King’s Speech

Lord Purvis of Tweed Excerpts

Wednesday 13th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, given the news today, I read nothing into the fact that a former Whip and someone who is qualified in putting out fires are moving and seconding the Motion today. I very much welcome the gracious, witty and warm mover of the Address—the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. She was very kind to the leadership across the House, including that of the relatively new Lord Speaker. These Benches rather like the neutrality of the Lord Speaker these days. We share the noble Baroness’s passion for Europe and would also be perfectly happy if, as a consequence of her speech, there is a run on a market—a farmers’ market, as I think I heard her encourage us to eat our greens.

We also welcome the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Ray. We very much hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, is not on her way out, but we are very confident that the noble Lord, Lord Ray—

[Noble Lords]

Roe!

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

The noble Lord, Lord Roe, will definitely be up the political ladder, if not the firefighters’ ladder. I was thinking about how many firefighting puns I could fit into a minute, but I shared his reflection on the relationship with the Chief Whip and the lack of freedom that happens when one arrives here. My predecessor as leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, was our Chief Whip when I arrived here. I clearly remember when he said to me on my first day, “The last thing I ever want to hear you say is that you will decide how to vote after listening to the debate”. I reassure him that, when it comes to voting, I do not like tuna melts, so it will not be me eating his supper.

As the proud son of an ambulance driver, I pay tribute to the noble Lord and his colleagues as first responders in the emergency services for the work that they do around the clock at all times of the year keeping all our communities safe. I thank him for that.

“On growth, defence, Europe, energy—we need a bigger response”.


That is what we were told by the Prime Minister on Monday, and we share that view. Of the new measures announced today, there will be some areas on which we agree, such as parts of the policing changes, NHS structures and SEND, and elements on which we have previously called for action, such as water reform, leasehold reform and the Hillsborough law, which for all of us here is very much unfinished business from previous Sessions. But there will be others on which we will have major concerns, such as illiberal immigration proposals, ID or Heathrow expansion.

A little over a decade ago, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, proposed the same Motion that the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, proposed today. He said:

“I am firmly of the view that the less legislation, the better”. —[Official Report, 4/6/14; col. 7.]


I think it is fair to say that others have not been as firm in that view in recent years. Given that we have as many as seven carryover Bills, we are starting a new Session with the unfinished business of the old. We are due to receive 37 Bills in the coming Session. Many laws do not necessarily good government make. But we will approach those to be completed and those to be presented in the same manner as we did in the last Session.

On behalf of my colleagues, I am grateful for the openness and approachability of the Lord Privy Seal and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy—although we are, he might take note, perhaps a little less keen on the late-night sittings than the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley —and the whole ministerial team in this House. We appreciate their accessibility and openness.

In her reply to the last debate on the Address, the Lord Privy Seal will recall that she said that

“when the House expresses a constructive view, the Government should treat that with respect”.—[Official Report, 17/7/24; col. 23.]

She knows that there were times when we acted on that invitation when it came to our voting, and I dare say we shall again.

If we are to be a self-regulating House, we must ensure that our House is in order. So, I have gladly added my name to the letter to the leaders in the usual channels referred to by the noble Lord, Lord True, reminding us how Report and Third Reading should be carried out. Good scrutiny should be thorough in this House, but this House needs to be efficient, too.

It is obvious that the backcloth to today’s proceedings is the tumult within the Government and whether they have the right approach and level of aspiration to face the major challenges the nation faces. With a possibility of having four different Prime Ministers in four years, Sir Keir Starmer was asked on Monday whether this country was ungovernable. These Benches believe not that the country is broken but that our electoral system and the constitution are, and that both require radical change.

Our politics is too easily interfered with by external forces, whether they be Russia, China or crypto funds from the US. We want to work with the Government to strengthen the protection of our own democracy. The issue is deeper than just who is resident in Downing Street, important though that is. No UK Government in my lifetime have been elected by the majority of the British people, but they have acted as if they have. Only one, where two parties worked together, commanded a plurality of support—and it was the only time in the last 20 years that a Prime Minister completed a parliamentary term.

