Category: Loyal Address Speeches

  • David Smith – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    David Smith – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    The speech made by David Smith, the Labour MP for North Northumberland, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), whose comments on community energy I will come to in a moment.

    It is a real honour to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address on behalf of my constituents in North Northumberland, where the electricity grid is owned by Warren Buffett, the water system is overseen from Hong Kong and most of the buses are run out of Miami. Across many decades and multiple Governments, we have made ourselves a society where everything can be bought and sold for the right price, but the things that matter are often slipping away.

    We heard renewed commitments in the King’s Speech from the Government to improve our economic security, whether by ensuring a fair deal for working people, responding to the Timms and Milburn reviews on welfare or delivering an energy independence Bill. I welcome those commitments. According to the pollster More in Common, seven in 10 Britons feel that our country is “on the wrong track”, and

    “many are starting to conclude that the problems…lie…with the system itself.”

    This is a long-term trend. The job of the Government must therefore be to cast a vision of the future that transforms the status quo and then implements it. But what does that future look like, and how does it relate to the economic issues of work, welfare and energy?

    The late Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said:

    “We are each a letter in God’s book. Like a letter, we have no meaning on our own, but joined together in families, communities and nations, we form sentences and paragraphs and become part of God’s story.”

    Even if we do not share his religious views, Sacks’s message is clear: life must be lived together. Sacks called this a covenant. We are used to talking in terms of a social contract—a phrase we hear a lot—but the social contract asks, “What am I getting out of this?”, while the social covenant asks, “What do we owe each other?”. We therefore need to legislate for a society that helps us to think about what we owe each other.

    Work remains central to the task of transforming the country. This is one of the Government’s top priorities—we are, after all, the Labour party. Work is also the main way that we contribute to our shared national life. However, our national relationship with work is threatened. One million young people are not in education, employment or training, and AI is threatening a period of disruption that we have not seen since the days of the spinning jenny. We have done many worthwhile things already to improve work; the Employment Rights Act 2025 was a landmark piece of legislation. However, we need to go further to restore the way that we see and do work.

    The UK is below average among major nations for in-work training, so we should require employers to invest in their employees’ skills with training opportunities. We should also incentivise a stakeholder economy in which more staff share in the value that they help to create, and replicate the European model of giving ordinary workers seats on company boards. In short, the success of the company should be linked to the thriving of its employees. The steel industry nationalisation Bill creates the perfect opportunity for us to model that for the rest of the economy. Working together in a covenantal Britain, we can see that change.

    Covenant also speaks to our social security system. According to the last data available, 24 million people in the UK are receiving some form of benefits, including pensions. The total cost of our welfare system is greater than our income tax take, and that strain is weakening our togetherness and the idea of fairness on which the system relies. We need a new Beveridge report for the 21st century. The original report identified—in anachronistic language—the five giants as want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. I suggest that the giants of 2026 are: poverty, worklessness, isolation and hopelessness.

    I welcome the Government’s upcoming response to the Milburn and Timms reviews. We are a party that will always support the most vulnerable in our society, and it is right and just to support those who cannot work or who need help to work. We need a welfare system that is based on contribution and in which people are delighted to say, “Yes, I am my brother’s keeper.”

    Finally, I welcome the Government’s commitment to energy security and the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech, but without a covenantal relationship between Government and community, we will lose support for the green transition. King’s College London has found that the share of those who support net zero sooner than 2050 has halved since 2021. Meanwhile, energy price rises are already affecting parts of our country and our economy, as we all know. When the first American missile was launched into Iran, some of my constituents’ heating and hot water prices doubled. A covenantal response to that is to say, “Let’s work with local communities to meet their needs now instead of pressing on towards jam tomorrow,” so if a wind farm is created in the vicinity of a community with the consent or ownership of that community, the community should benefit financially.

    We must also acknowledge that many of our constituents will be reliant on oil and gas for decades to come. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, 14,000 properties are not on the gas grid. Let us rebuild our energy security and supply using a realistic mix of options, and let us leave everything on the table so that it serves everyone.

    In conclusion, the dead end of unfettered market capitalism has been broken by its own failure to deliver decent jobs and affordable energy. We all now need our future to be built on something that brings both economic security and restored social relationships. In short, we need covenant. The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. Nye Bevan once said:

    “We have to build a party that is capable of expressing the desires of the people who sent us here—not just their immediate desires, but their deeper longings for a just and generous society.”

    The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy. To do this, all of us —Government, party and country—need to commit to a new social covenant.

  • Fleur Anderson – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Fleur Anderson – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    It is a privilege to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address in reply to the King’s Speech. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their proposing speeches and congratulate them.

    It is an honour to be the MP for Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the people who have stopped me—on the street, at events or when I go to schools—to thank me for the work I do for our community. That is not often the image of MPs, which is usually about being constantly harassed and abused, but, honestly, the people of Putney are wonderful and I am so grateful for their support for my work. We do not always agree on everything, but they are very supportive of my work as an MP, and I thank them for that.

    In a short time, His Majesty’s Government have delivered real change that matters to people in Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth Town, who tell me what the Government are doing to make a difference to their lives. We have raised the minimum wage and strengthened workers’ rights, including day one sick pay, protecting renters’ rights and stopping the unfair section 21 evictions. In the last few months leading up to section 21 evictions being stopped, it has been horrific to see that, while the good landlords remain good, the rogue landlords have taken the opportunity to evict people. That just shows why we needed to make that change, and how good it is to rebalance the equation in favour of renters. We have also brought the railways back into public ownership, starting with our own South Western Railway, and I am so proud that we have lifted 450,000 children out of poverty by abolishing the two-child benefit cap.

    I welcome the ambitious package of legislation announced today. The 37 Bills include those on health, education and security. There is a clean water Bill to tackle pollution and hold water companies to account. There is a Bill to speed up remediation for those living with unsafe cladding, which is still affecting so many people on developments in Putney. There is long-term investment in social housing, and support for victims of domestic abuse to stay in their own home. There is reform of the leasehold system by accelerating the transition to commonhold, including stronger transparency measures alongside tighter regulation of managing agents. This issue plagues so many people in Putney, who have been looking forward to the commonhold and leasehold transformation coming down the line. It will make such a difference to people who do not get enough information on their bills, do not know what they are being asked to pay for and see their bills go up time and again. We are giving them the security of tenure that they have not had up to now. There is also the scaling up of clean energy through the energy independence Bill.

    The Northern Ireland legacy Bill will build a fairer Northern Ireland, with justice for the families who have waited for too long.

    Jim Shannon

    I commend the hon. Lady for her very positive speech. Unfortunately, however, we do not see in the legacy Bill the emphasis that we wish on victims. Does she agree that, if we are going to have a legacy Bill, it must address the issues of victims? It must also address the issue of the Republic of Ireland, which has more say in the process than we have here.

    Fleur Anderson

    I absolutely respect the work that the hon. Member does in his constituency and across Northern Ireland to bring about reconciliation, but I would say that the Bill does put victims at its heart. The victims have been spoken to constantly to create the Bill and rework it, since the Tories’ Bill did not work, and to put the justice they want at its heart. Across the Chamber, we should make sure that the Bill does deliver what he advocates, because it should deliver justice and the answers for which families have been waiting for so long.

    I must say that I am disappointed there was no mention of the renovation of Hammersmith bridge in the King’s Speech. I live in hope that one day the King will sit on the Throne and talk about the renovation of Hammersmith bridge. We are one step further, because there is a timetable for applying to the structures fund, and I am very hopeful that funding will be announced soon—this year—for that renovation, so that the bridge can reopen for the six bus routes and all the vehicles now prevented from going across it, which impacts us so much in Putney.

