Category: Speeches

  • 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.

  • Rachael Maskell – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Rachael Maskell – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    I congratulate His Majesty on delivering the Gracious Speech, and I concur with the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that investing 0.7% of GDP in international development aid will bring greater stability and increase our ability to secure greater diplomacy, as well as development. I think that should be our focus. I also thank him for the work he does on the Public Accounts Committee.

    The intersection of crises bearing down on our planet, our nation and our communities demands a bold response in this parliamentary Session. I recognise the current bind, but as we move into the next chapter of Labour’s story, there is one consideration that I want the Government to take through this legislative programme: how we bring our communities, our country and our fractious planet together. Such vision and policy must be the thread that gathers and inspires us.

    Against the backdrop of fast-paced change, this planet is breaking. The grotesque inequalities, climate degradation and conflict are driving people apart. At home we have had 14 years of austerity, whereby the harder someone works, the tougher it gets. That is why I have called for a new economic orthodoxy, as neoliberalism preys on the working class and exploits all who want to get on as much as those who cannot. As people are fleeced, the energy giants and water bosses profit, despite putting carbon in our air and sewage in our rivers, such as the Ouse in York—the second worst in the country. The clean water Bill must pull this service back into public hands and public accountability.

    Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)

    I welcome the hon. Lady’s call to take water back into public ownership. Does she agree that in setting the share price at which we buy it back, we should take account of the cost of pollution, of the money that is being paid to distant shareholders with no investment or interest in this country, and of the inconvenience caused to so many of our residents by constant leaks and the waste of water? Shareholders should pay the price of it, not our constituents.

    Rachael Maskell

    I do agree. It is daylight robbery, and people should not be profiting from our natural resources. We should not see the levels of pollution that exist in our rivers, which should be pure and clean. I have a sewer running through the middle of my city, and it is not acceptable. It is right to legislate, but also to ensure that we are not adding carbon to our natural environment. On airport and road expansion, we should ensure that we bring down levels of carbon, and I fear that might not be the case with airport expansion.

    The draft commonhold and leasehold Bill is welcome, as is freezing ground rents, but as developers extract all they can and people pay extortionate rents and management costs, we need to see good-quality housing as a right and to rethink the model. As I have witnessed in my constituency, co-operative housing is a powerful antidote that is worth investing in, alongside a new generation of council-built housing for the common good.

    The system is rigged against ordinary people, as it was 126 years ago, when trade unions came together to form the Labour party. It is our duty in this Parliament to once again set the ambition to drive transformation for our communities, address the grotesque inequalities that drive people apart, and rewire the system to bring us together. That is our purpose. As the unions fought for common terms and better pay, Labour reimagined a society in which everyone can get on, a welfare state for those in need, and an NHS in which Bevan positioned the duke and the dustman as equals. Not understanding a collective, cohesive society puts all this at risk, as Opposition parties seek to exploit opportunity and people, sell off our common assets and sow division.

    That is why Labour has an immense obligation to be bold and ambitious, not for those who take all they can, but for those who serve, work and play their part—and to take away the stigma and barriers for those who cannot. I implore the Government to maintain the rights of those with indefinite leave to remain, as new communities work alongside established communities. When it comes to restraining traumatised children, on which the Government are consulting, I simply warn them: don’t! I will not support that. All children must be treated with dignity—nothing less.

    Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)

    On indefinite leave to remain, on the journey down from my constituency today, I spoke to the private hire driver. He is on a visa that requires renewal every two and a half years. He will have to do that renewal four times before he is eligible for indefinite leave to remain. He is not really complaining about that, but about the council not allowing him to continue working when his visa is up for renewal and he sends away his documents to be processed. Would the hon. Member agree that that should be looked at, and that there should not be any unintended consequences of that process?

    Rachael Maskell

    The hon. Member has put that well and truly on the record. We need to reform the system. It is really prejudiced against so many people who are working hard in our society. We should not increase the time taken to get indefinite leave to remain, because our word should be our bond, and we should honour the agreements we make.

    That brings me to Labour Members’ ambitions for reforming the special educational needs and disabilities system. We need an inclusive approach, so that every child finds their place and reaches their level. More inclusion means rewiring the culture to be therapeutic and trauma-informed, with new pedagogies; mapping out learning styles for children; and ending harsh discipline and the single channel of exam-based assessments. Instead, we must include children and bring out their best. I urge the Treasury to invest the funding needed to help raise this generation and future generations, by supporting parents and babies with the right foundations during the first 1,001 critical days, and by providing the wraparound support that teachers, health professionals and support staff need, so that our SEND system is fixed once and for all. The benefit of that investment will show in the years to come.

