House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Following the Order of the House on 28 April this year, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee will be elected for the remainder of the Parliament. Nominations are now open and will close at 1 pm on Tuesday 19 May. Nomination forms are available from the Vote Office, the Table Office and the Public Bill Office. No Member may be a candidate if that Member’s party is represented in His Majesty’s Government. Candidates need the support of no fewer than 10 Members from the Government side of the House, and no fewer than 10 Members from a party not represented in the Government, or from no party. If there is more than one candidate, the ballot will take place on Wednesday 20 May, from 10 am to 1 pm, in the Aye lobby.
Business of the House
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker. Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 18 May will include:
Monday 18 May—Continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech, on backing business to create economic growth.
Tuesday 19 May—Continuation of the debate on the King’s Speech, on energy security.
Wednesday 20 May—Conclusion of the debate on the King’s Speech, on defence readiness.
Thursday 21 May—Second Reading of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill.
The House will rise for the Whitsun recess at the conclusion of business on Thursday 21 May and return on Monday 1 June.
The provisional business for the week commencing 1 June will include:
Monday 1 June—Second Reading of the Health Bill.
Tuesday 2 June—Committee of the whole House on the Armed Forces Bill.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House very much for announcing the business, and I welcome all colleagues back to the House. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating His Majesty the King not only on the Gracious Speech yesterday, but on his glorious triumph in the United States of America, in particular reminding our American cousins of the joy not of monarchy, which they know well enough from recent experience and over the years, but of a genuinely constitutional monarchy.
The House will know of my obsession with building NMITE—the New Model Institute for Technology & Engineering—our new university in Hereford. I hope that colleagues across the House will join me in celebrating its second graduation ceremony last Saturday. Its flagship degree was recently accredited for chartered certification by the prestigious Institution of Engineering and Technology, making its graduates, in that sense, holders of degrees equal to those to be found at Oxbridge or Russell group universities. Its latest crop of graduates have gone on to companies including Airbus, Hitachi Energy and GKN, and there is huge interest from applicants in its new bachelor’s and master’s degrees in autonomous robotics and drone technologies, which start in September. If Members will excuse the pun, as an engineering institution, NMITE is really starting to motor. I strongly encourage any Members who might be interested and wish to know more to drop me a line, because this route to local economic growth is of great potential significance.
It is fair to say that we have known quieter weeks than the couple since we last convened. What have we discovered during that period? A previously undisclosed gift of £5 million from a foreign cryptocurrency donor to the leader of Reform UK is now being investigated by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. We are reassured that it is entirely unrelated to that hon. Member’s recent interest in investing in Bitcoin.
The leader of the Green party, Zack Polanski, has admitted that he failed to pay council tax, was not in fact a spokesman for the Red Cross and was never a full member of the National Council for Hypnotherapy, which I am sure will come as a great relief to women across the country. He must be an acute embarrassment to my neighbour, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), and we thank her for her resilience. All that news will come as a surprise to precisely no one.
Lest we forget, nearly 100 Labour Members of Parliament, including four Ministers, have gone public with their opposition to the Prime Minister remaining in office. Three Cabinet Ministers have called on him to set a public timetable for his departure. Few Labour MPs, if any, believe that the Prime Minister will lead them into the next election.
Mr Speaker, you will be aware, I am sure, of the famous lines:
“The boy stood on the burning deck
Whence all but he had fled”.
It may be that the Leader of the House is the last person to occupy the position of standing on the burning deck when all but he has fled. Others are fleeing, and it is astonishing that Buckingham Palace had reportedly been forced to ask whether the King’s Speech was, in fact, really going ahead. Even now, I notice the slight sparsity of Members—actually, on all sides of the House—in this earlier sitting, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is widely reported to be preparing a bid for the leadership of the Labour party. King Lear asks in his bewilderment:
“Who is it that can tell me who I am?”
So it is with the Prime Minister. He does not know and nor, it seems, does anyone around him.
Amid all this Westminster madness, it falls to me to insert a nugget of something that actually affects every Member of this House in their constituencies—a matter of great local importance. The House will know that the Construction Industry Training Board is meant to be the guardian of construction skills in this country, funded by a statutory levy on the industry. Yet employer confidence is rapidly being eroded by the CITB’s recent behaviour. An Ofsted “requires improvement” judgment, the Farmer review’s call for a “fundamental reset”, poor communications with levy payers, a rarely updated website and a slow, cumbersome booking system all point in the same direction. At the same time, firms report duplication, delay and poor value for money.
For some courses—forklift training, for example—the CITB route can cost more than twice as much as the non-CITB route, take considerably longer and yet lead to precisely the same qualification. Many of the courses are not optional. Small construction firms must keep up with industry standards and legal health and safety requirements. They need a system that is fast, clear and good value, not one that makes compliance harder, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises that are so crucial to our economy. Meanwhile, the levy is a tax in all but name that must be paid regardless of the services offered.
The CITB has expenditures of nearly £300 million, but gives less than half of that away in grants, while its wage bill and headcount steadily rise. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Ministers to write to me explaining how they intend to restore employer confidence in the CITB, particularly among small construction companies, improve course access and value for money, and reform an organisation that appears to be losing its way?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks—well, for some of his remarks. On a serious matter, I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to the families of the three young women who died yesterday in the tragic incident in Brighton. Following the local elections, which took place last week, I wish to put on record my thanks to councillors for their service to their communities, irrespective of parties or of whether they are not party-aligned, and particularly to those who were not re-elected.
The King’s Speech opened our new parliamentary Session. Members will have heard your words, Mr Speaker, about how we should conduct ourselves. I fully support those remarks and thank you for setting them out to the House. This Session will be about economic growth, building infrastructure, improving public services and strengthening our national security. I have published a written ministerial statement this morning, which lists the Bills that we have announced, and Members will have an opportunity to debate the King’s Speech over the coming days. This is a serious, long-term plan, bringing about change and putting the country back in the service of working people.
Curiously, and in contrast, the Opposition brought forward an alternative King’s Speech, which, like most of the country, I had failed to notice until the Leader of the Opposition referred to it yesterday. I have a copy here, if anyone needs any night-time reading to put them to sleep. I read it with interest. The shadow Leader of the House is a distinguished author—I have read some of his works—who writes with genuine interest, clear thinking and even wit sometimes. All that demonstrates is that he had absolutely nothing to do with this alternative King’s Speech. The alternative King’s Speech is no more than a description of the long-term ills of our country, which merely serves to remind us that the previous Government had 12 legislative programmes and 14 long years to test these ideas, and they failed, so we will take no lectures from them.
I draw the House’s attention to the report published by the Modernisation Committee this morning. The report recommends a new pilot to allow Members to participate virtually in Select Committee meetings in limited circumstances. That is part of the Committee’s ongoing work to ensure that the House’s procedures remain effective, accessible and resilient. A motion will be brought forward in due course to allow the House to consider those proposals, which I hope will be supported.
Let me turn to the other remarks of the shadow Leader of the House. I certainly congratulate NMITE in his Hereford constituency. I have said this before, but I will say it again: the success of that organisation is due not least to the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment and leadership on this matter, and we should congratulate him on that.
I absolutely agree with the shadow Leader of the House on the matter of the donation to the leader of Reform. These are serious allegations. I welcome the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is looking into this, and I also welcome the independent Rycroft review into foreign financial interference in our democracy.
As for the other comments that the shadow Leader of the House makes about the current political situation, I encourage him to stop doomscrolling. The Prime Minister and the Government are getting on with the job of governing, and this King’s Speech is spreading opportunity and building a fairer Britain. On the CITB levy, this is a serious issue, and I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister and get them to write to him.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
On Monday I attended the Bradford City football club fire disaster memorial service. We remembered the 56 football fans who died in the tragic stadium fire 41 years ago. Young players from the club attended alongside fans who had survived and families of those who died. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the club for keeping alive the memory of those who suffered, and will he find time to celebrate the role that football plays in bringing communities together?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Bradford City for keeping the memory of the 1985 disaster alive. Some of us remember that day and will never forget. I extend my heartfelt condolences to the friends and families of those who lost their lives on that tragic day. As she rightly points out, football and sports more widely bring communities together and can be a force for good. I hope we will see that in the coming months, not least when the world cup kicks off.
Mr Speaker
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for today, Wendy Chamberlain.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
May I start by associating myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House in relation to Brighton and the elections? It is not easy to stand for elected office, particularly if you are not successful, and it does take a toll, so I thank him for those remarks.
I also thank the Leader of the House for providing us with the first set of business for the new Session, but I have to note that at the beginning of the previous Session the new Government made a virtue of the fact that they would be putting an end to the incessant chaos of the Conservatives, yet we find ourselves again with a Prime Minister who appears to have lost all authority. We all know that changing Prime Minister over and over again is deeply damaging for our economy and our place on the world stage. I heard us described in recent days as, “Italy without the cuisine.”
When we look at the content of the King’s Speech, we see the reason why this Prime Minister has run out of road, despite having such a large majority: there is no real change offered by this Government’s policy agenda, just a tinkering around the edges. There is an EU reset Bill that offers no reset and no attempt to boost growth by moving beyond the Government’s red lines. There are no measures to boost national security by introducing a programme of defence bonds, and there is nothing to fix the crisis in social care that plagues so many of our constituents.
Will the Leader of the House schedule a debate in Government time on how to stop this continued chaos of successive Conservative and Labour Governments? Perhaps some of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet colleagues might want to come along and make contributions. After last week’s results, one of the solutions that should be discussed in that debate is the need to move to a system of proportional representation for general elections, as well as for local government elections in England. That need has never been greater. We Liberal Democrats will always support calls for making every vote count, and that is despite results in Richmond upon Thames and some of the Scottish constituencies—including my own, I have to say—that would make Kim Jong Un blush. Will the Leader of the House speak to the Prime Minister and try to persuade him that if he wants to leave some form of legacy that he can be proud of, he should make time for a Bill on fair votes?
Sir Alan Campbell
The King’s Speech made it clear, as has the Prime Minister, that the long-term national interest does require a closer relationship with our European allies—now more so than ever—because there are huge opportunities to strengthen our security and cut the cost of living. We have made progress with closer co-operation on agriculture, electricity, emissions trading and more, but I have to say that the previous Government’s Brexit deal did deep damage to the economy. We will not be joining the customs union or the single market and we will not be returning to freedom of movement, but legislation will be coming forward to reset the relationship with Europe, because the Prime Minister and the Government are very clear on the need for closer partnership.
On proportional representation, our party’s position is very clear. I note that the Liberal Democrats have an opportunity to table an amendment to the Address in reply to King’s Speech on this, if they so wish, and if they do so, I think they will get an answer they do not want to hear.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I recently held an event in High Green to listen to local people’s priorities for the area, because they have felt overlooked for far too long. Two of the areas in High Green have a bottom 3% and 7% score of deprivation in England. I want to change that so that High Green can receive £20 million of funding from the Government’s Pride in Place programme. I am ambitious for High Green, the home of the Arctic Monkeys, and I know that this investment will fulfil the potential of the talent and community spirit in that place. Will the Leader of the House advise me how I can work with Ministers to secure Pride in Place funding for High Green to breathe new life into our community and ensure that everyone locally can stay near but go far.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a doughty champion for her communities, and I once again pay tribute to her for that. We are committed to regenerating communities through our waste action plan and by investing in libraries, cultural venues and youth services, ensuring that communities across the country get the investment they need. She draws particular attention to Pride in Place, which is not just about investing in local neighbourhoods; it is also about putting people in charge of decisions about their local communities, and the things that they care about and that affect their lives. She makes a strong case for further funding, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears that.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
First, I thank the Leader of the House for his unfailing courtesy at the Dispatch Box, and for the meticulous manner in which he refers Members’ concerns to the appropriate Ministers. Whoever emerges as the leader of the Labour party, I very much hope that he will remain in his post.
Sir Roger Gale
I would not wish that on him.
Given the Labour party’s manifesto commitments, some of us had rather hoped we might find in the King’s Speech a Bill to ban the proceeds of trophy hunting, something to do with hare coursing or improving farm animal welfare. The sad fact is that there was no such mention of any animal welfare issue whatsoever in the King’s Speech, and I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman addressed that.
While I am on my feet, could I also say that, with the hospitality industry on its knees, now is not the moment to introduce a tourism tax?
Mr Speaker
Order. I would just say that a good old stager knows how to take advantage, but questions should cover one area, not two at the same time.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sincerely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. I do think it is important that we uphold standards wherever we can. As for his reference to not wishing the ultimate job on me, I suspect he has been talking to my wife in that regard, and I can assure him that it is clearly not going to happen, because apart from anything else there is no vacancy.
On the issues the right hon. Gentleman raises, I think we made a good start on animal welfare in the first Session, and there will be further Sessions in which we can bring forward such measures. Depending on the progress made in this second Session, there is also the possibility that other legislation will be brought forward. I am not promising him anything, but there is some flexibility there. There are also other routes that Members can take, not least private Members’ Bills, to address some of the important matters he raises.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
On Sunday, there were scenes of wild celebration among the Dale fans at Wembley, as our beloved club staged a fabulous comeback and won the play-off final to return to the English football league. There were also fantastic civic celebrations at Rochdale town hall, where Jimmy McNulty and his lads could see for themselves just how proud we all were of the team’s heroics, grit and togetherness. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Dale on a fabulous season, and on proving that our club, like our town, never, ever gives up?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I certainly will join him in congratulating Jim McNulty and the Dale team on their successful season. Our local football teams give us pride in local communities. That is why, in the last Session, we delivered the Football Governance Act 2025, which gives fans a greater say in how their beloved clubs are run. I am sure that if my hon. Friend wants to raise this matter, perhaps in a Westminster Hall debate, it would be an opportunity for colleagues from across the House to celebrate the importance of local football in our communities.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Next week, can the Leader of the House produce a Government statement in response to the Hallett review on covid-19 vaccines? Lady Hallett recommended major reform of the vaccine damage payment scheme. The Government said that they were considering the matter, but it is now more than five years since thousands of people suffered severe loss, or in some cases bereavement, as a result of covid-19 vaccines. Justice must be done sooner rather than later.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, as ever. I do not know the answer to the question that he asks about progress on this matter, but I will raise it with the Department and get an answer from the Minister for him on where we are with this issue.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Welsh, known for our singing, are united in concern for Swansea’s global superstar Bonnie Tyler, who has been hospitalised in Portugal due to ill health. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Bonnie a safe and speedy recovery? As the song that she first recorded in ’88 says, she is simply the best.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am saddened to hear of Bonnie Tyler’s situation. She is an inspirational voice for a generation. I send our best wishes to her family and her fans. I join my hon. Friend in wishing Bonnie Tyler the very best and a speedy recovery.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Women trying to flee domestic abuse are sometimes coerced into staying by their partner’s threatening to harm their pet, especially their dog or cat. May I pay tribute to organisations such as the Dogs Trust, which runs a dog fostering service for women while they find a new permanent home, so that they do not have to give up their pet permanently, and Trinity Winchester, which has opened new rooms for women fleeing domestic abuse, and lets them bring their pets with them? This is really needed; it breaks down another barrier that prevents women from fleeing domestic abuse.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter, and I pay tribute to the Dogs Trust and Trinity Winchester for their fantastic work. He is right to point out that there should be absolutely no barrier in the way of anyone fleeing domestic abuse, whether it be worry about a pet or anything else. The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims in those circumstances get the support that they need, and that nothing stands in the way of their accessing that support.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Shed One Distillery in my hometown of Ulverston on being selected as a finalist in VisitEngland’s awards for excellence? Does he agree with me that Barrow and Furness, the most beautiful constituency in the country, has much to offer visitors of all ages, and will he visit, to sample the award-winning gin and meet some fantastic tourism businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Shed One Distillery and all the nominees for this year’s VisitEngland awards. She may have some competition for the most beautiful constituency, but I thank her for highlighting the vital contribution that tourism makes to our national economy. I too am happy and lucky to have a constituency that is a popular tourist destination, and I would be delighted to take up her offer of a visit, should my diary allow.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Last Sunday, along with the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn), I attended the annual service for lost fishermen at Grimsby minster, organised by the Fishermen’s Mission. The timing was unfortunate because the EFL scheduled Grimsby Town’s play-off game for the same afternoon, and despite being only 10 minutes late to the game, I missed two goals—but that is by the way. Would the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Fishermen’s Mission on the work that it does? Although it is over 30 years since the deep-sea fishing industry in Grimsby went into decline, there are still many families affected by the loss of brave fishermen who went out in all weathers.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Gentleman in thanking the Fishermen’s Mission for the work that it does, not least in North Shields, where it is led by the Rev. Peter Dade in an exemplary way, as I know it is in the hon. Gentleman’s area. The lost fishermen’s service is an important part of the annual diary for fishing communities. It is an important reminder of the tragedies that have too often taken place in those communities, and of the price that is paid for bringing fish back to our country.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
At one of my recent surgeries, I met a constituent diagnosed with premature ovarian insufficiency, also known as early or premature menopause. This required her to take fertility preservation treatment and to go off work with stress. Her employers failed to provide reasonable adjustments, and she has now lost a lucrative job that she loved, and is having to spend large sums of money to pursue a sex discrimination claim. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Equality Act 2010 must better reflect sex-based conditions to provide clarity for those tackling sex and disability discrimination, and will he make Government time available for a debate on this important issue?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the case that my hon. Friend raises. The Government are committed to helping working people balance their jobs with their personal lives, including by managing their health conditions. I will ensure that the relevant Minister is made aware of this concerning case, but my hon. Friend may also want to take an opportunity to make those points during the debate on the King’s Speech, as this is an important part of ensuring that people can fully contribute to the economy, and to the economic growth that the country is looking for.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is clear that the tired old first-past-the-post voting system is utterly unfit for purpose. This winner-takes-all system means that a party can secure a huge majority of seats on a minority of votes, which poses a major democratic risk. It is long past time we had proportional representation is this country, so that every vote is represented equally and seats match votes. Will the Government finally take the opportunity to legislate for proportional representation in the Representation of the People Bill, which is set to return to this House, so we can have a fair voting system in which every voter’s voice is heard and given equal weight?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is the second time this morning that proportional representation has been raised, and it is a good illustration of how, when the Lib Dems and Greens agree on an issue, they are invariably wrong. It will be possible for the hon. Lady’s party to raise and vote on the issue during the debate on the King’s Speech, and as she points out, there are Bills being considered that will allow her to raise the matter as well. However, I fear that when the House gives its verdict, it will not be the result that she is looking for.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I know that you will join me in wishing Bolton Wanderers all the very best in the second leg of the play-off semi-final at Bradford tonight, Mr Speaker.
Solicitor Andrew Milne has been arrested by South Yorkshire police after allegations of fraud and blackmail from leaseholders up and down the country. In Horwich in my constituency, Milne bought freeholds on the cheap and threatened to take my constituents to court if they did not pay him thousands of pounds. After repeated engagement with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), the Solicitors Regulation Authority has now imposed interim conditions on Milne’s licence after a separate stalking conviction. Regrettably, my constituents were never given the opportunity to buy their own freeholds before they were purchased by Milne. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the merits of extending first refusal rights to homeowners?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is a case that my hon. Friend has raised with me before, and I pay tribute to him for the way that he has championed the rights of his constituents. As he will have heard in the King’s Speech yesterday, we are taking action in this area, and I encourage him to speak in debates as the relevant legislation passes through the House. I understand that, as he says, assurances have been received from the Solicitors Regulation Authority on this case, and that an investigation has been opened. I once again pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his sterling efforts on this.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I begin by commending Craig Hoy on his election as MSP for Dumfriesshire, and on ensuring that the blue wall of Scottish Conservative and Unionist seats in the south of Scotland remains intact. Ahead of those elections, the leader of the SNP, John Swinney, asserted that if the SNP gained a majority in the Scottish Parliament, there should be another independence referendum, despite there being no constitutional or factual basis for that. Of course, the SNP fell well short of a majority; indeed, the majority of Scots who voted did so for parties that oppose independence. Will the Leader of the House convey to the Prime Minister—whoever that is—that he should make it absolutely clear to John Swinney that last week’s elections provide no basis for a section 30 order or another independence referendum?
Sir Alan Campbell
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government do not support the SNP’s position, and I join in what he says. As we set out yesterday, the King’s Speech is for the whole of the United Kingdom; it is about bringing prosperity to every part of our country, because the reality is that we are stronger together.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
I am a very proud Scouser, and very proud that in 2015, the city was designated a UNESCO city of music for our musical legacy. Indeed, I have lots of grassroots music venues in my constituency. However, the Music Venue Trust has said that many of these organisations have been denied business rates relief because of local authorities’ inconsistent interpretation of the guidance. Will the Leader of the House find Government time for a debate on ensuring that grassroots music venues are correctly recognised in the valuation methodology, and protected in the business rates system?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend says, Liverpool has been home to some of the most influential artists of the modern age, and we want to see that proud tradition live on. She is a strong advocate for the city she loves. Every pub and live music venue is receiving 15% off its business rates, and local authorities should be applying the guidance fairly. My hon. Friend may wish to raise these matters in the King’s Speech debate on Monday, when we discuss backing business to create economic growth, because the issues that she raises are important drivers of growth in our cities.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Two of my constituents have received letters addressed to multiple individuals unknown to them who appear to have used their address to obtain Disclosure and Barring Service checks. If false addresses are being used to obtain DBS certificates, that raises serious concerns about the robustness of the system. The DBS has confirmed to me that it does not routinely monitor the volume of basic DBS applications linked to individual addresses. Can we have a statement from the relevant Minister on the steps that are being taken to address this obvious weakness?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Member raises some very concerning matters. If she gives me the details of this case, I will ensure that it is raised with the relevant Minister, and that she gets the answers that she seeks.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I hope you will join me, Mr Speaker, in wishing Wealdstone football club good luck in their FA trophy final at Wembley on Sunday.
The early access programme gives the NHS access to life-changing and innovative drugs for free. I recently met Sarcoma UK, which told me of the difference that these drugs make to many patients. However, as a result of a recent decision by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to charge VAT on these drugs, which are provided for free, the BioIndustry Association has withdrawn from the programme, and other pharmaceutical companies are considering following BIA’s approach. This is very worrying to many patients who already have access to drugs, and to others who would like access to innovative drugs in future. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate about improving access to innovative new medicines on the NHS, and on the importance of removing barriers such as this one?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are committed to improving health outcomes across the UK, and to ensuring that the UK remains an outstanding place to start a company, scale and invest. We are actively discussing the matter that he raises with the industry, and I will make sure that he receives an update from the relevant Minister.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Madison Chilcott is a student midwife from Bridgwater. She pays fees of £9,500 a year, and must complete a minimum of 2,300 unpaid clinical hours. She works 12-hour shifts at nights and weekends, while her protected learning time is routinely overridden to fill staffing gaps. Despite that, she and many student midwives face graduating into unemployment. This is happening during a national midwife shortage. Can we have a debate in Government time on the graduate guarantee made by the Health Secretary in August 2025, which induced many midwives to start training with what appears to have been a false guarantee of employment?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises important matters. The Health Secretary is absolutely committed to making sure that the healthcare professionals that the NHS needs, going forward, are in place. I will raise the case that he mentions with the relevant Minister, and will ensure that he gets an update, or a meeting, if he would like one.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. As the Government work to unlock economic growth and strengthen social cohesion across the country, it is crucial that residents in every part of the UK feel that they are getting a fair share. I am concerned that support for estuary crossings may be allocated differently from support for the Tamar crossings in my South East Cornwall constituency, despite the importance of the Tamar crossings for local economies, healthcare access and nationally significant industries, such as defence. Will the Leader of the House work with me to secure a meeting with the relevant Minister to address my concerns?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been an assiduous campaigner on this matter, having raised this issue in previous business questions. I know how important it is for her constituents, so I will raise it with the relevant Minister and see if a meeting can be arranged.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
On Thursday, the Welsh dragon roared. Before I go on to say who roared on Sunday, I want to thank Eluned Morgan, the previous First Minister of Wales, for her 30 years of unstinting public service to the people of Wales.
On Sunday, the Drovers roared. Llandovery RFC won the Super Rygbi Cymru cup for the third time. Our small rural Carmarthenshire town has produced phenomenal rugby players for Wales. They have won the Welsh premiership twice, the Welsh cup three times, and the national sevens championship five times in a row. The captain of Sunday’s match, Lee Rees, was playing his 402nd match for Llandovery over an 18-season term, which is a phenomenal achievement. Coaches Euros Evans and Gareth Potter have been at the helm for 13 or 14 years—
Mr Speaker
Order. There has got to be a question. This is a lovely statement about how well the team did, but I think the game is over. Come on, give me a question.
Ann Davies
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Llandovery rugby club on its success?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady reaffirms the importance of local sports—particularly, in her part of the world, rugby—to communities. I congratulate her on managing to mention just about everybody in her local community in one question. Well done to the team.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I was born and raised in Wednesfield by parents and grandparents who came 10,000 miles from Fiji to make Wolverhampton their home. Today, British Fijians serve in our British armed forces, in the NHS, across public services and business, and, of course, on rugby pitches across the UK. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising Girmit Day, which commemorates the arrival of the first indentured Indian labourers in Fiji in 1879, in honour of communities like the British Fijians, who quietly and proudly help to drive this nation every day?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to celebrate the rich heritage of the British Fijian community. I join her in recognising Girmit Day, which serves as a powerful reminder of the valuable contribution that British Fijians make to our communities.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), I met two trainee midwives in a surgery just last week in my Norfolk constituency. They are training at the Norfolk and Norwich university hospital, where 250 student midwives are going after just 50 places. What has happened to the graduate guarantee?
Sir Alan Campbell
This question has, as the hon. Gentleman points out, been raised previously, so I make him the same offer: we will get an update from the relevant Minister, or if we organise a meeting, he is free to come along.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Pride in Place investment can help to provide the kind of community infrastructure that lets neighbourhoods thrive, but South Shore, in my Blackpool South constituency, which is home to the highest concentration of deprivation in the country, is not currently getting that support, despite its real potential to become a vibrant and thriving place once again. Will the Leader of the House join my call for a Pride in Place funding programme in South Shore, and will he make time for a debate on how community infrastructure supports regeneration and how we can ensure that places like South Shore are never left behind?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a wonderful champion for his constituency, and I once again commend him for that. We are giving constituents the investment and powers they need to deliver the change they want to see in their communities, not least through Pride in Place. He makes a strong case for further funding, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State hears his remarks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I say what a pleasure it is to have the Leader of the House back in his place again? I look forward to his contributions, and thank him for all the responses that he coaxes out of the Ministers who respond to me. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on China’s law on the promotion of ethnic unity and progress, which is due to come into force in July, and its implications for freedom of religion or belief, cultural identity, and the rights of ethnic and religious minorities in China? China continues to punitively and aggressively persecute Christians, Falun Gong, Muslims and others.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. There has been a bit of a theme this morning about my being in my place; I am slightly worried that hon. Members have heard something that I have not—you never know. As ever, he raises a serious matter. The Government stand firm on human rights, including the repression of people in Xinjiang and Tibet and the wider erosion of rights and freedoms across China. We continue to monitor developments, and urge China to respect its obligations under international and national laws. We will not hesitate to hold China to account for human rights violations. I will ensure that the Foreign Secretary hears his concerns.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I recently visited Glasgow airport in my constituency to witness the first direct transatlantic flight by United Airlines between Glasgow and New York. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating United Airlines and Glasgow airport on this significant new development, and does he agree that a debate on global connectivity might be a suitable subject for the new Session of Parliament?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating Glasgow International and United Airlines on their success in securing this important route. Transport links like that are vital to local economies and critical to driving growth, which is why we are bringing forward measures in the civil aviation Bill, and I hope that my hon. Friend will contribute to that legislative process.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Incredibly, it is now over two years since the Patient Safety Commissioner published her report on mesh, yet the Government appear to have made no meaningful progress in implementing its recommendations. The absence of action is unacceptable. This issue continues to affect many of my constituents—women like Natasha, and Andy, a man who suffered not only significant harm but substantial costs having to pay for surgery to stop excruciating pain and to attempt to remedy the damage caused to him. We are in the absurd position where MPs are resorting to ask not only when a redress scheme will be established, but when the Government will set out a timetable for producing a timetable. Please could the Leader of the House ask someone in Government—anyone—to confirm when mesh victims will receive compensation?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises an important matter. It has been raised over quite some time in this House, and she is right to raise it again because it is important that people are not left in pain and in the situation that she describes. I will get her an update from the relevant Minister to see what progress is being made and what further progress is planned.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
Last week, the BBC revealed a terrifying lack of regulation in the growing infant sleep industry, where literally anyone can call themselves a maternity nurse or a sleep consultant and give vulnerable parents advice that puts babies at risk. Locally, that led to the tragic death of a four-month-old baby who was put into an unsafe sleeping position on the guidance of a so-called maternity nurse who had no medical qualifications. Can we have a debate in Government time on what we can do to regulate the infant sleep industry so every child and parent is protected?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this highly disturbing case, and may I first express our condolences to the family? This case has illustrated just how important trusted advice on safe sleeping is, and we would encourage parents to access support, not least through Best Start family hubs. We are also changing the law so that anyone describing themselves as a nurse without the relevant qualifications and registration will be committing a criminal offence.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I am sure we all share the objectives of the Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000, but they are having the effect of denying access to public service vehicles for any child who buys a place on a council school bus. Can we have a debate in Government time on the implementation of those regulations and the support that local authorities need, so that children in my constituency and across Somerset are not being denied places on buses that have not yet met the accessibility regulations?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter, which is important to many of his constituents. I do not know the detail of the issue he raises, but I will get him a meeting with the relevant Minister if he wishes, so that he can raise those matters directly.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Recently, I was contacted by a leading manufacturer based in my constituency, Trojan Plastics, which highlighted the findings of the Made in Group’s industrial strategy survey report 2026. It found that one in four manufacturers described their energy costs over the past 12 months as “survival threatening”. While I congratulate the Government on their excellent work on delivering clean power, may we have a statement on their plans to improve energy costs for businesses?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend’s advocacy for businesses in his constituency is commendable, and I pay tribute to him. We are currently reviewing the eligibility for the British industry supercharger and the energy intensive industries compensation scheme. I encourage him to raise these matters during the King’s Speech debate on Monday, which is around backing business to create economic growth.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Given that it is marathon season, will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the new endurance event in my constituency: the 39-week Creswell roadworks? Before the scheme started, many of my constituents were deeply concerned about safety, disruption and delays, and they were right to be. This week was the first week, and constituents have reported children being late for school in exam season, public transport issues, vehicles driving the wrong way down a one-way street, and confusion after changes to the route were decided but not communicated to anyone. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how roadworks are planned and communicated, so that disruption is minimised, the cost to businesses is considered, and communities such as mine are not left to bear the burden once again?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for her constituency, and she has raised similar concerns on behalf of her constituents with me before. She is right to say that her constituents deserve better, which is why we are clamping down on roadworks that overrun and doubling fines. This is a matter not just of ensuring that people can get to school, but it is also about disruption to business. I therefore encourage her to raise such matters during Monday’s debate on backing businesses to create economic growth.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The fantastic Flowers Band from my Gloucester constituency recently won the prestigious European brass band championships. It was their first time at the tournament, and they are the first English band to win it since 2015. I will not name all the members of the band this morning, but I got to go to their open rehearsal, where I saw their fantastic hard work, dedication and unbelievable talent. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating them on their success, and the success of all young musicians in Gloucester?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly congratulate the Flowers Band, not least because they are the first English winners for a decade. Brass bands are so important to our local communities. They are part of our heritage, and an important way of providing access for young people to come through, learn an instrument, and take part. I congratulate the Flowers Band, and wish them success in the future.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)
Illegal offroad bikes cause regular and unnecessary nuisance to residents across Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, and other parts of the country. South Wales police are constantly trying to deal with residents’ concerns, but the situation persists and is widespread. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 will provide the police with additional tools, but can we have a debate or statement to outline what further steps the Government can take to help tackle this issue, which is causing such nuisance to my constituents and others across the country?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise that concerning matter. As he says, the Crime and Policing Act will give the police greater powers to clamp down on antisocial behaviour involving vehicles such as e-bikes. I am sure that this would make a popular topic for a Westminster Hall debate should he apply for one, because many Members across the House will have similar concerns.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
This week marked the 22nd anniversary of the devastating Stockline ICL Plastics factory explosion in Woodside in my constituency, in which nine people tragically lost their lives. Given continuing concerns about corporate accountability, may we have a debate in Government time to assess how effective the offences of corporate manslaughter and corporate homicide have been since they were introduced, and whether the legislation is delivering justice for families affected by workplace deaths?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in remembering those killed and injured in the factory explosion at the ICL Plastics factory in 2004. Through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 we clarified and extended powers to ensure that corporate bodies are held liable for criminal offences committed by their senior managers. It is important that we continue to draw lessons from that avoidable tragedy, and my hon. Friend may wish to raise those concerns directly with Ministers during Justice questions next week.
Supreme Court Dillon Judgment
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
With permission, I will make a statement on the recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Dillon and others. It is a complex judgment, but I thought it right to come to the House at the first available opportunity to summarise its main findings.
The case was originally brought against the previous Government following the passage of the legacy Act—the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act—in 2023. The applicants, a group of families who lost loved ones during the troubles, argued that various provisions of the legacy Act undermined rights protected by article 2 of the Windsor framework and by the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to the European convention on human rights.
In February 2024, the High Court of Northern Ireland found the conditional immunity scheme and other provisions of the legacy Act to be incompatible with our obligations under articles 2 and 3 of the European convention on human rights. Those findings were endorsed in September 2024 by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. It also made judgments that two additional matters with regard to investigations by the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—namely, next-of-kin participation in investigations and the role of the Secretary of State in decisions about the disclosure of sensitive information—did not meet the standard required to be compatible with the ECHR.
This Government have been clear that we are opposed to aspects of the legacy Act, including immunity. That scheme, which would have offered immunity to terrorists, had no support in Northern Ireland or from victims and their families. It was wrong in principle and provided no effective protections for veterans, not least because the provisions were never commenced by the previous Government. That is why, when we came into government, we immediately withdrew the appeal on immunity. However, the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework and its findings on next-of-kin participation and disclosure had wider implications for the Government’s ability to legislate effectively across the UK and protect national security. It was for those reasons that the Government appealed against that judgment to the Supreme Court. I am pleased to report that last week the Supreme Court upheld our appeal, finding wholly in the Government’s favour.
Article 2 of the Windsor framework ensures that there is no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland as a result of the UK leaving the European Union. The Government are firmly committed to those human rights and equalities provisions but felt that article 2 had been interpreted too broadly by the lower courts. The Supreme Court’s judgment has provided important clarity on this question and confirmed the Government’s long-standing position that the rights protected by article 2 of the Windsor framework are those concerned with ending the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. While reaffirming the Government’s position on this matter, the Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the legacy Act should not have been disapplied by article 2 of the Windsor framework. The purpose of bringing the appeal was to obtain clarity on how article 2 should be interpreted in the future, not to defend immunity.
On next-of-kin participation and disclosure of information, the Supreme Court found that the commission is currently capable of conducting investigations that are compliant with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. The Supreme Court also concluded that the provision of legal aid for the cross-examination of witnesses is not always necessary for an investigation to be fully compliant with human rights. However, the Government recognise the importance of next-of-kin involvement in the reformed Legacy Commission’s inquisitorial proceedings, and we are providing for that in the troubles Bill.
On disclosure, the Supreme Court was unequivocal, saying that
“there must be a system restricting disclosure in circumstances where disclosure may or would risk prejudicing the national security interests of the United Kingdom”,
but it went on to say that
“the Secretary of State does not have an unrestrained power to ‘veto’ the disclosure of information”
and that
“any decision to do so is subject to challenge by way of judicial review.”
This Government are committed to ensuring the maximum possible disclosure of information while protecting life and national security, hence the changes I am bringing forward in the troubles Bill to create a fairer disclosure regime with greater transparency in how decisions are made.
I now turn to what this means for the question of immunity. Contrary to what has been claimed by some, the UK Supreme Court has not endorsed the immunity scheme—it remains incompatible with our human rights obligations. It is also important to dispel the suggestion that the Government do not have the power to make the remedial order. As I have previously made clear, the conditions for laying a remedial order under the Human Rights Act are that:
“An appeal brought within that time has been determined or abandoned.”
The Government’s appeal regarding the immunity scheme in the legacy Act had already been abandoned. The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore that was not an issue before it, but it did state very clearly that no exceptions in case law exist to justify the granting of immunity for breaches of articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
Finally, I want to make clear why, although we welcome the Supreme Court’s determination of certain aspects of the legacy Act, we cannot leave the statute book as it is. The central underpinning of the legacy Act, which was the immunity scheme, was wrong and has failed, so we need a new system. The troubles Bill is essential for a number of reasons. First, while we know that the commission is capable of doing investigations, it has not delivered so far and it must be reformed. The Bill will implement various changes to address these matters, including reformed governance and enhanced investigatory functions.
Secondly, we need the Bill to avoid endless legal disputes in future—for example, the clauses on interim custody orders will put beyond doubt that the Carltona principle applied in the context of those orders. The Bill will also ensure that all troubles-related cases can be investigated, one way or another.
Thirdly, there is the issue of Irish co-operation. Currently, no information is being shared by the Irish authorities with the commission; the Bill will enable that to happen for the first time, helping to find answers for the relatives of those who were murdered, including service personnel who served our country.
Fourthly, the Bill will enable information to be provided to families through the new Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. Fifthly, we need new and effective safeguards for our veterans and other former service personnel. Crucially, the legacy Act did not provide those protections, and we have developed them for veterans and others who served. As I have made clear, we will be bringing forward more provisions in Committee in response to veterans’ concerns. Simply returning to the legacy Act would leave veterans without immunity or any protections whatsoever.