    However, I was most keen to see the focus on closer alignment with the European Union, and I will focus my speech on that, as well as on protecting children online and international security. Brexit has imposed a deep and enduring cost on our economy and living standards. It is the elephant in the room when we talk about the economy, and the context for the very difficult financial position we are in as a country. Because of Brexit, GDP per person is 6% to 8% lower, business investment is about 18% lower, and employment and productivity are down 3% to 4%. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) will talk about everything he did, except the consequences of the single policy that he has delivered. He sold the country false promises, and we are seeing the consequences today, but he is not the only one that bears the cost.

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)

    Order. The hon. Lady might like to consider withdrawing the comment “false promises”, because I think she is suggesting falsehoods from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage).

    Fleur Anderson

    I certainly will withdraw that. Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    The cost is being borne by families who cannot magic away the detrimental economic consequences of Brexit with a £5 million gift. The damage that the hon. Member for Clacton has inflicted has compounded, year after year. The Brexit effect has built up and up through uncertainty, higher trade barriers, and businesses being forced to divert time and resources away from growth, innovation and job creation.

    As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I recommend that all Members read our report on the EU reset. The most important lesson the Committee drew is that a reset cannot simply be a collection of lots of initiatives; it must be guided by a clear strategic vision. We need a whole-of-government strategy that defines what we want the relationship with the EU to look like in five, 10 and 15 years’ time, and aligns our economic, security and diplomatic priorities accordingly. I therefore welcome the announcement of the European partnership Bill in the Gracious Address. I welcome the priority that is being given to a better working relationship with the EU. This will benefit the whole country through better security, increased economic growth and more investment for businesses. This is how we tackle the cost of living crisis.

    On economic co-operation, we must reduce the real-world frictions holding back British businesses. A veterinary sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will cut border checks and bring down costs. Mutual recognition of professional qualifications will unlock services and trade, and where alignment supports jobs and growth, we should pursue it.

    On security and defence, in a more dangerous world, the UK’s security and that of Europe are indivisible. We should seek to return to frameworks such as Security Action for Europe, which increased military readiness and defence scale-up. We should strengthen co-operation on defence capability, industrial resilience and strategic planning. The choice is not between sovereignty and co-operation; it is between influence and absence.

    On people-to-people links, the return to Erasmus+ must be built upon with a youth mobility scheme. We should reverse the cutback in school visits, and ensure better access for touring musicians, creatives and researchers. This parliamentary Session will include action on social media and its impact on under-16s. Across Putney, parents raise with me again and again the harmful impact of social media. I recently had consultations in schools in my constituency—in Hotham primary school, Putney high school and Ashcroft technology academy—in which I talked to young people about the impact. I talked about the addictive design, harmful content and sheer amount of time young people are spending online—wasted time that they feel disappointed about.

    I am really pleased that the Government are already taking action; there are consultations, pilots and proposals for restrictions right now. I agree that we must now go further, and with greater clarity. Other countries are already acting on this issue. The debate here has progressed very fast in the last year, and action now, it is agreed by everyone, is essential. The time has come to set a clear principle that childhood should not be shaped by predatory algorithms designed to maximise engagement at any cost. I support raising the age of social media use to 16, alongside robust and enforceable age verification. This is not about being anti-technology; it is about being pro-childhood. The campaign on this issue in Australia is called 36 Months. It said it so well: raising the age for social media use by 36 months, from the age of 12 to 16, gives young people 36 months to get to know themselves before the world gets to know them.

    Internationally, I welcome our stance on Ukraine and Iran, and urge the Government to go further in opposing the illegal settlements on the west bank, which undermine peace in the region, and to take more action to boycott illegal settlement goods. In Sudan, 25 million people need assistance, yet the funding gap means that food, medicine and water, sanitation and hygiene services are being rationed.

    Next week’s development conference at the beginning of this new parliamentary term is a test of whether the changes are more than rhetoric and will be backed up by action. If we reverse the cuts, put money behind frontline health and water systems, and back local leadership, instead of bypassing it with top-down contracts, we can effect real change. There is a false dichotomy between spending on aid and development, and on defence and security. Spending on aid is frontline defence and security spending, just delivered differently. Funding global health, WASH and conflict prevention cuts off the instability that terrorists and armed groups thrive on. Aid preserves a political space for diplomacy and stops conflict, the need to evacuate citizens, and the need to deploy troops.

    This is a King’s Speech for talent. Britain’s got talent and Putney’s got talent. This King’s Speech shows that this Government back the talent of Putney’s young people. My constituents in Putney voted for Labour at the general election for action—action to change their lives for the better; action from a Government in touch with the issues that really matter to them; and action that takes a long-term view of the changes that are needed. This King’s Speech is a programme that delivers on that, and I look forward to working with the Government on continuing to achieve the ambitious programme for change that we promised.

  • Jerome Mayhew – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Jerome Mayhew – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Jerome Mayhew, the Conservative MP for Broadland and Fakenham, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, you do not need me to tell you that this is a deeply unhappy Government. It is a deeply unhappy party sitting on the Government Benches, and Labour Members do not appear to understand that their core problem is a lack of economic growth. If the Labour Government were presiding over fast economic growth, the taxes would come rolling in, their ability to spend on their pet welfare projects would be unlimited, and they would be riding high in the polls. They used to know that. When they came into office, they said that their No. 1 mission was to deliver economic growth, yet what we have seen in the two years since is the most appalling example of a fundamental misunderstanding of how an economy works.

    Instead of bringing in policies to increase economic growth, we have entered into the depressing doom loop of increased taxes to fund increased welfare, leading directly to reduced economic activity, which leads to increased welfare needs and therefore an increased need for tax rises. We need a leader and a Government who have a plan, not just words, to support economic growth—something that reverses the welfare taxation doom loop. And what do we have in the King’s Speech? Where is the welfare reform bill?

    It is an appalling statistic that we now spend more on welfare than we recover in income tax. Four million adults receive PIP—the figure has gone up by half a million since the last general election. The Centre for Social Justice came out with a really terrifying argument the other day: according to its analysis, 25% of all full-time workers would be better off receiving benefits than they are in employment—a quarter of the working population. Yet, in this King’s Speech, there is nothing to fix the relationship between welfare and the productive economy.

    Iqbal Mohamed

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Jerome Mayhew

    I will just deliver this point and then give way.

    We have the extraordinarily named “regulating for growth Bill”, which I think is oxymoronic—or perhaps just moronic—because it seems to me that the Government’s answer to anaemic growth is more regulation. We will also have “more Europe”, according to the Prime Minister.

    Noah Law

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Jerome Mayhew

    I said I would give way to the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed).

    Iqbal Mohamed

    Would the hon. Member enlighten me and help me understand why the Tories, during 14 years in power, did not address the welfare ticking time bomb? What would he do to address the wage disparity whereby people on benefits can be better off than if they are in work?

    Jerome Mayhew

    The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that the previous Government absolutely did take action to reduce the welfare state, although the global crisis caused by covid knocked that back a bit. The shadow Chancellor, in his previous role as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, was bringing in wide-scale reform, which would have been effective, but it was cut short by the general election. So this was a long-term project for the Conservative Government, but it has gone into reverse as a result of the Labour Administration.

    If there is one message that the election results last week should have transmitted loud and clear to all of us, it is that the country is frustrated. People feel that we are bogged down in bureaucracy, with Ministers announcing plans and then nothing happens, but it costs a fortune and takes forever, with costs spiralling. So where was the “reducing bureaucracy Bill” that would unlock the power of the state to actually get things moving? We heard the Leader of the Opposition, in her powerful response to the Gracious Address, setting out the plans of a Conservative Administration, yet without such a bureaucracy-busting Bill, this Government are doomed to failure, even on their own terms.

    For that matter, without cheaper energy, manufacturing in the United Kingdom is also doomed to failure. Commercial energy in the UK is now the highest in the world, which is a sobering fact, and domestic energy is the second highest in the developed world. So Labour Members cannot be surprised when we have a decline in manufacturing if its energy, which is its primary input, is the highest in the world. It is higher not because it costs us more to produce energy in this country than elsewhere, but because of deliberate taxation and levy decisions taken by the Government. The Government have taxes and levies on electricity to subsidise expensive renewables. Where is the cheap energy Bill? They have done the opposite. The Labour Government have doubled down on their renewable levies, tying this country into the world’s most expensive energy for decades to come.

