Mr Speaker, I heard your call for decency and respect, and I hope those will be the watchwords for today’s debate. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is with her G7 colleagues today, so I am grateful for the opportunity to open the King’s Speech debate on backing British business to create economic growth. That is economic growth for a purpose: not simply to exceed the growth rate of other European members of the G7, which we achieved in the last year; not simply to have the highest growth rate in the G7, which we achieved in the last quarter; and not simply to deliver on the Government’s primary mission; but for the purpose of achieving greater social justice for all. Economic growth is the surest path to higher living standards, improved public services and better quality of life for people up and down our country. We know that economic growth is the catalyst for new opportunities, the pathway to greater prosperity, and the vehicle for greater equality and security for working people. That is why it matters so much. The growth figures published last week show that, despite the many international headwinds, the UK economy grew by 0.6% in the last quarter—the fastest growth among G7 countries. There is silence from the Opposition Benches. I would have thought that the party that champions Britain and calls for economic growth would be celebrating economic growth when they see it, but no: silence, silence, silence. The situation is much better than the one we inherited, continuing to exceed the forecast of the doom-and-gloom mongers on the Opposition Benches and in the right-wing media, and even beating market expectations. When the Conservatives were in government, they and their strangely related first cousins, Reform, let down Britain’s economic future. Now, in opposition, they talk down Britain’s economic present. You can bet your bottom dollar that they will do so again today, ignoring the facts. The facts are that the UK experienced the highest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 last year. Just today, the International Monetary Fund has upgraded the UK growth forecast, with the UK projected to have the fastest cumulative growth among European G7 economies over 2026 and 2027. None of this happened by accident, just like the damage done to the economy by the Tories did not happen by accident.

Does the Secretary of State not concede that GDP per capita is down? Can he tell me that a single one of his constituents, apart from those on welfare, feels better off under this Government?

The whole purpose of the debate is to emphasise that economic growth matters. In the last full year in which the Conservatives were in office, economic growth stood at 0.4%. In the first full year of this Government, it was 1.4%. The hon. Lady should be apologising for the state in which she left the economy, leaving us to pick up the pieces. This growth has been driven by an activist, interventionist Government who back British business—a Government who are not afraid to roll up their sleeves and make the big calls when big times demand it. From Jaguar Land Rover in the west midlands to Ineos in Scotland, Agratas in the south-west, Tata Steel in Wales, and Harland & Wolff across the United Kingdom, we step in to invest, modernise and protect British industry when necessary. We step back by reducing unnecessary regulation when that is possible, and step up to modernise our critical national economic infrastructure where that is vital: supporting the third runway at Heathrow that the Conservative party curtailed; expanding the Oxford-Cambridge corridor where the Conservative party hesitated; backing Northern Powerhouse Rail which the Conservative party cancelled. This Government have confirmed £45 billion of funding for Northern Powerhouse Rail to upgrade lines east of the Pennines and to bring forward a brand-new route connecting Liverpool and Manchester.

That was a great list, but what was missing from it was the oil and gas sector, and specifically the £17 billion of investment that was lost as a result of the Government not scrapping the energy profits levy and the £50 billion of investment lost because of their ban on new licences, and other hostile policies. Will the Secretary of State reflect on those, and on the damage that the Government are doing to growth not only in the north-east of Scotland but in the United Kingdom as a whole?

This Government have invested in industry up and down the country, from Agratas in the south-west, where we are investing in gigafactories, to Ineos in Scotland. We are investing in the industries that are keeping our country going, and we have put growth into the economy.

The Secretary of State was kind enough to mention Harland & Wolff. Successive Governments have introduced a number of support measures, and have ensured that that company can thrive by itself. However, in taking at face value what the Secretary of State has said, does he recognise that if this Government continue to refuse to designate Programme Euston a defence project and open it to international tender, not only will they not support British business and yards like Harland & Wolff, but the project will be delayed by three years? If the Secretary of State wants to inject business growth and economic growth, he should designate it a UK defence project, and keep the work and the investment in the UK.

The right hon. Gentleman knows full well the commitment that I personally have to Northern Ireland and its economic success. All the issues related to national resilience are things that we have to consider at this moment in time, unlike any other moment in time in peacetime. They are issues that I look at very closely, and in the days and weeks ahead I shall be talking a great deal more about how we can support industry and business across Northern Ireland.

I commend the Secretary of State for what he is saying. I know he is a regular visitor to Northern Ireland because he loves the country, and we appreciate that. According to the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland, more than half the enterprises trading between Great Britain and Northern Ireland face severe friction, with more than a third halting trade entirely. Can the Secretary of State explain explicitly how the proposed regulating for growth Bill will help? I know he is committed to it, so let us hear what he has to say.

