Getting Britain Working Again

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We do not have a mayor in Devon, so we miss out on a lot of that legislation’s benefits. I have loads of villages that do not even have a bus, so talk of bus fares is completely irrelevant when there is literally no service. How are young people supposed to get to college or work or seek opportunities if they cannot get out of their village?

There was no legislation to require banks to offer a minimum service guarantee to their customers. Lloyds bank made nearly £7 billion in profit in 2025, yet it closed branches with impunity, and the Government’s promises to address the lack of banking services have led to nothing so far.

There are some things in the King’s Speech that I would like to welcome. I am pleased to see the Government pledge finally to break the link between gas and electricity prices, which is vital in a country that depends more heavily on gas than many of our neighbours. Investment in home-grown renewable power is also welcome, but we want to see the focus of solar on warehouses and car parks, not on prime farmland. We also want to see stronger community benefits from new renewable infrastructure, empowering communities with the right to buy and sell community energy locally.

Talk of farmland leads me to a devastating omission from the King’s Speech: not once was the word “nature” mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) so beautifully laid out in her speech last night, that was probably something that the King himself was disappointed to see. Where is the desire to protect our green spaces, to prompt a revival in nature, to restore our ancient forests and our peatlands, and to clean up our dirty rivers and waterways once and for all? We live in one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, yet nature is not a priority for the Government, despite all the benefits that it brings to people’s health and wellbeing. If we truly want to cut the NHS bill, that would be a really good place to start.

The new water Bill is welcome. The Liberal Democrats have long called for Ofwat to be replaced by a regulator that actually has some teeth, but until the Government address the elephant in the room and look at the ownership of the water industry, nothing will really change. No one should be making a profit from water: something that is so vital not only to us as humans, but to the health of all our planet’s ecosystems. The Liberal Democrats have long led the campaign in Parliament against the sewage scandal, tabling 44 amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, none of which the Government or the Conservatives accepted. They must do more.

Lastly, I will mention the education for all Bill. We all know that support for children with special educational needs is broken, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling it; we urgently need this reform. As my party’s schools spokesperson, I will scrutinise every line of the legislation when it comes before the House, so I will no doubt have time to say far more about it, but let me say this. We must build a system designed around the potential that every child has and that works to their strengths, noticing their gifts and talents and what they can achieve given the right support. We must stop judging them by their limitations, ostracising them, separating them from their peers and causing lifelong damage to their mental health and confidence.

Reform to SEND must be done with children and parents at its heart, with open, honest consultation with families, and with a serious commitment to invest the money needed in our educators and our schools so that they can rise to the challenge and truly build a more inclusive system that works for every child, from those facing the hardest of challenges to the lucky and blessed high achievers among them.

It is a strange thing to deliver this speech opposite Government Benches that are so clearly riven by intrigue, and not knowing who will be leading this legislation through Parliament. It is my hope that whatever path our Government colleagues decide to go down today—or over the next few days and weeks—they will commit to going further in the areas that I have set out, remember the challenges and higher costs faced by rural areas in service delivery and communications, and prioritise nature in every single major decision they make about infrastructure and new building programmes. Think bigger, think bolder, think greener for the benefit of everyone.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I please gently remind Members that we must not make reference to the monarch having particular views?

--- Later in debate ---

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

In 2024, the British people, including so many of my constituents, voted for change. After a decade of brutal austerity, they desperately needed a drastic and material improvement in their living standards. The last King’s Speech championed measures that have the potential to radically change the situation for people, from renters’ rights to employment rights and more. I am pleased that this King’s Speech brings forward the Government’s commitments to end conversion practices and to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds.

Yet we are not seeing the transformative agenda that the country has been crying out for and that people who have always supported Labour want. We have seen policy U-turns, from winter fuel allowance to the lifting of the two-child limit, following significant political and public pressure. We have seen policies that the British public rejected just last week, such as the changes to indefinite leave to remain and, of course, the continued failure to take meaningful action against the genocide in Gaza. We have also seen the targeting of refugees and migrants, and the provisions of the immigration and asylum Bill are incredibly alarming. The direction of travel in policy means that the Government are now left facing existential questions about what the Labour party stands for, who it stands for and why.

The Government said in response to their losses last week that there needs to be a faster and quicker shift, but in the same direction. I want to be clear that this is not what my constituents want. My constituents and I refuse to accept that poverty and inequality have to be a normal part of our society and that nothing can be done about it. That is not why I came into politics.