    Let us look at the wider economy. The high street has been hammered by Labour, whether from the business rates revaluation, the removal of the hospitality and leisure exemption, or employer national insurance contributions. Pubs and shops right across the country—not just in my constituency, but in every one of the Labour Members’ constituencies—have been closing in record numbers. So where is our “bring back the high street Bill”? It is not there. In fact, there is no coherent plan for a stronger economy and a stronger country. Instead, the King’s Speech is just a hotchpotch—bureaucratic fiddling while the Prime Minister burns.

    The Government have had two years—two years already—yet the Opposition are doing more serious thinking about solving the problems of this country than the Government, with all their resources, which is shaming. [Laughter.] Labour Members should not be laughing; they should be ashamed of themselves and of their Government, given that the Opposition have a more complete King’s Speech, with more complete answers to the problems of this country, than their Government seem able to bring forward. It is extraordinary that we have this weak legislative programme from a weak Government. The country deserves so much better.

  • Jonathan Brash – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Jonathan Brash – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Jonathan Brash, the Labour MP for Hartlepool, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    I am acutely aware that this debate on the King’s Speech is in the shadow of a political moment that is moving at extraordinary speed, a moment on which I have already made my views clear. While I respect the sincerely held opinions of many of my hon. Friends, there are truths that are now too obvious to ignore. Last Thursday’s local election results, in which many hard-working, dedicated and talented Labour councillors in Hartlepool and elsewhere lost their seats, were not a routine protest vote; they were a roar of unbridled anger.

    In towns like Hartlepool, that anger did not begin 22 months ago with the election of this Labour Government; it has been building for more than 20 years. People have repeatedly voted for change. When it came to Brexit, they voted for the change promised by members of Reform, and they were failed. They voted again for change under the Tories, with levelling up, and were let down once more. Now, that accumulated anger lands on our doorstep, alongside an understandable fear among many of my constituents that politics will once again let them down. The message last week was unmistakeable. People want a Government who act with urgency, courage and purpose against the crushing pressures of everyday life, and if they do not get it, they will once again roll the dice, even if it means taking a risk on a charlatan, because desperation drives risk, and people are desperate for hope.

    However difficult it may be for many Labour Members to admit, it is now clear to me that this Prime Minister can no longer provide that hope. I do not say that with pleasure, but leadership is not only about knowing when to fight on; it is about knowing when your authority has ebbed, when trust has frayed, and when it is time to leave the stage. Some people will say that this is about personality. It is not; it is about policy, and whether we are prepared to meet the moment with the scale of change it demands. This Government have done so much in their first 22 months, and there is much to applaud in this King’s Speech, but caution will not save us now. Incrementalism will not save us now. We must be bolder.

    We need a programme of radical renewal that improves the lives of working people in Hartlepool and across Britain. That means abolishing the hated council tax and replacing it with a progressive system that no longer punishes poor communities simply for being poor. It means radical welfare reform that is both compassionate and demanding—support for those who need help, but a clear demand that everyone who can work must work. It means bringing failed monopolies back into public ownership where markets have plainly failed, from water companies to the Royal Mail. It means cutting taxes on jobs and investment in deprived regions, so that opportunity finally reaches communities that have been left behind for decades. It means banning estate management companies altogether, and requiring every council to adopt every street. It means finding the £2 billion that the British Dental Association has said is needed to rescue NHS dentistry. It means lower energy bills for those communities hosting the new nuclear, wind and solar that powers Britain, and while I absolutely support the Home Secretary and stand behind her reforms, if it is necessary, it means declaring a state of emergency at our borders and turning boats back. It means banning southern councils from discharging their homelessness duty by shifting the burden to communities like mine, simply because our housing is cheaper. It means taking defence spending out of the fiscal rules and spending what this dangerous world requires now. It means giving councils the power to simply seize empty shops, abandoned homes and derelict sites where absentee owners refuse to act. It means finally standing up for justice for our WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—and it means delivering a national care service, not eventually, not someday, but now.

    I do not want this country to fall prey to Trump-style populism, but the truth is that only we on the Labour Benches can prevent that. We have the parliamentary majority, we have the mandate, and we still have time, but if we do not use those things to deliver visible, meaningful change—if we do not give people hope that they can feel in their wages, their streets and their communities—then others will inevitably fill that vacuum. If that happens, the responsibility will lie with us.

  • Richard Tice – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Richard Tice – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Richard Tice, the Reform UK MP for Boston and Skegness, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    Eighty-six years ago today, on 13 May 1940, Britain’s greatest and most popular Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, rose to give his first speech as Prime Minister. At a time of war, he said that he could offer nothing but blood, sweat and tears. Eighty-six years later, we have heard from Britain’s most unpopular and possibly worst Prime Minister ever. After just 22 months, all we have had is failure, incompetence and negligence.

    We have a programme of government in this King’s Speech that, in a sense, represents everything that the Prime Minister we currently suffer under represents—process and regulation. The thing is that that just drives up costs. I can see nothing in this programme of government that will actually reduce bills and the cost of living and drive up growth, prosperity and the quantity of jobs.

    Iqbal Mohamed

    The hon. Gentleman talks about regulation. I have failed to identify a successfully self-regulating industry anywhere in the world. When we remove regulations, we harm consumers, animals, nature and the planet. Will he enlighten or educate me on what the alternative is?

    Richard Tice

    What we want is smart and safe regulation; we do not want daftness, dither and delay, and this Prime Minister represents all those three things.

    In a desire to be constructive, I have scoured the King’s Speech and found some good news. The greatest news in this programme of government is that there is one Bill in which this Government have copied and learned from Reform. They have listened to what I said almost exactly a year ago: that we must nationalise British Steel, invest in it, and grow it, so that it becomes the heart of our sovereign steel-making capability. Although this is somewhat delayed, after a year, this Prime Minister has thankfully listened to me and Reform.

    There is another important area: the critical issue of special educational needs and the Government’s plans for a Bill to follow the White Paper. That is incredibly important to so many children and parents across all our constituencies. The White Paper was produced by the Secretary of State some weeks ago, and I have said in this House that there will hopefully be much that can reassure parents. As we look at the details of the Bill, I hope that we will find that some of the measures being brought forward will give better, faster outcomes for children, and reduce the conflict between parents and councils. I urge the Government to try to accelerate some of those measures for the benefit of so many children. That is absolutely vital.

    However, I regret to say that there is some very bad news in this King’s Speech. We all talk about the energy bills crisis, but the plans for an energy independence Bill will make things dramatically worse. Completely unbelievably, and ignoring all the evidence from the growth of the ’80s and ’90s in the last century, when we grew by 2.5% to 4% most years, because we used the great energy treasure of oil and gas in the North sea, this Government think it is a good idea to ban all new exploration of oil and gas fields. That is not a good idea; it is a terrible idea. That is unbelievable. We must be the only nation in the world with the joy, the pleasure and the treasure of oil and gas that says, “No, it’s a good idea to leave it down there.” That is unbelievably incompetent and negligent, and it is the reason why we have such high energy bills. That is an absolute tragedy, because that could drive up growth and prosperity, so we must absolutely ensure that that does not happen.

    Here is my deepest concern of all about this programme of government. In a sense, we in Reform are joyous; we completely smashed it last Thursday in the local elections. After May 2025, and the success of our brilliant 10 councils on which we have a majority, voters have said, “We want more Reform.” They have given us full control of 10 more councils, and there are another nine councils in which we are the largest party.

    Kevin Bonavia

    The hon. Gentleman says that voters want more of Reform. We have had lots of Reform councillors elected in the past year, and we have had a Reform councillor in my patch of Stevenage. When the voters had the first opportunity to give their view on his performance, he was turfed out, and we got a Labour councillor back in. Is what the hon. Gentleman says really true?

