Commons Chamber

Thursday 14th May 2026

(began 1 day, 5 hours ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:34
09:35
09:36
Jesse Norman Portrait Rt Hon Jesse Norman MP (Hereford and South Herefordshire, Conservative)
-
-
Bill Jesse Norman. >> I thank the leader very much for the business and welcome all colleagues back to the House. I'm sure the whole House will want 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, and in particular, of 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 in our new university in Hereford. I hope 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 the equal of those to be found at Oxbridge or the Russell Group. Its latest crop of graduates has gone on to companies including Airbus, Hitachi Energy and GCN, and there is huge interest from applicants in its new bachelor's and master's degree in autonomous robotics and drones technologies, which start in September.

So, if I may excuse me, excuse the pun, for an engineering institution, N might is really starting to motor. I would strongly encourage any members who might be interested and wish to know more, to drop me a line, because this is a potential route to local economic growth, which I think is of great potential significance. It's fair to say, Mr. Speaker, that we've known quite a 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 and is, we are reassured, entirely unrelated to the 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. I'm something which I'm sure will come as a great relief to women across the country. He must be an acute embarrassment to my neighbour, the Member for North Herefordshire, and we thank her for her resilience. All of which news will come as a surprise to precisely no one, of course, lest we forget, nearly 100 Labour members of Parliament, including four Ministers, have gone public now 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, if any, Labour MPs believe that the Prime Minister will lead them into the next election. Mr. speaker, you'll be aware, I'm sure, of that famous line. 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 that position. Mr. speaker, of standing on the burning deck, when all. But he has fled. But others are fleeing, and it's astonishing that Buckingham Palace had reportedly been forced to ask whether the King's speech was, in fact, really going ahead even now.

I noticed the slight sparsity of members on all sides of the House in this earlier sitting. The Secretary of State for health 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, if I may, to insert a nugget of something that actually affects every member of this House in their own constituency.

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 itself. But employer confidence is rapidly being eroded by the Seb's recent behaviour and Ofsted requires improvement judgement. The farmer reviews call for a fundamental reset. Poor communications with levy payers and a rarely updated website. 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, yet lead to precisely the same qualification. Many of these 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, which must be paid regardless of the services offered. And 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. So I would be very grateful if the leader could ask the relevant Ministers to write to me, explaining how they intend to restore employer confidence, particularly amongst small construction companies in the citb improved course access and value for money and reform, an organisation that appears to be losing its way.

Leader of the House very much indeed, Mr.
09:42
Alan Campbell Portrait Rt Hon Sir Alan Campbell MP, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Tynemouth, Labour)
-
-
Speaker, and I am grateful to >> Speaker, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his well, some of his remarks. First of all, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the all, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the whole House on a serious matter. I am sure 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. In local elections, Mr. Speaker, following the local elections, which took place last week, I want to put on record my thanks to councillors for their service to their communities, irrespective of parties or whether they are not party aligned, and particularly those who were not re-elected.

Mr. speaker, The King's Speech opened our new parliamentary session and members would have heard your words about how we should conduct ourselves, and I fully support those remarks, of course, and I thank you for sending them out to the House. The King's speech. Mr. speaker, 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 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 in putting the country back in the service of working people. Curiously, Mr. Speaker, and in contrast, the opposition brought forward an alternative king's speech. And like most of the country, I failed to notice until the Leader of the Opposition referred to it yesterday. And I have a copy here. If anyone needs any Night-Time reading to put them to sleep. I've read it with with interest. Now. The Shadow Leader is a distinguished author.

I've read some of his works. He writes with genuine interest, clear thinking, and even wit. Sometimes. And all that demonstrates is that he had absolutely nothing to do with this King's Speech. The alternative King's speech is a description 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're not going to take any lectures from them.

I'd also like to 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. This is part of the committee's ongoing work to ensure that the House of procedures remain effective, accessible and resilient. And a motion will be brought forward in due course to allow the House to consider these proposals, which I hope will be supported. Let me turn now to the remarks of the other remarks of the shadow Leader of the House, and I certainly congratulate N-myc in his Hereford constituency, and I've said this before, but I'll say it again, Mr.

Speaker. 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 this. I absolutely agree with him 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 Ryecroft review on foreign interference in our democracy. As for the other comments that he makes about the the current political situation, I would encourage him to stop doom scrolling.

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 Construction Traineeships levy, which he talked about, this is a serious issue and I will raise the matter with the relevant Ministers, and I will get him to write to him.
09:46
09:47
09:48
Wendy Chamberlain Portrait Wendy Chamberlain MP (North East Fife, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Wendy Chamberlain. >> Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Can I start by associating myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House in relation to 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 doing that. I also thank him for providing us with the first set of business for the new session. But I do have to reflect.

At the beginning of the last session, the new government made a virtue of the fact that they would be putting an end to the incessant chaos of the Conservatives, but yet here we find ourselves again with a Prime Minister who appears to have lost all authority. And we all know that changing Prime Minister over and over again is deeply damaging for our economy and for our place on the world stage. I heard us described as Italy without the cuisine in recent days. And when you look at the content of the King's Speech, Mr.

Speaker, you see the reason why this Prime Minister has run out of road despite having such a large majority, because 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.

Now, 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, and perhaps some of the Prime Minister's Cabinet colleagues might want to come along and make some contributions. But after last week's results, Mr. Speaker, 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 local government in England. It 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 in some of the Scottish constituencies, including my own. I have to say that would make Kim Jong UN blush. So 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 which he can provide, he should make time for a bill on fair votes. Yes.
09:50
09:51
09:52
09:52
09:53
09:55
09:55
09:56
09:57
09:57
09:57
09:58
09:58
09:59
09:59
10:00
10:01
10:01
10:02
10:03
10:03
10:04
10:05
10:05
10:07
10:07
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:09
10:10
10:10
10:11
10:12
10:13
10:13
10:14
10:15
10:15
10:15
10:16
10:16
10:17
10:17
10:18
10:19
10:19
10:20
10:20
10:21
10:22
10:22
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:25
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
10:28
10:29
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Permission. make a statement on the recent Supreme Court judgement in the Dylan and others case. It is a complex judgement, but I thought it complex judgement, 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 last government following the passage of the Legacy 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 two of the Windsor framework and the Human Rights Act 1998, which gives effect to the European Convention on Human Rights.

In February 20th and Ireland, found the Legacy Acts Conditional Immunity Scheme and other provisions of the Legacy Act to be incompatible. Excuse me. With our obligations under articles two and three of the European Convention. These findings were endorsed in September 2024 by the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal. It also made judgements 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.

Mr. speaker, this government has 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, no support from victims and their families was wrong in principle and provided no effective protections for veterans, not least because the provisions were never commenced by the last government. It is why, when we came into government, we immediately withdrew the appeal on immunity. However, the Court of Appeal's interpretation of article two 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 to protect national security.

It was for these reasons that the government appealed that judgement to the Supreme Court. I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that last week the Supreme Court upheld our appeal, finding wholly in the government's favour. Mr. speaker, article two of the Windsor framework ensures 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 is firmly committed to these human rights and equalities provisions, but felt that article two had been interpreted too broadly by the lower courts.

The Supreme Court's judgement has provided important clarity on this question. It has confirmed the government's long standing position that the rights protected by article two of the Windsor framework are those concerned with ending the sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. While reaffirming the government's position on this, the Supreme Court found that the relevant provisions of the Legacy Act should not have been disapplied by article two of the Windsor framework. The purpose of bringing the appeal was to obtain clarity on how article two should be interpreted in future, and 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. The Supreme Court also concluded that the provision of legal aid for the cross-examination of witnesses is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not always necessary for an An investigation to be fully human rights compliant. However, human rights compliant. However, the government recognises the importance of next of kin involvement in the Reformed Legacy involvement in the Reformed Legacy Commission's inquisitorial proceedings and we are providing for this in the troubles Bill. On disclosure, the Supreme Court was unequivocal, saying, and I quote, unequivocal, saying, and I quote, 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, and I quote, the Secretary of State does not have an unrestrained power to veto the disclosure of information. And and I quote, any decision to do so is subject to challenge by way of judicial review. This government is 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 for a fairer disclosure regime, with greater transparency as to 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 does 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, and I quote, 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 this and therefore this 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 two and three of the EC. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear why, while welcoming 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.

The immunity scheme was wrong and has failed. So we need a new system and 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. Second, 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 Karl Turner principle applied in the context of these orders, and the Bill will also ensure that all troubles related cases can be investigated one way or another.

Third Irish cooperation. There is currently no information being shared by the Irish authorities with the Commission. The Bill will enable this 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. Fourth, the bill will enable information to be provided to families through the new Independent Commission on Information Recovery. Fifth, we need new and effective safeguards for our veterans and other former service personnel. Crucially, the Legacy Act did not provide the protections and we have developed those for veterans and others who served.

As I've made clear, we will be bringing forward more provisions in respond to veterans concerns at Committee stage. Simply returning to the Legacy Act would mean veterans are left without immunity or any protections whatsoever. Mr. speaker, I am grateful to the Supreme Court for its careful consideration of these matters, and I welcome its judgement. 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 in 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.
10:38
Mark Francois Portrait Rt Hon Mark Francois MP (Rayleigh and Wickford, Conservative)
-
-
Mark Francois Shadow Ministers. thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement in that, as he said himself, the complex. The judgement in the Dillon case is a complex judgement. We on these benches certainly agree. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, this judgement 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? Just a point on immunity and the concept that lay behind the Conservatives 2023 Legacy Act.

I served on the Defence Select Committee under the Member for New Forest, an excellent chairman when, in 2017 we produced an extremely detailed report on this complex issue. I think, in fairness, the Secretary of State has read that report and what was proposed by the Select Committee is very 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 to the Commission, and I'll return to them in a moment, was judged by the Commission to have fully cooperated with them. For instance, in revealing the burial place of one of the so-called disappeared. If the Commission believed that that individual had genuinely cooperated in good faith, then they would be granted immunity. But if not, if they felt that person was lying or dissembling or trying to hide something, they could still recommend that a prosecution went ahead.

So, contrary to the government's position. The Legacy Act and the Commission. The Commission had established only ever allowed for conditional immunity. And it's important to put that on the record this morning. I have three specific questions to the Secretary of State about his statement, which are one. Can he say a bit more about the relationship between the Dillon judgement and the Windsor framework? He touched on it, but can he expand? Two. 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. Can you say something more about that? And thirdly, we heard a business questions a few minutes ago that the Armed Forces Bill will be returning to the House for its Committee stage on the 2nd of June. I was quite involved with that. When does the government plan to bring the troubles Bill, which under the programme motion, has two days for committee and remaining stages back to the floor of the Commons. Perhaps he could answer that specifically.

Now, I'm sad to say that Labour have been absolutely cynical today. I would humbly remind the Secretary of State that when we debated and voted on the related remedial order back on the 21st of January, almost a third of the Labour parliamentary party abstained, famously including the armed forces Ministers himself, who, as we all know, is otherwise occupied today. And even the current Prime Minister abstained. He blew the whistle and sent his troops over the top to vote for this benighted bill that he didn't have the courage to vote for himself.

Which brings me to encapsulate exactly what's going on today. While this government prepares to tear itself to pieces over a mixture of Post-electoral fear and vaunted 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 the Labour Party up. They've clearly chosen today as a not so good day to bury bad news.

And the very bad news is, despite all their protestations to the contrary, they would rather help Sinn Fein chase those who fought for their country. The public will see this for what? It is not a complex legal treatise. It is a disgrace.
10:43
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Well, I say to the hon. Gentleman I can agree with him when Gentleman I can agree with him when he describes the judgement as being a complex one. And he's absolutely right about that. I would just make clear that the. Protected disclosure relating to the location of remains of those who'd been murdered by the IRA, in almost all cases buried in the Republic of Ireland, covered by separate arrangements that were introduced when the ICV was created, and that had support right across Northern Ireland, because people rightly judged the most important thing was to enable families to be reunited with the remains of their loved ones.

And there, sadly for individuals whose remains have not yet been found. He. He talks about the conditional immunity scheme, but the fact remains that if a terrorist who committed one of many horrendous crimes, some of which are being investigated at the moment, the M62 coach bombing, what happened at Warrenpoint, the Kingsmill massacre, if they came to the commission and told the full truth, what the government's legislation, the last government's legislation, said that the Commission must not, may but must grant them immunity from prosecution if they believe they cooperate.

And what the what the. Well, I'm afraid it's not a question of nuance, because the reason why the reason. Sorry.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Seriously, Ministers. Shudder Ministers you asked the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Shudder Ministers you asked the questions. Please allow the Secretary of State to answer without interruption. Sorry, sir.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

without interruption. Sorry, sir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The reason why the immunity provisions had no support from any of the had no support from any of the political parties in Northern Ireland, and he knows that had no support from victims and survivors support from victims and survivors organisations in Northern Ireland. And he knows that, too, is because 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.

And he also has to recognise that immunity remains incompatible with our human rights obligations. Now, on the three specific questions he asked, the first about the interrelationship between the Dillon judgement and the Windsor framework. Well, clearly a very important part of the judgement is to do with the Windsor framework. In essence, the issue before the Supreme Court was. This has article two of the Windsor framework been correctly interpreted by the courts in Northern Ireland when they decided to disapply the immunity provisions and in effect struck them down.

And what the court said very clearly was that that was incorrect. And the reason the government brought the appeal was because, although we disagree with immunity as a matter of principle and it never existed, that judgement of the courts in Northern Ireland raised a much bigger question, which could be interpreted in other ways in respect of other policies. And you will have seen some of the issues to do with immigration. So that is why the government brought the appeal, and we have now got clarity that article two applies to certain things, but it is not capable of the broad interpretation that the Northern Ireland courts had given to it.

Secondly, on the subject of legal aid, that is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. It is their responsibility. On the troubles Bill, as he will know, it is a carryover Bill for this session. The Committee stage will come early in this new session. I don't accept what he said about it for the very simple reason that the basis, 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 is bringing before the House.

And everybody recognises that with the passage of time and the facts demonstrated that the chance of further future prosecutions is rapidly diminishing, for reasons all of us, all of us understand. And I would also remind him that any decisions, any decisions about prosecutions are taken independently by independent prosecuting authorities.
10:48
10:49
10:49
Paul Kohler Portrait Mr Paul Kohler MP (Wimbledon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Liberal Democrat spokesperson Paul Paul Waugh. thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his of his statement? The Supreme Court judgement lays bare the judgement 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 by every court, considered it as incompatible with our human rights obligations, and has now been repudiated by this government, of course. Those on the benches to my right who championed in this House did our veterans no favours.

Likewise, 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. This judgement confirms we were right. The Supreme Court set aside the Court of Appeals declarations that the ICRIR was presently incapable of discharging its article two investigative obligations. However, this was not an endorsement of the ICRIRS 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, but rather each of those questions would need to be assessed on the facts of individual cases. Now that wait and see approach is part of the uncertainty our veterans and their families fear, so will the Secretary of State tell the House what concrete steps he will take in committee to ensure genuine, independent protections for veterans are built into, rather than built into, the bill, rather than leaving those safeguards to be resolved on a case by case basis.

Thank you.
10:51
10:52
10:53
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm very grateful to my hon. Friend for his representation hon. Friend for his representation of his constituents and for what he has just said, and I want to join has just said, and I want to 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, I think, to the Prime Minister in the opening of the King's Speech debate yesterday.

Split second decisions that those members of our armed forces had to take the courts, recognise and understand that, and have on many occasions said that what they did was entirely lawful. And I would say also that nobody who acted lawfully in line with lawful orders has anything to fear at all. Indeed, if one looks at the record of the very, very small number of cases in which members of the armed forces have been convicted for offences during the troubles, I think it is evidence of that, but the commitment I give to him, as I've already given to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, is that when we come to the Committee stage, he will see the answer to the very fair question he has put to me about the protections we intend to put in place, including making it 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.
10:54
10:55
10:56
10:57
10:58
10:59
11:00
11:01
11:02
11:03
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Yeah. >> Well, the hon. Member raises an extremely important point, as I'm sure she is aware, our troubles sure she is aware, our troubles bill leaves in place. Part four of the 2023 Legacy Act, because not everything that was in the 2023 Legacy Act was wrong. And that does deal with memorialisation and digitisation of records. And I agree with her. It's it's not either. All these things need to be pursued in parallel, but in order for people to be reconciled, it's really important that they are able to feel that they have insofar as it is possible, and it won't be in all cases that they have finally been given an answer as to how and at whose hands their loved ones died, because that is such an important part of enabling people in Northern Ireland who still live under the shadow of the troubles, to be able to reconcile themselves with what happened.

And people come to this in very, very different ways. And as I know from the many conversations I've had so that Northern Ireland society can move

**** Possible New Speaker ****

forward, it's already been transformed in the last 28 years, and all of us applaud that. Thank you.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State has laid out, the Supreme Court and it's still in the Supreme Court and it's still in judgement, 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 the government withdrew that appeal when it came to power. But the right hon. Gentleman must recognise right hon. Gentleman must recognise the the fear and anger of our soldiers and veterans in response to the changes that the government has 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? And if the government the courts? And if the government is convinced that it is not, what better case for leaving?
11:05
11:05
Hilary Benn Portrait Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP, The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Leeds South, Labour)
-
-
Rights because it provides protections for all of us as citizens. The point I was seeking 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 the House in relation to immunity and whether the appeal had been withdrawn or not. Was this, it was argued, from those benches opposite because of the Northern Ireland veteran movements intervention. It veteran movements intervention. It was put to me that in some way the appeal on that matter remained live.

And it was also put to me that the United Kingdom Supreme Court was likely to rule on the question, and I wanted to come to the House today at the first available opportunity to make it quite clear that I'm afraid those two arguments were wrong. The appeal had been withdrawn. The Supreme Court recognised that, and therefore there was nothing for them to rule on. The incompatibility with the convention of immunity remained, but it did go out of its way to explain why case law means that there isn't an exception on grounds of reconciliation that would in any way justify the immunity provisions that were contained in the last government's legislation statement.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let the Frontbenches change over.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Let the Frontbenches change over. Before we come to the National Security statement, I should say two things in relation to the two things in relation to the matters that are subjudice. Firstly, there are a number of live cases relating to recent anti-Semitic relating to recent anti-Semitic attacks. However, to help manage our discussions on the issue of national importance and granting a
11:06
11:07
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
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 responding to these 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 and convictions last week against two individuals under the National Security Act 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. Mr. speaker, on the 30th of April, the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, JTC, 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 as 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 Jtacs 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 the government has made in protecting Jewish communities.

Now, Mr. Speaker, 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 that we face today. Mr. speaker. 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, and we are working with technology companies, international partners and Ofcom to tackle online content used to radicalise, recruit and incite terrorism. Coordinated intervention is crucial to reduce the terrorist risk, so we are providing children and individuals with the right support, with our intervention centre of Expertise, which brings together MI5 and counter-terrorism policing with expertise from wider public services, MI5 and CT police work tirelessly to stop terrorist attacks with 19 late stage attack plots disrupted since 2020, including a chilling ISIS inspired plot to target 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 is available to owners and operators of venues and public spaces through the protect UK 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 anti-Semitic attack in Golders Green. Now, Mr. Speaker, terrorism and state threats are sometimes interrelated, as we have seen, with threats from states such as Iran and the wider use of terrorist groups and proxies by state 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 this House will know that a jury delivered its verdict following the nine week trial of Bill Ewen and Peter.

Why the jury found both individuals guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service, which in this case was the Hong Kong police force. This was done under the National Security Act. Why was also found guilty of misconduct in public office. The verdict represents the first convictions under the National Security Act related to China, and 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 clear to Hong Kong's chief executive that this type of activity was, and will always be unacceptable in the United Kingdom. The Foreign Office have also made it clear that UNs employment at the Hong Kong Economic Trade Office must be terminated immediately.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this trial has understandably caused considerable concern within the UK, amongst the Hong Kong community, the safety and security of Hong Kongers in the UK is paramount. That is why my officials have been working closely with the National Security Protective Authority to deliver new guidance on transnational repression. This 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 is 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 fast track legislation in the coming weeks, which will clamp down on individuals and groups carrying out hostile activity for foreign states, including those who act as their proxies.

This legislation will include new prescription like powers to ban the activities of state backed organisations who pose a threat to the UK's national security, and we are implementing all the recommendations made last year by Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation. So we are responding to state threats in all their forms now, Mr. Speaker, national security is the first duty of government, and as this House knows, that duty includes being able to respond to a range of threats.

So 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. And, Mr. Speaker, protecting our communities and standing up to hatred and intolerance is a shared responsibility of every person in the UK. So 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. Mr. speaker, 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 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. Mr. speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
11:17
Matt Vickers Portrait Matt Vickers MP (Stockton West, Conservative)
-
-
Ministers Matt Vickers. like to thank the Ministers for advance sight of his statement and his recognition of the importance of working together across the 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 terror legislation have said, this is a national emergency. While the government noted that the raising of the terror threat level was not solely a consequence of the attack in Golders Green, 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's going on. We have to call out hate when we see it. Jewish people in Britain are 12 times more likely to be victim of hate crime than any other group. We cannot allow this to go on. This requires not just warm words but robust action. That means authorising the surveillance powers usually reserved for counter-terrorism, that the Ministers has referenced today to identify and prevent antisemitic attacks that are being planned.

Furthermore, foreign nationals who express anti-Semitism, 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, while I welcome the government's announcement of legislation in the King's Speech, it needs to act at speed. Steps need to be taken to proscribe groups that fuel this hatred, such as the IRGC.

This was recommended almost 12 months ago, so I hope it is now a top priority for the government. Members on this side of the House stand ready to support its implementation. Ultimately, the measures have outlined do not begin to cover the full extent of the action we need to take to stop this evil. We need to tackle the underlying ideologies that threaten our national security. Therefore, it is critical that the government focuses on the ideologies which pose the greatest threat. As I have said to 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 in the last 25 years have been perpetrated by Islamist extremists.

Yet we've seen a decrease in prevent prevent referrals relating to Islamist extremism, and only 10% of the current prevent caseload relates to Islamist extremism. Can the Ministers explain what more the government will do to address this 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 upon 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 suppress dissidents and intimidate British Chinese communities and students into compliance. Therefore, I ask the government, as many of my colleagues have done 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 Ministers join me in condemning the fact that Russia has issued an arrest warrant for our former colleague, Ben Wallace? Does he agree? This is totally unacceptable, and will he use all of his endeavours to look into this matter? The increase in the threat level illustrates the risks posed to this country. Many of the measures set out by the Ministers 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 which 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.
11:22
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr. speaker, I am very grateful to the Shadow Ministers for the very sensible and reasonable approach that he has taken this morning, and I agree with him that these are matters that, wherever these are matters that, wherever possible, we should be seeking to work on a cross-party political basis. And that's absolutely going to be my approach. I do want to agree with him in terms of the appalling and abhorrent attacks that we've seen recently on the Jewish community. I hope he understands that the government is absolutely committed to dealing with this poisonous hatred.

I spelt out in my opening remarks some of the measures that the government have taken and will continue to take. He is right, though, to hold us to account. This isn't about warm words. This needs to be about deeds. And that's precisely why we've taken the decision to allocate more funding to support this activity than has been the case previously, and we will take every opportunity to ensure that our response, collectively, as a nation is proportionate to the nature of the threat that is 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 that is a matter of complete agreement across this House. But I give him and the House an absolute assurance that we will do everything, everything that we can, to make sure that our Jewish communities not only are safe, but feel safe. Now, again, entirely reasonably, he raised concerns about hate marches, protest activity that's taken place and may seek to take place in the future.