I have been aware of those issues from opposition into government. Of course, rebuilding the relationship with the European Union is also partly about smoothing that barrier across the Irish sea, and we will continue to do so. We are building the critical national economic infrastructure that the Conservative party consistently failed to deliver, on runways, reservoirs and railways. Just as we are modernising Britain’s critical economic infrastructure, we are maximising Britain’s industrial strength by delivering our modern industrial strategy. Written for business with business, our strategy creates the right conditions for business to succeed. Since its publication, we have been tackling the high costs of energy. Our supercharger saves firms hundreds of millions of pounds every year, and our British industrial competitiveness scheme will help more than 10,000 eligible manufacturing businesses, saving them up to £40 per megawatt hour from next April. I am very aware of challenges faced by the ceramics sector; I will meet representatives of the sector tomorrow to discuss how the Government might be able to support it, and I hope to be able to say more about that very soon. To cut the red tape that is holding back British businesses we are ending mandatory strategic reports for medium-sized companies and ending directors’ reports for businesses of all sizes, saving firms £230 million each and every year. We are stripping out unnecessary rules and regulations. Through the regulating for growth Bill, announced in the King’s Speech, we will create regulatory sandboxes—economic growth laboratories where innovators can trial cutting-edge technologies safely and speedily. Whereas the Conservatives, with their destructive ideology of deliberate de-industrialisation—from monetarist Thatcherism to Brexit isolationism—drove British manufacturing businesses to the wall and destroyed the jobs that depend on them, this Government are determined to maximise the UK’s competitive advantage, not just through reindustrialisation, though that is necessary, but through new industrialisation in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, artificial intelligence and new technology. That is why we have rolled out new AI growth zones and confirmed the site of the UK’s first small modular reactor—a milestone in the journey to becoming a clean energy superpower.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to point out that, in my Department, the overall net regulatory burden is reducing, not expanding. I will not stand in front of the Tories and apologise for giving new rights to workers that are fit for the age we are living in. Over their entire 14 years in office the Tories failed to make sure that people have protections and rights at work that are fit for the age we are living in. We can move forward with growth in the economy that takes forward businesses and the people who work in them. That is to be celebrated, not condemned like the Tories are doing.

The right hon. Gentleman is, quite reasonably, setting out his assertions about where he wants the Government to go, but does he not see the irony? After all the events of last week, the cost of borrowing in the UK is higher than that of many of our competitors, and all business leaders say they feel the instability. The right hon. Gentleman’s words will not ring very true for people who seriously wonder about the Government’s future direction, with putative leadership contenders talking about fundamental changes in direction and different fiscal rules.

The right hon. Member mentions irony; this is from the party that gave us the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which wreaked havoc on our economy. Mortgage rates went up for every mortgage holder across the country, with inflation peaking at 12%, yet the Conservatives talk about instability. The country still lives with the instability that they wreaked on it. Our major expansion of DRIVE35 is channelling investment into batteries, electric motors and power electronics—part of the biggest Government investment in the British car industry since the second world war. “Invest”, “modernise” and “protect” are the watchwords for the new industrialisation of Britain through our biggest industries, our biggest sectors and our boldest companies.

The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but we have seen what that has led to in the finance sector, the banking sector and the water industry: consumers end up paying the price. The Secretary of State also talks about AI; speaking way back in 2014, Stephen Hawking cautioned: “The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.” Why do the Government believe that deregulating AI is going to assist their growth mission? It will put consumers’ lives and the human race at risk.

The Government are investing in AI infrastructure, but also making sure that the regulatory and legislative landscape is up to date for the time we are living in. The hon. Gentleman wants to turn the clock back. The world is awash with AI technology. We cannot stop it coming to our country, but we can shape how it interacts with our economy and its people. That is why we are investing in the training of 7.5 million people throughout the economy, including a million students, to make sure we can seize the opportunities that AI presents but also protect people from the potential damage it could cause. Not only are we creating the conditions for new industrialisation, but we are ambitious for the success of Britain’s small businesses. Our “Backing your Business” plan is one of the most generous packages of support rolled out by any Government, with new hospitality zones and reduced red tape for bars and cafés. We have brought in an £11 billion lending package to help small firms to grow internationally and take advantage of the trade agreements we have negotiated with India, South Korea and the United States. This may trigger the Opposition, but we are also going to deepen Britain’s trading relationship with the European Union, Britain’s most significant international marketplace. That is what our European partnership Bill is all about.

I welcome the deepening of the relationship with the EU and the measures on late payments, but the elephant in the room is that while the jobs tax exists, and the Government do not make the most of business rate changes in retail, hospitality and leisure, the benefit to small businesses is more than outweighed by the extra difficulties they face. Does the Secretary of State accept that there need to be changes on that front, even if we have to wait until the Budget for them?

