Tag: 2026

PRESS RELEASE : Michael Salter-Church reappointed as Chair of the Horniman Museum [May 2026]

The press release issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 14 May 2026.

The Secretary of State has reappointed Michael Salter-Church as Chair of the Horniman Museum and Gardens from 14 August 2026 to 13 August 2030.

Michael Salter-Church

Michael has been Chair of the Horniman Museum and Gardens since 2021. He is also a Trustee and Council member of the National Trust.

His professional background is in corporate affairs, including media, public policy, sustainability and campaigning. Most recently he worked on the deployment of gigabit broadband with Openreach, where he also led work on digital inclusion and was sponsor of their Pride employee network. Roles prior to this include Sainsbury’s and 10 Downing Street. He is also a member of the University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.

He is a campaigner for equality and inclusion which has included: championing more diversity in governance roles; founding and for nine-years co-chairing the LGBTQ+ Pride event in London; serving as the then Prime Minister’s principal advisor on LGBTQ+ issues and equal marriage 2010-2015; and co-chairing the industry working group to improve diversity in the telecoms sector. He also serves on Action for Children’s organising committee for their largest annual fundraising event.

He accepted The Queen’s Award for Voluntary service on behalf of the volunteers who ran Pride in London, and was awarded an MBE for public service in 2015.

He lives with his husband and two partially sighted cats near the Horniman Museum and Gardens.

Remuneration and Governance Code

The Chair of the Horniman Museum is not remunerated.

These appointments have been made in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. The appointments process is regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments.

Under the Code, any significant political activity undertaken by an appointee in the last five years must be declared. This is defined as including holding office, public speaking, making a recordable donation, or candidature for election.

Michael Salter-Church has declared no such political activity.

May 14, 2026
Wes Streeting – 2026 Letter of Resignation as Health Secretary

The resignation letter sent by Wes Streeting, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, on 14 May 2026.

House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA

14th May 2026

Dear Prime Minister,

The results are in and I am pleased to report that I have delivered against the ambitious targets you set for me when I became your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Today’s figures confirm that we surpassed our waiting times target despite strikes, and that waiting lists fell by 110,000 in March – the biggest monthly drop outside of Covid since 2008 – meaning that we are on track to achieve the fastest improvement in NHS waiting times in history.

The only question that matters in government is whether we leave our successors a better situation than we inherited. Ambulance response times for heart attacks and strokes are now the fastest in five years. A&E waiting times are improving, with four-hour waiting figures also the best in five years. We’ve recruited 2,000 more GPs and satisfaction has risen from 60 per cent to 74.5 per cent since we came to office. We hit our target of recruiting 8,500 mental health staff three years early. We’ve achieved this at the same as balancing the books for the first time in nine years and smashing the 2 per cent NHS productivity target by achieving 2.8 per cent, which means the investment we’re putting in goes further and that the public can have greater confidence that their money is being well-spent.

None of this would have been achieved without the brilliant leadership team of ministers, officials, and special advisers we have established in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS – superbly led by Samantha Jones and Sir Jim Mackey, who has been a knight in shining armour and a brilliant leader of 1.5 million staff upon whom all this success depends.

The National Health Service is the embodiment of all that is best about Britain and our values. Thanks to our Labour government, it is on the road to recovery: lots done, but so much more to do.

These are all good reasons for me to remain in post, but as you know from our conversation earlier this week, having lost confidence in your leadership, I have concluded that it would be dishonourable and unprincipled to do so.

Last week’s election results were unprecedented – both in terms of the scale of the defeat and the consequences of that failure. For the first time in our country’s history, nationalists are in power in every corner of the United Kingdom – including a dangerous English nationalism represented by Nigel Farage and Reform UK. This represents both an existential threat to the future integrity of the United Kingdom, but Reform UK also represent a threat to the values and ideals that have made this country great. Progressives across our country understand this threat and our responsibility to confront it, but they are increasingly losing faith that the Labour Party is capable of rising to our historic responsibility of defeating racism and offering hope that Britain’s best days lie ahead through social democracy.