I hope again, it is a point of consensus to say that the right to protest is fundamental to our democracy, but at the same time, this cannot cross the line into unlawful or violent behaviour. Now, the police do have a range of existing powers that enable them to tackle unlawful behaviour, including at marches. But I think it is important to note that these will soon include new measures contained within the Crime and Policing Act, which received Royal Assent at the end of April to further restrict intimidatory protests, particularly around places of worship and new offences around face coverings at protest.

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 protests that follow the same route time and time again can be forced to change their route all the time of protest. And he will know, as will the right hon. And, hon. Members, that 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 Lord MacDonald's recommendations in the near future.

Now, again, he made an entirely reasonable point. I thought about the disparity in the prevent caseload. He's right about that. I hope that he would acknowledge that that is not a new challenge. That is a challenge that the previous government faced and this government faced. He'll be aware that we've appointed a new independent commissioner, and I'll be meeting with him later today. And I categorically guarantee that that will be on the agenda for our discussion. So we do take the point he's made very seriously, but I know that he will understand it's not a new challenge for government.

He referenced China. I hope I was clear in my introductory remarks the concern that I have about the unique range of threats that China levels against the United Kingdom, but I hope that he would also accept that there are areas where, of course, we do need to cooperate closely with China, and there is always a balance to be struck, but I do give him an absolute assurance that national security will always be our priority. He mentioned furs, and I suspect other hon.

Members may take the opportunity to mention it as well. Furs is still a relatively new tool, and making sure that we're able to draw the maximum operational benefit from it, and any decisions will be communicated to Parliament in the normal way. Finally, I do just want to respond to the point that he made about Ben Wallace. So let me be crystal clear. The accusations that were made about Ben Wallace are completely unacceptable. Ben Wallace is someone who has served our country, and for reasons that the hon.

Gentleman will completely understand, I'm obviously not going to get into the individual security arrangements for Mr. Wallace, and I cannot and will not comment on operational or intelligence matters. But I can say that I've met Ben Wallace to discuss the concerns that he is understandably raised. I am in touch with him, and I will make sure that we continually assess the nature of the threats to individuals and their safety, and that we as a government will be absolutely on the front foot in identifying and investigating such threats, and that we 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,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

including Mr. Wallace, will not be tolerated. Rachel Hopkins thank. You, Mr. Speaker, and I thank

**** Possible New Speaker ****

You, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Ministers for his statement on national security threats and the swift response to this heightened
11:28
11:28
11:29
Will Forster Portrait Mr Will Forster MP (Woking, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The Liberal Democrats. >> Week after week, British Jews are being. >> Attacked, intimidated and persecuted. Heaton Park synagogue. Kenton United Synagogue, Finchley Reform Synagogue, Jewish futures in Hendon, the Hezbollah ambulances and more recently, the Golders Green stabbings. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Lord Jonathan Hall, has is right to call these appalling levels of anti-Semitism and national security emergency. He's also right to say that existing laws must be properly enforced, especially since last month the UK's terror threat has been raised to severe.

Members of the Jewish faith in my constituency of Woking attend the North West Surrey synagogue, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Runnymede and Weybridge MP, and 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 anti-Semitism. I want to see a future where Jewish congregations can gather free of fear, and with a government that supports their safety.

And in that climate, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely right that the government must take urgent action. But I question whether the broadening of the scope of prevent will be enough to secure that. With the modern threats we face in the Southport attacks and in Golders Green, we've seen the abject failure of prevent. It's clear that full overhaul of prevent is needed, and that warning signs must not be missed again. Yesterday's King's Speech confirmed that the government's intention to introduce a national security legislation.

But that must be a priority. Please can the Ministers confirm that that will include include an overhaul of prevent, and what timetable that bill will be introduced? Finally, Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Democrats have long called for the IRGC to be prescribed, as Jonathan Hall has made clear, existing powers are already sufficient to prescribe the IRGC. That being the case, why is this government drags its feet and delayed implementing such action to proscribe the IRGC and keep British Jews safe?
11:32
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Mr. speaker, I'm grateful to him, and of course, I agree with the concerns that he's rightly expressed about anti-Semitic activity in our country. He will activity in our country. He will have heard, hopefully in my remarks, the points that I have made with regard to protective security. But protective security is obviously only a part of our response. It's very important that we seek to tackle the underlying causes, and that is why I hope that he will acknowledge this. There is a lot of activity across government, in different parts of government to attack anti-Semitic activity and behaviours wherever it rears its ugly head, whether that's in our NHS, whether that's in schools, colleges or universities.

So that is a real priority for the government to make sure not only do we provide an appropriate protective security environment, but we tackle the underlying causes of the abhorrent anti-Semitism that we've seen in recent weeks. He mentioned Southport, and I hope that he would acknowledge that. Sir Adrian Fulford has recently published his response to phase one of the Southport inquiry, and I have met with Sir Adrian to discuss that. He's already underway with phase two. It's a hugely important piece of work that he's undertaking, and obviously he'll have the government's full support in terms of completing that work.

And we look forward to receiving his recommendations in due course. He referenced Jonathan Hall KC and forthcoming legislation and made a commitment earlier on in my introductory remarks to enacting all of the recommendations that Jonathan Hall made earlier on in this parliamentary or the previous parliamentary term. And I can give an assurance that in terms of the state prescription tool that we've made a commitment to introduce, that is a piece of legislation that was announced in the King's Speech, and that will be fast tracked, and we will move as quickly as we possibly can to get that on the statute book.

And I look forward, hopefully, to having his support and the support of. All right, hon. And hon. Members across the House.
11:34
11:35
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis MP, The Minister of State, Home Department (Barnsley North, Labour)
-
-
Well, I'm grateful to my hon. Friend. I think he's asked a very astute question. He obviously heard the reference that I made earlier with regard to the initiation of a internal piece of work review into the national terrorism threat level. This is something that has, in truth, long been on my mind, and I want to satisfy myself that the current arrangements are fit for purpose. The current arrangements, I think, have served our country fairly well for a number of years, but I feel as if they have now been overtaken by events, and therefore it's appropriate to look carefully, not only at the way in which the threat level is calibrated, but also communicated.

And I want us to have a system that actually makes some sense to the public. So we'll look very carefully at that, and I'll consider recommendations over the next number of months. And obviously very happy to discuss that matter further with him and with other members. He made a further important point about the strategic defence review and the need to have an ongoing conversation with the public. He's right to remind us of that. These are matters that I discuss not only with colleagues across government, but also with our European partners who have taken.

I think it's not unreasonable to say a somewhat more forward leaning approach than UK governments going back a number of years. We do need to make sure that the public understand the nature of the threats that we face. We need to do that in a way, though, that makes sure that they are alert but not alarmed.
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:53
Jim Shannon Portrait Jim Shannon MP (Strangford, Democratic Unionist Party)
-
-
Jim Shannon Madam. >> Jim Shannon Madam. >> Deputy Speaker, can I thank the Ministers very much for him and for his and his government's his and his government's determination to protect all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland citizens, and also endorse his comments about the police, MI5 and MI6. If we didn't have them, individuals collectively doing their hard work to try and work out where the the the malcontents are. I've long bemoaned the fact and the lack of action against Chinese overreach, which sees spy work carried out against British nationals in this country.

I make the point for the Hong Kongers. I have some of them living in my constituency who feel daily threatened by by Chinese officials. Will it be spying on them or following them? I have railed against the blatant anti-Semitism, culminating in the stabbings of Golders Green, along with the hon. Member. Right, hon. Member for Harrow. We are standing alongside the Iranian government in exile. Madam Rajavi and the Iranians tell us that they are threatened. They feel threatened daily in this country by standing up for liberty and freedom in Iran.

I have highlighted the sop to to, to Republicans, which embraces Republican glorification of terrorism, which has led to car bombs in Northern Ireland. Just last month. This nation's security is tied to our ability to to act. I've also railed against the blatant anti-Semitism culminating in the stabbings in Golders Green. So when will the government. What will the government do to secure national interests and the safety of all our citizens in this democracy, this great democracy and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? Thank you so much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:01
12:01
None Portrait Presentation of bills
-

Monday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Next Monday. Next presentation of Bill Secretary, Liz Kendall.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Bill Secretary, Liz Kendall. Network. And. Information Systems bill presentation and Second Reading.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

presentation and Second Reading. In accordance with Standing Order number eight A and the order

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order number eight A and the order of the 6th of January 2026. This bill is read a second time. Consideration. What day? Monday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Next. Monday. Next. Presentation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Bill Secretary John Healey. Armed Forces Bill presentation and Second Reading. In accordance with Standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In accordance with Standing Order number eight A and the order of 26th of January 2026. This bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of 26th of January 2026. This bill is now read a second time. Committee. What day? Monday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Monday. Next Monday. Next presentation of Bill Secretary Steve Reed.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Bill Secretary Steve Reed. Representation of the People Bill presentation. Second Reading. In accordance with Standing Order number 88 and the order of the 2nd of March 2026. This bill is read a second time. Consideration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what day? Monday. Next Monday. Next presentation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Next Monday. Next presentation of Bill Secretary David Lammy. Courts and Tribunals Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

presentation. Second Reading. In accordance with Standing Order number 88 and the order of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order number 88 and the order of 10th of March 2026, this bill is read a second time. Consideration. What day? Monday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Monday. Next Monday. Next presentation of Bill Secretary Hilary Benn.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Northern Ireland Troubles Bill presentation and Second Reading. In accordance with Standing Order number 80 A and the order of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order number 80 A and the order of 27th of April, 2026. This bill is read a second time. Committee. What day? Monday.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Monday. Next Monday. Next presentation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of Bill Secretary David Lammy. Public Office (Accountability) Reading. In accordance with Standing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In accordance with Standing Order number 80 A and the order of the 27th of April, 2026. This bill is read a second time.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Consideration. What day? Monday. Next Monday. Next presentation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Next Monday. Next presentation of Bill Secretary Heidi Alexander. High Speed rail, Crewe, Manchester. Bill presentation and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Manchester. Bill presentation and Second Reading. In accordance with the order of the 2nd of February 2026, this Bill the 2nd of February 2026, this Bill is deemed to have been read a second time and stands committed to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second time and stands committed to a Select Committee presentation of Bill Secretary Wes Streeting. Health Bill.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading What day? Monday next. Monday. Next second presentation

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Monday. Next second presentation of Bill Secretary Peter Kyle. Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Second Reading. What day? Monday next.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Monday next. The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day. King's Speech motion for an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

King's Speech motion for an address. Adjourned. Debate on question no. The question is that a Humble Address be presented to His Majesty as on the Order Paper. Secretary of State.
12:05
None Portrait Debate on the Address: Debate on the Address
-

12:05
Pat McFadden Portrait Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP, The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Wolverhampton South East, Labour)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to open today's King's Speech debate on behalf of King's Speech debate on behalf of the government. And as His Majesty said yesterday, we are living in an increasingly dangerous and volatile world. Now, this debate is about the labour market. So let's start with some facts. 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. Economic inactivity down by over 350 000 since the election, lower today than in 13 of the 14 years of the previous government. Since the general election. Real wages up more than in the first ten years of the last government, and this morning's growth figures up 0.6% in the first quarter of this year. Services up oh point 8%, construction up 0.4%, the fastest GDP per capita growth in four years, the highest GDP growth in the G7 reported this year, and that is on top of GDP per capita growth last year, on top of six interest rate cuts since the general election.

Madam Deputy Speaker, our economic management has put the UK in a stronger position, better placed to weather the storm of global shocks, better placed to weather the volatility of which His Majesty spoke yesterday, and 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. But none of these 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?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Happy to give way. And many frontbench colleagues keep reiterating that point. Could he explain exactly what he thinks that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do in those circumstances, because he keeps saying it, but I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because he keeps saying it, but I don't believe it's true. We know it isn't true.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

We know it isn't true. Let me read it out for him. The Leader of the Opposition said the government was too scared to make foreign interventions. And she said, foreign interventions. And she said, I would say to Labour MPs, we are in this war whether we like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for? That's what she said. That is what she said. And as for the leader of reform, he said we should do all we can to support the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear. So instead. She said.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She said. So instead of trying to douse the flames, they sought to pour as the flames, they sought to pour as much petrol on them as possible. They would have jumped in with both They would have jumped in with both feet, displaying not only a failure of judgement, but a total disregard for the price that will be paid by for the price that will be paid by British consumers in terms of higher prices and higher interest rates. That is how much they cared about keeping Britain working.

When it came to the biggest judgement that this country has had to make for a long time now, their own 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. And the reason that I point this out. Madam Deputy Speaker, is because month after month and nowhere more than in the arena of welfare, the party opposite finds things that they are outraged about in the system that they built, that they designed and they created.

But before I come to the system itself, let me state something which is obvious but is too often left out of these debates. The welfare system is often the end of a process in people's lives, not the beginning. So I'll tell you what contributes to higher welfare bills and to people not working. Hollowing out the NHS, 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.

Rejecting explicitly 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 and without confidence in the future. 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 of that and then stand at that despatch box and credibly express outrage about the rise in benefit bills. It didn't come from nowhere.

And if we're going to tackle this, we have to understand that I'm happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And in that case, can he credibly stand at that despatch box and talk about the impact of the rise in National Insurance contributions and the Employment Rights Bill and the impact that that has had on employment, to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

point where the government is now paying companies to employ young made. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. If it was down to those policies, you would not have seen a rise of a quarter of a million in the Neet numbers in the last three years of her party's time in office. The point I make is this did not come from nowhere. And we have to understand that and what it means if we are going to have a serious response to this is that education, health treatment, youth apprenticeships and changes to the welfare system itself all have a part to play.

And on the health front, I have good news to report. Waiting lists today down by 110,000, the biggest monthly drop since 2008. Elective waiting times. Targets hit four hour waiting time. Targets 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 and the party opposite has shown no understanding of how people end up on benefits in the first place.

I am happy to give way. Thank you. I would I would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Like to raise with the Ministers the fact that we are looking at around a thousand redundancies around a thousand redundancies across the NHS in Devon, and they are a significant employer that is cutting the legs off employment in communities like mine in Torbay.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The hon. Gentleman to the figures that I just read out for 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. It is also good for getting people back to work. The party opposite, as I said, show no understanding of how people end up on these benefits in the first place. They are like a workman who wanders around your house asking who installed that? When? The answer every time is they did.

They installed it. They created it. They say the welfare bill is too high. When it went up £100 billion when they were in power. They say they want more face to face appointments, but they shut them down almost entirely. And then the shadow Chancellor signed off a bunch of contracts allowing the assessors to work at home. They say there are too many people on health benefits. When 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, Madam Deputy Speaker. 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. And two weeks ago, 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, only one problem. Around 80% of it was a legacy transfer from old benefits that was decided, organised and begun by the Conservative Party.

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 long standing policy and has been implemented at scale by the DWP since May 2022, predating the current administration when it comes to them owning their own 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 it 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 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. I am happy to give way here.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. 12 months ago, the Secretary of State's the Secretary of State's predecessor attempted to cut the welfare bill and was sent packing by Labour backbenchers, and then in the autumn they had to increase. They had to get rid of the two child benefit cap because of the Labour backbenches. Isn't the truth that the Secretary of State is that the Secretary of State is incapable of reforming the welfare system because he doesn't have permission from his backbenches?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Outline the changes to the system that we are making. I system that we are making. I believe that at the heart of those changes has to be actually to change the question the system asks change the question the system asks to have a system suited better to the conditions of today, and to ask not just what benefit are you entitled to, but how do we help you change your life? And on that task, change your life? And on that task, we have begun.

So the change that came into force last month was to Universal Credit, to narrow the gap between the health element and the standard element. And crucially, it is matched by an increase in employment support. Another change is £3.8 billion to help people into work over the next few years, ensuring personalised help to maximise people's chances of moving on to a good, secure job. Because we have to change the old Tory habit of people being signed off and written off, and instead move to a system which more actively helps people into work.

And 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. So the issue about this system is not just about monthly income. It's about the story of people's lives and how we change it. I am happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Enabling me to ask a question. And first of all, can I thank thank him for his positivity that he him for his positivity that he presented in his in his his comments. So far, I'm incredibly worried about the young people as a secular state is getting job opportunities. There's been money from. My constituents, from. My constituents, unfortunately haven't been. But can I ask the question about apprenticeships and getting people into the building and construction into the building and construction sector, for instance, where there are opportunities.

House building has continued to grow and also the commitment of government as well. So can maybe the Secretariat, he's able to outline some of the good things that have been done for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

young people in relation to apprenticeships. Chips are really valuable and important, and I visited construction apprentices with the Prime Minister just a couple of days ago, so I heartily endorse days ago, so I heartily endorse what he was saying. But this issue of the young is really important to of the young is really important to us because of the long term consequences of them staying on consequences of them staying on benefits. Let me just illustrate this for the House.

A young person under the age of 25 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. And perhaps worst of all, a young unemployed person is over 70% more likely to die prematurely than their peers. So changing these stories has to be at the heart of what we are doing.

And here are some practical ways we know that many disabled people, young or old, and people with health conditions, want to work but have been held back by fear of losing their benefits if it does not work out. So just last month, we have changed the law to bring in the right to try because keeping people locked on benefits because they lack the confidence to work is in no one's interest, not the individuals, not the states. And now this 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, and there is no greater fan than me of the wonderful work that our elected local mayors are doing. So we are putting £1 billion in funding to local areas to help 300,000 people into employment over the next few years. That is what practical welfare reform looks like.

And today the department has published new figures on fraud and error. They show continued progress in a fall since the post pandemic period. But this is an ongoing effort. There is always more to do because there are unscrupulous individuals, Madam Deputy Speaker, who will try to game the system, but whether it's £5000 or £5 million from an undisclosed source, possibly someone located abroad, people are expected to declare it. It cannot be one rule for some and another rule for everyone else now, in the coming weeks, my right hon.

Friend the Ministers for Social Security and Disability will also set out our plans to deliver our manifesto commitment to tackle the Access to work backlog. This is an important scheme. It provides grants to thousands of disabled people to help them get into and stay in work. Things like specialist equipment, assistive technology adaptations. But I know that members across the House have raised with me the issue of backlogs and waiting times that grew under the party opposite. 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, and we are restoring fairness in the system to better value for money. And the Motability scheme, their target for half the cars to be made in Britain by 2035, so that this important scheme supports the British car industry to. And stopping those who have not contributed from getting a British pension on the cheap and the work of reform will continue this year when, in the coming weeks we receive interim reports from both the Milburn and Tims reviews before they conclude later in the year, and we will bring forward further proposals for reform with work and opportunity at our heart when they

**** Possible New Speaker ****

have reported. But of course, getting Britain working is about more than this. I am happy to give way. Why?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Why? There are reports. Suggesting that those people that are signing on unemployed are that are signing on unemployed are getting trained in jobs that don't exist yet. There are opportunities for people to work. Those people for people to work. Those people are not being trained for those jobs. Will you therefore reform the system so that people who are system so that people who are unemployed, seeking a job are actually trained to do jobs that are available?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Precisely what we are doing, including short courses, apprenticeship courses of less than a current, usually eight months minimum, because employers have minimum, because employers have told us that these short courses are precisely what they need. I am all in favour of more flexibility all in favour of more flexibility in the apprenticeship system to suit what employers need. But as I suit what employers need. But as I was saying, getting Britain working is also about the levels of investment in the economy too, about the roads and railways.

We build the capital programmes in education, in health, the year on year modernisation of the country. And here too, there is a contrast with what we inherited compared to the plans that we inherited. Public investment will be £120 billion more over the course of this Parliament. That is what getting Britain working looks like building and modernising the country. And what underpins 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 regulation, 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, as I have said, should be the young for the simple and obvious reason that if we do not get the young into work, the effects can be lifelong, and we have almost a million young people not in education, training or employment. As I said in response to the hon. Lady's question, in the last three years of the party opposite time in power, 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.

I'm going to proceed. If the hon. Lady does not mind. Unlike the party opposite who did nothing about it, we are doing something about it because we will not leave a young generation behind. We will not give up on them. And that is why our Youth Guarantee is so important. £2.5 billion into support for young people and employers over the next few years. From June, 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, a hiring bonus of £2,000 to take on a young apprentice paying all the training costs for young apprentices for SMEs, youth hubs across the country to take support out of the job centre to where young people are giving them access to CVS advice, skills training, mental health support, housing advice and careers guidance. And in the spirit of generosity, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way to the honourable. I thank the. Right hon. Gentleman for giving way and for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gentleman for giving way and for his astounding shopping list of action that he's taking. But on this side of the House, I think we this side of the House, I think we can make life easy for him. If he had not put 2% on National had not put 2% on National Insurance, if he had not increased the national minimum wage, if he the national minimum wage, if he had not removed the option through the Employment Rights Bill for zero hours contracts, businesses in my constituency and right across the country would not have been forced to remove jobs that that focus specifically on young people.

This government is responsible for the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decline in youth unemployment, unemployment. Exactly, exactly. It was worth

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly, exactly. It was worth waiting for. I. I have to disappoint the hon.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have to disappoint the hon. Lady. If this government was responsible, then it would not be the case that youth employment the case that youth employment never in a single year reached the pre-financial crisis levels when her party were in power. If this government were responsible, you would not have seen a rise in a quarter of £1 million in the number of quarter of £1 million, quarter of a million people in the number of young people not in education, employment or training.

So let me continue with what we are doing beyond the hiring bonuses, beyond the youth hubs. We are also offering more work experience or a workplace training with a guaranteed interview designed in partnership with employers and for those who have been out of work for 18 months, a six month paid job placement, 25 hours a week at national minimum wage rates. And the reason we are doing all this, Madam Deputy Speaker, is because we will not stand back and allow young people to graduate from school on to a life on benefits.

There has been too much of that in recent years, because to do so would be to accept the scarring effects for the rest of their lives. It would be to accept a huge cost to the country and to businesses in lost talent. Changing this should be a cause for us all, and it should certainly be a Labour cause to give hope to the country's young people, to show that we believe in them, that 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 their grandparents too, because they all want a better future for young people. And so do we. And there is an urgency about this because as the population ages and net migration falls, we need the young people of this country more than ever. They are our greatest resource, our greatest asset, and an investment in them is an investment in the future for all of us.

So in the volatile times that His Majesty spoke of, 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 written off, about giving them a chance to change the story of their lives. So that's the message at the heart of the King's Speech. That's what's at the heart of our Youth Guarantee. It's at the heart of all the changes that I have listed in welfare reform in this speech, and it will be at the heart of the changes to come, and I recommend them to the House.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The Shadow Secretary of State. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I respect the Secretary of State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I respect the Secretary of State. He has Talked at some length about what's wrong with the welfare

**** Possible New Speaker ****

what's wrong with the welfare system, but the fact is, there is no welfare bill in the King's speech. Exactly.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Exactly. I reckon he is stuck between a rock and a hard place. He knows the benefits. Bill is out of control. benefits. Bill is out of control. He knows the public are sick of seeing their go on ever higher welfare handouts. He even knows how the savings could be made, because
12:30
Helen Whately Portrait Helen Whately MP (Faversham and Mid Kent, Conservative)
-
-
I've told him. But he also knows. He also knows they're laughing, but they're the problem. Because he also knows the MPs behind him will also knows the MPs behind him will have none of it. And with the Prime Minister clinging on by a thread. No wonder there was no welfare bill No wonder there was no welfare bill in the King's speech. But here's the problem. Failure to grip the problem. Failure to grip welfare puts them dangerously out of touch with people out there.