Once again, the Lib Dems condemn every fundraising measure we have brought in to invest in our public services and get our country back on its feet, but they never say how they will pay for the alternative. They never say how they will raise the money themselves. I am not going to apologise for any of the measures. I will come in a moment to the investment we have made in small businesses and in hospitality, and I will give way to the hon. Lady again if she wants me to at the time, but will she please say what the alternative is from her perspective? The Lib Dems want to spend all the money in the world but they do not want to tell people how it is. The lending commitment we have secured with the UK’s five leading banks will support Britain’s small businesses to succeed and prosper. Our business rates support package, worth £4.3 billion, will protect ratepayers from large overnight increases in bills. We have introduced permanently lower multipliers for retail, hospitality and leisure properties. That is worth nearly £1 billion a year and will benefit over three quarters of a million properties. I know that many businesses, particularly in the hospitality and retail sectors, would like us to go further. I get that. They are impacted by changes in the shopping and social habits of their customers, as well as the financial and geopolitical pressures in the wider economy. We are absolutely aware of and attuned to that. However, the crocodile tears of the Conservatives about these industries are laughable and lamentable. Theirs is the party that urged us to join the costly military action in the Gulf, which will heap further pressure on hospitality and other sectors throughout the economy. It is not our war, but the Conservative party would make British businesses and consumers pay the price.

The Secretary of State mentions crocodile tears; what would he say to the hospitality businesses in my constituency that have been impacted by the rise in national insurance contributions, the minimum wage rise and the business rates that he just talked so effusively about? What message would he give to them as they struggle to deal with the outcome of the Budget?

Unfortunately, none of the Conservative Members was listening to what I just said in outlining the measures we are taking, and the admission that we get it and we are listening. Fundamentally and foundationally, what those businesses need is what every business in this country needs, which is a growing economy. In the last year the Conservatives were in office, growth was 0.4%, but in the first year in office of this Government, it was 1.4%. That is what every business needs across the country, and when it comes to specific sectors at specific moments in time, we are watching and attuned, and I am acting where necessary. When the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) addresses the House, I am certain that on that and so much more he will display all the symptoms of the economic illiteracy and ideological incompetence that for too long have engulfed the Conservative party. By contrast, we are taking practical action to end these conditions. We are bringing in new measures to tackle late payments. The small business protections (late payments) Bill will give the UK the strongest legal framework in the entire G7. Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion a year, forcing the closure of 38 businesses every single day. For 14 years it was the same under the Conservatives, and they did nothing. The Bill tackles the scourge of late payments, brings in stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner, sets out strict maximum payment terms of 60 days, and bans the deduction of retentions in construction contracts. The Federation of Small Businesses has said that tackling late payment is one of the biggest things the Government can do to help small businesses to grow. That is the difference that an activist, interventionist Labour Government can make. Finally, let me turn to another example of the difference. The ghost of free market Thatcherism still haunts many of the industrial areas of this country. It can be seen in the scars of de-industrialisation still marking too many communities around our country. It is high time to exorcise the ghost of de-industrialisation. When I published the steel strategy last month, I told the House I would never hesitate to fight for British industry in defence of the national interest. The legislation we are bringing forward is proof positive of that commitment.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend—forgive me, I should not call him that; he will be embarrassed. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his point about the steel industry. Understandably, he has chosen to support one particular aspect of the industry, the steelmaker, but at the expense of and to the cost of every other part of the industry—the steel consumers. How will he balance that and what provision will he make for those who will see steel prices rises because of his intervention?

I have committed to invest in, modernise and protect the steel industry where I need to. Those are watchwords that I apply throughout the economy in highly volatile times. We are investing up to £2.5 billion to modernise and transform the steel sector, from blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces—those are the kinds of transformations we need to make. If I had invested that money but not also protected our sector, that would be pouring vast amounts of public money straight down the drain. In certain circumstances I have had to step in and use measures to protect the domestic British industry. I am not introducing measures for any products that are not manufactured in the UK. I am doing so wisely; I am doing so to protect and ensure that we can build and retain a steel industry that is fit for the future and sustainable. We will move forward and ensure that, in an era of global instability, we have the key aspects of our supply chain that we need for our resilience as a nation—yes, in defence; yes, in industry; and yes, in all the money we are investing in infrastructure. We must reserve those capabilities. I am listening and engaging with all parts of the steel sector, and the manufacturers and businesses that depend on it. I am listening closely to them. If there are any impacts, I will of course engage with them to understand and see how it will be possible, where necessary, to provide support.

Will the Secretary of State give way?

