Category: Speeches

  • David Lammy – 2026 Statement on Youth Justice

    David Lammy – 2026 Statement on Youth Justice

    The statement made by David Lammy, the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice, in the House of Commons on 18 May 2026.

    With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the youth justice system in England and Wales. I am today publishing a White Paper, with a once-in-a-generation set of reforms to build a youth justice system that intervenes early, responds more effectively and does more to turn young lives around, so that we can better protect the public. I am very grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), and, before him, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), for all their hard work in getting us to this point.

    Over the past two decades, the number of children entering the youth justice system and being detained in custody has fallen dramatically. This progress is the result of real cross-party consensus, with a modern youth justice system that began under Tony Blair’s Government and was continued, during his time as Prime Minister, by Lord Cameron—he famously said he would “hug a hoodie”—who, with Lord Gove, asked me to carry out the Lammy review.

    But this success has brought a new challenge. Our youth justice system is now working with significantly fewer young people, but they are significantly more vulnerable and at significantly higher risk. Most begin their journey into crime long before they come to the attention of the police, their lives shaped by instability, by trauma and often by neglect—the kind of childhood that most of us in this House could barely imagine. Some grow up surrounded by violence, addiction and abuse, while others are moved endlessly around children’s homes or foster care placements, never staying in one place long enough to have the stability needed to feel safe, let alone the love and care that would enable them to really thrive. All those factors make them more likely to end up in the justice system. When we fail to intervene early enough, the consequences can be devastating—for those children, of course, but also for victims and entire communities, because around 80% of prolific adult offenders first enter the justice system as children.

    The risks that children face have also changed. Today’s children are navigating online harms, criminal grooming through social media and exposure to extremist content. Too often the system has struggled to keep pace: opportunities to intervene are missed, warning signs go unnoticed and agencies do not consistently share information. This means that children can slip through the cracks between services, which risks escalation, and responsibility between agencies becomes blurred. The lessons emerging from the Southport inquiry, following the tragic murders of three young children by Axel Rudakubana, a violent 17-year-old who was known to authorities, are a terrible reminder of what can happen when systems are not sufficiently co-ordinated and not sufficiently decisive in the face of escalating concerns.

    We must learn those lessons but also strike the right balance. The system must recognise that they are still developing and that most have huge capacity to change. We should not over-criminalise but, at the same time, avoiding criminalisation must never mean overlooking risk or failing to act. Benign neglect, however well intentioned, is still neglect. Where behaviour causes harm, timely, proportionate and effective intervention is essential to protect the public and to support children to change course.

    That principle is reflected throughout this White Paper. First, we will intervene earlier, investing an additional £46 million over the next three years in our turnaround programme, which is already showing promising results in diverting children from crime, and by strengthening the join-up with other programmes that support children on the cusp of offending. We will also strengthen and expand the use of parenting orders, which can compel parents to address their child’s behaviour, including attending counselling or guidance sessions. If they do not act, they will face penalties. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce an offence of child criminal exploitation, building on the work carried out by others, including Baroness May, and placing the focus where it belongs: on the adults who groom, the adults who coerce and the adults who profit from exploiting children. Through new youth diversion orders, we will tackle the increasing number of young people who commit terrorism offences, allowing agencies to intervene before that risk escalates.

    Where offending does happen, we will ensure that children get the right response at the right time. Diversion must be firm, fair and effective. We will fundamentally reform the youth out-of-court resolution framework, to improve consistency and public confidence so that children receive interventions that genuinely address their behaviour and cut crime. We will also pilot problem-solving youth intervention courts, laser-focused on rehabilitation and prevention. They bring together judges, youth workers and specialist support to tackle the root causes of offending, whether mental ill health, school absence, addiction or exploitation, while still demanding accountability from young offenders.

    Custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences, but for many children even a short spell inside can deepen their problems, exposing them to more violence and criminal influence. So we are setting an ambition to cut the number of children remanded in custody by 25% over this Parliament, alongside an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences, which so often are ineffective, with more than two thirds of children going on to reoffend. Instead, we will invest £5 million in intensive community placements and stronger bail support, protecting the public while giving children a genuine chance to change course.

    We will also reform the childhood criminal records regime, because mistakes made at 13 should not become a life sentence of closed doors and lost chances, not least where this prevents young people from getting a job, which is a crucial factor in helping offenders turn their lives around. We will carefully consider the age of criminal responsibility in this country, which currently sits at just 10 years old, to ensure that it still reflects a modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development. We will also strengthen local youth justice services so that they are better equipped to meet the needs of today’s children.

    We will soon set out detailed proposals for a new approach to youth justice service oversight, and funding arrangements so that children receive consistently high-quality support wherever they live. That includes reforming the Youth Justice Board, sharpening its focus on continuous improvement of local services and transferring some of its key functions to the Ministry of Justice, so that Ministers are fully accountable for how the system performs.

    I have been clear that custody will, where appropriate, be necessary for public safety. However, we will take further action to improve safety and education across the youth estate, while setting a clear long-term direction of travel away from large, outdated institutions and towards smaller settings that can better rehabilitate children.

    The White Paper is also about fairness. Not all children in our justice system are equal. Those in care are still far more likely to be drawn into the system. Black children remain vastly over-represented—22% of the youth custodial population, compared with 6% of 10 to 17-year-olds overall. Black children are also over-represented among victims, being around six times more likely to be victims of homicide. I warned about this disproportionality when David Cameron asked me to do the Lammy review, nearly a decade ago, and the fact it persists today should shame us all. These reforms will begin to address that, building a system that is fairer and more consistent.

    It is not a choice between punishment and rehabilitation; it is about what works: protecting the public, cutting reoffending, and stopping vulnerable children—so often victims themselves—becoming tomorrow’s dangerous adult offenders. This Government will do whatever it takes to give more children the chance of a better future, and to keep the British public safe. I commend this statement to the House.

  • Keir Mather – 2026 Speech on the Third Runway at Heathrow Airport

    Keir Mather – 2026 Speech on the Third Runway at Heathrow Airport

    The speech made by Keir Mather, the Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Members in attendance, in particular the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for securing the debate. We have engaged on this topic before, and I would welcome any further engagement in the build-up to and following the publication of the draft amended ANPS.

    Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)

    I am very grateful for the Minister’s commitment to engagement. Right now, there is traffic chaos in the Egham and Pooley Green area. I am opposed to the third runway. It will make the transport situation in the north of my constituency worse, and it will cause problems of increased noise and air pollution. Will he engage with our local communities, so that he can hear from them how much we do not want it?

    Keir Mather

    I would be very pleased to engage with the hon. Member and, perhaps through him, with the community groups that he points to. It is important to say that the ANPS review will consider the elements of the existing ANPS that relate to surface access proposals. That includes mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effects of expansion on existing surface access arrangements. I would be happy to speak about that with him and his constituents.

    Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)

    The Minister is making a really important point about the importance of surface access. He will know, because I have pressed him on this before, how important I think it is that we get better rail access to Heathrow, regardless of whether there is a third runway. Heathrow has committed to looking at both a western rail link and, importantly for my constituents in Bracknell, a southern rail link. Would he like to see those plans go ahead? Will he press Heathrow to make sure that they are part of any proposals, and will he do everything he can to deliver better rail access for my constituents?

    Keir Mather

    As part of the ANPS process, we are going to consider the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets. Any expansion at Heathrow will be tested against the public transport mode share targets set out in the ANPS, and rail will form an important part of those considerations. I would be happy to have further conversations with my hon. Friend about how his constituents may be affected by any expansion and mitigations in that space, although I do not wish to pre-empt any of the outcomes of the ANPS review.

    Heathrow expansion and, in turn, a third runway at Heathrow airport would have a transformative impact. It is essential, as hon. Members have outlined, that the Government get this process right, taking full account of all views and ensuring adequate and full scrutiny. The Government recognise that air connectivity plays a vital role in supporting economic growth across the country, with the air transport and aerospace sectors contributing £23 billion to our GDP and 240,000 jobs across the United Kingdom in 2023.

    Dr Ben Spencer

    Will the Minister give way?

    Keir Mather

    I will give way briefly, and then I will make some progress.

    Dr Spencer

    Notwithstanding my points about the third runway, the success of Heathrow is incredibly important to my constituents in providing jobs and economic activity locally. Will the Minister update us on the Government’s response to the concerns about kerosene supply, which impacts Heathrow and our economy?

    Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)

    I hesitate to even raise this, but in case the Minister is anxious about time, we can—fortunately or unfortunately—run to 5.30 pm.

    Keir Mather

    Fortunately, Madam Deputy Speaker—come on!

    The hon. Member is right to say that the economic activity and jobs created by Heathrow airport are dependent on international supply chains, and I know his constituents will be looking with concern at what is happening in the middle east. The Department for Transport is engaging very closely with both our refineries and the aviation sector to ensure we have security of aviation fuel supply. That work is ongoing, and we are confident that, working closely with those stakeholders, we can ensure that the impacts of the crisis in the middle east are sufficiently mitigated. I know how important that will be to his constituents.