    Richard Tice

    The hon. Gentleman clearly has not looked at the data, because it shows that we have secured some 1,450 new councillors. I think the Labour party has lost well over 1,000 councillors, to the benefit of our great country.

    Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Richard Tice

    I will share the love by giving way to the right hon. Lady.

    Liz Saville Roberts

    The hon. Gentleman talks about the successes of Reform in England; does he recognise that it is possibly because of Reform’s bombast and predilection for foreign money that Plaid Cymru is now in government in Wales, and Reform is not?

    Richard Tice

    I congratulate Plaid Cymru on its success, but I note the success of Reform as the second-largest party in Wales. We are proud to be the largest Unionist party across Scotland and Wales.

    Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)

    I believe that in Milton Keynes, Reform was forecast to win 26 seats, but after the hon. Member’s visit, that went number went down to nine. Does that not prove that the more people get to see of him and his party, the less they want them?

    Richard Tice

    That is interesting, because I spent most of the election campaign in the west midlands, where we absolutely smashed it. We secured full control of councils such as Newcastle-under-Lyme and Walsall, and we are now the largest party in Birmingham, which is truly remarkable. We are also the largest party in Bradford, which is fantastic news. That success is because voters have looked at this Government and the failures of this Prime Minister, and they have said, “We want to vote Reform, and we want this Prime Minister out.” I suspect that what we have seen—

    Anna Dixon

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Richard Tice

    Bear with me, because I am in full flow. I believe that we have seen the last important speech from this Prime Minister. Let us see what the next few days bring.

    Anna Dixon

    The hon. Gentleman mentions Bradford district, and notes that Reform got the largest number of seats there. Does he recognise that the vast majority of people across the Bradford district—three quarters of them—voted for parties other than Reform UK? Does he also recognise that while Reform got seats, it is not popular?

    Richard Tice

    If we have just won and become the largest party in Bradford, by definition we must be popular. Obviously, I would like to please everybody, but sometimes that is not possible; that is the joy of democracy. The reality is that the voters have spoken.

    Iqbal Mohamed

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Richard Tice

    I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Although people may have enjoyed my dialogue, others wish to speak.

    The key thing about the utter failure of this programme of government is this: having listened last week to the voters in the midlands and the north—in Labour heartlands—who voted 10 years ago for less EU and less European interference, what is this Government’s brilliant response? They have stuck two fingers up to the former Labour voters in the midlands and the northern heartlands, and said, “We’re going to ignore you. We’re going to try and go back to the failing European Union.” That surely highlights the arrogance and stubbornness of this dreadful Government.

    Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Richard Tice

    I will give way to this good-looking gentleman.

    Sir John Hayes

    I am immensely grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he has said about the failure of successive Governments who represent what the Leader of the Opposition described earlier as the “political class”, and what I would describe as the liberal orthodoxy. Over successive Governments, a liberal-left orthodoxy has prevailed in this country—one that has been at odds with the sentiments, wishes, hopes and fears of the vast majority of ordinary people. It is not just for the hon. Gentleman’s party, but for my party, certainly, and—I say this respectfully—for all political parties to recognise the gulf between the establishment’s view of the world and the people’s.

    Richard Tice

    Well, that is the joy of competition, and given what happened in last week’s elections, we seem to be winning the competition.

    I conclude by saying that surely this Government should have listened to voters last week and said, “Actually, we’ve got it wrong on energy. We need more oil and gas to bring the bills down, just as they are bringing them down in the United States. We need to be more sovereign and independent, and more distant from the failing economic model of Brussels.” Instead, they have done the opposite. However, I bring hope to this country: the good news is that once there is a new, unelected Labour Prime Minister, that will accelerate a general election, in which the country will vote Reform.

  • Kevin Bonavia – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Kevin Bonavia – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Kevin Bonavia, the Labour MP for Stevenage, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince). The hon. Member for Bradford West gave us a personal tale of strength through adversity, which should remind us why, as she said, this is the greatest country to live in. She spoke as a true patriot, and about a patriotism that is there for all of us if we choose to use it. We often have rivalries in the Chamber: my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is a proud advocate for his new town of Harlow, and I am a proud advocate for the first new town in the UK, Stevenage. He has done so much for Harlow, including running for a good cause in Harlow. This Saturday I will join a resident of Stevenage, Luke Weynberg, who is running an ultramarathon, which is even further than a marathon, around Fairlands Valley Park in Stevenage. When I say I will join him, I mean for the park run bit.

    Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow, each of us in this Chamber, for all our political differences, is proud of the constituents we serve. When we come together in this place for big moments, as we have done today, we should think about the country as a whole, not about what divides it.

    I congratulate His Majesty the King. As has been said in this Chamber, he has recently given speeches of great depth, humour and wit, and I thank him for it. His speech to us today, as is normal for speeches in these buildings, was very serious. It was a serious speech for serious times. I recall his opening words:

    “An increasingly dangerous and volatile world threatens the United Kingdom… Every element of the nation’s energy, defence and economic security will be tested.”

    How true that is. It demands more than warm words in response: it demands strength, and it demands a Government who act. The world has changed—it is harder, less stable and less predictable—so we cannot treat security as something distant or optional. This Government are committed to investing in our nation’s security and, indeed, in the security of each of us in our own life.

    It was a Labour Government, from 1945 onwards, who recognised the threats that our country faced following a devastating war and with an uncertain future. Among their many responses, they built new towns, such as Stevenage, to deal with the housing crisis—a crisis we face again today. Our new towns provided jobs, security and hope for the future. Some of those jobs, both in those days and to this day, have been in the critical defence sector that this country and the rest of the civilised world need.

    Security is what we need today, but it cannot just be a slogan; it must be a plan that runs through everything we do. I am pleased that this Government are bringing forward the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, because the systems that we rely on every day are now targets. Data centres, communications networks, the digital backbone of our economy—if any one of those things fails, everything else will follow. That is why we are also acting where security starts in the real economy.

    When British Steel was pushed to the brink last year, this Government stepped in and saved it. We protected jobs and we protected capability. We acted because the industrial base is not optional in a more dangerous world. We cannot defend a country that cannot build. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, we need sovereign capability for that. Steel, engineering and precision manufacturing all feed directly into the defence supply chain. In Stevenage, that chain ends with highly skilled workers building and upgrading some of the most advanced systems in the world. At MBDA, workers are retrofitting Storm Shadow missiles—systems that are in use right now, protecting Ukraine’s civilians as they sleep. That is what industrial policy and national security look like when they are joined up: British steel, British engineering and British workers delivering real deterrence.

    Security means ensuring that we are ready. The Armed Forces Bill will give us new powers to mobilise reservists and former personnel when the country needs them, because deterrence works only if it is credible. Credibility does not come from words alone; it comes from capability. It comes from the knowledge that this country can act, scale up and sustain itself in a crisis. We can see that credibility not only in what we deploy, but in what we build at home. In Stevenage, alongside the missile defence systems, we can see the next generation of secure military communications being developed at Airbus, connecting our forces and our allies securely in real time.

    Security must also start at home, in the domestic field. A national security Bill will criminalise the glorification or normalisation of serious violence, because when violence is excused or made acceptable, that creates the conditions for more of it. We saw the consequences of that in Southport, and we cannot allow it to take root in our society.

    The same applies across all our streets, where policing must keep pace with modern threats. In Stevenage, we have seen what proactive policing looks like. Under Project Vigilant, trained officers are out in our town centre identifying predatory behaviour before it escalates, intervening early to prevent harm and to protect women and girls. We are acting on organised crime, too. A recent operation targeting county lines gangs operating in Stevenage led to 19 arrests, with weapons seized and more than £27,000 taken off our streets. That is the reality of the threat. If people do not feel safe where they live, national security means nothing. The police reform Bill will build on that approach, giving our officers the tools they need to do their job, strengthening forces and creating a national capability to go after the most serious criminals.