No, I am going to carry on. I appreciate Members’ kind offers to intervene again and again; I look forward to all their speeches. The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill will give us the authority to bring British Steel into public ownership, not as an ideological exercise but as a practical means of safeguarding the national interest. It will allow us to retain the Scunthorpe plant as a critical piece of our national infrastructure that is essential to British economic resilience. Britain has long been a proud steelmaking nation. Whatever I have to do to make it so, Britain will retain its capacity and capability to manufacture steel. That is my commitment to Members in this House and to the remaining steel communities of our country. The strength of that commitment can be measured in our determination to boost domestic steel production to ensure that 50% of the steel used here is made here. Britain cannot make its way in the world as a services-only economy. We have to make our way—earn our way—to greater prosperity, equality, security and opportunity. We cannot do that by economic isolationism, neoliberalism, greater protectionism or a command economy. We cannot regulate our way to prosperity. We can achieve it only through practical and pragmatic policies that support British businesses to be profitable, to scale up, to create jobs and to grow. We have to end the outdated free-market ideologies, failed economic theories and siren voices that all but destroyed Britain’s manufacturing base and drove the British public towards Brexit. Britain’s future prosperity can be built only by business success. There is no other way, no shortcut, no easy option and no magic bullet—no matter how attractive and simplistic slogans and superficial soundbites may appear to some.

The Secretary of State is making a wonderful speech about the 1980s. While I agree with many of his points, the truth is that the country today has come a long way in all sorts of sectors, and I am proud to have done my bit to help that. On regulation, the Secretary of State agrees that leadership on regulating new industries, and having sandboxes and testbeds, is a great UK strength. He also wants us to get closer to the European market; is he worried that if we do, we may end up losing our competitive advantage in a number of areas where we could genuinely attract investment into new industries, such as agri-tech and gene editing?

To clarify, I am talking about how we recover from the scars of the 1980s, how we learn the lessons, and how we ensure that we never repeat mistakes that cause scars that endure for generations. To answer the hon. Gentleman directly, we will align with the European market only where that is in the national interest. We cannot turn back the clock to build future success. The partnerships that this Government have built with businesses, local government and trade unions are delivering resilient growth and helping to build a stronger economy. They are building a fairer country, in which wages are up and public borrowing is down. There have been six interest rates cuts and 500,000 children are being lifted out of poverty. The FTSE 100 has reached historic highs, and the UK is raising more venture capital funding this year than France, Germany and the Netherlands combined. This Government faced enormous challenges on taking office, and the conflict in the Gulf presents us with even greater challenges. Despite that, we are making progress. It will take time for the benefits of progress to be sufficiently seen and properly felt. The recent election results show that. The only sure route to proving the benefits of change is growing the economy, and the only certain way to grow the economy is through British business success. Our task is to create the right conditions for Britain’s businesses to invest, succeed, and win in an increasingly competitive global marketplace. We have made a start, and we will see this through to the finish.

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

This King’s Speech is an empty vessel, which is a surprise, because only last week the Prime Minister was telling anybody who cared to listen that the Government would be leaning into economic growth in a more radical way, and would eschew managerial incrementalism, yet we have heard nothing other than managerial incrementalism, at best, from the right hon. Lady just now. [Interruption.] Of course, I meant the right hon. Gentleman. If only the Chancellor were here, Mr Speaker, I would be right about everything. The Prime Minister also said that Labour would tread more lightly on our lives. Well, we have seen what that has meant in the last few weeks. The Chancellor said that it would all be growth, growth, growth. The Secretary of State trots out and trumpets the latest uplift—a very modest one—in the International Monetary Fund’s forecast, but he neglects to mention that although it is forecasting 1% growth today, it forecast 1.3% back in January. The Secretary of State also neglects to mention that the increase in growth in the first quarter of this year is on the back of risible growth performance in Q4 of last year. The situation in Q4 was exacerbated, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England, by the Chancellor’s making every possible tax rise; that had a material impact—it depressed the economy. Some of the growth is simply a bounce back from the mistakes made at the end of last year. The Secretary of State refused to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about what happened to GDP per capita, so let me tell him that it has been utterly anaemic throughout this Government’s period in office. He also failed to mention that the notes to the IMF’s comments on upgrading the growth forecast for this year point to domestic uncertainty possibly weighing down on consumer spending and investment decisions. I wonder what “domestic uncertainty” could possibly be referring to. As to our record, I remind the Secretary of State that on the day of the general election, the previous Conservative Government had inflation bang on target at 2%. It is now 50% more than that. We also had the fastest growth in the G7, employment at near record levels, and near record low levels of unemployment, and we had 13 consecutive months of real wage growth.

On the subject of mistakes made and growth, does the shadow Chancellor accept that the Brexit that he and his party left us has knocked between 4% and 8% off our GDP?