    As we support our young people into work, we must recognise that state neglect under the last Government caused so much harm. We must be compassionate and work with, not against, our young people, as they struggle to navigate their way and transition into independence and work. Society and our communities should be brought together.

    Our centralised system is failing; decisions are made far from the realities of the regions and nations. That is building a sense of remote dystopia, and of not being in touch with the daily challenges that are being experienced as the cost of living weighs heavy, while others live profligate lives. Today, we need a radical devolution of power, finance and opportunity to help people see themselves as having agency and purpose. We should recognise the diversity of all our communities, and our common bond. It will not be found in the idealisms of some, or the toxic divisions of the right, which, believe me, will set community against community, while its crypto-backed leaders sow chaos and division, ripping up our NHS and our welfare state—our incredible inheritance that has glued our society together through generations.

    In the King’s Speech, we have so much to celebrate, and I will sew in the voices of my community in York as we progress. I want to ensure that the Railways Bill protects the wellbeing of all who work in the sector. Having championed the Removal of Titles Bill in the last two parliamentary Sessions, I hope that we can move fast on cleaning up our politics. I welcome the move to tackle antisemitism, as antisemitic graffiti has been found in my community this week. It brings such shame, and we must move fast on that. Improved relations with the EU will help to build the bridges we need.

    York is a visitor and tourism hotspot, so I will work carefully with the Government on the overnight visitor levy. I trust that businesses will not pay a penalty, and that our city will get the reward. The draft taxi licensing Bill will really help to bring licensing back under control.

    I trust that we will do more on the climate crisis. As the national emergency briefing highlighted, we do not have the luxury of time. The UK is in the bottom 10% of countries in the biodiversity intactness index, and one in six species is at risk of extinction. While our planet burns and our icecaps melt, we need to invest fast. Finance should be invested to hasten decarbonisation, and projects such as BioYorkshire should be funded to ensure that we hasten agricultural resilience, preventing the low yields and crop failure that are escalating the cost of food. That is why I am really glad that we are moving to independence in our energy market, too. We need a second employment rights Bill to capture the single status of worker, extend collective bargaining, and improve the wellbeing of workers.

    My final point is this: if we are to bring a diversity of voices to Parliament and ensure that they are heard, this place must change. Governments have been destabilised in recent years due to too much power being held by the Executive, and too little power being invested in Parliament. If that does not change, the discourse of distrust between Parliament and the people will continue. Our voices, representing the diversity of the country, must be heard, and must impact the programme of government. I want all Bills to go through in-depth consultations with MPs, who would input the experiences of their communities. Just running artificial intelligence across consultation responses is not good enough. I want full pre-legislative scrutiny, so that we can ensure that Bills are robust, unifying, and do everything possible to improve the lives of those we represent. Without that, I fear that we will let down the people we were sent here to represent. It is time to include all; the mission is too great to be for just a few. This parliamentary Session must be like no other, connecting communities, unifying society and transforming our future.

  • Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Geoffrey Clifton-Brown – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, the Conservative MP for North Cotswolds, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye in this important King’s Speech debate. I follow other colleagues in congratulating the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on their amusing and well-informed speeches.

    One of the few things that this Government have got right in the King’s Speech is the expedited Bill to nationalise Scunthorpe steelworks in order to safeguard domestic steel production. The plant is costing the taxpayer £1 million a day, and therefore modernisation and future private and public investment under a Government-owned company need to be implemented.

    However, our economy is in a very fragile state. It grew by only 1.3% in real terms in 2025, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that it will grow by only 1.4% in 2026—the lowest level of any G7 country. The United Kingdom is carrying one of the highest levels of borrowing in the western world. National debt is a staggering £2.9 trillion, which is equivalent to 93.8% of our entire GDP or £102,000 per household. Even more concerning is the fact that we are expected to spend—wait for it—£111 billion on debt interest alone to service that debt. If that were a Government Department, it would be the third largest.