There is no doubt that the unpopularity of this Government was a major and common factor in our defeats across England, Scotland and Wales. Good Labour people lost through no fault of their own. There are many reasons we could point to: from individual mistakes on policy like the decision to cut the winter fuel allowance to the ‘island of strangers’ speech, all of which have left the country not knowing who we are or what we really stand for.

You have many great strengths that I admire. You led our party to a victory few thought possible in 2024 and I was proud to fight alongside you in the trenches of that campaign. You have shown courage and statesmanship on the world stage – not least in keeping Britain out of the war in Iran.

But where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift. This was underscored by your speech on Monday. Leaders take responsibility, but too often that has meant other people falling on their swords. You also need to listen to your colleagues, including backbenchers, and the heavy-handed approach to dissenting voices diminishes our politics.

As a member of your government, I know better than most that governing is hard. It should be, because it matters. There are enormous challenges facing this country. For the first time in our history the next generation faces a worse inheritance than the last. We have wars raging in Europe and the Middle East that are making our challenges harder, not easier. We are in the foothills of a technological industrial revolution that has huge implications for every aspect of our lives – not least the future of work. It is not clear whether democracy or tyranny will define the 21st century. After the financial crisis, austerity, the disaster of Brexit, Liz Truss, the covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine and now the war in Iran, the country needs to believe again that things can be better than this and that politics is part of the answer, not the source of the problem. These are big challenges that require a bold vision and bigger solutions than we are offering.

It is now clear that you will not lead the Labour Party into the next general election and that Labour MPs and Labour Unions want the debate about what comes next to be a battle of ideas, not of personalities or petty factionalism. It needs to be broad, and it needs the best possible field of candidates. I support that approach and I hope that you will facilitate this.

Serving as your Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been the greatest joy of my life and, regardless of our differences this week, I remain truly grateful to you for the opportunity to serve and I am deeply saddened to be leaving government in this way.

Yours sincerely,

The Rt Hon Wes Streeting MP

May 14, 2026
PRESS RELEASE : Andrew Figgures’ term extended as Trustee of the Imperial War Museum [May 2026]

The press release issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 14 May 2026.

The Prime Minister has extended the term of Lieutenant-General Andrew Figgures CB CBE FREng for 9 months, from 1 February 2026 to 31 October 2026.

Lieutenant-General Andrew Figgures CB CBE FREng

Lieutenant General Andrew Figgures was commissioned from Sandhurst into the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. He has served in Germany and the United Kingdom and on operations in Northern Ireland, the Former Republic of Yugoslavia and Iraq in 2003-2004 where he was Senior British Military Representative and deputy to the US Commander.

He has been on the directing staff at the Royal Military College of Science responsible for the instruction of Surveillance, Target Acquisition, Aerial Vehicles’ Guided Weapons and Emerging Technology. In 2004 he became Technical Director of the Defence Procurement Agency and Defence Logistic Organisation, Master-General of the Ordnance and a member of the Army Board. On promotion to Lieutenant General in 2006 he became Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff responsible for the Defence Equipment Plan for all three services.

In 2010 on leaving the Army, he was appointed to the position of Chief Executive of the British Transport Police Authority with the responsibility for policing the railways in Great Britain until 2016.

Remuneration and Governance Code

Trustees of the Imperial War Museum are not remunerated.

May 14, 2026
Fleur Anderson – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Shannon

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

Fleur Anderson

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

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

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

Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)

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

Fleur Anderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 14, 2026
Jerome Mayhew – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

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

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

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

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

Iqbal Mohamed

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jerome Mayhew

I will just deliver this point and then give way.

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

Noah Law

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jerome Mayhew

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

Iqbal Mohamed

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

Jerome Mayhew

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

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

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

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

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

May 14, 2026
Jonathan Brash – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 14, 2026
Richard Tice – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

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

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

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

Iqbal Mohamed

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

Richard Tice

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

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

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

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

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

Kevin Bonavia

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

Richard Tice

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

Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Tice

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

Liz Saville Roberts

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

Richard Tice

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

Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)

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

Richard Tice

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

Anna Dixon

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Tice

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

Anna Dixon

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

Richard Tice

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

Iqbal Mohamed

Will the hon. Member give way?