    Capacity constraints are hindering further growth in our aviation sector. Heathrow airport, as the UK’s busiest airport and only hub airport, plays a critical role in enabling international connectivity for both passengers and freight: 73% of UK long-haul flights go from Heathrow and 72% of UK international air freight by value goes through the airport. The decision about a third runway at Heathrow has been ducked and delayed for decades, which has resulted in the capacity of the UK’s only hub airport being constrained. That has had a material impact on Heathrow, with the airport operating at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades.

    Our ambition, as set out by the Chancellor, is clear: it is to enable delivery of an operational third runway at Heathrow by 2035. Better connections and a third runway have the potential to boost the UK economy and support thousands of jobs. Businesses, and business groups such as the Federation of Small Businesses, the British Chambers of Commerce and regional chambers across the country, are clear in their support for Heathrow expansion, as are major trade unions. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion proposal needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution.

    As hon. Members will be aware, last October my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport announced that the ANPS, which is the Government’s policy framework for additional runway capacity at Heathrow airport, would be reviewed to reflect changes in legislation, policy and data, and to ensure that any proposed scheme meets the Government’s four tests—on economic growth, climate change, air quality and noise—for expansion at Heathrow. The ANPS provides the basis for decision making on granting development consent for a new runway. Any scheme must be delivered in line with the UK’s legal, climate and environmental obligations.

    In November, the Government announced that the north-west runway scheme, put forward by Heathrow Airport Ltd, will be used to inform the review of the ANPS. However, once the Government have reviewed the ANPS, and depending on the outcome of the review, any applicant, also known as a promoter, can submit a proposal through the development consent order process.

    It is for scheme promoters to decide when to submit any DCO application for a third runway scheme, and any promoter may submit a proposal for development consent. It is at that stage of the planning process when the precise impact of Heathrow would be considered. Any DCO application to build a third runway would go through a strict and independent process. It would be examined by the Planning Inspectorate. The Secretary of State for Transport would then make a final decision on whether to grant consent.

    Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)

    I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being very generous with his time—although, as Madam Deputy Speaker pointed out, we have quite a lot of it. The UK Government used to have a golden share in Heathrow airport. However, that was ruled illegal by the European Court of Justice in 2003. Given that the Government broadly want the same thing as any promoter might want, inasmuch as they want Heathrow expansion, that would suggest that the Government are at the point of maximum influence in this build-up phase. Post-Brexit, will the Minister consider making any progress with the third runway conditional on the British Government getting back their golden share, so that we can control a great deal more of what goes on at Heathrow at Government level?

    Keir Mather

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. If he does not mind my saying so, I think he may have a slightly over-inflated expectation of my powers as a junior Minister in the Department for Transport to compel a change in Heathrow airport’s ownership structure. What I am pleased to say is that there is broad support for the principle of expansion, irrespective of the fact that the Government have set this as a key priority to generate growth and prosperity in the United Kingdom. I will certainly take his suggestion on board, but I am pleased to say that I think the onus is there to ensure that the project is realised, irrespective of the ownership model that may exist.

    To turn back briefly to the DCO process, the Government are working at pace to ensure that the ANPS constitutes a robust framework under which any successful promoter must meet the four tests and the requirements under the Planning Act 2008—a position we have consistently maintained since the Government’s initial announcement in support of expansion last year.

    I would like to touch on some of the general points raised during the debate on the potential impact of Heathrow expansion, but two small points of detail were originally raised that I would like to address first. First, on the introduction of a civil aviation Bill, the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill is a Lords Bill and I am pleased to confirm that it was introduced today. Secondly, on the principle of night flights, the hon. Member for Richmond Park will know that the current night flight restrictions at Heathrow are in place until 2028, but we intend to consult next year on proposals for the period that follows.

    Although the ANPS review is ongoing and limits what can be said in detail at this stage, I want to reassure the House that both Parliament and constituents will have the formal opportunity to engage when the amended draft ANPS is published for consultation and undergoes parliamentary scrutiny.

    Heathrow expansion is a private sector project and the Government have been clear that it must be privately financed. Taxpayers will not bear the cost of expansion. The Government are working with the Civil Aviation Authority to ensure that flying out of Heathrow will be affordable and that any increases to fares during expansion are minimised. Protecting the interests of consumers is the CAA’s priority and keeping costs affordable will always be a part of the CAA’s considerations.

    Munira Wilson

    I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Just before he got on to the cost point, he confirmed that the ANPS will receive parliamentary scrutiny. Can he clarify for the House whether that means a debate and a vote on the Floor of the House?

    Keir Mather

    I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Once the ANPS is laid in Parliament, there is a 21 sitting day consideration period during which the House of Commons can resolve that a vote can be called on whether to approve the ANPS. There is also the important principle of Select Committee scrutiny. It is for the Liaison Committee, I believe, to determine which Committee is most appropriate to take forward Select Committee-level analysis of the implications of the ANPS, and to take oral evidence and so on. That process is all to come and will be folded into a robust process of parliamentary scrutiny that the Government fully support taking place through the Select Committee process.

    It is our view that expansion could inject billions into our economy, support thousands of apprenticeships, and strengthen Heathrow’s status as a global passenger and airfreight hub. It should also deliver major benefits for passengers, including reduced delays and, ultimately, lower fares when compared with a world where Heathrow does not expand. The Government have been clear that any Heathrow expansion needs to demonstrate that it can contribute to economic growth, and as part of the ANPS review the Department is developing analysis on the economic impacts of Heathrow expansion, the outcome of which will be published for consultation alongside the outcome of the ANPS review.

    On the matter of climate commitments, the Government are clear that Heathrow expansion must align with our climate obligations. That is something that the Government remain absolutely committed to. The increasing carbon emissions associated with Heathrow do not in themselves mean that airport expansion cannot take place; the important point is that the Government remain able to meet their carbon reduction targets in the round. Economy-wide net zero and carbon budgets mean that even if emissions rise in one area, such as aviation, they must be fully balanced by either further carbon savings or high-quality and permanent greenhouse gas removals elsewhere.

    The Government published their plan for delivering carbon budgets 4 to 6 on 29 October 2025, including on aviation, and we will be legislating for the carbon budget 7 target shortly. The current ANPS sets expectations on measures to mitigate the carbon impact of expansion at Heathrow, and those mitigations are being considered as part of the ANPS review.

    The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned commitments around noise, which are incredibly important. We recognise the concern among communities that a new runway has the potential to cause an increase in noise. The current ANPS provides clear requirements on noise mitigation that any scheme should meet. That includes a scheduled night flight ban of 6.5 hours, between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, a runway alternation scheme that provides affected communities with predictable periods of respite, and a noise envelope with clear noise performance targets that we will review as part of the ANPS.

    On the two studies that the hon. Member for Twickenham referenced, I can confirm that they will be both be published shortly, and that hon. Members will be able to consider them fully alongside the ANPS process. There will be full transparency on the Government’s work to understand the impact of noise on both her constituents and people who live in proximity of airports across the country. We will consider those and other mitigations as part of the ANPS review.

    On a separate note, Heathrow expansion could also make it easier for aircraft to land without extensive holding patterns, bringing some noise and carbon benefits. The review of the ANPS will consider whether any change is required to the noise impacts and mitigations set out in the original document.

    The Government have consistently made it clear that air quality obligations must be met. The current ANPS sets out clear air quality requirements, and as part of the ongoing review of the ANPS we will consider whether any changes are required to the air quality impacts and mitigation measures contained within it.

    Turning to the important reference that my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made to surface access, how people get to and from Heathrow airport is vitally important, and will be a key consideration as part of any plans for expansion. Plans must look to mitigate the impact on local and national transport networks. As part of the ANPS review we are considering the Government’s strategic objectives for surface access, including public transport mode share targets and measures to minimise and mitigate the effect of expansion on existing surface access arrangements.

    Any promoter that wants to deliver expansion will need to model the impact of expansion on roads around the airport, including the M25, as part of their application, and consult with National Highways on their plans. As I previously mentioned, Heathrow expansion will be financed through private funding. That includes surface access improvements necessary for the expanded airport, including potential rail links.

    To touch briefly on the matter of parliamentary scrutiny, it is imperative that we listen carefully to everyone’s views on this transformative and landmark piece of infrastructure. Its impact will be felt for decades to come, and it has the potential to unlock significant economic benefits that could be felt across the United Kingdom. However, we fully recognise that there will be communities who have understandable concerns about what this could mean for them, and that is why the Government are launching a formal consultation on the drafted ANPS by the summer.

