the headlights whenever welfare is discussed. The last time they sought to tackle the issue, they were unable to carry their Back Benchers and they failed to do so. I submit that they failed because they tackled it in the wrong way.
There are three rules of welfare reform, as I learned many years ago as a junior welfare Minister between 1995 and 1997 in John Major’s Government. That may have been 30 years ago, but the rules of welfare reform have not changed. It was the most complex of the various ministerial jobs that it was my privilege to undertake, and this is what I learned.
First, we cannot take benefit money off poor people. It is not right to do so anyway, and as constituency Members of Parliament we know that it cannot be done. None of us came into politics to make poor people poorer. Taking money off the poorest people is not something that anyone who is planning to reform welfare should entertain.
Secondly, the only way to save on welfare is to freeze benefits, although not disability benefits—something that I believe no Conservative Government have ever done. Freezing benefits can make a significant difference to the size of the budget.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Does the right hon. Member agree that rather than attacking the most vulnerable in our society to pay for the nation’s defence, it would be better to tax the banks and the large multinationals on their extravagant profits?
Sir Andrew Mitchell
I am worried that the hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, was not listening to what I said. I said that the first rule of benefit reform is not to take cash off very poor people, and I explained that it cannot be done. That is what Labour found when it outlined its policies for welfare reform and then had to back off.
The third rule is to narrow the gateways into a benefit. We have seen—particularly with the personal independence payment, but in other ways as well—that narrowing the gateways is an important aspect of any reform. I very much hope that the Government will return to the issue with a well-thought-through plan and will manage to carry people with them.
Finally, the hon. Member for Harlow said in seconding the motion that this is a King’s Speech for young people. I hope that it is; I fear that it is not. We need to recognise that we are presiding over a period of growing intergenerational inequality, and this House must address it. I hope that the hon. Member’s point will inform the decisions that the Government make now.