I am grateful to the Supreme Court for its careful consideration of these matters, and I welcome its judgment. I hope that the combination of this ruling and legislative progress on the troubles Bill will mean that all communities affected in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom can have confidence that a reformed legacy commission will be able, where possible, to provide answers to those who have waited far too long to find out what happened to their loved ones.
I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As is traditional, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, in that—as he said himself—the judgment in the Dillon case is a complex one. We on the Conservative Benches certainly agree. I suspect that this judgment will be pored over and, indeed, argued over at considerable length, not least in the other place should Labour’s benighted troubles Bill ever make it there.
I will just make a point about immunity, and the concept that lay behind the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I was serving on the Select Committee on Defence under my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—an excellent Chairman—when, in 2017, we produced an extremely detailed report on this complex issue. In fairness, I think the Secretary of State has read that report. What was proposed by the Select Committee is akin to what the legacy Act turned out to be, and that in turn was based on the South African truth and reconciliation commission.
We never legislated for absolute immunity for anybody; we legislated for conditional immunity, so that if someone who was involved in a troubles-related fatality came forward to give evidence to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will return to the commission in a moment—the commission could judge whether they had fully co-operated with it, such as by revealing the burial place of one of the so-called disappeared. If the commission believed that that individual had genuinely co-operated in good faith, they would be granted immunity. If not—if the commission felt that that person was lying, dissembling or trying to hide something—the commission could recommend that a prosecution still go ahead. Contrary to the Government’s position, the legacy Act and ICRIR, which the Act established, only ever allowed for conditional immunity. It is important to put that on the record this morning.
I have three specific questions for the Secretary of State about his statement. First, will he say a bit more about the relationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework? He touched on it, but can he expand? Secondly, as he knows, many of the cases brought against veterans were funded by legal aid in Northern Ireland. He referred very briefly to the implications for legal aid, but can he say something more about that? Thirdly, we heard at business questions a few minutes ago that the Armed Forces Bill will be returning to the House in Committee on 2 June. I was quite involved with that Bill. Under its programme motion, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has two days for Committee and remaining stages. When do the Government plan to bring it back to the Floor of the House? Perhaps he could answer that specifically.
I am sad to say that Labour has been cynical today. I humbly remind the Secretary of State that when we debated and voted on the related remedial order back on 21 January, almost a third of the Labour parliamentary party abstained, famously including the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As we all know, he is otherwise occupied today. Even the current Prime Minister abstained. He blew the whistle and sent his troops over the top to vote for this benighted legislation that he did not have the courage to vote for himself.
That brings me to encapsulating exactly what is going on today. While this Government prepare to tear themselves to pieces over a mixture of post-electoral fear and vaulting ambition, what is the Labour party’s absolute priority this morning? It is to advance legislation to facilitate the prosecution of brave Northern Ireland veterans, many of whom gave their lives to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland—in essence, to defend all of this around us today. That sums up the Labour party. It has clearly chosen today as a not-so-good day to bury bad news. The very bad news is that despite all its protestations to the contrary, Labour would rather help Sinn Féin chase those who fought for their country. The public will see this for what it is: not a complex legal treatise, but a disgrace.
Hilary Benn
I can agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he describes the judgment as a complex one; he is absolutely right about that. I should make it clear that protected disclosure relating to the location of remains of those murdered by the IRA—in almost all cases, they were buried in the Republic of Ireland—is covered by separate arrangements that were introduced when the independent commission for the location of victims’ remains was created. That had support right across Northern Ireland, because people rightly judged that the most important thing was to enable families to be reunited with the remains of their loved ones. Sadly, there are four individuals whose remains have not yet been found.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the conditional immunity scheme. The fact remains that if a terrorist who committed one of many horrendous crimes—some of which are being investigated at the moment, such as the M62 coach bombing, what happened at Warrenpoint and the Kingsmill massacre—came to the commission and told the full truth, the last Government’s legislation said that the commission “must”, not “may”, grant them immunity from prosecution.
Hilary Benn
Well, I am afraid it is not a question of nuance. The reason why—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Shadow Minister, you asked the questions; please allow the Secretary of State to answer them without interruption.
Hilary Benn
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the reason why the immunity provisions had no support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland and no support from victims and survivors’ organisations in Northern Ireland was that people were outraged by the suggestion that terrorists who committed appalling crimes should be able to walk away scot-free because of those immunity provisions. He also has to recognise that immunity remains incompatible with our human rights obligations.
I turn to the three specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman asked. The first was about the interrelationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework. Clearly a very important part of the judgment is to do with the Windsor framework. In essence, the issue before the Supreme Court was this: was article 2 of the Windsor framework correctly interpreted by the courts in Northern Ireland when they decided to disapply the immunity provisions and in effect struck them down? The Court said clearly that that was incorrect.
The Government brought the appeal because, although we disagree with immunity as a matter of principle and believe that it never existed, that judgment of the courts in Northern Ireland raised a much bigger question, which could be interpreted in other ways in respect of other policies; hon. Members will have seen some of the issues to do with immigration. That is why the Government brought the appeal, and we now have clarity that article 2 applies to certain things, but it is not capable of the broad interpretation that the Northern Ireland courts had given to it.
Secondly, legal aid is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive as it is their responsibility.
On the troubles Bill, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, it is a carry-over Bill, and its Committee stage will come early in this new Session. I do not accept what he said about the Bill for the very simple reason that, as he well knows, the basis on which any decisions are taken about prosecutions has not changed and will not change under the legislation that the Government are bringing before the House.
Everybody recognises that with the passage of time, for reasons that all of us understand—and the facts demonstrate it—the chance of further, future prosecutions is rapidly diminishing. I also remind the right hon. Gentleman that any decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by independent prosecuting authorities.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
With respect to the shadow Minister, I have to say as someone who ran peacemaking programmes in Northern Ireland and who did a master’s dissertation on the South African truth and reconciliation commission that, sadly, the legacy Act came nowhere near replicating that. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we take forward the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, we do have both a responsibility to the victims and the survivors and a special duty to our veterans, and that there does not need to be a false dichotomy in creating legislation that supports both groups?
Hilary Benn
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. In the end, the legacy Act failed because it did not command support across all communities in Northern Ireland. How can we hope to make progress if that is the case? What we are trying to do, with the support and scrutiny of the House, is to come up with a system that is fair and reasonable but that enables those many families who are still searching for answers to find them. I hope that what I have said today provides some reassurance, in particular to those representing victims who were crestfallen on seeing parts of the Dillon judgment. I have tried to set out the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we have a system that can command confidence from all.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
The Supreme Court judgment lays bare the consequences of the previous Government’s catastrophic approach to legacy, which drew a wholly unjustifiable moral equivalence between terrorists and those who serve the Crown. That scheme was declared unlawful and incompatible with our human rights obligations by every court that considered it, and has now been repudiated by this Government. Those on the Conservative Benches who championed it in this House did our veterans no favours, and neither has their ill-disguised and cynical party political mischief-making regarding the remedial order and today’s statement. The Liberal Democrats have opposed the granting of immunity from the outset and maintained throughout that removing it was a legal necessity, not a political choice, and this judgment confirms that we were right.
The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeal’s declarations that the ICRIR was incapable of discharging its article 2 investigative obligations. However, that was not an endorsement of the ICRIR’s design. The Court held that the challenges to the absence of legal aid, the absence of provision for next-of-kin questioning of witnesses, and the Secretary of State’s power to restrict disclosure could not succeed as abstract prospective challenges; rather, each of those questions would need to be assessed on the facts of individual cases. That “wait and see” approach is part of the uncertainty that our veterans and their families fear. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what concrete steps he will take in Committee to ensure that genuine, independent protections for veterans are built into the Bill, rather than leaving those safeguards to be resolved on a case-by-case basis?
Hilary Benn
I agree with all of what the hon. Gentleman says about the failings of the 2023 legacy Act, and he has done the House a service in taking Members through the argument as to why it could not be sustained.
As I have repeatedly said to the House, protections are already contained in the troubles Bill, and we intend to bring forward more protections. We have had many discussions with veterans’ organisations, and my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and I are determined to ensure that we treat our veterans fairly and with care. The protections will be published in advance of Committee, and then the House will have a chance to debate them. I look forward to that moment.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
In Plymouth I represent very many veterans, lots of whom served in Northern Ireland, and I reflect on the fact that the state asked our people to do incredibly difficult things, at enormous personal risk and sacrifice, in a very particular context and with a particular political direction that they were deciphering at the time. Many of those difficult things were necessarily secret, and today we still ask our people to do incredibly difficult things—in secret, necessarily—at enormous personal risk and sacrifice. Many of those people are personal friends of mine. The 2023 legacy Act was unworkable, and we were elected on a manifesto to repeal and replace it. We should do that, but my constituents and my close friends are deeply concerned, as am I. Can the Secretary of State lay out how the troubles Bill will protect them in years to come from being forced into the courts by those who wish them ill?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his representation of his constituents, and for what he has just said. I join him in paying tribute to those who served with such bravery in Northern Ireland. As he will be aware, the courts and coroners in Northern Ireland have on many occasions recognised the point that was made to the Prime Minister in the opening of the King’s Speech debate yesterday: members of our armed forces had to take split-second decisions. The courts recognise and understand that, and have on many occasions said that what they did was entirely lawful. Nobody who acted lawfully, in line with lawful orders, has anything to fear at all; indeed, the very small number of cases in which members of the armed forces have been convicted for offences during the troubles is evidence of that. The commitment that I give to my hon. Friend, and which I have already given to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is that when we come to Committee, he will see the answer to the very fair question that he has put to me about the protections that we intend to put in place, and it will be made absolutely clear that there is no equivalence between those who sought to protect the public in Northern Ireland and those who tried to murder them.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Unlike others, I have not had the benefit of reading it beforehand, so I hope that he will forgive me when I say that it is very high protein and will take a little while to process. To pick up on the remarks he just made to the hon. Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), with whom I serve on the Defence Committee, about bringing forward more provisions in Committee to respond to veterans’ concerns, the Bill was carried over on a promise that that would be done, so will he update the House on the status of discussions with veterans’ groups to give us some reassurance? Is he in a position to say that they now fully agree with the provisions to protect veterans, which were so lacking in previous versions of the Bill?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments, not least because of his service. As he will know, we have been engaged in very close discussion and consultation with many organisations representing veterans. The honest answer to his question is that people will make a judgment when they see the detail of the amendments that the Government are committed to bringing forward, and those amendments will then be carefully scrutinised and debated in the House. Again, we have to strike a balance that is fair and proper, but I assure him that the Government are extremely seized of their obligations to make sure that the arrangements that we put in place are fair to veterans.
What is not fair is to pretend that somehow the immunity provisions contained in the legacy Act were ever going to work. We now know that they were not going to work, they have been found to be incompatible, they had no support in Northern Ireland and they were never commenced by the last Government. We do no service to our veterans by continuing to argue, as some have done, that that is the alternative—it is not.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Opposition say that we are somehow letting terrorists off the hook, but is the Secretary of State able to tell the House how many prosecutions there were for terrorist offences during the troubles and how many live prosecutions there are now?
Hilary Benn
The estimates are that between 25,000 and 35,000 paramilitaries were convicted for offences, including murder, bombings and other things, during the course of the troubles. There were four soldiers convicted of troubles-related offences during that time, one of whom was freed on appeal. Since the Good Friday agreement, there has been one conviction of a member of the armed forces, who received a suspended sentence. There are currently 10 live prosecutions, eight of which relate to paramilitaries, including people accused of killing members of the police and our armed forces. That lays to rest the argument that I have heard from some that the paramilitaries are not being pursued any more—that is not the case. Of the two other cases, one relates to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and one relates to members of our armed forces. That gives a very clear indication of where the balance of evidence and effort currently lies.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his and his Government’s clarity, which is helpful. This Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and courts must interpret laws, not rewrite them or strike them down based on political sensitivities. That has been made clear and the Windsor framework overreach, weaponised by the courts to override domestic UK human rights and criminal justice legislation, has been rightly stopped, and we thank the Government for that. When will the Northern Ireland Office instruct every Government Department to cease their political games and to do their job and apply the law correctly?
Hilary Benn
I have the greatest respect for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not accept his characterisation or that it is right to accuse the courts of weaponising anything. The courts looked at the case before them and reached a judgment, but the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and, in the Government’s view, its interpretation of article 2 of the Windsor framework was right: the courts did not have the power to disapply the immunity provisions. That is separate from whether immunity continues to be incompatible—as it does—with the European convention. Secondly, I cannot think of any case where Government Departments are not following the law as it is and as we now understand it to be as a result of a very clear finding by the Supreme Court. That is why I have welcomed that finding on behalf of the Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that soldiers who complied with a lawful order have nothing to fear. I did not serve in Northern Ireland but I did serve in Iraq and Afghanistan. I know that if I were hauled before the courts to recount my actions from 20-odd years ago to acquit myself, I would be extremely worried about the pressure that would place on me and on my colleagues.
The Secretary of State mentions that there will be changes to the Bill. For those veterans who were not privy to those conversations, will he outline some of the actions that he is prepared to take to address the parts of the Bill that he is not content with, so that they can have a better understanding of how this might change going forward? Members of this House would like to understand what those amendments are likely to be.
Hilary Benn
I quite understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, and I thank him for his service on behalf of our country. It is right and proper that it is the House of Commons that sees the detail of the amendments first, and I give the House that commitment.
In addition to what is in the troubles Bill—the hon. Gentleman will see what it says—I have indicated that we are looking at the question of equivalence. The argument has been made strongly to the Government by veterans and others, and I accept it. As I have said at this Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, of course there was no equivalence between those who served the state to protect the people of Northern Ireland and those who were seeking to kill.
We are also looking at how the protections can be overseen to ensure that they work in the way that the Government intended, and at the extent to which both coroners and the commission take into account the circumstances under which those who served were operating at the time, including around things such as orders, instructions and so on. Understanding the context in which split-second decisions were made by those who served is very important to ensuring that there is justice for all.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Looking to the future, the troubles Bill makes no explicit link between legacy processes and long-term reconciliation initiatives, such as integrated education, sustained community dialogue and cross-community projects. Will the Secretary of State commit to developing a comprehensive reconciliation strategy that connects addressing the past with building a settled, shared future?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Member raises an extremely important point. As I am sure she is aware, our troubles Bill leaves in place part 4 of the legacy Act. Not everything in the 2023 Act was wrong, and that part deals with memorialisation and digitisation of records. I agree with the hon. Member that it is not either/or; these things need to be pursued in parallel. However, for people to be reconciled, it is really important that they are able to feel—in so far as it is possible; it will not be in all cases—that they have finally been given an answer as to how and at whose hands their loved ones died. That is such an important part of enabling people in Northern Ireland who still live in the shadow of the troubles to reconcile themselves with what happened—people come to that in very different ways, as I know from the many conversations that I have had—so that Northern Ireland’s society can move forward. It has already been transformed in the last 28 years and we all applaud that.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
As the Secretary of State has laid out, the Supreme Court in its Dillon judgment was not able to rule on whether the immunity provisions of the legacy Act were compatible with the European convention, because the Government withdrew that appeal when they came to power. But the right hon. Gentleman must recognise the fear and anger of our soldiers and veterans in response to the changes that the Government have proposed. If the Government felt it was at all possible that these protections for our soldiers and veterans might be compatible with the ECHR, why not test that in the courts? If the Government are convinced that it is not, what better case could there be for leaving?
Hilary Benn
I do not agree with the hon. Member that we should leave the European convention on human rights, because it provides protections for all of us as citizens. The point I was seeking to address—and I thought it was very important to bring clarity to the House in relation to immunity and whether the appeal had been withdrawn—was this. It was argued from the Conservative Benches, because of the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement’s intervention, that in some way the appeal on that matter remained live. It was also put to me that the United Kingdom Supreme Court was likely to rule on the question.
I wanted to come to the House today, at the first available opportunity, to make it quite clear that, I am afraid, those two arguments were wrong. The appeal had been withdrawn. The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore there was nothing for it to rule on. The incompatibility with the convention of immunity remains, but the Court went out of its way to explain why case law means that there is not an exception on grounds of reconciliation that would in any way justify the immunity provisions that were contained in the last Government’s legislation.
National Security
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the national security statement, I should say two things in relation to matters that are sub judice. First, there are a number of live cases relating to recent antisemitic attacks. However, to help manage our discussions on an issue of national importance, I am granting a limited waiver to allow passing references to such incidents, as long as they do not engage in discussion of or speculation around the motivation for, detail of or immediate response to any specific individual incidents.
Secondly, I should inform the House that the case relating to two men spying on behalf of Hong Kong is still technically sub judice until sentencing. However, I am granting a limited waiver so that Members may discuss wider issues raised in the context of this case. Members should not speculate about sentencing issues.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on recent national security developments, including the increase in the national terrorism threat level.
The events of the last few weeks have illustrated the breadth and seriousness of the national security threats that we face from both terrorists and foreign states. In the response to those threats, they have also highlighted the strength and resilience of our world-leading law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Over recent weeks we have seen a series of arson attacks and incidents against British Jews and opponents of the Iranian regime, including the horrifying terror attack in Golders Green, which seriously injured two members of the Jewish community. We have seen the recent conviction of a 21-year-old man who planned to commit a terrorist attack to further his extreme white supremacist agenda. We saw convictions last week against two individuals under the National Security Act 2023 for surveilling and intimidating dissidents on behalf of China, and we are seeing record levels of investigative casework on terror plots, espionage and state-linked threats to individuals.
On 30 April, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the UK national terrorism threat level from “substantial” to “severe”. The decision to change the UK’s terrorism threat level is taken independently of Ministers, based on the very latest intelligence. “Severe” means that a terrorist attack is highly likely in the next six months. The threat level was last at “severe” from November 2021 until February 2022. This increase in the threat from terrorism follows the recent stabbing attack in Golders Green, but it is not solely a result of that attack.
The terrorism threat in the UK has been gradually increasing. It is driven primarily by the broader Islamist and extreme right-wing terrorist threat from individuals and small groups based here in the UK. While the UK national threat level reflects JTAC’s assessment of the terrorist threat in the UK, it comes against a backdrop of increased state-linked physical threats, which is encouraging acts of violence, including against the Jewish community. In response, we have announced £25 million of immediate funding to strengthen policing, protect Jewish communities and provide reassurance. This brings the total protective security funding to £58 million this year, the largest investment a Government have made in protecting Jewish communities.
I have also initiated a review of the national threat level system, which currently captures only the threat from terrorism, to ensure that it remains fully relevant and that we are communicating as clearly as possible with the public about the national security threats we face today.
Contest, the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, sets out a clear framework—prevent, pursue, protect and prepare—which aims to ensure that people can go about their lives freely and with confidence. We are broadening our intervention capabilities to better support those at risk of being drawn into terrorism, through the Prevent programme. We have improved training and guidance for frontline professionals and practitioners to better spot the signs of radicalisation. We are working with technology companies, international partners and Ofcom to tackle online content used to radicalise, recruit and incite terrorism.
Co-ordinated intervention is crucial to reduce the terrorist risk, so we are providing children and individuals with the right support with our interventions centre of expertise, which brings together MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing with expertise from wider public services. MI5 and CTP work tirelessly to stop terrorist attacks, with 19 late-stage attack plots disrupted since 2020, including a chilling ISIS-inspired plot to target Jewish communities in Manchester using firearms.
We have delivered our manifesto commitment to improve the security of public events and venues across the UK through Martyn’s law, and free expert advice, guidance and training are available to owners and operators of venues and public spaces through the ProtectUK website. Through closer working across the emergency services, we are maintaining strong, multi-agency working capabilities to respond to a range of different scenarios. We keep our preparedness under constant review, and the response is exercised regularly, ensuring that our emergency services can respond immediately to terror attacks, as we saw in their brave response to the violent antisemitic attack in Golders Green.
Terrorism and state threats are sometimes interrelated, as we have seen with threats from states such as Iran, and the wider use of both terrorist groups and proxies by state actors, including Russia. We face a sophisticated and persistent challenge in responding to China, which presents a unique set of threats to the United Kingdom. The case last week demonstrates that we have the tools to successfully respond to that challenge, and Members across the House will know that a jury delivered its verdict following the nine-week trial of Bill Yuen and Peter Wai. The jury found both individuals guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service—in this case, the Hong Kong police force—under the National Security Act. Wai was also found guilty of misconduct in public office.
The verdict represents the first convictions under the National Security Act related to China, and it sends a strong message that the full force of the law will be applied to anyone who carries out hostile acts in the UK on behalf of any foreign state. Both individuals held positions of power, leveraging these to conduct hostile activity on UK soil on behalf of China. It is simply unacceptable that an employee of a foreign power was conducting a shadow policing operation in the United Kingdom. That is why the Chinese ambassador has been summoned, and the Foreign Secretary will be making it clear to Hong Kong’s Chief Executive that this type of activity was, and will always be, unacceptable in the United Kingdom. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has also made it clear that Yuen’s employment at the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office must be terminated immediately.
The trial has understandably caused considerable concern within the UK among the Hong Kong community. The safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is paramount. That is why my officials have been working closely with the National Protective Security Authority to deliver new guidance on transnational repression. The guidance provides examples of what transnational repression might look like and what to do if anyone feels under threat from any state.
Transnational repression from China, however, is just one type of state threat activity. That is why the Government are taking decisive action across a much broader range of state threats. We are: rolling out new training for police officers and staff to increase their understanding of state threats; driving forward the counter-political interference and espionage plan, to protect the UK’s democratic institutions and processes; bringing forward in the coming weeks fast-track legislation that will clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states, including those who act as their proxies, and which will include new proscription-like powers to ban the activities of state-backed organisations that pose a threat to the UK’s national security; and implementing all the recommendations made last year by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation. We are responding to state threats in all their forms.
National security is the first duty of Government. As this House knows, that duty includes being able to respond to a range of threats. We are giving our police and intelligence services the resources they need for that vital role. Last year we provided an extra £140 million for Counter Terrorism Policing, plus nearly £600 million more for our intelligence services. This takes their funding to record levels.
Protecting our communities and standing up to hatred and intolerance is a shared responsibility of every person in the UK. I urge the public to remain vigilant and report any concerns they have to the police. Their contribution is a vital part of our efforts to keep our country safe.
Support to the victims of terrorism is a moral duty, and I would like to acknowledge the profound and enduring impact on the survivors and families of those affected by the attacks in Golders Green, and all terrorist attacks, whose lives have been forever changed.
I want to close by thanking those individuals serving in our police and security services for their dedication to keeping our country safe, and the public for their continued vigilance. We owe them all a debt of gratitude. I commend this statement to the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advanced sight of his statement and for his recognition of the importance of working together across the House to make our country safer.
The attacks against the Jewish community in recent months have been devastating. As the Leader of the Opposition and the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation have said, this is a national emergency. The Government noted that the raising of the terror threat level was not solely a consequence of the attack in Golders Green, but we can all see how this community has been targeted. Our thoughts remain with the victims and their families.
We have to speak honestly about what is going on. We have to call out hate when we see it. Jewish people in Britain are 12 times more likely to be a victim of hate crime than any other group. We cannot allow this to go on. That requires not just warm words but robust action. That means authorising the surveillance powers usually reserved for counter-terrorism, which the Minister referenced today, to identify and prevent antisemitic attacks that are being planned. Furthermore, foreign nationals who express antisemitism, support extremism or endorse terrorism should be deported. The Government should place a moratorium on hate-fuelled pro-Palestine marches, because we can see the way in which they are being used as a cover to promote violence and intimidation against Jewish people.
Furthermore, although I welcome the Government’s announcement of legislation in the King’s Speech, they need to act at speed. Steps need to be taken to proscribe groups that fuel this hatred, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This was recommended almost 12 months ago. I hope it is now a top priority for the Government. Conservative Members on this side of the House stand ready to support its implementation.
Ultimately, the measures outlined do not begin to cover the full extent of the action needed to stop this evil. We need to tackle the underlying ideologies that threaten our national security. It is therefore critical that the Government focus on the ideologies that pose the greatest threat. As I told the House during the statement on antisemitic attacks in April, 75% of MI5’s terrorism caseload relates to Islamist extremism, and 94% of terrorist murders over the past 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists. However, we have seen a decrease in Prevent referrals relating to Islamist extremism. Only 10% of the current Prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism. Can the Minister explain what more the Government will do to address that disparity and ensure that we tackle Islamist extremism effectively?
Equally, talking about the threat posed by China is not an abstract matter. There are people in this country who have had bounties placed on them and who face threats because of the Chinese regime. Police officer David Wilson recently published his report into Chinese organised crime links to the Chinese state, including its intelligence services, diplomatic service and the United Front Work Department. The report demonstrates how Chinese intelligence services, and even diplomats, work with organised crime networks to supress dissidents and intimidate British-Chinese communities and students into compliance. I therefore ask the Government, as many of my colleagues have before, to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme.
We share the Government’s concerns about the continued threat posed by Russia. Will the Minister join me in condemning the fact that Russia has issued an arrest warrant for our former colleague Ben Wallace? Does he agree that this is totally unacceptable, and will he endeavour to look into the matter?
The increase in the threat level illustrates the risks posed to this country. Many of the measures set out by the Minister will be welcomed, but I believe we need a fundamental shift that reflects the scale of the threats facing the country, and particularly the Jewish community. We must maintain an absolute focus on stamping out the ideologies that fuel hatred and undermine our national security. I believe that is how we pay tribute to those who have been victims of these devastating terrorist attacks.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his sensible and reasonable approach this morning. I agree that, wherever possible, we should seek to work on these matters on a cross-party basis, and that is absolutely my approach.
I agree with the shadow Minister about the appalling and abhorrent attacks on the Jewish community that we have seen recently. I hope that he understands that the Government are absolutely committed to dealing with that poisonous hatred. I spelled out in my statement some of the measures that the Government have taken and will continue to take. However, the shadow Minister is right to hold us to account. This is not about warm words; this needs to be about deeds. That is precisely why we have allocated more funding to support that activity than has previously been the case.
We will take every opportunity to ensure that our response, collectively as a nation, is proportionate to the nature of the threat faced by British Jews across the country. It is abhorrent that any British Jew might feel the need to lead a smaller Jewish life, and I hope that there is complete agreement on that across this House. I give the shadow Minister and the House my absolute assurance that we will do everything we can to ensure that our Jewish communities not only are safe, but feel safe.
Entirely reasonably, the shadow Minister raised concerns about hate marches and protest activities that have taken place, and that may seek to take place in the future. Again, I hope that it is a point of consensus to say that the right to protest is fundamental to our democracy. At the same time, however, this cannot cross the line into unlawful or violent behaviour.
The police do have a range of existing powers that enable them to tackle unlawful behaviour, including at marches. It is important to note that new powers will soon be introduced by measures contained in the Crime and Policing Act 2026, which received Royal Assent at the end of April, to further restrict intimidatory protests, particularly around places of worship, with the addition of new offences around face coverings at protests. The Act also places a duty on senior officers to take account of the cumulative impact of protest activity when considering whether to impose conditions on a protest, so the police will be able to force protests that follow the same routes time and again to change the route or time of a protest. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the Home Secretary has asked Lord Macdonald to lead an independent review of public order and hate crime legislation, and we look forward to receiving his recommendations in the near future.
The hon. Gentleman made an entirely reasonable point about the disparity in the Prevent caseload. Although he is right about that, I hope he would acknowledge that that is not a new challenge; it has been faced by both the previous Government and this Government. As he will be aware, we have appointed a new independent Prevent commissioner. I will be meeting him later today, and I categorically guarantee that this matter will be on the agenda for our discussion. We take the hon. Gentleman’s point very seriously, but I know that he will understand that it is not a new challenge for Government.
The hon. Gentleman referred to China. I hope I was clear earlier about my concern over the unique range of threats that China levels against the United Kingdom. I hope that he would accept that there are areas where we need to co-operate closely with China, and that there is always a balance to be struck, but I do give him an absolute assurance that national security will always be our priority.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned FIRS, which I suspect other hon. Members may also take this opportunity to mention. FIRS is still a relatively new tool. I am making sure that we are able to draw the maximum operational benefit from it, and any decisions will be communicated to Parliament in the normal way.
Finally, I want to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Ben Wallace. Let me be crystal clear: the accusations that have been made about Ben Wallace are completely unacceptable. Ben Wallace has served our country. For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will completely understand, I am not going to get into the individual security arrangements for Mr Wallace— I cannot and will not comment on operational or intelligence matters—but I can say that I have met Ben Wallace to discuss the concerns that have understandably been raised. I am in touch with him. I will ensure that we continually assess the nature of the threats to individuals and their safety, and that the Government will absolutely be on the front foot in identifying and investigating such threats and will use all appropriate measures to defend against those threats. Any attempt by any foreign Government to coerce, intimidate, harass or harm their critics in the United Kingdom, including Mr Wallace, will not be tolerated.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement on national security threats and the swift response to this heightened threat. The horrific recent increase we have seen in antisemitic attacks and acts of anti-Muslim hatred is causing understandable anxiety in diverse communities such as mine in Luton South and South Bedfordshire, despite great partnership working between Luton council, Bedfordshire police and our voluntary and community sector. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that the Government will continue to work with local authorities and police forces to provide the guidance and resources needed to keep communities safe and build social cohesion efforts to support strong and unified communities?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. The relationship with local government is absolutely mission critical, and I work very closely with not only local government right across the country and the devolved Administrations, but ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. She is right to raise the importance of social cohesion. She will know that that Department has led a piece of work recently, but it is very important that that is wired right across Government. The defending democracy taskforce, which I chair, provides a fulcrum point across Government to work closely with the police, local authorities and the security services to ensure that we have the right approach and response to the threats we face. Ensuring social cohesion and tackling the kind of vile online abuse that we have seen in recent times is an absolute priority for this Government.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Week after week, British Jews are being attacked, intimidated and persecuted. We have seen what has happened at Heaton Park synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, Finchley Reform synagogue, and Jewish Futures in Hendon, and to the Hatzola ambulances, and more recently, there have been the Golders Green stabbings.
The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, is right to call these appalling levels of antisemitism a “national security emergency”. He is also right to say that laws must be properly enforced, especially as the UK’s terror threat was raised to severe last month. Members of the Jewish faith in my constituency attend the North West Surrey synagogue, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer)—I call him my hon. Friend, despite the normal convention, because on this issue, in this House, I hope there is more that unites us than divides us. We must collectively fight antisemitism.
I want a future in which Jewish congregations can gather free of fear and have a Government who support their safety. In this climate, it is absolutely right that the Government take urgent action, but I question whether broadening the scope of Prevent will be enough, given the modern threats that we face. In the Southport and Golders Green attacks, we saw the abject failure of Prevent. It is clear that a full overhaul of Prevent is needed; warning signs must not be missed again. Yesterday’s King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s intention to introduce national security legislation, but this must be a priority. Please can the Minister confirm that the legislation will include an overhaul of Prevent, and set out the timetable for the Bill’s introduction?
Finally, the Liberal Democrats have long called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed. As Jonathan Hall has made clear, existing powers are already sufficient to proscribe the IRGC. That being the case, why have this Government dragged their feet and delayed action to proscribe the IRGC and keep British Jews safe?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions. I agree with the concerns that he rightly expressed about antisemitic activity in our country. He will have heard the points that I made about protective security, but protective security is only part of our response. It is very important that we tackle the underlying causes. That is why—I hope that he will acknowledge this—there is a lot of activity in different parts of Government to attack antisemitic activity and behaviour wherever it rears its ugly head, whether in our NHS or our schools, colleges and universities. It is a real priority for the Government that we not only provide appropriate protective security but tackle the underlying causes of the abhorrent antisemitism that we have seen in recent weeks.
The hon. Member mentioned Southport. Sir Adrian Fulford recently published his response to phase 1 of the Southport inquiry, and I met him to discuss it. He has already got phase 2 under way. It is a hugely important piece of work that he is undertaking, and he will obviously have the Government’s full support in completing it. We look forward to receiving his recommendations in due course.
The hon. Member referenced Jonathan Hall KC and forthcoming legislation. I made a commitment in my introductory remarks to enacting all the recommendations that Jonathan Hall made in the previous parliamentary Session. I can give an assurance that the state proscription tool that we have committed to introducing will be fast-tracked. That piece of legislation was announced in the King’s Speech, and we will move as quickly as we can to get it on the statute book. I look forward to hopefully having his support, and the support of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. As Members of the House will be all too painfully aware, our Jewish community in north-west London, including in my constituency, has been subject to repeated despicable antisemitic attacks in past weeks. Our Iranian community has also been attacked. In my constituency, I also have many members of the Hong Kong community, who live under the shadow of transnational repression.
Given that context, I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement in the King’s Speech of fast-tracked legislation to deal with hostile state threats. Can the Minister share more details of the timetable, so that we can get that welcome and essential piece of legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend has been a diligent representative of his constituency, and I know that he takes these matters incredibly seriously. I hope that he understands this Government’s commitment to tackling antisemitism. He mentioned that in his constituency he has members of the UK Hong Kong community, so let me briefly say a word about them. Any foreign state-directed crime against an individual in the UK will never be tolerated, and the attempt to intimidate and harass members of the Hong Kong community is absolutely unacceptable. Hongkongers play an incredibly important role in our public life. I give him and them an absolute assurance that we will do everything we can to protect them.
My hon. Friend asked specifically about forthcoming legislation. He will understand that we take a range of measures to guard against the threat we face from malign actors and hostile states. It is a priority to introduce this legislation as soon as we are able. I will take it through Parliament, and we intend to fast-track it. I intend to bring it forward in the near future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Proscription of the IRGC is long overdue, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to taking the necessary legal action to ensure that happens, but the Minister will be aware that I raised with him a year ago the fact that 13 charities based in this country have been banned in Arab countries. They are directly linked to Tehran: they take their orders from Tehran and get their funding from Tehran. Equally, there are assets across London, in both finance and property, that are directly linked to the IRGC and the theocracy in Iran. All of that is used to undermine the Jewish way of life in this country, so will he now take the necessary action? Why is the ambassador from Tehran still here? Why is the Iranian embassy still open? Why are these charities still operating in open defiance of what is necessary for proper order in this country?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his points, and for his acknowledgment of our intention to introduce legislation that would allow the UK Government to proscribe state-backed entities. He will know that a range of measures have already been leveraged against the IRGC, which is sanctioned in its entirety. I think it was back in November last year that I announced a range of measures to defend against the threat that we undoubtedly face from Iran.
The hon. Gentleman’s point about charities is entirely reasonable. We work across Government, including with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Charity Commission, to tackle the kinds of behaviours he describes. He makes a reasonable point; I will take it away, and come back to him with a further update on the work we are doing. Good work is under way. I hope that he gets a sense, not just from the statement but from the various interactions and exchanges we have had over many months, of how seriously we take these issues. If he wants to discuss them with me further, I would be happy to.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and his unequivocal support for the Jewish community. I am proud to have an Iranian community in Edinburgh South West. They are concerned about people in that community who speak out against the Iranian regime, particularly journalists, who they fear may be persecuted in the UK. What are the Minister and the Government doing to protect people who speak out against that awful regime? I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who is a fantastic champion for the Jewish community in the UK: if we have any evidence that Iran is behind some of the attacks we have seen on British soil, why do we not simply close its embassy? We do not have to wait for legislation to do that.
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and let me reiterate the Government’s position that the targeting, harassment and coercion of anybody here in the United Kingdom, including, of course, the Iranian community and journalists, is completely unacceptable. On what we are doing to counter the threat from Iran, we have now sanctioned more than 550 Iranian individuals and entities and have placed the whole of the Iranian state, including Iran’s intelligence services, the IRGC and MOIS—the Ministry of Intelligence and Security—on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Importantly, we have also rolled out new training for all frontline police officers on state threats, so at a localised level—of course, this will be the case in Scotland as well—police forces have the insight and knowledge to identify and investigate the type of activity that he describes. But I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we treat it, and we will stand firmly against the threat from Iran.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
I want to touch on state threats. I appreciate what the Minister said about the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme as it applies to China. Could he inform the House whether Bill Yuen and Peter Wai were registered on FIRS for their role as Chinese state employees? On Russia, on 5 May the Amur-class repair ship PM-82 was spotted around the Galloper wind farm. What steps is he taking to ensure that our offshore infrastructure is protected from Russian-state threats?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his continued advocacy of FIRS. It is an important operational tool. It is still relatively new—it will be a year old on 1 June—and it is the Government’s intention to bring forward an annual report to update Parliament on the progress that we are making with it. I cannot get into the specific registration of the two individuals that he has referenced, but I can tell him—I think he will know this, because he knows a lot about FIRS, but I say it for the benefit of other Members—that countries are considered separately, and decisions are made on a robust evidence base. I am not able to get into speculation about what further decisions may be made, but those will be communicated to Parliament in the normal way.
On the hon. Member’s second point about our wider resilience, that relates to my Cabinet Office responsibilities, but I give him an assurance that we are working across Government, including with partners in the Ministry of Defence, to guard robustly against the kind of threats that he describes.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his statement, and for the work that the Government are doing to protect the Jewish community. My thoughts are with all those who have been victims of these attacks, and of antisemitism and hate crime. In my constituency of Southend West and Leigh, we have quite a significant and diverse Jewish community—Orthodox, Reform and Haredi. They are scared and concerned, and my concern after meeting some of those communities over recent weeks is that some do not know how to access the support available to them. Could my hon. Friend give them some advice?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful for the points that my hon. Friend has raised, and for his reference to the importance of remembering the victims of terrorism. It is an important part of my responsibility that we ensure that we have appropriate support for those who have been subject to terrorist activity. That is why we are progressing, as a priority, work to deliver a new victims hub, which will offer an enhanced service for those who have been victims and their families, as well as developing a proposal to hold a national day of reflection to properly remember all those who have been the victim of terrorism.