    Peter Swallow

    I want to push the Minister on mitigations around surface access. This is an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns about existing surface access arrangements, but to massively improve those arrangements. He will be aware that across a large swathe of the south of England, there is effectively no way to get to the airport apart from driving. Through this process we have an opportunity not just to mitigate concerns, but to boost and upgrade public transport networks to get to Heathrow airport.

    Keir Mather

    My hon. Friend makes a fair challenge. He is right to say that the ANPS review and the consultation on it is an opportunity for us to look at some of these questions again and to consider how, with Heathrow continuing to offer its unique opportunity to the United Kingdom’s economy as our only international hub airport, we can facilitate better access for the communities surrounding it, both for the economic opportunities for employment and for people across the United Kingdom to fly and enjoy holidays with their families. He raises an important matter.

    Dr Ben Spencer

    I invite the Minister to Egham as part of his engagement on looking at surface access, where he will be able to see the carnage caused by the level crossings and the benefits of removing the level crossings and having a direct rail link from Egham to Heathrow. While he is there, he will probably also be able to hear the planes overhead and see the impact the noise is already having on that community.

    Keir Mather

    If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me setting out the terms of his invitation, I would be very grateful and happy to consider them. It would be great to visit his constituency.

    As His Majesty noted yesterday, the Government are bringing forward the civil aviation Bill, which will ensure that the UK’s aviation sector remains competitive, resilient and fair so that it can continue to drive economic growth while delivering better outcomes for passengers. The Bill will also strengthen consumer rights and protections, promote economic growth and infrastructure provision and enhance aviation safety, supporting our world-leading aviation sector to continue thriving for decades to come.

    I thank all Members for their robust scrutiny, both of me and of the measures that underpin our review of the airports national policy statement and the principle of Heathrow expansion overall. On a serious note, I encourage them to engage with us further on these matters. I understand that they have a lot of questions to answer from concerned constituents who want an explanation of how best they can participate in the consultation process for the future of their local communities, so I encourage them to reach out to me. I would be happy to discuss this further to arrange it accordingly. I thank hon. Members for their contributions.

  • Munira Wilson – 2026 Speech on the Third Runway at Heathrow Airport

    Munira Wilson – 2026 Speech on the Third Runway at Heathrow Airport

    The speech made by Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat MP for Twickenham, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who is my constituency neighbour, and congratulate her on securing this important debate, on her excellent speech and on giving me permission to make a speech. I also thank the Minister for allowing me to speak today.

    My hon. Friend has clearly laid out the key questions that Ministers need to address in approving a third runway at Heathrow, which we have heard publicly today. I am also grateful to the Minister for having previously met my hon. Friend and I when we set out a number of those questions privately to him.

    As my hon. Friend has already said, in the King’s Speech yesterday the Government set out that

    “Legislation will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”.

    I and many people, not least my constituents, are asking, “What benefits?” The truth is, as my hon. Friend has eloquently set out, the Government have provided precious little evidence to support their far-reaching claims of the economic benefits of a third runway at Heathrow. Many of us can only see costs, be they financial, environmental or to health.

    It is obvious that the Government’s expansion of Heathrow—not just Heathrow, but London City, Stansted, Gatwick and Luton—will have a significant impact on this country’s climate commitments. When I and other hon. Members have raised such concerns in the House, Ministers’ answers revert to sustainable aviation fuel every time. However, the reality is that SAF is not a silver bullet. As my hon. Friend has suggested, the Government’s expectation is for SAF to meet 22% of aviation fuel demand by 2040, while the Climate Change Committee’s prediction is just 17%. That will not be enough to make up for the 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of carbon emissions as a result of expansion. The Environmental Audit Committee has warned that by putting all our eggs in this basket, the Government’s delivery on carbon budgets and net zero is “in serious jeopardy”.

    We must not lose sight of the human cost at the heart of this debate. Some 2.2 million people would suffer from an increase in noise pollution by 2050. Working people will see air pollution increase from congestion on the roads as the M25 is diverted for years—not to mention the permanent increase in traffic to the airport—and from thousands more flights over a very densely populated area, all pumping noxious fumes into our environment. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park has set out clearly the resulting health impacts.

    Over the past 15 months, I, like my hon. Friend and a number of others, have asked this Minister, his predecessor, the Chancellor, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Transport Secretary about the funding behind expansion. They all insist that taxpayers’ money will not be used to fund expansion of Heathrow, but frankly, that is hard to believe, given the unsustainable financial circumstances of Heathrow airport and the eye-watering, ever rising costs of a third runway. As we have heard, Heathrow itself has suggested that its expansion will cost £49 billion, but other estimates are much higher, and this country’s track record of delivering infrastructure on time and on budget is not exactly promising.

    At the same time, Heathrow is beginning to resemble another financial omnishambles: Thames Water. Both have significant debt and are spending massive amounts of money on infrastructure while jacking up prices for bill payers—or, in this case, those taking flights—knowing that the Government are ultimately there to bail them out if it all goes wrong. Let us make no mistake: taxpayers will be expected to foot part of the bill, and hard-pressed families and businesses will be forced to pay more for holidays and business trips through higher fares to fund the higher landing charges, as even airlines have warned.

    We deserve transparency and accountability from this Government, but at the moment we are getting neither. This Government are delaying publication of vital evidence, such as the aviation night noise effects and aviation noise attitude studies, when we know they have been sitting on the Minister’s desk for months. The Minister has been far from clear on whether this House will have the chance to scrutinise the ANPS properly, which means a debate and a vote. I very much hope he will address those questions head-on today.

    Back in January 2025, the Chancellor staked her “growth credentials” on this huge project. This kind of infrastructure project needs both economic credibility and economic and political stability. We cannot have another HS2, where half the project gets cancelled a decade down the line—too much is at risk. With the week we have just had, I cannot see how this Chancellor and this Government can seriously be trusted to see through a project that could take a decade or more to build. The Minister must follow the evidence and put a stop to this expansion before it is too late, for the sake of taxpayers, for the sake of our local communities and for the sake of our environment.

  • Sarah Olney – 2026 Speech on the Third Runway at Heathrow Airport

    Sarah Olney – 2026 Speech on the Third Runway at Heathrow Airport

    The speech made by Sarah Olney, the Liberal Democrat MP for Richmond Park, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    The debate surrounding a third runway at Heathrow has stretched over the past three decades. The Liberal Democrats have long stood by communities who oppose a third runway, arguing that the economic benefits are overstated and the environmental consequences are unavoidable. Although I have always opposed a third runway at Heathrow, the current proposal could not have come at a worse time. The cost of expansion has doubled over the past 10 years, and the addition of nearly 300,000 more flights, which expansion implies, will make our net zero targets almost unachievable.

    It is widely rumoured that even Heathrow Airport Ltd did not believe the timing of expansion to be practical. Despite that, on 29 January 2025, the Chancellor announced her support for a third runway to be built at Heathrow airport. This endorsement was the landmark announcement during her speech on growth; as such, it has a significant amount of political weight behind it. My plea to the Minister is that any decision taken on a third runway at Heathrow should be based on merit and unbiased data, not politics. The decision has an enormous impact on millions of lives, and it must be more than just a signal to investors to compensate for the Government’s economic mismanagement.

    The Chancellor believes that expansion at Heathrow will produce economic growth. Nearly 18 months later, however, the Government have yet to produce their economic analysis to support that assertion, and the figures raised in the Chancellor’s speech on growth were drawn directly from an internal business case prepared for Heathrow airport and have not been independently verified.

    The Department for Transport’s own updated appraisal report from 2017 shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion. Now it has been admitted that even that figure is a generous estimate, as the DFT’s guidance suggests that international transfer passengers, who are estimated to make up 75% of a projected third runway’s capacity, do not contribute to the UK’s economy. When discounting those passengers, it is estimated that the net present value could be reduced by as much as a further £5.5 billion.

    In addition, the New Economics Foundation asserts that twice as many people fly out of the UK than fly in, thus exporting more money out of our economy. An assessment of the impacts of inbound and outbound tourism flows is currently missing from the economic analysis of aviation’s contribution to the economy. Will the Minister provide reassurance that that research will be conducted and published with the airports national policy statement?

    Heathrow Airport Ltd has cited that the cost of building a third runway will be an eyewatering £49 billion, before factoring in an estimated £100 billion in carbon abatement costs and at least £15 billion of investment on surface access upgrade improvements. Without that upgrade, there will be no way to deliver sufficient passengers to Heathrow to utilise the additional capacity and deliver the supposed economic benefits.

    The Government have said that funding for a third runway at Heathrow will be privately financed. With Heathrow already drowning in over £15 billion-worth of debt, I am not convinced. I would therefore like to ask again, will the Minister provide reassurances that none of the costs associated with building a third runway at Heathrow will be pushed on to the taxpayer?

    Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)

    I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate on an issue that matters to my constituents in Hillingdon, to her constituents and to many constituents across the west London area. As she rightly points out, there have been discussions about the third runway being privately financed, but as she has touched on, there are public sector burdens and costs too, including from the extra pressure on the Elizabeth line, because of the capacity that will be needed, and on the local road network. Does she agree that it is vital when looking at the economic case that possible public sector pressures are fully accounted for in the decision-making process? Does she agree that the Government’s four tests are absolutely vital, and that we need transparency about how those tests will be measured and assessed?

    Sarah Olney

    The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that we need to see the economic case and to look at it in the round—not just the specific costs associated with building the runway, but all the additional costs associated with operating it at capacity and all the impacts that that will have on Heathrow, along with the whole of London and the south-east.

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

    People living in communities surrounding Heathrow have a 24% higher chance of stroke, a 21% higher chance of heart disease and a 14% higher chance of cardiovascular disease compared with people exposed to low levels of aircraft noise. Will the Minister confirm how many people will be exposed to noise at 45 decibels, the level that the World Health Organisation estimates that health impacts begin? Will the Government commit to setting a minimum acceptable level of noise by which any expansion proposal can be judged? Will the Government also commit to ensuring that there is no increase in night flights? People deserve a full night of undisrupted sleep, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that the Government do not plan to approve anything that would mean more planes fly over households during night hours.

    Yesterday, the Government outlined their plan to introduce the civil aviation Bill in this parliamentary Session. Will the Minister outline a timeline for the introduction of that Bill, and will he explain how the Government can provide communities with reassurances that a third runway will not bring new or extended disruptions when airspace changes are yet even to be drawn up?

    On the environmental argument, it should almost go without saying that adding nearly 300,000 extra flights to our skies each year will have a profound impact on air pollution and climate change. This Government have used wishful thinking in their assertions that sustainable aviation fuel will mitigate the additional pollution from Heathrow expansion. They are yet to provide any evidence that shows how Heathrow can expand while complying with their legal air pollution limits.

    International uncertainty over China’s introduction of their SAF mandate, which accounts for more than 90% of our imported SAF, and challenges to UK-US trade have meant that the UK’s SAF targets, which in themselves would not mitigate pollution from Heathrow expansion, are even more difficult to deliver. The challenges to the UK’s ability to produce and import SAF were underscored by the Climate Change Committee’s report last year, which estimated that only 17% of the UK’s aviation industry will use SAF by 2040. That is 5% lower than the Government’s mandated targets and 8% below the EU’s target. The estimate does not even take into account the additional flights that would come in and out of the UK as a result of the proposed airport expansion.

    Heathrow is already the single biggest source of carbon emissions in the UK, and expansion will add an extra 8 megatonnes to 9 megatonnes of CO2 every year. The Climate Change Committee’s balanced pathway to net zero estimates that aviation will contribute 23 megatonnes of CO2 by 2050. A third runway at Heathrow would increase emissions at the airport alone to 20 megatonnes. Does the Minister still believe that the UK can be compliant with our net zero targets with the expansion of Heathrow airport?

    This Government have repeated that they will honour and respect the Labour party’s four tests, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales). They are: growth across the country, noise issues to be addressed, air quality to be protected and our climate change objectives to be met. They must be passed before expansion can be approved. As I have just laid out, I do not believe that any of those tests can be passed, let alone all four, but I ask that the Government honour the principle of the tests and do not attempt to circumvent them by using biased data.

    I hope I have underlined the importance of this decision for our economy, environment and local communities. Moreover, I hope that this speech has impressed on the Government that this decision cannot move ahead solely on the basis of political expediency.

  • Bridget Phillipson – 2026 Speech at the Education World Forum

    Bridget Phillipson – 2026 Speech at the Education World Forum

    The speech made by Bridget Phillipson, the Secretary of State for Education, in London on 18 May 2026.

    Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

    I’m conscious that today I’m following in the forceful footsteps of one of my predecessors.

    Ellen Wilkinson was the Minister of Education in the post-war Labour government here in the UK.

    And a little over 80 years ago, in November 1945, she addressed a gathering of education leaders, just around the corner from where we meet today.

    Ellen was joined by representatives of 44 nations at the Institute of Civil Engineers on Great George Street – a location chosen mainly out of necessity.

    Many of London’s great large buildings had been damaged during the Second World War. And this was one of the few left standing.

    The war destroyed more than buildings, of course.

    It shattered relationships between nations around the world.

    Elected President of the conference on the first day, Ellen urged those present to help build a new international order of peace and prosperity – with education at its heart.

    She called for the ‘development of all that is best in human nature’.

    And after more than two weeks of discussions between delegates, Ellen then rose to her feet again on the final day of the conference to read aloud the fruits of their labour:

    the constitution of the brand-new UNESCO.

    “The education of humanity…”, she read out, is a “sacred duty which all the nations must fulfil in a spirit of mutual assistance and concern.”

    Politics and economics would not be enough, leaders had decided.

    Education was essential for lasting peace. And with that fresh hope, UNESCO was born.

    A recording of the conference is available online.

    And watching it back today… the black and white video, the crackling audio, the clothes, the hairstyles,

    it feels every bit 80 years old.

    But the words Ellen speaks, they have never been more relevant.

    Because colleagues, we come together at a time of renewed international conflict and upheaval,

    a time when the world is crying out for the kind of empathy, understanding and connection that only education can bring.

    So it is with not just with great pleasure that I welcome you to this year’s Education World Forum,

    but with great urgency too.

    Education must be at the root of our response to the global crises we face, the current that carries us towards a more peaceful and inclusive future.

    So let’s come together around this year’s EWF theme,

    Education for a Shared Future: Peace, Planet, Purpose, and Pathways.

    For us here in England, that shared future is vital.

    And we approach everything we do in education with that deeper sense of purpose,

    because we know that the values that we want for our country tomorrow, those are the values that we build into our education system today.

    Outward facing. Tolerant. Inclusive.

    But the mistake too many leaders make is to believe that that can only come as a trade off against excellence,

    the fallacy that inclusion dilutes high standards in our schools,

    as if excellence is a resource that can run out.

    It comes, I think, from the false belief that academic achievement is only for some children, and not for others.

    For so long this country has been falling into that trap when it comes to children with special educational needs and disabilities.

    Children who need extra help to take part, engage and learn in every phase and type of education.

    The chronic underperformance of these children was met too often not with a shout of outrage but with a sigh of resignation.

    Sad but inevitable, the system had decided.

    And in this country for many years these children have been sidelined, sent to schools far away from home,

    by an approach unable or unwilling to accommodate them in their local school.

    But now that is changing,

    because in this government we see inclusion and high standards as what they are,

    not enemies but friends,

    not in conflict but in concert,

    one strengthening the other.

    We are building a system in which children grow up together, go to their local school together, achieve and thrive together.

    We’re introducing layered support in our schools, to meet a much wider range of needs.

    Universal support available for all children.

    Targeted help through Individual Support Plans.

    And specialist provision for children who need it.

    We’re backing these changes with investment, to make mainstream schools more inclusive:

    £1.6 billion for an inclusive mainstream fund.

    £3.7 billion to develop inclusion bases, improve accessibility and create new special school places.

    £200 million to train staff.

    And a £1.8 billion fund for our ‘Experts at Hand’ service:

    a bank of professionals that schools can call upon to help their students,

    speech and language therapists, educational psychologists, and occupational therapists too.

    And we’re starting early, in the first years of a child’s life, with SEND support available at our new Best Start in Life Family Hubs,

    early identification to get ahead of issues before they spiral.

    Because all children benefit from that inclusive approach, not just children with SEND.

    And our country will benefit too.

    By drawing from a deeper and wider pool of talent, we’ll make our country not just fairer but stronger.

    By sending our children to school together, we’ll make our country not just stronger but kinder.

    Children growing up side-by-side with classmates who have different needs, different ideas, different talents,

    that’s the recipe for a society more welcoming of difference,

    more settled,

    more comfortable with who we are.

    Because we can’t have a strong and inclusive society without a strong and inclusive education system.

    Here in England, we still have far to go in building a truly inclusive education system.

    We’ve been drawing on the wisdom of young people, parents, carers, teachers and professionals through our public consultation, which closes today.

    But the journey continues. And the challenge has only been growing as we’ve seen more and more children with special educational needs and disabilities.

    I know we all approach this topic differently. Some of us will have different definitions, different systems, different responses.

    But overall, I’m sure that many of you are seeing broadly similar trends in your countries. And grappling with similar challenges too.

    We can see it in the research of the Centre for Education Systems.

    Looking at a basket of countries, three trends stand out:

    They’re all trying to be more responsive to need, and less reliant on narrow medical models.

    They’re all trying to wire more support into mainstream education.

    And they’re all finding it challenging to join up support across different services.

    Colleagues, this is a golden chance to work together,

    to bring purpose to our education systems,

    to deliver opportunity for all young people and prosperity for every society.

    So today I am proud to announce that I will convene an International SEND Alliance in 2027,

    a coalition of countries, coming together across a series of summits,

    to chart a common path forward.