The people he and I and all of us are here to serve. Madam Deputy Speaker, let me read from an email I received recently from a constituent. I'll 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 what 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? That's right. And she is far from alone. I have heard that feeling expressed time and again since I've been Shadow Secretary of State on the doorsteps, in the pub and 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.

For many, claiming benefits simply makes more sense. And 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 doing the right thing, paying for people who've opted out. And what is Labour doing about it? Absolutely nothing. They are making a big mistake because the bald fact

**** Possible New Speaker ****

is alarm clock. Britain is sick of paying out for Benefit Street. Yeah yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The hon. Gentleman wanted me to give away. Thank you very much. She has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you very much. She has made a very powerful case. But of course, her party was the future course, her party was the future once. And I would simply ask why all of the challenges she's identified in the welfare system weren't fixed when they were in government. And they set up this welfare system. They built the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system. I hate. To tell the hon. Gentleman, but they're in charge now, and they've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they're in charge now, and they've had nearly two years and nothing is changing. Nothing. Madam Deputy Speaker, don't just

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, don't just take my word for it. Here are the numbers. Over 8 million people are now claiming Universal Credit. now claiming Universal Credit. Almost 4 million people are claiming sickness benefits. Over 600 000 households are getting over 3200 £0 a year in benefits, more than the take home pay of the average British worker. 91,000 households are getting over 500 £0, enough to put you in the top 10% of our nation's earners, and 16000 are getting over £60,000 in benefits every single year.

If you worked, you'd have to earn over £70,000 to have that. And all this is costing the country £140 billion a year. People know when they're being taken for a ride, but yesterday the Prime Minister had a chance, one last chance to hit reset, to reverse those trends, to get people off benefits and to bring down the welfare bill. But with his back against the wall, no surprise the Prime Minister's King's Speech contained none of this. Because while hundreds of thousands of people struggle to find work, the Prime Minister's only interested in protecting one job his own.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

well. And yes, yes, the Secretary of State can try to claim he's doing something. His work experience something. His work experience programs, his youth schemes, the Savingsfree, Timms Review and all of that. But we all know that is of that. But we all know that is just tinkering at the edges. They tried welfare reform last summer tried welfare reform last summer and failed, and now the government has given up altogether. They had no plan when they got into office, no plan when they got into office, and they still have no plan now.

And that matters because 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. Money that could be so much better spent, like on defence, making our streets safer. Or think of this left in people's pockets for them to spend themselves. But the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way. Has he got a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

welfare savings plan? If so, let's hear it. Government and it's getting

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Government and it's getting people off of NHS waiting lists and back into work. But my my intervention, because it's not for intervention, because it's not for me to answer the questions right now. My intervention was simply to give another opportunity to actually ask the question that was actually ask the question that was put to her by my hon. Friend a moment ago, which she didn't really answer, which is that this is this answer, which is that this is this broken system that she described as Benefit Street is a system that they created 14 years.

Why in 14 years did they do nothing about it? And isn't it really the case that it's easy to make create political anger over this, rather than for them to have dealt with it? And that that's why it's now this government that's dealing with their mess.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Oh dear. What a shame. No ideas for savings there at all. And if the hon. Gentleman thought that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

would get him a job under the next Labour leader, I'm afraid he'll have to keep trying. Is it Wes?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is it Wes? Madam Deputy Speaker, Labour claim to be the party of working people, but the facts don't back people, but the facts don't back that up. They always leave office with unemployment higher than when they arrive, and they're on track they arrive, and they're on track to do it again. There are now over 300,000 more people unemployed than when they came to power. Their policies have actively killed jobs, the jobs tax, the Employment Rights bill. And now 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 is planning to make it worse. Many businesses have stopped hiring. Others are letting people go. Businesses tell me they're getting hundreds of applications for jobs they might have struggled to fill a couple of years ago. No wonder 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.

But instead hundreds of thousands are stuck. The Secretary of State knows this. That's why he's frantically announced a flurry of schemes at the cost of £2.5 billion. And obviously a work placement is better than nothing. But the young people I speak to want jobs, not government funded work experience. Madam Deputy Speaker, less than two years ago, the country voted us out and them in. They have laughed and jeered at us. But actually they're not laughing now because they have found out that governing is hard.

They promise voters change. But the only change most people have seen is that they are poorer. Who knows what they got up to in opposition, but it clearly wasn't working out what they would do if they won the election. The hon. Gentleman is chuntering now. I know that yesterday he called the Leader of the Opposition rude when actually she was just telling the truth. He doesn't like to hear the truth. Maybe he should talk a little less talking from over on the front bench and a little more listening.

Madam Deputy Speaker, being in power is not an end in itself. What matters is what you do with the power. Voters trust you with. I'm sure many of them care about our country, but caring is not enough. The question is, what are you going to do to fix it? And if the King's Speech we're debating today tells us anything, it's that they don't know. The only things they can think of will actually make the situation worse. And on welfare, they have basically given up.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe in learning lessons whenever you can. And one of the lessons from the situation they're in is make good use of your time in opposition. Work hard, think hard and make a plan. That is what we have been doing. That's why we've been able to set out an alternative King's Speech, which actually has more in it than the actual King's Speech take our plans for welfare. And to be clear, this is 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 hand-outs to foreign nationals, stop sickness benefits for anxiety and ADHD. Bring back face to face assessments, ban six provinces, reform fit notes and we will restore the household benefits cap to its original purpose of making sure 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 isn't working. It's not even working for people who are seriously ill or disabled. And I say to the right hon. Gentleman, we're not keeping our plan secret. It's all out there. Other parties are adopting our policies reform, for instance. They have not been shy, although they have been confused. And they're not here today. The right hon. Gentleman should feel free to do so too. And though the MPs behind him will hate it, we are here to help.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the most surreal King's Speech debate I've ever taken part in. People out there are angry, frustrated, fed up. They can see the country isn't working. They want the government to fix it. But Labour are too busy working out who should be in charge. And the saddest thing is it won't make a difference. They can change their team captain, but they're still the same team. I've heard them cheer on taxes for farmers, family, businesses and schools.

I've heard them cheer for lifting the two child cap. I've 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're on the side of people who get up each day and go to work.

They're doing the right thing and we back them. Sometimes things go wrong and people need help. And that's why welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Madam Deputy Speaker, Labour have made their choice. It's to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Yesterday's speech was a chance to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fix things and they blew it. Yeah yeah yeah. Valerie Vaz.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Valerie Vaz. Thank you, Madam Deputy. Speaker and it is a pleasure to State.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

State. And I. Hope she will understand that. I will try and address some of the points that she has made and in what she said in my speech. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm bound to Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm bound to mention the recent elections. Engaging in the democratic process is important, but not all areas actually had elections. The turnout across the wards in Walsall and Bloxwich was an average of 38%. But I want to put on record my thanks to all the councillors who served their community in Walsall and Bloxwich, and Madam Deputy Speaker.

A measure of reform thought that Walsall Council was Labour controlled and it wasn't Labour controlled. It was controlled by the Conservatives. I know it might be slightly difficult to work out which constituencies there are from
12:42
Valerie Vaz Portrait Rt Hon Valerie Vaz MP (Walsall and Bloxwich, Labour)
-
-
a helicopter, but it is, you know, some of his candidates had actually some of his candidates had actually said that they had to pay for their their leaflets if they wanted to their leaflets if they wanted to personalise it. So the gift of 5 million is quite interesting. When the leader of reform says that it's his personal safety. Because I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Madam Deputy Speaker, that Mr. Speaker takes and all of the speakers take our safety of each and every one of us in this chamber very seriously.

The Representation of the People Bill is a carry over bill. Madam Deputy Speaker, So I feel there is still time to ensure we have compulsory voting and whether cryptocurrency or Bitcoin can be used as donations to political parties from when people live, say, for example, I'll give you a country, Thailand, particularly from donors who maybe go under two different names. So I welcome the announcement. Madam Deputy Speaker, in our gracious sovereign's speech, to improve our defences in cyber security.

I don't know if hon. Members will know, but there was an investigation by a consortium of journalists from the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Insider, Delphi and V square about the Russian school, which provides special training. It's called Department for. It's a course on hacking or 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.

It's worth reading it was published on the 7th of May. We need to protect our democracy from the constant drip drip of misinformation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and disinformation on online fora, and I welcome the Energy Independence Bill in the Gracious Speech, we have seen how we've been at the mercy of other countries, but now we are investing in renewables, which will protect our planet, roll out energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

efficiency and bring down bills. Yes, I will. I thank. For giving way the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Energy. Independence or Dependence Bill, which I think we can probably call it, will make us more reliant on it, will make us more reliant on overseas imports for oil and gas, oil and gas that we will use for many years because our system needs many years because our system needs it. It bans new licences in the North Sea, making us more reliant on imports. Does she really welcome that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that? Harlow Energy Independence Independence bill when it's been published? Let's see what the what's actually in the clauses. But what the Secretary of State has wants to do is to make this country independent of outside forces. And for the first time, our government has invested so heavily in renewables. All this will get Britain working. It is outrageous. Just hang on a second. Outrageous that oil companies have made massive profits. Traders have bet on the outcome of war in Iran.

As petrol prices go up, someone somewhere is making money and it's not my constituents. They may not even know who is making the money. And yet they give way to the hon. Gentleman.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

In relation to our comments about renewables. It's really important that we do look upon renewables as an option. It's an renewables as an option. It's an option whether we like it or not, the way I see it. So how does the hon. Lady feel when it comes to working together here in the United Kingdom, when they're pushing the policy here for England and Wales? Does she believe that when it comes to renewables, we should be doing it collectively? I think we should be Northern Ireland, Scotland, be Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England together on a policy that can take us forward and can address and meet the targets, which are very, very important, not just for us but for our children and for our grandchildren.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and so it's important that we all work together. It's very important work together. It's very important to do that. And it's like climate change. You can't specify it in a particular area. It's for the whole area. It's for our whole country area. It's for our whole country and our whole planet. Madam Deputy Speaker, those of us who are around at the time of Brexit, and I'm at the time of Brexit, and I'm pleased to see that there is an EU bill, no, that we were only allowed to see the impact assessments if we left our phones behind, went across the road and just used a pencil and a piece of paper, and there we saw the impact assessments of every single sector, and we knew how important it was and how leaving the EU affected every single sector.

And now 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% have indicated they might reduce or cease trading in the EU without eased regulations. Many small businesses reported issues with customs documentation, 64% physical inspections, 21% and product marking 17%. To get Britain working, we need to have a closer relationship with our nearest market. If these small businesses close, working people and all of us lose out.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe in the dignity in work. Already we have seen and the hon. Lady mentioned what. There isn't a welfare bill in the in the our gracious sovereign speech. But there are a number of things that have taken place already, and I. And I will set them out. Increasing the national minimum wage rights at work, safety at work. We will get Britain working with the new work coaches and the right to try. I don't know if hon. Members have seen the television programme The Pit.

We're now in season two, where the construction worker had to be taken to A&E and he couldn't afford his medical care. It was about $20,000. So we all know watching that, 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. And that's why the NHS England Bill will bring. The department will come back as one department with accountability to the Secretary of State, not extra costs at NHS England, but more for the front line.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to say I've found somebody at the back of the sofa and and I hope that the Chancellor is listening, because 50 million has been allocated for a free school in my constituency constituency, which, on the evidence is not needed, as the National Audit Office has said, there are falling rolls in primary schools and that will feed up to secondary schools. I was told this was decided in 2017. There was a Walsall priority education investment area and the school, the Windsor Academy Trust, just so happened to have a member on its board.

Surprise, surprise, they got the contract for the free school. It's like insider trading with public money. A review was undertaken, but the Ministers is pressing ahead and I'm not sure why. When there are schools like Joseph Leckie, Bluecoat Academy, All Saints Academy, all and many other schools require the support for their building and they are building on Wordsworth Park against the evidence. This is not what local people want. Same with the Leather Museum, a local and beloved heritage, cultural and heritage icon.

In a deal with a then conservative controlled council. The transaction is a novel and contentious transaction made against the wishes of visitors, constituents and government policy on promoting arts and culture. It must be retained in its current position. Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe in the dignity of education, and that's why I welcome the bill to rates to raise education standards for all. And this is what we've already got in train best start hubs. We know what a difference Sure start has made breakfast clubs, anyone who's visited them.

There's a glorious cacophony of excited children who have had a good meal and also quiet places, and I'm pleased to see that some of them actually are taking part in the Year of Reading. Children are set up for the day. You cannot measure a good education tomorrow. You have to see the benefits over a lifetime. Madam Deputy Speaker, because I believe in the dignity of opportunity, which is what this government is giving to people. We give people the tools to find and exploit their talents.

Many don't know what their talents are when they start off in life, and they want to discover them over the year, over their years. That's how you get Britain working. Madam Deputy Speaker we live in a society where if you see something, you can buy it the next day and there it is with you. But governments don't operate like that. And I want to kind of end with an example of a story of three workers constructing a road. When asked what they were doing, the first one said he was breaking stones.

The second one said he was constructing a road. The third said he was constructing a road that would take children to their school or the sick to hospital. We have to show people like the third worker the significance of our actions that this government has undertaken. Madam Deputy Speaker, equality, opportunity, skills, justice and tolerance take time, patience and perseverance. We need to explain that to people, that our government stands up against vested interests and for all our citizens, and that's why I support the measures

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in our gracious, sovereign speech. Liberal Democrat. Spokesperson

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Steve Darling. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is a pleasure to follow the Member for Walsall and Bloxwich. And normally, one would imagine And normally, one would imagine that the King's Speech is an opportunity to press the reset opportunity to press the reset button, but I fear that members on the Labour benches are searching for another reset button at this point in time. And so, as Liberal Democrats, we fear that the King's speech is somewhat timid in its ambition and doesn't drive the change that many of our communities are have a thirst to see.

I would like to particularly focus on youth unemployment and our needs. That is a massive challenge for our society. You are three times more likely to be unemployed if you're under the age of 25. To be fair to the government, it wasn't created on their watch, but they have built on it on their watch from the Conservatives who the direction of travel was already there with the
12:53
Steve Darling Portrait Steve Darling MP (Torbay, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
pressures on the systems. And when I meet young people, I know that I meet young people, I know that they have faced a lethal cocktail of being work ready, having the Covid crisis through much of their education lives, having the education lives, having the pressure cooker of social media that eats into your confidence as that eats into your confidence as well. And then finally, the cost of living crisis that we know that young people are not immune from and may have less opportunities, but also know that mum or dad have real pressures on their lives.

So there are some real challenges and I'd like to, Madam Deputy Speaker, pay tribute to organisations in the Torquay and Paignton area of Torbay that support young people. Whether it's Eat that frog, whether it is sound communities, Doorstep Arts or South Devon College, they have all benefited from the Shared Prosperity Fund that ended without a replacement and they. The world is a poorer place, particularly for youngsters who may have had adverse childhood experiences and are on the margins of employment.

But what we've really looked at, what has hit hard on the opportunities is the tax on work, the National Insurance hike, where we have seen more than 100 000 jobs shrivel in the hospitality industry, and that is really a cold hand on the heart of the West Country and our hospitality industry. When I speak to organisations like splashdown, a water park in Paignton, they say they have money to invest in their water park, but they fear about a further economic shock.

Paignton Zoo Sadly Wild Planet Trust, who managed them for many years, had to pass them over to a Dutch company because they were not able to make the figures. And again, the National Insurance hike had a massive impact on their ability. Other businesses across Torbay tell me that they face real challenges, whether it's the Livermead House hotel or the outstanding Rock garden pub and restaurant, they have to shrink their numbers of youngsters they're able to take on just to make the budgets, partly due to inflation, but also the national insurance hikes.

So there are some real challenges that we that we face there. And I would say to the government, we need to think how we can driving those positive changes, because at the moment it appears that you're papering over the cracks rather than getting to the root causes within our economy that need to help grow opportunities for young people across the United Kingdom. And I was pleased that the Ministers talked about access to work, because we know that the disability Ministers often refers to work, access to work as the best kept secret.

But the reality is it has been a broken system. We are looking at 37 weeks for decisions to be made on access, work, access to work applications. People are losing job office offers the No Limits Cafe in Newton Abbot, which served constituents from my Torbay constituency actually closed because they weren't able to have the liquidity within their finances because of delays in payment. So we need to make sure that there is not behind the scene cuts to access to work that we've seen by the government choosing failure, choosing to fail to increase the the do any inflationary increase of what you were able to claim that was highlighted by disability news only in the last week as Liberal Democrats, we fought the last general election around cleaning up our waters, whether it's seas or rivers, about the cost of living crisis, but also around the NHS.

And I know that in Torbay and across the whole of Devon, we are looking at hundreds of redundancies within that service. And that is. And so the argument we regularly hear from the government is we put Nick rates up to invest, but we have hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts to our services in Devon. That means that there's less job opportunities for our people in Devon, and that is hitting some of our most deprived communities. So in conclusion, we need to be backing our communities.

We need, as liberal Democrats, we believe in that nobody should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance, and conformity. And we need to set the foundations for supporting those. But the community that we really need to work with, much closer is our friends on the other side of the channel and building stronger working relationships with our European partners to grow our economy.
12:59
Andrew Pakes Portrait Andrew Pakes MP (Peterborough, Labour )
-
-
Andrew Pakes thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to follow my friend from Torbay and to speak in support of my right hon. Friend from Wolverhampton South West in a debate on work. There are a few Secretaries of State who have a work ethic as strong as the Secretary of State for work, and I thank him for that. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the loyal address. Get Britain Working goes to the heart of the challenges facing both this government and the country, and I start by welcoming today's growth figures, debates like this and programmes of any government will make no difference without stability as a foundation.

And I say kindly to colleagues on all sides of this House, economic stability matters are the revolving door of Ministers and policies in the last decade. Stability isn't just a nice to have, it is a must have because from economic stability we create the opportunities, fix our public services and can 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 quicker, 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 this government faces and the opportunities government needs to pick up than the 70% drop in apprenticeships we inherited after the last decade of conservative rule. These are challenges writ large in my own constituency of Peterborough in 2023 2024, the apprenticeship figures hit the lowest level in six years. That data is available, with a fall in achievements across all apprenticeship levels. This is not just an economic failure, it is a moral failure 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 these last couple of years, I've spent as a member of this House, I've met with 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. And it is this government that has an opportunity to change that.

DWP itself has described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot. So the moves of this government and in the loyal address are welcome. I am pleased to put on record that Peterborough and Cambridgeshire were chosen as one of the first pilots for the Youth Guarantee, 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 this government is focussed on and within the city I represent.

We have the appetite to meet the government's ambition to address these issues. The work of Peterborough College job smart provision is a great example of stakeholders. DWP Peterborough Council for Voluntary Services. 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 the investment puts in investing in our young people, as is the Green Technology Centre at Peterborough College opened last year.

This takes traditional apprenticeships and training opportunities and updates them for new screen skills such as EV mechanics, heat pump installation and sustainable construction skills. So 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 employment we cost paid by the government. The Youth Jobs Grant £3,000 grant for businesses that hire a young person who has been on Universal Credit for six months and £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 also look forward to the legislative programme that will follow the review. The changes from the Tims and Milburn's reviews. It cannot be right that we write off so many young people as unfit to work and put them on a life on benefits, but also this address goes to something bigger for us. Madam Deputy Chair. It addresses a greater inequality, the inequality. For too long in this country between vocational and university education.

This isn't 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, and which in turn has been compounded by the destruction under the last Government of careers advice and work experience for young people in cities like mine. For a working city like Peterborough, that legacy has been a disaster of humans but also of economic growth. So I welcome our new university, a true Peterborough in a true Peterborough in the city, which does things differently.

It has a focus on local students, business relationships and degree apprenticeships, growing our talent in the city so 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 the 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 companies like National Gas and Caterpillar are already driving innovation in sustainable industries.

Peterborough sits at the heart of the national gas transition and hydrogen networks, and we could truly be the Kings 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, and I welcome the £800 million private sector investment that National Gas has recently put into Peterborough and my region, and their choice of Peterborough as their new regional headquarters, because we have the talents in our city which allow those jobs to the future to be grown with government support.

And I'd say just one more thing as a friendly piece of support from this, from this side of the House, but I would like to stretch my elbows a bit, which is what I know perfectly in my city is the potential of the young people who sit in it. I also know the struggles that Peterborough College and further education have had to put up with, so I welcome the investment this government has put into further education. But I also know that colleges like mine 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, then we in our city could deliver more for young people, but also for the government's ambitions. Because, Madam Speaker, 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a privilege to speak in support of this loyal address.

We can get the job done with the government's support and with the Prime Minister's support. Thank you.
13:06
Alison Griffiths Portrait Alison Griffiths MP (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)
-
-
I call Alison Griffiths.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Businesses in my constituency are not asking for special treatment. They're asking for a government They're asking for a government that stops making it harder to employ people, harder to grow, employ people, harder to grow, harder to invest. And right now, too many people feel that Labour is too many people feel that Labour is taking the country in the wrong direction. To 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. And in a coastal constituency like mine, that really matters. Our local economy depends on innovation. Powered by fantastic small and medium enterprises and the entrepreneurs who pour everything into growing them. These are massive corporations with endless room to absorb new costs. They are businesses working hard to keep people employed, keep high streets growing, 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.

There are family run business and a living wage employer. They should be exactly the kind of business this government is backing. Meridian is a British success story, exporting highly specialised medical devices around the world. But they are now becoming one of the businesses who tell me that the UK is becoming a harder place to invest and grow. I also recently heard from Mark and Liz Wareham, the founders of Temple Spa, a science led, Mediterranean inspired premium skincare brand run by my constituents and whose product I highly recommend.

They're clear view is that firms are becoming, and I quote, more cautious on hiring and investment due to rising costs. They're worried about rising employment costs, higher borrowing costs, growing compliance burdens and energy costs that remain far too high. That is the real world impact of the government's decisions. And when businesses stop hiring, young people pay the price first. The first job in a cafe, the apprenticeship, the hospitality role in a pub or hotel, the chance to get on the ladder and to earn their own money.

The government talks constantly about growth, but businesses and constituencies like mine are asking a very simple question when will this government stop making growth harder? Yeah, because if we really want to get Britain working again, we need to start backing the businesses that actually create the jobs. Thompson.
13:10
Adam Thompson Portrait Adam Thompson MP (Erewash, Labour)
-
-
You, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> You, Madam Deputy Speaker. >> On behalf of the people of Erewash, first, I'd like to give thanks to His Majesty the King for thanks to His Majesty the King for his gracious speech to all of the 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 assume 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 for too long we have underrated the ability of our businesses to export physical goods to the world. We've been globally pigeonholed Madam Deputy Speaker 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 for working people in Erewash know this 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've 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 Madam Deputy Speaker. Its manufacture is strategic infrastructure in and of itself, infrastructure that underpins our national defence capabilities. That is why it's unacceptable that British Steel has been let down by overseas owners who do not act in Britain's best interests. We can't outsource our national security any longer.

I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will give way. Hon. Member, for giving way, and I completely agree that we must I completely agree that we must protect British industries steel, oil and gas refining all of these are vital. The carbon tax is a real are vital. The carbon tax is a real reason why these are declining and moving overseas. From what he says, it feels like he agrees with me,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it feels like he agrees with me, but we should be getting rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct? Adam Thompson I thank her for what? I'm for her intervention what? I'm for her intervention there. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm not sure we necessarily on the same page. What we're saying, I was focusing purely on the renationalisation of the steel industry, which I think is a very important part of this King's Speech indeed, in this King's Speech, the government has recognised that markets alone can't protect the national interest.