As I will come on to argue, our problems actually rest a little closer to home, rather than having anything to do with our relationship with the European Union. The Labour party promised stability. It also—Members should try not to laugh too loudly—said that it would create the most pro-business Government in the history of our country. None of that has come to pass. It is not just the Prime Minister who is the problem; if this Prime Minister is replaced, whoever goes on to lead the Labour party will not do any better, because Labour had no plan at all for improving our economy. It had a plan for winning an election—keep as low a profile as possible, hold the Ming vase and tiptoe across the shiny floor towards that loveless landslide—but no plan for the people of our country. The Labour Government are in hock to their Back Benchers. Every time they try to do something that requires some backbone, they are stopped by their Back Benchers. The record of this Government is appalling, and not just on growth. I notice that the Secretary of State did not mention unemployment once, and he certainly did not mention youth unemployment. Under this Government, we are seeing the highest unemployment in five years, and youth unemployment is nudging up towards 20%. Under the previous Labour Government, youth unemployment increased by more than 40%; under the previous Conservative Government, it reduced by more than 40%.

Is it not shameful that the Government are having to subsidise employers who take on young people, when it is the Government’s actions—their imposing higher national insurance charges, a higher minimum wage, and a higher burden through the Employment Rights Act 2025—that caused the problem in the first place?

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is like trying to apply the accelerator while having the brake on fully. That is what this Government are doing. That is the total illogicality of their approach. Inflation is up on where it was under the Conservatives. It is about the highest in the G7; it certainly was last year. As we lean into the challenges of oil and gas price spikes, that is a weak position to be in. Most economists will make that point. The Labour Government will have borrowed a full quarter of a trillion pounds more across this Parliament than would have been borrowed under the plans that they inherited. It is no wonder that our borrowing costs are the highest in the G7—higher than those of Greece, and higher, even, than those of Morocco. Why? We know why: it is just what socialists do. Socialists believe that you can tax your way to prosperity, but I tell the Secretary of State: you cannot. The £25 billion of additional tax on businesses—national insurance increases—has crucified business in this country. The burden has fallen predominantly on young people, because there was not just an increase in the rate, but a reduction to the threshold at which the tax cuts in, meaning that young people have borne the brunt of that tax increase. The sectors that rely predominantly on first-time jobbers and on young, part-time and female workers have been crucified, including the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, in which more than 100,000 jobs have been destroyed by this Government.

On Friday, I opened the new Premier Inn in my constituency—a project that was passed under the last Conservative Government—but many businesses in my constituency are failing because of increased costs and regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute travesty for our country?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had the great pleasure of visiting her constituency to speak to businesses, and that is exactly what they complain of. The Government made no effort, in the King’s Speech, to get on top of the benefits bill. There was a reference to the Timms review of the personal independence payment, but we know that in the review’s terms of reference, there is an explicit statement that it is not about controlling the welfare bill. There will be no savings as a consequence of the Timms review. That is not good enough. We have got to be about getting people off benefits and back into work.

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that we are seeing not only young people let down, but the deeply immoral act of people being kept on welfare? In five or 10 years’ time, people will have been on welfare for so long that they will not have any options. They will effectively have been left slaves of a state that has no concern for them. Nobody in this Chamber will have any power over how the welfare state will behave then, and those people will have no options. It will be the fault of this House and this Government for having kept those people there, and having imprisoned them.

That is entirely right. The Conservatives know that work matters, and getting people off benefits matters. People’s mental health is improved by going to work, and by having the social interaction, routine and sense of pride and self-worth that comes with work. That is why the level of unemployment and the failure of this Government to tackle benefits is so appalling.

I used to work in the employment service, and Thatcher encouraged us not to sign people on, and to instead put them on the sick. The Conservatives created a whole generation of people on the sick, just to manipulate the numbers. How do you like those apples?

All these flashbacks to the 1980s are a slightly desperate attempt to get away from the 2020s, I think. The other thing that socialists love to do is borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend until they have run out of other people’s money. That is precisely what this Government have done. The Secretary of State mentioned the fiscal rules, but of course he failed to mention that in the run-up to the election, the Chancellor said that she would abide by our fiscal rules, and then promptly changed them, so that she could borrow more, flipping the definition of “debt” from public sector net debt to public sector financial liabilities. That allowed her to take her foot off the brake and borrow and spend even more.

Flashing back to the 1980s, would the right hon. Member like to remind us when the Conservatives last balanced a budget?