On the points that my hon. Friend makes about British Jews in his constituency, I completely share other hon. Members’ thoughts about the unacceptable nature of the threats that we have seen in recent times. It is the responsibility of all of us to stand against those threats. That is an important priority for the Government, as I am sure it is for local authorities and police forces right around the country. If he has specific points of concern about the way that we are communicating information to members of that community, I would be happy to take that up with him offline.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I commend the Minister on his statement, particularly his peroration about how standing up to hatred and intolerance is the shared responsibility of every person in these islands. The Scottish Government have been working closely with Police Scotland and relevant partners to ensure that safety for Jewish communities and their places of worships is protected, and they will continue to do so throughout the new Scottish parliamentary Session. The additional funding of £25 million to protect Jewish communities and deal with the other threats that the Minister described is welcome. Can he confirm that full Barnett consequentials will be made available to help Police Scotland with its work in that area?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member and he is right: I believe that this is a shared endeavour across the House and across our country. I was pleased to discuss these matters recently with the First Minister, and I have received positive correspondence from him. I hope the hon. Member will forgive me if I do not respond to him now on the precise point about Barnett consequentials, but I will write to him.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
I join colleagues across the House in strongly condemning the ongoing campaign of attacks and intimidation against our British communities, and I thank the Minister for his leadership on those and other security matters. He said that he has initiated a review of the national threat level system, which currently captures only the threat from terrorism. Can he expand on that? Does he mean that, following review, it will now capture the threat from state-based actors and other countries? Can he do that in the light of the fact that one key theme of last year’s strategic defence review was that we need an open, national conversation that is not behind closed doors, in the light of both ongoing delays to the defence investment plan and many colleagues across the House needing to understand better the threat that this country is under, and some of the funding decisions that we need to make to keep our citizens safe?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. and gallant Friend has asked an astute question. He obviously heard my reference to the initiation of an internal piece of work, and a review of the national terrorism threat level. In truth, that has long been on my mind, and I want to satisfy myself that current arrangements are fit for purpose. Those current arrangements have served our country fairly well for a number of years, but I feel as if they have now been overtaken by events. It is therefore appropriate to look carefully at the way the threat level is not only calibrated, but communicated, and I want a system that makes some sense to the public. We will look carefully at that.
I will consider the recommendations over the coming months, and I am obviously happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend and other Members. He made a further important point about the strategic defence review and the need to have an ongoing conversation with the public, and he is right to remind us of that. I discuss such matters not only with colleagues across Government, but also with our European partners who, it is not unreasonable to say, have taken a somewhat more forward-leaning approach than UK Governments going back a number of years. We must ensure that the public understand the nature of the threats we face, and do so in a way that ensures they are alert but not alarmed.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome the statement because the issues that the Minister raises, particularly the antisemitism that we have seen grow exponentially and frighteningly in this country, and issues with the Chinese embassy, which are particularly relevant in my constituency, are concerns that we hear from our constituents all the time. For that reason, will he tell us a little more about the tackling state threats Bill and the national security Bill, as well as measures to tackle antisemitism, which he says must be passed without delay? What sort of timetable are we looking at, and how quickly can we have those measures to reassure the public that everything is being done?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as I always am, for the points that she has made. She mentioned the Chinese embassy, so I hope she will forgive me if I seek to provide her with a word of reassurance on that matter, because I know it has been somewhat controversial in this House and elsewhere. Our intelligence agencies have been involved throughout the process, and an extensive range of measures has been developed to manage any risks. Following extensive negotiations, the Chinese Government have agreed to consolidate their current seven sites in London into one site. I hope she will acknowledge that that brings very clear national security advantages.
As for the timeframe, we are seeking to fast-track the legislation through Parliament, and it is a priority. I intend to bring it forward very soon and to do it in a way that I hope will be collegiate, with Members right across the House. We made a commitment that we would introduce this legislation; we need to get on and do it, and that is what I intend to do.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his careful and considered remarks and for setting out very clearly in his statement that the safety and security of Hongkongers in the UK is paramount. I also thank him for his remarks about new legislation announced in the King’s Speech to tackle hostile state threats and about the two convictions under the National Security Act last week, which regard the activities of two individuals on UK soil who leaked to the Chinese foreign intelligence service.
Hongkongers in my constituency live with the threat of transnational repression day in, day out, and they are petrified of the activities of Beijing and Hong Kong authorities on British soil. What assurances can the Minister give me that the activities of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office are being properly monitored and that the UK Government will not allow for that institution to be misused by Chinese or Hong Kong authorities to engage in that form of transnational repression?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks. He will have heard in my introductory remarks that the Chinese ambassador has been summonsed, and he will have heard the determination of the Foreign Secretary to illustrate the completely unacceptable nature of the kind of activities that we have seen in recent times. I have personally been in touch with members of the Hongkonger community just this week to provide reassurances, but I want to work closely with my hon. Friend to ensure that those assurances are not only heard, but felt. If he thinks that we can and should be doing more, I would be very grateful to be able to discuss that with him.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
The level of fear felt by British Jews is nothing short of a national emergency and requires the most urgent and rapid action. The last time that the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box, just before the last Session ended, I raised with him the case of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community. While I welcome his commitment to increased funds, they still find themselves falling between the cracks for grant funding, because they do not have a building of their own and meet in different venues from time to time. I have sent him the details, so may I plead with him to look at that issue very urgently? Will he help me find a way to ensure that all my constituents and British Jews from neighbouring constituencies who are members of the south Buckinghamshire Jewish community can genuinely feel safe and that action comes very rapidly?
Dan Jarvis
I feel that fear, as I think we all do in this place. The hon. Gentleman has assiduously represented the concerns of Jewish communities in his constituency. I knew that he would send a letter, having given a commitment to do so, but I confess that it has not been put in front of me. I give him a guarantee that I will go back to my desk and look at his letter straight away.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his determination and the determination of his Government to protect all the citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and I endorse his comments about the police, MI5 and MI6. We have individuals collectively doing the hard work to try to worm out the malcontents.
I have long bemoaned the lack of action against Chinese overreach, which sees spy work carried out against British nationals in this country. Some Hongkongers living in my constituency feel threatened daily by Chinese officials, whether it be from someone spying on them or following them. I have railed against the blatant antisemitism culminating in the stabbings in Golders Green. Along with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), I stand alongside the Iranian Government in exile and Maryam Rajavi. The Iranians tell us that they feel threatened daily in this country for standing up for liberty and freedom in Iran. I have highlighted the sop to republicans that embraces republican glorification of terrorism, which led to car bombs in Northen Ireland just last month. This nation’s security is tied to our ability to act, so what will the Government do to secure our national interest and the safety of all our citizens in this great democracy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as I always am. He has a very long and proud record of standing against terrorism—he knows a lot about it from his experiences in Northern Ireland—and he is also right to pay tribute to those who serve in our police forces and our intelligence services, who work tirelessly around the clock to keep us safe. We all owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
The hon. Member is right to highlight a number of concerns. I can assure him that we take these matters incredibly seriously; he will have seen the measures that were announced in the King’s Speech yesterday, which will complement our existing legislative framework. However, I give him an assurance that if there is a requirement to do more—to add to our toolkit, to make sure we are best prepared to guard against the nature of the threats we face—we will not hesitate to act.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his statement today, and for the gravity with which he has approached this statement and his job while others in Westminster are being distracted by noises off. I completely agree with him that it is totally unacceptable for a foreign state to be conducting shadow policing operations on UK soil, and I welcome that he said that the Foreign Secretary has called in the Chinese ambassador. However, he will also be aware that, if press reports are to be believed, the Chinese embassy in London issued a statement on Sunday in which it called on the UK Government to
“stop wantonly arresting and convicting Chinese citizens”
on “trumped-up” charges. It is clear that we are miles away from one another, so will the Minister encourage the Foreign Secretary to throw the book at them?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for his contribution, as I always am. He knows me well enough that I can be quite candid with him in saying that I do not think the Foreign Secretary will need any encouragement from me. She will share the concern of Ministers right across this Government about the recent activity—she will have seen that very clearly when she served as Home Secretary. I agree that the kind of activity he describes is totally unacceptable, and this Government will absolutely stand against it. We are constantly making sure that we have the right legislative framework, toolkit and resources to guard against the nature of the threats we face, including from China. It is completely unacceptable that any nation, whoever they are, think that they can undermine our freedom of speech, our democracy and our sovereignty. It is not going to be allowed to happen.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his statement. He has confirmed the roll-out of new training for police officers and staff to increase their understanding of state threats. Will that training be mandatory for officers in all police forces and all police roles, including police community support officers and special constables as well as back-office staff? How will it be implemented? Will it be in person or online? If it is online, will it be passive or active? Are participants just going to tick a series of boxes when they have read stuff, or are they actually going to be in an interactive session? How long will the first sweep of those staff take? I am very happy for the Minister to write to me about these matters, but the sweep through existing staff might take quite a long time. Has he given any consideration to including in that training people who have a lot of frontline experience, such as staff from the Department for Work and Pensions, health, social services and local authorities?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Lady makes an important and helpful point. I can give her an assurance that I discuss these matters with policing colleagues regularly. I hope she will understand that it is probably not for me, as the Security Minister, to be delving into the individual arrangements that different police forces have, but I am confident that all police forces understand the benefit and the importance of this training activity in the way that she has described. Let me consider further what she has said, and I will write to her with a more considered response.
Point of Order
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 29 April, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) raised a point of order concerning the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) visiting their constituencies without notifying them. In response, Mr Speaker reminded the House of the importance of the courtesy of doing so, but his advice seems to have been ignored. The right hon. Member for Newark shared a post on his social media just last week on a visit to my constituency and did not have the courtesy to notify me either— unlike his boss, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who visited recently and emailed just as his bus was rolling into the constituency; perhaps he was a little bit lost on his way to Clacton. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you please advise me in relation to this matter concerning the right hon. Member for Newark?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I note that he has given advance notice of it to the right hon. Member for Newark. As Mr Speaker reminded the House yesterday, all Members should inform others in advance of visits to their constituencies, except where that visit is purely for private purposes. The hon. Gentleman has put his point firmly on the record.
Bills Presented
Debate on the Address
Getting Britain Working Again
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
It is a pleasure to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of the Government. As His Majesty said yesterday, we are living in
“an increasingly dangerous and volatile world”.
This debate is about the labour market, so let us start with some facts. We have 332,000 more people in work than a year ago; the third highest employment rate in the G7; unemployment lower than most OECD countries and lower than the EU average; unemployment down in the three months to February; and economic inactivity down by over 350,000 since the election—it is lower today than in 13 of the 14 years of the previous Government. Since the general election, real wages are up by more than in the first 10 years of the last Government, and this morning’s growth figures were up by 0.6% in the first quarter of this year—services up by 0.8% and construction up by 0.4%. That is the fastest GDP per capita growth in four years and the highest GDP growth in the G7 reported this year. That is on top of GDP per capita growth last year, and on top of six interest rate cuts since the general election. Our economic management has put the UK in a stronger position, better placed to weather the storm of global shocks, and better placed to weather the volatility of which His Majesty spoke yesterday.
The leadership task for the country now is to lead the country through the consequences of what is happening in the middle east, because there is no doubt that the shock from the Iran war and the continued closure of the strait of Hormuz is real. It will affect prices, it will affect jobs and it will affect growth. Our Prime Minister took the decision to keep us out of that war, but the UK, like most countries, will be affected by its consequences.
However, none of those consequences were thought about by the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of Reform when they were urging us to get involved. What did the Leader of the Opposition say?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State and many of his Front-Bench colleagues keep reiterating that point. He keeps saying that, but I do not believe it is true. Will he explain exactly what he thinks the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do in those circumstances?
Pat McFadden
Let me read this out for the hon. Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government were
“too scared to make foreign interventions”.
She also said:
“I say to Labour MPs that we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.]
That is what she said.
As for the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), he said:
“We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.”
Instead of trying to douse the flames, they sought to pour as much petrol on them as possible. They would have jumped in with both feet, displaying not only a failure of judgment but a total disregard for the price that will be paid by British consumers in higher prices and higher interest rates. That is how much they cared about keeping Britain working when it came to the biggest judgment that this country has had to make for a long time.
The Conservatives’ record when in office was: the lowest business investment in the G7; wages flatlining for their entire period in office; the worst Parliament on record for living standards; and the public finances trashed as debt soared. The reason I point that out is that month after month, and nowhere more than in the arena of welfare, the Conservative party finds things that it is outraged about in the system that it built, it designed and it created.
Before I come to the system itself, let me state something that is obvious but too often left out of these debates: the welfare system is often the end of a process in people’s lives, not the beginning. I will tell the House what contributes to higher welfare bills and to people not working: hollowing out the NHS and leaving one person in seven on waiting lists, with a higher likelihood that they are unfit for work; increasing child poverty by 700,000, making it less likely that children will be ready for work when they leave school; explicitly rejecting the post-covid education recovery plan, and doing nothing about rocketing absenteeism from schools; neglecting our town centres and high streets, leaving too many places without hope or confidence in the future; and presiding over a 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts, kicking away the first step in the career ladder for those who lose out. You cannot do all that and then stand at the Dispatch Box and credibly express outrage about the rise in benefit bills. It did not come from nowhere, and if we are going to tackle this area, we have to understand that.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In that case, can the Secretary of State credibly stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions and of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on employment? The Government are now paying companies to employ young people because of the mess they made.
Pat McFadden
If it was down to those policies, we would not have seen a rise of a quarter of a million in the NEET—not in education, employment or training—numbers in the last three years of the hon. Lady’s party’s time in office. My point is that this did not come from nowhere, and we have to understand that. If we are to have a serious response, education, health treatment, youth apprenticeships and changes to the welfare system itself all have a part to play.
On the health front, I have good news to report: waiting lists today are down by 110,000—the biggest monthly drop since 2008. Elective waiting time targets have been hit, and four-hour waiting time targets have been hit. This is how we get Britain working, whereas simply picking a number for benefit cuts, with nothing behind it, is not an answer; it is a press release. The Conservative party has shown no understanding of how people end up on benefits in the first place.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I would like to raise with the Minister the fact that we are looking at around 1,000 redundancies across the NHS in Devon, which is a significant employer. That is cutting the legs off employment in communities such as mine in Torbay.
Pat McFadden
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the figures that I just read out. For the first time in many years, the NHS is heading in the right direction. That is good for people’s health, and it is also good for getting people back to work.
As I said, the Conservatives show no understanding of how people end up on benefits in the first place. They are like a workman who wanders around someone’s house asking, “Who installed that?”, when the answer every time is that they installed it. The Conservatives say that the welfare bill is too high, but it went up by £100 billion when they were in power. They say that they want more face-to-face appointments, but they shut them down almost entirely, and then the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), now the shadow Chancellor, signed off a bunch of contracts that allowed the assessors to work from home. The Conservatives say that there are too many people on health benefits, but they designed the system, they designed the gateways, and they designed the differences in income that have made that happen. We did not just inherit a mess; we inherited their mess.
In fact, the shadow Chancellor personally oversaw the biggest single increase in welfare spending on record during his time as Work and Pensions Secretary. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition railed against there being 1.5 million more people on universal credit. She was outraged by the figure, as she often is, but there was only one problem: around 80% of the increase was a legacy transfer from old benefits that was decided, organised and begun by the Conservative party. It is no wonder the chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to correct her. Her letter said of the figures quoted:
“A substantial proportion reflects the ongoing transfer of claimants from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. This process has been a longstanding policy and has been implemented at scale by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) since May 2022, predating the current administration.”
When it comes to the Conservatives owning their record, they might as well be giving CV advice to the leader of the Green party.
As the King’s Speech made clear yesterday, reform of the welfare system is under way and will continue. Support must always be there for those who need it, but circling the wagons around the status quo is not the right answer. Nor do I believe that the system can act as a fantasy cashpoint for every cause going; instead, I believe that our task is to recast this system to put work and opportunity at its heart.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), attempted to cut the welfare bill and was sent packing by Labour Back Benchers. In the autumn, the Government had to get rid of the two-child benefit cap because of Labour Back Benchers. Is the truth not that the Secretary of State is incapable of reforming the welfare system because he does not have permission from his Back Benchers?
Pat McFadden
I will outline the changes to the system that we are making. At the heart of it, we have to change the question that the system asks in order to have a system that is suited better to the conditions of today. We should ask people not just what benefit they are entitled to, but how we can help them change their lives, and we have begun that task.
The change to universal credit that came into force last month narrowed the gap between the health element and the standard element. Crucially, it is matched by an increase in employment support. Another change is the provision of £3.8 billion to help people into work over the next few years, ensuring personalised help to maximise people’s chances of moving into a good, secure job. We have to change the old Tory habit of people being signed off and written off, and instead move to a system that more actively helps people into work. Nowhere is that more true than among the young, because the longer young people are left on benefits or out of work, the harder it is to come off and the worse the consequences are. The issue with the system is not just about monthly income; it is about the story of people’s lives and how we change it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for enabling me to ask a question, and for the positivity in his comments so far. Like him, I am incredibly worried about whether young people are getting job opportunities, and many in my constituency unfortunately have not been. May I ask a question about apprenticeships? We need to get people into the building and construction sector, for instance, where there are opportunities because house building is continuing to grow, as is the Government’s commitment. Will he outline some of the good things that have been done for young people in relation to apprenticeships?
Pat McFadden
Apprenticeships are really valuable and important. I visited construction apprentices with the Prime Minister just a couple of days ago, so I heartily endorse what the hon. Gentleman says.
The issue of youth employment is really important to us because of the long-term consequences of young people staying on benefits. Let me illustrate this for the House. A young person under the age of 25 who is on the health element of universal credit is now less likely to get a job than someone over 55 on the same benefit. A 20-year-old on incapacity benefit is more likely to turn 30 and still be claiming it than to have held a steady job for a year. Perhaps worst of all, a young unemployed person is over 70% more likely than their peers to die prematurely. Changing those stories has to be at the heart of what we are doing.
There are practical ways of doing that. We know that many disabled people—young and old—and people with health conditions want to work, but have been held back by the fear of losing their benefits if things do not work out, so just last month we changed the law to bring in the right to try. Keeping people locked on benefits because they lack the confidence to work is in no one’s interests—not the individuals’ and not the state’s. The change means that entering employment will not automatically trigger a benefit reassessment. This is practical welfare reform and this is what getting Britain working looks like.
We also know that disabled people and people with health conditions need localised support to get back into work. There is no greater fan than me of the wonderful work that our elected local mayors are doing, so we are putting £1 billion of funding into local areas to help 300,000 people into employment over the next few years. That is what practical welfare reform looks like.
Today, the Department has published new figures on fraud and error. They show continued progress and a fall since the post-pandemic period, but this is an ongoing effort. There is always more to do because there are unscrupulous individuals who will try to game the system, but whether it is £5,000 or £5 million from an undisclosed source—possibly someone located abroad—people are expected to declare it. There cannot be one rule for some and another rule for everyone else.
In the coming weeks, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will set out our plans to deliver our manifesto commitment to tackle the Access to Work backlog. This important scheme provides grants to thousands of disabled people to help them get into and stay in work, through things like specialist equipment, assistive technology and adaptations. Members from across the House have raised with me the issue of backlogs and waiting times that grew under the Conservative Government. Well, under this Government, we are changing that to reduce the backlog and to help more disabled people into work. This is practical welfare reform and this is what getting Britain working looks like.
We are restoring fairness in the system too. We are providing better value for money in the Motability scheme, with a target for half those cars to be made in Britain by 2035, so that this important scheme supports the British car industry too. We are stopping those who have not contributed from getting a British pension on the cheap. The work of reform will continue this year when, in the coming weeks, we receive interim reports from both the Milburn and Timms reviews, before they conclude later in the year. We will bring forward further proposals for reform, with work and opportunity at their heart, when those reviews have reported.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Reports suggest that unemployed people who are signing on are getting trained for jobs that do not exist, not for the jobs in the sectors where there are opportunities to work. Will the Secretary of State reform the system so that those who are unemployed and seeking a job are trained to do the jobs that are available?
Pat McFadden
That is precisely what we are doing, including by providing apprenticeship courses that are shorter than the usual eight-month minimum, because employers have told us that such short courses are exactly what they need. I am all in favour of more flexibility in the apprenticeship system to suit what employers need.
Getting Britain working is also about the levels of investment in the economy: it is about the roads and railways we build, the capital programmes in education and health, and the year-on-year modernisation of the country. Here too there is a contrast with what we inherited. Compared with the plans that we inherited, there will be £120 billion more public investment over the course of this Parliament. That is what getting Britain working looks like—building and modernising the country. Underpinning all of this are measures in the King’s Speech to raise living standards in every part of the country, to attract investment, to work in partnership with business, to take advantage of new trading opportunities, to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations, to unlock airport expansion, to build the roads that need to be built and, finally, to deliver a fair deal for the north of England.
At the heart of our reforms should be the young, for the simple and obvious reason that if we do not get the young into work, there can be lifelong effects. We have almost a million young people not in education, training or employment. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), in the last three years of the Conservative Government, that figure went up by a quarter of a million. Although the numbers have barely moved since the election, they are still far too high.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?
Pat McFadden
I will proceed, if the hon. Lady does not mind.
Unlike the Conservatives, who did nothing about the number of young people not in education, training or employment, we are doing something about it, because we will not leave a young generation behind. We will not give up on young people, and that is why our youth guarantee is so important. It will invest £2.5 billion in support for young people and employers over the next few years. From June, there will be hiring bonuses of £3,000 for employers who take on a young person who has been out of work for six months. For small businesses, there will be a hiring bonus of £2,000 to take on a young apprentice, and the Government will pay for all the training courses for young apprentices employed by small and medium-sized enterprises. [Interruption.] Youth hubs across the country will take support out of the jobcentre to where young people are, giving them access to community-based advice, skills training, mental health support, housing advice and careers guidance. In the spirit of generosity, I will give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths).
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and for his astounding shopping list of action that he is taking, but the Conservatives can make life easy for him: if he had not put 2% on national insurance, increased the national minimum wage and used the Employment Rights Act 2025 to remove the option of zero-hours contracts, businesses in my constituency and across the country would not have been forced to remove jobs focused specifically on young people. It is this Government who are responsible for the increase in youth unemployment.
Pat McFadden
I have to disappoint the hon. Lady. If this Government were responsible, it would not be case that youth employment never in a single year reached the pre-financial crash levels when her party was in power. If this Government were responsible, we would not have seen the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training rise by a quarter of a million.
Beyond the hiring bonuses and the youth hubs, we are offering more work experience or workplace training with a guaranteed interview, designed in partnership with employers. For those who have been out of work for 18 months, we are offering a six-month paid job placement of 25 hours a week at national minimum wage rates. The reason we are doing all this is that we will not stand back and allow young people to graduate from school to a life on benefits. There has been too much of that in recent years, and to do that would be to accept the scarring effect for the rest of their lives and to accept the huge cost to the country and to businesses in lost talent.
Changing this situation should be a cause for us all, and it should certainly be a Labour cause, to give hope to the country’s young people and to show that we believe in them, we back them and we want them to have a better future. This is a generational challenge. Of course it is an issue for young people, but it is also an issue for their parents and grandparents, because they all want a better future for young people, and so do we. There is an urgency about this issue. As the population ages and net migration falls, we need the young people of this country more than ever. They are our greatest resource and our greatest asset, and an investment in them is an investment in the future for all of us.
In the volatile times that His Majesty spoke about, people look for security, and rightly so, but the future is not just about security; the future is about building opportunity too. It is about not accepting so many young people being written off and about giving them a chance to change the story of their lives. That is the message at the heart of the King’s Speech and that is what is at the heart of our youth guarantee. It is at the heart of all the changes in welfare reform that I have listed, and it will be at the heart of the changes to come, and I recommend them to the House.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I respect the Secretary of State. He has talked at some length about what is wrong with the welfare system, but the fact is that there is no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. I reckon he is stuck between a rock and a hard place: he knows the benefits bill is out of control; he knows that the public are sick of seeing their taxes go on ever higher welfare handouts; he even knows how the savings could be made because I have told him [Laughter.] They are laughing, but they are the problem. The Secretary of State also knows that the MPs behind him will have none of it. With the Prime Minister clinging on by a thread, no wonder there was no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech.
Here is the problem: failure to grip welfare puts the Government dangerously out of touch with people out there—the people he, I and all of us are here to serve. Let me read from an email that I received recently from a constituent; I will call her Sandra. She says:
“I am writing to you with utter frustration. We work so hard and for what? What is the point of working please tell me. To watch everyone else do nothing and get paid more than you! I’ve done the benefit calculation online and I’d be better off quitting my job…I’d be better off getting universal credit…how is that normal or fair?”
My constituent is far from alone. I have heard that feeling expressed time and again since I have been shadow Secretary of State—on the doorsteps, in the pub, in the supermarket, on the train and all over social media. Beyond Westminster, people are despairing. Family breadwinners are losing their jobs, homes are being sold to pay the bills and young people are losing hope. Millions have drifted out of work, and for many, claiming benefits simply makes more sense.
For those who are working, each month they are seeing their earnings disappearing in higher taxes and higher bills, with nothing left over. No wonder they are fed up. People who are doing the right thing are paying for people who have opted out. And what is Labour doing about it? Absolutely nothing. The Government are making a big mistake because the bald fact is that alarm- clock Britain is sick of paying out for “Benefits Street”.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes a powerful case, but her party was the future once, so why were all the challenges that she identifies not fixed when the Conservatives were in government? They were the ones who set up and built this welfare system.
Helen Whately
I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman, but Labour is in charge now. It has had nearly two years and nothing is changing.
You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; here are the numbers. Over 8 million people are claiming universal credit, almost 4 million people are claiming sickness benefits and over 600,000 households are getting over £32,000 a year in benefits. That is more than the take-home pay of the average British worker. Ninety-one thousand households are getting over £50,000, which is enough to put them in the top 10% of our nation’s earners, and 16,000 are getting over £60,000 in benefits every single year. A person who works would have to earn over £70,000 to have that. All that is costing the country £140 billion a year. People know when they are being taken for a ride.
Yesterday, the Prime Minister had a chance—one last chance—to hit reset, reverse those trends, get people off benefits and bring down the welfare bill. But with his back against the wall, it is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s King’s Speech contained none of that. While hundreds of thousands of people struggle to find work, the Prime Minister is only interested in protecting one job: his own. Yes, the Secretary of State can claim that he is doing something—his work experience programmes, his youth schemes, the savings-free Timms review and all that—but we all know that that is just tinkering at the edges.
The Government tried welfare reform last summer and failed. Now, they have given up altogether. They had no plan when they got into office and they still have no plan now, and that matters. For every day of inaction, hard-working taxpayers pay the price. Doing nothing costs money. The welfare bill will reach £170 billion by the end of the decade and that money could be so much better spent on things such as defence or making our streets safer or—think of this—it could be left in people’s pockets for them to spend.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman wants me to give way. Does he have a welfare savings plan? If so, let us hear it.
Sam Rushworth
I certainly do. It is this Labour Government and it is getting people off NHS waiting lists and back into work. However, it is not for me to answer the questions; my intervention was simply to give the hon. Lady another opportunity to answer the question that was put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and which she did not really answer. This broken system that she described as “Benefits Street” is a system that the Conservatives created. Why, in 14 years, did they do nothing about it? It is easy to create political anger, rather than to have dealt with it, and that is why this Government are now dealing with the Conservatives’ mess?
Helen Whately
Oh dear; what a shame. There were no ideas for savings there at all. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that will get him a job under the next Labour leader, I am afraid that he will have to keep trying.
Labour claims to be the party of working people, but the facts do not back that up. Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it arrives, and it is on track to do that again. There are now over 300,000 more people unemployed than when this Government came to power. Their policies—the jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act—have actively killed jobs. Now, as mentioned in yesterday’s King’s Speech, we have the regulating for growth Bill. You couldn’t make it up.
Employers are being asked to swim against the tide with bricks in their pockets, and now the Government are planning to make it worse. Many businesses have stopped hiring; others are letting people go. Businesses tell me that they are getting hundreds of applications for jobs that they might have struggled to fill a couple of years ago. No wonder that there are 700,000 graduates on out-of-work benefits. Youth unemployment is at over 14%. This is a disaster.
Young people want to get their lives going, earn money, pay their own way, save for a car; instead, hundreds of thousands are stuck. The Secretary of State knows that. That is why he has frantically announced a flurry of schemes at the cost of £2.5 billion. Obviously, a work placement is better than nothing, but the young people I speak to want jobs, not Government-funded work experience.
Less than two years ago, the country voted us out and Labour Members in. They have laughed and jeered at us, but they are not laughing now because they have found out that governing is hard. They promised voters change, but the only change that most people have seen is that they are poorer. Who knows what they got up to in opposition? Clearly, it was not working out what they would do if they won the election. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is chuntering. I know that yesterday he called the Leader of the Opposition “rude” when, actually, she was just telling the truth. He does not like to hear the truth. Maybe he should do a little less talking from the Front Bench and a little more listening.
Being in power is not an end in itself; what matters is what someone does with the power that voters trust them with. I am sure that many of those on the Government Benches care about our country, but caring is not enough. The question is: what are they going to do to fix it? If the King’s Speech that we are debating today tells us anything, it is that they do not know. The only things they can think of will make the situation worse; and on welfare, they have given up.
I believe in learning lessons whenever one can. One lesson that Labour Members should learn is to make good use of time in opposition; work hard, think hard and make a plan. That is what we have been doing, and that is why we have been able to set out an alternative King’s Speech, which has more in it than the actual King’s Speech. Take our plans for welfare—and to be clear, these are just our plans so far. We have a plan to reform welfare and make £23 billion in savings. We will bring back the two-child benefit cap, stop handouts to foreign nationals, stop sickness benefits for anxiety and ADHD, bring back face-to-face assessments, ban “sickfluencers”, reform fit notes and restore the household benefit cap to its original purpose of ensuring work always pays better than benefits. No more gaming the system, no more free cars for tennis elbow or acne—Britain will no longer be a cash machine for the world.
People have had enough. They can see our welfare system is not working. It is not even working for people who are seriously ill or disabled. We are not keeping our plan secret; it is all out there. Other parties are adopting our policies. Reform, for instance, has not been shy about doing so, although it has been confused, and its Members are not here today. The Secretary of State should feel free to do so too, and though the MPs behind him will hate it, we are here to help.
This is the most surreal King’s Speech debate I have ever taken part in. People out there are angry, frustrated and fed up. They can see the country is not working. They want the Government to fix it, but Labour are too busy working out who should be in charge. The saddest thing is that it will not make a difference. They can change their team captain, but they are still the same team. I have heard them cheer on taxes for farmers, family businesses and schools. I have heard them cheer for lifting the two-child cap. I have heard them argue against welfare savings. They think you fix poverty by giving out free breakfasts, paid for by people who are struggling to pay the bills themselves. Labour’s answer is always the same: tax more and spend more of other people’s money, and it is the wrong answer.
Sometimes in life you have to pick a side. We have picked one: we are on the side of people who get up each day and go to work. They are doing the right thing, and we back them. Sometimes things go wrong and people need help. That is why welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Labour have made their choice: it is to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Yesterday’s King’s Speech was a chance to fix things, and they blew it.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I will try to address some of the points she made, but I am bound to mention the recent elections. Engaging in the democratic process is important, but not all areas had elections. The turnout across the wards in Walsall and Bloxwich was an average of 38%. I want to put on record my thanks to all the councillors who served their community in Walsall and Bloxwich.
The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), thought that Walsall council was Labour-controlled, but it was not; it was controlled by the Conservatives—I know it might be slightly difficult to see constituencies from a helicopter. Some of his candidates said that they had to pay to personalise their leaflets. The £5 million gift is quite interesting as he says it is for his personal safety. I know that Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers take the safety of each and every one of us in this Chamber very seriously.
The Representation of the People Bill is a carry-over Bill, so there is still time to ensure that we have compulsory voting and that we prevent cryptocurrency and bitcoin being used for donations to political parties—say, from Thailand—particularly from donors who go under two different names.
I welcome the announcement in the Gracious Speech on improving our cyber-security defences. I do not know whether Members saw this, but there was an investigation by a consortium of journalists from The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Insider, Delfi and VSquare about a Russian school called “Department 4” that provides special training on hacking and password attacks. A hacker unit known by western Governments as Sandworm is accused of unleashing destructive cyber-attacks targeting, for example, Ukraine’s power grid, the French presidential election in 2017 and the investigation of the Salisbury poisonings. That article was published on 7 May, and it is worth reading. We need to protect our democracy from the constant drip, drip of misinformation and disinformation on online fora.
I welcome the energy independence Bill in the Gracious Speech. We have seen how we have been at the mercy of other countries, but now we are investing in renewables, which will protect our planet, roll out energy efficiency and bring down bills.
Harriet Cross
The energy independence—or dependence, as I think we can probably call it—Bill will make us more reliant on overseas imports of oil and gas. We will use oil and gas for many years because our system needs it. The Bill bans new licences in the North sea, making us more reliant on imports. Does the right hon. Lady really welcome that?
Valerie Vaz
I welcome the energy independence Bill. Let us see what is in the clauses when it is published, but the Secretary of State wants to make this country independent of outside forces. This is the first time a Government have invested so heavily in renewables. All this will get Britain working.
It is outrageous that oil companies have made massive profits and traders have bet on the outcome of war in Iran as petrol prices go up. Someone somewhere is making money, and it is not my constituents. They may not even know who is making the money, yet they blame us.
Jim Shannon
I commend the right hon. Lady for her contribution. It is really important that we look upon renewables as an option, whether we like it or not—that is the way I see it. The Government are pushing their renewables policy for England and Wales, but does she believe that we should be doing this collectively? I think that Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England should be working together on a policy that can take us forward and meet the targets, which are very important not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren.
Valerie Vaz
We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is very important that we all work together. When it comes to climate change policies, we cannot specify a particular area; they are for our whole country, and our whole planet.
Those of us who were around at the time of Brexit—and I am pleased to see an EU Bill in the King’s Speech—will remember that we were allowed to see the impact assessments only if we left our phones behind and went across the road with just a pencil and paper. There we saw the impact assessments for each sector, and how leaving the EU affected every single one; we knew how important it was. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that post-Brexit red tape and costs are driving smaller companies out of European markets. In a survey of 645 businesses, 30% indicated that they might reduce or cease trading in the EU without eased regulations. Many small businesses—64%—reported issues with customs documentation, 21% reported issues with physical inspections and 17% reported issues with product marking. To get Britain working, we need a closer relationship with our nearest market. If these small businesses close, working people and all of us lose out.
I believe in the dignity of work. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned that there is no welfare Bill in the Gracious Speech, but measures have already been taken to increase the national minimum wage, rights at work and safety at work. We will get Britain working with the new work coaches and the right to try.
I do not know whether Members have seen the television programme “The Pitt”, but in season two, a construction worker has to be taken to A&E and cannot afford his medical care, which is about $20,000. Watching that, we all know how lucky and blessed we are that we have our NHS, free at the point of need. We give people dignity when they fall ill. We take it for granted that our doctors and nurses are trained to the highest level. The NHS modernisation Bill will bring back the Department of Health and Social Care as one Department with accountability to the Secretary of State. There will not be the extra cost of NHS England; instead, there will be more money for the frontline.
I have found some money down the back of the sofa, so I hope the Chancellor is listening. Fifty million pounds has been allocated for a free school in my constituency that, on the evidence, is not needed. The National Audit Office has reported falling rolls in primary schools, and that fall in numbers will feed into secondary schools. I was told that the decision about the school was made in 2017. There was a Walsall priority education investment area programme, and the Windsor Academy Trust just so happened to have a member on the programme’s board. Surprise, surprise—it got the contract for the free school. It is like insider trading with public money. A review was undertaken, but Ministers are pressing ahead with the decision. I am not sure why, when schools like Joseph Leckie, Blue Coat academy and All Saints academy require support for their buildings, as do many other schools. Despite what the evidence shows, there will be building on Reedswood Park, which is not what local people want. It is the same with the Walsall Leather Museum, a beloved local cultural and heritage icon; the deal with the then Conservative-controlled council was a novel and contentious transaction, made against the wishes of visitors, constituents and Government policy on promoting arts and culture. The museum must be retained in its current position.
I believe in the dignity of education, which is why I welcome the Bill to raise education standards for all. We already have Best Start hubs in train—we know what a difference Sure Start made—and breakfast clubs. Anyone who has visited breakfast clubs knows that there is a glorious cacophony of excited children who have had a good meal. There are also quiet places, and I am pleased that some are taking part in the year of reading. Children are set up for the day. We cannot measure the results of a good education tomorrow; we have to see the benefits over a lifetime. I believe in the dignity of opportunity, and that is what this Government are giving people. We give people the tools to find and exploit their talents. Many do not know what their talents are when they start off in life, and they want to discover them over the years. That is how we get Britain working.
We live in a society where, if we see something we want, we can buy it, and it is with us the next day, but Governments do not operate in that way. I want to end with a story about three workers constructing a road. When they were asked what they were doing, the first one said he was breaking stones; the second one said that he was constructing a road; and the third one said that he was constructing a road that would take children to their school, or the sick to hospital. We have to show people the significance of the actions that the Government are undertaking, so that they are like the third worker. Equality, opportunity, skills, justice and tolerance take time, patience and perseverance. We need to explain to people that our Government are standing up against vested interests and for all our citizens, and that is why I support the measures in our sovereign’s Gracious Speech.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz). One would normally imagine that the King’s Speech was an opportunity to press the reset button, but I fear that Labour Members are searching for another reset button at this time. We Liberal Democrats fear that the King’s Speech is somewhat timid in its ambition, and does not drive the change that many of our communities have a thirst for.