    Security also means being honest about the threats that we face from hostile actors. The tackling state threats Bill will give us the power to act directly against state-linked organisations that operate against our interests. It will mean that this Government can and will proscribe the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as the terrorist organisation that it is. When organisations use violence, intimidation and terror, whether or not they are backed by a state, there can be no grey areas. Proscription is not optional; it is essential.

    The threats that we face today are not always conventional. They are covert, they are persistent and they are designed to exploit any weakness. That includes our digital infrastructure, which is why the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill is so vital.

    Security is not only about stopping threats; it is also about building strength. In Stevenage we can see that strength in our life sciences sector. At the Stevenage Bioscience Catalyst, the UK-based CAR T-cell therapy company Autolus is developing advanced programmed T-cell therapies and is at the forefront of a revolution in cancer treatment. That is British innovation at its best: highly skilled jobs, world-leading science and life-changing outcomes for patients.

    A country that leads in science, in manufacturing and in innovation is a country that is more secure, more resilient and better prepared for the shocks that we know are coming. Those shocks are real. War has returned to Europe. Ukraine has shown us that peace cannot be taken for granted. The middle east has shown how quickly instability spreads, from conflict abroad to pressure on energy markets and prices at home. Some of the most serious threats are the ones that people never see: cables beneath our seas, networks under constant pressure and hostile states probing for weaknesses every single day.

    We have already seen that in action. Just weeks ago, Russian submarines were detected operating over critical undersea infrastructure in waters around the United Kingdom and our allies. Let us be clear about what that means. These are the lifelines of our country. The vast majority of our data flows through those cables. Our energy supplies depend on them; our economy depends on them. This was a deliberate act by the Russian state to test our defences, and we must call it out for what it is: it is unacceptable, it is hostile and it will not be tolerated. Our armed forces tracked those submarines, exposed their operation and forced them to withdraw. The message to the tyrant Putin was clear: “We know what you are doing, and any attempt to damage our infrastructure will have serious consequences.”

    In the modern world, there is no warning sound and there is no clear beginning. The attack comes quietly, and if we are not ready, we will feel the consequences before we even see the cause.

    Let us be clear that security is not in one policy or Department; it is and must be a national mission. It runs through defence, policing, industry, science and the strength of our communities. It is about whether people feel safe on our streets, secure in their jobs and confident in their future. That is the first duty of Government. When we take it seriously, act and build the strength that we need, places like Stevenage show exactly what that looks like in practice. We will not just endure in a more dangerous world; we will lead Britain through it safely and securely.

  • David Davis – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    David Davis – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by David Davis, the Conservative MP for Google and Pocklington, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    During the privileges debate, I told the House that I had hoped, a couple of years ago, that the Prime Minister would make a success of his new job. Unfortunately, this House is now debating against the backdrop of a Labour psychodrama, but that psychodrama would not have happened except for the fact that the Government have failed, and failed very clearly. In his now infamous speech, the Prime Minister said that he was going to undertake a reset. I don’t know about the Labour party, but the country certainly needs a reset.

    What he said, in describing his reset, was that he needed to “explain” things better. That is not a reset; that is a re-spin of what they are doing. We need a proper reset. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) was exactly right when she said that Labour must be

    “judged on actions and not just our words”.

    As a number of people have said, including the new leader of the SNP group, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), Labour came into office promising that its No. 1 mission was economic growth. It was right to do so, because without growth we do not have the money to do anything else, yet the consequences of its own policies in the last couple of years have been that growth has been suppressed. The IMF has literally just reduced the UK’s growth forecast by half a percentage point. That is the largest reduction in the G7.

    It is not just the Opposition who are concerned about growth. I recommend that the House reads the Labour Growth Group report called, “An Honest Day”, which is aimed directly at this problem. While I do not agree with everything in it, there are a lot of good ideas that the Government should have already taken on.

    When Labour took over, inflation was bang on 2%—that is something it cannot claim was disguised in any way—and now it is 3.3%. Again, Labour and the Prime Minister will try to blame somebody else, and no doubt at the moment the blame is on the strait of Hormuz. That explains energy costs in the future; it does not explain the increases in food costs in the past, or indeed a number of other costs.

    Noah Law

    Will the right hon. Member give way?

    David Davis

    No, not for the moment.

    Neither does it explain the increase in borrowing costs, which are higher than any other G7 country’s and virtually double Japan’s. That is nobody’s fault but the Chancellor’s, and the horrific consequences for our public finances have been laid out already by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown).

    The real brake is Labour’s own policies: high taxes, massively burdensome regulation, high business rates and high energy costs. What on earth do we expect from our businesses when we saddle the country with the most expensive energy in the developed world, or indeed with the national insurance increases that the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens mentioned?

    Noah Law

    What was the impact of the decision by the right hon. Gentleman’s Government to block onshore wind generation on energy costs?

    David Davis

    It is interesting, because the hon. Member’s Government and his Secretary of State have claimed, “All these green policies are reducing the cost of our energy. Not using oil and gas is reducing the cost of energy.” What is the consequence? The highest energy costs in the world. I will be interested to hear if he can explain that when he makes his speech.

    The other issue is that growth, or the loss of growth, has a material impact on the public finances. To give the House a measure of that, a 1% change in the growth rate is £10 billion to £11 billion in the first year and then more money in the consequential years, so when we lose that growth, we lose that amount of money. But even if we imagine that we could get that growth back, it still would not be enough. It would not be enough to pay the bills that we need to pay.

    So what can we do? I am afraid that, because of the size of the debt, we have no choice but to cut welfare costs. I am a great believer in our welfare system, but it should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. People who can work should work, and the public have little sympathy for those who choose benefits over a job. It is true today, and it has been true since I was a child on a council estate, that the British working class, who Labour used to think of as its own voters, hate it when they see one of their neighbours choosing to sit at home spending the taxes that they have earned. Low growth handicaps our ability to solve our citizens’ problems.

    Iqbal Mohamed

    I agree, and I think most people agree, that people capable of working should be helped into work, but while the right hon. Member’s party was in government for 14 years, did it do an analysis of or have statistics on how many people on benefits across our country were actually fit to work, and what did his party do to get those people into work?

    David Davis

    I think the answer to the question is, “No, it didn’t,” but the hon. Member should be aware that it was only two months ago that a Labour Member described me as the MP who is never knowingly on message, which is a label I espouse—I do not mind that. No Government have got this right. We need a welfare system that looks after the disabled and people who have no choice about what they are suffering, but not one that makes it an even choice to be on the dole or in a job.

    Jeremy Corbyn

    Is the right hon. Member aware that the discussion held some months ago, when the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions proposed big cuts in personal independence payments, caused unbelievable levels of stress and despair to often isolated people in receipt of PIP who have a carer who comes in to help them, and that the Government are still undertaking a review, the intention of which is to lower the personal independence payments bill? Does he agree that we should end that kind of debate and instead look at the needs of people with disabilities, particularly those who struggle to survive under the current system and especially those in receipt of PIP?

    David Davis

    I will be careful how I answer the right hon. Member because I have an interest to declare here: I have a disabled grandchild, and her mother is one of the people who suffers the stress he talked about. As I say, we need a humane system that deals with people properly. Our current system for supporting disabled people and people looking after disabled people is incredibly bureaucratic, unpleasant and nasty to deal with. That is not the area of welfare that we need to deal with; it is principally the area of employment that we need to deal with. We want to get people back to work, because there is no better way out of poverty than employment, rather than, as it were, being on the dole.