Sometimes the state has to step in to safeguard jobs and keep Britain safe. Nationalising British Steel. Madam Deputy Speaker, means protecting almost 100,000 jobs from unfair foreign competition. I am proud that this government is going to bring British Steel fully back into public ownership. I have spoken to many businesses in Erewash and business owners, and they report that since we left the European single market, they have struggled. They have faced mountains of paperwork and massive delays at our borders.

These hurdles don't just frustrate exporters, they directly impact their ability to turn a profit. I'm very glad, Madam Speaker, that in the European Partnership Bill, we seek to solve that problem by streamlining trade and making it quicker, cheaper and simpler to do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

business with Europe. Very gladly. Thank you. Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend is making.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My hon. Friend is making. excellent. Would he agree with. Me that this is particularly important to many, many small important to many, many small businesses in vital supply chains in areas like the automotive sector, many other key sectors of our economy will benefit directly from

**** Possible New Speaker ****

economy will benefit directly from this thought through well thought, through measure. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Madam Speaker, I intervention. Madam Speaker, I completely agree with him. Indeed, I'm going to talk about one of the businesses in my constituency momentarily. I think, particularly when I discussed this topic, Madam Deputy Speaker of Cluny Lace in Ilkeston, not in the automotive sector, but a brilliant high end lace manufacturer. Shortly I will, as it was, workers from Ilkeston who produced Princess Kate's wedding dress and Queen Anne's tablecloth, Cluny lace.

Madam Deputy Speaker there, an internationally renowned producer and exporter of high quality British goods supplying the European high end garment manufacturing industry in particular. And I will give way before I continue.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank him for giving way and he's mentioning small businesses and delays at the border. Is it not and delays at the border. Is it not true that, particularly the problem of double tariffs for small businesses, for importing from third countries and then importing third countries and then importing into the European Union, will only be solved if we are joining the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

customs union? Again. I thank her for an intervention. Indeed, it's a point I'm momentarily about to touch upon. momentarily about to touch upon. When I met with Charles Mason, the managing director from Cluny Lace, that I was just referring to, 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 the professionals required, with the appropriate expertise, moving the lace to France for this part of the process, then back to England for further processing before sale, then often back to Europe, has become all but impossible for his company.

What was once a frictionless part of Clooney's manufacturing process and sales chain is now a crippling quagmire of tariffs and business model. Breaking roadblocks Madam Deputy Speaker for businesses across Erewash, whether they're they are producers, suppliers or distributors, a closer trading relationship with Europe means less time navigating bureaucracy and more time growing their businesses. I know businesses in Erewash have also suffered from increased energy costs. If we want to 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 right here at home in Erewash. This transition is not theoretical. It's visible very obviously on our local skyline. Sorely in my constituency, on the banks of the River Trent lies adjacent to the former Ratcliffe on Soar power station in Rushcliffe. My hon. Friend's constituency Ratcliffe is the UK's last coal fired or was the last UK's last coal fired power station, and it closed its doors for the final time in September 2024.

As we move forward then, Madam Deputy Speaker, my task as the Erewash MP 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 to ensure that my constituents benefit from the new investment, new jobs and a cleaner, more secure energy future that this government is delivering within this King's Speech. That's why I'm very excited about the government's energy independence bill. It will shield our economy from the fossil fuel price shocks that have caused half of the UK's recessions since the 1970s.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is bringing industry back to Britain. Well-paid engineers working in clean energy, powering steel production in the East Midlands and across the country and on the ground. That means families in my constituency and the constituencies of hon. Members right across the House will no longer be wondering how events thousands of miles away will be affecting their bills and their ability to book a holiday. Families in Erewash voted for change in 2024. These families are tired of limited opportunities and are feeling vulnerable.

Every time the world becomes more unstable, they want more control over their lives with this King's Speech Madam Deputy Speaker, we are bringing industry home, investing in British jobs and putting control of our future back into the hands of working people.
13:18
Wera Hobhouse Portrait Wera Hobhouse MP (Bath, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Mr. Wera Hobhouse. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour and pleasure to take part in this King's Speech debate. I'm a member of the Energy debate. I'm a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee, and I look for the growth of our economy and to get Britain working under the special focus of the green economy and its many opportunities and challenges. The regulations for growth Bill promises a framework that supports innovation. Yet current proposals from DESNZ 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 A peak rating of D. In practice, that means innovative zero-emission 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. This is already affecting innovative businesses in Bath, including Loughmore, 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.

These policies risk pushing Britain's clean tech innovators overseas instead of backing them at home. Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm 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. That means getting off the roller coaster of global prices in the midst of an energy price crisis. Cheap home produced energy has never been more vital.

There's a huge nationwide potential for growth in small scale renewable energy generation, especially by community groups that can distribute the benefits locally. And nobody in this House will be surprised when I keep saying the 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, because of surplus income from renewable energy projects, they have been able to donate to over 100 community projects across Bath in the last decade. And Madam Deputy Speaker, what really worries me about listening in the Select Committee about the proposals of energy community and the way the government looks at it, is it's only about an ownership model model rather than a beneficiary model. Community energy should also benefit the community consumers of energy, not just how the energy is produced.

And I get it. It's both. It's not one or the other, but we must focus on making sure that actually the community benefits from community generated energy. Community energy projects also strengthen energy security by diversifying sources of energy, reducing the 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, this could increase by 20 times, powering over 2 million homes and saving over 2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year.

But 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, whilst 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 their potential can be realised. Another major barrier facing community energy projects is the prohibitive cost of accessing energy markets to sell the electricity 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 say power directly to local customers. While 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 2020 223 session, legislation was brought forward to unlock the potential of community energy and the potential to sell directly to local people.

That proposal was supported by the current Secretary of State and more than 320 cross-party MPs. We have a Secretary of State for energy who supports reform of local energy supply, but we are still waiting for this legislation to make that reform a reality. The Liberal Democrats welcome the regulatory changes promised in the Local Power Plan, particularly the commitments from DESNZ 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 completely untangle the licence supplier model that we currently have, and Ofgem to establish a local supply licence. The proportion cost could create the ability for community schemes to sell to local customers if they wish, and make a viable business model. The other option, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to have current licence suppliers offering contracts for the export of community energy to local residents. Whichever route the government chooses, 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 product can scale up, become commercially viable and play their full part in delivering a cleaner and more resilient energy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

system. Thank you, thank you. David Smith thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a pleasure to. Follow the honourable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Follow the honourable. Member for Bath, as she was here, as I come on to her comments on community energy at the moment. And community energy at the moment. And it's a it's a real honour to speak in this King's speech on behalf of my constituents of North my constituents of North Northumberland. Madam Deputy Speaker, where the electricity grid is owned by Warren Buffet, the is owned by Warren Buffet, the water system is overseen from Hong Kong, and the buses, most of them are run out of Miami and across many decades and multiple governments.

We've made ourselves a society where everything can be bought and
13:24
David Smith Portrait David Smith MP (North Northumberland, Labour)
-
-
Sold for the right price. are often slipping away. In the King's Speech, we heard renewed commitments from the government to improve our economic security, whether by ensuring a fair deal for working people. Responding to the Tim Roca and Milburn Review on welfare, or by delivering an energy independence bill. And I welcome those commitments yet more in common. The pollsters say that 7 in 10 Britons feel our country is on the wrong track, and that many are starting to conclude that the problems lie with the system itself.

And 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 join 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 message is clear life must be lived together. Sacks called this covenant. Now we are used to talking in terms of social contract as a phrase that we hear a lot. But the social contract asks, what am I getting out of this? The social covenant asks, what do we owe each other? We need to be legislating, therefore, for a society that helps us think about what we owe each other.

Now, 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. But our national relationship with work is threatened. A 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 to improve work already.

The Employment Rights Act was a landmark piece of legislation, but we do need to go further to restore the way that we see and we do work. The UK is below average amongst major nations for in-work training, for example, 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 create, and we should 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. Now, the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill creates the perfect opportunity for us to model this for the rest of the economy and in working together in covenantal Britain, we can see the change. Covenant also speaks to our social security system. The latest data available says that, including pensions, 24 million people in the UK are receiving some form of benefits. The total cost of our welfare system is greater than our income tax take and this strain is weakening, weakening our togetherness and the idea of fairness on which the system relies.

So I would say, Madam Speaker, that we need a new Beveridge report for the 21st century. The original report, the Beveridge Report, identified in anachronistic language the five giants as want disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. I would now suggest that the giants of 2026 are poverty, worklessness, isolation and hopelessness. So I welcome the government's upcoming response to the Milburn and the Timms reviews, because we are a party that will always support the most vulnerable in our society. And it is right, and it is just to support those who cannot work or who need help to work.

We do need a welfare system based both on contribution and in which people are also delighted to say, yes, I am my brother's keeper. And finally, on energy, 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 in North Northumberland doubled. A covenantal response to that is to say, let us 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, that community should benefit financially.

And we must also acknowledge that many of our constituents will be relying on oil and gas for decades to come. 14,000 properties in North Northumberland are not on the gas grid, for example. So let's rebuild our energy security and supply using a realistic mix of options. Let us leave everything on the table so that it serves everyone. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 a 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 to create both a story and a programme that speaks to those longings in work, in welfare and energy. And to do this, all of us, government, party and country need to commit to a new social covenant. Peter Bedford.
13:31
Peter Bedford Portrait Mr Peter Bedford MP (Mid Leicestershire, Conservative)
-
-
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. They say that a week is a long time in politics. Yet during this short in politics. Yet during this short debate, we have seen the Health Secretary leave the government. But amidst the open revolt and factional infighting opposite, one thing remains abundantly clear. Whoever will be steering the ship. This Labour government lacks both the courage and the political capital to confront the spiralling cost of welfare. We hear endlessly about the soft left, the hard left, the moderate left.

But the story, time and time again with every Labour government, it's. They. They eventually run out of someone else's money and the numbers are stark. 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 government receives in income tax. More than 4 million people are now claiming PIP, and meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise, with nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training. This is simply unsustainable.

We on these benches 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 encouraging them to stand on their own two feet. Madam Deputy Speaker, I have seen the value of this support firsthand. I grew up in a single parent household with my two younger brothers. My mother couldn't read or write, and I can remember us turning to sofa upside down at the end of the week to get loose change to put in the electricity metre.

So hon. Members opposite perhaps think too often. Us on this side of the bench of the House are far too privileged to understand real poverty. That's 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, today we face a culture where some treat dependency as a way of life, a badge of honour. Even where generation after generation families are boarding the benefits gravy train.

We have all. We've all heard the stories on the doorsteps. Conversations, I'm sure. During the recent local elections, with people on their own streets claiming every benefit going. Ordering a Deliveroo every night, purchasing the latest 60 inch television. These are luxuries that millions of hard working constituents have to think twice about before doing. That is why, 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 on these benches believe in dignity of work and personal responsibility. We would ensure that benefits are restricted to British citizens, so that people coming to this country cannot simply ride on the coattails of British taxpayers. We would ensure that PIP is not awarded on the basis of lower level health conditions. That, let's put this bluntly, is just one of the normal challenges of everyday life that we all have to contend with. We would ensure that the. 6 a.m. Britain, the families who have had 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.

And we would ensure, through the introduction of a household benefit cap, that those that that that you're always better off in work than out of work. These reforms are essential if we want a fair society. If we want economic prosperity for our country. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, welfare reform must go hand in hand with reforms that encourage business to get people back into work. That is why I am proud that the Conservative Party have set out exactly what we will do to get Britain working again.

This is in direct contrast to the actions of the current government. From hiking of the 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 has become a barrier to economic growth. Madam Deputy Speaker, they are no longer the party that their very name suggests. They have become the Welfare Party. As our alternative King's Speech makes clear. We repeal damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, from the hospitality ban to ban the absurd qualifying periods, to give businesses the confidence to hire once again.

We would back our private sector, the actual wealth creators, and simply not bowed down to trade union demands. And most importantly, Madam Deputy Speaker, our plan would tackle youth unemployment. It is shameful that one third of graduates are not in graduate level jobs, that youth unemployment stands at a staggering 18%, and this government seems utterly disinterested 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 routes, training routes, not just for a degree to build a successful career, a successful life.

But I'm Deputy Speaker, this government has no plan for welfare reform, no plan for jobs, and no plan for growth. But we, on this side of the House do. Our alternative King's Speech shows that we are serious about governing. We are serious about restoring fairness, rewarding hard work, and serious about getting Britain working again. OK. Andy MacNae thank you.
13:36
Andy MacNae Portrait Andy MacNae MP (Rossendale and Darwen, Labour)
-
-
Madam Speaker. His Majesty's Gracious Speech announced a wide range of economic measures and fully recognise the vital importance of economic security. But I think we all understand that security to be meaningful, it must reach into every part of our country and into every community. And with this in mind, I'll make my comments from the perspective of Rossendale and Darwen, recognising 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 too often have felt ignored and left behind.

This government has consistently put growth at the heart of its agenda, and rightly identified many of the actions that we need to see. We've seen announcements on Green Book Reform, £113 billion of infrastructure investment pipelines, youth job guarantees, pathways to work, industrial strategy, pothole funds, pride in place, and many more. And yet, when I knock on the doors of Rossendale and Darwen, people are still asking where is the change that we were promised? And we're writing this speech. I did look back at others that I'd made over the last two years on this subject.

Speeches that I called for more to be done to address specific issues of small towns like ours, for a move away from orthodoxy that favours cities and authorities, where growth is easiest to find for procurement strategies that insists on buying British for industrial strategy that understands small and medium sized businesses for policies that reward grafters, entrepreneurs and risk takers. And frankly, I could have used the same text today. 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 elections results show us this so starkly. There's been much talk about a change this government needs to make, and we must grasp this moment to fundamentally rethink our approach to growth strategy. Incremental just won't cut it. Nor will city centric. We cannot justify government investment flowing into the likes of Manchester. Whilst the towns of Lancashire don't even appear in the picture. We need to learn lessons over the last two years and do better if we're going to deliver growth and jobs to places like Rossendale and Darwen.

With the urgency our electorate demands, we must commit to a scale of action that matches the challenge. This means we're willing to take risks to demand joined up action across government, to do the hard things at a scale that impacts every community. So what does this mean in practical terms? First, on infrastructure, we have to recognise that its own a city centric approach will do little for communities like mine. Consider Northern Powerhouse Rail. This is a great project which will transform connectivity between cities and major towns across the region.

It's been presented in some quarters as a transformational project for the whole of the northwest. But when I asked the question, what will this do for Rossendale and Darwen or any small towns along the route, the answer is not much. Rossendale remained the only local authority area in the north with no commuter rail link, despite being only 15 miles from Manchester. Darwen will remain with a patchy and unreliable occasional service. This is why we need to change the way in which we think about projects like this and be far, far more ambitious in our goals.

Think in terms of, for instance, growth corridors with the requirements that these big projects bring a positive impact to every community. This would include physical infrastructure and connections for small towns as an integral part of the project, as well as insisting on buying locally. We need to have a similar approach when we think about industrial strategy in Rossendale and Darwen, we have many great businesses, including creative and innovative manufacturers, but none employ more than 500 people and few fall into what have been identified as national priority sectors.

This entirely atypical of so many places across our country, where such businesses employ the bulk of a local workforce. We need to get behind these businesses and have a much more comprehensive and urgent industrial strategy, which truly understands their challenges and opportunities. First and foremost, this must embed by British at its heart, using the full power of government procurement to support our businesses. And frankly, the lack of a procurement bill in the King's Speech is a concern that I very much hope we will be able to address.

As well as this, we need to bring down business costs, particularly energy, opening up access to risk tolerant finance and tax and regulatory system that actually encourages employment and enterprise risk and productivity. Alongside this, we need to restore our town centres and community spaces. Pride in place is a great program, and I'm proud to have been able to bring this investment to Rossendale, to Rawtenstall and to Darwen. £20 million over ten years will enable us to make some significant changes for every town, for every town that has got this support, there are many others that do not.

Surely the case for investment in Bacup and Stacksteads and Whitworth is just as strong. And in any case, we'll only really enjoy the full value of this investment if it's aligned with improvements in transport skills and infrastructure that address the underlying constraints on our local economies. So we should build on what works and go bigger and wider with pride in place. Front loading investment to increase the speed and scale of change, whilst ensuring we are delivering the infrastructure that can release the full potential of places like Rossendale and Darwen and lots of other areas for action.

But fundamentally this is actually about a change in mindset. For too long, geography has meant destiny. Small towns like Bacup, Whitworth, Rawtenstall and Darwen have been at the back of the queue and left behind his big towns and cities, shout louder and offer similar, seemingly easy solutions. We need to break this cycle and ask the question what does this do for our towns? This should be embedded in every investment strategy and decision process. We must be willing to commit. Commit to strategies that insist on doing the hard things whilst providing the procurement policy, fiscal flexibility, regulatory framework and sustained leadership to drive delivery.

We must learn lessons of the past and not allow established orthodoxies and a desire for easy wins to stand in the way of this. We simply cannot afford to fail those communities that need us most. Thank you.
13:42
Danny Chambers Portrait Dr Danny Chambers MP (Winchester, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I call Doctor Danny Chambers. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. >> We know that one of the main barriers to people getting back barriers to people getting back into work and out of work is, is having poor mental health. And we've got very long mental health waiting lists of, you know, a million people on waiting lists. And many of these people would firstly rather be in work. And it is good for their mental health to actually be in workers as well. And so I'd really like to highlight an initiative in Winchester that I have brought up before, where.

And it is an initiative that has won awards like NHS awards as well, where the Winchester Citizens Advice provide a person two days a week in the local mental health unit called Melbury Lodge, and this is to help the in-patients with all their life admin. So we know that people who are suffering from mental health issues, especially people who are in-patients, are more likely than average to have debt, to have housing issues and to have other sort of life admin problems that when they get discharged back into the same situation they were when they were admitted in the first place, their mental health can deteriorate.

Now, this initiative is fantastic because it has been proven through peer review, published papers, that the people in there have a shorter duration of stay, and they're less likely to be readmitted, and they're more likely to engage with social services once they're discharged. And this is something that the Ministers and everyone will find particularly interesting. Every pound spent in this project saves the NHS £14.08 in cost avoidance. Now, I have met with this team several times.

It seems like an absolute no brainer to roll this out in every mental health unit in the country, and there's no question that this can't be afforded, given that it saves so much money and that the saving is so quick. This isn't an investment that takes five, six, seven years to pay off. It is. Within months the savings are seen. So I would really urge the government to look at this project, and I'd be really keen to have a meeting with the relevant Ministers and and and who whoever the relevant Ministers turns out to be.

With the team who are running this project. Winchester Citizens Advice and the Melbury Lodge unit, because I think it is something that could be hugely impactful to so many thousands of people helping people get back into work. It's really good for the staff, it's really good for the patients, and it's really good for the taxpayer. And in the previous King's speech, we were really heartened to see that mental health was specifically stated that mental health would be treated as serious as physical health.

We're disappointed there wasn't a specific mention of mental health in The King's Speech this year. So we really want to urge the government to remember to put this forefront of their their their efforts to try and get people back into work. Thank you.
13:46
Kate Osborne Portrait Kate Osborne MP (Jarrow and Gateshead East, Labour)
-
-
OK. >> Kate Osborne thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the hon. Member for Bradford West for her brilliant opening contribution her brilliant opening contribution to the Gracious Speech. A I also want to start by acknowledging that this government has delivered from renters rights, ending no fault evictions to the New Deal for workers, to education, to Great British Railways, to bringing the NHS waiting list down, to lifting children out of poverty, to the work on violence against women and girls.

All of that good work deserves to be talked about and celebrated. Hear, hear. But it must also be acknowledged that people need more. They are desperate for change following decades of neglect. And unfortunately, the measures in this king's speech, whilst in the main are welcome, are not the bold moves we need to see. We need a government that will tackle the extreme wealth inequality in the UK, a government that delivers for communities and we need to go back to giving people hope.

We need to ensure that our government has received the message from the local elections last week that people are unhappy with the direction we have taken and that, and that 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 and Gateshead councils, that Labour have held for 50 years full to reform. We let those communities down and we need to deal with that. We must build on the things we have delivered.

Instead of focusing on divisive commitments like 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. We let our communities down, and scarily, we leave a gap for the far right to move into and exploit people's fears, desperations and their legitimate need for jobs, housing and security. Housing, security and jobs are particularly needed in the North East. In my constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East.

This year, we are commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow Crusade, the March for jobs. Yet, 90 years on and the problems those marchers faced are the same as the residents in my constituency face today. For decades, successive governments have neglected the North east and the North East made their feelings very clear last week. We need a government that takes action to improve our communities. It is the Labour Party that is the party of the people, that is the party of workers.

That is the government. We need to see now a government that delivers for people change. The communities can see. We need actions, not words. We need to drastically redistribute 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 Reform Bill Hillsborough Law legislation to clean up the water industry. Nationalisation of steel, the £45 billion to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, and the legislation to support small businesses and stop late payments.

The licensing for private hires. All subjects I've 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 back water into public ownership. We need to stop the scandal of the water companies bonuses. It is an absolute disgrace that they are profiting from the pollution that they are dumping into our waters. It is also welcome to see proposals around education for all, but we must ensure that any reforms do not push children into a one size fits all approach.

The consultation ends next week and we must listen to the views that are submitted. The consultation responses need to be thoroughly read, not filtered by AI. We must have a genuine consultation and we must ensure that the reforms do not harm Sen 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 Sen than the national average, and every one of my local consultations have raised the same issues. They are worried about their loss of legal rights, and they are worried about their child being forced into mainstream schooling. Since the National Disability Charity have said that whilst inclusive, mainstream education should be strengthened, this must not come at the expense of specialist provision. Disabled children with complex needs must continue to have access to specialist settings, where these are the most appropriate environments for them to thrive.

I completely agree with sense, and it is evident that already families sorry, many families struggle 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 with young people and their families and listen to their stories. The last government described the Sen system as broken, and of course, they did a lot of the breaking with their destruction of local government budgets, but it 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, whilst I welcome the Gracious Speech, I will be setting forward a simple amendment highlighting the difference the right placement makes to a child with complex needs and the cost 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 school do not lose out with these reforms.

And I have written to the Secretary of State on this issue, and I'd be happy to meet at any time to discuss it. I have an autism diagnosis, as do some of my family. It is something that those close to me are aware of, but something I haven't 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. Moving on to something in the Gracious Speech that I am hugely pleased with, and that is the commitment to bring forward a draft bill banning abusive conversion practices.

Whilst it has appeared in many a Gracious Speech, I firmly believe that the Ministers will bring forward a fully trans inclusive ban on conversion practices as soon as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

possible. Yes, I will, along with her and other colleagues, I have been. Campaigning for bringing in a

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Campaigning for bringing in a trans inclusive conversion therapy bill to ban that awful practice. bill to ban that awful practice. Can she give me her support in asking for a proper timeline? When asking for a proper timeline? When this time, when this legislation will be introduced as well?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will be introduced as well? I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. And yes, I think we are at a time like set out would be most helpful. The. I want to recognise the work of the Ministers for equalities, the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire, for the time that she has taken to speak to me over not just the last few months, but indeed even this morning and. And one of the questions that has been asked, and that she has given her commitment to, to do as soon as it is possible, is to set out a clear timeline in every meeting that I've had with the Ministers on this issue.