I will focus on youth unemployment and our NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. This is a massive challenge for our society. People are three times more likely to be unemployed if they are under the age of 25. To be fair to the Government, the issue was not created on their watch, but during their watch, they built on what happened under the Conservatives, due to the pressures on the system. When I meet young people, I know that they have faced a lethal cocktail, when it comes to being work-ready. There was the covid crisis through much of their educational life; there is the pressure cooker of social media, which eats into their confidence; and finally, there is the cost of living crisis, which young people are not immune from. It may mean not only that they have less opportunity, but that mum or dad face real pressures, so there are some real challenges.
I pay tribute to organisations in the Torquay and Paignton area of Torbay that support young people, such as Eat That Frog, Sound Communities, Doorstep Arts and the South Devon college, which have all benefited from the shared prosperity fund. That ended without a replacement, and the world is therefore a poorer place, particularly for youngsters who had adverse childhood experiences and are on the margins of employment.
As we have seen, the tax on work—the national insurance hike—has really hit opportunities for employment hard. Employment in the hospitality sector has shrivelled, with the loss of more than 100,000 jobs. It is a cold hand on the heart of the west country and our hospitality industry. When I speak to organisations such as Splashdown, a water park in Paignton, they say that they have money to invest, but fear a further economic shock. Sadly, Wild Planet Trust, which managed Paignton zoo for many years, had to pass the zoo over to a Dutch company, because the national insurance hike had a massive impact on its ability to make the figures work. Other businesses across Torbay, whether it is the Livermead House hotel or the outstanding Rock Garden pub and restaurant, tell me that they face real challenges and have had to shrink the number of youngsters they take on just to meet their budgets, partly due to inflation, but also because of the national insurance hikes, so we face some real challenges there.
I say to the Government that we need to think about driving positive changes, because at the moment, it appears that they are papering over the cracks, rather than getting to the root causes of problems in our economy and helping to grow the opportunities for young people across the United Kingdom. I was pleased that the Secretary of State talked about Access to Work, and the Disability Minister often refers to Access to Work as the best kept secret, but the reality is that the system is broken. We are looking at 37 weeks for decisions on Access to Work applications, and people are losing job offers. The No Limits café in Newton Abbot, which served my constituents from Torbay, closed after a lack of liquidity in its finances because of delays in payments. We need to ensure that there are no behind-the-scene cuts to Access to Work through the Government failing to make inflationary increases to what people can claim, as was highlighted by the Disability News Service only last week.
The Liberal Democrats fought the last general election on a pledge to clean up our waters, be they seas or rivers; the cost of living crisis; and the NHS. In Torbay and across the whole of Devon, we are looking at hundreds of redundancies in that service. The argument we regularly hear from the Government is that they have put up national insurance rates in order to invest, but we have had hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts to our services in Devon. That means fewer job opportunities for our people in Devon, which is hitting some of our most deprived communities.
In conclusion, we need to back our communities. We Liberal Democrats believe that nobody should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity, and we need to set the foundations for supporting communities. However, the communities we really need to work with much more closely are our friends on the other side of the channel; we need to build stronger working relationships with our European partners to grow our economy.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and to speak in a debate on work in support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. There are few Secretaries of State who have a work ethic as strong as his, and I thank him for that.
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address. The phrase “Get Britain working” goes to the heart of the challenges facing both this Government and the country, and I will start by welcoming today’s growth figures.
Debates such as this and the programmes of any Government will make no difference without stability as a foundation. I say kindly to colleagues on all sides of the House that economic stability matters. After the revolving door of Ministers and policies in the past decade, stability is not just a nice-to-have, but a must-have. From economic stability we can create the opportunities, fix our public services and share prosperity across our country.
Nothing goes to the heart of Labour’s mission to grow our economy more than the dignity of work. Nothing will propel that growth more quickly, more justly and more sustainably than creating the jobs and opportunities to sit squarely behind the programme of this Government and the policies put forward in the Loyal Address. But equally, nothing says more about the challenge the Government face and the opportunities the Government need to pick up than the 70% drop in apprenticeships we inherited after the past decade of Conservative rule.
These are challenges writ large in my constituency of Peterborough. In 2023-24 apprenticeship figures hit the lowest level in the six years for which data is available, with a fall in achievements across all apprenticeship levels. That not just an economic failure, but a moral failure that we inherited from the previous Government. Therefore, I welcome the focus in the King’s Speech on creating jobs, support and opportunities for young people to succeed. This is an agenda that builds on the existing achievements around apprenticeships and youth employment.
Over the past couple of years I have spent as a Member of this House, I have met businesses, education providers and young people who have been shut out of opportunities for too long because of the bureaucratic nature of our skills system and the apprenticeship levy. It is this Government who have the opportunity to change that. The DWP has itself described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot, so the Government’s moves in the King’s Speech are welcome. I am pleased to put on record that Peterborough and Cambridgeshire were chosen for one of the first pilots for the youth guarantee, with up to £10 million over two years to support young people into education, employment and training. We get the welfare bill down by increasing opportunities and backing the next generation of taxpayers, something that this Government are focused on.
Within the city I represent, we have the appetite to meet the Government’s ambition to address those issues. Peterborough College’s JobSmart provision is a great example of working with stakeholders—the DWP, Peterborough Council for Voluntary Service and the combined authority—to get more people into work. The youth employment hub, opened recently at Peterborough United, funded by the Government’s youth guarantee and opened by our Secretary of State and mayor, is a physical example of the bricks and mortar investment in our young people, as is the new Green Technology Centre opened at Peterborough College last year. This takes traditional apprenticeships and training opportunities, and updates them for new green skills such as EV mechanics, heat pump installation and sustainable construction skills.
I welcome the expansion of the youth guarantee and the focus on expanding work experience and guaranteed employment for young people; the jobs guarantee, our promise of a work placement for all, with costs paid for by the Government; the youth jobs grant, a £3,000 grant for businesses that hire a young person who has been on universal credit for six months; and a £2,000 grant for small businesses that take on an apprentice. For cities like mine it could be transformative, creating opportunities and getting more people into work.
I look forward to the legislative programme that will follow changes recommended in the Timms and Milburn reviews. It cannot be right that we write off so many young people as unfit to work, with a life on benefits. It also addresses something bigger: a greater inequality for too long between vocational and university education. This is not just about policy; it is cultural. For too long, we have made apprenticeships a second-class option. We have created a bias in our schools that favours university over apprenticeships. That, in turn, has been compounded by the destruction, under the previous Government, of careers advice and work experience for young people in cities such as mine. For a working city such as Peterborough, that legacy has been a disaster for people and for economic growth.
I welcome our new university in the city, Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough, which does things differently. It has a focus on local students, business relationships and degree apprenticeships, growing our talent in the city, so that the talent of our city can grow the economy for this country as a whole.
I also want to talk about jobs for the future and how we build jobs for the next generation of young people coming through. One third of people working in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are employed in occupations that will be directly affected by the transition to the green economy. Major local companies such as National Gas and Caterpillar are already driving innovation in sustainable industries. Peterborough sits at the heart of the national gas transition and hydrogen networks. We could truly be the King’s Cross of the green industrial revolution for hydrogen. This transition from blue collar to green collar jobs and skills is one of the hallmarks of this Government’s achievements so far. I welcome the £800 million private sector investment that National Gas recently put into Peterborough and my region, and its choice of Peterborough as its new regional headquarters. We have the talent in our city which allows those jobs for the future to be grown, with Government support.
I will say one more thing—a friendly piece of support, but I would like to stretch my elbows a bit—which is that what I know perfectly about my city is the potential of the young people who live in it. I also know the struggles that Peterborough college and further education have had to put up with. I welcome the investment the Government have put into further education, but I also know that my colleges could support many more small businesses and many more young people if they had the physical resources to do so. We are on the journey and we are making the investment to change that, but if we could do it faster, we in our city could deliver more for young people, but also for the Government’s ambitions.
The appetite is there from learners, providers and businesses. The drive exists to meet Labour’s ambitions for new homes, clean energy and infrastructure, but we need the means to deliver it. It is a privilege to speak in support of the Loyal Address. We can get the job done with the Government’s support and with the Prime Minister’s support.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Businesses in my constituency are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a Government who stop making it harder to employ people, harder to grow and harder to invest. Right now, too many feel that Labour is taking the country in the wrong direction. Through my business club and regular conversations with employers across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I keep hearing the same thing: costs are rising, confidence is falling and businesses are becoming more cautious about taking people on. In a coastal constituency, that really matters. Our local economy depends on innovation powered by fantastic small and medium-sized enterprises and on the entrepreneurs who pour everything into growing them. These are not massive corporations with endless room to absorb new costs. They are businesses working hard to keep people employed, keep high streets going and keep our communities alive outside the summer season.
James and Marcus Fenton, who run Meridian Medical in Littlehampton, employ around 130 people locally in skilled manufacturing jobs. It is a family-run business and a living wage employer. It should be exactly the kind of business the Government are backing. Meridian is a British success story, exporting highly specialised medical devices around the world, but it is now becoming one of the businesses that tells me the UK is becoming a harder place in which to invest and grow.
I also heard recently from Mark and Liz Warom, the founders of TEMPLESPA, a science-led, Mediterranean-inspired premium skincare brand run by my constituents, whose products I highly recommend. Their clear view is that firms are becoming
“more cautious on hiring and investment due to rising costs.”
They are worried about rising employment costs, higher borrowing costs, growing compliance burdens and energy prices that remain far too high. That is the real-word impact of the Government’s decisions. When businesses stop hiring, young people pay the price first. The first job in a café, the apprenticeship, or the hospitality role in a pub or hotel all give young people the chance to get on the ladder and earn their own money.
The Government talk constantly about growth, but businesses in constituencies such as mine are asking a very simple question: when will this Government stop making growth harder? If we really want to get Britain working again, we need to start backing the businesses that actually create the jobs.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
On behalf of the people of Erewash, I give thanks to His Majesty the King for his Gracious Speech to the entire nation yesterday. This King’s Speech recognises the simple fact that Britain cannot afford to leave its future at the mercy of global markets, hostile states or instability abroad.
For too long, Governments assumed that the hand of the free market would always act in Britain’s interests. For too long, we outsourced vital industries without considering the long-term consequences and underrated the ability of our businesses to export physical goods to the world. We have been globally pigeonholed strictly as a post-industrial service economy. When dictators spark conflict abroad, British families feel the impact through rising bills and a falling standard of living. Working people in Erewash know that all too well. Britain has been left exposed because we failed to build our own energy resilience.
Ilkeston in Erewash is proud of its iron manufacturing heritage, yet we have watched industries like iron and steel decline as production has moved overseas in search of cheaper labour and lower standards. Steel is not just another commodity; its manufacture is strategic infrastructure, in and of itself—infrastructure that underpins our national defence capabilities. That is why it is unacceptable that British Steel has been let down by overseas owners who do not act in Britain’s best interests. We cannot outsource our national security any longer.
Harriet Cross
I completely agree that we must protect British industries such as steel and oil and gas refining—they are all vital. The carbon tax is a reason why these industries are declining and moving overseas. From what the hon. Member is saying, it feels like he agrees that we should get rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct?
Adam Thompson
I am not sure the hon. Member and I are necessarily on the same page. I was focusing purely on the renationalisation of the steel industry, which is an important part of the King’s Speech. Indeed, in this King’s Speech, the Government have recognised that markets alone cannot protect the national interest. Sometimes the state must step in to safeguard jobs and to keep Britain safe. Nationalising British Steel means protecting almost 100,000 jobs from unfair foreign competition. I am proud that this Government are going to bring British Steel fully back into public ownership.
I have spoken to many businesses and business owners in Erewash, and they report that they have struggled since we left the European single market. They have faced mountains of paperwork and massive delays at our borders. These hurdles do not just frustrate exporters; they directly impact their ability to turn a profit. I am glad that in the European partnership Bill we seek to solve that problem, by streamlining trade and making it quicker, cheaper and simpler to do business with Europe.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Would he agree that the European partnership Bill is particularly important to many small businesses in vital supply chains in the automotive sector and other key areas of our economy, which will benefit directly from that well thought-through measure?
Adam Thompson
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am going to talk momentarily about one of the businesses in my constituency. When I discuss this topic, I particularly think of Cluny Lace in Ilkeston—not in the automotive sector, but a brilliant high-end lace manufacturer. It was workers from Ilkeston who produced Princess Kate’s wedding dress and Queen Anne’s tablecloth. Cluny Lace is an internationally renowned producer and exporter of high-quality British goods, supplying the European high-end garment manufacturing industry, in particular.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The hon. Member mentioned small businesses and delays at the border. Is it not true that the problem of double tariffs for small businesses when importing from third countries and then into the European Union will only be solved by us rejoining the customs union?
Adam Thompson
The hon. Member raises a point that I was about to touch on. When I met Charles Mason, the managing director of Cluny Lace, he told me at length about how post-Brexit export and import difficulties have caused him immeasurable pain, because the lace that we make in Ilkeston can only be dyed in France, where they have professionals with the appropriate expertise. Moving the lace to France for that part of the process, then back to England for further processing before sale, and then often back into Europe, has become all but impossible for his company. What was once a frictionless part of Cluny’s manufacturing process and sales chain, is now a crippling quagmire of tariffs and business model-breaking roadblocks.
For businesses across Erewash, whether they are producers, suppliers or distributors, a closer trading relationship with Europe means less time navigating bureaucracy and more time growing their businesses. Businesses in Erewash have also suffered from increased energy costs. If we want lower bills for working people, we must break our dependence on volatile global gas prices. British families will not see meaningful long-term reductions in energy costs until we produce more clean, affordable energy, here at home.
In Erewash, such a transition is not theoretical; it is obviously visible on our local skyline. Sawley, in my constituency, on the banks of the River Trent, lies adjacent to the former Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish). Ratcliffe was the UK’s last coal-fired power station; it closed its doors for the final time in September 2024.
As we move forward, my task as the MP for Erewash is not simply to help the country move on from coal, but to ensure that Erewash is at the heart of what comes next, and that my constituents benefit from the new investment, the new jobs, and the cleaner, more secure energy future that this Government are delivering through this King’s Speech. That is why I am excited about the Government’s energy independence Bill, which will shield our economy from the fossil-fuel price shocks that have caused half of the UK’s recessions since the 1970s.
This Government are bringing industry back to Britain, with well-paid engineers working in clean energy, powering steel production in the east midlands and across the country. On the ground, that means that families in my constituency—and the constituencies of hon. Members across the House—will no longer wonder how events thousands of miles away affect their bills or their ability to book a holiday.
Families in Erewash voted for change in 2024. They are tired of limited opportunities and of feeling vulnerable every time the world becomes more unstable. They want more control over their lives. With this King’s Speech, we are bringing industry home, investing in British jobs, and putting control of our future back into the hands of working people.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is an honour and a pleasure to take part in this King’s Speech debate. I am a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and I look to grow our economy and get Britain working, with a special focus on the green economy and its many opportunities and challenges.
The regulating for growth Bill promises a framework that supports innovation, yet current proposals from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero risk doing the opposite. Under the plans for the new home energy model, any technology other than a heat pump or heat battery could automatically receive an energy performance certificate rating of D. In practice, that means that innovative zero-emissions systems would be treated the same as fossil-fuel heating. That would make many new technologies commercially unviable and leave consumers without practical alternatives where heat pumps are not suitable. The plans are already affecting innovative businesses in Bath, including Luthmore, which has developed a pioneering, zero-emission alternative to the gas combi boiler. Combined with exclusion from support schemes, VAT barriers and delays in the assessment process, such policies risk pushing Britain’s clean tech innovators overseas instead of backing them at home.
I am encouraged by the announcement of an energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and now the war in the middle east have laid bare the need to go much further and faster to secure our energy supply, which means getting off the rollercoaster of global prices. In the midst of an energy price crisis, cheap, home-produced energy has never been more vital. There is huge nationwide potential for growth in small-scale renewable energy generation, especially by community groups that can distribute the benefits locally. Nobody in the House will be surprised to hear me say that we Liberal Democrats are the greatest champions of community energy.
Community energy puts people at the heart of their energy future by allowing them to generate, manage and own their own local renewable energy projects. These are projects run by the community, for the community. One of many pioneering projects is Bath and West Community Energy in my constituency, which, because of surplus income from renewable energy projects, has been able to donate to more than 100 community projects across Bath in the past decade.
What really worries me, when hearing in the ESNZ Committee about proposals for community energy and the way the Government look at that, is that it is only about an ownership model, rather than a beneficiary model. Community energy should also benefit consumers of energy, not just the energy producers. I get it—it is about both. It is not one or the other, but we must focus on ensuring that the community benefits from community-generated energy.
Community energy projects also strengthen energy security by diversifying sources of energy, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. In 2025, community energy groups saved people almost £2 million on their fuel bills due to energy efficiency upgrades. However, community energy schemes currently generate less than 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. With the right support, that could increase by 20 times, powering more than 2 million homes and saving more than 2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.
However, there are two main blockers to the rapid expansion of community energy projects. The first major barrier is a shortfall in Government funding to scale up energy generation projects. While the £15 million Great British community energy fund is welcome, it has led to minimal growth. I hope that through the energy independence Bill more funding will be allocated to these projects so that their potential can be realised.
Another major barrier facing community energy projects is the prohibitive cost of accessing energy markets to sell the electricity that they generate. This is what I mean: there are now more than 600 community energy groups operating across the UK, yet not a single one is able to sell power directly to local customers. Although it is legally possible, the various regulatory burdens and obligations associated with energy licensing rules make the cost of selling power to local people impossibly high.
In the 2022-23 Session, legislation was brought forward to unlock the potential of community energy and selling directly to local people. The proposal was supported by the current Secretary of State and more than 320 MPs across the House. We have a Secretary of State for Energy who supports reform of local energy supply, but we are still waiting for the legislation to make that reform a reality.
We Liberal Democrats welcome the regulatory changes promised in the local power plan, in particular the commitments from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to establish a route to market for unlocking a smart local energy system. However, if community energy initiatives want to plan ahead with confidence, the Government must provide clear detail on how and when these reforms will be implemented. One option is to untangle completely the licensed supplier model that we currently have and to ask Ofgem to establish a local supply licence. The proportioned costs could create the ability for community schemes to sell to local customers if they wish and make a viable business model. The other option is to have current licensed suppliers offering contracts for the export of community energy to local residents.
Whichever route the Government choose, we need to see action. We must see the necessary regulatory changes in the energy independence Bill to establish a workable model for local energy supply so that community energy products can scale up, become commercially viable and play their full part in delivering a cleaner and more resilient energy system.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), whose comments on community energy I will come to in a moment.
It is a real honour to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address on behalf of my constituents in North Northumberland, where the electricity grid is owned by Warren Buffett, the water system is overseen from Hong Kong and most of the buses are run out of Miami. Across many decades and multiple Governments, we have made ourselves a society where everything can be bought and sold for the right price, but the things that matter are often slipping away.
We heard renewed commitments in the King’s Speech from the Government to improve our economic security, whether by ensuring a fair deal for working people, responding to the Timms and Milburn reviews on welfare or delivering an energy independence Bill. I welcome those commitments. According to the pollster More in Common, seven in 10 Britons feel that our country is “on the wrong track”, and
“many are starting to conclude that the problems…lie…with the system itself.”
This is a long-term trend. The job of the Government must therefore be to cast a vision of the future that transforms the status quo and then implements it. But what does that future look like, and how does it relate to the economic issues of work, welfare and energy?
The late Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said:
“We are each a letter in God’s book. Like a letter, we have no meaning on our own, but joined together in families, communities and nations, we form sentences and paragraphs and become part of God’s story.”
Even if we do not share his religious views, Sacks’s message is clear: life must be lived together. Sacks called this a covenant. We are used to talking in terms of a social contract—a phrase we hear a lot—but the social contract asks, “What am I getting out of this?”, while the social covenant asks, “What do we owe each other?”. We therefore need to legislate for a society that helps us to think about what we owe each other.
Work remains central to the task of transforming the country. This is one of the Government’s top priorities—we are, after all, the Labour party. Work is also the main way that we contribute to our shared national life. However, our national relationship with work is threatened. One million young people are not in education, employment or training, and AI is threatening a period of disruption that we have not seen since the days of the spinning jenny. We have done many worthwhile things already to improve work; the Employment Rights Act 2025 was a landmark piece of legislation. However, we need to go further to restore the way that we see and do work.
The UK is below average among major nations for in-work training, so we should require employers to invest in their employees’ skills with training opportunities. We should also incentivise a stakeholder economy in which more staff share in the value that they help to create, and replicate the European model of giving ordinary workers seats on company boards. In short, the success of the company should be linked to the thriving of its employees. The steel industry nationalisation Bill creates the perfect opportunity for us to model that for the rest of the economy. Working together in a covenantal Britain, we can see that change.
Covenant also speaks to our social security system. According to the last data available, 24 million people in the UK are receiving some form of benefits, including pensions. The total cost of our welfare system is greater than our income tax take, and that strain is weakening our togetherness and the idea of fairness on which the system relies. We need a new Beveridge report for the 21st century. The original report identified—in anachronistic language—the five giants as want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. I suggest that the giants of 2026 are: poverty, worklessness, isolation and hopelessness.
I welcome the Government’s upcoming response to the Milburn and Timms reviews. We are a party that will always support the most vulnerable in our society, and it is right and just to support those who cannot work or who need help to work. We need a welfare system that is based on contribution and in which people are delighted to say, “Yes, I am my brother’s keeper.”
Finally, I welcome the Government’s commitment to energy security and the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech, but without a covenantal relationship between Government and community, we will lose support for the green transition. King’s College London has found that the share of those who support net zero sooner than 2050 has halved since 2021. Meanwhile, energy price rises are already affecting parts of our country and our economy, as we all know. When the first American missile was launched into Iran, some of my constituents’ heating and hot water prices doubled. A covenantal response to that is to say, “Let’s work with local communities to meet their needs now instead of pressing on towards jam tomorrow,” so if a wind farm is created in the vicinity of a community with the consent or ownership of that community, the community should benefit financially.
We must also acknowledge that many of our constituents will be reliant on oil and gas for decades to come. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, 14,000 properties are not on the gas grid. Let us rebuild our energy security and supply using a realistic mix of options, and let us leave everything on the table so that it serves everyone.
In conclusion, the dead end of unfettered market capitalism has been broken by its own failure to deliver decent jobs and affordable energy. We all now need our future to be built on something that brings both economic security and restored social relationships. In short, we need covenant. The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. Nye Bevan once said:
“We have to build a party that is capable of expressing the desires of the people who sent us here—not just their immediate desires, but their deeper longings for a just and generous society.”
The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy. To do this, all of us —Government, party and country—need to commit to a new social covenant.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
They say that a week is a long time in politics, yet during this short debate we have seen the Health Secretary leave the Government. Amid the open revolt and factional infighting, one thing remains abundantly clear: whoever will be steering the ship, this Labour Government lack both the courage and the political capital to confront the spiralling cost of welfare. We hear endlessly about the soft left, the hard left and the moderate left, but the story time and again with every Labour Government is that they eventually run out of everyone else’s money.
The numbers are stark. We have a welfare bill projected to rise to over £103 billion by the end of the decade—a figure that continues to surpass the revenues that the Government receive in income tax—and more than 4 million people are now claiming personal independence payment. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise, and nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. This is simply unsustainable. The Conservatives firmly believe in a safety net for those who genuinely need support, but what we have today is no longer a safety net; it is a fishing net that traps people rather than encourages them to stand on their own two feet.
I have seen the value of this support at first hand. I grew up in a single-parent household with my two younger brothers. My mother could not read or write. I can remember us turning the sofa upside down at the end of the week to get loose change to put in the electricity meter. Labour Members often think that we on the Conservative Benches are far too privileged to understand real poverty, but that is simply not the case. Many of us on these Benches have experienced poverty in our own upbringings, and because of this lived experience we know where support is needed and where it is being abused.
Sadly, we face a culture today in which some treat dependency as a way of life—a badge of honour, even—and in which, for generation after generation, families are boarding the benefits gravy train. We have all heard stories—perhaps in conversations on doorsteps during the recent local elections—of people claiming every benefit going, while ordering a Deliveroo every night and purchasing the latest 60-inch television. Those are luxuries that millions of hard-working constituents have to think twice about before buying.
In our alternative King’s Speech, we have set out sweeping reforms that would end this welfare madness. Our welfare reform Bill would restore fairness, ensure that support goes to those who truly need it and ensure value for taxpayers’ money. We believe in the dignity of work and personal responsibility. We will ensure that benefits are restricted to British citizens, so that people coming to this country cannot simply ride on the coat-tails of British taxpayers. We will ensure that PIP is not awarded on the basis of lower-level health conditions that—let me put this bluntly—are just some of the normal challenges of everyday life that we all have to contend with.
We will ensure that the people of 6 am Britain—the families who have to tighten their belts because of the spiralling cost of living—do not simply have to pay for the children of those who choose not to work. We will ensure, through the introduction of a household benefit cap, that people are always better off in work than out of work. These reforms are essential if we want a fair society and economic prosperity for our country.
However, welfare reform must go hand in hand with reforms that encourage businesses to get people back into work. That is why I am proud that the Conservative party has set out exactly what we will do to get Britain working again, and our approach is a direct contrast to the actions of the current Government. From the hiking of jobs-destroying national insurance to the burdensome regulations introduced in the Employment Rights Act, these rising costs are forcing businesses to think twice before hiring extra staff. This Government have become a barrier to economic growth. Labour is no longer the party that its name suggests; it has become the welfare party.
As our alternative King’s Speech makes clear, we would repeal damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, from the hospitality “banter ban” to the absurd qualifying periods, in order to give businesses the confidence to hire once again. We would back our private sector—the actual wealth creators—and we would not bow to trade union demands.
Most importantly, our plan would tackle youth unemployment. It is shameful that one third of graduates are not in graduate-level jobs and youth unemployment stands at a staggering 18%, and that this Government seem utterly uninterested in doing anything about it. A future Conservative Government, on the other hand, would back our young people by expanding the number of high-quality apprenticeships under our apprenticeship guarantee and by showing young people that there are multiple training routes—not just through a degree—to build a successful career and life.
This Government have no plan for welfare reform, no plan for jobs, and no plan for growth, but the Conservatives do. Our alternative King’s Speech shows that we are serious about governing, restoring fairness and rewarding hard work, and about getting Britain working again.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
His Majesty’s Gracious Speech announced a wide range of economic measures and fully recognised the vital importance of economic security, but I think we all understand that for that security to be meaningful, it must reach into every part of our country and every community. With that in mind, I make my comments from the perspective of Rossendale and Darwen, recognising that we have much in common with many other post-industrial towns and rural areas—places characterised by small towns and villages with close-knit communities, which have too often felt ignored and left behind.
This Government have consistently put growth at the heart of their agenda and have rightly identified many of the actions that we need to see. We have heard announcements on Green Book reform, £113 billion of infrastructure investment pipelines, youth job guarantees, Pathways to Work, the industrial strategy, pothole funds, Pride in Place, and many more measures, yet when I knock on doors in Rossendale and Darwen, people are still asking, “Where is the change that we were promised?”
When writing this speech, I looked back at others I have made over the last two years on this subject. In those speeches, I called for more to be done to address issues that are specific to small towns like mine: a move away from the orthodoxy that favours cities and mayoral authorities, where growth is easiest to define; a procurement strategy that insists on buying British; an industrial strategy that understands small and medium-sized businesses; and policies that reward grafters, entrepreneurs and risk takers. Frankly, I could have used the same text today, because the issues remain. We have not moved nearly far enough or fast enough to meet the needs of communities like mine. Last week’s local election results show us that starkly.
There has been much talk about the changes that this Government need to make. We must grasp this moment to fundamentally rethink our approach to growth strategy; incremental will just not cut it, nor will being city-centric. We cannot justify Government investment flowing into the likes of Manchester while the towns of Lancashire do not even appear in the picture. We need to learn the lessons of the last two years and do better. If we are going to deliver growth and jobs for places like Rossendale and Darwen with the urgency our electorate demands, we must commit to a scale of action that matches the challenge. That means being willing to take risks, to demand joined-up action across Government and to do the hard things on a scale that impacts every community.
What does that mean in practical terms? First, on infrastructure, we have to recognise that on its own, a city-centric approach will do little for communities like mine. Consider Northern Powerhouse Rail. It is a great project that will transform connectivity between cities and major towns across the region, and it is being presented in some quarters as a transformational project for the whole north-west, but when I ask the question, “What will this do for Rossendale and Darwen or any small towns along the route?”, the answer is, “Not much.” Rossendale will remain the only local authority area in the north with no commuter rail link, despite being only 15 miles from Manchester. Darwen will continue to have a patchy and unreliable occasional service. That is why we need to change the way in which we think about such projects, and be far more ambitious in our goals—for instance by thinking in terms of growth corridors, with the requirement that these big projects bring a positive impact to every community. That would include physical infrastructure and connections for small towns as an integral part of the projects, as well as an insistence on buying locally.
We need a similar approach to industrial strategy. In Rossendale and Darwen, we have many great businesses, including creative and innovative manufacturers, but none employs more than 500 people and few fall into what have been identified as national priority sectors. That is entirely typical of many places across our country, where such businesses employ the bulk of the local workforce. We need to get behind those businesses, and have a much more comprehensive and urgent industrial strategy that truly understands their challenges and opportunities. First and foremost, the strategy must embed “buy British” at its heart, using the full power of Government procurement to support our businesses. Frankly, the lack of a procurement Bill in the King’s Speech is a concern that I hope we can address.
We need to bring down business costs, particularly energy, and open up access to risk-tolerant finance, and we need a tax and regulatory system that encourages employment, enterprise, risk and productivity. Alongside that, we need to restore our town centres and community spaces. Pride in Place is a great programme, and I am proud to have brought this investment to Rossendale, Rawtenstall and Darwen. That £20 million over 10 years will enable us to make significant changes, but for every town that has this support, there are many others that do not. Surely the case for investment in Bacup, Stacksteads and Whitworth is just as strong. In any case, we will enjoy the full value of this investment only if it is aligned with improvements in transport, skills and infrastructure that address the underlying constraints on our local economies. We should build on what works, and go bigger and wider with Pride in Place. We should front-load investment to increase the speed and scale of change, while ensuring that we are delivering the infrastructure that can release the full potential of places such as Rossendale and Darwen.
I could list lots of other areas for action, but fundamentally, we need a change in mindset. For too long, geography has meant destiny. Small towns such as Bacup, Whitworth, Rawtenstall and Darwen have been at the back of the queue, left behind as big towns and cities shout louder and offer seemingly easy solutions. We need to break that cycle and ask, “What does this do for our towns?” That question should be embedded in every investment strategy and decision process.
We must be willing to commit to strategies that insist on doing the hard things while providing the procurement policy, fiscal flexibility, regulatory framework and sustained leadership to drive delivery. We must learn the lessons of the past, and not allow established orthodoxies and a desire for easy wins to stand in the way. We simply cannot afford to fail the communities that need us most.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
One of the main barriers to people getting back into work is poor mental health. We have very long mental health waiting lists, with a million people on them. Many of those people would rather be in work, and it is also good for their mental health to be in work.
I want to highlight a initiative in Winchester that I have brought up before. It has won awards, including NHS awards. It involves Winchester citizens advice providing a person for two days a week in the local mental health unit, which is called Melbury Lodge, to help in-patients with all their life admin. People who are suffering from mental health issues, especially in-patients, are more likely than average to have debt, housing issues and other life admin problems such that, when they get discharged, they are back in the same situation as when they were admitted in the first place, and their mental health can deteriorate.
The initiative is fantastic. It has been proven, through published peer-reviewed papers, that the people involved have a shorter duration of stay, are less likely to be readmitted and are more likely to engage with social services once they are discharged. Ministers will find it particularly interesting that every £1 spent on the project saves the NHS £14.08 through cost avoidance. I have met the team several times. Rolling it out in every mental health unit in the country seems like an absolute no-brainer. Given that it saves so much money and that the saving is so quick, there is no question that it cannot be afforded. This is not an investment that takes five, six or seven years to pay off; the savings are seen within months.
I urge the Government to look at the project. I would be keen to have a meeting with the relevant Minister—whoever the relevant Minister turns out to be—and the team who are running this project, Winchester citizens advice and the Melbury Lodge unit. It could be hugely impactful in helping many thousands of people to get back into work. That is good for the staff, the patients and the taxpayer.
We were heartened that the previous King’s Speech specifically stated that mental health would be treated as seriously as physical health. We were disappointed there was not a specific mention of mental health in this year’s King’s Speech. We urge the Government to remember to put the issue at the forefront of their efforts to try to get people back into work.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for her brilliant opening contribution to the debate on the Gracious Speech.
I acknowledge that this Government have delivered—from renters’ rights and ending no-fault evictions to the new deal for workers, education, Great British Railways, bringing NHS waiting lists down, lifting children out of poverty, and work on violence against women and girls. All that good work deserves to be talked about and celebrated, but it must also be acknowledged that people need more. They are desperate for change following decades of neglect. Unfortunately, the measures in the King’s Speech, although they are in the main welcome, are not the bold moves that we need. We need a Government who will tackle extreme wealth inequality in the UK and deliver for communities, and we need to go back to giving people hope.
We need to ensure that our Government have received the message from the local elections last week: people are unhappy with the direction we have taken and, as it stands, we do not have the trust of our communities. It was devastating to see the two councils from my constituency, South Tyneside council and Gateshead council, which Labour have held for 50 years, fall to Reform. We let those communities down, and we need to deal with that.
We must build on the things that we have delivered, such as the new deal for workers, instead of focusing on divisive commitments such as the digital ID scheme and the removal of jury trials—two things I remain opposed to. When we move away from our Labour values, we let the country down, let our communities down and, scarily, leave a gap for the far right to move into and exploit people’s fears, desperations and legitimate need for jobs, housing and security.
Housing, security and jobs are particularly needed in the north-east. My constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East is commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow crusade—the march for jobs—yet my residents are facing the same problems as those marchers. For decades, successive Governments have neglected the north-east, and the north-east made its feelings clear last week.
We need a Government who take action to improve our communities. The Labour party is the party of the people and the party of workers, and that is the Government we need to see now—a Government who deliver for people and who deliver change that communities can see. We need actions, not words. We need to drastically redistribute the wealth, so that it is invested in communities. We need to rebuild trust locally and nationally, with bold and ambitious policies and action.
There are some highlights in the Gracious Speech, including the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill, the Hillsborough law, legislation to clean up the water industry, the nationalisation of steel, the £45 billion to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, the legislation to support small businesses and stop late payments, and the licensing for private hires—all subjects that I have spoken about many times in this place and at events in Parliament. But we need to do much more than this tinkering at the edges. We need to legislate to bring water back into public ownership. We need to stop the scandal of water company bonuses. It is an absolute disgrace that they are profiting from the pollution they are dumping into our waters.
It is also welcome to see proposals around education for all, but we must ensure that any reforms to special educational needs and disabilities do not push children into a one-size-fits-all approach. The SEND consultation ends next week, and we must listen to the views that are submitted. The consultation responses need to be read thoroughly, not filtered by AI. We must have a genuine consultation and ensure that the reforms do not harm SEND children with the most complex needs.
Around 1.7 million children are now identified as having special educational needs. I know that MPs are all being inundated with correspondence from constituents, and many of us have held our own consultation meetings. In my constituency, I have 5% more children with SEND than the national average, and the same issues have been raised in every one of my local consultations. My constituents are worried about their loss of legal rights and their children being forced into mainstream schooling.
Sense, the national disability charity, has said that while inclusive mainstream education should be strengthened, that must not come at the expense of specialist provision. Disabled children with complex needs must continue to have access to specialist settings where those are the most appropriate environments for them to thrive. I completely agree with Sense, and it is evident that many families are struggling to find adequate provision. I have held drop-ins in Parliament with people from across the political spectrum, and I want to thank Rory Bremner and Nick Ferrari for coming into Parliament to meet young people and their families and to listen to their stories.
The last Government described the SEND system as broken, and of course they did a lot of the breaking with their destruction of local government budgets, but the system has been neglected for decades. It is in desperate need of reform and investment. We can and must get this right to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.
To that end, while I welcome the Gracious Speech, I will be bringing forward a simple amendment highlighting the difference that the right placement makes to a child with complex needs and the costs to families, life outcomes and the state when we get that placement wrong. We must ensure that those children with the most complex needs who cannot be placed into mainstream schools do not lose out with these reforms. I have written to the Secretary of State on this issue and would be happy to meet at any time to discuss it.
I have an autism diagnosis, as do some of my family. It is something those close to me are aware of, but is something I have not spoken about publicly before. I know the impact it has when you are failed in school. This matters personally and politically to me and is something I care deeply about.
I am hugely pleased to see in the Gracious Speech a commitment to bring forward a draft Bill banning abusive conversion practices. While it has appeared in many a Gracious Speech, I firmly believe that the Minister will bring forward a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices as soon as possible.
Wera Hobhouse
Along with the hon. Member and other colleagues, I have been campaigning on bringing in a trans-inclusive conversion therapy Bill to ban that awful practice. Will she support me in asking for a proper timeline for when the legislation will be introduced?
Kate Osborne
Yes, setting out a timeline would be most helpful. I recognise the work of the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), and the time she has taken to speak to me over the last few months and even this morning, and she has committed to setting out a clear timeline as soon as possible.
In every meeting I have had with the Minister on this issue, I have been impressed by her determination to finally deliver this legislation and by her understanding of the harm caused by continued delay. My one concern on the delay, which I have already raised, is that this is the only legislation in the King’s Speech where the promise is for a draft Bill rather than a Bill. We absolutely need to get this right, but we must not give people an excuse to delay and frustrate this vitally needed legislation.