    We are heavily reliant on international markets, and our national balance sheet is highly leveraged. That leaves our economy dangerously exposed to external shocks, such as the war in Iran and the Ukraine conflict. As a result, our borrowing premium on that debt is one of the highest in the OECD; today, we are paying more in debt interest than Greece. A 1% rise in interest rates adds £1.3 billion in costs in the first year, and £12 billion by the end of the forecast period, as new, expensive debt replaces older, cheaper debt. Indeed, yesterday, 30-year gilts hit a 28-year high at 5.81%. That gives a clue as to what the international markets think of our economic standing.

    On that note, I observe that one of the Labour leadership candidates does not have a clue how the bond market funding our enormous debt actually works. With inflation expected to rise again—some forecasters expect it to reach 6.7% next year—we face the very real risk of sliding into recession or a bond strike. If those very serious consequences were to occur, this country would be forced to take much more fundamental measures to cut our expenditure. A competent Government should already be doing so, to avoid any chance of this happening and to protect our reputation in the international markets.

    I note that the Government have included a Bill to reform the welfare system. The fact that 1 million people could work but do not is causing unacceptable tax increases on the rest of the hard-working population’s earnings. On top of that, higher interest rates are leading to higher food prices, higher mortgage payments and higher business costs. No one in this country—especially poorer working people—will be protected.

    Some of the issues we see today are avoidable. The current political instability is a major factor. It is not my job as an Opposition MP to tell Labour how to sort out its leadership problems, but whatever it does, it is important to convince the international community and the people of this country that there is a stable, well-thought-out economic policy and to give the markets confidence, in order to reduce the current borrowing premium. It is not the job of the Government to subsidise every business, but it is the duty of the Government to create conditions in which growth, prosperity, enterprise and investment can thrive.

    The Government have included a Bill to target youth unemployment, which is welcome, but the fact that it has risen by 16% or by 100,000 compared with a year ago makes it very hard for youngsters now leaving university or further education to start their careers. Meanwhile, businesses—particularly in hospitality and retail—are being taxed into oblivion and are not hiring as many people.

    In my North Cotswolds constituency, we employ 3,700 people in hospitality, and the sector provides £220 million to the local economy. However, higher employer national insurance contributions, rising minimum wages, hugely increasing business rates and energy price increases, exacerbated by the Employment Rights Act 2025, are all making it harder to make profits and are stalling growth. Taxes are already at a post-war high and there are threats to hike them further. None of this environment is encouraging businesses to hire and take on more people and so reduce the high unemployment figures.

    Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)

    I agree entirely with the hon. Member. To me, we have one of the most business-hostile environments. You made comments about young people not getting work. Do you agree that that is made worse by the national insurance hikes that have seen almost a generation being unable to get employment? Do you agree with me in that contention?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)

    Order. Let us start the Session as we mean to go on, with no “you” or “your”, because the hon. Member is not talking about me.

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    I do not think I could design a tax increase that was a bigger tax on jobs than the hike in national insurance. I totally agree with the hon. Lady, and I think it is tragic in particular for our young people trying to get into the world of work today.

    As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my focus is on value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that no expenditure goes to waste. Figures published by the National Audit Office in its “Audit insights” report in January 2026 point to a deeply worrying picture. The Government now spend around £1.1 trillion of taxpayers’ money across 17 Departments. A Department’s accounts are qualified—sorry, this is getting a little technical, but I hope the House will bear with me a little in this section of my speech—when it does not spend its budget as Parliament intends. The Department for Work and Pensions has had its accounts qualified for 36 years because its fraud and error rate is 3.3%, costing the taxpayer a staggering £9 billion. Overall—this is even more staggering—the Government have written off close to £7 billion this year across Departments, including the Ministry of Defence writing off £1.5 billion purely on cancelled projects. I repeat: £7 billion has been written off this year from cancelled and wasted projects. That is staggering.

    The PAC has consistently recommended that each Department improves its digital and AI efficiencies. We believe that should be implemented from the top down, and that a chief digital and information officer should be appointed at a senior level in every Department and on arm’s length bodies. That would lead to efficiencies and savings. After all, every efficiency and every saving that can be made is more money to spend somewhere else. The public sector is constantly behind the private sector digitally, and we need to do much better to ensure that our public services actually deliver for taxpayers, using the latest and best technology to do so. AI is a tsunami that the Government are nowhere near prepared to deal with. I do not mean this as a criticism of the civil service—it is just how it is—but only 5% of the civil service have specific IT qualifications. Some experts say that needs to rise to 10%, which would be a massive transformation.