The current account went into a slight surplus just around 2015-16. [Interruption.] It did, actually. That was on the back of our inheriting a £160 billion deficit in 2010, which was over 10% of GDP—another example of the disasters of a Labour Government. The Secretary of State rightly spoke of artificial intelligence and the opportunities that it presents, but what we know of artificial intelligence is that it will have a profound and very uncertain effect on the labour market. We need a flexible skills offer to deal with that, and flexible labour markets, but through the Employment Rights Act, the Government are making the labour market more rigid, and that will hurt younger people in particular, who do not have a track record in employment, so do not be surprised if youth unemployment continues to hover around 16% or 17% as a consequence of the actions of this Government. When it comes to leaning into these challenges, we know that there is no plan. This Government are not going to do anything. They are just involved in internecine introspection—a civil war, now—within the Labour party. They said that they would tread lightly on our lives; in fact, they are now stampeding all over them. The rivals to the Prime Minister will be looking to double-down on the ruinous policies that I have just set out. We have seen the real effects of this in recent days. On Friday, after the former Member for Makerfield said that he would step down in order to ease the passage of Andy Burnham to this place, what happened to gilt yields? They spiked up 18 basis points. I have done a little bit of research, and I can tell the House that, if sustained through the forecast period, that would mean over £5 billion of additional debt servicing costs. That is about £300 for every working family in this country. That is the effect of Andy Burnham, and he has not even arrived here yet. We are on the edge of a precipice economically, leaning into a very turbulent time. These are the policies of the madhouse, yet we are told not to worry. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who I believe is an outrider for Andy Burnham, said of the bond markets that they would just have to “fall into line”. Andy Burnham himself said in the New Statesman: “We’ve got to go beyond this thing”—

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will in a moment.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that if an hon. Member wishes to mention another hon. Member in the Chamber, they are supposed to give advance notice of that. I have received no such notice.

That is not the case. A Member should be informed if they are not here, but the hon. Lady is sitting here, quite rightly, and I am sure that the shadow Chancellor is ready to give way immediately.

I am always ready to give way, Mr Speaker, and to take your direction.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the shadow Minister for giving way. I agree that what I said might not have been the most eloquent of answers. However, I would say that people in this country are fed up of the bond markets dabbling in the democracy of our country.

That is a rather unfortunate example of doubling down or continuing to dig, if I may say so. Also, the hon. Lady’s comments pale in comparison with Andy Burnham’s comments in the New Statesman, where he said: “We’ve got to go beyond this thing of being in hock to the bond markets”. He also suggested that defence spending should lie outside the fiscal rules, as if spending and borrowing to defend our country were a different form of borrowing from any other borrowing that this Government might entertain. He is not so much the king of the north; he is more like King Canute, sitting in his chair on the sand, dressed in his football kit, trying to push back the tide of the bond markets and saying things like, “You’ve got to fall in line” as the waters lap at his ankles and we all ultimately get swept away. It is ludicrous. The King’s Speech included a holiday tax that will increase the cost of the most budget holidays in this country, clobbering people who have saved up hard and just want to make some memories with their children. We also have the nationalisation of steel, which seems to be just some kind of political sop to the left on the Labour Benches. The Government are also going to put a stop to new oil and gas exploration. This is lunacy, when we are importing gas from Norway that is extracted from the same basin. We are also importing liquefied natural gas, formerly from Qatar and now predominantly from the United States, which has four times the carbon footprint compared with if we had extracted it ourselves using our own resources. All that energy security blown, all those jobs destroyed and all that tax revenue forgone, simply because of the ideological madness of the Labour party.

The shadow Chancellor is completely right to reflect on the plight of the oil and gas sector under this Labour Government: 1,000 jobs are being lost in the sector every single month, which is affecting all our constituents, not just those in the north-east of Scotland. Does he share my dismay that a Labour Government do not take that more seriously?

I do indeed. I have been up to Aberdeen, met my hon. Friend and heard at first hand about the economic effect this is having. It is utter madness. If we have an opportunity in government, we will put that right. I have already mentioned benefits. There was nothing of any substance about welfare in this King’s Speech. There was nothing about the defence investment plan. Where is it? It was promised back in September. Then we have the regulating for growth Bill—an oxymoron if ever there was one. “Regulating for growth” says all we need to know about this Labour Government. They know nothing about the economy, nothing about job creation and nothing about businesses.

Will the shadow Minister give way?

Briefly.

I thank the shadow Minister for what he is saying. Does he share my concern, and the concerns of probably many in this House, that small and medium-sized businesses will suffer more than most? The figures for Northern Ireland indicate that between 85% and 89% of the job creators there are small businesses. Northern Ireland needs something special from this Government. Does he see something special coming, or are we just wondering what is going to happen?