Earlier this year, I was proud to deliver a report at the Council of Europe calling on member states to ban conversion practices. I will continue to work with the Minister to take both the spirit and framework details of that report into consideration as the legislation is developed. Although I am happy with that particular commitment, we need bold, new, ambitious policies that people will feel in their pockets. People need to see change in their communities. People need action, not another year of delays and U-turns. Labour needs to do what it was elected to do: govern in the interests of workers and our communities and deal with the obscene levels of wealth inequality in the UK.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
I rise to address the issue of getting Britain working again, but also to make some observations on this Government’s chaotic performance since July 2024. The focus of today’s debate is on employment, and I will come to that, but so many Labour Members seem utterly preoccupied with the employment of one person: the Prime Minister. No vacancy exists, apparently, but at least one, maybe two, possibly three candidates may apply for said position. I am happy to provide a reference, but it will not be a good one.
This shambolic and unstable Government are in stark contrast to the political stability that we have enjoyed in Scotland since 2007. We will continue to enjoy that stability for another five years following our landslide victory in the Scottish parliamentary election on 8 June —a landslide victory bigger than Labour’s in July 2024, with 58 of our successful applicants being sworn in today in Edinburgh.
Prior to the election and over the last six months in particular, so many Labour MPs from Scotland used their valuable question time in this Chamber to attack the SNP. So many of them told us that the people of Scotland would reject the SNP, but last Thursday, the people of Scotland rejected the Labour party, rejected the Reform party and, indeed, rejected the notion that this is a United Kingdom.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member said that the victory secured by the SNP at the elections earlier this month was bigger than the victory secured by this Government in 2024. Could he clarify whether the SNP won more or less seats at that election than it previously held? Has the SNP’s majority increased or decreased?
Seamus Logan
The plain fact of the matter, if we look at the percentages, is that it was a bigger landslide. Labour Members would also do well to take consideration of the now 73 MSPs in favour of independence for Scotland.
This Union has now been served with its redundancy notice, like so many workers in Scotland these last two years—like the workers in Grangemouth, who should have been treated in the same way as the steelworkers in Scunthorpe, the 1,500 jobs that could have been created at Ardersier, or the derisory coastal growth fund allocation to our precious fishing industry. Now this chaotic Government have turned on their leader, scapegoating him for their collective failures. The wonder of it all is that the branch manager of the Labour party in Scotland has not resigned, for he carries responsibility for this abject failure of the Labour party in Scotland.
We have not abandoned our pensioners, the vulnerable, the disabled, our young people, our students, our apprentices or our children. Unemployment is lower in Scotland than in the rest of these islands. Most of all, we have not demonised the many thousands of people who come from abroad to work in our essential services, or those who seek sanctuary from war, famine or persecution. They are not taking away our jobs, houses or GP appointments, as some populist politicians would have us believe. Years of austerity managed that and, sadly, Labour is continuing in that vein with its planned assault on the welfare system.
Is the former Health Secretary now ensuring that the King’s Speech included a relentless focus on the health service, on labour shortages in social care, on an end to the privatisation of our health service, on the availability of lifesaving drugs, and on reassuring this House about the hidden costs of the US-UK pharma deal by publishing his Department’s impact assessment? No. He focuses on his own personal ambitions to enter No. 10 Downing Street. He should not have been allowed to resign; he should have been sacked.
Finally, I wish to highlight the Palantir contract, which was discussed recently in Westminster Hall. Many Members from across the House spoke about it, and only yesterday I learned that NHS England has allowed staff from the US tech firm and other contractors to access patient data before it has been pseudonymised, despite internal fears of a
“risk of loss of public confidence”.
An internal NHS briefing has said that it would allow
“unlimited access to non-NHS staff”
to part of the NHS’s federated data platform, which holds identifiable patient information. That should concern everyone in the House, no matter their political persuasion. Indeed, it should concern everybody in the country. Members across the House have called for the Palantir project to be reviewed next year, and I urge whoever replaces the erstwhile Minister for Health Innovation and Safety to act on that misuse of our NHS data.
In conclusion, the Scottish National party will continue to have a relentless focus on matters relating to health and social care that are reserved to this Parliament during this Session, and on matters that adversely affect our small businesses. But the real solution to these issues is to give the people who live in Scotland the democratic right to bring this Union to an end, and allow Scotland to become an independent nation if it so chooses. The concept of Britain just is not working any more.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
A big part of why I became an MP was for the young people in my constituency. I have a 20-year-old Cornish son, and I want young people to have the choice to stay and work in Cornwall, and not be forced to go elsewhere and not come back. There are genuinely exciting opportunities for good, well-paid green jobs in the renewable energy sector in Cornwall, for example floating offshore wind. We also have a new Government critical mineral strategy, and an awful lot of lithium and other critical minerals under our feet—enough, apparently, for 20% of the needs of the whole of Europe. We also have digital, creative arts and our amazing hospitality sector.
I was a teaching assistant in a secondary school for seven years, and I saw the impact that successive covid lockdowns had on a generation of young people who missed out on the in-person, social interaction and developmental milestones. I know how much they suffered from a broken SEND system for a decade, and I realise how difficult it is to re-enter education after time away, or enter the workforce for the first time under those circumstances. We inherited nearly 1 million young people not in work or education across the country, and Cornwall is particularly highly represented in that. It is so important that we give those young people the skills and confidence they need to move forward with their lives. That is why the Government commissioned the Milburn review, to identify the root causes of youth unemployment and to make recommendations for how we can improve opportunities for our young people.
We have introduced some of those policies to support young people into work, backed up by funding. For example, the jobs guarantee will lead to the creation of 90,000 extra subsidised jobs over the next three years for those aged 18 to 24. New foundation apprenticeships, including in hospitality and retail, will help my area and provide employers with up to £2,000 to support 16 to 21-year-olds into work. The apprenticeship initiative will give SMEs £2,000 for each new employee aged 16 to 24, and the youth jobs grants provides £3,000 for a business that hires someone on universal credit for six months.
I am hopeful that those policies will complement and add to some of the brilliant work that Cornish employers are doing, particularly on apprenticeships. Cornwall Marine Network in my constituency plays a vital role in supporting SMEs in the marine sector to take on apprentices, and it delivers high-quality training, as does Truro and Penwith college in my constituency. Firms such as A&P, Pendennis and Cockwells provide fantastic apprenticeship schemes in the marine industries, and the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has developed an 18-month level 2 fisher apprenticeship to equip young people with the skills and knowledge that they need for a career in fishing. I welcome the fishing and coastal growth fund, which will invest in skills and workforce development in the sector.
Furthermore, leaders of the world-class hospitality industry in Cornwall are keen to train more young people. For many Cornish young people, a job in a pub, café or restaurant provides a valuable introduction to the world of work, but it can also lead to a good career in hospitality. Cornwall is perfect for a pilot of the new foundation apprenticeship. I am pleased that the Government are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy. Some of that money could perhaps be used flexibly as training for employers in the hospitality sector and others who support apprentices, or by funding some of the skills courses at FE providers such as Truro and Penwith college in my constituency, or by looking at the way some of those apprenticeships are funded.
This is not only about supporting young people in their teens and their twenties, because we must also take steps to improve the lives of children from their earliest years, ensuring that a child’s background does not dictate their chances or leave them struggling to catch up. I am proud that this Government have introduced free breakfast clubs, state nurseries, 30 hours of funded childcare from the age of nine months, free school meals and Best Start family hubs. Those are a start to replacing Sure Start, which was a transformative thing for our families. A number of times I knocked on doors in my constituency and met women about my age who were accountants or who had a variety of jobs. They said that without Sure Start they could never have retrained or got that help—it was fundamental.
Matt Rodda
Is my hon. Friend aware of the good research which shows that £1 invested in early years education is worth £16 invested later in a child’s life? Does she agree that that wise investment by our Government is both taking the economy forward and supporting families in a meaningful way?
Jayne Kirkham
That makes perfect sense. Early years and education are pretty much the most important things that any Government can focus on, and I am so proud that that is what we are doing. The King’s Speech includes legislation to enable the delivery of this Government’s much needed SEND reforms. Parents of children with SEND in my constituency have made clear that the current system is not fit for purpose. I have shared their experiences and concerns as part of the consultation, and I will continue to do so. If young people cannot access education because their needs are not met, it can become harder and harder to get into work and back into society later on.
I recognise that for some people the barriers to employment, education and training can feel insurmountable right now. The Government are trying to take meaningful steps to remove those barriers and invest in those jobs, skills, apprenticeships, to reform and prioritise early years provision, and to address some of the failures in SEND provision. Taken together as a whole, moving forward, those measures represent a real commitment to our next generation, which I am hopeful will benefit young people in Truro and Falmouth, in Cornwall, and across the country.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
As Member of Parliament for Chelmsford, I am proud to represent a city with a breadth of businesses, industries and educational institutions that do so much to support people from all backgrounds into employment. On today’s theme of getting Britain working again, over recent months I have held several roundtables with local small businesses, from independent restaurants that serve as important community spaces to local shops that provide high-quality, high street based alternatives to major multinationals. Those businesses face many challenges, but I am concerned that the Government’s proposed solutions outlined in the King’s Speech fall far short of where we need to be.
At the end of last month, I hosted a roundtable with Chelmsford businesses in the construction industry. I must declare an interest here, because I have for many years run small businesses in construction, working as a specialist subcontractor. We have been through good times and bad times. I know that the often incredibly tight margins are difficult for the industry to work with, and I know the huge temptation for main contractors, desperate to win work, to overpromise and underdeliver.
Some of the most unscrupulous contractors rely on putting their subcontractors out of business at the end of a contract through non-payment, delayed payment or ridiculously long retention clauses, hoping that avoiding paying a subbie will keep the main contractor afloat. I welcome the proposed introduction of legislation to tackle late payments and hope that, in so doing, the Government will listen to all those across the industry, at all levels, to understand the imperatives and the complexities of this matter.
The construction industry is essential to our economy and our lives. The sector creates, sustains and draws on an enormous range of trades and skills. Far from being just about getting muddy and cold on a building site, the industry requires highly skilled engineers, surveyors, planners and logistics experts. It needs administrators and accountants alongside plumbers, brickies and sparkies. The industry is critical to the functioning of our country, from ensuring that we build enough homes to maintaining and expanding critical transport infrastructure. However, owners and representatives from the companies that I met highlighted the significant decrease in young people entering the construction workforce, as well as the overall proportion of women in the sector being extremely low, at around 16%. The industry is already working hard to tackle that, but businesses cannot do it alone.
Let me highlight one specific example raised with me, which goes to the very heart of the theme of “getting Britain working again”: getting young people to site. If we want young people to take up careers in construction—and we surely do—we need them to not just learn the skills and gain essential knowledge through further education courses, but get hands-on, practical experience on building sites. I know that that is more of a challenge, but the industry wants and needs that. Time and again, I have heard businesses tell me that there is simply no substitute for a young person learning alongside a master craftsman or craftswoman and learning the tricks of the trade that allow them to adapt to the unpredictability of the myriad issues that come up on real sites, rather than in the theoretical world of a classroom. The problem is that these young people cannot get there.
Building sites tend not to be conveniently located along a bus route or next to a train station. Indeed, by definition a “new site” is often in an entirely new, undeveloped area. The work is creating the infrastructure that will be used in the future, but in the meantime how do we get young people to the sites? Many of them are too young to even hold a driving licence. If they do not drive, they are reliant on getting a lift, but it is very difficult for businesses to provide that lift, due to safeguarding rules for under-18s. That inevitably generates inequality, as only those who can afford to take taxis or have a parent available to take them can do so, with others being left behind. I am in no way saying that we should scrap safeguarding, but this is the kind of practical issue that businesses tell me directly they need help with—perhaps in the form of grant funding for transport for young apprentices or those on work experience.
We also need to start earlier in inspiring young people to consider a career in the construction industry, and this is where education must play a key role. How can children choose a career if they do not have a wide view of what is available to them? At this point, I will highlight the fabulous work done in my constituency by Chelmsford city council, which for many years—under Liberal Democrat leadership—has been running a skills festival every summer for pupils in year 8. It is called a festival, because that is exactly what it looks and feels like, but instead of the marquees and tents being filled with musicians or stalls selling merchandise and pop culture paraphernalia, they are packed with interactive stands from local businesses and other organisations based in Chelmsford and Essex. They usually have hands-on activities for 12 and 13 year-olds and hopefully encourage them to consider choosing GCSEs in the coming months that fit well with what they see in front of them—in year 8 they will not yet have chosen their GCSEs.
However, this is about not just broadening the horizons of children, but strengthening and deepening the knowledge of their teachers and schools about what is out there, so that they can support the children going forward. The feedback from Chelmsford’s “Skills Fest”, as it is known, is fabulous, with many parents commenting afterwards that they have never seen their child so “brimming with enthusiasm” for something. That is a direct quote from a parent; their child was so enthusiastic about town planning, which they had never considered before. It is pretty inspirational to hear that.
This kind of inspirational, collaborative and innovative activity is the sort of thing that I would like to see and suggest that we need to see right across the country, learning from Chelmsford’s example and experience. In short, if we want to get Britain working again, it can never start too early, and it must start with supporting children. Indeed, it is these practical solutions that would offer young people from diverse backgrounds the opportunities to experience and begin successful, challenging and meaningful careers in crucial sectors such as construction.
Let me turn quickly to the issue of health. It is clear that we cannot get Britain working again if we cannot get Britain healthy again. On that subject, I am afraid that I continue to be dismayed by the state of Broomfield hospital, which is just outside my constituency but serves as Chelmsford’s main healthcare facility. I have held numerous roundtables and surgeries with staff and patients alike to hear from them directly about the challenges facing the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, of which the hospital forms a part. That is easily one of the most concerning issues to local residents, myself included.
Like everyone else, I want to ensure that my friends and family know that they can trust the trust if the worst happens. That is why I was genuinely pleased in March, when the Health Secretary announced that our trust was being placed into an intensive recovery programme to ensure that swift action was taken to address its many challenges. However, almost two months on, I received word yesterday that the trust is yet to receive any details on what the recovery programme even entails.
It is almost unbelievable that a programme labelled “intensive” and announced in March to begin last month has given precisely zero details about what it means, even to the management of one of the five trusts singled out as desperately in need of support. Unfortunately, that is entirely symptomatic of a Government approach that has led to the rather precarious position that the Prime Minister finds himself in today—or possibly even worse. There are promises of swift delivery, meaningful change and competent leadership, then a failure to do any of those things.
Healthcare is essential to every one of us. Staff in the NHS do exhausting, incredible work and are definitely to be commended, but they cannot be expected to turn failing trusts around if the Government cannot begin to describe to them how they want to help them, what they want them to do or how they will be supported in doing so. Our NHS and my constituents deserve and need far better. I ask the Health Secretary—whoever that turns out to be in the weeks and months ahead—to communicate urgently the programme’s details with the relevant trusts, such as Mid and South Essex, so that work can begin right now.
Let me turn briefly to other matters. The previous King’s Speech promised a draft Bill to ban conversion therapy, but that did not happen. Here we are again, with a promise in yesterday’s King’s Speech, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members across the House, for
“a draft Bill to ban abusive conversion practices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2026; Vol. 856, c. 3.]
As a slight aside, I know that I have spent quite a bit of time talking about the construction industry and I am now talking about conversion practices, but I want to be very clear that these two issues are very different. It was a bit strange to hear cladding remediation and conversion practices lumped into the same sentence in the King’s Speech. I wonder whether there was a bit of confusion in the Government about how wildly different those two issues are—we are not talking about converting buildings. Then again, perhaps that highlights the scale of the challenge and why the Government have not prioritised this matter; perhaps they truly do not understand the issue.
I must remind the Government that we have heard time and again of the impact that abusive conversion practices have on the LGBT+ community. Indeed, it was Theresa May’s Government in 2018 who first proposed such a Bill, yet here we are, almost a decade later, without even a draft in front of us. As other hon. Members have done, I ask the Government what assurances they can give that such a Bill will finally come forward, given that it has been promised before but did not happen. The LGBT+ community must not again be told to wait until the end of this Session only to see another promise broken. The Government must publish a trans-inclusive Bill to ban conversion practices as a matter of urgency.
The Government recognise a lot of the challenges that face our country, and I do not doubt their desire to improve people’s lives, but they either refuse to carry out the appropriate solutions or are too timid to make an argument for the bold change that our country has been crying out for, even if it is sometimes controversial. We are fortunate to live in an amazing country. We have wonderful people, world-class skills and expertise, globally admired institutions and businesses, a deep history built on the principles of fairness, tolerance and inclusivity, and enormous potential to lead the world in so many ways—politically, economically and morally. However, we need to do more than just recognise that it is not currently working for everyone; we need real, workable, practical and pragmatic ideas that can and must be implemented at pace.
We on the Liberal Democrat Benches want this Government to make positive changes. It matters for us and our constituents that they do that, so I encourage them to listen to the calls of Liberal Democrat Members, who are willing to work together to achieve the positive changes that we need to reduce inequality, increase economic security, and ultimately see off the politics of hatred and grievance.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I start by declaring that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment, of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, and of the all- party parliamentary group for classics.
I welcome the ambitious agenda set out yesterday in a King’s Speech that places working people at its heart—an agenda that builds on our promises to deliver a safer, stronger and more prosperous country. It is an agenda that will get Britain working and break down the barriers to opportunity, both for our country on the global stage and for every young person in it.
Opening up new opportunities for growth and trade is a vital part of this Government’s commitment to working families, because it is crucial that my constituents not only hear about the change we are delivering, but feel it in their pockets. As such, the Prime Minister is right when he says that a stronger relationship with Europe is in all of our best interests. Our European neighbours are our closest friends and allies, and greater opportunities on the continent for our businesses and our young people can only mean a more prosperous country with more opportunities for all. [Interruption.] It does not make sense to be so fixated on an ideology that we act against the interests of our nation and reject the opportunities that are on our doorstep—we are hearing some of that in the chuntering from Conservative Front Benchers. I remind those lining up to cry “Brexit betrayal” that the Leave campaign never promised that we would be completely isolated from our closest economic and defensive allies. In fact, it promised quite the opposite. A closer relationship with Europe means a safer, stronger, more prosperous Britain at a time when that has never been more important, and youth mobility offers brighter futures for our young people. I am proud to support the Government’s clear leadership in this area.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting British businesses and jobs through tackling unnecessary regulation and supporting businesses to introduce 50,000 more apprenticeships. I was delighted to see this in action in my constituency with the recent opening of a new youth employment hub in Bracknell, which will support hundreds of young people to enter the workplace and develop their skills and futures. I extend a huge thank you to the local businesses across Bracknell Forest that are supporting this initiative, because I and this Government recognise that youth unemployment is not just a problem that lies with individuals. It will take a whole-of-society approach to reach the one in eight young people who are not in education, work or training, and give them hope again.
We also know that for many young people the barriers to opportunity begin far before they even think of entering the workplace. Of all the issues that constituents have raised with me since I became Bracknell’s MP, none has been as complex, pervasive, emotional or deeply personal as those I have heard from parents and children experiencing our broken SEND system. As such, I could not welcome more strongly the commitment this Government have made to face the problem head-on and reform our broken system.
This Government’s determination to deliver for SEND young people is already making a big difference in my constituency, where funding has been confirmed for a new SEND school at Buckler’s Park in Crowthorne. Under the previous Conservative Government, that school was promised, but never funded. This Government are ending the years of empty promises, and are not only investing in the services that families so badly need, but getting on with the work we were elected to do and rebuilding those services so that they actually function. My only ask—the SEND Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), who is in her place and always listens very attentively on this issue, knows what I am going to say—is that we build that school as quickly as possible. Having visited my constituency, she knows all too well that in Bracknell, and across the country, there are very many young people who need us to act as quickly as we can to get them the places in mainstream education and specialist provision that they so badly need.
On that note, it is also hugely welcome to see the Government delivering an initial £1 million in funding to Bracknell Forest council to establish our new Experts at Hand service, which will improve the availability of occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists to our local schools. I was delighted to get an update on that new programme earlier this week. Many parent carers are concerned about the need to train more practitioners. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister also recognises those challenges, so I hope we can set out an ambitious but deliverable workforce plan as soon as possible, to make sure that the new service can make the difference it is intended to make.
Recently, I hosted a meeting with parents in my constituency to discuss the SEND proposals. There was no doubt among those who attended that the system is badly in need of change, but parent carers raised concerns about individual support plans containing the right safeguards to ensure that every young person gets the support they need. I know that Ministers take that task extremely seriously, and I welcome their resolve to listen to families and educators and to make sustained, meaningful change. Accountability is important, so I simply ask Ministers to focus on that issue as they respond to the consultation. I look forward to the Government setting out all of their proposals in the education for all Bill, to rebuild a system that will give every child the education and opportunities they deserve.
Reform to our education system is about high standards for all, but it is also about preparing our young people to be active, informed and ambitious for their futures. As a former teacher, I know that young people have much to contribute to our political and civic life, and I wholeheartedly welcome the plans set out by this Government to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. As chair of the APPG for schools, learning and assessment, I have been leading an inquiry into votes at 16 and how we can ensure schools are supporting young people to engage in our democracy. I thank the democracy Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for attending one of our evidence sessions.
We have heard from a wide range of young people, educators and civic organisations, and the message has been clear. This is the moment for a wider reflection on our education system and how it serves all of us in areas of civic life—not just in the classroom, but across society. The success of votes at 16 will be reflected, not just in how many young people vote, but in how they feel about their experience of voting and the tools that are available to support them to exercise their right to vote. I welcome the work that is already being undertaken in this area, including the curriculum and assessment review and the schools White Paper. I urge Ministers to grasp the opportunity to embrace a fully cross-departmental approach to delivering this policy, so that our young people develop the skills that employers are crying out for, the skills that will empower them in every area of their life, and have a sense of belonging. It is so important for everyone to feel that they belong to, contribute to, and are part of this United Kingdom.
This Government are fixing the foundations of this country. A quality education and secure employment are the gateways to opportunity, but so too is having a safe and decent home to live in. Too many people are denied that—stuck in insecure, impermanent accommodation and on long waiting lists for social housing simply to find somewhere suitable to live. We have already done a huge amount to tackle those injustices through our Renters’ Rights Act 2025. I am proud that Bracknell’s history as a post-war new town shows what ambition a Labour Government can have when staring a housing crisis in the face, a point that was made eloquently yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) when seconding the Humble Address. Let me quickly put on record that I am as proud of Bracknell as he is of Harlow. As everyone in this House will know, that is quite a big boast, given how supportive he is of Harlow.
I welcome the announcement of a social housing renewal Bill, including measures to protect our vital social housing stock and to introduce greater protections for tenants in instances of domestic abuse. I am pleased that the Government are proposing reforms to tackle disposals, but I would like us to go even further in this area so that local authorities are not just informed of any disposal of valuable housing stock, but must approve of it. Given that we have so many families on our waiting lists, I think that is very important. The social housing renewal Bill will ensure the investment and reform needed so that the great legacy that made Bracknell and other new towns what they are today can belong not just to Labour Governments past, but equally to this Government.
Finally, I will touch on something a bit more personal, but no less important. There is no place in the Britain I know and love for abusive conversion practices to continue. The promise we made to ban them is one we must keep, and I offer my full support to the Government’s plans to bring forward draft legislation to do so in this Session. It is right that that ban will be fully trans-inclusive.
The British people elected this Labour Government to deliver change. In my maiden speech, I emphasised that that would not be easy and would not necessarily always happen as quickly as we would like. Transparently, this week has demonstrated the truth of those words far more than I would have liked, so let me simply finish with this promise to the constituents who put their faith in me and sent me to this place to represent them. Whatever the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune care to throw at me, I will remain focused on the one and only thing I was sent here to do: delivering change for my constituents.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this King’s Speech debate, which is my first in this Chamber. Last time around, I was sat on my own in a hotel room on the south bank with covid, warmly shared as a welcome gift by a lovely new colleague just after I entered this place.
After the local election results last week, it is clear that the country has spoken. People right across this great nation are deeply, viscerally disappointed in the performance of this Government since the general election two years ago. This Government came in with such promise and such a huge majority that they could have done anything they wanted. They could have swung into action on day one, giving people real hope, with a real commitment to turbocharge the economy, to clean up our dying and degraded natural environment and to provide truly affordable and social homes, rather than more million-pound new builds like those we see carpeting South Devon. Instead, two years on, people are struggling to pay their bills, young people are failing to find their first job, parents are still fighting with local authorities to secure a decent education for their child, and thousands upon thousands of people simply cannot afford a secure roof over their head.
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member knows how fond I am of her, but how can she possibly in one voice condemn building new homes and in the next sentence suggest that we do not have enough homes for young people to live in? She simply cannot have her cake and eat it.
Caroline Voaden
What I said is absolutely correct. In my constituency of South Devon, new build homes in developer-led housing estates are selling for £950,000. We are not providing the homes we need—the social homes and the truly affordable homes that young people, young couples, young families and people who want to move out from their parents’ home need. We are providing the wrong sort of homes. Having a system led by housing developers that are driven by profit will never provide the homes that we need.
Is it any wonder that voters across the country have turned to the extreme ends of our political spectrum to stick two fingers up at what they see as an ineffective political class that has completely ignored them? “Blame the immigrants” or “blame the billionaires” seem to be the two easy answers thrown out by these parties to the difficult, thorny, complicated questions that this country faces. The sad truth is that neither of those two propositions will be enough to make the changes we need to see to reform the structures of our economy and public services and to improve the lives of those who need it most.
Ten years ago, we saw a referendum that cut our country in two, like a chainsaw through the trunk of a mighty oak tree, and that division has not healed. The arguments still rage, the communities still feel left behind, and the false promise offered in that awful referendum has turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. People are still angry on both sides of that debate. The House will not be surprised to hear that as a Liberal Democrat, I welcome the Government’s promise to strengthen ties with our nearest neighbours in Europe. The House will probably not be surprised to hear me also say that that promise does not go far enough, especially if we are to get Britain working again.
The upcoming EU reset Bill is just the latest example of the Government’s lack of ambition when it comes to rebuilding our trading links with Europe. When we talk of Brexit red tape, nowhere is that more limiting than in the red lines that Labour tied around itself in its 2024 manifesto. It said on coming into office that the previous Conservative Government had left a £22 billion black hole in the UK’s public finances, yet the botched Brexit deal has left a £90 billion hole, similar in scale to the damage wreaked by the 2008 financial crash.
Businesses in South Devon regularly talk to me about the nightmare of trying to do business with Europe. Many have just given up on it altogether. Others are hanging on, desperately hoping that trading restrictions will be eased and customers will come back. I welcome the promise of a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which cannot come fast enough for my food and farming businesses. We want to hear the Government talk about a customs union with the EU to slash the red tape that is holding us back, because economic growth has stagnated in this country for far too long. We also want to see the UK at the heart of European defence co-operation, not only for the benefits it would bring to national security, but for the investment opportunities it would provide for the supply chain. We must be front and centre of those negotiations. Europe would welcome our involvement, and we must be confident about shaping and leading that discussion.
There is so much to cover in the King’s Speech, but I will just touch on a couple of other areas. I have talked about people feeling ignored and forgotten. Nowhere is the visible representation of that starker than in our high streets, with boarded-up shops, endless vape shops, cafés and pubs struggling to survive, and exorbitant rents making it impossible to get a new business off the ground. The Government have pledged to nationalise British Steel to protect fewer than 3,000 jobs. I have no doubt that the wider economy in and around Scunthorpe will truly benefit from that decision, but why is there nothing in this speech to protect our once vibrant and precious hospitality industry, which has lost nearly 100,000 jobs in the past year? Those jobs are less visible than the closure of a steelworks or a car plant, because it is 10 jobs here and 20 jobs there, but the effect of the national insurance rise has been devastating up and down the country. Businesses have been calling last orders once and for all or simply shrinking their offer.
In my constituency, Rockfish, the California Inn, the Maltsters Arms and the Berry Head hotel—I could go on and on, because hospitality is the backbone of our economy—are cutting staff hours, choosing not to employ extra staff or closing two days a week so that they can manage on one exhausted chef, rather than employing a second, with the owner of the pub having to step into the kitchen when the chef has a few precious days off. This death by a thousand cuts is having a devastating impact on youth employment and part-time jobs. Those are the jobs that so many people rely on to combine with parenting, caring or studying. Let us not forget that every teenager who gets a job washing pots or waiting tables is learning valuable skills that will take them forward in the job market for years to come.
As the Secretary of State said earlier today, this is about the story of their lives, and I was pleased to hear his passion for supporting young people into work, but youth unemployment now stands at around 20%. That is utterly shameful. One in five of our young people is unable to even get a start in the workforce. The new small business protections Bill is laudable, but it falls far short of a proper plan to protect small businesses. We are disappointed that the Government have not listened to our plan to scrap the national insurance rise, reform business rates and prioritise a high street revival.
As a south-west MP, there is a list of Bills that I would have loved to see in the King’s Speech but are sadly missing. Yet again, the rural south-west seems to have been ignored. We have £45 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail, but not a word about boosting vital bus services across the villages of the south-west. If we are to get people working again, we have to get them to work. If there are no buses, they cannot get there. There was nothing on boosting digital connectivity for hard-to-reach areas.
Sam Rushworth
I hear what the hon. Lady is saying—we have exactly the same challenges in my rural community, where people cannot get to job interviews or to jobs—but we passed the Bus Services Act 2025 in the last Session.
Caroline Voaden
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We do not have a mayor in Devon, so we miss out on a lot of that legislation’s benefits. I have loads of villages that do not even have a bus, so talk of bus fares is completely irrelevant when there is literally no service. How are young people supposed to get to college or work or seek opportunities if they cannot get out of their village?
There was no legislation to require banks to offer a minimum service guarantee to their customers. Lloyds bank made nearly £7 billion in profit in 2025, yet it closed branches with impunity, and the Government’s promises to address the lack of banking services have led to nothing so far.
There are some things in the King’s Speech that I would like to welcome. I am pleased to see the Government pledge finally to break the link between gas and electricity prices, which is vital in a country that depends more heavily on gas than many of our neighbours. Investment in home-grown renewable power is also welcome, but we want to see the focus of solar on warehouses and car parks, not on prime farmland. We also want to see stronger community benefits from new renewable infrastructure, empowering communities with the right to buy and sell community energy locally.
Talk of farmland leads me to a devastating omission from the King’s Speech: not once was the word “nature” mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) so beautifully laid out in her speech last night, that was probably something that the King himself was disappointed to see. Where is the desire to protect our green spaces, to prompt a revival in nature, to restore our ancient forests and our peatlands, and to clean up our dirty rivers and waterways once and for all? We live in one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, yet nature is not a priority for the Government, despite all the benefits that it brings to people’s health and wellbeing. If we truly want to cut the NHS bill, that would be a really good place to start.
The new water Bill is welcome. The Liberal Democrats have long called for Ofwat to be replaced by a regulator that actually has some teeth, but until the Government address the elephant in the room and look at the ownership of the water industry, nothing will really change. No one should be making a profit from water: something that is so vital not only to us as humans, but to the health of all our planet’s ecosystems. The Liberal Democrats have long led the campaign in Parliament against the sewage scandal, tabling 44 amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, none of which the Government or the Conservatives accepted. They must do more.
Lastly, I will mention the education for all Bill. We all know that support for children with special educational needs is broken, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling it; we urgently need this reform. As my party’s schools spokesperson, I will scrutinise every line of the legislation when it comes before the House, so I will no doubt have time to say far more about it, but let me say this. We must build a system designed around the potential that every child has and that works to their strengths, noticing their gifts and talents and what they can achieve given the right support. We must stop judging them by their limitations, ostracising them, separating them from their peers and causing lifelong damage to their mental health and confidence.
Reform to SEND must be done with children and parents at its heart, with open, honest consultation with families, and with a serious commitment to invest the money needed in our educators and our schools so that they can rise to the challenge and truly build a more inclusive system that works for every child, from those facing the hardest of challenges to the lucky and blessed high achievers among them.
It is a strange thing to deliver this speech opposite Government Benches that are so clearly riven by intrigue, and not knowing who will be leading this legislation through Parliament. It is my hope that whatever path our Government colleagues decide to go down today—or over the next few days and weeks—they will commit to going further in the areas that I have set out, remember the challenges and higher costs faced by rural areas in service delivery and communications, and prioritise nature in every single major decision they make about infrastructure and new building programmes. Think bigger, think bolder, think greener for the benefit of everyone.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I please gently remind Members that we must not make reference to the monarch having particular views?
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. I had the privilege of making my maiden speech during the last King’s Speech debate. Since then, I am proud to have supported 50 pieces of legislation that are helping to build a better Britain, deliver positive change for working people and, crucially, giving my constituents hope for the future. I will not list all 50 today, but I do want to reflect on some of the changes that I believe demonstrate the positive direction of travel that the Labour Government have set that have helped get Britain working again.
In the last 22 months, we have delivered the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, giving people greater security, fairness and dignity at work. We have taken decisive steps to strengthen protections for private renters so that families can feel more secure in their homes, and through the removal of the two-child benefit cap over 2,500 children in my constituency—almost half a million more across the country—will be lifted out of poverty.
As a former NHS mental health worker for 22 years, I am particularly proud that this Labour Government chose to prioritise the long overdue modernisation of the Mental Health Act. This reform will strengthen patient choice, autonomy and legal protections and help ensure that people experiencing mental ill health are treated with the dignity, respect and compassion they deserve.
I also welcome the progress made in my local NHS. I previously raised the case of a coffee shop at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford being converted into an emergency ward to treat accident and emergency patients. Steps have been taken to address corridor care at the hospital, including a share of the £29 million investment that East Kent hospitals NHS trust received to expand the same-day emergency care unit at the hospital.
I equally welcome the recent announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care about the new intensive recovery programme. My fellow Labour colleagues and I have been pushing for an intensive strategy to provide help for hospitals in east Kent since we were elected. This is an opportunity for East Kent hospitals to receive the long awaited help they have been asking for and make improvements across the board. I thank the local hard-working frontline NHS staff.
As we look to build on the many achievements of the last Session, it is important that the Government are bolder and faster in delivering the change that the people of Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages voted for at the last general election. Against that backdrop, I was pleased that in the King’s Speech the Government set out welcome measures to unblock the barriers to growth, protect households from the pressures of the cost of living and rebuild our public services.
Through the King’s Speech, the Government continued to recognise the financial pressures that families are facing and reflected their determination to ensure that economic growth is felt in people’s day-to-day lives, not just in headline statistics. I am pleased to see the Government’s determination about how every child deserves the chance to succeed to the best of their ability and should not be held back by poverty or special educational needs.
I also welcome what the King’s Speech said about further rebuilding our relationship with the European Union. In an increasingly unstable world, our long-term national interest is best served by closer co-operation with our European partners on defence, on trade and on strengthening our economy. In my constituency in particular, our trading relationship with Europe is critical to local prosperity. We must do everything we can to help businesses across Kent sell their goods and services to our largest and closest trading partners.
That brings me to the vital issue of international rail connectivity and the future of Ashford International. Following the Office of Rail and Road’s decision late last year to grant Virgin Rail access to the international depot in east London, I welcome Virgin’s public commitment that its cross-channel services will stop at Ashford International, provided that the station is reopened. Two other operators, FS Trenitalia and Gemini Trains, are also developing proposals to introduce international services between the UK and mainland Europe to provide greater competition on the line, and both have previously expressed a willingness to include Ashford International as a stop.
The return of international services to Ashford would be transformative, because it would deliver a major boost to economic growth locally and across the wider south-east. It would make it quicker and more efficient for local businesses to trade with mainland Europe, and it would encourage inward investment by improving connectivity. It would also open up Kent, Sussex and the south-east to even more tourists. The Good Growth Foundation estimated last year that the return of international services could inject £2.7 billion into the UK economy over five years—a prize well worth pursuing. I therefore urge the Government to work actively with private operators, regulators and other stakeholders to ensure that Ashford International can be reopened in time for new cross-channel services to stop there.
As a Kent MP, I warmly welcome the announcement in the King’s Speech that the Lower Thames crossing will be built at pace. I know that work has already started on this highly significant road-building scheme, which will provide a boost to the economy locally and across the rest of the country. It will strengthen connectivity to major ports, including Dover, and will improve resilience and reliability for road users.
As we strive to enhance the reliability and resilience of that part of the road network, I hope that we can find a long-term solution to the repeated use of Operation Brock on the M20. Every time it is put in place, it causes disruption and delays for residents, local businesses and haulage firms. Decisions on its deployment rest with the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum, and I once again urge the forum to ensure that it is used only as an emergency measure. I also ask the Government to continue pressing for improved resilience and smarter traffic management on the M20, to avoid Operation Brock being regularly deployed during school holidays and other busy periods.
To conclude, I want to mention one final piece of legislation that I am pleased to see return in the King’s Speech. Having recently served on its Bill Committee, I look forward to the Representation of the People Bill completing its passage through Parliament. The Bill will extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, strengthen the rules on political donations, and implement the Rycroft review’s recommendations to better protect our democracy from foreign interference. Its passage will not only fulfil a clear Labour party manifesto commitment but, more importantly, help to safeguard our democratic system by making it more robust, transparent and accountable at a time of growing global instability. That is an objective that I hope Members across the House can support.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Yesterday’s King’s Speech showed that, despite all the noise from Opposition Members, this Government are determined to get their heads down and get on with the job that the British people sent us to Westminster to do. After years of drift, decline and short-termism under the Conservative party, this Labour Government are choosing a different path—one that restores hope to towns like Westhoughton, Horwich, Blackrod and Bolton in my constituency. As the electorate told us last week, and as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, the challenges we face need to be met with substantial systematic reforms.