    The Government announced a Bill to reform the welfare system. This year alone, the Department for Work and Pensions budget is expected to reach a projected £333 billion, or around 23.7% of UK spending. That almost outweighs the income tax payments of £330 billion that we receive from hard-working people. Imagine that: the total amount of income tax from hard-working people almost does not pay for the bill for the Department of Work and Pensions. The pension and benefit budgets are ballooning, and that expenditure is only due to increase as we mercifully live longer and healthier lives. Somebody else mentioned that we are at risk of intergenerational unfairness. There is a risk that our children will be unable to pay off this increasing debt, yet this Government have failed to take back control of this skyrocketing budget. Instead, their Back Benchers refuse to support such changes, which would cost just £5 billion.

    Another issue that the PAC will be examining closely is the cost of Government compensation schemes, which over their lifetime are expected to exceed £102 billion, or just under what we pay in debt interest in any one year. The Government, of course, have a moral obligation to compensate citizens when the state makes serious mistakes, but we must do so in a fair, proportionate and non-litigious way.

    Finally, and most importantly, I want to turn to defence. The first absolute duty of any Government is to ensure that our nation is properly defended. The King’s Speech made a commitment to NATO and to a sustained increase in defence spending, yet the defence investment plan, promised from that Dispatch Box in June 2025 and in every month since then—alongside the strategic defence review—has still not been published. Until we have that plan, we cannot see how the Government propose to procure all the military equipment that is needed.

    Jim Shannon

    I commend the hon. Gentleman for the speech that he is making. Does he agree that one of the things we need to do on defence here in the United Kingdom is adopt the drone technology that Ukraine now has? Russia is under threat: it is worried about the attacks that are reaching far into its interior. Does he agree that we may need a partnership with Ukraine to promote our drone technology in a way that can make us as effective as the Ukrainians?

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    If the hon. Gentleman is just a little patient, he will find that, two or three paragraphs down, I will address precisely that point.

    Currently, the defence budget for 2025-26 is £62.2 billion, which is a measly 18% of the welfare budget of £333 billion. The Government have pledged to increase it by 2.6%, or £9 billion, by 2027 and by 3% in the next Parliament, which means a further increase of £14 billion. But none of that new money has yet arrived.

    Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)

    Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the best form of defence is peace, and that the overseas development aid budget—as was mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell)—is a key component of achieving peace around the world through soft power and diplomacy? A great deal of that aid is crucial for people’s survival in many parts of the world.

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As someone who worked under my right hon. Friend for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) as a junior Opposition defence spokesman, I understand the value of overseas aid, and I particularly understand the elements of it that he describes as soft power. The other day the PAC conducted an inquiry about the BBC World Service, and I do wish that the Government would fund that service properly. It is an extremely well-respected element of Britain’s ability to project our values around the world, and it is very sad when the Chinese and the Russians come in as soon as we make cuts in it.

    At a time when the world is increasingly uncertain and bellicose, our MOD budget is in crisis, and as a result a significant number of procurement projects have been put on hold. These delays will have significant cost implications, so when, or if, the extra money does arrive, it will buy less and less equipment. I went to Ukraine earlier this year, and it is clear to me that we need more and more rockets, drones, interceptors, unmanned vehicles and investment in space. However, some of the proposed equipment is designed for yesterday’s wars, and it remains to be seen whether the MOD will be agile enough to make those substitutions in future procurement.

    David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)

    That is pretty obvious.

    Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

    It may be pretty obvious to some, but it is not so obvious to others.

    To govern is to make difficult choices. In short, the Government are spending more than the country can afford, funded by ever-increasing amounts of debt. If we are serious about protecting our nation in an increasingly uncertain world, we must also be serious about the strength of our economy. That means bringing our unaffordable welfare bill under control, creating a stronger environment for growth, eliminating billions of pounds in waste—some of which I have identified in my speech, although if time had allowed I could have identified billions more—and reforming how government works through the rapid roll-out of digital reform. The civil service must be reoriented around productivity and efficiency. Only with a stronger, leaner and more resilient economy can we fund our defences, secure our future and meet the challenges ahead.

  • Chris Webb – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Chris Webb – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Chris Webb, the Labour MP for Blackpool South, 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) on two terrific speeches. I have to say that I am quite surprised to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow here without his London marathon medal around his neck, but I gently say, “Come back when you’ve done two of them, and then you can start talking”—[Interruption.] I’m not doing another one!