Richard Tice

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

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

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

Richard Tice

I will give way to this good-looking gentleman.

Sir John Hayes

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

Richard Tice

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

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

May 14, 2026
Kevin Bonavia – 2026 Speech on the Loyal Address

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 14, 2026
PRESS RELEASE : Government ramps up plans to protect Britain’s pig sector against African and classical swine fever [May 2026]
The press release issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 14 May 2026.

New strategy launched to strengthen UK preparedness against African and classical swine fever.

Plans to strengthen protections for pig farmers and industry have been stepped up today (Thursday 14 May) as the government introduces new measures in the event of a swine fever outbreak.

African Swine Fever (ASF) is a disease which affects pigs and wild boar and in recent years it has been circulating in parts of Asia and Africa, leading to the deaths of millions of pigs worldwide and causing significant disruption to the meat trade. The disease has also spread to parts of Europe through the movement of wild boar and human actions including moving infected meat.

Whilst there has never been an outbreak of ASF in the UK, the updated control strategy is an important part of the government’s plans to prevent and respond to a potential future outbreak.

The revised strategy introduces a more flexible, risk-based framework designed to control disease effectively without imposing severe restrictions on famers and producers. It reflects the latest scientific and veterinary evidence and aligns with international best practice.

A central feature of the update is the introduction of additional restricted zones (Restricted Zones 1, 2 and 3), which can be deployed depending on the situation. This will help farmers avoid blanket movement restrictions on live pigs and pork products, reducing pressures such as overcrowding and enabling day-to-day operations to continue more smoothly.

The strategy, developed jointly with Scottish and Welsh Governments, also strengthens surveillance requirements. Veterinary inspectors will carry out visits to premises within disease control zones to verify compliance, while enhanced testing will support earlier detection of infection. These measures are expected to provide greater confidence in disease freedom, allowing restrictions to be lifted sooner.

Risk-based movement licensing has been expanded to support both welfare and business continuity. Under veterinary oversight, pigs may be moved within zones for welfare reasons or to complete production cycles, helping to prevent overcrowding and maintain appropriate housing conditions.

Biosecurity Minister Baroness Hayman said:

This updated strategy reflects our commitment to working in partnership with farmers and the wider pig industry to manage disease risks effectively and protect a sector worth over £8 billion.

These changes will help reduce unnecessary pressures on farmers and producers, maintain high standards of welfare, and ensure we are well prepared to respond quickly and confidently to any outbreak.

UK Chief  Veterinary Officer, Christine Middlemiss, said: 

Our updated swine fever disease control strategy will ensure that we are better prepared than ever before to respond swiftly and effectively to a potential outbreak of African and classical swine fevers. 

Enhanced surveillance and flexible movement licensing will help us detect disease earlier and protect our national herd whilst maintain essential farming operations in a biosecure manner. Whilst the disease is not present in Great Britain, we encourage all farmers to maintain strong biosecurity standards and familiarise themselves with the new measures.

Further updates include:
- A clearer framework for implementing a national movement ban, ensuring restrictions are proportionate and lifted as soon as conditions allow.
- Greater flexibility in meat controls, allowing certain products from restricted zones to remain commercially viable under specific conditions.
- Detailed guidance on cleansing and disinfection procedures, helping producers plan for safe and timely restocking.
The duration of disease control zones has also been revised. For example, the minimum period for protection zones has been reduced to 15 days, down from 30-45, following initial cleansing and disinfection, subject to surveillance outcomes. This is expected to significantly reduce welfare pressures on farms while maintaining robust disease safeguards.

The updated framework also strengthens the UK’s ability to apply regionalisation principles, helping to protect trade by enabling disease-free areas to continue exporting safely during an outbreak.