Families in my constituency are feeling the pressure of rising bills, stretched public services and insecure work, which is why I was proud that in the previous parliamentary Session, this Government passed landmark legislation on workers’ rights, protections for private sector renters, bringing rail back into public ownership, rolling out clean energy and achieving much-needed reforms to our policing system. This Session’s programme shows that the Government are prepared to act with urgency and purpose in order to build on the good work that has already been done. One of the most important priorities set out yesterday is ending the opportunity crisis facing so many young people and families across our country. I will focus most of the rest of my remarks on that topic.
For years, families navigating the special educational needs and disabilities system have felt exhausted and ignored. At a roundtable that I held recently with concerned parents, I was told about the endless battles to secure assessments, support and specialist provision for children. Frankly, teachers and schools have been asked to do more with less, and children with enormous talent and potential have too often been denied the support they deserve. That is not acceptable, and it is not sustainable for this country.
The education for all Bill represents an important step towards the meaningful SEND reform that is vital because, as Labour Members believe, every child deserves the opportunity to go as far as their talent and effort can take them. We all know, deep in our hearts, that it should not matter where children are from or how wealthy their families are, yet all too often the current system bakes in inequalities at a young age that stay with children for the rest of their lives.
Alongside that reform, another vital commitment featured in the King’s Speech yesterday: our offer to young people, including this Government’s youth guarantee. For too long, too many young people have been locked out of work, training or opportunity, which is why the Government’s industrial strategy and apprenticeships plan matter so much. It is this Labour Government who are removing the barriers to economic growth that stifled innovation and creativity, and it is this Labour Government who are creating the much needed pathways into secure, highly paid jobs for the next generation of Boltonians.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech. One of my big concerns, about which we need to be talking far more, is that jobs for young people in the 18 to 24 category are being replaced by automation and artificial intelligence. That is especially true for young people who are in the age category coming out of university: they are shackled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt and the graduate jobs that they had hoped to get are now being automated. What does he think that the Government can do to ensure that the cohort coming out of university and coming into the workplace have good career pathways in front of them?
Phil Brickell
The hon. Member makes a valid point about artificial intelligence and the world of work, which is increasingly changing and facing threats but also facing opportunities. I would like the Government to continue to work strongly with our further and higher education sector, to think proactively about what opportunities are coming down the line for work in the sectors that he is talking about, five or 10 years in the future. We have to be creative in thinking about what those opportunities look like, although artificial intelligence is not just about threats.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
On the topic of giving younger people access to AI and digital skills, Charminster library in my constituency of Bournemouth East has been closed indefinitely by the Liberal Democrat-led council, which does not have a plan to repair or rescue the library. That library could provide a space for younger people to acquire those critical AI and digital skills, so does my hon. Friend agree that our community is only as strong as the space that we have and that we need libraries, like the one in Charminster, to be reopened, so that younger people can have access to such skills?
Phil Brickell
My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point about Charminster library. I know that he is a terrific campaigner for his local community assets and I wish him all the best for success in that campaign.
As a former Erasmus student, may I put on the record my heartfelt support for our re-entry to that programme? My time on the Erasmus programme in Hanover opened up a world of possibilities that were unimaginable to a young lad growing up in Bolton, expanding my horizons, teaching me new skills, preparing me for the world of work and giving me the confidence to go out and get full-time employment after I graduated. It is only right that the kids of today have the same access to the opportunities I had when I was growing up.
The King’s Speech recognises a simple, inescapable reality: Britain is stronger when we work closely with our European partners. Businesses across Bolton and the north-west know the importance of strong European ties. Manufacturers, exporters and local employers all benefit when Britain has stable, constructive relationships with our nearest neighbours. The Conservative party wrecked our ties with Europe, damaged trade flows, hindered growth and frustrated co-operation. Businesses faced unnecessary barriers, opportunities were lost and relationships that took decades to build were neglected.
Take the trailer supplier Indespension, located in my patch, a pioneering company snared up by Brexit-related red tape. I have been working with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), to cut through some of that duplicative bureaucracy, but the European partnership Bill should be the vehicle to clear away the very burdens imposed by the Conservatives, aided and abetted by their colleagues in Reform UK. What we saw under previous successive Conservative Governments, whether they were supported by the UK Independence party or the Brexit party at the time, was common sense sacrificed on the altar of ideological purity by a Government then more focused on pithy three-word slogans than on doing the hard yards to negotiate the best deal for Britain. My constituents know it, the members of my party know it and my colleagues on these Benches know it too. That is why this Government’s EU reset is about acting pragmatically in Britain’s national interest to secure the very best for our country.
Taken together, this Government’s programme will build national resilience, spread opportunity and restore confidence that the future can be better for working people and their families: a Britain with stronger public services; a Britain where children in Bolton West with SEND receive the support they deserve; a Britain where young people in Westhoughton, Horwich, Bolton and Blackrod all have the chance to succeed; a Britain with clean, home-grown energy and stronger economic security; and a Britain that rebuilds its place in the world with confidence and purpose.
There are no silver bullets after 14 years of decline. We must be honest about the trade-offs and investments required to rebuild our country. I am proud to support a King’s Speech that shows that Labour is getting on with the job for my constituents across Bolton West.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I do not know if colleagues noticed, but a lot of rhetoric and rumours have been flying around Westminster recently. MPs have been huddled in the Tea Room and the corridors, whispering feverishly—tensions are high. After all the anticipation and the angst, today was the day. Rumour became reality.
Members will have guessed it: today it was announced that, for the start of 2026, we had the fastest GDP per capita growth in four years. In Q1, the UK’s growth was the fastest of six G7 nations for which we have data. Reports of the economy being in demise under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been greatly exaggerated, as have reports of the political demise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Today’s good economic news matters for my constituents in Rugby. Economic growth matters for jobs and public services, for tackling the cost of living and much more.
The Labour party is aptly named: labour, work. It is a party founded to represent working people in this House of Commons. We want people to work, and we are doing much to help people find work, to help people who face challenges of all kinds to get into work, to ensure that all have dignity when they are in work, to help them navigate a rapidly changing world of work and to ensure compassion and support for those who cannot work but who can still contribute and lead fulfilling lives. Because we are Labour we believe in an active state, not in the laissez-faire approach of the Conservatives or the money-from-who-knows-where approach of Reform UK. We believe in work.
It is easy for people in here and for people outside to assume things about someone’s professional and work background. Even I have made that mistake. After reading the Reform UK leaflets that came through my door about the local elections, emblazoned with the face of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I made the schoolboy error of thinking that, given his mythical status as a man of the people, his work background was varied, perhaps even working class. It turns out that this tribune of the people was a commodities trader in the City of London—nothing wrong with that.
I would not want hon. Members to assume anything about my professional background. To misquote President Reagen in 1984, I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents’ inexperience in blue collar jobs. My career has been varied. I did a paper round, I have been a gardener, I have done farmwork, I worked in a cinema, and I share with the Leader of the Opposition the fact that I worked in a McDonald’s restaurant for several years, although not the same one as her. I have been a waiter and a bartender, I was a hospital porter for two years, and I even worked here 20 years ago for Labour MPs. However, I have spent most of my career in the private sector in strategic communications consultancy.
I say that because all jobs are important. All add value—public or private, blue or white collar, full time or part time. From our teenage years, they teach us that our labour is valuable and that we can benefit not only ourselves but the wider community. Members across the House will know that I have spoken many times about engaging young people and ensuring they have the best start in life. That has been a core tenet of my philosophy as an MP, and I am pleased to see it reflected in the King’s Speech, with policies that give young people more freedom, more opportunity and more hope, because building the foundations of a young life through work helps us strengthen the foundations of our country.
In the Prime Minister’s much analysed speech on Monday, he described a vision to relentlessly pursue opportunities for our young people, promising a closer relationship with Europe, where young people can benefit from the Erasmus+ scheme and a new youth experience programme, which I strongly commend. He placed an even greater emphasis on young people: we will invest in apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges and a guaranteed offer of a job, training or work placement for every young person. Those measures will be brought forward in Bills announced in the King’s Speech.
I welcome this Government’s laser focus on getting Britain working because, sadly, the latest official statistics make for depressing reading. They show that nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. I want to see that figure come down, as I am sure all Members do. Not only does this situation rob young people of opportunity; it also risks condemning them to a life of inactivity, reliant on the state for their needs. That is unfair both to them and to the rest of the tax-paying population. The costs are borne by the individual, too. Analysis suggests that someone who is long-term unemployed loses around £1 million in lifetime earnings, which is absolutely shocking.
Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker: the scale of the problem is a direct consequence of 14 years of Tory rule. Under their watch, the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training rose from 673,000 to 921,000. Shamefully, young people were written off, while the enormous benefits bill continued to grow. The Green party attracts those who are disillusioned with the status quo, but it offers no concrete pathways into work or training. I cannot see Reform offering anything substantial either, apart from Orwellian, un-British slogans about “remoralising” our youth. Young people do not need their morals recalibrated by that party or any other.
Young people already have the initiative and the talent; they just need to be encouraged and helped. The Bills and measures announced in the King’s Speech will do just that and go beyond what this Government have already achieved to tackle the national scandal of young people being written off: the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of new funding; hundreds of thousands of new training and work experience placements; and a new jobs guarantee that fully subsidises six months of paid employment for 18 to 21-year-olds who are long-term unemployed and on universal credit. Alan Milburn’s review seeks to dig deeper into this issue, and I have been in touch with him to contribute to the much-needed work he is conducting with the Secretary of State.
I have previously spoken in Parliament about driving job creation for young people. I have visited Rugby College in my constituency and met with Intec Business Colleges, and I am campaigning for a youth hub that will offer employment advice and wellbeing support. I recently supported Jobcentre Plus and the DWP in organising a well-attended jobs fair in Rugby. I want to do all I can to help everyone right across my constituency into work.
However, young people need more attention, resources and empowerment. They and their needs must be elevated in the decision-making process and the lawmaking process, as we govern more widely, and among other stakeholders in society. To co-ordinate that, I hope the Government will consider going further by appointing a youth commissioner, or even better, a dedicated Cabinet Minister for young people and the future generations. Such a role would scrutinise the work of Government, so that the benefits and trade-offs are assessed against the needs of young people and the future generations, ensuring that every decision takes their future into account. Their demographic is too often overlooked, but the legislation set out in the King’s Speech offers the Government an opportunity to give young people a genuine voice.
Since January last year, I have been making the case for what I call a youth triple lock—a commitment to protecting and expanding the opportunities for young people in the same way that we protect pensioners. That idea is also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). It could include free bus travel, increasing maintenance loans above inflation or a voucher scheme for constructive activities—answers on a postcard.
Before I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her moving words about her autism diagnosis. I am sure it is a difficult thing to speak publicly about.
The Government should take this moment, and be bold in their approach. The Prime Minister set out on Monday that we can no longer continue with the status quo, or go back to the status quo ante, and that we must bring urgency to everything we do. I am glad we have a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Government and a parliamentary Labour party committed to ensuring that young people are empowered to become the architects and owners of the future, not merely tenants of one built by others. This is work in progress. This King’s Speech shows that Labour is the party of work, and we are making progress.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for T-levels. I thank Harrison Willmott, a sixth-form student and work experience student, who helped research some of the figures for my speech today. He is sitting in the Gallery. I also welcome today’s positive growth figures—the highest quarterly growth in the G7 and the highest real-terms growth in over four years, as well as falling unemployment.
However, there are moments in a nation when a challenge becomes so large and so deeply rooted that it ceases to be merely a policy problem and becomes a test of national purpose. I believe that is where Britain now stands on work, skills and opportunity, because across our country, but particularly in communities such as mine in Bishop Auckland, a generation of young people are growing up under pressures that no previous generation quite faced in the same combination. Those young people have lived through covid and a youth mental health crisis, and they face rising housing insecurity, economic anxiety and a labour market that is changing faster than institutions have adapted. One in seven 16 to 24-year-olds in Bishop Auckland are not in education, employment or training.
I recently visited Dene Valley and Shildon, a deprived part of my constituency that has the highest child poverty rate in County Durham. I met locals to listen to their views about regeneration, and senior citizens with long memories told me stories about a time when these villages were buzzing, with their own swimming baths and the best sprung dance floor in the area. It was a time when people could leave school, and go straight into apprenticeships in the mines, railways or brickworks. It was hard graft, but there was secure work and dignity. The closure of the pits, the wagon works and other industries left deep scars on our community and, in some cases, intergenerational poverty.
I know the effect on a community of seeing thousands of jobs disappear, which is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to British Steel in the King’s Speech. I thank the Government for the work done to save 700 jobs at Hitachi in nearby Newton Aycliffe, and I also thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for leading that campaign.
Britain’s NEET rate is significantly higher than in many comparable economies, and the consequences are not temporary. Research has shown that prolonged youth unemployment scars earnings, confidence and opportunities for decades. A young person disconnected from work at 19 can still feel the effects in middle age. This is not simply an economic failure; it is a moral failure. If we do not act now, we risk writing off the potential of an entire generation precisely at the moment that Britain needs their talents the most. When they were in government, the Conservatives hollowed out the very systems that help young people find their place, and they talked endlessly about opportunity while cutting away at the ladders that create it.
Ensuring good jobs for our people is a fundamental duty for everyone in this place, so I welcome the ambition set out in the King’s Speech that will help to sustain and create new industries in the north-east, strengthening Britain’s energy security, expanding infrastructure, supporting the defence industries, accelerating the building of social and affordable homes, and creating opportunities through growth.
When I look across the area that I am so privileged to represent, I see real opportunities: new industry around lithium in Weardale; geothermal energy and other types of renewable power to get us off the fossil fuels rollercoaster, creating energy that we build and keep, and creating local jobs; the potential for house building and regeneration in the Dene Valley area; defence jobs, with fantastic employers such as Cook Defence Systems in Stanhope, PGP and Teescraft already in the area, so we can become an eco-centre for the defence industry; new jobs in healthcare; and jobs for a generation of trained counsellors, educational psychologists, and speech and language therapists who will be in our schools thanks to this Government’s commitment to special educational needs.
The King’s Speech also contained plans to strengthen our relationship with Europe. That matters, because it is not all good news. We have lost jobs in my community in Barnard Castle. Pharmaceutical jobs moved to Austria, on the other side of the boundary.
We need to be honest: too many businesses I speak to tell me they struggle to find the skills they need in the workforce. We cannot deliver the defence manufacturing jobs without technicians, fabricators, engineers and advanced manufacturing apprenticeships. We cannot deliver clean power and energy resilience without electricians, retrofit specialists, geothermal engineers, heat network installers and construction workers. We cannot build the homes this country needs without skilled tradespeople. We cannot compete in a world transformed by AI and advanced technology if millions of young Britons are left without the skills or confidence to participate in the future economy. The great challenge of this decade is not whether good, honest work will exist; it is whether Britain will equip its people to do it. That requires us to rebuild the skills pipeline in Britain that has been neglected for too long. The answer is strengthening partnerships between FE colleges and local businesses.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he has said, but on FE colleges, I happened to visit Richmond upon Thames College in my constituency earlier this week, and the chief executive of the group told me that this year it has had only 0.55% per student uplift in funding, despite the White Paper published by the Government last year promising a real-terms increase year on year. That means it will not be able to create the places that young people need or to pay its lecturers enough. Does he agree that that is sorely disappointing from his Front Bench?
Sam Rushworth
I am coming on to talk about the importance of FE funding, while understanding the challenges the Government face. There is enormous demand to spend money everywhere, but I want to make the case for why we really need to resource FE.
FE colleges endured years of under-investment. Funding per student fell by 11% over 14 years of Conservative government. Vocational education was too often treated as second class, and apprenticeship opportunities declined precisely at the moment we needed them most. Between 2017 and 2024, apprenticeship starts for under-19s fell sharply, while too much of the apprenticeship levy drifted away from creating genuine opportunities for young people to enter the labour market. At the very moment that Britain needed a skills revolution, we got drift.
I spent some time as an FE college teacher during that period. It was a job that I loved. I think I loved it even more than this job because of the opportunity, teaching access to higher education courses, to work with school leavers who had struggled and with young adults who needed a second chance. I left because I was not really earning the minimum wage. That is how it is in our colleges.
I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the fantastic staff at Bishop Auckland College for the vital work they do as teachers, mentors and carers to people in their late teens and young adult years, and to the work they also do to tackle poverty. I regularly meet Principal Shaun Hope, because I regard Bishop Auckland college as a key partner in everything I would like to achieve in the place I represent. He recently told me that they have a closet of clothes that they give away, and that because of the poverty of the students going to the college, he has had to add extra budget to ensure that everyone can get a breakfast and lunch.
The decision to cut the education maintenance allowance and not replace it was one of the worst pieces of vandalism by the previous Government. That is why I welcome the lowering of the voting age in the Representation of the People Bill, giving young people a stake and the power to use their vote to demand better. I also welcome new protections from foreign interference, because I somehow doubt that a Thailand-based crypto billionaire had the interests of young people in Bishop Auckland at heart when he chose to give £5 million—and more—to Reform UK.
I welcome the measures and ambitions outlined in the King’s Speech. I welcome the emphasis on growth and opportunity, the focus on rebuilding Britain’s industrial capacity, and the Government’s commitment to reforming skills provision and strengthening pathways into work. For too long Britain has operated with an outdated hierarchy of success—one that implied that the only prestigious route was academic. That thinking has held our country back. There should be no hierarchy of esteem between academic and vocational education, and a young person training to become an engineer, a care worker, a builder, a digital technician or a heat-pump installer contributes every bit as much to Britain’s future as someone sitting in a university lecture hall.
Apprenticeships done properly remain one of the greatest engines of social mobility that the country has ever created. They provide not just qualifications but wages, confidence, structure, dignity and purpose. I welcome the move towards a more flexible growth and skills levy, new foundation apprenticeships, and the Government’s efforts to make it easier for small businesses to take on young apprentices again.
The Association of Colleges, however, has rightly warned that, while additional in-year growth funding is welcome, colleges remain under intense financial pressure after years of rising student numbers, inflationary costs and workforce shortages. Colleges are being asked to deliver more students with more technical pathways, more specialist provision and more support for vulnerable learners, often without the long-term funding that they need to plan sustainably. If we ask FE colleges to become the backbone of Britain’s growth strategy, we must give them the resources to deliver.
FE colleges are not merely peripheral institutions; they are core economic infrastructure. They train the people who will deliver the ambitions that we set out in the King’s Speech. In places such as Bishop Auckland, they are institutions of hope, aspiration and opportunity.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I rise as a former teacher and someone who loves my current job more than that one—although I did love teaching. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Education Committee that FE colleges that are currently not exempt from claiming back VAT are at a disadvantage compared with sixth-form colleges attached to schools that can claim it back, and that there is an argument that FE colleges should also get that advantage?
Sam Rushworth
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention my absolute delight at the education for all Bill included in the King’s Speech. I intend to speak in the debate on that Bill when the time comes. I also thank the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State for what I thought was a model of how to engage with charities and parents, as well as with Back-Bench MPs, on that difficult but important piece of legislation. I think everybody across the House will welcome that Bill as they see the battleground over education, health and care plans coming to an end, and the proper resources that children need to thrive entering those schools.
I will finish where I started, by saying that it is not a question of whether we can afford to create opportunity; the fact is that we cannot afford not to do so. The future of our country depends on it.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to welcome this King’s Speech after the bumper legislative year we have just had. Acts such as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the Employment Rights Act 2025 are already making a difference to my constituents, and there are more than 5,000 children in my area with better supported parents because of the lifting of the two-child benefit cap.
When I talk to my constituents in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield about their priorities, they talk to me about jobs and wages; about bills and rents; about our towns; about why, for a long time, Britain has not felt like it works for them; about why young people feel written off; and about how we grow and feel the heat of growth in the chilly hills of east Lancashire. They ask whether their kids will have to move away to get a decent job, whether their NHS will get back to working properly and why the old, derelict industrial sites have been left sitting empty for years, blighting our communities. They ask me whether they should have hope for the future; they ask whether they should be able only to look back with fondness, instead of forward with confidence. Now they are being sold a story of grievance, anger and easy answers by the poisonous bubble-gum politics of parties such as Reform.
That is why today’s debate matters. To get Britain working is to get Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield working, too. It is to get our economy working for places like ours again after 14 years of austerity and decline. It is to get our NHS working again and to give people the hope of decent jobs, pay and financial security again. This work is not done with slogans or easy answers, but built considerately, constantly and carefully, after being so quickly dismantled over the years.
Tom Hayes
Beaufort community centre in my constituency has had its doors closed. Employees have been made redundant. For them, it was more than just a job. It was a team; it was a dedication to their community. Children have lost out on their early years and childcare support, and families are having to look around to find alternative provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that our community is only as strong as our spaces, and that as a consequence, the Liberal Democrats should take control of that site, reopen the doors and provide what the community needs?
Oliver Ryan
I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is an ardent campaigner for community spaces like the one he mentions, and I am sure he is taking that fight to his local council on behalf of his residents and the users of that facility. I am completely onside with him. I am not sure how much work my endorsement does, but I wish him all the best in his campaign.
Getting Britain working has to mean something real in places such as Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield; it has to mean decent work, proper wages, real skills and investment in our towns to give a decent future and hope to our kids and grandkids. I am proud to say that this Labour Government are delivering on all those metrics, not in an overnight big bang, but through considered and substantial progress.
In my constituency, wages are up, employment is up, public and private investment is up and funding for our schools, colleges and local councils is up, while our local NHS waiting lists are down and access to care is going up. As a point of fact, one in seven people were on NHS waiting lists when we took office in 2024, including in my constituency. That is not Britain working. I am glad to say that the lists are coming down at a historically fast pace.
For too long, over the 14 years of the Tories, through austerity and cuts, too many constituents felt written off. Indeed, the numbers support that analysis. A big part of that came from a welfare system that the Tories built, which I believe was broken by design, with people signed off and written off, and young people and graduates left on the scrapheap. Under the Tories, the benefits bill ballooned by billions. They have no credibility on welfare reform. They talk tough, but it is this Government who are fixing the mess.
The previous Government built a system that classified 2.8 million people as unfit for work and left them there. They built universal credit in a way that actively penalised people for trying—where taking on a few extra shifts could leave someone worse off than before. They left disabled people and people with long-term health conditions in an impossible position, wanting to work and contribute, but terrified that if they tried to do so and it did not work out, they would lose the support that kept them afloat. That was not a welfare system; it was a trap and a cycle of insecurity, worklessness and despair that the Tories perpetuated, while at the same time demonising these people. They talked tough while their system was doing the exact opposite.
I welcome what this Government are doing to change that. The right to try is exactly the right approach: it gives disabled people the legal right to try work without the immediate fear of losing their benefits if things do not go perfectly. That might sound straightforward, but for constituents I have spoken to in Burnley—people who want to test for themselves part-time work and gradual return in order to rebuild their confidence—it could be transformative. The fear was real.
Disabled people are not a problem to be solved or written off. They are people with expertise in their own lives, people with needs and ambitions. The principle of “nothing about us without us” has to run through the design and implementation of this policy, and I will be considering this through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis. Genuine consultation and involvement backed up with an extra £3.5 billion to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into employment represents serious money and a serious commitment.
Good welfare policy has to do two things. It has to protect people who cannot work and who need support—the safety net—and it has to genuinely support people who can work back into employment and independence. It must not label them, park them or give up on them, but give them a hand up to get back on the horse. I am glad to see that this Government are committed to getting the balance right.
The issues facing young people are one of the sharpest challenges in towns like mine. In 2024, we inherited nothing short of a national disgrace: nearly a million young people—under-25s—were not in employment, education or training, and we had just had the worst Parliament on record for falling living standards. The number of NEET young people went up by a quarter of a million in the final years before the 2024 election, and youth unemployment was at a record high.
Once someone does not get their first leg up, the drift sets in and it becomes harder and harder to reverse. The human cost of that—the lost confidence, lost years and lost social impact—is real and lasting, especially in towns like mine. I have talked before in this Chamber about the great social ill of generational worklessness and how communities like mine, scarred from the closures of the mills and the mines, have never been given the chance nor the foundational support to properly recover.
Some young people have no parent who can tell them how to do a CV or an interview, so when they leave school they feel abandoned in a scary and increasingly expensive world where there are no opportunities for them. In the short term, a young person may turn to the benefit system, because their mate has. Next thing they know, they are in debt. Then they might have a family and get responsibilities—and change looks scary. They are still looking for work, but know in their heart that they do not have the confidence or the knowledge to get into the jobs market, and feel that they missed their window to do so. That is how people get left behind, how their children get left behind. It damages the social fabric of our country.
It is a disgrace that unemployment numbers shot up so high under the previous Government, because it was young people in towns like mine who suffered. Generationally, it is towns like mine that have always suffered—people have no hand up and no help; they are signed off, written off and politically demonised by the people who built the system that is trapping them there. I do not take a soft approach to welfare—of course, if someone can work, they absolutely should—but what has happened is not right.
Our youth guarantee is part of the answer, but I hope that the Secretary of State is looking to go further and faster in supporting young people. He is welcome to come to Burnley any time he likes so that I can show him what we can do for young people in our towns if we give them just a little support. At this point, I want to give a shout-out to Burnley jobcentre and all the staff there, with whom I was proud to host a jobs fair in Padiham earlier this year. I hope to host another in Burnley later this year.
The youth guarantee that the Secretary of State has set out is excellent: a work placement for young people aged 18 to 24 who have been seeking work for 18 months, with employment costs covered by Government. That is not a pilot scheme but an actual placement with real employment behind it. Businesses that take on a young person who has been on universal credit for more than six months will get a £3,000 youth jobs grant. For the small and medium-sized manufacturers, engineering firms, construction companies and family businesses that make up most of Burnley’s economy, that kind of support genuinely means the difference between making a hire and not being able to afford to do so.
I care deeply about apprenticeships. We are backing 50,000 new starts, after apprenticeships collapsed under the last Government, as the Secretary of State said earlier. We are introducing a £2,000 grant for small businesses that take on an apprentice. That rises to £5,000 if the apprentice has been out of work for six months. For a small business on a tight margin in Burnley town centre, that is not a minor detail; it is the difference between offering a young person a future and turning them away. Not every young person wants to go to university and not every young person should feel like they have somehow failed if they choose a different path. There should be real dignity and real ambition attached to practical skills, construction and practical trades in technical work.
Burnley has a proud industrial history. We have skilled people and businesses with genuine potential; what we have lacked for too long are the investment and infrastructure to match that potential. Under this Government, that investment is finally coming, and Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are ready for it.
Infrastructure matters. Transport links across east Lancashire still hold us back. Businesses need reliable connections to Manchester and across the north to expand and create jobs locally. Northern Powerhouse Rail and stronger rail connectivity are not luxuries for constituencies such as mine; they are economic necessities. I will always be here asking for more, particularly on buses and rail connections to Manchester, Leeds and Preston.
While I am on the topic of small businesses, let me say something about minimum wage increases, which seem to spur a bit of political conversation. In towns like Burnley, we either accept that we are in a race to the bottom and that only low wages will allow businesses to grow—a very Victorian take—or we follow the facts and figures and accept that in such places, where earnings are spent locally, a rising tide lifts all boats. Although paying bar or shop staff might be more expensive for a business this year, the cumulative effect of an increased minimum wage across the constituency strengthens both consumer and retail spending, building a stronger economy in the medium term.
Marie Goldman
Nobody, and certainly nobody in my party, would argue that we should not pay the lowest-paid more, but businesses in my Chelmsford constituency tell me—I am pretty sure this happens across the country—that the issue is the knock-on effect on the differential. When businesses pay the lowest-paid more, they have to pay some of the people higher up the ladder a bit more as well, to keep the differential. The cumulative effect of that—plus other things, such as national insurance contribution increases—is what has created difficulties. I am not having a go, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to try to find solutions that support businesses to pay their staff more while increasing their business?
Oliver Ryan
I am coming on to say, in fact, that of course the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business. I have heard, if not similar stories, then certainly experiences in the same vein. We had the debate on the national insurance increase in this place, but a good chunk of that increase, if not all of it, was allocated to NHS spend, which had a historic record increase under this Government, with £28 billion or £29 billion committed in the last financial year. A good chunk of that came from NI on employers. When we are looking at strengthening the national health service, asking employers to make a slightly bigger contribution to their employees’ healthcare is probably preferable to increasing the general tax take, which this Government pledged not to do in the election and have not done since.
As I say, the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business, but a downward drive on wages in towns like Burnley hits the whole economy, even if businesses initially want it. That is why real wages have grown more in the past 18 months of this Government than in the last 10 years of the Tory Government. Our economy is stronger because of the decisions we have made and defended.
I hear regularly from local businesses about the practical difficulties of trading with European markets since Britain lost unfettered access to those markets. They want fewer delays, lower costs and less uncertainty. They want to get on with it. The European partnership Bill needs to deliver practical answers for businesses like theirs. I am yet to meet a large exporting business in Burnley, Padiham or Brierfield that has been better off since Brexit. In fact, they report to me that they are losing business to European competitors every week.
None of that can be separated from what people in Burnley are dealing with financially right now: energy bills, food bills, fuel costs and rent. That comes up in almost every conversation I have. People want to work— they do work—but they want that work to pay enough to build a life. Cutting energy bills by up to 25% for manufacturers, driving forward on clean, home-grown energy, and investing in warmer homes and lower bills are not abstract policy objectives; they make the difference between a family building something and a family just about holding it together. What people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want is not unrealistic. They want decent jobs and opportunities for young people; they want a welfare system that opens doors, rather than closes them; they want wages that stretch far enough to actually build something; and they want investment in the towns that have waited long enough to feel confident about the future again.
I think of all that derelict land in Burnley that I started this speech by mentioning—the old sites behind fencing and weeds that have been sat there for the best part of 20 years while people walk past and wonder if anybody in power has noticed. Those sites would be a good place to get Burnley working, to get Britain working, and I look forward to progressing my campaign with the Minister on these issues.
Regeneration is not just about buildings; it is about whether people believe their town is moving forward. It is about whether a young person growing up in Burnley can look around and see the future there for themselves—right there, close to home, without having to pack up and leave to find it. For too long, people have felt like leaving is the only option. This Government’s job is to change that. This King’s Speech points in that direction with real intent and real investment behind it. After years of towns like mine feeling overlooked, I am proud to stand here trying to change that, because if we get this right, the people I represent will feel it, and they deserve to.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
In 2024, the British people, including so many of my constituents, voted for change. After a decade of brutal austerity, they desperately needed a drastic and material improvement in their living standards. The last King’s Speech championed measures that have the potential to radically change the situation for people, from renters’ rights to employment rights and more. I am pleased that this King’s Speech brings forward the Government’s commitments to end conversion practices and to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.
Yet we are not seeing the transformative agenda that the country has been crying out for and that people who have always supported Labour want. We have seen policy U-turns, from winter fuel allowance to the lifting of the two-child limit, following significant political and public pressure. We have seen policies that the British public rejected just last week, such as the changes to indefinite leave to remain and, of course, the continued failure to take meaningful action against the genocide in Gaza. We have also seen the targeting of refugees and migrants, and the provisions of the immigration and asylum Bill are incredibly alarming. The direction of travel in policy means that the Government are now left facing existential questions about what the Labour party stands for, who it stands for and why.
The Government said in response to their losses last week that there needs to be a faster and quicker shift, but in the same direction. I want to be clear that this is not what my constituents want. My constituents and I refuse to accept that poverty and inequality have to be a normal part of our society and that nothing can be done about it. That is not why I came into politics.
It is true that the stark disregard for human suffering displayed by the Conservative Government will never, ever be forgotten. They drove people into poverty then punished them for being poor. They pursued the vulnerable and persecuted the disabled. That is why people have been desperate for real change. It is also true, however, that the United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world and London is the fifth wealthiest city in the world. The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of the population, and the UK’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than 50% of our population. In that context, people simply do not believe that they must continue to endure more hardship for any longer.
I have said before that everything has to be costed and nothing is free in the purest sense, but the fact is that we are a relatively wealthy country and the resources are there in some form. They could be raised, for example, by ensuring that big business and the wealthy pay their fair share. If the wealthiest 1% in this country were taxed just a modest 1% more, it would raise £25 billion and leave more after. It is a question of priorities, political choices and in whose interests decisions are made.
I find myself asking again and again, “If there is not enough money, what is the plan to make sure that there is?” Why does austerity still have to be the political choice? That is why I call for the overall benefit cap to be lifted in full; the lifting of the two-child limit alone still leaves thousands of families excluded and trapped in poverty.
I appeal to the Government to ensure that there are no further attacks on the rights of disabled people in the UK. The Timms review is due to report in autumn, and I am obliged to make it clear for my constituents, many of whom are already impacted by cuts to the health component of universal credit, that any further attempts to restrict or cut personal independence payments would be disastrous and have to be dropped. If they are not dropped, at bare minimum there must be a full parliamentary vote.
Surely the greatest duty of any Government must be to protect and empower the most vulnerable people in our society and deliver social good, not social harm. I am clear about what my role must be, who elected me, and who I am here to represent, and I cannot in my conscience allow the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled to be exposed to any further brutality. If there is no money for disabled people not to be further punished through the welfare system, then the money must be found. If the way our economy is run means that large scale human suffering and wasted potential is unavoidable, it is up to the Government to change the way the economy is run.
The King’s Speech proposed a step forward towards the nationalisation of British Steel. I welcome that intention, just as I welcomed the first steps towards the nationalisation of railways in the last Session. However, it presents nationalisation almost as a move of last resort, after private interests have extracted all the profits they can from privatised industries. Why can we not have a conversation about nationalisation in the public good? When we are seeing the dire, shameful way that the private water industry is being mismanaged, a new water ombudsman in the clean water Bill is not enough to meet the scale of the problem. If they have the political will, the Government can meet the public support and demand for public ownership for mail, rail, water and gas, and end the disastrous experiments with privatisation.
I reaffirm my commitment to a publicly owned and run NHS that provides free and funded healthcare for all. That principle was an ironclad manifesto commitment, yet we have seen a return to private finance initiatives in the NHS—the same initiatives that have had disastrous consequences in constituencies such as mine in east London. Doctors themselves are resisting controversial Government decisions to sign partnerships with Palantir, and along with that, the agreement last year to appease Donald Trump will strip away National Institute for Health and Care Excellence medicine price controls, and lock in higher drug prices, doubling NHS spend on new medicines, and diverting funds from other vital NHS functions. That will only serve to benefit American big pharma. Private interests should never line their pockets at the expense of our society’s health, not least under a Labour Government.
The economy must also work to resolve the housing crisis. I have been looking closely at the social housing Bill, and I welcome its provisions and measures to protect tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse—something the sector has long been campaigning for. However, we will be looking at such measures closely because they need to work in practice, and I remain concerned about the Bill more widely. Can it truly provide the solutions needed to solve the housing crisis without ensuring a commitment to a mass social housing building programme and rent controls?
My east London constituency has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the entire country. We have people living in uninhabitable and overcrowded homes that are also not affordable. That is set against a backdrop of rising wealth in the financial sector and the encroaching City of London in the west, and the ever-expanding Canary Wharf real estate. It is why many of my constituents are concerned about what the legacy and future of the Billingsgate market site in my constituency could be. Could it provide genuinely affordable homes, or could it lead to more luxury flats being built that will drive local people, including families, out of our area? Likewise, many of my constituents who are struggling in the cost of living crisis are interested to know what the Government’s discussions with the financial giant J.P. Morgan will end up meaning for our area and whether decisions are being driven in the interests of local people and for the longevity of our area.
The Prime Minister claimed yesterday that the King’s Speech
“will tear down the status quo”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 22.]
The risk here is that disillusionment has begun to settle in. I believe there needs to be less talk of delivery and missions and more talk about how the Government will truly rebalance power and address inequality in the interests of workers and working-class people in this country. The Government must be louder and bolder, but in a vastly different political direction. That must mean showing up as a Government who take people’s material concerns seriously and addressing those concerns in line with the Labour values that they were founded on. More incrementalism sends a message to the British people that the Government do not understand what has gone wrong, because this country and its economy are not working for millions of people, and that demands transformative action.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I praise all Members for their contributions; while I did not agree with all of them, I recognise the passion with which they were delivered on topics that Members care about. In particular, I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths).
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that Labour is taking this country in the wrong direction, which is a sentiment agreed with by the newly former Health Secretary, who said in his resignation letter that
“where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.”
That is a damning indictment of a Government who are saying that they want to get Britain working again.
The Conservatives are absolutely committed to getting Britain working again. We got a record 4 million more people in work between 2010 and 2024, which allowed millions more people to have the security of their own income, empowering them to own their own home and look after their families. [Interruption.] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but we created 800 new jobs a day in those 14 years.
The situation has taken a dire turn since the change of Government. Since Labour took office, unemployment has risen to 5.2% and payroll jobs have reduced by 110,000. The Office for Budget Responsibility has even raised the unemployment rate forecast for 2026, 2027 and 2028. There is only one conclusion: Labour is letting people down and consigning more people on to welfare instead of good, honest work.
I will focus particularly on young people and their prospects, where unfortunately an even bleaker picture is being painted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, who said that this Government are failing young people. I have heard a lot of Members talk about getting young people back into work, but the youth unemployment rate is 15.9%—up by 2.7% since the Labour party took office. It has been in power for two years, and that has been the consequence. One in six young people are now unable to find a job.
This Government are pushing more young people on to benefits, which has deeper long-term consequences. There are now nearly 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. Among graduates, the Centre for Social Justice estimates that around 700,000 people are out of work and claiming benefits, and the impacts of that cannot be overstated. Every month spent out of work means that people take more than they give to the state.
I have been campaigning in local elections across Meriden and Solihull East, and I can tell hon. Members that young people want to work, because there is dignity and hope in work. Every month that a young person spends out of a job makes it harder for them to get back into employment. While their peers are developing critical skills in the workplace, those out of work fall behind. It also weakens their ability to save and put money away for the future, making it harder—for example—to save for their first home, for their family or for their retirement.