    The lives of my constituents in Blackpool South may feel far removed from this place, but the legislation announced in the King’s Speech will impact them. For 14 years, Blackpool was the poster child for Government failure. My constituents have lived through the consequences of decisions made in this place. They have felt sharply the pressures of insecure work, poor housing, rising living costs and overstretched public services, and they have felt forgotten. But if Blackpool became an example of how badly politics can fail people, it can also be an example of what happens when this place gets it right. If the Government can turn around the fortunes of a town with the worst health outcomes, lowest wages and highest levels of deprivation in the country, there is nowhere that cannot succeed. When Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds.

    When we talk about the cost of living crisis, we are not just talking about the price of a pint of milk or a loaf of bread. In Blackpool, we are experiencing food insecurity alongside debt, poor housing and an acute mental health crisis. Families already struggling to pay the rent are pushed further behind by insecure work and rising bills. These are not isolated problems, and there is no quick fix.

    Legislation passed in this House matters so much in constituencies like mine. Strengthening employment rights, increasing the minimum wage, expanding free childcare provision and providing security to renters are all examples of the real difference being made right now to working families in Blackpool, but, with parents still skipping meals so that their children can eat, there is still much work to be done. I hope the legislation announced today will ease the pressure on working people, who have carried the burden of economic instability for far too long.

    Energy security is part of the challenge too. The devastating conflict in Iran is having a growing impact across the world. For families in Blackpool who are already struggling to make ends meet, another spike in their bills is devastating. My constituents deserve the security of knowing that their energy supply is reliable and affordable, and the energy independence Bill will hopefully give them that.

    I welcome the commitments to improve patient care and support early intervention through the NHS modernisation Bill, because health inequality remains one of the biggest injustices facing my constituents. People in Blackpool spend about a third of their lives in poor health, and the healthy life expectancy for men in my home town is 50 years old. My son was born in Blackpool, as was I, and this simple fact means that he and all the other children born in our town are expected to live 10 years less than a child born in Hampshire. That is 10 years stolen before they have even had the chance to live them. There is nothing inevitable about those figures; they are the result of political choices and years of inequality. NHS reform must be meaningful to improve outcomes and give people the chance to live longer and healthier lives.

    Having visited schools across my constituency, met with the parents of SEND children and read hundreds of the responses to my constituency SEND survey, it is clear to me that the current system is not working for families in my constituency and beyond. Parents speak about fighting for support that should already be there. Schools are under enormous pressure, and children are waiting far too long for the help that they need. The funding secured earlier this year and the two new SEND schools in Blackpool are welcome, because they will mean that more children are getting support closer to home and that fewer families face months of uncertainty and delay. However, areas with the highest levels of need must receive support that reflects the reality in their area, because children growing up in Blackpool deserve the same opportunities as children growing up anywhere else in this country.

    As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism and the MP for a town built on tourism, I have followed discussions about the visitor levy closely. Tourism supports thousands of jobs in Blackpool and gives young people opportunities to join the jobs ladder, as was the case for me; I sold crisps and KitKats at the age of 14. The tourist pound reaches far beyond hotels and guest houses and supports pubs, cafés, restaurants, theatres, attractions and transport links across our area. Before the introduction of the overnight visitor levy Bill, the concerns of the sector must be taken seriously, because additional costs and burdens will hit them the hardest. If we are serious about supporting British tourism, I repeat my call for the Chancellor to reduce VAT for hospitality and tourism in line with other European countries.

    Just under two years ago, when we were in opposition, I stood from the Opposition Benches to ask my first question as the MP for Blackpool South; I called for taxi licensing reform. Taxis are an essential part of Blackpool’s transport network, but the licensing scheme has failed both passengers and our local economy. We need reform so that local drivers are protected, passengers are safe and Blackpool gets the benefit of the revenue that is created in our town, instead of it leaving down the motorway at the end of each day. After a long campaign, I am delighted that the Government will take action that I have long campaigned for to modernise taxi and private hire laws. This Bill can finally address the issue of out-of-area working, protecting public safety and supporting local taxi revenue.