I've been impressed by her determination to finally deliver this legislation, and by her understanding of the harm caused by continued delay on that delay. My one concern, which I have already raised, is that this is the that is that this is the only legislation in the King's Speech speech that 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 Ministers to take both the spirit and the framework details of that report into consideration as this legislation is developed, and whilst I'm particularly happy with that commitment, we need to be bold. We need new, ambitious policies that people will feel in their pockets and see the 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 interest of workers and our communities, and deal with the obscene levels of wealth inequality in the UK. Thank you.
13:55
Seamus Logan Portrait Seamus Logan MP (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East, Scottish National Party)
-
-
Seamus Logan. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to address the issue of getting Britain working again, but getting Britain working again, but also to make some observations on this government's chaotic performance since July 2020. For the focus of today's debate is on employment. I will come to that. But so many members opposite 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.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am happy to provide a reference, but it won't be a good one. Madam Deputy Speaker this shambolic, unstable government is 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 June the 8th, a landslide victory bigger than Labour's in July 2024, where 58 of our successful applicants are 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. I'll make some progress first. 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. They rejected the Reform Party and indeed Madam

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Deputy Speaker. They rejected the notion that this is a United Kingdom a good way. I just wanted to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just wanted to. Clarify because he just said. I think he just said that the victory secured by the SNP, the elections secured by the SNP, the elections earlier this month was bigger than the election secured by this government in 2024. Perhaps he government in 2024. Perhaps he could just clarify, did the SNP win more seats or less seats at that election than they previously held?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

election than they previously held? Has their majority increased or decreased? Are Seamus Logan.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the Member for his intervention, but the plain fact of the matter is, if you look at the percentages, it was a bigger landslide. Absolutely. And the other thing that I think members opposite would do well to take opposite would do well to take consideration of is that we have now 73 MSPs in favour of now 73 MSPs in favour of independence for Scotland. This is a union that has now been served a union that 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, or the 1500 jobs that could have been created at Ardersier, or the derisory Coastal Growth Fund allocation to our precious fishing industry. Now this chaotic government is turned on its leader. Scapegoating, scapegoating him for their collective failures. The wonder of all Madam Deputy Speaker 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. We have not abandoned the vulnerable, the disabled or young people or students or apprentices or children. Unemployment in Scotland is lower than 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, our houses or GP appointments, as some populist politicians would have us believe.

It was years of austerity that managed this, and sadly, Labour are continuing in that vein with their planned assault on the welfare system. Now the former the former health secretary, instead of ensuring that the King's speech included a relentless focus on the health service, the labour shortages and social care, instead of ensuring an end to the privatisation of our health service and the availability of life saving drugs. Instead of 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 number ten Downing Street. He shouldn't have been allowed to resign. He should have been sacked. Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to highlight one issue which was discussed recently in Westminster Hall the Palantir contract. Many members across this House spoke on that topic. 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 pseudo anonymised, despite internal fears of a risk of loss of public confidence.

An internal NHS briefing has said that it would allow, I quote, unlimited access to non NHS staff to part of the NHS, part of the NHS Federated Data platform, which holds identifiable patient information. Now this is something which should concern everyone in this house, no matter what your political persuasion. In fact, it should concern everybody in the country. Many members across the House have called for the Palantir project to be reviewed next year, and I urge whoever replaces the erstwhile Ministers for Innovation and Safety to act on this misuse of our NHS data.

In conclusion, we in the Scottish National Party will continue to have a relentless focus on those matters reserved to this Parliament relating to health and social care. In the course of this session and the matters which adversely affect our small businesses as well. But of course, 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.

Because, madam. Madam Deputy Speaker, the concept of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Britain just isn't working anymore. Thank you. Jayne Kirkham thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Jayne Kirkham thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. A big part of why I became an MP was for young people in my constituency. I have a 20 year old Cornish son, and I want young people to have the 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 some
14:02
Jayne Kirkham Portrait Jayne Kirkham MP (Truro and Falmouth, Labour )
-
-
and not come back. There are some 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 minerals strategy and an awful lot of lithium and other critical minerals under our feet in Cornwall. In fact, apparently enough for 20% of the needs of the whole of Europe. We have digital, we have creative arts, we have our amazing hospitality sector. I was a teaching assistant in a secondary school for seven years, and I've seen the impact that successive Covid lockdowns had on a generation of young people who missed out on that in-person social interaction and developmental milestones.

And I know how much they suffered from a broken sound system for a decade. And I really 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 a million young people not in work or education across the across the country, and Cornwall is particularly highly represented in that. It's so important we give those young people the skills and the confidence they need to move forward with their lives, which is why the government commissioned the Milburn Review to identify those root causes of youth unemployment and to make some recommendations for how we can improve those opportunities for our young people.

And it's why we've introduced some of those policies to support young people into work, backed up by the funding. The Jobs Guarantee, for example, will lead to the creation of 90,000 extra subsidised jobs in the next three years for those aged 18 to 24. New foundation apprenticeships, including newly in hospitality and retail, which will help my area, will provide employers with up to 2000 to support 16 to 21 year olds into work, and the apprenticeship initiative will give SMEs £2,000 for each new employee aged 16 to 24.

They take on as long as well as sorry, the Youth Jobs grant £3,000 for a business that hires someone on Universal Credit for six months. I'm really hopeful that these policies will complement and add to some of the brilliant work that Cornish employers are doing, particularly regarding apprenticeships. Cornwall Marine Network in my constituency plays a vital role in supporting SMEs in the marine sector to take on apprentices and delivers high quality training, as well as does Truro College in my constituency.

Firms like A&P, Pendennis and Coquelles all provide fantastic apprenticeship schemes in the marine industries, and the Cornish Fish Producers Organisation has developed an 18 month level two Fisher apprentice to equip young people with the skills and knowledge they need for a career in fishing. I also 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, cafe or restaurant provides a valuable introduction into 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'm also pleased the government's transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy. Some of that levy money could maybe be used flexibly as training for employees in the hospitality sector and others who support apprentices, or on funding some of those skills.

Courses at Fe providers such as Truro College in my constituency, or even looking at the way some of those apprentices are funded. But this is not only about supporting young people in their teens and in their 20s. We need to, and we are also taking steps to improve the lives of children from their earliest years, ensuring that a child's background doesn't dictate their chances or leave them struggling to catch up. And I'm really proud that this government has 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, which are a start to replacing Surestart, which was such a transformational, transformative thing for our families.

A number of times when I knocked on doors in my constituency and I met women about my age who were accountants and had a variety of jobs, who said without surestart they could never have retrained, they could never have

**** Possible New Speaker ****

got that help. It was absolutely fundamental. I would. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware? There's very good research to show there's a pound invested in early years. a pound invested in early years. Education is worth £16 invested later in a child's life. And does she agree with me? This is a very wise investment by our government wise investment by our government and it's taken forward both the economy but also supporting families in a very meaningful way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

families in a very meaningful way. Jayne Kirkham that makes perfect sense. And to be honest, I think that early years and education is pretty much the most important thing that any government can do in any government can focus on. I'm so proud that that's what we're 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 it very clear the current system isn't fit for purpose, and I have shared their experiences and concerns as part of the consultation, and I'll continue to do so.

If young people can't access education because their needs aren't met, it can become harder and harder to get into work and get back into society later on. I recognise that right now. For some people, the barriers to employment, education and training can feel insurmountable. This government is trying to take meaningful steps to remove those barriers and invest in those jobs, skills, apprenticeships, reform and prioritise early years and address some of those failures in SEND provision. Taken together as a whole, moving forward, these measures represent a real commitment to our next generation, which I'm hopeful will benefit young people in Truro and Falmouth,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in Cornwall and across the country. Marie Goldman thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the Member of Parliament for Chelmsford, I'm proud to represent a city with a breadth of businesses, industries breadth of businesses, industries and educational institutions that do so much to support people from all backgrounds into employment. On all backgrounds into employment. On today's theme of getting Britain working again. Over recent months, I've held several roundtables with I've 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
14:09
Marie Goldman Portrait Marie Goldman MP (Chelmsford, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
multinationals. These businesses face many challenges, but I'm concerned that the government's proposed solutions outlined in the 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 last month, I hosted a roundtable with Chelmsford businesses in the construction industry. And here I must declare an interest, Madam must declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, because for many years I've run small businesses in the construction industry, working as a specialist subcontractor.

as a specialist subcontractor. We've been through good times and bad times. And I know that, incredibly, that the incredibly tight margins that the industry often works on are difficult to work with, and the huge temptation that there is for main contractors desperate to win work, to overpromise and under-deliver, and with some of the most unscrupulous ones relying on putting their subcontractors out of business at the end of the contract through non-payment, delayed payment or ridiculously long retention clauses, hoping that avoiding paying a subbie will keep the main contractor afloat.

So I welcome the proposed introduction of legislation to tackle late payments and hope in so doing that the government will listen to all of those across the industry at all levels to understand the imperatives and the complexities of this. The construction industry is essential to our economy and to our lives. The sector creates, sustains and draws upon 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. And the industry is critical to the functioning of our country, from ensuring we build enough homes to maintaining and expanding critical transport infrastructure. But owners and representatives from the companies 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%. Of course, the industry is already working hard to tackle this, but businesses can't do it alone.

Let me highlight one specific example that was raised with me. That goes to the very heart of the theme getting Britain working again, getting young people to cite. If we want young people to take up careers in construction, we surely do. We need them not just to learn the skills and gain essential knowledge through further education courses. We also need them to get hands on practical experience on building sites. But I know that this is made more of a challenge because the industry wants this and needs it too.

But time and time again, I've heard businesses tell me that there is simply no substitute for a young person learning alongside a master, craftsman or woman, and learning the tricks of the trade that allow them to adapt to the unpredictability of the myriad issues that come up on real site, rather than the theoretical world of a classroom. But the problem is that these young people can't get their 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, and the workers creating the infrastructure that will be used in the future. But in the meantime, how do you get the young people to the sites if they don't drive? And many are too young to even hold a driving licence, they are reliant upon getting a lift. This is. But it's very difficult for businesses to provide this list. This lift due to safeguarding rules for under 18 seconds.

This inevitably generates inequality as those. As. Only those who can afford to take taxis or have a parent available to take them can do so with others left behind. Now, I'm in no way saying that we should scrap safeguarding, but this is the kind of practical issue that businesses tell me directly that they need help with, perhaps in the form of grant funding for transport for young apprentices or those on work experience. But 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, because how can children choose a career if they don't have a wide view of what's available to them? I'd like at this point to highlight the fabulous work done by Chelmsford City Council in my own constituency for Whoo hoo! For many years now, under Liberal Democrat leadership, have been running a skills festival every summer for year eight pupils. It's called a festival, a festival, because that's exactly what it looks and feels like.

But instead of the marquees intense being filled with music artists or stalls selling merchandise and pop culture paraphernalia, they are packed with interactive, interactive stands from local Chelmsford and Essex based businesses and other organisations, usually with hands on activities for these 12 and 13 year olds and hopefully encouraging encouraging them to consider choosing the GCSE that they haven't yet chosen in year eight. In the coming months, it would fit well with what they now see in front of them. But this isn't just about broadening the horizons of children, but also about strengthening and deepening the knowledge of their teachers and their schools, about what's out there so that they can support the children going forward.

The feedback from Chelmsford Skills Fest, as it's known, is fabulous, with many parents commenting afterwards that they have never seen their child so brimming with enthusiasm for something. And this is a direct quote from a parent so enthusiastic with their child. This was actually about town planning that they'd never considered it before. I mean, you know, it's a pretty inspirational to hear that, right? Madam Deputy Speaker, there's really this kind of inspirational, collaborative and innovative, innovative, innovative, which I can't say activity. And this 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 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's 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. I'd like to turn quickly to health. On health, it's clear that we can't get Britain working again if we can't get Britain healthy again. And on that subject, I continue. I'm afraid to be dismayed by the state of Broomfield Hospital, just outside my constituency.

But serving as Chelmsford's main healthcare facility, I have held numerous round tables 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. Indeed, it 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's 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 swift action is taken to address its many challenges.

However, almost two months on, I received word yesterday that the trust still has yet to receive any details as to what the recovery programme even entails. It is almost unbelievable that a programme labelled intensive and announced it in March to begin last month, has 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. Now, unfortunately, I feel that this is entirely symptomatic of a government that has led the to the Prime Minister being in the rather precarious position that he finds himself in today, and possibly even more so, promises of swift delivery, of meaningful change, of competent leadership, and 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 can't begin to describe to them how they want to help them, or what they want them to do, or how they will be supported to do so, our NHS and my constituents deserve indeed need far better. So I would ask the Health Secretary, whoever that turns out to be in the weeks and months ahead, to urgently communicate the programmes details with the relevant trusts, such as Mid and South Essex, that this work can begin right now.

Turning briefly to other matters, the last King's Speech promised a draft bill to ban conversion therapy, but that didn't happen. So 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. As a slight aside, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know I spent quite a bit of time just now talking about the construction industry, and now I'm talking about conversion practices. But I want to be very clear, these are very, very different issues.

So I have to say, it was a bit strange in the King's Speech to see these, to see cladding, remediation and conversion practices lumped into the same sentence in the King's Speech. I wonder if perhaps there was a bit of confusion in government about how wildly different these two issues are, and we weren't talking about converting buildings. Then again, perhaps that highlights the scale of the challenge and why the government hasn't prioritised this. Perhaps it doesn't truly understand the issue. So I must remind the government that we have heard time and again of the impact that abusive, cumulative that abusive conversion practices have on the Lgbt+ community.

Indeed, it was Theresa May's government in 2018 who first proposed such a bill. And yet here we are almost a decade later, without even a draft in front of us. So we'd ask the government, as other hon. Members have done, what assurances they can give that such a bill will finally come forward, given that it was promised before and didn't happen, the Lgbt+ community must not again be told to wait until the end of this parliamentary session, only to potentially see another promise broken.

The government must publish a trans inclusive bill to ban conversion practices as a matter of urgency. In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government recognises a lot of the challenges that face our country and I don't 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's 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, morally. But we need to do more than just recognise that it isn't 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 so. I would encourage them to listen to the calls of Liberal Democrat members who are willing to work together to achieve those positive changes that we need to reduce inequality, increase economic security, and ultimately see off the politics of hatred and grievance.
14:20
Peter Swallow Portrait Peter Swallow MP (Bracknell, Labour)
-
-
Yes. Peter Swallow thank. I am the chair of the all party parliamentary group on schools, the chair and the APPG on Social Mobility and the chair of the all Mobility and the chair of the all party parliamentary Group on classics. I welcome the ambitious agenda set out yesterday a King's agenda set out yesterday a King's Speech which places working people at its heart an agenda which builds on our promises to deliver a safer, stronger and more prosperous country. It's an agenda which will get Britain working and break down the barriers to opportunity, both for our country, on the global stage and for every young person within it, opening up new opportunities for growth and for trade is a vital part of this government's commitment to working families, because it's vital that my constituents not only hear about the change we're delivering, but they also feel it in their pockets.

And so 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 for our young people can only mean a more prosperous country with more opportunities for all. It does not make sense to be so fixated on an ideology that you can act against the interests of your nation and reject the opportunities on your doorstep.

And we're hearing some of that being shunted from the frontbench opposite. For those lining up to cry Brexit betrayal, I would simply remind them that the leave campaign never promised we would be completely isolated from our closest economic and defensive allies, in fact, had promised quite the opposite. A closer relationship with Europe means a safer, stronger, more prosperous Britain at a time that that has never been more important. And youth mobility offers brighter futures for our young people.

I'm proud to support the government's clear leadership on this. Absolutely. I also welcome the government's commitment to supporting British businesses and jobs through tackling unnecessary regulation and supporting businesses to introduce 5000 more apprenticeships. I was delighted to see this in action in my own 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. And I want to extend a huge thank you to the local businesses across Bracknell Forest who are supporting this initiative, because what I and this government recognise is that it's not just a problem which lies with individuals.

It will take a whole of society approach to reach that one in every eight young people, not in education, work or training and give them hope again. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, what we also know is that for many young people, the barriers to opportunity begin far before they even think of entering the workplace. Of all of the issues constituents have raised with me since I have become Bracknell's MP, none have been as complex, pervasive, emotional, or deeply personal as those I have heard from parents and children experiencing our broken selling system, so I could not welcome more strongly the commitment this government has made to face the problem head on and to 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. This school was promised but never funded under the previous conservative government. But this government is ending the years of empty promises and is not only investing in the services families so badly need, but getting on with the work we were elected for and rebuilding them so they actually work.

My only ask, and I know that the Ministers, who is in her place and always listens very attentively on this issue, she knows what I'm going to say. My only ask is that we build it as quickly as possible, because, as she knows all too well, and having visited my constituency, she knows this in Bracknell, but also 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 in specialist provision that they so badly need.

And 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 all local schools. I was delighted to get an update on this new programme earlier this week. I know that many parent carers are concerned about the need to train more practitioners, a challenge I know that my hon.

Friend recognises too, so I hope we can set out an ambitious but deliverable workforce plan as soon as possible to make sure this new service can make the difference it is intended to do. Recently, I hosted a meeting with parents in my constituency to discuss the Send proposals. There was no question amongst those who attended that the system is badly in need of change. But where parent carers did raise concerns was around ISPs having the right safeguards to ensure that every young person gets the support they need.

I know that Ministers take this 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 would simply ask that they focus on this as they respond to the consultation, and I look forward to the government setting out all of its proposals in the education for all bill to rebuild a system that will give every child the education and the opportunity they deserve. Reform to our education system is about high standards for all, but it's 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 app for schools, 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, and I'd like to thank the Democracy Ministers for attending one of our evidence sessions.

We've 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, in areas of civic life, not just in the classroom, but actually across society. The success of votes at 16 will not just be reflected in how many young people vote, but also 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 already being undertaken in this area, including the Curriculum and Assessment Review and the schools White Paper, and 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 employers are crying out for, the skills which will empower them in every area of their life, and frankly, the sense of belonging that I think is so important for everyone to feel that they belong to, contribute to and are part of this United Kingdom.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is 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 this, stuck in insecure, in permanent accommodation and on long waiting lists for social housing, simply to find somewhere suitable to live. We've already done a huge amount to tackle these injustices with our Renters Rights Act. I'm proud that Bracknell's history as a post-war new town shows what ambition a Labour government can have when staring in the face of a housing crisis, a point made eloquently by my hon.

Friend, the Member for Harlow. Yesterday, in seconding the King's Speech. And let me quickly just put on record that as proud as he is of Harlow, I am of Bracknell boast. I know that everyone in this House will know is quite a big boast, given how supportive he is of Harlow. So 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'm pleased to see the government is proposing reforms to tackle disposals, but I'd like us to go even further on this so local authorities are not just informed, but must approve of any disposal of valuable housing stock. When we have so many families waiting on our waiting lists, I think that is really very important. The Social Housing Renewal Bill will ensure the investment and reform needed, so that the great legacy which made Bracknell and other new towns what they are today can belong not just to Labour government's past, but equally to this government today and very finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to touch on something a bit more personal, but no less important.

There is no place in Britain, in the Britain I know and I love for abusive conversion practices. To continue. The promise we made to ban them is a promise we must keep, and I offer my full support to the government's plans to bring forward draft legislation to do so in this parliamentary session, and it is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

right that this ban will be fully Trans inclusive. The British people elected this Labour people elected this Labour government to deliver change. In my maiden speech, I emphasised that that would not be easy or 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 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 focussed on the one thing and the only one thing

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that I was sent here to do, delivering change for them. Here, here, here, here. Caroline Voaden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Caroline Voaden. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to speak in this King's Speech debate, which is this King's Speech debate, which is my first in this chamber, as last time around, I was sat on my own in a hotel room on the South Bank with a hotel room on the South Bank with Covid warmly shared as a welcome gift by a lovely new colleague just gift by a lovely new colleague just after I entered this place. After the local elections results last week.

It is very 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. A government that 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 real commitment to turbocharge the economy, clean up our dying and degraded natural environment, and to provide the truly affordable and social homes rather than more million pound new builds.

As 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. I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

give way. And the hon. Member knows how fond I am of her. But I just wanted to ask how can she possibly, in one voice, condemn building new homes? And in the second in the same And in the second in the same sentence, suggest that there is an issue where we don't have enough homes for young people to live in. It simply can't have your cake and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It simply can't have your cake and eat it. Yeah. I thank the hon. Gentleman for
14:32
Caroline Voaden Portrait Caroline Voaden MP (South Devon, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. What I said is absolutely correct for my constituency of South Devon, where new build homes developer led housing estates are selling at £950,000. We are not providing the homes. We need the social homes and the truly affordable homes that young people need young couples, young families and people who want to move out from their parents. We are providing the wrong sort of homes and having a system that is led by housing developers who are driven by profit is never going to provide the homes that we need.

So 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 really difficult, thorny, complicated questions this country faces. But the sad truth is that neither of those two propositions will be enough to make the changes we need to see, to reform the very structures of our economy and public services, to improve the lives 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 community still feel left behind. And the false promise that was offered in that awful referendum has turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. And people are still angry on both sides of that debate. And as a liberal Democrat, you won't be surprised to hear that I welcome the government's promise of strengthening ties with our nearest neighbours in Europe.

But you probably also won't be surprised to hear me say that it doesn't 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. And when we talk of Brexit red tape. Nowhere is that more limiting than in the red lines the government has 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 their 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, and this cannot come fast enough from food and farming businesses.

But we want to see the government talk about a customs union with the EU to slash that red tape that is holding us back, because economic growth has stagnated in this country for far too long. And we also want to see the UK at the heart of European defence cooperation, not only for the benefits it would bring to national security, but for the investment opportunities it would provide for the supply chain. And 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's so much to cover in the King's gracious speech. So I would just like to touch on a couple of other areas. I've talked about people feeling ignored and forgotten. Nowhere is the visible representation of that more stark than in our high streets, boarded up shops, endless vape shops, cafes and pubs struggling to survive, and exorbitant rents making it impossible to get a new business off the ground. The government has pledged to nationalise British Steel to protect fewer than 3000 jobs, and I have no doubt that the wider economy in and around Scunthorpe will truly benefit from this 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 last year? They're less visible than the closure of a steelworks or a car plant, because it's ten jobs here and 20 jobs there. But the effect of the national insurance rise has been devastating up and down the country, with businesses calling last orders once and for all or simply shrinking their offer. In my constituency, rockfish, the California in the Maltsters Arms, the Berry Head Hotel, I could go on and on and on because hospitality is the backbone of the economy in my constituency.

Cutting staff hours, choosing not to employ extra staff, closing two days a week so 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. The jobs that so many people rely on to combine with parenting or caring or studying. And let's not forget that every teenager who gets a job washing pots or waiting tables is learning valuable skills 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. 1 in 5 of our young people, unable to even get a start in the workforce. The new Small Business Protections bill is laudable, but it falls far, far short of a proper plan to protect small businesses. We are disappointed that the government has 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 I would have loved to see in The King's Speech, which is sadly missing. And yet again, the rural South west seems to have been sadly ignored. £45 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail, but not a word about boosting vital bus services across the villages of the south west. If we're going to get people working again, we have to get them to work and if there are no buses, they cannot get their. There was nothing. On boosting digital connectivity for hard to reach areas.

I will give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because I do hear what she's saying, and we have exactly the same challenges in my rural community where people can't get to community where people can't get to job interviews and can't get to jobs, but we pass the Buses Act in the last session.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

She's missed the bus. Caroline Voaden.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We don't have a mayor in Devon, so we miss out on a lot in Devon, so we miss out on a lot of the benefits of the of the legislation that was passed. I have loads of villages that don't even have a bus. So talking about bus fares is completely irrelevant when when there is literally no service, how are young people supposed to get to college or work or, or get opportunities if they literally can't get out of their village? Absolutely.