    To come back to the thrust of my argument, what is it that we are talking about paying for? I will pick three issues—I could pick any number, but the top three issues that matter to my constituents are healthcare, education and defence. Our health service needs radical reform. I know we have a Bill in this King’s Speech, but it does not look to me like it will have a sufficiently radical impact. For some reason, we do not actually speak enough about the fundamental aims of our health service. Healthcare must be free at the point of delivery—that is an absolute—but it also must do its job of saving lives, and we turn our face away from that too often. Too many Britons are dying early and avoidably under a system that swallows money without delivering the outcomes. Every year, 125,000 deaths are listed officially as avoidable, and the situation has worsened in recent years. It went from 129 deaths per 100,000 people to 156 in the course of a decade. That is a huge increase and, as a result, we have an avoidable death rate that is higher than all our comparator nations. I am not just talking about rich nations like Japan; we are even worse off than countries like Portugal that are much poorer than we are. It is an extraordinary problem that we have to face.

    Anna Dixon

    I agree that patient safety is not enough of a priority in the NHS. There are too many incidents of patient harm; we see that reflected in the large clinical negligence bill. Does the right hon. Member agree that it is essential that patient safety remains one of the top priorities for not only integrated care boards, but all providers?

    David Davis

    That is absolutely right. My concern is that the reason we have so many excess deaths is not poor doctors or poor nurses, but poor management. We have really, really poor national health service management. To put it starkly, poor management effectively kills 15,000 people a year. If we improved that number, we could get within range of our comparator nations.

    That is a huge number of people, and we could do quite a lot about it if we set our mind to it. Experiments within the health service now demonstrate that. Just over the river at St Thomas’, a high intensity theatre programme triples the number of people who can be put through an operating theatre or under the hands of one surgeon in a day. That means we can do something like 17 hernia repairs rather than five, or 12 hip replacements instead of four—those are the numbers they measured. A lot of lives are saved rather than lost, because people are put through the system and are not effectively left waiting until they die, as has happened to a number of my constituents. We need to reflect that efficiency in the management of the health service. It requires a complete change in how we select, train and organise the senior management of the national health service. For the moment, they are not up to the job and we need to put that right, but I do not see anything in the King’s Speech that will do that.

    My second point is about education. A number of speakers have already said that there is an intergenerational problem in our society today, and education is where that crystalises. We are failing both very young children and young adults. Evidence shows that one in four children are not sufficiently literate or mathematically capable by the age of 11 to get any benefit from the next stage of education. To put it another way, the state has failed a quarter of our children by the time they get to 11. For poor children—those on free school meals and so on—we can double that number; in fact, we can more than double it.

    When I grew up, I was lucky to be at the peak of social mobility in this country. This was one of the world’s leading meritocracies, but that is no longer the case. That is a shame on our nation and we must put it right, starting at the bottom. We must do something about it, and we can. Uniquely, using AI and software, we can do quite a lot to help children at the bottom of the scale, but we do not currently do that, and the Department for Education is not up to it. It is not under this Government and it was not under the preceding one—I spoke about this at the time, and we need to put it right.

    It is not just the very young who we are letting down; a whole generation in higher education is being failed. The transition to student loans and tuition fees by the Blair Government has been an unmitigated disaster, shackling a whole generation to mortgages without houses and futures without jobs. I opposed it when it came in, I opposed my party’s decision to uphold it when we came into government, and I oppose it today. It takes away much of the point of university, because at least one in five courses do not give youngsters opportunities that will pay for their education. That means that we have to write off their loans, and in the next 50 years, the Government—the state—will pay £430 billion in unpaid loans in cash terms. From what I have seen of the calculations, I am pretty sure that that is an underestimate.

    In my view, we should revise the whole policy radically, and perhaps look again at grants for certain courses—I think the Liberals have talked about this—with a 2% graduate tax to offset it, or something like that. That is better than what we have now, which leaves a loan hanging over people for their entire adult life—a loan they may never pay back. We could have grants for science, technology, engineering, mathematics, medicine, architecture and design—courses that will contribute to the economic growth of this country—and take the rest from there. We need radical reform, but we will not see it in this year’s education Bill.

    Finally, I want to talk briefly about defence. There has been much criticism of the Government, rightly, for taking too long over enlarging the expenditure we put into defence, and the simple truth is that we will face challenges that will materialise much faster than we expect. The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) spoke in an earlier question about peace being better than war, and since Roman times we have known that being well armed is the best way to prevent war. Nobody wants warfare. At the moment, our military is depleted beyond value and would struggle in a major war, and obviously we must address that. In addition, we must ensure that our strategy and management are right. Frankly, the management of the Ministry of Defence is a disgrace—to be honest, I cannot pick a better word.

    I always think that it is symbolic of the extraordinary priorities of the MOD that we have 134 admirals to oversee 63 ships, many of which are not able to set sail at any point in time—Nelson must be spinning in his grave. That is symbolic, but similarly the UK currently maintains an Army of just over 70,000 people, and the Ministry of Defence employs roughly 60,000 civil servants—a ratio that defies logic. Of those civil servants, just under a quarter are employed in procurement, operating a system that is among the worst in the world. If hon. Members need to, they should look at the Dragon, the Type 45 ships, or the Ajax. If the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee were sitting here now, he could get up and given me a dozen cases of disgraceful scandals in procurement in our Ministry of Defence, and we need to put that right.

    If we are to maintain effective armed forces, we must also maintain the morale and spirit of our soldiers. The simple truth is that the first step towards that is to treat those soldiers decently, and we are not doing that. The Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which has been carried over into this Session, is exposing soldiers who fought in Northern Ireland to being dragged through the courts, sometimes three times over the course of five years, as with Soldier B in the Coagh case. They are in their 60s, 70s and 80s. Honourable people who fought bravely for their country and did nothing wrong are being punished in their old age. That is a disgrace.

    The excuse that the Government used when they started the Bill was that the previous legislation was illegal—that is what a lower court found. Last week, however, the Supreme Court overturned that judgment in the Dillon case. There is now no legal basis for the Government’s policy, yet still we are pressing on. I asked the Prime Minister, and he said that they are still pressing on with it, effectively psychologically torturing people who served this country. That is morally wrong, but moreover it is causing people to leave the SAS in numbers—this is now in the public domain and I can say it. Our best and most active regiment is being depleted and destroyed. The regiment of which the rest of the world is envious is being undermined by the Government’s strategy, and they should walk away from that policy and drop it. We should bin that Bill.

    I do not want to take any more of the House’s time. I have picked three subjects, but there are many other important issues that the Government need to address. I say again that I hope the Prime Minister succeeds in resetting the Government and giving them new dynamism. At the moment, however, the only attractive part of the King’s Speech for me was the last line, which always says the same thing:

    “Other measures will be laid before you.”

  • Dave Doogan – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Dave Doogan – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Dave Doogan, the SNP MP for Angus and Perthshire Glens, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    If I was not cheered by the landslide victory of the SNP in Scotland last week, I certainly am after this King’s Speech. It is just as well that the people of Scotland have John Swinney as First Minister and the SNP as the Scottish Government to stand as the buttress of fairness and justice between them and the remote and unaccountable UK Government in Westminster. They are not just remote and unaccountable but dysfunctional to an alarming degree, and that dysfunction is what has precipitated this most vapid of King’s Speeches.

    If somebody who was unaware of the UK malaise, and the multiple economic crises affecting it, saw the Government’s solution in the form of this King’s Speech, they would be unable to identify the problem. That speaks to an obscurity of purpose. Government should have a clarity of purpose—see also the SNP Scottish Government in Edinburgh—but this Government have not got a clue. They are so busy bickering with one another, arguing with each faction about who gets the next shot at being the Prime Minister, that they cannot focus on the problems ailing the people up and down these islands—and the problems are profound. People are unable to pay their energy bills, and they do not know whether they will have a job this month, next month or the month after that. There is a crushing concern about everything, not just this or that. People are now terrified about their washing machine breaking down or their car getting a puncture, because they are so hard up.