    This place has the power to change the direction of my seaside town’s story and, in doing so, to change the story that Britain tells about itself. Let that be the challenge for this Labour Government. If we want the trust of the country, we must prove that we can rebuild places that were unfortunately written off too often by the previous Government. We must prove that prosperity does not belong only to the wealthiest postcodes and that working people, coastal towns and forgotten communities matter just as much as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It will stand as proof that a different future is possible—one that is fairer, more hopeful and more equal—because, as I have said before, when Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds.

  • Andrew Mitchell – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Andrew Mitchell – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Sir Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to contribute to this King’s Speech debate at such an early point. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and I want to express strong support for what he said about the determination of the Government and of the whole of Parliament to crack down on antisemitism. I hope that he will have carried everyone in this House in the words he used.

    It is also a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on their brilliant speeches, which entertained and amused the House. The hon. Member for Harrow West said that it was an honour to be in the same party as both of them, but I think all of us can say that it is an honour to be in the same Parliament as both of them, and they certainly did very well. I have to admit that it is now 34 years since, in 1992, I had the privilege of seconding the Queen’s Speech from the Government Benches. On that occasion, I referred to myself as an

    “oily young man on the make”—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 56.]

    Those were the days!

    There are three points I wish to contribute briefly to the debate, all of which came off the doorsteps in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield during the recent elections, when I was listening carefully to my constituents—elections, incidentally, which were extremely successful for the Conservatives in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we hold now all 10 seats on Birmingham city council, having got rid of the last vestiges of the Labour party in the royal town.

    That clean sweep in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield was not echoed across the city of Birmingham, where six significant parties are now represented on the council, making governance even more difficult than it was before. I urge those on the Treasury Bench, in particular the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to be on red alert about what happens now in the city of Birmingham. They are, I think, going to need to give the commissioners far greater powers. Vulnerable people, old and young, depend on Birmingham city council turning a page and becoming a more effective giver of good local governance. The words of the Conservative leader of the Conservative group on Birmingham city council, Robert Alden, are important. He said that the group would try to

    “work with people across the political spectrum”

    to deliver these priorities.

    Birmingham has languished under a profoundly inadequate Labour administration, which even the Labour party nationally did not think was doing a proper job. It will now require a herculean effort of restraint and good will to deliver the governance that the people of Birmingham are entitled to receive. That will involve devolving more power locally. Governance is always best when it is closest to the people it seeks to serve, and certainly the royal town of Sutton Coldfield’s town council, under its outstanding leader Simon Ward, is ready for more devolution, which we think will make life better for local people.

    My second point is about defence, because although the words are in the King’s Speech, an awful lot more needs to be done. Ukraine and President Trump have ushered in a new era on defence—and, incidentally, thank goodness the last Conservative Government were so fast to realise, arm and train the Ukrainians ahead of and during the early days of the illegal invasion by Russia. The Prime Minister complains—he may or may not have some justice in doing so—that the armed forces have been hollowed out over many years by both parties. However, it is on his watch that these acute problems have come to pass. George Robertson, who was respected on both sides of the House over many years, has made clear that we must now rearm and increase our spending on defence, and I very much hope that the Government will provide far more urgency than they are providing at the moment to that cause.

    President Trump was not the first person to complain about Europe failing to pull its weight financially in NATO, but he is the first American President to take action. Britain needs to step up. We need to lead European NATO with France and Germany, but also with Poland and in co-operation with Ukraine, whose technology has redefined modern warfare. Australia and Canada are significantly increasing their spending, and I very much hope that the Government will now entertain far greater urgency in addressing these matters.

    I am pleased that Gordon Brown is now at the heart of this Labour Government. I hope he will explain the importance of soft power being the other side of the defence coin. Many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are experts on defence, and they know that the Government made a terrible mistake in cutting further the amount that we spend on development. Development is a very important arrow in the defence quiver, and I very much hope that Gordon Brown will be able to explain to the Government why this is so important, and why they have made such a mistake.

    My third and final point is about welfare, which is now consuming every penny that we raise in income tax. We simply cannot go on like that.

    The Government always appear to be caught in the headlights whenever welfare is discussed. The last time they sought to tackle the issue, they were unable to carry their Back Benchers and they failed to do so. I submit that they failed because they tackled it in the wrong way.

    There are three rules of welfare reform, as I learned many years ago as a junior welfare Minister between 1995 and 1997 in John Major’s Government. That may have been 30 years ago, but the rules of welfare reform have not changed. It was the most complex of the various ministerial jobs that it was my privilege to undertake, and this is what I learned.