And 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 they closed branches with impunity, and the government's promises to address the lack of banking services has led to nothing so far. But there are some things I would like to welcome in the in the King's Speech. Excuse me. I'm pleased to see the government finally pledged to finally break the link between gas and electricity prices, something that is vital in a country that depends more heavily on gas than many of our neighbours, and investment in home grown renewable power is also welcome.

But we want to see the focus on solar, on warehouses and car parks, not on prime farmland, and we want to see stronger community benefits from new renewable infrastructure, empowering communities with the right to buy and sell community energy locally. And talking of farmland, this leads me to a devastating omission from the King's Gracious Speech. Not once was the word nature mentioned in this speech, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds, so beautifully laid out last night in her response, probably something 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, and yet it is not a priority for this government, despite all the benefits that nature brings to the health and wellbeing of people. And if we truly want to cut the NHS Bill, then this would be a really good place to start.

The new water bill is welcome. We have long called for Ofwat to be replaced by a regulator that actually has some teeth, but until the government addresses the elephant in the room and looks at the ownership of the water industry, nothing will really change. No one should be making a profit out of water, something which is so vital not only to us as humans, but to the health of all our planet's ecosystems. We have long led the campaign in Parliament against the sewage scandal.

Sewage scandal, excuse me, tabling 44 amendments to the waters bill, none of which the government or conservatives accepted. They must do more. And lastly, I would just like to mention the education for all, Bill. We all know our support for children with special educational needs is broken. So I welcome this government's commitment to tackle it. We urgently need this reform. And as the school spokesman for spokesperson for my party, I will scrutinise every line of this legislation when it comes before the House.

So I will no doubt have time to say far more about it than I will today. But let me just say this we must build a system that is designed around the potential every child has and that works to their strengths. Noticing their gifts and their 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. The reforms to send must be done with children and parents at its heart, with open, honest consultation with families and 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a very strange thing to deliver this speech opposite government benches that are so clearly riven by intrigue, not knowing who will be leading some of this legislation through Parliament. So it is my hope that whatever path our government colleagues decide to go down today or over the next few days or weeks, that they will commit themselves to going further in the areas I have set out today to remember the challenges and the higher costs faced by rural areas in service, delivery and communications, and to prioritise nature in every single major decision they make about infrastructure and new building

**** Possible New Speaker ****

programmes. Think bigger, think bolder, think greener for the benefit of everyone. Thank you. Hey, hey.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. Hey, hey. Before I. Call the next speaker, can I please gently remind members that please gently remind members that we must not make reference to the monarch having particular views?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

monarch having particular views? Sojan Joseph. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to be called to It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I had the privilege of making my maiden speech during the last King's Speech debate. Since then, I'm proud to have supported 50 pieces of legislation that are helping to
14:44
Sojan Joseph Portrait Sojan Joseph MP (Ashford, Labour)
-
-
build a better Britain, deliver positive change for working people and, crucially, keep my and, crucially, keep my constituents hope for the future. Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not list all 50 today, but I do want to list all 50 today, but I do want to reflect on some of the changes that I believe demonstrate the positive I believe demonstrate the positive direction of travel. This Labour government has said, and help Britain working again. In the last Britain working again. In the last 22 months we have delivered the biggest upgrade in workers rights in 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 over 2500 children in my constituency, and almost half a million more across the country will be lifted out of poverty through the removal of two child benefit cap. As a former NHS mental health worker for 2022 years, I'm particularly proud that this Labour government chose to prioritise the long overdue modernisation of 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 dignity, respect and compassion they deserve.

I also welcome the progress that has been made in my local NHS. I have previously raised the case of a coffee shop at at the William Harvey Hospital in Ashford, being converted into an emergency ward to treat A&E patients. Steps have been taken to address corridor care at the hospitals, including a share of the £29 million investment East Thanet Hospital 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 that into the new intensive Recovery Programme, an intensive strategy to provide help for hospitals in East Kent has been something my fellow Labour colleagues and I have been pushing for 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 would also like to 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 is also bolder and faster in delivering the change that the people of Ashford, Woking and villages voted for at the last general election. Against that backdrop, I was pleased that in this 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 families are facing. They also reflect a determination to ensure that economic growth is felt in people's day to day lives, not just in headline strategies. I am very pleased as well to see the determination that every child deserves the chance to succeed to the best of their ability, and should not be held back by poverty or special education needs. I also welcome that 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. For 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 service 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 decision by the Office of Rail and Road 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 service will stop at Ashford International, provided the station is reopened. Two other operators, first, Trenitalia and Gemini trains, are also developing proposals to introduce international services between the UK and mainland Europe to provide greater competition on this line, and both have previously expressed a willingness to include Ashford International as a stop. The return of international services to Ashford would would be transformative. 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 price 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 announcement in The King's Speech that the Lower Thames Crossing will be built at pace. I know 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. I will strengthen connectivity. 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 this part road network.

I also hope that a long term alternative solution will be found 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 rests with Kent and Medway Resilience Forum, and I once again urge them to ensure that it is used only as an emergency measure. I would 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.

As I 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 in its Bill Committee, I look forward to the representation of people's Bill completing its passage through Parliament. This bill will extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year olds, strengthen the rules around political donations and implement the Ryecroft review's recommendation to better protect our democracy from foreign interference. In its passage will fulfil a clear Labour Party manifesto commitment, but more importantly, it will help to safeguard our democratic system, making it more robust, transparent and accountable at a time of growing global instability.

That is an objective which I hope members across this House can support. Thank you.
14:52
Phil Brickell Portrait Phil Brickell MP (Bolton West, Labour)
-
-
Phil Brickell thank. >> Deputy Speaker. Yesterday's King's speech showed, despite all the noise from the opposition benches, that this is a government benches, that this is a government determined to get its head down and get on with the job. The British people sent us to Westminster to do. After years of drift, decline and short termism under the party opposite this Labour government is choosing a different path, one that restores hope to towns like Westhoughton, Horwich, Black Rod and Bolton.

In my constituency because, 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. In the first 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 is prepared to act with urgency and purpose, to build on the good work that has already been done, and 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'd like to focus most of the rest of my remarks on that topic. Now, for years, families navigating the special educational needs and disabilities system have felt exhausted and ignored.

At a roundtable I held recently with concerned parents, I was told about the endless battles to secure assessments, support and specialist provision for children. Teachers and schools, frankly, 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 meaningful send reform, and that's vital because we on these benches believe that every child deserves the opportunity to go as far as their talent and effort can take them, because we all know deep in our hearts that it shouldn't 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, which stay with children for the rest of their lives. Now, alongside that reform, there is another vital commitment which featured 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. That's why the government's Industrial Strategy and Apprenticeships plan matter so much because it's this Labour government which is removing the barriers to economic growth which stifle innovation and creativity.

And it is this Labour government which is creating the much needed pathways into secure, high paid jobs for the next

**** Possible New Speaker ****

generation of boltonians. I will give way. Impassioned speech. One of my

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Impassioned speech. One of my big concerns, I think, that we need to be talking far more about is the 1824 category that is being 1824 category that is being replaced by automation and artificial intelligence at the moment, and especially the age category coming up from university, whereby they're shackled with tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt. And the graduate jobs that debt. And the graduate jobs that they hope to get are now being automated. So what does he think the government can do to make sure that that cohort coming out from university and coming into the workplace have good career pathways

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in front of them? Ilford South. 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. And I would like to opportunities. And I would like to see the government continue to work strongly with our further and higher education sector to think higher education sector to think proactively about what are the opportunities that are coming down the line for work in the sector. the line for work in the sector.

He's talking about in the 5 or 10 years in the future, because we've got to be creative in thinking about what those opportunities look

**** Possible New Speaker ****

like. This isn't just about threats, I would say. I will give way. I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on that topic of giving younger people access to AI and younger people access to AI and digital skills. Prime Minister library in my constituency of Bournemouth East has been closed indefinitely by the Liberal indefinitely by the Liberal Democrat led council. They do not have a plan to repair or to rescue the library. That's a library that the library. That's a library that could provide a space for younger people to acquire those critical AI and digital skills.

Does he agree with me that our community is only as strong as the space that we have, and that we need libraries like

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charminster to be reopened so that younger people can have access to that kind of skill? Well, my hon. Friend makes an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, my hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point about Charminster library, and I know he is a terrific campaigner for his is a terrific campaigner for his local community assets, and I wish him all the best with success in that campaign. Madam Deputy Speaker, that campaign. Madam Deputy Speaker, as a former Erasmus student myself, can I put on record my heartfelt support for our re-entry into that programme? For me, my time on Erasmus in Hanover opened up a world of possibilities 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. So it's only right that the kids of today have the same access to the opportunities I had growing up. Now, this King's Speech recognises a simple, inescapable reality. Britain is stronger when we work closely with our European partners. Businesses across Bolton and the northwest 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 face unnecessary barriers. Opportunities were lost and relationships that took decades to build were neglected. Take trailer supply in Dispension in My patch. A pioneering company snared up Brexit related red tape, and I've been working with the Ministers for trade 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 over in the other benches in reform. Because what we saw under previous successive conservative governments, whether that was supported by Ukip or the Brexit Party at the time, was common sense sacrificed on the altar of ideological purity by a government, then more focussed on pithy three word slogans. Rather than doing the hard yards to negotiate the best deal for Britain.

My constituents know it. Members of my party know it, and my colleagues on these benches know it, too. That's 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, in Horwich, in Bolton and in Black Rod 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 with 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, but I am proud to support a King's Speech that shows Labour is getting on with the job for my constituents across Bolton West.
15:00
John Slinger Portrait John Slinger MP (Rugby, Labour)
-
-
Yeah yeah. >> Yeah yeah yeah. >> Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I don't know if colleagues noticed, but a lot of rhetoric and rumours have been flying around Westminster recently. MPs huddled in the tea recently. MPs huddled in the tea room in the corridors, whispering feverishly. Tensions are high. And after all the anticipation, the angst. Today was the day rumour became reality. You 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 was the fastest of six G7 nations that we have data for reports of the economy being in, being in demise under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been greatly exaggerated. Madam Deputy Speaker, as have reports of the political demise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the good economic news today matters for my constituents in Rugby economic growth matters for jobs, public services, tackling the cost of living and much more.

The Labour Party is aptly named Labour Work, a party founded to represent working people in this House of Commons. We want people to work. We're doing much to help people find work, to help people who face challenges of all kinds get into work to ensure that all have dignity when they are in work, and also to help them navigate a rapidly changing world of work. And of course, to ensure compassion and support for those who can't work but can still contribute and lead fulfilling lives.

Because we're labour, we believe in an active state, not the laissez faire approach of the Conservatives or the money from who knows where approach from reform UK. We believe in work. It's easy people for people in here, Madam Deputy Speaker and for people outside to assume things about someone's professional background and work background. Even I have made this 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, I made the schoolboy error, Madam Deputy Speaker, that given his mythical status as a man of the people, that his work background was varied, perhaps even working class. But it turns out that this Tribune of the people was a commodities trader in the City of London. Nothing wrong with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wouldn't want hon. Members to assume anything about my professional background. To misquote President Reagan in 1984, I'm not going to exploit, for political purposes my opponent's inexperience in blue collar jobs.

My career has been varied. I did a paper round. I've been a gardener, farm work, worked in a cinema. I shared with the Leader of the Opposition that I worked in a McDonald's restaurant for several years, although not the same one as her. I've been a waiter, a bartender. I was a hospital porter for two years. I even worked here 20 years ago for Labour MPs. But I've spent most of my career, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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, that we can not only benefit ourselves, but the wider community. Madam Deputy Speaker, Members across this House will know that I have spoken many times about engaging young people and ensuring they have the best start in life. This has been a core tenet of my philosophy as an MP, and I'm pleased to see it reflected in the King's Speech 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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.

These 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 1,000,016 to 24 year olds are not in education, employment or training. And I want, as I'm sure all hon. Members do, to see these figures come down. Not only does this situation rob young people of opportunity, but it also risks condemning them to a life of inactivity reliant on the state for their needs.

This is unfair both to them and to the rest of the taxpaying population, and the costs are borne by the individual to. Analysis suggests that someone on long term, 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 they offer no concrete pathways into work or training. I cannot see reform offering anything substantial either, apart from Orwellian, un-british slogans about demoralising our youth. Young people do not need their morals recalibrated by that or any other party. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 we have already achieved in this government to tackle what is, frankly, a 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, a new Jobs Guarantee that fully subsidises six months of paid employment for 18 to 21 year olds who are long term unemployed or on Universal Credit.

Alan Milburn's review seeks to dig deeper into this issue, and I've been in touch with him to to contribute to his much needed work that he's conducting with the Secretary of State. I previously spoken in Parliament about driving job creation for young people. I visited Rugby College in my constituency, met with intact 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 higher in the decision making process and in the law making process as we govern more widely and among other stakeholders in society. To coordinate this, I hope that the government will consider going further and consider perhaps appointing a youth commissioner or even better, a dedicated Cabinet Ministers 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 in a demographic that is too often overlooked. 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've 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.

This idea has also been supported by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer. It could include free bus travel, increasing maintenance loans above inflation, or a voucher scheme for constructive activities, but put answers on a postcard before I draw my remarks to a conclusion. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East for her moving words about her autism diagnosis. I'm sure it is a difficult thing to speak publicly about.

The government should take this moment and be bold in its 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 that we have a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a government and a parliamentary Labour Party that is 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.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this is work in progress. This King's speech shows that Labour is the party of work and we are making progress.
15:11
Sam Rushworth Portrait Sam Rushworth MP (Bishop Auckland, Labour)
-
-
Yeah yeah, yeah. I draw attention to my register of interest that I am the chair of the all party parliamentary group for T all party parliamentary group for T levels. And can I also thank Harrison Willmott, who is a sixth form student and work experience student who helped research some of the figures for my speech today. And he sat in the gallery. And I. I also want to just 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.

But, Madam Speaker, there are moments in a nation where a challenge becomes so large, so deeply rooted, that it ceases to be merely a policy problem, and it becomes a test of national purpose. I believe that's where Britain now stands on work skills and opportunity, because across our country, but particularly in communities like mine in Bishop Auckland, there's a generation of young people growing up under pressures that no previous generation quite face in the same combination young people who live through Covid, living through a youth mental health crisis, facing rising housing insecurity, economic anxiety and a labour market that's changing faster than institutions have adapted.

1 in 7 16 to 24 year olds in Bishop Auckland are not in education, employment or training. Recently, I visited Dean Valley in Shildon, a deprived part of my constituency with the highest child poverty rate in County Durham. I met with 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, when they had their own swimming baths and the best sprung dance floor in the area, a time when people could leave school straight into apprenticeships, in the mines, in the railways or at the brickworks.

It was hard graft, but that was. There was secure work and there was dignity. The closure of the pits and the wagon works and other industries left deep scars on our community and in some cases, intergenerational poverty. And I know the effect that it can have on a community to see thousands of jobs disappear, which is why I welcome this government's commitment to British Steel in The King's Speech. And I also thank the government for the work that was done to save 700 jobs.

Hitachi in nearby Newton Aycliffe and the work of my neighbour ING MP, the Member for Spennymoor, Newton Aycliffe, who led that campaign. But Britain's Neet rate is significantly higher than in many comparable economies, and the consequences aren't 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's a moral failure. And if we don't 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. They talked endlessly about opportunity while cutting away at the ladders that create it, ensuring good jobs for our people is a fundamental duty of 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 opportunity through growth.

When I look across the area that I'm so privileged to represent, I see real opportunities, opportunity for new industry around lithium in Weardale, for geothermal energy and other types of renewable power. Getting us off the fossil fuels, roller coaster, creating energy that we build, that we keep, creating the jobs locally, the potential for housebuilding and regeneration in the Dean Valley area, defence jobs. We've already got fantastic employers like Cook Defence Systems in Stanhope, P-gp and Tees Craft that could become an eco centre for the defence industry.

New jobs in healthcare and jobs in a generation of trained counsellors, educational psychologists and speech and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

language therapists who will be in our schools thanks to this government's commitment to special educational needs. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. His Majesty's address also contained plans to strengthen our relationship with Europe. And that matters because it's not all good news. We've lost jobs in my community in Barnard Castle. Pharmaceutical jobs moved to Austria, the other side of a Austria, the other side of a boundary. And. But we do need to be honest, too many businesses that I speak to tell me they struggle to find the skills that they need in the workforce. We can't deliver the defence manufacturing jobs without technicians, fabricators, engineers, advanced manufacturing, apprenticeships.

We can't deliver the clean power energy resilience without electricians, retrofit specialists, geothermal engineers, heat work, heat network installers and construction workers. And we can't build the homes this country needs without skilled tradespeople. We can't 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's whether Britain will equip its people to do it, and that requires us to rebuild the skills pipeline in Britain that's been neglected for too long.

And the answer is strengthening partnerships between

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fe colleges and local businesses. I will. Hon. Gentleman, for giving way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hon. Gentleman, for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he said in his speech, but on Fe colleges I in his speech, but on Fe colleges I have to visit Richmond upon Thames College and my constituency earlier this week, and the chief executive this week, and the chief executive of the group said to me this year they've only had 0.55% per student uplift in funding. Despite the uplift in funding. Despite the white Paper published by this government last year promising a real terms increase year on year, that means they're not going to be able to create the places that young people need or pay the lecturers enough.

Does he agree with me? That's the sort of disappointment from his own frontbench.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you. I'm going on, in fact, to talk about the importance of Fe to talk about the importance of Fe funding. Whilst of course, you know, understanding the challenges that government faces because there's government faces because there's enormous amounts of demand to spend money everywhere. But I want to make the case for why Fe is a place that we really do need to resource further education. Colleges endured years of underinvestment. Funding years of underinvestment. Funding per student fell 11% over the course of 14 years of conservative government.

Vocational education was too often treated as second class, and apprenticeship opportunities declined precisely at the moment that we needed the most. Between 2017 and 2014, apprenticeship starts for under 19 seconds. Fell fell sharply, while too much of the apprenticeship levy drifted away from creating genuine opportunities for young people to enter the labour market. And at the very moment that Britain needed a skills revolution, we got drift. I spent some time as an Fe college teacher in that period. It was a job that I loved.

I think I loved it even more than this job in in terms of the opportunity that I had to work with school leavers who had struggled and young adults who needed a second chance teaching access to He courses. But I left because I wasn't really earning the minimum wage. That that is how it is in our colleges. And and I just want to take a moment, actually, to pay tribute to the fantastic staff at Bishop Auckland College and the vital work that they do, not only as teachers, but also as mentors and carers to people in their late teens and young adult years and the work that they also do to tackle poverty.

I meet regularly with the principal, Sean Hope, from that college because I regard the college as an absolute key partner in everything that I would like to see achieved in the place I represent. And he told me recently that they have a closet of clothes that they will give away, that that he has to add extra Budget to, to make sure that everyone can get a breakfast and lunch because of the poverty of the students that are coming to that college. And I have to say that the decision to cut the educational maintenance allowance and not replace it, I think, was one of the worst pieces of vandalism of the previous government.

It's actually why I so much welcome the lowering of the voting age in the Representation of the People Bill, giving young people a stake and and the power to use their vote to demand better. I also welcome the protection from foreign interference, because somehow I just doubt that a Thailand based crypto billionaire really had the interest of young people in Bishop Auckland at heart when he chose to give £5 million and more to the Reform Party. So, Deputy Speaker, 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, because for too long, Britain has operated with an outdated hierarchy of success, one that implied that only the prestigious root was the academic root, a thinking that 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, or a care worker or 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 hall, lecturer in a university lecture hall.

Apprenticeships, done properly, remain one of the greatest engines of social mobility the country has ever created. They provide not just qualifications but wages, confidence, structure, dignity and purpose. So I welcome the move towards 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. However, the Association of Colleges 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, they're asking to deliver more students, more technical pathways, more specialist provision, 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 and in places like Bishop Auckland.

They're institutions of hope, aspiration

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and opportunities. And finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, it would. Yeah. I am very grateful to him for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am very grateful to him for giving way. Speaking as a former teacher and somebody who does love this job more than that one, I did love teaching. And does he agree love teaching. And does he agree with the Education committee, the Select Committee, the Fe colleges, Select Committee, the Fe colleges, which are currently not exempt from claiming back and VAT, are at a disadvantage compared with sixth form colleges that are attached to schools that can claim back VAT, and that there is an argument to be had that Fe colleges should get

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that advantage as well. Yeah, I fully agree with the point made and I'm conscious of point made and I'm conscious of time, so I'll conclude quickly. Madam Deputy Speaker just to say, it would be remiss of me if I didn't also mention my absolute didn't also mention my absolute delight at the education for all bill that was included in the King's Speech, and I intend to speak in the debate for that when the time comes. But also just to personally thank the Ministers for and the Secretary of State for for and the Secretary of State for for what I thought was a model of how to engage both with charities, with parents, as well as with backbench MPs on that quite difficult but really, really important piece of legislation that I think everybody across the House will, will welcome as they see this battleground over EHCPs coming to an end and the proper resources that children need to thrive entering those schools.

And let me just close where I started to say that it's just it's not a question of whether we can afford to create opportunity for, for our young people. It's the fact that we cannot afford not to do so,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

because the future of our country depends on it. Yeah, yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, yeah. Oliver Ryan thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It's a great pleasure to welcome this King's pleasure to welcome this King's speech. After a bumper legislative year just gone, acts like the Renters Rights Act, the Workers Rights Act, making a difference Rights Act, making a difference already to my constituents. And over 5000 children in my area with over 5000 children in my area with better supported parents because of the lifting of the two child benefit cap. When I talked to my constituents in Burnley, Padiham and Byfield about their priorities, they talked to me about jobs and wages.

They talk about bills and rents, about our towns, about why for a long time, Britain hasn't
15:25
Oliver Ryan Portrait Oliver Ryan MP (Burnley, Labour )
-
-
felt like it works for them, about why young people feel written off, and about how we grow and feel the 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 whether their kids will have to move away to get a decent job, whether their NHS will get back to working properly. They ask why the working properly. They ask why the old derelict industrial sites have been left sitting empty for years, blighting our communities.

They blighting our communities. They asked me whether they should have hope for the future, or only be able to look back with fondness instead of forward with confidence. And now they're being sold. A story of grievance, anger and easy answers by the poisonous bubble gum politics of parties like reform. And that's why today's debate matters. To get Britain working is to get Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield working too. It's to get our economy working for places like ours again.

After the 14 years of austerity and decline, it's to get our NHS working again, to give people the hope of decent jobs and pay and financial security again. And this work isn't done with slogans or easy answers. It's built considerately, constantly and carefully. After being so quickly out in their early years and their childcare support, and families are hammered to look around to find alternative provision. Does he agree with me that our community is only as strong as our spaces, and as a consequence, the Liberal

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Democrats should take control of that site, reopen the doors and provide what the community needs. I. Absolutely.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Absolutely. Agree with hon. Friend. He is an ardent campaigner for community spaces like this, and I'm sure he is taking that fight on behalf of is taking that fight on behalf of his residents and the users of that facility to his local council. Completely onside. I'm not sure how Completely onside. I'm not sure how much my endorsement does, but I wish him all the best in his campaign. Getting Britain working has to mean something real in has to mean something real in places like Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield.