    Under a shared mission to deliver opportunity for all children with SEND around the world,

    we’ll meet at international education events hosted right here in the UK across 2027.

    At Bett in January, at EWF here again in May, and at the International Summit on the Teaching Profession too.

    And for these children we will go beyond warm words.

    Our countries will compare experiences, share what works,

    and agree clear action plans that governments can take forward.

    So I urge all countries here today to join us, let’s come together on this shared challenge,

    so we can learn from one another, and build education systems of excellence and inclusion, fit for the 2030s and beyond.

    Every child in every country achieving and thriving.

    Those are the shared values that can unite us as we move towards a more peaceful and prosperous future.

    And our collaboration won’t stop there. We must foster links at every level.

    That’s why I’m delighted that the UK will join the Erasmus+ programme in 2027.

    For learners, it means more chances to study, work and volunteer abroad.

    For teachers, it means more chances to learn from international colleagues.

    And for schools, colleges and universities, it means more opportunities to collaborate across borders.

    Putting people front and centre of our relationship with the EU.

    But Erasmus is about more than the flow of people between our countries.

    It’s about the flow of friendship and opportunity too.

    More than a hundred thousand could benefit in the first year alone, each one a new bond between our nations.

    And this government is going further than ever to promote international collaboration.

    Earlier this year I convened an international summit on generative AI in education.

    Together we discussed the powers and the pitfalls of this radical technology, and we mapped the way ahead.

    That spirit of collaboration is driving our new International Education Strategy.

    It’s all about delivering growth and opportunity, at home and abroad.

    Stronger partnerships between our schools.

    Our colleges.

    Our universities.

    Our countries.

    But to succeed together, those partnerships need strong foundations in the best international evidence.

    We need hard data on what works for teaching and learning across our nations.

    That’s why I’m pleased to announce today that England is rejoining the Teaching and Learning International Survey – conducted by the OECD.

    Armed with comparable data on the teaching profession, we can work together to improve outcomes for young people in classrooms across the world.

    Peace, Planet, Purpose, and Pathways – those are the core themes of our conference.

    For each of them, collaboration is key.

    Here in this country, a big focus of mine has been getting everyone in education to collaborate.

    To deliver a fantastic education for every child, schools must learn from each other, push one other to improve.

    No school is an island.

    And while I’ll concede that in fact some countries are in fact islands, our education systems can’t be.

    As Ellen said, all those years ago:

    ‘It is for us to clear the channels through which may flow from nation to nation the streams of knowledge and thought,

    of truth and beauty which are the foundations of true civilisation.’

    That’s not a task to tick off.

    It’s a promise to keep.

    An ongoing journey that we take together.

    So thank you all so much for coming today,

    for committing to that journey once again,

    and for putting education at the centre of a brighter future for all of us.

    Thank you.

  • John Slinger – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    John Slinger – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    The speech made by John Slinger, the Labour MP for Rugby, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    I do not know if colleagues noticed, but a lot of rhetoric and rumours have been flying around Westminster recently. MPs have been huddled in the Tea Room and the corridors, whispering feverishly—tensions are high. After all the anticipation and the angst, today was the day. Rumour became reality.

    Members will have guessed it: today it was announced that, for the start of 2026, we had the fastest GDP per capita growth in four years. In Q1, the UK’s growth was the fastest of six G7 nations for which we have data. Reports of the economy being in demise under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been greatly exaggerated, as have reports of the political demise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Today’s good economic news matters for my constituents in Rugby. Economic growth matters for jobs and public services, for tackling the cost of living and much more.

    The Labour party is aptly named: labour, work. It is a party founded to represent working people in this House of Commons. We want people to work, and we are doing much to help people find work, to help people who face challenges of all kinds to get into work, to ensure that all have dignity when they are in work, to help them navigate a rapidly changing world of work and to ensure compassion and support for those who cannot work but who can still contribute and lead fulfilling lives. Because we are Labour we believe in an active state, not in the laissez-faire approach of the Conservatives or the money-from-who-knows-where approach of Reform UK. We believe in work.

    It is easy for people in here and for people outside to assume things about someone’s professional and work background. Even I have made that mistake. After reading the Reform UK leaflets that came through my door about the local elections, emblazoned with the face of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I made the schoolboy error of thinking that, given his mythical status as a man of the people, his work background was varied, perhaps even working class. It turns out that this tribune of the people was a commodities trader in the City of London—nothing wrong with that.

    I would not want hon. Members to assume anything about my professional background. To misquote President Reagen in 1984, I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents’ inexperience in blue collar jobs. My career has been varied. I did a paper round, I have been a gardener, I have done farmwork, I worked in a cinema, and I share with the Leader of the Opposition the fact that I worked in a McDonald’s restaurant for several years, although not the same one as her. I have been a waiter and a bartender, I was a hospital porter for two years, and I even worked here 20 years ago for Labour MPs. However, I have spent most of my career in the private sector in strategic communications consultancy.

    I say that because all jobs are important. All add value—public or private, blue or white collar, full time or part time. From our teenage years, they teach us that our labour is valuable and that we can benefit not only ourselves but the wider community. Members across the House will know that I have spoken many times about engaging young people and ensuring they have the best start in life. That has been a core tenet of my philosophy as an MP, and I am pleased to see it reflected in the King’s Speech, with policies that give young people more freedom, more opportunity and more hope, because building the foundations of a young life through work helps us strengthen the foundations of our country.

    In the Prime Minister’s much analysed speech on Monday, he described a vision to relentlessly pursue opportunities for our young people, promising a closer relationship with Europe, where young people can benefit from the Erasmus+ scheme and a new youth experience programme, which I strongly commend. He placed an even greater emphasis on young people: we will invest in apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges and a guaranteed offer of a job, training or work placement for every young person. Those measures will be brought forward in Bills announced in the King’s Speech.

    I welcome this Government’s laser focus on getting Britain working because, sadly, the latest official statistics make for depressing reading. They show that nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. I want to see that figure come down, as I am sure all Members do. Not only does this situation rob young people of opportunity; it also risks condemning them to a life of inactivity, reliant on the state for their needs. That is unfair both to them and to the rest of the tax-paying population. The costs are borne by the individual, too. Analysis suggests that someone who is long-term unemployed loses around £1 million in lifetime earnings, which is absolutely shocking.

    Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker: the scale of the problem is a direct consequence of 14 years of Tory rule. Under their watch, the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training rose from 673,000 to 921,000. Shamefully, young people were written off, while the enormous benefits bill continued to grow. The Green party attracts those who are disillusioned with the status quo, but it offers no concrete pathways into work or training. I cannot see Reform offering anything substantial either, apart from Orwellian, un-British slogans about “remoralising” our youth. Young people do not need their morals recalibrated by that party or any other.

    Young people already have the initiative and the talent; they just need to be encouraged and helped. The Bills and measures announced in the King’s Speech will do just that and go beyond what this Government have already achieved to tackle the national scandal of young people being written off: the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of new funding; hundreds of thousands of new training and work experience placements; and a new jobs guarantee that fully subsidises six months of paid employment for 18 to 21-year-olds who are long-term unemployed and on universal credit. Alan Milburn’s review seeks to dig deeper into this issue, and I have been in touch with him to contribute to the much-needed work he is conducting with the Secretary of State.

    I have previously spoken in Parliament about driving job creation for young people. I have visited Rugby College in my constituency and met with Intec Business Colleges, and I am campaigning for a youth hub that will offer employment advice and wellbeing support. I recently supported Jobcentre Plus and the DWP in organising a well-attended jobs fair in Rugby. I want to do all I can to help everyone right across my constituency into work.

    However, young people need more attention, resources and empowerment. They and their needs must be elevated in the decision-making process and the lawmaking process, as we govern more widely, and among other stakeholders in society. To co-ordinate that, I hope the Government will consider going further by appointing a youth commissioner, or even better, a dedicated Cabinet Minister for young people and the future generations. Such a role would scrutinise the work of Government, so that the benefits and trade-offs are assessed against the needs of young people and the future generations, ensuring that every decision takes their future into account. Their demographic is too often overlooked, but the legislation set out in the King’s Speech offers the Government an opportunity to give young people a genuine voice.

    Since January last year, I have been making the case for what I call a youth triple lock—a commitment to protecting and expanding the opportunities for young people in the same way that we protect pensioners. That idea is also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). It could include free bus travel, increasing maintenance loans above inflation or a voucher scheme for constructive activities—answers on a postcard.

    Before I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her moving words about her autism diagnosis. I am sure it is a difficult thing to speak publicly about.

    The Government should take this moment, and be bold in their approach. The Prime Minister set out on Monday that we can no longer continue with the status quo, or go back to the status quo ante, and that we must bring urgency to everything we do. I am glad we have a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Government and a parliamentary Labour party committed to ensuring that young people are empowered to become the architects and owners of the future, not merely tenants of one built by others. This is work in progress. This King’s Speech shows that Labour is the party of work, and we are making progress.