    First, we cannot take benefit money off poor people. It is not right to do so anyway, and as constituency Members of Parliament we know that it cannot be done. None of us came into politics to make poor people poorer. Taking money off the poorest people is not something that anyone who is planning to reform welfare should entertain.

    Secondly, the only way to save on welfare is to freeze benefits, although not disability benefits—something that I believe no Conservative Government have ever done. Freezing benefits can make a significant difference to the size of the budget.

    Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)

    Does the right hon. Member agree that rather than attacking the most vulnerable in our society to pay for the nation’s defence, it would be better to tax the banks and the large multinationals on their extravagant profits?

    Sir Andrew Mitchell

    I am worried that the hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, was not listening to what I said. I said that the first rule of benefit reform is not to take cash off very poor people, and I explained that it cannot be done. That is what Labour found when it outlined its policies for welfare reform and then had to back off.

    The third rule is to narrow the gateways into a benefit. We have seen—particularly with the personal independence payment, but in other ways as well—that narrowing the gateways is an important aspect of any reform. I very much hope that the Government will return to the issue with a well-thought-through plan and will manage to carry people with them.

    Finally, the hon. Member for Harlow said in seconding the motion that this is a King’s Speech for young people. I hope that it is; I fear that it is not. We need to recognise that we are presiding over a period of growing intergenerational inequality, and this House must address it. I hope that the hon. Member’s point will inform the decisions that the Government make now.

  • Gareth Thomas – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    Gareth Thomas – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

    The speech made by Gareth Thomas, the Labour MP for Harrow West, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2026.

    I should say at the outset how much I welcome the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about antisemitism. Kenton United Synagogue and Golders Green sit very close to my constituency. The attacks were shocking and appalling; I welcome the Government’s determination to crack down on online hatred and antisemitism, and I take this opportunity to commend the courage and skill of the police officers who responded.

    One of the many important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) made in her excellent and humorous speech was the need for those of all faiths—and indeed those of no faith—to stand together against hatred. That point will resonate particularly in a constituency such as mine. My hon. Friend gave a brilliant speech. She is an inspiration, and I suspect I am not the only Member to feel that it is an honour to be in the same party as her.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is without doubt a rising star in our ranks, made me jealous with his marathon-running skills. If hon. Members will forgive me, I will not dwell on his love letter to Harlow, but I will dwell a little bit on our shared commitment to co-operation. Together with other members of the Co-operative parliamentary party, I hope we will see progress on delivering solutions to the need for capital so that more co-operatives can expand in our country over the time covered by this King’s Speech.

    The biggest challenge facing our country remains how to put more money in people’s pockets and drive up living standards at a time of ever-increasing global tensions. It is worth remembering what the Leader of the Opposition is clearly trying to forget: after 14 years of austerity, and after the Conservatives and their friends in Reform led us out of the world’s biggest market, doing huge economic damage, our public services are still in need of sustained investment. In that regard, I share my constituents’ impatience for change.

    I welcome the determination in the Gracious Speech to continue to reform the leasehold system, for example to make service charges more transparent, fairer and easier to challenge. I welcome the plans to abolish NHS England, to fund more investment in expanding GP services and to bring down waiting lists and waiting times in hospitals such as Northwick Park, which serves my constituents.

    I welcome, too, the overdue crackdown on late payments by big firms to small businesses.

    There are two long-term changes that I believe are key to delivering sustained higher living standards, particularly for my constituents. The first will be to secure far better access to Europe’s single market; the second will be to secure far better access to finance for small businesses and the financially vulnerable. On Europe, I particularly welcome the European partnership Bill in this Gracious Speech as the next step towards a closer relationship with Europe. With the US increasingly unreliable as an ally and with the economic damage from Brexit ever clearer, Britain needs to prioritise negotiating a dramatically better trade, defence and security deal with the EU. The imminent deal lowering barriers to trade in food will reduce red tape and lower business costs. The decision to rejoin Erasmus and the coming deal on youth mobility are positive, too.