Decent work, proper wages, real skills and investment in our towns to give a decent future and a hope to our kids and grandkids. And I'm proud to say that by all of those metrics, this Labour government is delivering not on an overnight Big bang, but considered and substantial progress in my constituency. Wages are up, employment is up, public and private investment is up. Funding for our schools, colleges and local council is up, while our local NHS waiting lists are down and access to care is going up.

As a point of fact, Madam Deputy Speaker 1 in 7 people were on NHS waiting lists when we took office in 2024, including my constituents. That is not a Britain working and I'm glad to say the lists are coming down historically. Fast pace for too long, in the 14 years of the Tories, through austerity and cuts to many constituents, felt written off. And indeed the numbers support that analysis. A big part of that came from a welfare system they built, which I believe was broken by design.

People signed off and written off young people and graduates left on the scrapheap. Under them, the benefit bill ballooned by billions. They have no credibility on welfare reform. They talk tough when this government is in fact 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 by taking on a few extra shifts could leave you worse off than before.

And they left disabled people and people with long term health conditions in an impossible position, wanting to work, wanting to contribute, but terrified that if they tried and it didn't work out, they would lose the support keeping them afloat. That was not a welfare system. It was a trap and a cycle of insecurity, worthlessness and despair that they perpetuated, while at the same time they demonised. These people talked tough while their system was doing the exact opposite. So I welcome what this government is doing to change it.

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 don't go perfectly. That might sound straightforward, but for constituents I've spoken to in Burnley, people who want to test for themselves part time work and gradual return something to rebuild their confidence, this can 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, needs and ambitions.

The principle of nothing about us without us has to run through how this policy is designed and implemented. And through my work, particularly as chair of the all party parliamentary group for Multiple Sclerosis, I'll be closely considering that as it is genuine consultation and genuine involvement, I'm backing all of that up with an extra £3.5 billion to support disabled people and those with long term health conditions into employment is serious money making a serious commitment? Good welfare policy, Madam Deputy Speaker, has to do two things.

It has to protect people who can't work and who need support the safety net, and it has to genuinely support people who can work back into employment and independence, not label them, not park them, not give up on them to give them a hand up, get back on the horse. This is the balance that this government, I'm glad to see is committed to getting right. Now, let me turn to young people, because this is one of the sharpest challenges facing towns like mine. And actually, we inherited nothing short of a national disgrace.

We inherited in 2024, nearly a million young people under 25 not in employment, education or training, as well as the worst parliament on record for falling living standards. That number of neat young people went up by a quarter of a million in the final years before the 2024 election, youth unemployment was at a record high. And once that drift sets in, when you don't get your first leg up, it becomes harder and harder to reverse. And the human cost of it the lost confidence, lost years, lost.

Social impact is real and lasting, especially in towns like mine. I've talked before in this chamber about the great social ill of generational worklessness about how communities like mine, scarred from the closures of the mills and the mines, have never been given a chance. And the foundational support to really properly recover,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Where there isn't a parent who can tell you how to do a CV or how to interview where you leave school to interview where you leave school and you feel abandoned in a scary and increasingly expensive world where there aren't opportunities for you. And so you turn in the for you. And so you turn in the short term to the benefit system because your mate. Next thing you know, you're in debt. You might know, you're in debt. You might want a family.

You get responsibilities, change looks scary, and you're still looking for scary, and you're still looking for work. But in your heart, you know you haven't the confidence or the knowledge to get into the jobs market you feel you've missed your window for. That's how people get left. That's how their children get left. It damages the social fabric of our country. And it's a disgrace that those numbers shot up so high under the previous government, because it's young people in towns like mine who've suffered, and generationally towns like mine, who have always suffered no hand up, no help, signed off, written off, politically demonised by the people who built the system that's trapping them there.

I don't take a soft approach to welfare. Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, if you can work, you absolutely should. But it's not right. What happened? Our Youth Guarantee is part of the answer to that, and I hope the Secretary of State is looking to go further and faster on young people. He's welcome to come to Burnley any time he likes, and I can show him what we can do for young people in our towns with just a little support. And I'll give a shout out here to Burnley Job Centre and all of the staff with whom I was proud to host a jobs fair in Padiham earlier this year, and hope to do so again in Burnley later this year.

The Youth Guarantee is set out is excellent, a work placement for young people aged 18 to 24 who've been seeking work for 18 months, with employment costs covered by government. Not a pilot scheme. An actual placement with a real employment behind it. And for businesses taking on a young person who've been on Universal Credit for more than six months, 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 makes a difference between making a hire and not being able to afford to do so. On apprenticeships and this is something I care deeply about. We're backing 50,000 new starts after they collapsed under the last government, as the Secretary of State said earlier, with a £2,000 grant for small businesses that take on an apprentice which 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.

That is the difference between offering a young person a future and turning them away, because 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 of technical work. Burnley has a proud industrial history. We have skilled people and businesses with genuine potential. What we have lacked for too long is 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 like 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'm on the topic of small businesses, as I've mentioned before, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me just say about minimum wage increases, which I know seem to spur a little bit of political conversation in towns like Burnley.

We either accept that we're in the race to the bottom, and that only low wages will allow businesses to grow, which is a very Victorian take, or we follow the facts and the figures, and we accept that in towns like mine, in which earnings are spent locally, in fact are riding a rising tide does lift all boats and that while paying bar staff or shop staff might be more expensive this year for that particular business, the cumulative effect of an increased minimum wage across the constituency affects strengthens both consumer and retail spending, building a stronger economy in the medium term.

It of course I will. Of course.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point. Look, nobody, certainly in my party would be arguing that we shouldn't be be arguing that we shouldn't be paying the lowest paid more. Absolutely. But what businesses in my Chelmsford constituency tell me, and I'm pretty sure this happens and I'm pretty sure this happens across the country, is that it's the differential. It's the knock on effect that it has. When you pay effect that it has. When you pay the lowest paid more, you have to pay some of the other people higher up the ladder a bit more as well to keep that differential.

And that's the thing, the cumulative effect of that, plus the other things like National Insurance contributions, increases and etc. etc. That's the thing that's really made it difficult. And, and I'm not having a go at it's just, but we need to try to find solutions that support businesses to be able to pay their

**** Possible New Speaker ****

staff more while also increasing their businesses. Does he agree with me? Oliver Ryan. If I remember a lady for that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If I remember a lady for that intervention, I'm coming on, in fact, to a small paragraph which says, of course this has its limits and shouldn't be a shock to and shouldn't be a shock to business. And I've heard, if not similar stories, certainly experiences in the same vein. I'd probably just caution that when the debate around national insurance increases happened in this place, a good chunk of that, if not all, of that increase was then allocated to NHS spend, which has had a record historic increase under this government.

I think 28, 29 billion in the last financial year is a commitment, and a good chunk of that came from NI on employers. I think when you're looking at strengthening the National Health Service, asking employers to make a slightly bigger contribution to their employees, health care is probably more preferable than increasing the general tax take, which of course, this government pledged to do in the election and hasn't done since, as we pledged. So, as I say, of course it has its limits and can't 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. And that's why real wages have grown more in the last 18 months of this government than the last ten years of the Tory government. Our economy is stronger because of the decisions we've made and defended. I also hear regularly from local businesses about the practical difficulties of trading with European markets. Since Britain lost unfettered access to those European markets. They want fewer delays, lower costs, less uncertainty.

They want to get on with it. The European Partnership Bill need to deliver practical answers for businesses like theirs. I am yet to meet a large exporting business in Burnley, Padiham or Brierfield who are better off since Brexit. In fact, they report to me they are losing business to European competitors every week. I'm speaking. None of this can be separated from what people in Burnley are dealing with financially right now energy bills, food bills, fuel costs, rent. It comes up in almost every conversation I have.

People want to work, they do work, but they want that work to pay enough to actually build a life. Cutting energy bills by up to 25% for manufacturers. Driving forward on clean Home-grown energy, investing in warmer homes and lower bills. These are not abstract policy objectives. It's the difference between a family building something and a family just about holding something together. What people in Burnley 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 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 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 had 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 Ministers on these issues. Regeneration is not just about buildings, it's about whether people believe their town is moving forward. It's 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'm 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. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

May Apsana Begum thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker, in 2024, the British Speaker, in 2024, the British people, including so many of my constituents, voted for change after a decade of brutal austerity. after a decade of brutal austerity. They have desperately needed a drastic and material improvement in their living standards. The last King's Speech championed measures that had the potential to radically change the situation for people, change the situation for people, from renters rights to employment rights and more.

And I'm pleased that this king's speech brings
15:41
Apsana Begum Portrait Apsana Begum MP (Poplar and Limehouse, Labour)
-
-
forward the government's commitments to end conversion practices and giving the vote to 16 practices and giving the vote to 16 and 17 year olds. Yet what we are not seeing is a transformative agenda that the country has been agenda that the country has been crying out for, and that which people who have always supported Labour have wanted. We have seen Labour have wanted. We have seen policy U-turns from the winter fuel allowance to the lifting of the two child limit, following significant child limit, following significant political and public pressure.

We have seen policies that the British public rejected just last week, from the changes to the 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. Madam Deputy Speaker and for me, the immigration and asylum bill is incredibly alarming in terms of the provisions that it has in it. The direction of travel in policy means that the government is now left facing existential questions about what the Labour Party stands for, who it stands for and why, what the government has said in response to its losses last week is that there needs to be a faster and quicker shift, but in the same direction.

I want to be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 there's nothing there's nothing that can be done about it. It's 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 they punished them for being poor.

They pursued the vulnerable, and they persecuted the disabled. That's 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. Also, 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. It's in this context. People simply do not believe that they must continue to endure more hardship for any longer.

I've 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 that the resources are there in some form. It could be raised, for example, by ensuring big business and the wealthy pay their fair share. If the top 1% wealthiest wealthiest in this country were taxed just a modest 1%, this 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 money? Why does austerity still have to be the political choice? That's why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I call for the overall benefit cap to be lifted in full, because 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 back in the autumn, and I'm obliged to make clear for my constituents, many of whom are already impacted by the cuts to the health component of Universal Credit, that any further attempts to restrict or cut personal independence independence payments must, will actually be disastrous, will actually be disastrous, and they have to be dropped. And if they are not dropped there, at the bare minimum, there must be a full parliamentary vote. Surely the greatest duty of any government has to be to protect and empower the most vulnerable people in our society and deliver social good, not social harm.

I am very clear about what my role must be. Who elected me and who I am here to represent. I cannot in my conscience allow the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled to be exposed to any further brutality. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, if there is no money for disabled people to not 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, then it is up to the government to change the way that the economy is run.

The King's Speech proposed a step forward towards nationalisation of British steel. I welcome this intention, just as I had welcomed the first steps towards nationalisation of railways in the last parliamentary session. However, it presents nationalisation almost as a move of a last resort after private interests have extracted the profits they can from privatised industries. Why can't we have a conversation about nationalisation in the public good? When we are seeing the dire, shameful way in which private water, 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.

The government can, if it has, the political will meet the public support and demand for public ownership of male rail, water and gas and end the disastrous experiments of privatisation. I do want to reaffirm my commitment towards a publicly owned and publicly run NHS that provides free and funded health care for all. That principle was an ironclad manifesto commitment, and yet we've seen a return to private finance initiatives in the NHS, the same initiatives that have had disastrous consequences in constituencies like mine in east London.

Doctors themselves are resisting controversial government decisions to sign partnerships with Palantir, and along with this, the agreement last year to appease Donald Trump and withdrew an agreement that will strip away nice medicine price controls will only lead to locking in higher drug prices, doubling NHS spend on new medicines and diverting funds from other vital NHS functions. This will only serve to benefit American Big Pharma, private interests. Private interests should never, ever be lining their pockets at the expense of our society's health, not least under a Labour government.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the economy must also work to resolve the housing crisis. I've been looking closely at the Social Housing Renewal Bill and I do welcome provisions and measures in it to protect tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse. This is something that the sector has long been campaigning for. We will be looking at it closely because it does need to work in practice. But I do remain concerned about the bill more widely. Can it truly provide the solutions needed to solve the housing crisis without ensuring that there is a commitment towards a mass social housing building programme and rent controls? In my East London constituency, we have one of the highest rates of child poverty in the entire country.

We have people living in uninhabitable and overcrowded homes that are also just, in fact, not actually affordable. This is set against a backdrop of rising wealth in the financial sector, in the City of London, in the West, and the ever expanding Canary Wharf real estate. It's 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 JP Morgan, will end up meaning for our area, and what the decisions are being driven in the interests of local people and the longevity and for the longevity of our area.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed yesterday that the King's Speech and I quote, will tear down the status quo. The risk here is that disillusionment has begun to settle in. I believe there needs to be less talk of delivery, admissions and more talk about how the government will truly rebalance power and make sure that it's in the interests of workers and working class people in this country by really addressing inequality. The government must be louder and bolder, but in a vastly different political direction.

That must mean showing up as a government that takes people's material concerns seriously and addressing those concerns in line with the labour values it was founded upon. Because more incrementalism sends a message to the British people that the government doesn't understand what has gone wrong. And because this country and its economy is not working for millions of people, and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that demands transformative action. Thank you. Which brings us to the shadow Ministers Saqib Bhatti.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Ministers Saqib Bhatti. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty's official opposition, and I praise official opposition, and I praise all members for their contributions. And while I didn't agree with all of them, I certainly recognise the passion with which they delivered for the the topics that they cared about. In particular, I'd like to about. In particular, I'd like to recognise my right hon. My hon. Friends for Mid Leicestershire and Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and it's with the.

My hon. Friend for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. I'd like to start because she said something I do agree with, which is that Labour is taking this country in the wrong direction, and this is a sentiment that is agreed with by the newly newly made former health secretary, who said in his resignation letter where we need vision, we have vacuum, where we need direction, we have drift. This is a damning indictment of a government that is saying that it wants to get Britain working again.

The Conservatives, the Conservatives, are absolutely committed to the Conservatives are actually committed to getting
15:52
Saqib Bhatti Portrait Saqib Bhatti MP (Meriden and Solihull East, Conservative)
-
-
Britain working again. And the Conservatives got a record 4 Conservatives got a record 4 million more people in work between 2010 and 2024. This allowed millions more people to have the millions more people to have the security of their own income, empowering them to own their own home and look after their their home and look after their their families. The. The Ministers chunters from a sedentary position that was 800 new jobs a day that we that was 800 new jobs a day that we created in those 14 years.

This has taken a that this 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 have even haven't even raised the unemployment rate forecast for 2026. For 2027 and 2028. There is only one conclusion Labour are letting people down and they are consigning more people into welfare instead of good, honest work. I want to focus particularly on young people and on the prospects where, unfortunately, there is an even bleaker picture that is being painted.

My hon. Friend from Mid Leicestershire. I agree with him when he said that this government is failing young people. The youth unemployment rate. I heard a lot of members talk about getting youth young people back into work. The youth unemployment rate is 15.9%, up by 2.7%. Since this Labour Party took office, they've been in power for two years and that has been the consequence. 1 in 6 young people are now unable to find a job. This government is pushing more young people onto benefit, which has benefits, which has deeper long term consequences.

There are now nearly 1,000,018 to 24 year olds not in education, employment or training and amongst graduates. The centre for Social Justice estimates that there are around a 700 000 people out of work and claiming benefits, and the impacts of this cannot be understated. Madam Deputy Speaker, every month spent out of work means you take more than you give to the state. And as I was campaigning in my local elections across Meriden and Solihull East, I can tell you that young people want to work because there is dignity in work, there is hope in work, and every month a young person spends out of a job, it makes it harder for them to get back into employment.

And whilst their peers are developing critical skills in the workplace, those out of work fall behind. It also weakens your ability to save and put put money away for the future, making it harder, for example, to save for your first home, for your family or for your retirement. The numbers of young people out of work is a calamity, and the government must do much more to to address this, and nothing that has been said or set out by the government has reassured me that they understand that the Employment Rights Act of the previous parliamentary session has already started to have a catastrophic impact on the jobs market.

This disastrous piece of legislation has increased costs for businesses and discouraged hiring, especially for young people. And I say this to the benches opposite, just listening to the last speech as well. Business owners aren't just there to be squeezed until their pipsqueaks. They're the ones who take the risk. They're the ones who invest. They're the ones who create the jobs. And I will, of course, also challenge the government on the educational space, because I believe they've been completely ineffective. Just this week, the Prime Minister now has made new pledges on apprenticeships and skills in an effort to turn his failing premiership around.

Perhaps he also recognises what I do because 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. Regrettably, it's far from it. The number of apprenticeships apprenticeships starts at the DWP, for example, has actually fallen and the government's broken promises on apprenticeships are best shown in relation to level seven qualifications. These are high quality pathways. I'm talking about level seven. Maybe the Secretary of State may may want to pay attention.

These high quality pathways allow people to get into professions like accountancy, engineering and architecture without accumulating the same debt as graduates do. However, the government continue to restrict level seven funding for those over 22, meaning that they are now missing out on those opportunities, as do I. Also, by the way, putting level six apprenticeships at risk in opposition. I can see the Secretary of State very audible. The in opposition, the Shadow Education Secretary promised graduates that they will pay less under Labour.

This has turned out to be nothing other than another broken promise, because now, not only is it harder for graduates to get into work, but tuition fees have also gone up twice, so those that 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 Senate bill, the education for all bill proposed in the King's Speech. And while in the time today, I don't have the luxury of asking all the questions that parents have wanted me to pose to the government, there are a couple of things I do.

There are a couple of things that I do. I'm happy to take an intervention from Secretary of State. The the, the, the, the, the questions that they have done. The government has claimed that the bill will make generational reforms to the system, and the outlines of those proposals have been put in the White Paper. But I have to say, parents are none the wiser. I've been meeting with a lot of parents. Despite the rhetoric from the government. I see parents with more anxiety and not not less.

Just this Monday, I met with a number of parents from my constituency, and all they want for their children is to have a chance at life. And so I ask the Ministers, perhaps she'll address this in her points. And this is a question put to me by parents that the consultation doesn't address sufficiently what will happen to 16 to 19 year olds and what to help them get into work. And so those that can work can get into work. And I have to ask the Ministers, with all that's going out going on outside the chamber, with what's going on in number ten, if the government is consumed by leadership contests and machinations, when will the legislation come to the House? Because that will only this chaos will only further exacerbate the anxiety and anguish for parents and their children.

And I was told yesterday that the government has actually been distributing briefing documents to its MPs to get supportive, supportive responses to its consultation, consultation. If the if the reform proposals are so

**** Possible New Speaker ****

good, why is the government trying to stack its own consultation? Thank you. I thank the shadow Ministers for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the shadow Ministers for giving way. It does seem a little bit confused in his remarks. In the same breath, he's urging the same breath, he's urging the government to bring the bill to tackle the broken system to the House as soon as possible. In the House as soon as possible. In the other breath, he's saying that the consultation hasn't run its full course and hasn't brought enough people in. Which is it because it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

people in. Which is it because it can't be two at the same time? Yeah. I think the hon. Member wasn't paying attention. Actually, what I said was I worry that the consultation is being stacked, but actually parents want to see the legislation because there is not enough clarity in the consultation. They do not have the answers to the questions they are asking. And I certainly hope the parents that he meets make that clear to him. Mr. Mr. Mr Speaker Madam Deputy Speaker With little indication, with little indication that the government are going to 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 are fully funded. Access to training helping 100,000 extra young people into work every year. In addition, we will seek to encourage more employers to take on 18 to 21 year olds by introducing a business rebate for investment in Training and Skills Skills Scheme the Brit scheme providing a new incentive of up to £5,000 for businesses to take on 18 to 20 year olds.

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 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 don't help young people into work and end up being footed by. And the bill gets ended up and ends up being footed by the taxpayer.

Some who have not benefited from a university education themselves. That's why our alternative King's Speech lays out plans to get more people into apprenticeships using money saved from cutting low value, low outcome

**** Possible New Speaker ****

degrees algebra. Thank my hon. Friend giving way. I want to make a point to help him. I want to make a point to help him. So I think there's a page of his speeches missed and dropped on the floor getting ready for it. I've floor getting ready for it. I've heard nothing in his comments about the 40% drop in young people doing apprenticeships when his when his apprenticeships when his when his government was in power, or the devastating impact on Peterborough that more young, less young people did an apprenticeship because of the policy of his government.

If he's dropped that piece of paper and forgot to mention it, I'm very happy to supply him with the facts.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

So I say to the hon. Member, we created over 5 million apprentices. And let me say this if you want to And let me say this if you want to hire young people, you have to have an economy that works for businesses that hire them. But I'm sure the mayor of Peterborough Paul, sure the mayor of Peterborough Paul, Bristol, will be doing an excellent job in making sure that there is more investment in education and investment in young people. Alongside rebalancing the system, we're also looking to abolish real interest on plan two student loans, interest on plan two student loans, ending the unfair cycle whereby higher interest rates mean graduate debt rises faster than graduates can pay it off.

These 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 they do not have a plan for young people, and will continue to tinker around the edges rather than make genuine, bold change. Now I finish where I started because the constant speculation about the future of the Prime Minister does mean his Ministers won't be spending time and looking on how to make a better deal for young people, whether it's boosting home ownership or reducing youth unemployment or getting the economy growing.

In fact, just yesterday, Madam Speaker, I read reports of the Ministers for children asking the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure. Now the Health Secretary has resigned.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I asked the Ministers does she support the Prime Minister? Ministers Ministers Georgia

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Gould. Madam Deputy Speaker, it's an

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Madam Deputy Speaker, it's an honour today to close this King's Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty's Government, and I'd like Majesty's Government, and I'd like to thank everyone from across the chamber for their thoughtful and wide ranging contributions and to the hon. Member opposite, I will come in detail to to some of those comments, but I just wanted to start by saying that it's a shame that they didn't ask for the help of the work experience student that supported the hon.

Member from Bishop Auckland in developing his statistics today, because he might
16:02
Georgia Gould Portrait Georgia Gould MP (Queen's Park and Maida Vale, Labour)
-
-
have been a bit more accurate as as we've already heard under his we've already heard under his government, apprenticeship starts for young people went down by 40%. And under this government they've And under this government they've gone up. This year, we've seen over 300,000 people get into work. And 300,000 people get into work. And just this morning we have seen the UK have the fastest growth of 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 to those detailed questions later. But I wanted to to to talk to, to some of the issues that were raised across the chamber today. I think Ministers members have shown the importance of growth and opportunity in every single community. We hired a really powerful speech by my hon. Friend from Rossendale and Darwen, who talked about the importance of investment in towns. We heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the importance of coastal communities and then from the hon.

Member for South Devon about the importance of rural communities, and it's been so powerful, I think, to hear MPs from across the House bringing the voices of those different communities into this chamber. I also wanted to thank those who raised the critical issue of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and I want to ensure the member opposite that that is the purpose that the Secretary of State and myself are focussed on every day. I spent this morning speaking to special schools yesterday, speaking to families, and 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. And it's a critical issue. And we heard, I think, from a number of members about how important this is for their constituents. So I wanted to start with my hon. Friend from Jarrow and Gateshead and agree with her call to, to, to ensure that we really do hear the voices of families and the Secretary of State and myself and and other Ministers have been travelling around the country talking to families, and we have heard that too often they have to fight for the support their children need and that the system we have, a system that we inherited is failing too many families and it needs to change.

Support needs to go in earlier, and we need to to make sure that we are supporting every child to, to, to develop their, their opportunities to the best of their ability. And I wanted to thank the Member for my hon. Friend from from Jarrow and Gateshead for sharing her diagnosis. And I know that everyone across this House will agree that she is an important role model for for other people with Neurodivergence, and shows how important it is that that people with autism take up roles across the the our society and provide that leadership.