I am afraid that what I see coming is what is already baked in: business rates going through the roof. In some cases, small businesses on our high streets are facing 140% increases in the amount they have to pay in business rates. Conservative Members believe in enterprise, opportunity, aspiration and markets. We believe in risk takers, in people who work hard, and in people who get up early in the morning and do the right thing—go out and create wealth, create jobs and grow our economy. Because of that, at our last conference we set out £47 billion-worth of savings, predominantly—£23 billion—on the welfare budget. With that we could do two wonderful things: first, we could start to bear down on the deficit and get on top of the debt, which is out of control under this Government; and secondly, we could get taxes down, particularly on the productive parts of the economy. We therefore announced the abolition of stamp duty and a tax cut for young people. There is more in our alternative King’s Speech: a Bill to back our high streets and cut business rates for a quarter of a million of our high street businesses; a get Britain working Bill to reverse the damage done by the Employment Rights Act; a reducing bureaucracy Bill to remove the mountain of environmental, social and governance regulations; a save British industry Bill to get rid of the Climate Change Act 2008 and abolish the zero emission vehicle mandate; a cheap energy Bill to get rid of renewables subsidies and bring down bills for households and businesses; a getting Britain drilling Bill to reinvigorate our North sea oil and gas industry, creating jobs and boosting our exports; and a welfare reform Bill to get the benefits bill under control and restore the two-child cap. That is the serious plan that our economy needs. That is the plan to back our businesses and deliver growth. That is a Conservative plan for a better Britain.

As Chair of the Transport Committee, my remarks on the Gracious Speech will focus mainly on transport; if there is time, I plan to touch on some of the other areas where the Government’s proposed legislation will benefit many of my constituents directly. This debate is entitled “Backing business to create economic growth”, and our transport system is key to growth. Economic growth is central to the ambition of the £45 billion investment to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail. That will start to address the 10% productivity gap between northern England and the UK average. Residents and businesses in the north endure longer and often unreliable journeys compared with international comparators. For instance, only 38% of residents can access the city centre of Leeds within 30 minutes by public transport, compared with 87% in Marseille, a city of a similar size. With the new rail infrastructure proposed from Liverpool to Hull, the whole of the economy across the north of England will benefit from Northern Powerhouse Rail. The highways financing Bill will introduce a new funding model for road infrastructure by introducing a regulated asset base, or RAB, funding model to unlock private capital investment in road infrastructure, with the lower Thames crossing to be the first road scheme to use the model. The Government point out that the RAB model has been successfully used in sectors such as energy and aviation, but I am also aware from the example of Heathrow that those paying the bills—in that case, the airlines—say that capital costs can be excessive and poor value for money. It seems natural that as the lower Thames crossing will be a whole new road, it could be funded by tolls, as the Severn bridge was and as is the norm for motorways in many similar economies, but what are the plans for the future? Are the Government considering implementing tolls on projects to improve and repair current highway infrastructure? Surely the Government are not seriously considering building new roads, or significant new capacity? Otherwise, we could be going back to the ’70s with “predict and provide” creating more road capacity, which in a system of infinite demand just continues to deliver congestion while eating up more and more of our land. I would like the Minister today or subsequently to explain more about the role of the Office of Rail and Road in the context of the regulatory role mentioned in the Government briefing. The civil aviation Bill will deliver consumer enforcement powers to the Civil Aviation Authority and allow for timely regulatory intervention to improve aviation safety, modernise UK airspace and provide for a revised slot allocation system to deal with unplanned disruptions. I welcome the proposed additional consumer enforcement powers, including compensation rules when airlines damage mobility aids. That will be welcome for disabled passengers whose mobility is dependent on, for instance, high-powered wheelchairs. The current compensation is wholly inadequate. However, His Majesty the King announced that the Bill “will be introduced to unlock the benefits of airport expansion”. I am not sure that I quite see the direct link between that statement and the subsequent deal and detail that I have just covered. The overnight visitor levy brings UK tourist destinations into line with many places that I and others in this House will have visited in other countries. It will enable local areas to invest in their transport infrastructure and other facilities, which will benefit visitors and residents alike, whether that is shuttle buses to reduce traffic jams on country lanes or improving facilities at busy stations. The draft taxi and private hire vehicle Bill is also welcome. It addresses almost all the issues that witnesses raised in our recent inquiry into taxis and private hire licensing.

We have some 300,000 private hire drivers up and down the country. Uber has been incrementally increasing its fees while the drivers have been getting a fairly stagnant increase in their pay. We have just learned that Uber will be introducing driverless vehicles, which would impact 300,000 workers. Does the hon. Member agree that there needs to be some sort of action to prevent that?

The hon. Member is absolutely right. I am well aware of the concerns of drivers up and down the country, which are not about the improved licensing that the Government are talking about, which they welcome, but about some of those other threats, such as the processes that Uber is using at the moment and the impact of autonomous vehicles.