It is true that the stark disregard for human suffering displayed by the Conservative Government will never, ever be forgotten. They drove people into poverty then punished them for being poor. They pursued the vulnerable and persecuted the disabled. That is why people have been desperate for real change. It is also true, however, that the United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world and London is the fifth wealthiest city in the world. The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of the population, and the UK’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than 50% of our population. In that context, people simply do not believe that they must continue to endure more hardship for any longer.

I have said before that everything has to be costed and nothing is free in the purest sense, but the fact is that we are a relatively wealthy country and the resources are there in some form. They could be raised, for example, by ensuring that big business and the wealthy pay their fair share. If the wealthiest 1% in this country were taxed just a modest 1% more, it would raise £25 billion and leave more after. It is a question of priorities, political choices and in whose interests decisions are made.

I find myself asking again and again, “If there is not enough money, what is the plan to make sure that there is?” Why does austerity still have to be the political choice? That is why I call for the overall benefit cap to be lifted in full; the lifting of the two-child limit alone still leaves thousands of families excluded and trapped in poverty.

I appeal to the Government to ensure that there are no further attacks on the rights of disabled people in the UK. The Timms review is due to report in autumn, and I am obliged to make it clear for my constituents, many of whom are already impacted by cuts to the health component of universal credit, that any further attempts to restrict or cut personal independence payments would be disastrous and have to be dropped. If they are not dropped, at bare minimum there must be a full parliamentary vote.

Surely the greatest duty of any Government must be to protect and empower the most vulnerable people in our society and deliver social good, not social harm. I am clear about what my role must be, who elected me, and who I am here to represent, and I cannot in my conscience allow the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled to be exposed to any further brutality. If there is no money for disabled people not to be further punished through the welfare system, then the money must be found. If the way our economy is run means that large scale human suffering and wasted potential is unavoidable, it is up to the Government to change the way the economy is run.

The King’s Speech proposed a step forward towards the nationalisation of British Steel. I welcome that intention, just as I welcomed the first steps towards the nationalisation of railways in the last Session. However, it presents nationalisation almost as a move of last resort, after private interests have extracted all the profits they can from privatised industries. Why can we not have a conversation about nationalisation in the public good? When we are seeing the dire, shameful way that the private water industry is being mismanaged, a new water ombudsman in the clean water Bill is not enough to meet the scale of the problem. If they have the political will, the Government can meet the public support and demand for public ownership for mail, rail, water and gas, and end the disastrous experiments with privatisation.

I reaffirm my commitment to a publicly owned and run NHS that provides free and funded healthcare for all. That principle was an ironclad manifesto commitment, yet we have seen a return to private finance initiatives in the NHS—the same initiatives that have had disastrous consequences in constituencies such as mine in east London. Doctors themselves are resisting controversial Government decisions to sign partnerships with Palantir, and along with that, the agreement last year to appease Donald Trump will strip away National Institute for Health and Care Excellence medicine price controls, and lock in higher drug prices, doubling NHS spend on new medicines, and diverting funds from other vital NHS functions. That will only serve to benefit American big pharma. Private interests should never line their pockets at the expense of our society’s health, not least under a Labour Government.

The economy must also work to resolve the housing crisis. I have been looking closely at the social housing Bill, and I welcome its provisions and measures to protect tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse—something the sector has long been campaigning for. However, we will be looking at such measures closely because they need to work in practice, and I remain concerned about the Bill more widely. Can it truly provide the solutions needed to solve the housing crisis without ensuring a commitment to a mass social housing building programme and rent controls?

My east London constituency has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the entire country. We have people living in uninhabitable and overcrowded homes that are also not affordable. That is set against a backdrop of rising wealth in the financial sector and the encroaching City of London in the west, and the ever-expanding Canary Wharf real estate. It is why many of my constituents are concerned about what the legacy and future of the Billingsgate market site in my constituency could be. Could it provide genuinely affordable homes, or could it lead to more luxury flats being built that will drive local people, including families, out of our area? Likewise, many of my constituents who are struggling in the cost of living crisis are interested to know what the Government’s discussions with the financial giant J.P. Morgan will end up meaning for our area and whether decisions are being driven in the interests of local people and for the longevity of our area.

The Prime Minister claimed yesterday that the King’s Speech

“will tear down the status quo”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 22.]

The risk here is that disillusionment has begun to settle in. I believe there needs to be less talk of delivery and missions and more talk about how the Government will truly rebalance power and address inequality in the interests of workers and working-class people in this country. The Government must be louder and bolder, but in a vastly different political direction. That must mean showing up as a Government who take people’s material concerns seriously and addressing those concerns in line with the Labour values that they were founded on. More incrementalism sends a message to the British people that the Government do not understand what has gone wrong, because this country and its economy are not working for millions of people, and that demands transformative action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.