And I'd also like to commit to to meeting with her to discuss the issues that she raised. I also wanted to thank the hon. Member from Truro and Falmouth for her contributions about early intervention, the importance of best start hubs of of the the the support for breakfast clubs and how critical it is to to support families at the earliest possible point for for for children with special educational needs and disabilities. And my hon. Friend from Bracknell made important points about accountability.

And again, these are issues we're talking to families about. And I also welcome the the promise of partnership and scrutiny from the hon. Member for for South Devon, this is such an important issue. And it's it's our commitment is to work cross-party to make sure that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

we're getting it right. On that point. I'm really. Grateful for her. Giving way. I tried to intervene

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Giving way. I tried to intervene on the shadow Ministers but wasn't successful. I did just want to ask about that cross-party consensus. about that cross-party consensus. We. Was she as surprised as I was to see in this so-called alternative King's speech? No alternative King's speech? No commitment at all on special educational needs from the Conservative Party. And does she share my concern that that demonstrates the complete lack of seriousness on this really important issue from the party

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opposite? I think the the the party opposite have been remarkably opposite have been remarkably silent for a long time about the failures in this system. And, you know, quick to, to, to ask for, for know, quick to, to, to ask for, for us to take action, but, but less quick to set out what, what they would, what they would do would, what they would do differently. And this is an issue that they failed to grip for years that they failed to grip for years and which we are gripping head on and taking forward legislation and putting investment right now into our communities.

And and my hon. Friends mentioned the experts at hand service the investment in new special schools. That is making a difference today. But the issue that I think every single member or almost every single member that spoke talked about was, was youth unemployment and, and how important it is to get behind our young people and support them into work. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland talked about the scarring impact of of youth unemployment. The honourable and my hon. Friend from Peterborough talked about what what that impact is having in his community, and this is something that is absolutely at the heart of the government's agenda.

It's why we've introduced the Youth Guarantee, and it's why we're investing billions of pounds to support it. And today, I think at the heart of this debate is how we restore opportunity to the British people, after decades of that being denied to them. And I think we've heard from so many speakers that a job is about more than just a salary. It brings choice, control, agency and freedom over our lives. And that's what's at stake here. Madam Deputy Speaker, we want to build a country in which opportunity is open to all, not as the privilege of birth or background, the product of luck or circumstances.

Rather, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opportunity is the right of anyone and everyone willing to work hard and grab it with both hands. Yeah.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. That's what Great Britain working again means to me and to this government. The opportunities created by our modern industrial strategy open to everyone, because that's the story we tell ourselves in Britain. If you work hard, you can get on no matter who you are. can get on no matter who you are. Aspiration should be for all, and it's an absolute privilege to serve as Ministers for school standards in a department that's driving this forward every day, led by my right hon.

Friend, because it is an education that we can make this a reality where we can restore opportunity to people of all ages, in every village, town and city, and build the economy and society of tomorrow. And that's what this government is doing. And that means reaching young people who are not working, not in training. Almost a million of these young people, as we've heard today, a million reasons why this government's Youth Guarantee is so important. And I've been travelling around the country speaking to families and young people about sand.

And I was speaking to an 18 year old who loved computing and had been out of school and had applied to hundreds of jobs, but they had been turned down for every single one of them. And my hon. Friend from Northumberland, North Northumberland, talked about that feeling of hopelessness. Sorry, I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

just need to take a second. Sorry. If you'd like to come forward.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Intervention Saqib Bhatti Madam Deputy Speaker. I just want to really recognise

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to really recognise the wonderful work that the that the the the intervention. doubt.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

doubt. I just wanted to recognise the wonderful work that doorkeepers do around this house. I don't think around this house. I don't think they get enough credit. And I'd really like to ask your wisdom and how I put that on record, if that's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

all right. Thank you, Mr. Saqib Bhatti.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Mr. Saqib Bhatti. Point of order. We'll treat it as a point of order. And thank you for bringing the attention to all of our attention, the fantastic work that the doorkeepers do. I personally would like to put that on the record, mostly because I wouldn't be able to do my job unless I acknowledge the work that they do. And that is absolutely, absolutely the right thing to do. I absolutely the right thing to do. I believe that the Ministers would like to quickly, as the Ministers finished proceedings, the debate

**** Possible New Speaker ****

concluded, I believe. I'm really sorry. I've got a two

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm really sorry. I've got a two and a half year old took me off all night, so I think I'm just feeling a bit faint. I'm really, really a bit faint. I'm really, really sorry about that, but but I, I wanted to conclude by, by setting wanted to conclude by, by setting out how important it is for this government to support the next generation, to support young people. generation, to support young people. And as we bring forward the our Bill, we will have the young people in our minds, particularly those with special educational needs and disability, those who've been let down, and we will do everything in our power to support them.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah, fantastic. I beg to move that. The debate we now adjourn. The question is we now adjourn. The question is that the debate be now adjourned, as many people say, I of the contrary, no. I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. I'll give the front bench a moment to shuffle

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd I'd like I'd like to I'd like to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'd like to move. I beg to move that this house do now adjourn. The question is that this House

**** Possible New Speaker ****

do now adjourn, and I come to Sarah Olney. Impact of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Sarah Olney. Thank you, Madam.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam. Deputy Speaker. The debate. Surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who are in opposition to a third runway, citing the economic benefits, which are overstated. While the environmental consequences are unavoidable. While I have always opposed the third runway at Heathrow, the timing of this current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past ten years, while the addition
16:13
Sarah Olney Portrait Sarah Olney MP (Richmond Park, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
of nearly 300 000 more flights and expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable. It is widely rumoured unachievable. It is widely rumoured that Heathrow Airport Limited do not even believe the timing of expansion to be practical. But expansion to be practical. But despite this, on the 29th of January 2025, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced her support for Exchequer announced her support for a third runway to be built at Heathrow Airport. Now, this endorsement was the landmark announcement during a speech on announcement during a speech on growth and as such, as a significant amount of political weight behind it.

And my plea to the Ministers is to ask that any decision to be taken on a third runway at Heathrow is based upon merit and unbiased data, not upon politics. The decision has an enormous impact upon millions of lives, and it must be more than just a signal to investors to compensate for the government's economic mismanagement. Now, while the Chancellor believes that expansion at Heathrow will produce economic growth nearly 18 months later, the government is yet to produce their economic analysis to support this assertion.

While 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 -£2.2 billion. Now, even this figure is admitted to being a generous estimate, as the Dft's guidance suggests that international transfer passengers, which are estimated to make up 75% of the projected third runway capacity, do not contribute to the UK's economy.

So when discounting these 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 are currently missing from the economic analysis of aviation's contribution to the economy, and I would like to ask the Ministers for his reassurance that this research will be conducted and published with the Airports National Policy Statement.

Heathrow Airport Limited has stated that the cost of building a third runway will be an eye watering £49 billion, and that's before factoring an estimated £100 billion of carbon abatement costs and at least £15 billion of investment on surface access upgrade improvements. And of course, 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. Now, the government has 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 for reassurances that none of the costs associated with building a third runway at Heathrow will be pushed onto the taxpayer, happy to give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank my. Hon. Friend. And member for giving way and bringing this giving way and bringing this important debate and discussion. It's an issue which matters to my constituents in Hillingdon. I know constituents in Hillingdon. I know hers and many constituents are across the west London area, as she across the west London area, as she rightly points out that there's been discussions about this being privately financed. But as she's touched upon, there are public touched upon, there are public sector burdens and costs.

The extra pressure on the Elizabeth line and capacity needed there. The local road network. Does she agree with me that it's vital that when we look at the economic case, that these possible public sector pressures are fully accounted for in the decision making process? And does she agree with me that the government's four tests are absolutely vital, and we need transparency about how those tests

**** Possible New Speaker ****

are going to be measured and assessed. So I'm grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. We need to see the economic case and we need to look at it in the round. It is not just about the the specific costs associated with building the runway. It is about all the additional It is about all the additional costs associated with with building the third runway, with being able the third runway, with being able to operate it at its at its capacity and all of the impacts that that will have on not just on Heathrow, but the whole of London in the South east.

But the economic argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. While the social and environmental consequences of the third runway are unavoidable, communities will be severely impacted by the additional flights that a third runway would bring, as it is expected that nearly 325,000 more people will fall within the Department for Transport's significantly affected decibel level measurement, and that doesn't even reference the increased bombardment of noise that houses already impacted by Heathrow's flights are likely to experience. Not only would this noise disturbance be impactful on people's everyday lives, whether it be their sleeping pattern or their ability to work from home, it would also have serious physical and mental health repercussions for local residents.

People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of a stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared to people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. So will the Ministers confirm how many people will be exposed to noise at 45dB? The level that the World Health Organization estimates that health impacts begin, and 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'd be grateful if the Ministers could confirm that the government does not plan to approve anything which would fly more planes over households during the during night time hours.

Yesterday, the government also outlined their plan to introduce the Civil Aviation Bill in this parliamentary session. Will the Ministers outline a timeline for the introduction of this bill, and will he explain how the government is able to provide communities with reassurances that a third runway will not bring new or extended disruptions when airspace changes are yet to even 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 has used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion, and they are yet to provide any evidence which shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits. International uncertainty with China's introduction of their own SAF mandate, which accounts for over 90% of our imported SAF and challenges to UK US trade, has meant that the UK's own SAF targets, which in itself 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 was underscored by the Climate Change Committee's report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK's aviation industry will be using SAF by 2040, and this is 5% lower than the government's own mandated targets and 8% below the EU's target. This estimate does not even take into account the additional flights, which will 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 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, and a third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. So I would like to ask the Ministers, does he still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets? With the expansion of Heathrow Airport? This government has repeated that they will be honouring and respecting the Labour Party's poor tests, as highlighted by the hon.

Member a minute ago. 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 these tests can be passed, let alone all four. But what I would like to ask the Ministers is that the government honours the principle of the test and does not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data. I hope that I've underlined the importance of this decision on our economy, on our environment and on our local communities.

And moreover, I hope that it has impressed upon the government that this decision cannot move ahead solely on the basis of political expediency.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Munira Wilson, you sought all the appropriate permissions.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Munira Wilson thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank congratulate my hon. Friend thank congratulate my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for securing this important debate for her excellent speech and for giving me permission to make a speech, and me permission to make a speech, and I thank the Ministers as well for allowing me to speak today as well. And my hon. Friend has clearly laid And my hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that I think Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we've heard
16:22
Munira Wilson Portrait Munira Wilson MP (Twickenham, Liberal Democrat)
-
-
publicly today. But I'm also grateful to the Ministers for having previously met us when we set out a number of those questions set out a number of those questions previously privately to him. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, as my hon. Friend has already said in the Friend has already said in the King's speech yesterday, the government set out that legislation will be introduced to unlock the will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion as as they said yesterday. I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking what benefits? Because the truth is, as my hon.

Friend has eloquently set out, the government has still provided precious little evidence to support its far reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Madam Deputy Speaker, many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or indeed health costs. Now it's obvious that the government's expansion of Heathrow and not just Heathrow, but London Stansted, Gatwick and Luton will have a significant impact on this country's climate commitments. Now, when I and other hon. Members have raised these concerns in the House, the minister's answers are always revert back to sustainable aviation fuel every time.

But the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet and 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 to 9 megatons of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. By putting all our eggs in this basket, the Environmental Audit Committee has warned the government's delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is, in their words, in serious jeopardy.

And, Madam Deputy Speaker, we must not also lose sight of the human cost. At the heart of this debate, 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in air pollution, noise pollution by 2050 and working people who 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 thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon.

Friend has already set out clearly the resulting health impacts. Madam Deputy Speaker, over the past 15 months, I like my hon. Friend and a number of others have asked this Ministers, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. And they all insist that taxpayers money will not be used to fund expansion at Heathrow. But frankly, it's hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow Airport itself and the eye watering, ever rising costs of a third runway.

As we've already heard, Heathrow itself has suggested its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates range much higher. And this country's track record of delivering on 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, spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure, jacking up prices for bill payers or in this case, those taking flights, knowing that government is ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong.

So 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. Madam Deputy Speaker, as we've heard already, we deserve transparency and accountability from this government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This government is delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they've been sitting on the minister's desk for months.

The Ministers has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to properly scrutinise the anps, and that means a debate and a vote of this House, and I very much hope that the Ministers will address these questions head on today. Madam Deputy Speaker, 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 as well as political stability. We cannot have another HS2 where a decade down the line, half the project gets cancelled.

Too much is at risk with the week we've 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. So the Ministers must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it's too late. For the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities, and for the sake of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

our environment. Thank you. Ministers Keir Mather Ministers.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond to this incredibly important debate, and I would like important debate, and I would like to thank the hon. Members in attendance today and in particular, the hon. Member for Richmond Park the hon. Member for Richmond Park for securing this debate. We have engaged on this topic before, and I would welcome any further engagement in the build up to and engagement in the build up to and following the publication of the draft amended MPs.

Yeah, very briefly. Thank you. I'm very grateful for his his commitment in terms of engagement right now, today in Egham and Putney Green area, there is traffic chaos going on. The I am opposed to the third runway. This third runway is going to make the transport situation in the north of my constituency worse. It's going to cause problems with increased noise and air pollution. Will he engage with our local communities so he can hear from them how much we don't want it? Well, I thank him for his intervention.

I'd be very pleased to engage both with himself and perhaps through him, with the
16:28
Keir Mather Portrait Keir Mather MP (Selby, Labour)
-
-
community groups that he points to. It's, of course, important to say that the a m p. S review is going to consider the elements of the existing MPs that are related to surface access proposals. That includes Mid Cheshire targets and includes Mid Cheshire targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effects of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. And that's something arrangements. And that's something I'd be very happy to speak about with both him and his constituents. Yes, of course, I'll give way.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yes, of course, I'll give way. I'm very grateful for him giving way as he is making a really important point about the importance of surface access. He'll know because I've pressed him on this before, how important I think it is that we get better rail access to Heathrow, actually, regardless of whether there's a third runway or not, Heathrow has put forward a commitment to looking at both a Western rail link and, really importantly for my constituents in Bracknell Southern rail link to Heathrow.

Would he like to see those plans going ahead? Will he press Heathrow to make sure that they are part of any proposals, and will he do everything he can to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

deliver better rail access for my constituents? Thank you. Well, I thank my hon. Friend for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Madam Deputy Speaker, as part of the MPs process, we are going to consider the government's strategic objectives government's strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets. Any expansion at Heathrow will be tested against those public transport mode share targets that are set out in that MPs rail will are set out in that MPs rail will form an incredibly important part of those considerations, and I'd be happy to have further conversations with my friend to discuss how his constituents might be affected by any expansion, and to discuss mitigations in that space.

Although I do not wish to pre-empt any of the outcomes of the MPs review now, Madam Deputy Speaker, Heathrow expansion and in turn, a third runway at Heathrow Airport would have a transformative impact. And it is essential, as hon. Members have outlined, that the government gets this process right, taking full account of all views and ensuring adequate and fulsome scrutiny. The government recognises 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.

Very briefly and then I will make some progress. Grateful for giving way, notwithstanding my points about the third runway, Heathrow is incredibly important to my local constituents and its success in terms of providing jobs and economic activity locally. Could he update on the situation with kerosene and the responses that he's that his government's taking towards that the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Heathrow and our economy? I hesitate to even raise this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hesitate to even raise this. But in case the Ministers is anxious about time. We can fortunately or unfortunately,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

run to 530 Ministers Keir Mather. Fortunately. Madam Deputy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Fortunately. Madam Deputy Speaker. Come on. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is right to say that the economic right to say that the economic activity and jobs that are created by Heathrow Airport Airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know that constituents in his local area will be looking at what is happening in the Middle East with concern. The Department for transport is engaging very closely, both with our refineries, with the aviation sector, to ensure that we do have security of supply of aviation fuel.

That work is ongoing, and we are confident that in working closely with those stakeholders, we can make sure that the impacts of the crisis in the Middle East are sufficiently mitigated. But I know how important that will be to constituents of his. I would like to turn Madam Deputy Speaker to the point around capacity constraints, which are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow Airport, as the UK's busiest and only hub airports, 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. It has resulted in the UK's only hub airport capacity being constrained, and this has had a material impact on Heathrow, with Heathrow operating at over 95% capacity for most of the two decades. Now our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear 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 could support thousands of jobs, businesses and business groups like the Federation of Small Businesses and 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 has been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, that it can be delivered in line with the UK's legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution. Now, as the hon. Members will be aware, last October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for transport announced that the a MPS, 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 for expansion at Heathrow.

On economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise, the Amps provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway, and any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK's legal climate and environmental obligations. In November, the government announced that the northwest runway scheme put forward by Heathrow Airport Limited will be used to inform the review of the amps. However, once the government has reviewed the amps 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.

Now, Madam Speaker, 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 this stage of the planning process where the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway goes through a strict and independent process. It is examined by the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State for transport then makes a final

**** Possible New Speaker ****

decision on whether to grant consent. Yes. I'd be glad to. I'm very grateful to the Ministers for giving way. He's being very generous with his time. But as Madam Secretary speakers pointed out, we've got quite a lot pointed out, we've got quite a lot of it. The the question I want to raise is that is that the UK raise is that is that the UK government used to have a golden share in Heathrow Airport. However, it was ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice in 2003, and given that the government wants broadly the same thing as any promoter might want, inasmuch as they want Heathrow expansion, that would suggest that the government is in a point of maximum influence in this build up phase, and so could post-Brexit the Ministers consider making conditionality on any progress of the third runway that the British government can get its golden share back, and we can control a great deal more at

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government level of what goes on at Heathrow. Well, Ministers. Well, I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he doesn't for his intervention. If he doesn't mind me saying, I think he may have a slightly overinflated expectation of my powers as a junior Ministers of my powers as a junior Ministers in the Department for transport to compel to compel a change in Heathrow Airport's ownership Heathrow Airport's ownership structure. I think what I'm pleased to say is actually there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the expansion, irrespective of the facts, that the government has set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom.

So I will certainly take his his suggestion on board, but I'm pleased to say that I think the onus is there to make sure that this project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist. Now, to turn briefly back Madam Deputy Speaker to the DCO process, the government is working at pace to ensure that the a MPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act. This is a position that we have consistently maintained since the government's initial announcement in support of expansion last year.

Now, I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but there are two small points of detail that were originally raised, which I would like to address first. The first is on the Civil Aviation Bill and its introduction. That will be a Lords Bill, and it was introduced today, I'm pleased to confirm. So. So that is that. And then on the principle of night flights, the hon. Lady will know that current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we do intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows after this.

Now, although the Amps 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 amps is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny. Now, Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the government has been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The government is working with the CAA to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable, and any increases to fares during expansion are minimised.

Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA's priority, and keeping costs affordable will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

always be a part of the CAA's to. I'm very grateful to the Ministers for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point. He did confirm that the a n s would get parliamentary scrutiny. Could get parliamentary scrutiny. Could you just clarify for the House? Does that mean a debate on the. And

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does that mean a debate on the. And a vote on the floor of this House? I thank the hon. Lady for her

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. So once the amps 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 a MPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny as well. It's 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 a MPS and to hold oral evidence and and other such measures.

But that process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny, which the government fully supports taking place through the Select Committee process. Now, it is our view, Madam Deputy Speaker, that expansion could inject billions into our economy and could support thousands of apprenticeships, strengthen Heathrow's status as a global passenger and air freight hub, and should deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and ultimately lower fares when compared to the world where Heathrow does not expand.

The government has been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the review, the department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion. The outputs of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the review. Now, on the matter of climate commitments, the government is clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. This is something that this government remains absolutely committed to. An increase in carbon emissions associated with Heathrow does not in itself mean that airport expansion cannot take place.

The important point here is that the government remains able to meet its 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. Now, the government published its plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on the 29th of October last year, including on aviation, and will be legislating for the carbon Budget seven targets shortly.

The current MPs sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and these mitigations are being considered as part of the MPs review. Now, the hon. Lady mentioned commitments around noise, which is incredibly important, and turning to it, we recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase. The current MPs provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme could meet. This includes the scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours between the hours of 11 p.m.

and 7 a.m. and a runway alternation scheme that provides communities affected with predictable periods of respite, respite and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets, which we will review as part of the MPs. And just to point back to the two studies which the hon. Lady for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that both of those studies will be published shortly and will be published with the ability of hon. Members to consider them fully alongside the MPs process, so that there is full transparency about the government's work to understand the impacts of noise, both on her constituents and for people who live in proximity to airports across the country.

So we will consider these and other mitigations as part of the MPs review. And just on a separate note, Madam Deputy Speaker, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, which could also bring some noise and carbon benefits. But the review of the MPs will consider if any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations, which are set out in the original document. Now, on the principle of air quality, the government has consistently made clear that air quality obligations must be met.

The current MPs sets out clear air quality requirements and as part of the ongoing review of the MPs, we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality, impacts and mitigation measures contained within it. Now, turning to my hon. Friend's important reference to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow Airport is vitally important, and it 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, and as part of the 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 who 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. And as I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding and this includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links. Now, just briefly, on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, as I noted earlier, 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 which could be felt across the United Kingdom. But we also fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them. And that is why the government is launching a formal consultation on the drafted MPs by the summer. The. Yes, I will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is being incredibly grateful with his expansive time. He mentions mitigations around surface access. I just really wanted to push him because I think this is an opportunity not just to mitigate opportunity not just to mitigate concerns about existing surface access arrangements, but actually also to massively improve them. He'll be aware that across a large swathe of the of the South of England, there is effectively no way to get to the airport apart from driving. So we have an opportunity not just to mitigate but boost, upgrade public transport networks to get to to Heathrow Airport.

Through this process.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, he makes a very fair challenge of me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and he is right to say that the Amps review and the consultation on it is an opportunity for us to look at some of these questions again, and to of these questions again, and to think, as Heathrow continues to offer the unique. It does the United Kingdom's economy as our only international hub airport. How we can facilitate the communities we can facilitate the communities that surround it, having better access to be able to take advantage of both the economic opportunities that can bring for employment, but also the rights of people across the United Kingdom to be able to fly and enjoy holidays with their family.

He raises an incredibly important matter there. I will, yes, why not? I thank him for giving way. Could I, as part of his engagement in looking at surface access, invite him to Egham, where he can see the carnage that the level crossings are causing. The benefits of removing the level crossings and having a direct rail link from Egham to Heathrow. And while he's there, he can probably hear the planes overhead and the impact that noise is already having on that community.

If you would like to write to me, setting out the setting out the terms of his invitation, I'd be very grateful and happy to consider them. But yeah, it would be. It would be great to visit the hon. Member's constituents. Just to turn very briefly, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is Majesty noted yesterday the government is bringing forward the Civil Aviation Bill, which is going to 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 would like to thank all members of the House for attending this debate today for their robust scrutiny of both me and the measures that underpin our review of the Airports National Policy Statement and the principle of Heathrow expansion overall. And but on a serious note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I really would welcome and encourage members to engage with us further on these matters.

I understand that you have got a lot of questions to answer. Oh forgive me. I understand that they have a lot of questions to answer in their constituencies. And do have concerned constituents who want to have it explained to them how best they can participate in this process around the consultation and the future of their local community. So I would really encourage them to reach out to me to do so. I'd be very happy to discuss this further to arrange

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it accordingly, but I thank hon. Members across the House for their contributions today. Yes. The question is this House do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this House do now adjourn as many of that opinion say. I. The ayes have it. The ayes
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page