  • Caroline Voaden – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    Caroline Voaden – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    The speech made by Caroline Voaden, the Liberal Democrat MP for South Devon, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    It is a real pleasure to speak in this King’s Speech debate, which is my first in this Chamber. Last time around, I was sat on my own in a hotel room on the south bank with covid, warmly shared as a welcome gift by a lovely new colleague just after I entered this place.

    After the local election results last week, it is clear that the country has spoken. People right across this great nation are deeply, viscerally disappointed in the performance of this Government since the general election two years ago. This Government came in with such promise and such a huge majority that they could have done anything they wanted. They could have swung into action on day one, giving people real hope, with a real commitment to turbocharge the economy, to clean up our dying and degraded natural environment and to provide truly affordable and social homes, rather than more million-pound new builds like those we see carpeting South Devon. Instead, two years on, people are struggling to pay their bills, young people are failing to find their first job, parents are still fighting with local authorities to secure a decent education for their child, and thousands upon thousands of people simply cannot afford a secure roof over their head.

    Peter Swallow

    The hon. Member knows how fond I am of her, but how can she possibly in one voice condemn building new homes and in the next sentence suggest that we do not have enough homes for young people to live in? She simply cannot have her cake and eat it.

    Caroline Voaden

    What I said is absolutely correct. In my constituency of South Devon, new build homes in developer-led housing estates are selling for £950,000. We are not providing the homes we need—the social homes and the truly affordable homes that young people, young couples, young families and people who want to move out from their parents’ home need. We are providing the wrong sort of homes. Having a system led by housing developers that are driven by profit will never provide the homes that we need.

    Is it any wonder that voters across the country have turned to the extreme ends of our political spectrum to stick two fingers up at what they see as an ineffective political class that has completely ignored them? “Blame the immigrants” or “blame the billionaires” seem to be the two easy answers thrown out by these parties to the difficult, thorny, complicated questions that this country faces. The sad truth is that neither of those two propositions will be enough to make the changes we need to see to reform the structures of our economy and public services and to improve the lives of those who need it most.

    Ten years ago, we saw a referendum that cut our country in two, like a chainsaw through the trunk of a mighty oak tree, and that division has not healed. The arguments still rage, the communities still feel left behind, and the false promise offered in that awful referendum has turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. People are still angry on both sides of that debate. The House will not be surprised to hear that as a Liberal Democrat, I welcome the Government’s promise to strengthen ties with our nearest neighbours in Europe. The House will probably not be surprised to hear me also say that that promise does not go far enough, especially if we are to get Britain working again.

    The upcoming EU reset Bill is just the latest example of the Government’s lack of ambition when it comes to rebuilding our trading links with Europe. When we talk of Brexit red tape, nowhere is that more limiting than in the red lines that Labour tied around itself in its 2024 manifesto. It said on coming into office that the previous Conservative Government had left a £22 billion black hole in the UK’s public finances, yet the botched Brexit deal has left a £90 billion hole, similar in scale to the damage wreaked by the 2008 financial crash.

    Businesses in South Devon regularly talk to me about the nightmare of trying to do business with Europe. Many have just given up on it altogether. Others are hanging on, desperately hoping that trading restrictions will be eased and customers will come back. I welcome the promise of a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which cannot come fast enough for my food and farming businesses. We want to hear the Government talk about a customs union with the EU to slash the red tape that is holding us back, because economic growth has stagnated in this country for far too long. We also want to see the UK at the heart of European defence co-operation, not only for the benefits it would bring to national security, but for the investment opportunities it would provide for the supply chain. We must be front and centre of those negotiations. Europe would welcome our involvement, and we must be confident about shaping and leading that discussion.

    There is so much to cover in the King’s Speech, but I will just touch on a couple of other areas. I have talked about people feeling ignored and forgotten. Nowhere is the visible representation of that starker than in our high streets, with boarded-up shops, endless vape shops, cafés and pubs struggling to survive, and exorbitant rents making it impossible to get a new business off the ground. The Government have pledged to nationalise British Steel to protect fewer than 3,000 jobs. I have no doubt that the wider economy in and around Scunthorpe will truly benefit from that decision, but why is there nothing in this speech to protect our once vibrant and precious hospitality industry, which has lost nearly 100,000 jobs in the past year? Those jobs are less visible than the closure of a steelworks or a car plant, because it is 10 jobs here and 20 jobs there, but the effect of the national insurance rise has been devastating up and down the country. Businesses have been calling last orders once and for all or simply shrinking their offer.

    In my constituency, Rockfish, the California Inn, the Maltsters Arms and the Berry Head hotel—I could go on and on, because hospitality is the backbone of our economy—are cutting staff hours, choosing not to employ extra staff or closing two days a week so that they can manage on one exhausted chef, rather than employing a second, with the owner of the pub having to step into the kitchen when the chef has a few precious days off. This death by a thousand cuts is having a devastating impact on youth employment and part-time jobs. Those are the jobs that so many people rely on to combine with parenting, caring or studying. Let us not forget that every teenager who gets a job washing pots or waiting tables is learning valuable skills that will take them forward in the job market for years to come.

    As the Secretary of State said earlier today, this is about the story of their lives, and I was pleased to hear his passion for supporting young people into work, but youth unemployment now stands at around 20%. That is utterly shameful. One in five of our young people is unable to even get a start in the workforce. The new small business protections Bill is laudable, but it falls far short of a proper plan to protect small businesses. We are disappointed that the Government have not listened to our plan to scrap the national insurance rise, reform business rates and prioritise a high street revival.

    As a south-west MP, there is a list of Bills that I would have loved to see in the King’s Speech but are sadly missing. Yet again, the rural south-west seems to have been ignored. We have £45 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail, but not a word about boosting vital bus services across the villages of the south-west. If we are to get people working again, we have to get them to work. If there are no buses, they cannot get there. There was nothing on boosting digital connectivity for hard-to-reach areas.

    Sam Rushworth

    I hear what the hon. Lady is saying—we have exactly the same challenges in my rural community, where people cannot get to job interviews or to jobs—but we passed the Bus Services Act 2025 in the last Session.

    Caroline Voaden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Peter Swallow – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    Peter Swallow – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    The speech made by Peter Swallow, the Labour MP for Bracknell, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    I start by declaring that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment, of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, and of the all- party parliamentary group for classics.

    I welcome the ambitious agenda set out yesterday in a King’s Speech that places working people at its heart—an agenda that builds on our promises to deliver a safer, stronger and more prosperous country. It is an agenda that will get Britain working and break down the barriers to opportunity, both for our country on the global stage and for every young person in it.

    Opening up new opportunities for growth and trade is a vital part of this Government’s commitment to working families, because it is crucial that my constituents not only hear about the change we are delivering, but feel it in their pockets. As such, the Prime Minister is right when he says that a stronger relationship with Europe is in all of our best interests. Our European neighbours are our closest friends and allies, and greater opportunities on the continent for our businesses and our young people can only mean a more prosperous country with more opportunities for all. [Interruption.] It does not make sense to be so fixated on an ideology that we act against the interests of our nation and reject the opportunities that are on our doorstep—we are hearing some of that in the chuntering from Conservative Front Benchers. I remind those lining up to cry “Brexit betrayal” that the Leave campaign never promised that we would be completely isolated from our closest economic and defensive allies. In fact, it promised quite the opposite. A closer relationship with Europe means a safer, stronger, more prosperous Britain at a time when that has never been more important, and youth mobility offers brighter futures for our young people. I am proud to support the Government’s clear leadership in this area.

    I also welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting British businesses and jobs through tackling unnecessary regulation and supporting businesses to introduce 50,000 more apprenticeships. I was delighted to see this in action in my constituency with the recent opening of a new youth employment hub in Bracknell, which will support hundreds of young people to enter the workplace and develop their skills and futures. I extend a huge thank you to the local businesses across Bracknell Forest that are supporting this initiative, because I and this Government recognise that youth unemployment is not just a problem that lies with individuals. It will take a whole-of-society approach to reach the one in eight young people who are not in education, work or training, and give them hope again.

    We also know that for many young people the barriers to opportunity begin far before they even think of entering the workplace. Of all the issues that constituents have raised with me since I became Bracknell’s MP, none has been as complex, pervasive, emotional or deeply personal as those I have heard from parents and children experiencing our broken SEND system. As such, I could not welcome more strongly the commitment this Government have made to face the problem head-on and reform our broken system.

    This Government’s determination to deliver for SEND young people is already making a big difference in my constituency, where funding has been confirmed for a new SEND school at Buckler’s Park in Crowthorne. Under the previous Conservative Government, that school was promised, but never funded. This Government are ending the years of empty promises, and are not only investing in the services that families so badly need, but getting on with the work we were elected to do and rebuilding those services so that they actually function. My only ask—the SEND Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), who is in her place and always listens very attentively on this issue, knows what I am going to say—is that we build that school as quickly as possible. Having visited my constituency, she knows all too well that in Bracknell, and across the country, there are very many young people who need us to act as quickly as we can to get them the places in mainstream education and specialist provision that they so badly need.