    Under this Labour Government, the margin of economic resilience in people’s homes has been eroded to a translucent wafer. There is nothing between the wolf and the bank account, after less than two years of a Labour Government. I do not understand why that could be. I am a political bore and I understand these things—or I thought I did. They have a majority that would choke a horse. They have been preparing for government for 14 years, yet they come in and it is like they just landed. They even said as much: “Well, we didn’t know the state of the books.” If they never knew the state of the books, they were the only people who did not, yet they had the temerity to come in, take power and make it even worse.

    Labour Members kid themselves about the reason Labour was elected, but really they know it. They tell themselves, “It was our manifesto. We have a mandate.” There was no mandate for this guddle. Nothing that has happened over the last 22 months was backed up by a mandate. Labour was elected, and ushered in with a colossal majority, for one reason alone: Labour was not the Tories, and it is a two-party system in this place—or rather, it was. That is why Labour Members are here.

    Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)

    Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House what the Government in Scotland have done over the last 20 years to generate the economic growth that he talks about?

    Dave Doogan

    What the hon. Lady, as a Scottish Unionist—I am sure a proud Scottish Unionist, for reasons best known to herself—needs to understand is that the UK is not contingent on Scotland, but Scotland is contingent on the UK. The decisions made here affect Scotland, but the decisions made in Scotland do not affect down here. Against that backdrop, Scotland is regularly in the upper quartile for GDP per capita in the United Kingdom. This myth that we are subsidised by the rest of the UK is risible. We economically outperform more than three quarters of the UK in any given quarter, roughly. We are the top destination for foreign direct investment. Foreign companies are not confused: they know where they get a return on their investment in the United Kingdom, and it is in Scotland. Our unemployment is lower and our employment is higher. I could go on, but I do not want to get in trouble, Madam Deputy Speaker.

    Seamus Logan

    My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech—his first as our party’s new group leader. He mentioned the vapid King’s Speech—this is no criticism of the King, of course—which contained the renewed promise of a Hillsborough law that the Government have had two years to introduce. Why on earth is it taking the Government so long to deliver on their manifesto promises?

    Dave Doogan

    My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue, which is so important to many people across the UK but especially in the north of England, and in Liverpool in particular. But it is not just that. It is the way Labour rushed during the campaign to stand shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women before abandoning them when they got into office. It is about the family farm tax, which the Labour party expressly said before the election that it would not introduce but then got in and did exactly that. That was a gross betrayal of our agricultural industry and our rural communities.

    The change to employer national insurance was self-evidently anti-industry, self-evidently inflationary and self-evidently a tax on jobs. It was going to have one potential outcome. The £25 billion that the Government said that it would bring in was complete fantasy; by the time they had compensated for the public sector, it was down to single figures of billions, and even that did not take into account the drag on the economy and the lower fiscal receipts as a result of that disastrous, self-defeating policy.

    Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)

    What would be the hon. Gentleman’s answer to filling that massive fiscal black hole that we were left with?

    Dave Doogan

    What the hon. Gentleman needs to understand is that countries grow their way out of these issues. Growth comes from economic investment in equipment and people, raising productivity and lowering economic inactivity and all those things that have risen under Labour, because Labour does not understand economics—never has, never will.

    Before I move on, I want to focus on the real impact on real people. Unemployment is now at its highest level in five years. Unemployment across the UK is at 5.2%; thankfully, through the economic efforts of our SNP Scottish Government, it is at 4.1% in Scotland, although that is still far too high for our communities. Youth unemployment in the UK is at 15%. That is a catastrophe. The way young people enter the world of work dictates their relationship with employment for the rest of their lives, and that is catastrophically damaging for young people up and down these islands.

    Youth unemployment is particularly acute in hospitality. Hospitality is a gateway industry for employment, but the Government are taxing it out of existence. People with a pub, a hotel or a restaurant now feel like unpaid tax collectors for this Labour Government.

    Christine Jardine

    While I agree with the hon. Member about young people’s routes into work, how does that sit with the way his SNP Government in Scotland have destroyed apprenticeships up there? As for the hospitality industry in Scotland, it pays business rates in Scotland—I hear complaints about them all the time. Is that perhaps why the SNP lost seats in the election that he is so busy congratulating himself on?

    Dave Doogan

    We still got more than four times as many seats as the Lib Dems in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not be taking any lectures there. However, I look forward to working closely with the Liberal Democrats in the Scottish Government—

    Christine Jardine

    That’s never going to happen.

    Dave Doogan

    I am not sure the hon. Lady has that in her gift, but to her point about youth unemployment, as I said to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the Scottish Government are subject to the same economic malaise as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It is to the betterment of the fortunes of their constituents and mine that they are under an SNP Government—on that point, I can assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) that she is welcome.

    Do not just take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker: the markets give their verdict on what is happening in the United Kingdom, and the markets are incredibly concerned. That is why 10-year gilt interest rates touched 5.13%, a rate not seen in the UK since the financial crash of 2008—a very dangerous report card.

    Alison Taylor

    Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

    Dave Doogan

    No. I am going to make progress and close my speech.

    Defence is the first duty of government, but under this Labour Government, if we had a significant investment for every blunderbuss piece of hyperbole and rhetoric on defence, we would be in a far better position than we are. The Prime Minister said in his speech earlier that we are negotiating a de-escalation of the war in Iran. He did not tell us which of the three protagonists was listening to the pontifications of the UK Prime Minister—because not one of the three participants in that conflict could care less what the Prime Minister thinks about the war in Iran.

    The defence investment plan—the road map for what defence will look like in the United Kingdom for the next decade—is now a year late. I do not know what the Government think they can get away with, but if their signal, apex piece of defence legislation is more than a year late, that tells this Parliament and everyone up and down these islands that they do not have a clue about defence any more than they have a clue about anything else.

    Dr Arthur

    I am genuinely grateful to be here for the hon. Gentleman’s first speech as SNP leader here in Westminster. It is just a shame that only one other of his fellow SNP MPs is here—no doubt they are all on important business. I know that he does champion the defence sector, unlike some of his colleagues in Scotland, but he sits on the Scottish Affairs Committee and he knows the sector’s concerns about skills development and education in Scotland. Does he share those concerns, and what is he doing to influence his colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that the sector is more fully supported?

    Dave Doogan

    The defence sector is a significant part of the Scottish economy, and I just wish that the hon. Gentleman and his Unionist colleagues in the Labour party, and in other lesser parties, would acknowledge the fact that this is a mutual endeavour and that the UK benefits greatly from the skills and expertise that exist in Scotland, as well as from the apprenticeships, training and investment. Let us not forget that everybody who works in the defence sector in Scotland went through a Scottish school, a Scottish apprenticeship, a Scottish college or a Scottish university. There is this idea that everything was fantastic previously and is terrible now. The former is not true, and the latter is not true either. It is a work in progress, and we are investing heavily in Scottish education. That is why such a high percentage of people leaving school in Scotland are going on to a positive destination.

    The Prime Minister said that he was going to take steps to bring the United Kingdom into the very heart of Europe. Well, he is not going to do that without rejoining the EU, so this is yet more hyperbole and fantasy. My final word on this is that a Government in this level of disarray—with this level of division and infighting, who have caused so much damage in such a short period of time to people’s livelihoods and to the economy—needed to make an emergency response today, but this King’s Speech was anything but. I look forward to them getting their house in order, but I won’t be holding my breath.

  • David Burton-Sampson – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    David Burton-Sampson – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by David Burton-Sampson, the Labour MP for Southend West and Leigh, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on the King’s Speech, which set out the Labour Government’s programme for this Session, and I warmly welcome its measures.

    I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah), and for Harlow (Chris Vince), for their opening speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West showed how she had overcome adversity, and tackled head-on some of the challenges that people who look like me and her face in today’s society. There is, of course, no greater champion for their community than my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow—my Essex friend. He lives, breathes and is Harlow, and I thank him for all the work that he does in his community.