The number of young people out of work is a calamity, and the Government must do much more to address it, but nothing they have set out has reassured me that they understand that. The Employment Rights Act, passed in the previous parliamentary Session, has already started to have a catastrophic impact on the jobs market. That disastrous piece of legislation has increased costs for businesses and discouraged hiring, especially of young people. Having listened to the previous speech, I say to Labour Members that business owners are not just there to be squeezed until their pips squeak—they are the ones who take the risk, invest and create the jobs.
I will, of course, also challenge the Government in the educational space, because I believe they have been completely ineffective. Just this week, the Prime Minister has made new pledges on apprenticeships and skills in an effort to turn his failing premiership around. Perhaps he recognises what I do, because from the data on apprenticeships, the picture is mixed at best. The Department responsible for work should be a shining example of the Government’s commitment to more apprenticeships, but regrettably, it is far from it—the number of apprenticeship starts at the DWP has actually fallen. The Government’s broken promises on apprenticeships are best shown in relation to level 7 qualifications, which are high-quality pathways—[Interruption.] I am talking about level 7 qualifications; the Secretary of State may want to pay attention.
Those high-quality pathways allow people to get into professions such as accountancy, engineering and architecture without accumulating the same debt as graduates. However, the Government continue to restrict level 7 funding for those over 22, meaning that they are missing out on those opportunities and also putting level 6 apprenticeships at risk. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is very audible. In opposition, when she was shadow Education Secretary, she promised graduates that they would pay less under Labour. That has turned out to be nothing but another broken promise, because not only is it now harder for graduates to get into work, tuition fees have gone up twice. Those who are paying those fees are now doing so with no promise of valued work at the end of it all.
I also want to address the SEND Bill—the education for all Bill—proposed in the King’s Speech. Given the time I have today, I do not have the luxury of asking all the questions that parents have wanted me to pose to the Government, but there are a couple of questions that I do want to ask. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from the Secretary of State.
Saqib Bhatti
The Government have claimed that the Bill will make generational reforms to the SEND system. The outlines of those proposals have been included in the White Paper, but parents are none the wiser. I have met a lot of parents, and despite the Government’s rhetoric, I see parents with more anxiety, not less. Just this Monday, I met a number of SEND parents from my constituency. All they want is for their children to have a chance at life, so I will ask the Minister a question that has been put to me by parents—perhaps she will address it when she responds. The consultation does not sufficiently address what will be done to help those 16 to 19-year-olds who can work to get into work. With all that is going on outside of the Chamber and in No. 10, if the Government are consumed by leadership contests and machinations, when will the legislation come before the House? This chaos will only further exacerbate the anxiety and anguish of parents and their children. I was told yesterday that the Government have actually been distributing briefing documents to their MPs to get supportive responses to their consultation. If the Government’s proposals for reform are so good, why are they trying to stack their own consultation?
Phil Brickell
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but he seems a little confused in his remarks. In the same breath, he is urging the Government to bring the Bill to tackle the broken SEND system before the House as soon as possible, and saying that the consultation has not run its full course and has not brought enough people in. Which is it? It cannot be both at the same time.
Saqib Bhatti
I do not think the hon. Member was paying attention. What I said was that I worry that the consultation is being stacked, but parents want to see the legislation, because there is not enough clarity in the consultation and they do not have the answers to the questions they are asking. I certainly hope that the parents the hon. Member meets make that clear to him.
With little indication that the Government will set out comprehensive plans to support young people, the Opposition have been busy drawing up their own proposals for an alternative King’s Speech. We have laid out comprehensive plans to help recruit thousands of new apprentices. Our apprenticeship guarantee will remove the funding cap for apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds. This will ensure that employers have fully funded access to training, helping 100,000 extra young people into work every year.
In addition, we would encourage more employers to take on 18 to 21-year-olds by introducing a business rebate for investment in training and skills, or BRITS scheme. It would provide a new incentive of up to £5,000 for businesses to take on 18 to 21-year-old apprentices.
In the higher education space, the Conservatives have clear plans to rebalance the system. We have a proud record of expanding higher education, but we also recognise that more needs to be done to address the growth of low-value courses. Some degrees have ended up becoming a poor deal for both taxpayers and graduates. They do not help young people into work and the bill ends up being footed by taxpayers, some of whom have not benefited from a university education. That is why our alternative King’s Speech lays out plans to get more people into apprenticeships using money saved from cutting low value, low outcome degrees.
Andrew Pakes
I want to make a point to help the shadow Minister, because I think he has missed a page of his speech or dropped it on the floor in getting ready for the debate. I have heard nothing in his comments about the 40% drop in young people doing apprenticeships when his Government were in power, or the devastating impact on Peterborough from fewer young people doing apprenticeships because of his Government’s policies. If he has dropped that piece of paper and forgot to mention it, I am happy to supply him with the facts.
Saqib Bhatti
We created more than 5 million apprentices. If we want young people to be hired, we need an economy that works for the businesses that hire them. I am sure that the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, will be doing an excellent job in making sure that there is more investment in education and in young people.
Alongside rebalancing the system, we are also looking to abolish real interest on plan 2 student loans, ending the unfair cycle whereby higher interest rates mean graduate debt rises faster than graduates can pay it off. Our proposals are much more comprehensive than those laid out by the Government. Labour’s plans to cap student loan repayments at 6% will leave graduates ripped off, paying interest above inflation. It shows that the Government do not have a plan for young people and will continue to tinker around the edges rather than make genuine, bold change.
I will finish where I started, because the constant speculation about the Prime Minister’s future means that his Ministers will not be spending time looking at how to make a better deal for young people, whether that is boosting home ownership, reducing youth unemployment or getting the economy growing. In fact, just yesterday, I read reports of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), asking the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure. Now that the Health Secretary has resigned, I ask this Minister: does she support the Prime Minister?
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is an honour to close today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I thank everyone from all parts of the Chamber for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions. I will come to some of their comments in detail, but I start by saying that it is a shame the shadow Minister did not ask for the help of the work experience student who supported the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) in developing his statistics today. The shadow Minister might have been a bit more accurate if he had. As we have already heard, under his Government, apprenticeship starts for young people went down by 40%. Under this Government they have gone up. This year, we have seen more than 300,000 people get into work. Just this morning, we saw the UK have the fastest growth of the six G7 countries that have declared. We are taking action on employment, on apprenticeships and on growth, but I will come to those detailed questions later.
First, I will talk about some of the issues that have been raised in the Chamber today. Members have shown the importance of growth and opportunity in every single community. We heard a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), who talked about the importance of investment in towns. We heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) about the importance of coastal communities, and from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) about the importance of rural communities. It has been so powerful to hear MPs bringing the voices of those different communities into this Chamber.
I also thank those who raised the critical issue of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I assure the shadow Minister that that is the purpose that the Secretary of State and I are focused on every day. I spent this morning speaking to special schools. Yesterday, I was speaking to families. We are listening to the voices of children and young people. We have a generational opportunity to get this right, and we will continue that work, led by the Prime Minister. It is a critical issue; we heard from a number of hon. Members how important it is for their constituents.
I agree with the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) that we must ensure that we really hear families’ voices. The Secretary of State and I and other Ministers have been travelling around the country talking to families. We have heard that too often they have to fight for the support their children need. The system that we have—a system that we inherited—is failing too many families; it needs to change. Support needs to go in earlier, and we need to ensure that we are supporting every child to develop their opportunities to the best of their ability.
I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her diagnosis. Everyone across the House will agree that she is an important role model for people with neurodivergence. She shows how important it is that people with autism take up roles across our society and provide that leadership. I will commit to meeting her to discuss the issues she raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for her contribution on early intervention, the importance of Best Start hubs, support for breakfast clubs, and how critical it is to support families with children with special educational needs and disabilities at the earliest possible point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made important points about accountability. Again, we are talking about those issues with families.
I welcome the promise of partnership and scrutiny from the hon. Member for South Devon. This is such an important issue, and our commitment is to work cross-party to ensure that we are getting it right.
Peter Swallow
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I tried to intervene on the shadow Minister but was not successful. On that cross-party consensus, was she as surprised as I was to see no commitment at all on special educational needs in the Conservative party’s so-called alternative King’s speech? Does she share my concern that that demonstrates its complete lack of seriousness on that really important issue?
Georgia Gould
The Opposition have been remarkably silent for a long time about the failures in the system. They have been quick to ask us to take action, but less quick to set out what they would do differently. This is an issue that they failed to grip for years. We are tackling it head on, introducing legislation and putting investment right now into our communities. We had mention of the Experts at Hand service and the investment in new special schools that is making a difference today.
Almost every single hon. Member talked about youth unemployment and how important it is to get behind our young people and support them into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland talked about the scarring impact of youth unemployment and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) talked about the impact in his community. This is absolutely at the heart of the Government’s agenda. It is why we have introduced the youth guarantee, and it is why we are investing billions of pounds to support that.
At the heart of the debate is how we restore opportunity to the British people after decades of that being denied to them. As we heard from so many hon. Members, a job is about more than just a salary; it brings choice, control, agency and freedom over our lives. That is what is at stake here. We want to build a country in which opportunity is open to all. Rather than a privilege of birth or background or the product of luck or circumstances, opportunity should be the right of anyone and everyone willing to work hard and grab it with both hands.
That is what getting Britain working again means to me and to this Government, with the opportunities created by our modern industrial strategy open to everyone. That is the story we tell ourselves in Britain: if you work hard, you can get on, no matter who you are. Aspiration should be for all. It is a privilege to serve as Minister for School Standards in a Department driving that forward every day, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is in education that we can make that a reality, restoring opportunity to people of all ages in every village, town and city and building the economy and society of tomorrow. That is what this Government are doing, and it means reaching young people who are not working or in training. As we have heard today, there are almost a million of them—a million reasons why this Government’s youth guarantee is so important.
I have been travelling around the country to speak to families and young people about SEND. I spoke to an 18-year-old who loved computing, who had been out of school and who had applied for hundreds of jobs, but they had been turned down for every single one of them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) talked about that feeling of hopelessness. [Interruption.] Sorry, I just need to take a second.
Saqib Bhatti
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to recognise the wonderful work that the Doorkeepers do around this House. I do not think they get enough credit, and I would like to ask for your wisdom on how I can put that on the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Thank you for bringing to our attention the fantastic work that the Doorkeepers do. I would personally like to put that on the record, mostly because I would not be able to do my job unless I acknowledge the work that they do. That is absolutely the right thing to do.
Has the Minister finished her speech?
Georgia Gould
I will finish. I am really sorry—I have a two-and-a-half-year-old who kept me up all night, and I was feeling a bit faint.
I want to conclude by setting out how important it is for this Government to support the next generation and to support young people. As we bring forward our Bill, we will have young people in our minds, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities and those who have been let down. We will do everything in our power to support them.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Claire Hughes.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 18 May.
Heathrow Airport: Third Runway
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The debate surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who oppose a third runway, arguing that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental consequences are unavoidable. Although I have always opposed a third runway at Heathrow, the current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past 10 years, and the addition of nearly 300,000 more flights, which expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable.
It is widely rumoured that even Heathrow Airport Ltd did not believe the timing of expansion to be practical. Despite that, on 29 January 2025, the Chancellor announced her support for a third runway to be built at Heathrow airport. This endorsement was the landmark announcement during her speech on growth; as such, it has a significant amount of political weight behind it. My plea to the Minister is that any decision taken on a third runway at Heathrow should be based on merit and unbiased data, not politics. The decision has an enormous impact on millions of lives, and it must be more than just a signal to investors to compensate for the Government’s economic mismanagement.
The Chancellor believes that expansion at Heathrow will produce economic growth. Nearly 18 months later, however, the Government have yet to produce their economic analysis to support that assertion, and the figures raised in the Chancellor’s speech on growth were drawn directly from an internal business case prepared for Heathrow airport and have not been independently verified.
The Department for Transport’s own updated appraisal report from 2017 shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion. Now it has been admitted that even that figure is a generous estimate, as the DFT’s guidance suggests that international transfer passengers, who are estimated to make up 75% of a projected third runway’s capacity, do not contribute to the UK’s economy. When discounting those passengers, it is estimated that the net present value could be reduced by as much as a further £5.5 billion.
In addition, the New Economics Foundation asserts that twice as many people fly out of the UK than fly in, thus exporting more money out of our economy. An assessment of the impacts of inbound and outbound tourism flows is currently missing from the economic analysis of aviation’s contribution to the economy. Will the Minister provide reassurance that that research will be conducted and published with the airports national policy statement?
Heathrow Airport Ltd has cited that the cost of building a third runway will be an eyewatering £49 billion, before factoring in an estimated £100 billion in carbon abatement costs and at least £15 billion of investment on surface access upgrade improvements. Without that upgrade, there will be no way to deliver sufficient passengers to Heathrow to utilise the additional capacity and deliver the supposed economic benefits.
The Government have said that funding for a third runway at Heathrow will be privately financed. With Heathrow already drowning in over £15 billion-worth of debt, I am not convinced. I would therefore like to ask again, will the Minister provide reassurances that none of the costs associated with building a third runway at Heathrow will be pushed on to the taxpayer?
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate on an issue that matters to my constituents in Hillingdon, to her constituents and to many constituents across the west London area. As she rightly points out, there have been discussions about the third runway being privately financed, but as she has touched on, there are public sector burdens and costs too, including from the extra pressure on the Elizabeth line, because of the capacity that will be needed, and on the local road network. Does she agree that it is vital when looking at the economic case that possible public sector pressures are fully accounted for in the decision-making process? Does she agree that the Government’s four tests are absolutely vital, and that we need transparency about how those tests will be measured and assessed?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the economic case and to look at it in the round—not just the specific costs associated with building the runway, but all the additional costs associated with operating it at capacity and all the impacts that that will have on Heathrow, along with the whole of London and the south-east.
The economic argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny, while the social and environmental consequences of a third runway are unavoidable. Communities would be severely impacted by the additional flights that a third runway would bring. It is expected that nearly 325,000 more people will fall within the Department for Transport’s “significantly affected” decibel level measurement. That does not even reference the increased bombardment of noise that houses already impacted by Heathrow’s flights are likely to experience. Not only would that noise disturbance affect people’s everyday lives, whether their sleeping pattern or their ability to work from home, it would have serious physical and mental health repercussions for local residents.
People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. Will the Minister confirm how many people will be exposed to noise at 45 decibels, the level that the World Health Organisation estimates that health impacts begin? Will the Government commit to setting a minimum acceptable level of noise by which any expansion proposal can be judged? Will the Government also commit to ensuring that there is no increase in night flights? People deserve a full night of undisrupted sleep, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government do not plan to approve anything that would mean more planes fly over households during night hours.
Yesterday, the Government outlined their plan to introduce the civil aviation Bill in this parliamentary Session. Will the Minister outline a timeline for the introduction of that Bill, and will he explain how the Government can provide communities with reassurances that a third runway will not bring new or extended disruptions when airspace changes are yet even to be drawn up?
On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding nearly 300,000 extra flights to our skies each year will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. This Government have used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion. They are yet to provide any evidence that shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits.
International uncertainty over China’s introduction of their SAF mandate, which accounts for more than 90% of our imported SAF, and challenges to UK-US trade have meant that the UK’s SAF targets, which in themselves would not mitigate pollution from Heathrow expansion, are even more difficult to deliver. The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will use SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s mandated targets and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansion.
Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of CO2 every year. The Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero estimates that aviation will contribute 23 megatonnes of CO2 by 2050. A third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. Does the Minister still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets with the expansion of Heathrow airport?
This Government have repeated that they will honour and respect the Labour party’s four tests, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). They are: growth across the country, noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected and our climate change objectives to be met. They must be passed before expansion can be approved. As I have just laid out, I do not believe that any of those tests can be passed, let alone all four, but I ask that the Government honour the principle of the tests and do not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data.
I hope I have underlined the importance of this decision for our economy, environment and local communities. Moreover, I hope that this speech has impressed on the Government that this decision cannot move ahead solely on the basis of political expediency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Has the hon. Member sought all the appropriate permissions?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today.
My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him.
As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that
“Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”.
I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health.
It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”.
We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts.
Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising.
At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned.
We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today.
Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Members in attendance, in particular the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate. We have engaged on this topic before, and I would welcome any further engagement in the build-up to and following the publication of the draft amended ANPS.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I am very grateful for the Minister’s commitment to engagement. Right now, there is traffic chaos in the Egham and Pooley Green area. I am opposed to the third runway. It will make the transport situation in the north of my constituency worse, and it will cause problems of increased noise and air pollution. Will he engage with our local communities, so that he can hear from them how much we do not want it?
Keir Mather
I would be very pleased to engage with the hon. Member and, perhaps through him, with the community groups that he points to. It is important to say that the ANPS review will consider the elements of the existing ANPS that relate to surface access proposals. That includes mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effects of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. I would be happy to speak about that with him and his constituents.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister is making a really important point about the importance of surface access. He will know, because I have pressed him on this before, how important I think it is that we get better rail access to Heathrow, regardless of whether there is a third runway. Heathrow has committed to looking at both a western rail link and, importantly for my constituents in Bracknell, a southern rail link. Would he like to see those plans go ahead? Will he press Heathrow to make sure that they are part of any proposals, and will he do everything he can to deliver better rail access for my constituents?
Keir Mather
As part of the ANPS process, we are going to consider the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets. Any expansion at Heathrow will be tested against the public transport mode share targets set out in the ANPS, and rail will form an important part of those considerations. I would be happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend about how his constituents may be affected by any expansion and mitigations in that space, although I do not wish to pre-empt any of the outcomes of the ANPS review.
Heathrow expansion and, in turn, a third runway at Heathrow airport would have a transformative impact. It is essential, as hon. Members have outlined, that the Government get this process right, taking full account of all views and ensuring adequate and full scrutiny. The Government recognise that air connectivity plays a vital role in supporting economic growth across the country, with the air transport and aerospace sectors contributing £23 billion to our GDP and 240,000 jobs across the United Kingdom in 2023.
Dr Spencer
Notwithstanding my points about the third runway, the success of Heathrow is incredibly important to my constituents in providing jobs and economic activity locally. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s response to the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts Heathrow and our economy?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I hesitate to even raise this, but in case the Minister is anxious about time, we can—fortunately or unfortunately—run to 5.30 pm.
Keir Mather
Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker—come on!
The hon. Member is right to say that the economic activity and jobs created by Heathrow airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know his constituents will be looking with concern at what is happening in the middle east. The Department for Transport is engaging very closely with both our refineries and the aviation sector to ensure we have security of aviation fuel supply. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that, working closely with those stakeholders, we can ensure that the impacts of the crisis in the middle east are sufficiently mitigated. I know how important that will be to his constituents.
Capacity constraints are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow airport, as the UK’s busiest airport and only hub airport, plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight: 73% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 72% of UK international air freight by value goes through the airport. The decision about a third runway at Heathrow has been ducked and delayed for decades, which has resulted in the capacity of the UK’s only hub airport being constrained. That has had a material impact on Heathrow, with the airport operating at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades.
Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution.
As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.
In November, the Government announced that the north-west runway scheme, put forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd, will be used to inform the review of the ANPS. However, once the Government have reviewed the ANPS, and depending on the outcome of the review, any applicant, also known as a promoter, can submit a proposal through the development consent order process.
It is for scheme promoters to decide when to submit any DCO application for a third runway scheme, and any promoter may submit a proposal for development consent. It is at that stage of the planning process when the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway would go through a strict and independent process. It would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Transport would then make a final decision on whether to grant consent.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time—although, as Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out, we have quite a lot of it. The UK Government used to have a golden share in Heathrow airport. However, that was ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice in 2003. Given that the Government broadly want the same thing as any promoter might want, inasmuch as they want Heathrow expansion, that would suggest that the Government are at the point of maximum influence in this build-up phase. Post-Brexit, will the Minister consider making any progress with the third runway conditional on the British Government getting back their golden share, so that we can control a great deal more of what goes on at Heathrow at Government level?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he does not mind my saying so, I think he may have a slightly over-inflated expectation of my powers as a junior Minister in the Department for Transport to compel a change in Heathrow airport’s ownership structure. What I am pleased to say is that there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the fact that the Government have set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly take his suggestion on board, but I am pleased to say that I think the onus is there to ensure that the project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist.
To turn back briefly to the DCO process, the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ANPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act 2008—a position we have consistently maintained since the Government’s initial announcement in support of expansion last year.
I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but two small points of detail were originally raised that I would like to address first. First, on the introduction of a civil aviation Bill, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill is a Lords Bill and I am pleased to confirm that it was introduced today. Secondly, on the principle of night flights, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that the current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows.
Although the ANPS review is ongoing and limits what can be said in detail at this stage, I want to reassure the House that both Parliament and constituents will have the formal opportunity to engage when the amended draft ANPS is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny.
Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the Government have been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The Government are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable and that any increases to fares during expansion are minimised. Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA’s priority and keeping costs affordable will always be a part of the CAA’s considerations.
Munira Wilson
I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point, he confirmed that the ANPS will receive parliamentary scrutiny. Can he clarify for the House whether that means a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Once the ANPS is laid in Parliament, there is a 21 sitting day consideration period during which the House of Commons can resolve that a vote can be called on whether to approve the ANPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny. It is for the Liaison Committee, I believe, to determine which Committee is most appropriate to take forward Select Committee-level analysis of the implications of the ANPS, and to take oral evidence and so on. That process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny that the Government fully support taking place through the Select Committee process.
It is our view that expansion could inject billions into our economy, support thousands of apprenticeships, and strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and airfreight hub. It should also deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and, ultimately, lower fares when compared with a world where Heathrow does not expand. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the ANPS review the Department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion, the outcome of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the ANPS review.
On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere.
The Government published their plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on 29 October 2025, including on aviation, and we will be legislating for the carbon budget 7 target shortly. The current ANPS sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and those mitigations are being considered as part of the ANPS review.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned commitments around noise, which are incredibly important. We recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase in noise. The current ANPS provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme should meet. That includes a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, a runway alternation scheme that provides affected communities with predictable periods of respite, and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets that we will review as part of the ANPS.
On the two studies that the hon. Member for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that they will be both be published shortly, and that hon. Members will be able to consider them fully alongside the ANPS process. There will be full transparency on the Government’s work to understand the impact of noise on both her constituents and people who live in proximity of airports across the country. We will consider those and other mitigations as part of the ANPS review.
On a separate note, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, bringing some noise and carbon benefits. The review of the ANPS will consider whether any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations set out in the original document.
The Government have consistently made it clear that air quality obligations must be met. The current ANPS sets out clear air quality requirements, and as part of the ongoing review of the ANPS we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality impacts and mitigation measures contained within it.
Turning to the important reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow airport is vitally important, and will be a key consideration as part of any plans for expansion. Plans must look to mitigate the impact on local and national transport networks. As part of the ANPS review we are considering the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effect of expansion on existing surface access arrangements.
Any promoter that wants to deliver expansion will need to model the impact of expansion on roads around the airport, including the M25, as part of their application, and consult with National Highways on their plans. As I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding. That includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links.
To touch briefly on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that we listen carefully to everyone’s views on this transformative and landmark piece of infrastructure. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and it has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits that could be felt across the United Kingdom. However, we fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them, and that is why the Government are launching a formal consultation on the drafted ANPS by the summer.
Peter Swallow
I want to push the Minister on mitigations around surface access. This is an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns about existing surface access arrangements, but to massively improve those arrangements. He will be aware that across a large swathe of the south of England, there is effectively no way to get to the airport apart from driving. Through this process we have an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns, but to boost and upgrade public transport networks to get to Heathrow airport.
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend makes a fair challenge. He is right to say that the ANPS review and the consultation on it is an opportunity for us to look at some of these questions again and to consider how, with Heathrow continuing to offer its unique opportunity to the United Kingdom’s economy as our only international hub airport, we can facilitate better access for the communities surrounding it, both for the economic opportunities for employment and for people across the United Kingdom to fly and enjoy holidays with their families. He raises an important matter.
Dr Ben Spencer
I invite the Minister to Egham as part of his engagement on looking at surface access, where he will be able to see the carnage caused by the level crossings and the benefits of removing the level crossings and having a direct rail link from Egham to Heathrow. While he is there, he will probably also be able to hear the planes overhead and see the impact the noise is already having on that community.
Keir Mather
If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me setting out the terms of his invitation, I would be very grateful and happy to consider them. It would be great to visit his constituency.
As His Majesty noted yesterday, the Government are bringing forward the civil aviation Bill, which will ensure that the UK’s aviation sector remains competitive, resilient and fair so that it can continue to drive economic growth while delivering better outcomes for passengers. The Bill will also strengthen consumer rights and protections, promote economic growth and infrastructure provision and enhance aviation safety, supporting our world-leading aviation sector to continue thriving for decades to come.
I thank all Members for their robust scrutiny, both of me and of the measures that underpin our review of the airports national policy statement and the principle of Heathrow expansion overall. On a serious note, I encourage them to engage with us further on these matters. I understand that they have a lot of questions to answer from concerned constituents who want an explanation of how best they can participate in the consultation process for the future of their local communities, so I encourage them to reach out to me. I would be happy to discuss this further to arrange it accordingly. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Correction
Ministerial Correction
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Emma Hardy
The fishing industry did not engage on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and met frequently on the policy and the statutory instrument.
[Official Report, Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee, 27 April 2026; c. 10.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy):
Emma Hardy
The fishing industry was not engaged on the wider testing on the guidance, but will be engaged on measures and was met on the policy and the statutory instrument.
Written Statements
British Steel
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
The Government committed to updating Parliament on British Steel every four sitting weeks for the duration of the period of special measures being applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Government’s priority remains to maintain the safe operation of the blast furnaces at British Steel. Government officials are continuing to provide on-site support in Scunthorpe, ensuring uninterrupted domestic steel production and monitoring the use of taxpayer funds.
On funding, the position remains that all Government funding for British Steel will be drawn from existing budgets, within the spending envelope set out at spring statement 2025. To date, we have provided approximately £484 million for working capital, covering items such as raw materials and salaries. This will be reflected in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for both 2025-26 and 2026-27.
Next steps
A strong steel sector is essential to supporting our national security, critical national infrastructure and highly skilled jobs in communities across the country. This Government’s steel strategy sets out our long-term plan to revitalise the UK steel sector, ensuring the competitiveness and viability of UK steelmaking to sustain 40-50% of domestic demand being met by domestic production and supporting key sectors including defence, construction and clean energy.
Today, the Government will introduce a Bill to provide a route for Government to bring steel companies or their operations into public ownership, provided the public interest test in the legislation is met. This will allow the Government to safeguard domestic steelmaking capability in line with the steel strategy. We do not take the decision to introduce the Bill lightly.
The Government have engaged in negotiations with the current owner of British Steel regarding a commercial sale, but it has not been possible to agree acceptable terms that would represent a responsible use of public money. We want to see British Steel play its part in in a revitalised steel sector, but it has not been possible to agree this under its current ownership.
Given the information currently available to us, the Government are strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to bring British Steel into public ownership in the future, subject to the public interest being satisfied and taking into account all the relevant facts at that time.
Safeguarding the long-term future of Britain’s steel capability and capacity is in our national interest. The Government believe it is in the public interest to bring legislation that will give the Government the powers to nationalise British Steel. Bringing British Steel into national ownership would allow the Government to explore what future opportunities there may be for British Steel including to modernise the site, deliver a transition to decarbonised steelmaking at Scunthorpe, and provide stability for workers, suppliers and customers.
The Government recognise that securing the long-term future of the UK steel sector relies on both public and private investment for modernisation. Delivering the best outcomes for taxpayers has been, and will remain, a key priority for this Government.
[HCWS1560]
Access to Banking Services Review
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
The way people access banking services has changed significantly in recent years. Access to these services is provided through a range of channels, including different in-person models as well as digital channels, which many customers benefit from. Many find that the ease and convenience of remote banking and digital innovations allow them to manage their finances more easily. However, some still need or prefer access to in-person banking services, including those who are vulnerable, less digitally confident, or who rely on face-to-face support to manage their finances.
It is for this reason that the Government committed in our manifesto to working with the financial services industry on the roll out of 350 banking hubs by the end of this Parliament. Over 275 hubs have been announced so far, and more than 230 are already open.
However, the Government recognise that the location of banking hubs is based upon a legislative framework which protects access to cash, as opposed to access to banking services. Specifically, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 provides a framework to safeguard cash withdrawal and deposit facilities, and the Financial Conduct Authority has responsibility and powers to ensure the reasonable provision of such services. There are currently no equivalent statutory protections specifically for access to in-person banking services more broadly.
While the Government recognise it is neither possible nor reflective of customer behaviour to reverse the long-term trend towards digital banking, the Government are committed to ensuring that customers, including those who are vulnerable or less digitally able, retain sufficient access to essential banking services in line with their needs. HM Treasury has therefore commissioned an independent review into access to banking services to assess the impact of changes in the provision of in-person banking services across the United Kingdom. The review will consider the scale and nature of any detriment to consumers arising from a lack of access to banking services, including impacts on vulnerable groups. The review will be chaired by Richard Lloyd OBE, chair of IPSA and former interim chair of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
The review will also seek to examine which groups of customers need or require access to in-person banking services.
It will seek input from market participants and consumer representatives, and Government and regulators may also be consulted. Evidence collected by the review will inform future decisions on whether further action is needed. The review will conclude in October 2026 and the chair will provide a report and recommendations to the Government.
In addition to this, the Financial Services and Markets Bill will include provisions to enable the Government to take further action in respect of this issue, including implementation of any recommendations arising from the access to banking services review, should the evidence demonstrate that this is necessary. This will ensure that Ministers have the ability to act in a timely and proportionate way in future, following the conclusion of the review.
The Government will consider the review’s findings carefully and will update the House in due course.
Further details about the review, including the terms of reference, can be found on gov.uk at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-access-to-banking-services-review
[HCWS1565]
Reforms to Money Market Fund Regulations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
Money market funds play an important role in the financial system. MMFs are widely used for cash management and provide an alternative or complement to bank deposits for a broad range of investors, including asset managers, insurers, pension funds, large corporates and local authorities. However, recent periods of market stress have highlighted the need to strengthen the resilience of these funds.
The Government, together with the Financial Conduct Authority and the Bank of England, have worked actively with international partners, including the European Commission and at the Financial Stability Board, to enhance MMF resilience so these funds are better able to withstand market disruption. As part of this, the Government and FCA committed to reforming the UK money market fund regulation regime, to ensure the UK’s regulatory framework appropriately supports the resilience of these markets while maintaining our international competitiveness. These reforms mark an important step forward in enhancing the resilience of the wider non-bank financial sector.
In 2023, HM Treasury and FCA consulted on replacing and reforming MMFR. The Government will now lay legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows to establish the new regulatory framework, under which most requirements for UK MMFs will be set out in FCA rules and guidance. This will include guidance setting out expectations that UK MMFs hold higher levels of liquidity. This approach reflects internationally developed proposals that the UK helped to shape alongside other jurisdictions. The Government and the FCA also welcomed feedback from across the sector to help develop a proportionate set of proposals that will enhance the resilience of money market funds. The UK’s new regime is expected to be in place by Q4 2026, subject to parliamentary approval, and the FCA will issue a statement shortly with further details on its plans.
The Government recognise the cross-border nature of this sector, and the important role that EU-domiciled MMFs play in the UK market. In March, at the Joint EU-UK Financial Regulatory Forum, the UK and EU recognised the value of constructive engagement on the practices that will enhance the resilience of our respective MMF sectors. The Government therefore welcome the report published by the European Commission on 11 May that sets out its expectations for these funds.
The Government can confirm their intention to extend the temporary marketing permissions regime, with a view to establishing a longer-term solution on market access, in line with the UK’s framework and process for recognition of overseas firms and funds.
[HCWS1562]
Reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry (Luke Pollard)
The defence industrial strategy published in September made it clear that we are in a new era of threat, which demands a new era for UK defence. As we move to warfighting readiness, it is essential to ensure that our defence programmes are delivered on time. The House will be aware that we inherited forces that were hollowed out and underfunded—47 of 49 major defence programmes were over budget and delayed when we took office. The measures that I am introducing today will increase our readiness by incentivising on-time delivery or projects that support our frontline forces and defence operations.
Our defence industry is crucial to ensure the resilience of our supply chains, the strength to resist threats or disruptive events, and the ability to scale-up and surge capacity as needed. We are committing to the largest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, and with a promise to invest more comes a responsibility to invest better. For too long, defence procurement has been burdened by waste, delay and complexity. Yet today we know that whoever gets new technology to the frontline first wins. Business as usual is not an option.
The defence industrial strategy set out the requirement for a dynamic and innovation-focused industrial base that assures UK sovereignty, operational advantage and freedom of action. It went on to say that, to achieve this, we must ensure that the commercial tools we deploy incentivise investment and efficiency. This included a review of the Single Source Contract Regulations, which govern some of the nation’s largest and most strategically important defence procurements and account for around half of defence spending on equipment.
I am today announcing the first tranche of legislation that we will make as part of that review. The focus of these changes is to increase the incentives on our single-source suppliers to meet the pressing need to innovate, get more equipment to the frontline faster and maximise the military capability from every pound we spend. I am therefore today laying a statutory instrument to increase the amount of profit available for delivering priority outcomes, such as faster delivery or greater productivity, from 2 percentage points to 10 percentage points. Whether to include such an incentive fee in a particular contract, and its size and structure, will be at the Government’s discretion, within robust statutory constraints. In general, the Government will be expecting exceptional performance in return for the higher rate of incentive profit.
I am also announcing that we will be decreasing the starting profit on contracts that are low-risk, either because they are in lower-risk sectors or because the Government agree to meet all of the supplier’s reasonable costs. This will allow us to powerfully incentivise suppliers to become more productive or to deliver other Government priorities, in order to restore profits to current levels. It will also motivate suppliers to take on more risk- bearing contracts, which is a defence industrial strategy commitment.
I am also introducing reforms that will support our efforts to increase direct spend with UK small and medium-sized enterprises. While the regulations are critical to securing value for money on large, complicated contracts, they can deter smaller, more innovative companies from becoming defence suppliers. Small and novel products, which have gone from factory to frontline in a matter of weeks, have often delivered the greatest successes. It is vital that we continue to maximise results from our small and medium-sized enterprises. We will therefore increase the threshold for a contract coming under the regulations from £5 million to £25 million. This will remove nearly all small and medium-sized enterprises from the regime in the future lifting a recognised regulatory burden and backing small businesses.
We will also be encouraging innovation by introducing an “innovation uplift” to ensure that firms that invest in innovative technologies are properly rewarded for the risk that entails. It will be payable where suppliers invest their own money in developing products without a guaranteed contract or up-front Government funding.
These changes will be brought in through a further statutory instrument prior to the summer recess.
The reforms being established by the NAD—national armaments director—group reflect a deliberate shift in how the Government use the regulations to drive supplier behaviour.
In single-source dominated businesses, suppliers have historically been able to generate strong returns without the performance pressure that competition creates.
These changes are designed to emulate this pressure by making earning strong profits dependent on delivering the outcomes and value the Government need. They draw on feedback from industry and the Single Source Regulations Office and support the NAD group’s wider mission to accelerate procurement and ensure that critical capabilities are delivered to UK war-fighters faster.
[HCWS1564]
Service Complaints Ombudsman for the Armed Forces: 2025 Annual Report
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Louise Sandher-Jones)
I am pleased to lay before Parliament today the Service Complaints Ombudsman for the armed forces annual report for 2025 on the fairness, effectiveness and efficiency of the service complaints system.
This report is published by Mariette Hughes and covers the operation of the service complaints system and the work of her office in her fifth and final year as the ombudsman.
The findings of the report will now be considered fully by the Ministry of Defence, and a formal response to the new Armed Forces Commissioner will follow once that work is complete.
Our armed forces are at the heart of our nation’s security. With demands on defence rising, it is right that we continue to step up our support for them and their families.
That is why we have created the new independent Armed Forces Commissioner role, who will have the power to investigate any issues raised directly by serving personnel and their families, to challenge Ministers and military leaders and to report directly to Parliament.
The Government commitment to supporting members of the armed forces and their families to come forward to raise issues, and improve the way they are dealt with, is unwavering.
Attachments can be viewed online at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-05-14/hcws1568
[HCWS1568]
Capacity Market Consultation Responses
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
I have tabled this statement to inform Members of the publication of four documents relating to the capacity market. They include:
The capacity market autumn consultation response;
The capacity market winter consultation response;
A summary of responses to the capacity market call for evidence on hydrogen-to-power and interconnectors; and
Updated technical adjustment methodology for de-rating interconnectors in the Capacity Market
The above documents support our objectives of delivering clean power by 2030 and accelerating progress towards net zero, while ensuring security of supply.
Since its introduction in 2014, the capacity market has acted to secure sufficient capacity to ensure consistent and reliable electricity generation in Great Britain. The funding provided through the capacity market incentivises investment in new and existing generation, interconnectors, batteries and consumer-led flexibility mechanisms to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to meet future demand when required. This capacity is acquired through competitive annual auctions held at intervals four years ahead and one year ahead of their respective delivery years. The Government regularly amend the framework underpinning the capacity market before auction cycles to ensure that it is cost-effective and meets broader strategic objectives such as clean power by 2030.
Following two consultations—the autumn consultation, published in October 2025; and the winter consultation, published in December 2025—and a call for evidence on hydrogen-to-power and interconnectors, the Government intend to publish Government responses to the consultations, a summary of responses to the call for evidence and an updated technical adjustment methodology for de-rating interconnectors.