    On that note, it is also hugely welcome to see the Government delivering an initial £1 million in funding to Bracknell Forest council to establish our new Experts at Hand service, which will improve the availability of occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists to our local schools. I was delighted to get an update on that new programme earlier this week. Many parent carers are concerned about the need to train more practitioners. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister also recognises those challenges, so I hope we can set out an ambitious but deliverable workforce plan as soon as possible, to make sure that the new service can make the difference it is intended to make.

    Recently, I hosted a meeting with parents in my constituency to discuss the SEND proposals. There was no doubt among those who attended that the system is badly in need of change, but parent carers raised concerns about individual support plans containing the right safeguards to ensure that every young person gets the support they need. I know that Ministers take that task extremely seriously, and I welcome their resolve to listen to families and educators and to make sustained, meaningful change. Accountability is important, so I simply ask Ministers to focus on that issue as they respond to the consultation. I look forward to the Government setting out all of their proposals in the education for all Bill, to rebuild a system that will give every child the education and opportunities they deserve.

    Reform to our education system is about high standards for all, but it is also about preparing our young people to be active, informed and ambitious for their futures. As a former teacher, I know that young people have much to contribute to our political and civic life, and I wholeheartedly welcome the plans set out by this Government to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. As chair of the APPG for schools, learning and assessment, I have been leading an inquiry into votes at 16 and how we can ensure schools are supporting young people to engage in our democracy. I thank the democracy Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for attending one of our evidence sessions.

    We have heard from a wide range of young people, educators and civic organisations, and the message has been clear. This is the moment for a wider reflection on our education system and how it serves all of us in areas of civic life—not just in the classroom, but across society. The success of votes at 16 will be reflected, not just in how many young people vote, but in how they feel about their experience of voting and the tools that are available to support them to exercise their right to vote. I welcome the work that is already being undertaken in this area, including the curriculum and assessment review and the schools White Paper. I urge Ministers to grasp the opportunity to embrace a fully cross-departmental approach to delivering this policy, so that our young people develop the skills that employers are crying out for, the skills that will empower them in every area of their life, and have a sense of belonging. It is so important for everyone to feel that they belong to, contribute to, and are part of this United Kingdom.

    This Government are fixing the foundations of this country. A quality education and secure employment are the gateways to opportunity, but so too is having a safe and decent home to live in. Too many people are denied that—stuck in insecure, impermanent accommodation and on long waiting lists for social housing simply to find somewhere suitable to live. We have already done a huge amount to tackle those injustices through our Renters’ Rights Act 2025. I am proud that Bracknell’s history as a post-war new town shows what ambition a Labour Government can have when staring a housing crisis in the face, a point that was made eloquently yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) when seconding the Humble Address. Let me quickly put on record that I am as proud of Bracknell as he is of Harlow. As everyone in this House will know, that is quite a big boast, given how supportive he is of Harlow.

    I welcome the announcement of a social housing renewal Bill, including measures to protect our vital social housing stock and to introduce greater protections for tenants in instances of domestic abuse. I am pleased that the Government are proposing reforms to tackle disposals, but I would like us to go even further in this area so that local authorities are not just informed of any disposal of valuable housing stock, but must approve of it. Given that we have so many families on our waiting lists, I think that is very important. The social housing renewal Bill will ensure the investment and reform needed so that the great legacy that made Bracknell and other new towns what they are today can belong not just to Labour Governments past, but equally to this Government.

    Finally, I will touch on something a bit more personal, but no less important. There is no place in the Britain I know and love for abusive conversion practices to continue. The promise we made to ban them is one we must keep, and I offer my full support to the Government’s plans to bring forward draft legislation to do so in this Session. It is right that that ban will be fully trans-inclusive.

    The British people elected this Labour Government to deliver change. In my maiden speech, I emphasised that that would not be easy and would not necessarily always happen as quickly as we would like. Transparently, this week has demonstrated the truth of those words far more than I would have liked, so let me simply finish with this promise to the constituents who put their faith in me and sent me to this place to represent them. Whatever the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune care to throw at me, I will remain focused on the one and only thing I was sent here to do: delivering change for my constituents.

  • Marie Goldman – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    Marie Goldman – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    The speech made by Marie Goldman, the Liberal Democrat MP for Chelmsford, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    As Member of Parliament for Chelmsford, I am proud to represent a city with a breadth of businesses, industries and educational institutions that do so much to support people from all backgrounds into employment. On today’s theme of getting Britain working again, over recent months I have held several roundtables with local small businesses, from independent restaurants that serve as important community spaces to local shops that provide high-quality, high street based alternatives to major multinationals. Those businesses face many challenges, but I am concerned that the Government’s proposed solutions outlined in the King’s Speech fall far short of where we need to be.

    At the end of last month, I hosted a roundtable with Chelmsford businesses in the construction industry. I must declare an interest here, because I have for many years run small businesses in construction, working as a specialist subcontractor. We have been through good times and bad times. I know that the often incredibly tight margins are difficult for the industry to work with, and I know the huge temptation for main contractors, desperate to win work, to overpromise and underdeliver.

    Some of the most unscrupulous contractors rely on putting their subcontractors out of business at the end of a contract through non-payment, delayed payment or ridiculously long retention clauses, hoping that avoiding paying a subbie will keep the main contractor afloat. I welcome the proposed introduction of legislation to tackle late payments and hope that, in so doing, the Government will listen to all those across the industry, at all levels, to understand the imperatives and the complexities of this matter.

    The construction industry is essential to our economy and our lives. The sector creates, sustains and draws on an enormous range of trades and skills. Far from being just about getting muddy and cold on a building site, the industry requires highly skilled engineers, surveyors, planners and logistics experts. It needs administrators and accountants alongside plumbers, brickies and sparkies. The industry is critical to the functioning of our country, from ensuring that we build enough homes to maintaining and expanding critical transport infrastructure. However, owners and representatives from the companies that I met highlighted the significant decrease in young people entering the construction workforce, as well as the overall proportion of women in the sector being extremely low, at around 16%. The industry is already working hard to tackle that, but businesses cannot do it alone.

    Let me highlight one specific example raised with me, which goes to the very heart of the theme of “getting Britain working again”: getting young people to site. If we want young people to take up careers in construction—and we surely do—we need them to not just learn the skills and gain essential knowledge through further education courses, but get hands-on, practical experience on building sites. I know that that is more of a challenge, but the industry wants and needs that. Time and again, I have heard businesses tell me that there is simply no substitute for a young person learning alongside a master craftsman or craftswoman and learning the tricks of the trade that allow them to adapt to the unpredictability of the myriad issues that come up on real sites, rather than in the theoretical world of a classroom. The problem is that these young people cannot get there.

    Building sites tend not to be conveniently located along a bus route or next to a train station. Indeed, by definition a “new site” is often in an entirely new, undeveloped area. The work is creating the infrastructure that will be used in the future, but in the meantime how do we get young people to the sites? Many of them are too young to even hold a driving licence. If they do not drive, they are reliant on getting a lift, but it is very difficult for businesses to provide that lift, due to safeguarding rules for under-18s. That inevitably generates inequality, as only those who can afford to take taxis or have a parent available to take them can do so, with others being left behind. I am in no way saying that we should scrap safeguarding, but this is the kind of practical issue that businesses tell me directly they need help with—perhaps in the form of grant funding for transport for young apprentices or those on work experience.

    We also need to start earlier in inspiring young people to consider a career in the construction industry, and this is where education must play a key role. How can children choose a career if they do not have a wide view of what is available to them? At this point, I will highlight the fabulous work done in my constituency by Chelmsford city council, which for many years—under Liberal Democrat leadership—has been running a skills festival every summer for pupils in year 8. It is called a festival, because that is exactly what it looks and feels like, but instead of the marquees and tents being filled with musicians or stalls selling merchandise and pop culture paraphernalia, they are packed with interactive stands from local businesses and other organisations based in Chelmsford and Essex. They usually have hands-on activities for 12 and 13 year-olds and hopefully encourage them to consider choosing GCSEs in the coming months that fit well with what they see in front of them—in year 8 they will not yet have chosen their GCSEs.

    However, this is about not just broadening the horizons of children, but strengthening and deepening the knowledge of their teachers and schools about what is out there, so that they can support the children going forward. The feedback from Chelmsford’s “Skills Fest”, as it is known, is fabulous, with many parents commenting afterwards that they have never seen their child so “brimming with enthusiasm” for something. That is a direct quote from a parent; their child was so enthusiastic about town planning, which they had never considered before. It is pretty inspirational to hear that.