ASF poses no risk to human health as it only affects pigs and related animals. Everyone can help to stop the spread of ASF to the UK by doing the following:
- If you have visited ASF-affected areas in Europe, or elsewhere in the world, you must not bring any pork or pork products back to the UK.
- Disposing of leftovers or food waste in secure bins that pigs or wildlife cannot access.
- Farmers, the public and members of the food industry should practise high biosecurity standards, including never feeding catering waste, kitchen scraps or meat products to pigs which is illegal and can spread the disease.
The Government continually monitors disease outbreaks around the world to assess whether there may be risks for the UK and takes action to limit the risk of the disease reaching our shores.
May 14, 2026
PRESS RELEASE : Defence firms incentivised to deliver on time as MOD ties profit rates to improved delivery [May 2026]
The press release issued by the Ministry of Defence on 14 May 2026.

The Government is cracking down on waste and delays as defence companies are to be incentivised to deliver equipment on time and on budget with new reforms to Single Source Contract Regulations.
- New rules, announced today, mean suppliers can be paid more for completing projects to time and budget, while those who fail to deliver will receive less
- Incentive payments of up to 10% can reward suppliers who get equipment to our Armed Forces faster and more efficiently.
- Smaller and innovative businesses will find it easier to work with defence, bringing new ideas and technologies to the frontline sooner.
Defence companies will be incentivised to provide equipment to the Armed Forces faster and more efficiently but could earn less if they fail to deliver under a government crackdown on waste and delays.

Defence procurement will be sped up under the changes being introduced by Ministers in Parliament today, which will see the amount of profit companies can make from a contract being tied to delivering on time.

Through changes to the Single Source Contract Regulations (SSCRs), suppliers who deliver at pace, improve productivity and take on more risk will earn more, while those who do not could make less.

Every pound saved through better supplier performance is a pound that can be reinvested in equipping the Armed Forces.

Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry, Luke Pollard MP, said:

To deliver the warfighting readiness our country requires, we need procurement that delivers on time and on budget. We inherited a programme where 96% of our major defence projects had issues with delivery or cost. That is not acceptable.

That’s why suppliers who deliver better outcomes and take on appropriate risk will be rewarded, but those who do not, will make less profit.

That is how we make sure we get more equipment to the front line faster.

These reforms deliver on commitments made in both the Strategic Defence Review (SDR) and the Defence Industrial Strategy (DIS), which said that with the promise to invest more comes a responsibility to invest better.

The reforms introduce four key changes:
- Maximum incentive payments for suppliers will increase from 2% to 10% of costs, but only when suppliers hit agreed performance targets, giving the MOD the ability to reward suppliers who get equipment into service faster.
- Profit floors on lower-risk contracts will be reduced, so suppliers could earn less unless they improve performance. The new rules will allow higher-risk contracts to attract stronger returns – motivating suppliers to take on the risk-bearing work the DIS specifically committed to encouraging.
- A new Innovation Uplift will reward suppliers, particularly smaller businesses and new entrants to defence, who invest their own money in developing new products without a guaranteed government contract.
- The threshold at which contracts come under the regulations will rise from £5 million to £25 million, meaning nearly all small and medium-sized enterprises will no longer have to comply with the mandatory reporting regulations, while keeping 97% of single-source contracting value within the model.
Today, the Government is laying a Statutory Instrument to increase available incentive payments. A further Statutory Instrument, covering the profit floor changes, the Innovation Uplift and the increased threshold, will be introduced prior to the Summer recess. We will be consulting on these changes in the coming weeks.

Rupert Pearce, National Armaments Director, said:

The NAD Group is committed to driving greater performance across the defence enterprise. These changes give us better tools to reward innovation, incentivise delivery, and ensure that public money is spent where it generates real value. We will work closely with industry and the Single Source Regulations Office to implement them effectively.

The reforms have been developed after extensive discussions with industry and the Single Source Regulations Office and support the National Armaments Director (NAD) Group’s wider mission to accelerate procurement and ensure critical capabilities reach UK warfighters faster.
May 14, 2026