The consultation responses that we are publishing today include reforms to the capacity market rules that aim to secure capacity adequacy to meet the reliability standard through at least the 2030s while keeping the impact on consumer bills as low as possible. These are consistent with achieving capacity adequacy objectives, strengthening delivery assurance, stimulating investor confidence in low-carbon technologies, and strengthening CM legislation to ensure effective scheme delivery.
Capacity Market Autumn Consultation Response
Multiple Price Capacity Market (MPCM)
Having carefully considered the evidence and feedback received, the Government have decided not to proceed with introducing the MPCM and any related policy changes at this time. We will take more time to consider the concerns highlighted by stakeholders and will continue working with industry to address barriers facing dispatchable enduring technologies, while ensuring that the capacity market remains fit for a changing energy system.
Ensuring efficient bidding in capacity market auctions
The Government will raise the excess capacity rounding threshold from 1 GW to 3 GW and limit preauction information to a single rounded excess capacity figure to reduce opportunities for strategic bidding.
Consumer-led flexibility
The Government will streamline reporting for small demand-side response (DSR) components—below 30 kW —and introduce new DSR technology and customer type categorisation to support improved oversight and future methodology development.
Self-nomination of connection capacity for battery storage technologies
The Government will allow battery energy storage system capacity market units to self-nominate their connection capacity from pre-qualification 2026, with full capacity and energy data reporting required and a 50% minimum floor applied. This change reduces the risk of battery storage assets failing performance tests due to degradation.
Determining appropriate means for non fossil fuel generation to access low-carbon CM mechanisms
The Government will allow biomass generators that meet emissions limits and strengthened sustainability criteria to access low-carbon CM mechanisms. The Government will align CM rules to meet the common biomass sustainability framework when introduced. Energy from waste is not to be treated as low carbon under the CM.
Further improvements to capacity market administration and delivery assurance
The Government will introduce termination fees for where a capacity agreement is terminated for making false declarations in an application, confirm the suspension of payments immediately for insolvency termination events, clarify definitions, update the indicative auction timetable, update settlement rules so that they can align with market-wide half-hourly reforms when introduced, and allow pre-qualification extensions in the event of severe failure of the prequalification IT system.
Capacity Market Winter Consultation Response
Managing the transition of existing generating capacity market units into alternative schemes
The Government will amend regulations and CM rules to allow contracts for difference awarded because of a direction from the Secretary of State to pre-qualify for the CM, so long as there are no overlaps in the periods where the generating unit would be supported by both schemes and where this has been evidenced in the pre-qualification application.
Long-duration electricity storage cap and floor (LDES C&F)
The Government will introduce CM rules to provide clarity on how LDES projects participate in CM auctions. LDES C&F projects will assume price taker status as a default. An option to provide a price maker memorandum will remain. A director’s declaration will be required to confirm a project’s LDES C&F status to enable CM eligibility and enforcement.
Standardisation of termination fees and credit cover
The Government will implement a 30% increase in all termination fee rates and require credit cover to be held until a generating unit becomes eligible for payments with escalations at milestones, applying only to agreements awarded from 2027 onwards.
Clarifying rules around secondary trading
The Government will implement amendments to the CM rules to clarify eligibility for secondary trading entrant applications.
Summary of responses to the recent capacity market call for evidence on hydrogen-to-power and interconnectors
Most respondents supported enabling H2P participation using existing gas technology classes, although some noted potential unintended consequences—for example, hydrogen infrastructure reliability, supply chain constraints and impacts on carbon emissions.
Many stakeholders highlighted risks and operational uncertainties—including hydrogen availability, infrastructure readiness and blending impacts—emphasising the need for clear classifications, guidance and policy certainty.
For interconnectors, there was strong support for updating the technical adjustment methodology to the one proposed in the call for evidence, noting that the current method risked becoming outdated.
On the consideration of high-impact, low-probability events in this methodology, most respondents favoured including all outage events to better reflect system risks and maintain consistency with other CM technologies.
As a result of the CfE, Government will:
Adopt the updated technical adjustment methodology from summer 2026, include all outage events in this methodology, and publish a briefing note to detail the final methodology before CM pre-qualification 2026 to provide further transparency over the process.
As the capacity market remains Great Britain’s main mechanism for ensuring capacity adequacy, these publications consider actions to ensure that the scheme continues to meet its primary objective of ensuring security of supply. The proposals put forward seek to ensure that the scheme remains fit for purpose and continues to play a crucial role in achieving the clean power mission.
[HCWS1561]
Energy Infrastructure Planning Projects
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)
My noble Friend Lord Whitehead, Minister for Energy Security and Net Zero, has today made the following statement:
This statement concerns an application for development consent made under the Planning Act 2008 by Morgan Offshore Wind Ltd and Morecambe Offshore Windfarm Ltd for the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets in the east Irish sea off the coast of north-west England, including onshore connection to the electricity transmission network.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it.
The statutory deadline for the decision on the Morgan and Morecambe Offshore Wind Farms Transmission Assets was 14 May 2026.
I have decided to allow an extension and to set a new deadline of 14 September 2026. This is to allow time to request further information.
The decision to set the new deadline for this application is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant or refuse development consent.
[HCWS1559]
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Nuclear Transport Solutions Project
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
My noble Friend Lord Vallance, Minister for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, has today made the following statement:
I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing the contingent liability that allowed the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Nuclear Transport Solutions to carry out a project to remove and transport a quantity of legacy civil nuclear material to the US from Venezuela.
It is normal practice, when a Government Department proposes to undertake a contingent liability in excess of £300,000 for which there is no specific statutory authority, for the Minister concerned to present a departmental minute to Parliament giving particulars of the liability created and explaining the circumstances.
Given the sensitivities associated with the project, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero informed the chairs of the Public Accounts Committee and the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee in confidence of the Department’s intention to take on an indemnity to allow the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and Nuclear Transport Solutions to deliver the project.
The indemnity was required to cover any residual risk that was left between commercial insurance and the United States of America’s Price-Anderson Act. The maximum potential liability was capped at £10 billion. The risk of this indemnity being relied upon was deemed to be very low. NTS operate a unique maritime transport capability and have done for half a century. They have had no significant safety incidents over that time.
The UK had received requests for assistance from both the United States and the International Atomic Energy Agency which had in turn received a request for assistance from the de facto authorities in Venezuela. The UK’s main contribution was the provision of a purpose-built vessel from Nuclear Transport Solutions to transport the material by sea. The arrival of the material in the US represents the conclusion of the UK assistance to this project.
The Treasury approved this proposal for the contingent liability in principle.
[HCWS1557]
International Claims Commission for Ukraine
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Government have today laid the following statement as an un-numbered Act Paper pursuant to section 21(2) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010:
On 16 December 2025 the United Kingdom signed the convention establishing an International Claims Commission for Ukraine.
The Government laid this convention in Parliament on 13 April 2026 under Command Paper number CP1561, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum.
In accordance with section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, I wish to inform the House that the 21 sitting day period that relates to this convention pursuant to section 20(1) CRaG is to be extended. The 21 sitting day period is to be extended by 10 sitting days.
This extension follows a request from the House of Lords International Agreements Committee for further time to consider the convention.
[HCWS1554]
Special Tribunal for the Crime of Aggression against Ukraine
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I wish to update the House on the Government’s position regarding the establishment of the special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine. Today the Foreign Secretary is in Moldova to attend the two-day Council of Europe meeting of Ministers for Foreign Affairs where the resolution establishing the operating model for the special tribunal will be adopted.
The special tribunal will have the power to investigate, prosecute and try political and military leaders who bear the greatest responsibility for Russian aggression against Ukraine. It is being established through an agreement between Ukraine and the Council of Europe, supported by participating states via an enlarged partial agreement. The EPA is a Council of Europe agreement that allows members and non-members to collaborate on specific issues.
Current status of the tribunal
Negotiations at the Council of Europe have resulted in agreement on the text of the EPA, which sets out the tribunal’s operating model. Adoption of the resolution establishing the EPA is expected to take place during the Council of Europe Foreign Ministers meeting in Chisinau which begins today.
Following adoption, the EPA will not come into force until further negotiations take place and agreement is reached on appropriate conditions. These negotiations will include the number of states required to join the EPA for entry into force, and agreement on budgetary parameters and financial safeguards.
In joining the tribunal, the UK will have a commitment to consider forms of co-operation with the tribunal, and it is likely that co-operation agreements will require primary legislation. We will keep Parliament updated as the process advances.
The adoption of the EPA will mark significant progress towards accountability for Russian aggression against Ukraine. Ensuring the tribunal’s political and financial sustainability will be vital to its success, and we remain committed to working closely with Ukraine and our international partners to deliver a robust mechanism for justice.
Since Russia’s unlawful full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the United Kingdom has remained steadfast in its support for Ukraine and committed to ensuring accountability for atrocities committed during Russia’s illegal war. We are working closely with Ukraine and other international partners to identify effective pathways for justice, both internationally and through supporting Ukraine on domestic prosecution.
[HCWS1556]
Hantavirus: Public Health Response
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
I am updating the House on the outbreak of hantavirus onboard the Dutch cruise ship the MV Hondius, and the action the UK has taken to support British nationals and protect public health.
First, I wish to express our condolences to the families and friends of the three people who have sadly died. I also pay tribute to the passengers and crew who have faced the most difficult of circumstances and showed remarkable resilience.
The UK’s response to this complex incident is being led by the UK Health Security Agency working closely with the World Health Organisation, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Home Office, the Ministry for Housing Communities and Local Government, the Ministry of Defence, the UK devolved Governments and international partners. Collectively, they are doing everything possible to protect the safety and wellbeing of British nationals, and to provide reassurance to UK citizens.
I am grateful too for the strong collaboration received from our international counterparts in Spain, the Netherlands, EU and WHO.
Current picture
As of 9 am, 14 May 2026, the WHO has reported eleven cases of Hantavirus globally, nine of which are confirmed. Three of these individuals were repatriated from the Hondius to Spain, France and the US. Three cases are British nationals—one on Tristan de Cunha, one in Johannesburg and one in the Netherlands. There have been three deaths related to this incident. No British nationals have died.
Timeline
The MV Hondius, a Dutch-flagged vessel operated by a Dutch company, sailed from Argentina and visited the UK overseas territories of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha.
The MV Hondius arrived in Tenerife on 10 May, where support was co-ordinated by Spain and the WHO. We are grateful to the Spanish Government and the people of the Canary Islands for facilitating the safe transfer of passengers. From Tenerife, the passengers were transported to the airport for chartered flights to their home countries.
On arrival in the UK, Hondius passengers were transferred to an isolation facility at Arrowe Park hospital on the Wirral where they received clinical assessments and testing. Arrowe Park was selected on the basis that it has the required facilities including a dedicated block, self-contained units and access to outside space, with proximity to infectious disease units and to hospital support in addition to proximity to Manchester Airport.
Isolation
High-risk contacts have been asked to isolate for up to 45 days, with regular testing and ongoing care provided by UKHSA and NHS teams. This includes 20 British nationals, one UK resident German national and one Japanese citizen returning from Tenerife, and seven British nationals who disembarked the ship at Saint Helena on 24 April. Of those seven, six are isolating in the UK and UKOTs and one person is isolating outside the UK. UKHSA and the NHS is also continuing to support the isolation—in Arrowe Park and individuals’ own homes where it is safe to do so—of individuals who are considered high-risk contacts from the ship or aircraft where cases are known to have been onboard. UKHSA is supporting UKOTs CMOs on their advice for high-risk contacts in UKOTs.
Public health specialists from UKHSA and infectious diseases specialists from the NHS have assessed whether passengers are able to safely isolate at home or whether an alternative suitable location will be arranged.
Where it is safe and possible, they have been provided with tailored support to help them now isolate at home. They will be closely monitored and supported by health protection teams, with daily contact throughout their isolation period.
UKHSA has notified local authority directors of public health and individual MPs where a person had been requested to isolate in their constituency and will continue to do so when people leave Arrowe Park to complete their isolation period in their homes.
UK overseas territories
UKHSA will also support 9 people from the UK overseas territories of Saint Helena and Ascension Island who have been offered the choice of completing their self-isolation in the UK in order to be closer to the NHS specialist infectious diseases units for clinical care if they develop symptoms This is to ensure they can be provided with the best possible support from England’s NHS high consequence infectious disease network should they become unwell. This is precautionary to support the individuals and communities in the UK overseas territories: We are also supporting Ascension Island where one contact has developed symptoms.
We are also aware of an individual who disembarked the MV Hondius at Saint Helena and subsequently travelled to UK overseas territory of the Pitcairn Islands. While this individual is not symptomatic, we are taking a precautionary approach and working with relevant consular and health authorities to explore options for this individual’s repatriation while ensuring appropriate mitigation procedures while on island.
UKHSA continues to work closely with public health teams in the UK overseas territories to identify and support the management of individuals who may have had high-risk contact with cases. This includes putting in place established protocols around contact tracing and isolation measures where necessary. The risk to the general public remains very low in all UK overseas territories.
The FCDO and other UK Government Departments and agencies are working closely to support the Governments of the UK overseas territories visited by the MV Hondius to get medical support to the affected overseas territories. The MOD has worked with UKHSA to provide vital diagnostic supplies, including PCR tests, which were delivered to Ascension Island via a military plane on 7 May. An MOD team is currently also supporting the provision of medical services on Ascension.
Tests, supplies and MOD and UKHSA personnel have also been sent to Saint Helena.
Additionally, on 9 May, an army specialist team of six paratroopers and two military clinicians parachuted on to Tristan da Cunha from an RAF transport aircraft to deliver critical essential oxygen supplies and additional medical support. This extraordinary operation reflects our unwavering commitment to the people of our overseas territories and to British nationals, wherever they are.
The overseas territory Governments have put out public advice with information on the latest situation and support available for anyone who came into contact with passengers from the ship.
Hantavirus
Hantaviruses are a group of viruses carried by rodents and transmitted through exposure to their urine, droppings, or saliva. They can cause a range of illness, from mild, flu-like symptoms to severe respiratory disease. Infection most commonly occurs through inhalation of airborne particles contaminated with rodent excreta and may also occur via broken skin or the eyes, or, very rarely, through rodent bites. In the strains where person-to-person transmission has been observed, it is associated with very close contact.
The strain of virus associated with this outbreak is Andes Hantavirus. This hantavirus is typically associated with rodent species found in South America that are not present in the UK, and it has never been detected in the UK rodent population.
Although this incident brings into sharp relief the dangers of this infectious disease, it is important to note that the UKHSA has been clear throughout that the risk to the British public is very low.
Information to keep the public updated has been published on: https://ukhsa.blog.gov.uk/2026/05/12/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-hantavirus-outbreak-linked-to-the-dutch-cruise-ship/
[HCWS1573]
Firearms Licensing Fees
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
The Government are today laying a statutory instrument before Parliament to introduce increases in firearms licensing fees by the rate of inflation to ensure that these fees continue to provide full cost recovery for the police. These increases follow the comprehensive review of, and increases to, firearms licensing fees in February 2025. The new fees come into effect from 4 June 2026.
The fees are increasing by 3%, in line with the consumer prices index, for all statutory firearms licensing fees, based on Office for National Statistics CPI figures for the 12 months to February 2026.
[HCWS1555]
Social Housing Bill
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Everyone deserves to live in a decent, safe, secure and affordable home. Yet far too many families in need of a social rented home are languishing on local authority waiting lists, forced to struggle in the private rented sector or in expensive temporary accommodation, driving up rents and housing benefit costs in the process. At the same time, the ability and willingness of social housing providers to invest in the building of new social rented homes is undermined by the steady and significant loss of existing stock through right to buy.
Today, the Government have introduced the social housing Bill. The Bill has three core objectives: first, to protect much-needed social housing stock and thereby incentivise the building of more social rented homes; secondly, to create a fairer system with greater protections for social housing tenants in instances of domestic abuse; and thirdly, to clarify the statute book and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy so that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence.
The Bill delivers on our manifesto commitments to prioritise the building of new social rented homes and better protect our existing stock. It builds on the funding and regulatory certainty that the Government have provided to the sector and supports the delivery of the five-step plan we published in July 2025 to deliver a decade of renewal for social and affordable housing (HCWS771).
Protecting existing social housing stock and incentivising the building of more social homes
At the heart of the Bill are comprehensive reforms to the right to buy scheme. The scheme provides an important route for social housing tenants to own their own homes. However, many of the homes sold under the right to buy have not been replaced. Not only has this depleted much-needed stock, but it has also reduced the motivation and confidence of councils to build, and restricted broader investment in council housing.
Following the reduction in maximum right to buy cash discounts that was announced at autumn Budget 2024, we consulted on further reforms to the right to buy between 20 November 2024 and 15 January 2025. In July last year, we published our response to that consultation and committed to bringing forward legislation to implement proposals when parliamentary time allowed.
Accordingly, the Bill includes a range of further reforms to the right to buy scheme, including increasing the eligibility requirement to 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with the new maximum cash discounts, and exempting newly built social housing for 35 years.
The Bill will also strengthen the rules that apply after a social home has been sold. It will extend in perpetuity the right of first refusal for homes sold under the right to buy and right to acquire, so that landlords retain the opportunity to reacquire homes when they are later resold. In addition, the Bill will reform the right to acquire scheme to align with the reformed right to buy scheme, improving consistency.
Alongside the right to buy reforms, the Bill also includes provision to ensure councils and other providers in the area are notified before social homes are sold by private registered providers to maximise opportunities to retain stock by preventing homes being lost to the private market.
Protecting tenants who are victims of domestic abuse by providing them with greater security and stability
All social housing tenants deserve to live in decent homes, to be treated with fairness and respect, and to have their problems resolved quickly. The Bill builds on the extensive programme of Government activity already under way to protect and empower tenants by introducing new protections for victims of domestic abuse living in social housing.
At present, landlords and courts have only limited means to remove a perpetrator from a tenancy while allowing the victim-survivor to remain securely in their home. This can leave victims facing additional hardship, instability and an increased risk of homelessness. The Bill will give landlords and the courts new and strengthened grounds to address domestic abuse and, in joint tenancy cases, remove a perpetrator from the tenancy where there has been domestic abuse allowing victims to remain in their home or move to suitable alternative accommodation where this is available.
Clarifying the statute book and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy
The social housing sector needs long-term certainty and stability to drive up investment and boost supply. The Bill includes a range of measures designed to ensure that providers can invest in new social and affordable homes with confidence. It streamlines the outdated consents process, so that councils do not have to seek approval from the Secretary of State when they want to take certain actions to manage their social housing stock. It also repeals a number of unimplemented provisions from the Housing and Planning Act 2016, including the requirement for local authorities to sell high-value social homes, grant flexible (fixed-term) tenancies, and charge higher-income tenants higher rents.
[HCWS1563]
Tackling Antisemitism
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
The first duty of any Government are to keep its people safe. The truest test of whether that is being met is how we respond when a community comes under attack. This crisis of antisemitism —the disgusting attacks being made against British Jews—is a crisis for all of us.
Today I want to update the House on steps we are taking as a Government to combat this sickening hatred, and better protect, celebrate, and support Jewish communities.
Antisemitism is an old hatred, and though its nature changes over time, Jewish people are often the target when extremists are emboldened. Since the 7 October terrorist attacks, there has been a marked increase in antisemitism both here, and abroad. We have seen its devastating impacts in Manchester, Bondi, Washington, and, most recently, in Golders Green. There has also been a magnified threat from hostile states.
In March, we published “Protecting What Matters”, our strategy to tackle prejudice, bring people together, and take on extremists. It includes: action we will take online to give people greater control over what content they see; £7 million to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities; Lord Macdonald’s review into existing public order and hate crime legislation; Sir David Bell’s review into antisemitism in schools and colleges, and Lord Mann’s review into tackling antisemitism and racism in the health service; the roll-out of training across the civil service; and steps to help faith groups improve their safety and security.
These policies were developed in consultation with Jewish stakeholders, and sit alongside other measures to combat extremism. This includes: embedding the extremism definition; strengthening oversight of charities and universities; expanding disruption powers and operational capacity to counter extremist groups; and using the full strength of powers in the Online Safety Act 2023 to tackle harmful online content.
However, we know that we all need to do more.
On 5 May, the Prime Minister convened a summit of leaders from across business, civil society, health, education, culture, and policing to explore how to tackle antisemitism in all comers of society.
Ahead of the summit, the Government announced a series of measures, including:
A further £25 million for increased police patrols and protective security to keep our Jewish communities safe. This brings the total funding this year to £58 million—the largest investment a Government have ever made towards protecting Jewish communities.
A £1 million expansion of the common ground programme for communities facing antisemitism.
Working with the Arts Council to champion the talent and ambition of Jewish artists and creative professionals, with the Arts Council supporting, and part-funding, the UK’s first Jewish cultural month.
Ensuring the Arts Council is tough on organisations or individuals in receipt of Arts Council funding that peddle or promote antisemitic content, including using their powers to suspend, withdraw, or claw back that funding. DCMS will work with the Arts Council to carry out an independent audit focused on the use of these powers and their effectiveness: these powers will be strengthened where needed.
Strengthening guidance to local licensing authorities on how existing licensing powers can be used to tackle events or venues promoting antisemitic behaviour or content.
Ensuring that Arts Council and Home Office funding can be used to support protective security for Jewish artists and cultural organisations: this will mean that security costs driven by antisemitism do not lead to cancellations or exclusion.
Setting an expectation for universities to publish robust disciplinary policies that explicitly set out the consequences of antisemitism, and how these policies will be enforced.
Calling on universities to publish anonymised data on antisemitic incidents and the action taken: this will improve transparency, monitor frequency, and ensure accountability. Government will review the published data to ensure that this is being taken seriously.
We will also be fast-tracking legislation in the coming weeks to introduce new proscription-like powers to clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states, including those who act as their proxies.
No one should feel that they have to hide their identity for their own safety. Nobody should think twice before going to a synagogue, hide their Star of David or kippahs, or avoid sharing their identity with school friends or colleagues. Simply put, no one should lead smaller lives to protect themselves.
We will not allow fear to dictate how Jewish people live in this country, or allow antisemitism to become normalised and excused.
We will not rest until the UK is a place where every Jewish person can live openly, safely, and proudly.
[HCWS1567]
Government’s 2026 Legislative Programme
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
Following the state opening of Parliament, it is normal practice for the Leader of the House of Commons to list the Bills to be introduced for the convenience of the House.
Other measures will be laid before the House in the usual way. The programme will also include Finance Bills to implement budget policy decisions and estimates for public services.
Civil Aviation Bill
Clean Water Bill
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill
Competition Reform Bill
Digital Access to Services Bill
Education for All Bill
Electricity Generator Levy Bill
Energy Independence Bill
Enhancing Financial Services Bill
European Partnership Bill
Highways (Financing) Bill
Immigration and Asylum Bill
National Security Bill
Health Bill
Nuclear Regulation Bill
Overnight Visitor Levy Bill
Police Reform Bill
Regulating for Growth Bill
Remediation Bill
Removal of Peerages Bill
Small Business Protections (Late Payments) Bill
Social Housing Bill
Sovereign Grant Bill
Sporting Events Bill
Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
Tackling State Threats Bill
Bills that will be published in draft this Session include:
Draft Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Bill
Draft Ticket Tout Ban Bill
Draft Conversion Practices Bill
The following Bills will be carried over from the first Session:
Armed Forces Bill
Courts and Tribunals Bill
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
Northern Ireland Troubles Bill
High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill / Northern Powerhouse Rail
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Railways Bill
Representation of the People Bill
[HCWS1558]
Government’s Legislative Programme: Northern Ireland
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
The UK Government legislative programme for the second Session was set out at the state opening of Parliament on 13 May 2026. This statement summarises the programme and how it applies to Northern Ireland. It does not include Law Commission Bills, or Finance Bills.
The Government will continue to work for a stable, prosperous, and vibrant Northern Ireland through the upcoming legislative programme. This Government firmly believe that devolution represents the best means of delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. We will continue to work collaboratively with the Northern Ireland Executive to support institutional stability and we will continue to work closely with Ministers and party leaders ahead of local and Assembly elections in May 2027.
We will deliver the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which will repeal and replace the previous Government’s legacy Act.
The Bill will enable victims and bereaved families affected by the troubles—including armed forces families —to seek information and accountability through a reformed Legacy Commission.
The Bill will provide for a fair and more transparent disclosure regime; a new independent commission on information retrieval; and lawful protections for veterans so that those who carried out their duty properly in Northern Ireland will not face an endless cycle of legal uncertainty and are treated with dignity and respect.
This Government will look to share best practice while continuing to strengthen our relationship with the Northern Ireland Executive to provide stability and improve the lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
We will continue to support and invest in Northern Ireland’s economic future, generating economic growth through the Government’s “Invest 2035” industrial strategy and ensure that all our UK-wide strategies have benefits for the people of Northern Ireland. In support of this, we are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to ensure Northern Ireland is fully considered in the development of UK-wide AI growth zone policy.
Following its launch on 22 April 2026, the Northern Ireland defence growth deal will provide a £50 million boost, part of a £250 million UK-wide investment, to create high-skilled jobs and support small and medium sized businesses to access the UK defence supply chain. This Government are committed to protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, while faithfully implementing the Windsor framework. We will continue to support the work of Intertrade UK as it takes forward an ambitious programme of work to identify barriers to trade in the UK internal market and how these can be addressed.
The Government have provided £235 million funding for public sector transformation. In March 2025, £129 million of this funding was allocated to six projects across health, education, justice and infrastructure. These projects will continue to embed change and act as a catalyst for further improvements as Departments begin to deliver results in the years ahead. Details on the allocation of the remaining £102 million available are set to be announced by the Executive soon.
This Government will continue to facilitate and encourage integration in education across Northern Ireland, in line with the UK’s commitments under the Good Friday agreement, through a £2 million injection of grant programme funding over the next three years.
The Government’s first responsibility is to keep people safe. I pay tribute to those who work so hard to do this in Northern Ireland. In recognition of the security situation, the Government have increased the amount provided to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in additional security funding. This helps the PSNI to tackle terrorist threats, alongside day-to-day policing, so allowing them to continue keeping people safe.
The recent attacks on police stations in Northern Ireland are a reminder that a small minority of people remain determined to cause harm to our communities through acts of violence and it is testament to the tremendous efforts of the PSNI and security partners that the lives of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland remain unaffected by this threat.
The following Bills will extend and apply to Northern Ireland, either in full or in part:
Armed forces
Civil Aviation
Clean Water
Competition Reform
Courts and Tribunals
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information System)
Digital Access to Services
Electricity Generator Levy
Energy Independence
Enhancing Financial Services
European Partnership
Immigration and Asylum
National Security
Health
Northern Ireland Troubles
Public Office (Accountability)
Railways
Regulating for Growth
Removal of Peerages
Representation of the People
Small Business Protections (Late Payments)
Sovereign Grant
Sporting Events
Steel Industry (Nationalisation)
Tackling State Threats
Ticket Tout Ban (Draft)
The UK Government will endeavour to work collaboratively with the Northern Ireland Executive to secure the legislative consent of the Assembly where appropriate.
[HCWS1570]
Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
I made a written ministerial statement on 15 April about Peter May’s review into the corporate effectiveness and cultural health of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. In that statement, I committed to placing the findings of the review in the Library of the House, along with our response and joint action plan. I can confirm that, with the review having been shared in the first instance with ICRIR staff, these documents were placed in the Library on 11 May 2026.
[HCWS1566]
Government’s Legislative Programme: Scotland
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Douglas Alexander)
The UK Government’s legislative programme for the second Session was outlined at the state opening of Parliament on Wednesday 13 May. This statement provides a summary of the programme and its application to Scotland. It does not include Law Commission Bills, or finance Bills.
The UK Government are committed to delivering change for Scotland. This legislative programme will deliver that change across all four nations, by encouraging economic growth, improving our public services and living standards, and bolstering our defence and domestic security. The Scotland Office will play a key role in the delivery of this programme, both in fully and effectively representing the people of Scotland at the heart of the UK Government, and in making sure that the benefits of these reforms are felt across Scotland. We will work in co-operation with the incoming Scottish Government to achieve this.
This Government are committed to growth in Scotland, and we are investing £2.2 billion in growing Scotland’s economy. We will introduce a new regulatory framework which is fit for the future, bridging the gap between regulation and innovation, unlocking growth, attracting capital and securing high-value employment in Scotland and beyond. A new digital ID scheme will help combat illegal working and make everyday life easier for people by ensuring public services are more personal, joined-up, and effective. We will also introduce measures designed to ensure that businesses, particularly small businesses, are paid fairly and on time. Central to our drive to unlock growth is a closer partnership with the European Union, and the Government will introduce a legislative framework to ratify a future agreement on closer future economic and security co-operation.
We will continue working with the Scottish Government on legislation, providing a legislative framework to support the hosting of future major sporting events across the UK, so we can see more big events like the Euros and Commonwealth games in Scotland in the future. Following the establishment of the Aberdeen-based GB Energy announced in the last King’s Speech, the Government will go further by bringing in new legislation which will lower bills, secure our energy systems and set out a clear path to net zero.
The following Bills will extend and apply to Scotland (either in full or in part):
Armed Forces
Civil Aviation
Clean Water
Competition Reform
Courts and Tribunals
Cyber Resilience and Security (Network and Information Systems)
Digital Access to Services
Electricity Generator Levy
Energy Independence
Enhancing Financial Services
European Partnership
Immigration and Asylum
Health
Northern Ireland Troubles
Police Reform
Public Office (Accountability)
Railways
Regulating for Growth
Remediation
Removal of Peerages
Representation of the People
Small Business Protections (Late Payments)
Sovereign Grant
Sporting Events
Steel Industry (Nationalisation)
Tackling State Threats
Ticket Tout Ban (Draft)
The UK Government will endeavour to work collaboratively with the Scottish Government to secure the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament where appropriate.
[HCWS1569]
Government’s Legislative Programme: Wales
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
The Government legislative programme for the second session was outlined at the state opening of Parliament on Wednesday 13 May. This statement provides a summary of the programme and its application to Wales. It does not include Law Commission Bills or Finance Bills.
The legislative programme supports our plan to build a stronger, fairer future for Wales and the whole United Kingdom. It will tackle the cost of living, create jobs and drive economic growth in Wales. This includes by creating a stronger relationship with our European partners and providing opportunities for young people to live and learn in Europe. This will build on the steps we have already taken to strengthen the Welsh economy, which have resulted in higher wages, lower unemployment and tens of thousands of better, more secure jobs in every corner of the country.
Alongside the legislative programme we will continue to deliver jobs, growth and opportunities across Wales through the new local growth fund worth more than half a billion pounds, by delivering our modern industrial strategy and attracting inward investment and promoting exports through brand Wales, and by continuing to secure steelmaking’s future in Port Talbot as well as across the country.
The Energy Independence Bill will transform the country’s energy system, support our work to cut household bills and seize the economic opportunities of clean energy. This will build on the progress we made in the first session of this Parliament to put Wales at the forefront of our work to become a clean energy superpower, with the first significant floating offshore wind projects confirmed in the Celtic sea alongside UK Government investment, and with new nuclear set to bring thousands of jobs to north Wales.
The Railways Bill will bring about much needed reforms to our railways and delivers our manifesto commitment to give the Welsh Government a role in the management of our railways. This will enable our generational commitment to deliver our long-term plan for Welsh rail worth up to £14 billion, which has the potential to unlock 12,000 jobs and connect communities with new opportunities across Wales.
The legislative programme will support our armed forces, ensure our national security and prevent extreme violence through respective Bills. This will complement the UK Government’s biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war. We will also strip away police service bureaucracy, replace police and crime commissioners and put more police on the street through the Police Reform Bill.
The following Bills will extend and apply to Wales (either in full or in part):
Armed Forces
Civil Aviation
Clean Water
Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
Competition Reform
Conversation Practices (Draft)
Courts and Tribunals
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems)
Digital Access to Services
Electricity Generator Levy
Energy Independence
Enhancing Financial Services
European Partnership
Immigration and Asylum
National Security
Health
Northern Ireland Troubles
Police Reform
Public Office (Accountability)
Railways
Regulating for Growth
Remediation
Removal of Peerages
Representation of the People
Small Business Protections (Late Payments)
Sovereign Grant
Sporting Events
Steel Industry (Nationalisation)
Tackling State Threats
Ticket Tout Ban (Draft)
The UK Government will endeavour to work collaboratively with the Welsh Government to secure the legislative consent of the Senedd where appropriate.
[HCWS1571]
Benefit System: Fraud, Error and Debt Statistics 2025-26
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The annual statistics for fraud and error in the benefit system for the financial year ending 2026, were published on Thursday 14 May 2026, at 9.30 am.
Universal credit overpayments have now dropped to the lowest level since the pandemic, at 8.5%. This is below both pre-pandemic levels and the OBR forecast of 9.1% for this year. It is also a significant drop of 42% from the record level of 14.7% in financial year 2022, showing the Government are committed to driving down fraud and error.
Today’s figures confirm continued progress to drive down fraud and error, with the overall rate of overpayments at 3.2%, or £9.9 billion,, for 2025-26, compared with 3.3%, or £9.4 billion, in 2024-25. This shows we are on track to meet the OBR forecast of 2.8% in 2028-29, which would be the lowest rate since tax credits were first introduced in 2003.
Overpayments due to fraud stand at 2.2%, claimant error at 0.6% and official error at 0.4%. The total rate of benefit expenditure underpaid in financial year 2026 stands at 0.4%.
This Government made a manifesto commitment that it will safeguard taxpayers’ money and not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services. With welfare benefits paid to 24.3 million people, the welfare system is a deliberate target for both organised crime groups and opportunistic individuals. That is why we continue to take robust action and to strengthen our ability to drive out fraud and error, wherever it occurs. From investigating and prosecuting fraudsters where appropriate to supporting customers to make sure their claims are correct. This will ensure that support goes to those who need it most, and that the right people are paid the right amount, at the right time.
Through recent Budgets, this Government have committed to deliver savings of £14.6 billion up to the end of 2030-31. This will be delivered through a suite of measures, including periodic redeclaration reminding universal credit claimants of the requirement to confirm any change in circumstances, continuing to check accuracy of UC claims at risk of being incorrect through targeted case reviews and, building on the success of TCR, reviewing pension credit claims that are at risk of being incorrect through pension credit case review.
As part of this wider action, the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act received Royal Assent on 2 December 2025 and is estimated to deliver benefits of £2.1 billion by 2030-31. Powers contained within the Act will help address overpayments in the social security system, be tough on criminals, fair for claimants and will safeguard public money by reducing public sector fraud and error. Measures also allow the more effective recovery of moneys owed to Government and help spot and stop errors by requiring banks and other financial institutions to share data with DWP. This will help identify any potential overpayments earlier and avoid claimants getting into debt.
Today we have also published our unfulfilled eligibility statistics following reclassification in 2024 from customer error underpayments. Unfulfilled eligibility measures how much a customer could have been eligible for had they told us their correct circumstances. The total unfulfilled eligibility rate in financial year 2026 was 1.2%, or £3.7 billion, compared with 1.3%, or £3.7 billion, in financial year 2025.
The Department will report more on both overpayments and underpayments in its annual report and accounts, which are due to be published in July 2026.
[HCWS1572]
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025: Codes of Practice
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I would like to advise the House that today the Government are publishing the response to the public consultation on the codes of practice associated with the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025. The response explains how the public’s views were considered and, where appropriate, reflected through changes to the codes. Alongside this response, the following codes have been published:
Eligibility Verification Notices
DWP Direct Deduction and Disqualification from Driving Orders
DWP Obtaining Information to Support Fraud Investigations in the Welfare System
These codes have been developed as essential safeguards to support the effective and proportionate application of the newly enacted PAFER legislation. I am grateful to all those who took the time to contribute their views on these documents. The feedback provided was detailed, considered and constructive and the codes have been strengthened as a result of this engagement.
The powers in the Act and the publication of these codes affirm our commitment to root out fraud and waste in public services and safeguard taxpayers’ money. These codes will guide the operation and governance of the new powers by setting out, in more detail, how DWP will apply these new powers to improve its ability to identify, prevent and deter social security fraud and error, and will support more effective recovery of debt.
Today’s action takes us one step closer in delivering the estimated benefits of £2.1 billion over the next five years, as scored by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. I have every confidence that each code of practice provides a solid and effective foundation to ensure the safe and proportionate use of DWP’s new powers.
[HCWS1553]
Legacy Benefits: Appeals
(1 day, 4 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Universal credit is modernising the social security system, improving value for money for taxpayers and ensuring people are better supported to move into work where they can.
As I set out in my statement on 20 April, the full transition from legacy benefits is due to complete by the end of June 2026, with the exception of a small number of customers who require time to find an appointee.
The Department’s “Move to Universal Credit” official statistics, published in May 2026, show that—as of 31 March 2026—2.4 million people across 1.8 million households have been notified of the need to make the transition to universal credit. Of these, over 1.5 million households went on to make a claim and approximately 815,000 households have been awarded transitional protection.
In 2020 the upper tribunal court determined that a customer claiming UC, even where a decision that resulted in benefits ending was later reversed, should not be reinstated onto legacy benefits. However, it also identified some such customers experienced a financial loss where their benefit entitlement was lower on UC.
Today we are launching the successful legacy appeals scheme. This compensation scheme follows the upper tribunal decision in R (on the application of TD, AD and Patricia Reynolds) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 618. It aims to compensate certain people who had to claim UC due to a decision to end their means-tested legacy benefits including housing benefit, tax credits, employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance or income support, and on claiming UC received a lower entitlement than their previous legacy benefit entitlement, and who later had the decision to end their legacy benefit reversed.
The scheme constitutes the response of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the determination of the upper tribunal and means that customers affected by similar circumstances do not need to seek redress through the courts or a tribunal.
[HCWS1176]