    This Labour Government have already achieved so much, handing back power to local leaders, supporting local regeneration and growth plans and taking the pivotal step of a new deal for working people. They have also put in place the biggest change to renters’ rights for 40 years, which was particularly welcomed in my constituency of Southend West and Leigh, directly giving greater housing security to our 8,938 renters.

    We have seen other significant improvements already: a new Best Start family hub at the Blenheim family centre; three free breakfast clubs in my primary schools; a new, extended nursery provision at Chalkwell Hall infant school; more than £2.5 million of investment into South Essex college to upgrade its campus; and a new youth hub—one of 80 being rolled out across the UK. In addition, the removal of the two-child benefit cap is helping 1,800 families in my constituency and, most importantly, lifting children out of poverty. Add to that the fact that we have brought back into public ownership both our train lines, which will soon be part of Great British Railways, and opened the first community diagnostic centre in our city, which is having a huge impact, providing testing early and late, seven days a week, and getting people diagnosed much quicker.

    I have also been thrilled to see more than £2 million of new Government funding to start to transform the futures of children with special educational needs in Southend. This is the start of a breakthrough moment—one that families in my constituency have waited a long time for. I have heard from these families during my “See Every Need” meetings, which bring together parents, school leaders, health representatives and charities to get the changes right. Reports from those meetings have been sent to the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for School Standards, and I am delighted that local voices from my constituency have been reflected in Government policy.

    There remains much scepticism among parents of SEND children as to whether these reforms will actually happen and make a difference to their children’s lives as they have quite simply been let down so many times in the past. However, I am confident that seeing the reforms start to come forward in legislation during this Session through the education for all Bill will help to give parents more certainty that this Government are focused on fixing this situation once and for all.

    I welcome the announcement in the King’s Speech of the enhancing financial services Bill, which promises a major shake-up of financial services regulation. As the current chair of the APPGs on fair banking and on open finance and payments, I have a passion for financial services reforms, and I am pleased to see this legislation coming forward. It is important, though, that Government continue to listen to the voices of industry, ensuring that these reforms are appropriate and genuinely designed to fix the challenges the industry faces, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for her work in listening to industry to date.

    Moving on, conversion therapy and similar practices are appalling. Sadly, I am aware of people who have been subject to some of these despicable acts. I believe interventions intended to change or suppress a person’s sexuality or gender identity are wrong, so I am delighted to see a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices coming forward. The LGBTQ+ community has waited far too long for this ban; after promises made and broken by previous Governments, this Labour Government are finally bringing it forward through the draft conversion practices Bill. It cannot be delivered a moment too soon for our community.

    I am grateful for the Government’s water reform legislation, which is set to go even further with the clean water Bill, and I applaud their approach to ban bonuses for water company bosses when companies pollute or fail customers. Since being elected, I have been holding regular water summits, focusing on storm overflows, sewage discharges and bathing water quality as well as many other related matters on which we have called our water company, Anglian Water, to account. I am delighted that the local community has now taken ownership of these summits, proving that they are just as invested in this agenda as our Government are.

    My constituency has a diverse and growing Jewish community. I have met with many from the community recently, and they have told me of their fears following the recent rise in antisemitic attacks. I know that they will be particularly assured by His Majesty the King’s specific mention of this in his speech and the Government’s desire to do all they can to stamp out this scourge.

    I conclude by touching on the enormously challenging international situation we face. I support the priority that this Government have placed on standing firm with Ukraine, and I stand firmly with Ukraine too after Putin’s appalling illegal invasion. I am also pleased with this Government’s stance on the middle east conflict. I am pleased to see our commitment to a sustained increase in defence spending. The challenges that we face demand that we work together with our allies through international co-operation.

    I am glad to see in this Humble Address support for strengthening and rebuilding the ties of trust, trade and friendship with our European friends that were so badly damaged by a poorly implemented Brexit. We will fix them through our European partnerships Bill. The promise of a return of the Erasmus scheme and better opportunities for our young people to live, work and study in Europe is also welcome. A good relationship with our closest neighbour is vital in this uncertain world. It is pleasing, therefore, to see the desire to bring forward primary legislation in this area.

    I am excited to see the legislation announced in this King’s Speech unfold, so that we can make even more of a difference to the lives of people in Southend West and Leigh and across the rest of the country. In an uncertain world, I am confident that this Government are now moving at pace to make the country fit for the challenges we face while prioritising hope and renewal for our country.

  • Christine Jardine – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Christine Jardine – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Christine Jardine, the Liberal Democrat MP for Edinburgh West, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).

    As I listened to His Majesty the King today, there was one part in his speech that reminded me of the Queen’s Speech in 2017, when I was first elected. The then Government promised that their priority would be

    “to secure the best possible deal as the country leaves the European Union.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 34.]

    That went well. Let us compare our economy then and now. Inflation and unemployment are now both higher. In 2017, we had the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have slipped to sixth since we left the EU. Outside this place, in 2017, people were concerned for the welfare of the refugees risking their lives on boats crossing the Mediterranean. If they landed in a safe European Union country, that was where they had to seek refuge. Not now. Now that we have left the European Union, that rule no longer applies to us. That is something that the Brexiteers omitted—perhaps forgot—to mention then in their campaign, and now in their immigration rants. That is why one part of the speech I welcome is the promise of closer links with the European Union. I am delighted to hear that we will, in the words of the King’s Speech, “strengthen ties”, but what exactly will that mean?

    At the weekend, I spent time with some non-political friends. It would be a welcome break, I thought, from the constant election messaging of the past few weeks, but they dragged me back here by asking quite clearly and categorically: “When are we doing something to get back into the European Union?” Leaving has been a disaster for them, for their businesses and for the country. “Closer” probably will not be enough for them. They want to know exactly what we will do, and how we will get back to the centre of Europe, to lead and work with our neighbours and build the trading links that are essential to economic recovery.

    What about the customs union and the single market—does being closer include being in them? While I agree that being closer to Europe will help our economic growth, it will not be enough on its own. It will not be enough to improve the lives of the constituents who come to me every week. It will not be enough to cut their energy bills before next winter, to provide housing that they can afford, or to help their children get on the housing ladder.

    I welcome the moves on antisemitism, which has rocketed in the past few years. We have seen it go up by 175% in a decade, and it has been all too visible in the recent attacks on our streets. However, while the Government are promising to tackle antisemitism, I hope that they will not forget Islamophobia, which is also rampant, or the misogyny that we see everywhere, influenced by the dangerous views that young men hear expressed on the internet, and that affect how they look at women and girls.

    Among the 35 Bills are measures to support women and give them greater “agency over the decisions” that affect their lives. I do not disagree with that, but again, as with the measures on the European Union, it is not exactly clear what that will mean. More action on domestic abuse and helping women entrepreneurs sounds good, but I hope there will be bold action, rather than clever language and warm words.

    Over the past two months, on the doorstep of almost every home I visited, the theme of the conversation was exactly the same: change. It was change that people wanted—the change that people voted for two years ago, but did not feel yet. I am not sure that they will see that desire for change reflected in the Government’s plans today. They are all too bitty, unclear and not absolutely transparent.

    We know energy security is vital to national security, and that national security is increasingly under threat and needs investment. It is only too clear that Ukraine’s pain is being suffered on behalf of us all, and that without its resistance, the rest of Europe would be even more vulnerable. Again, there is nothing in the King’s Speech on defence that most people would take issue with; what is there sounds good. However, I believe that people will take issue with what is missing from the speech.

    Where is the bold new direction for this country? Where is the thing that will give people hope that their Government understand what it is like to lie awake at night, worrying about how to pay the bills, or understand the fear that the job that a person has just lost, because their employer struggled with national insurance increases, will be their last? Where is the hope that the Government understand that same employer’s growing realisation that they may not be able to hold on to the company that they spent their life building? I actually think that many in this Government do understand that, because like me, they come from a background where that was an all-too-clear reality, but the country wants to see action and change—and soon.