The challenges the country faces are increasing, but the actual vote mandate of government has declined. This is not sustainable, nor is it healthy. We will tackle the major problems ahead only if we have a broader and more democratic consensus. Without it, those who exploit differences on the far left and far right will continue to have sufficient grievance.

In recent days, I have heard repeated reference to the Government’s large majority in the Commons, but little acknowledgement that two-thirds of those who voted in 2024 did not vote for them. Many had hoped this incoming Government would have understood their limited popular mandate and would start a serious reforming agenda, but they have not yet. Instead, we see tweaking, and too many of our electorate feel deeply that tweaking is insufficient.

The perversions of the electoral system have encouraged recent Governments to focus on a smaller and smaller part of society. In their first year, the Government sought to accommodate the reactionary right, so instead of marvelling at how incredibly successful this country is as a multicultural nation, we heard that we might become “an island of strangers”. Instead of stating loud and clear that we would lead the charge to finally rid the world of absolute poverty, we heard globally respected UK international development described as the world’s charity, which must be halved. Now we see the clamour to tack to a hard left, to the comfort of nationalisation and overregulation. When in power, you can make the weather and not just be buffeted by the winds. All too often in the previous Session we saw the Government buffeted off a course they themselves were uncertain of.

It is obvious that, among the Bills we will receive, the relationship with our biggest trading partner will gain focus. Of course, we welcome any moves for a closer relationship with Europe, but we already know the Government’s own estimate that their reset in EU-UK trade will deliver just a 0.3% uplift to UK GDP by 2030—less than 1/10th of the 4% long-run reduction in UK growth in GDP, which is already seen as an underestimate. In other terms, a £90 billion a year Brexit revenue shortfall is largely unaffected, and the trading agreements with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and India will barely meet 0.5% of GDP growth in the long term. Sir Alec Douglas-Home said in 1973 that our head is wise enough and our heart is big enough to embrace both the European Community and the modern Commonwealth. That remains true. Indeed, it is now in our strategic interest that we approach a closer relationship with Europe and remove the economic and irrational red lines on our future relationship.

The reset Bill should not start with setting limitations but instead should enable opportunities. A Bill that sets a cap on ambition will need that cap removed, and we will seek a coalition in this House to remove the red lines. You cannot be at the heart of something when you are on the outside asking for attention. You cannot lead something when you have set red lines saying that you will not participate, and you cannot get the advantages of it when you are not in it. Looking forward, for our businesses, our rural traders, our retail and hospitality sectors, our consumers and, vitally, our young people, it is a strategic priority that we make real progress for a reunion with our close allies in the customs union and single market, and then EU membership, which remains our long-term objective.

Beyond Europe, there was rightly some mention of the crises we see in the world today and the need for us to advance our defences. We support the Government in that. We are impatient for the defence investment plan, and there is still no clarity on joint UK-EU defence procurement. Speed is vital, as the very nature of warfare is changing rapidly and the advance of technology poses new threats. We also need to note the scale. For example, private US tech companies are spending on AI the same as the entire annual UK defence budget every seven weeks.

It was right that the Government chose not to be part of the Iranian war, but we will potentially need to have measures to support British customers, consumers and travellers with the ongoing impact. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, very sincerely that we know that others outside this country will seek to inflame tensions. We will work with the Government to root this out. There is an unacceptable level of antisemitism and extreme Islamophobic racism, and we will support any cross-party approach to tackle this scourge.

Finally, it was sad to me that the world’s worst humanitarian crisis was not mentioned. Yesterday, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights issued a devastating report on the ongoing horrors done by the Sudanese Armed Forces and the Rapid Support Forces to the civilian population in Sudan, in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. That commission report called for urgent measures to protect civilians. Our Government are the penholder on Sudan at the Security Council; we appeal again to them to finally co-ordinate, and then secure, urgent measures to protect civilians in this terrible conflict.

Overall, this Government have the immense responsibility of governing. For the coming Session, we want—for all of us, across all the country—for them to succeed. Where we disagree with them, we shall say so and where they deserve to be supported, we will do so. This is our duty.