    A referendum in my lifetime on whether to rejoin the EU feels inevitable, and if it happens, I will be very tempted to campaign to rejoin. We are, though, a long way from such a moment. The priority, with the next UK-EU summit coming up, should be to reach agreement for a full renegotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement and to secure greater access to the single market, which would be far more beneficial than mere customs union membership. The recently concluded EU-Swiss trade deal offers a helpful pointer, with much more integration into the single market for more sectors of Switzerland’s similarly service-based economy. Further security and defence co-operation, increased business mobility, mutual recognition agreements to remove duplicate product testing and certification to make it easier for businesses to sell British goods in European markets would make a significant difference for businesses here, for our economy and ultimately for living standards.

    Dave Doogan

    I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s anticipation of a brighter future, with a closer relationship with the EU. He even goes so far as to say that he looks forward to another referendum on whether to rejoin the European Union. Does he agree that when we are sold an outcome in a false prospectus on a referendum, it is probably no big deal to have a rerun of that referendum so that we can make an informed decision about our constitutional future?

    Gareth Thomas

    The one thing I would agree with the hon. Gentleman on is that we need a closer relationship. It is this Government who have sought to rebuild relations with Europe, and they are doing so increasingly effectively. On the need to open up opportunities for more co-operation with Europe, I recognise that we will have to pay to access the single market more easily, but given the damage to our economy, the higher costs and the extra bureaucracy that the poorly negotiated Brexit deal brought in its wake, we should be willing to negotiate that hard bargain.

    The second long-term issue that we should focus on as necessary to deliver sustained higher living standards is banking. Millions of people and thousands of small businesses are locked out of affordable credit and forced into high-cost or illegal lending. Money is being taken from the pockets of the poorest, and economic growth is being stifled. This is an entrenched but fixable market failure, which I hope the coming enhancing financial services Bill may begin to address.

    Research published in January by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, funded by the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade, made the striking conclusion that if Britain had a network of mutual banks that had stronger direct relationships with their small business owners, growth would be higher by between 1% and more than 2% over its first five years, rising to between 1.7% and 3.5% over the long term. It noted, too, that investment would be almost 2% to 3.5% higher in the first five years, rising to between 2% and almost 4.5% higher in the long run. The research—it is academic research—looks at the impact of mutual banks in France, state-run German regional banks and community development finance institutions in the US, and considers how much more lending would happen if the UK had a somewhat less centralised banking model than we have now.

    Many suggestions for how to deliver growth are currently doing the rounds, but the scale of the impact of more investment in mutual or community banks, as this serious research suggests, raises the obvious question of what more we could achieve in this area during this Parliament by expanding the reach and scale of mutual banks, building more direct and personal relationships with more small and medium-sized businesses, offering more affordable credit options for personal customers, and creating a greater willingness to back hard-headed community ownership initiatives that help to restore pride in the places where we live.

    Fair banking legislation—similar to that in the US—would help. Proactive efforts to help credit unions expand through employers, particularly those in the public sector, offering payroll deduction options would help too. The biggest banks should actively help support the expansion of community banks; one or two do, but they need sustained private capital investment. Barclays, Santander and HSBC invest in community development finance institutions or community banks in the US, but they do not here in the UK. That should change.

    Let me turn to the international situation. I welcome the Government’s continuing support for Ukraine, the decision to stay out of the illegal conflict with Iran and the strong support for NATO. The situation in Gaza remains profoundly disturbing. Every child under five in Gaza is considered undernourished by UNICEF and other aid agencies. Almost every school has been destroyed or severely damaged, and 96% of households lack adequate access to water. Over 1 million children are facing a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, which I suggest demands fresh and sustained UK engagement. I strongly supported the Government’s decision last year to recognise the state of Palestine to protect the viability of a two-state solution and create a path towards a lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people. Distant as that prospect may seem, in my view it remains the only path to a sustainable peace for the Palestinians and Israelis alike. The UN documented more than 1,800 settler attacks last year in the west bank—the highest on record and clearly part of a sustained campaign to reduce the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. Action to clamp down on goods coming into the UK from illegal settlements and to further sanction violent settlers is needed.

    Lastly, 80 years since the founding meeting took place just across from where this House meets, a renewed commitment to the United Nations has never been more necessary. For all its failings—and there have been many—it remains our best route for addressing conflicts, for tackling global health threats, for promoting the rights of all, for delivering humanitarian aid and for championing the interests of the world’s most vulnerable. With our coming G20 and G7 presidencies, we are in a unique position to support the current UN Secretary-General as he seeks to rethink and reaffirm the UN’s role for the world we are in now. I hope that we will support him in those efforts.