    This kind of inspirational, collaborative and innovative activity is the sort of thing that I would like to see and suggest that we need to see right across the country, learning from Chelmsford’s example and experience. In short, if we want to get Britain working again, it can never start too early, and it must start with supporting children. Indeed, it is these practical solutions that would offer young people from diverse backgrounds the opportunities to experience and begin successful, challenging and meaningful careers in crucial sectors such as construction.

    Let me turn quickly to the issue of health. It is clear that we cannot get Britain working again if we cannot get Britain healthy again. On that subject, I am afraid that I continue to be dismayed by the state of Broomfield hospital, which is just outside my constituency but serves as Chelmsford’s main healthcare facility. I have held numerous roundtables and surgeries with staff and patients alike to hear from them directly about the challenges facing the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, of which the hospital forms a part. That is easily one of the most concerning issues to local residents, myself included.

    Like everyone else, I want to ensure that my friends and family know that they can trust the trust if the worst happens. That is why I was genuinely pleased in March, when the Health Secretary announced that our trust was being placed into an intensive recovery programme to ensure that swift action was taken to address its many challenges. However, almost two months on, I received word yesterday that the trust is yet to receive any details on what the recovery programme even entails.

    It is almost unbelievable that a programme labelled “intensive” and announced in March to begin last month has given precisely zero details about what it means, even to the management of one of the five trusts singled out as desperately in need of support. Unfortunately, that is entirely symptomatic of a Government approach that has led to the rather precarious position that the Prime Minister finds himself in today—or possibly even worse. There are promises of swift delivery, meaningful change and competent leadership, then a failure to do any of those things.

    Healthcare is essential to every one of us. Staff in the NHS do exhausting, incredible work and are definitely to be commended, but they cannot be expected to turn failing trusts around if the Government cannot begin to describe to them how they want to help them, what they want them to do or how they will be supported in doing so. Our NHS and my constituents deserve and need far better. I ask the Health Secretary—whoever that turns out to be in the weeks and months ahead—to communicate urgently the programme’s details with the relevant trusts, such as Mid and South Essex, so that work can begin right now.

    Let me turn briefly to other matters. The previous King’s Speech promised a draft Bill to ban conversion therapy, but that did not happen. Here we are again, with a promise in yesterday’s King’s Speech, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members across the House, for

    “a draft Bill to ban abusive conversion practices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2026; Vol. 856, c. 3.]

    As a slight aside, I know that I have spent quite a bit of time talking about the construction industry and I am now talking about conversion practices, but I want to be very clear that these two issues are very different. It was a bit strange to hear cladding remediation and conversion practices lumped into the same sentence in the King’s Speech. I wonder whether there was a bit of confusion in the Government about how wildly different those two issues are—we are not talking about converting buildings. Then again, perhaps that highlights the scale of the challenge and why the Government have not prioritised this matter; perhaps they truly do not understand the issue.

    I must remind the Government that we have heard time and again of the impact that abusive conversion practices have on the LGBT+ community. Indeed, it was Theresa May’s Government in 2018 who first proposed such a Bill, yet here we are, almost a decade later, without even a draft in front of us. As other hon. Members have done, I ask the Government what assurances they can give that such a Bill will finally come forward, given that it has been promised before but did not happen. The LGBT+ community must not again be told to wait until the end of this Session only to see another promise broken. The Government must publish a trans-inclusive Bill to ban conversion practices as a matter of urgency.

    The Government recognise a lot of the challenges that face our country, and I do not doubt their desire to improve people’s lives, but they either refuse to carry out the appropriate solutions or are too timid to make an argument for the bold change that our country has been crying out for, even if it is sometimes controversial. We are fortunate to live in an amazing country. We have wonderful people, world-class skills and expertise, globally admired institutions and businesses, a deep history built on the principles of fairness, tolerance and inclusivity, and enormous potential to lead the world in so many ways—politically, economically and morally. However, we need to do more than just recognise that it is not currently working for everyone; we need real, workable, practical and pragmatic ideas that can and must be implemented at pace.

    We on the Liberal Democrat Benches want this Government to make positive changes. It matters for us and our constituents that they do that, so I encourage them to listen to the calls of Liberal Democrat Members, who are willing to work together to achieve the positive changes that we need to reduce inequality, increase economic security, and ultimately see off the politics of hatred and grievance.

  • Jayne Kirkham – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    Jayne Kirkham – 2026 Speech on Getting Britain Working Again

    The speech made by Jayne Kirkham, the Labour MP for Truro and Falmouth, in the House of Commons on 14 May 2026.

    A big part of why I became an MP was for the young people in my constituency. I have a 20-year-old Cornish son, and I want young people to have the choice to stay and work in Cornwall, and not be forced to go elsewhere and not come back. There are genuinely exciting opportunities for good, well-paid green jobs in the renewable energy sector in Cornwall, for example floating offshore wind. We also have a new Government critical mineral strategy, and an awful lot of lithium and other critical minerals under our feet—enough, apparently, for 20% of the needs of the whole of Europe. We also have digital, creative arts and our amazing hospitality sector.

    I was a teaching assistant in a secondary school for seven years, and I saw the impact that successive covid lockdowns had on a generation of young people who missed out on the in-person, social interaction and developmental milestones. I know how much they suffered from a broken SEND system for a decade, and I realise how difficult it is to re-enter education after time away, or enter the workforce for the first time under those circumstances. We inherited nearly 1 million young people not in work or education across the country, and Cornwall is particularly highly represented in that. It is so important that we give those young people the skills and confidence they need to move forward with their lives. That is why the Government commissioned the Milburn review, to identify the root causes of youth unemployment and to make recommendations for how we can improve opportunities for our young people.

    We have introduced some of those policies to support young people into work, backed up by funding. For example, the jobs guarantee will lead to the creation of 90,000 extra subsidised jobs over the next three years for those aged 18 to 24. New foundation apprenticeships, including in hospitality and retail, will help my area and provide employers with up to £2,000 to support 16 to 21-year-olds into work. The apprenticeship initiative will give SMEs £2,000 for each new employee aged 16 to 24, and the youth jobs grants provides £3,000 for a business that hires someone on universal credit for six months.

    I am hopeful that those policies will complement and add to some of the brilliant work that Cornish employers are doing, particularly on apprenticeships. Cornwall Marine Network in my constituency plays a vital role in supporting SMEs in the marine sector to take on apprentices, and it delivers high-quality training, as does Truro and Penwith college in my constituency. Firms such as A&P, Pendennis and Cockwells provide fantastic apprenticeship schemes in the marine industries, and the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has developed an 18-month level 2 fisher apprenticeship to equip young people with the skills and knowledge that they need for a career in fishing. I welcome the fishing and coastal growth fund, which will invest in skills and workforce development in the sector.

    Furthermore, leaders of the world-class hospitality industry in Cornwall are keen to train more young people. For many Cornish young people, a job in a pub, café or restaurant provides a valuable introduction to the world of work, but it can also lead to a good career in hospitality. Cornwall is perfect for a pilot of the new foundation apprenticeship. I am pleased that the Government are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy. Some of that money could perhaps be used flexibly as training for employers in the hospitality sector and others who support apprentices, or by funding some of the skills courses at FE providers such as Truro and Penwith college in my constituency, or by looking at the way some of those apprenticeships are funded.

    This is not only about supporting young people in their teens and their twenties, because we must also take steps to improve the lives of children from their earliest years, ensuring that a child’s background does not dictate their chances or leave them struggling to catch up. I am proud that this Government have introduced free breakfast clubs, state nurseries, 30 hours of funded childcare from the age of nine months, free school meals and Best Start family hubs. Those are a start to replacing Sure Start, which was a transformative thing for our families. A number of times I knocked on doors in my constituency and met women about my age who were accountants or who had a variety of jobs. They said that without Sure Start they could never have retrained or got that help—it was fundamental.

    Matt Rodda

    Is my hon. Friend aware of the good research which shows that £1 invested in early years education is worth £16 invested later in a child’s life? Does she agree that that wise investment by our Government is both taking the economy forward and supporting families in a meaningful way?

    Jayne Kirkham

    That makes perfect sense. Early years and education are pretty much the most important things that any Government can focus on, and I am so proud that that is what we are doing. The King’s Speech includes legislation to enable the delivery of this Government’s much needed SEND reforms. Parents of children with SEND in my constituency have made clear that the current system is not fit for purpose. I have shared their experiences and concerns as part of the consultation, and I will continue to do so. If young people cannot access education because their needs are not met, it can become harder and harder to get into work and back into society later on.

    I recognise that for some people the barriers to employment, education and training can feel insurmountable right now. The Government are trying to take meaningful steps to remove those barriers and invest in those jobs, skills, apprenticeships, to reform and prioritise early years provision, and to address some of the failures in SEND provision. Taken together as a whole, moving forward, those measures represent a real commitment to our next generation, which I am hopeful will benefit young people in Truro and Falmouth, in Cornwall, and across the country.