My hon. Friend will know of my passion for taxis and taxi licensing. Does she agree that it is important that we deal with this licensing loophole to ensure that we do not have taxis that are licensed in other local authorities acting in our authority? That does not just affect the drivers; it is also a safety concern for passengers.

I very much welcome the work that the Minister for Roads has done on the proposed changes. I welcome the commitment to replace a patchwork of outdated rules with a single consistent framework, which will go a long way to addressing the out-of-area operations and problems that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) outlined, and it will fix a system that too often has failed passengers and drivers. Baroness Casey’s “National audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse” found that inconsistent taxi and private hire vehicle licensing creates vulnerabilities that can be, and were, exploited by grooming gangs. The announcement of that legislation follows the welcome commitment in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to introduce minimum standards for drivers, operators and licensing authorities. However, many fear that minimum standards could perpetuate inconsistencies that affect vulnerable passengers, and they are seeking not minimum but absolute standards in taxi licensing. Let me touch on something not directly connected to transport, which is the draft ticket tout Bill. While I welcome a Bill to stop ticket touts selling on concert and event tickets for vastly inflated prices, I wonder if it could be extended to car driving test slots sold by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Or will we have to wait until the agency updates its IT systems, or possibly—perhaps successfully—manages to recruit and retain sufficient driving instructors, so that there is no longer more demand for tests than there are slots available, as that is fuelling the ticket touts? If the Eavis family have managed to stop ticket touts making a killing from Glastonbury tickets, surely a Government agency should have been able to do so before now. The railways and passenger benefits Bill will establish Great British Railways as a new publicly owned company, setting up a new passenger watchdog that will set consumer standards for railways and investigate poor service, as well as simplifying fares and ticketing. A passenger-focused GBR could—not necessarily will, but could—improve reliability, simplicity and accountability across the network for passengers and freight. Other Bills in the King’s Speech and the Government’s subsequent briefing are welcomed by many of my constituents. The social housing renewal Bill will benefit many of my constituents who will never be in a position to buy a home in west London. They just need a safe, secure, affordable and stable place they can call home, without being overcrowded or forced to continually up sticks, lose their jobs and support networks, and disrupt their children’s education, only to find themselves in another overpriced, overcrowded, damp, tiny space with shared facilities. I welcome the fact that young people aged 16 and 17 will be able to vote, as those in Scotland have been for a decade. As someone who voted here nine years ago to remain in the single market and customs union, I welcome the proposals to bring the UK closer to Europe, our exit from which has been one of the most devastating shocks to the UK economy. Many parents and teachers in my constituency welcome the consultation to reform SEND, although they are keeping a watching brief on whether the resources will be adequate to their children’s needs. Finally, on the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, although it would be virtually impossible to scrap leasehold entirely overnight, the ban on new leaseholds for flats, the cap on ground rent, and the new process for converting to commonhold are all welcome measures, as is making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. I also welcome the remediation Bill for those living in homes with unsafe cladding. Too many residents in Hounslow, Isleworth and Brentford are still living in fear of the consequences of a fire breaking out in their block.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

For too many people, the promise that hard work would help them get on in life is broken. The promise that each generation would do better than the last is broken. The expectation that big corporations would be made to play by the rules and pay fair taxes like the rest of us is broken. It is hardly surprising that so many people feel that the whole system is broken and that nothing works, and that they are now demanding action to fix it. The King’s Speech was another chance for this Government to be bold, for them to tell us what they stand for and why, but sadly they failed. On Europe, Ministers once again talk about pursuing a closer partnership through gradual regulatory alignment, but if the Government are serious about repairing the damage caused by Brexit, they must go further and faster. Brexit has left us poorer and more isolated, in what is now a more dangerous and volatile world. At home we must build real sovereignty in energy and food independence, but our economic and national security will only come from a much deeper relationship with our closest neighbours in Europe. The tax revenue lost every year due to Brexit is estimated to have reached £90 billion—that is equivalent to three mini-Budgets in a year. We Liberal Democrats have a road map to rebuild our relationship with the EU and to reach full membership again, starting now with a customs union to cut red tape, support exporters, strengthen supply chains and grow our economy. Going for growth with Europe would end the cost of living crisis. At a time when businesses are crying out for certainty, when our economy desperately needs a shot in the arm and when families and businesses are paralysed with a never-ending cost of living crisis, the Government’s approach is timid when what is needed is bold action. Small businesses are the backbone of our local economies in my St Albans constituency and across the country, but they were offered little more than a Bill aimed at tackling late payments. The Bill is welcome but it barely scratches the surface of the challenges facing businesses every single day. Businesses are asking: where is the action on soaring energy costs, where is the relief from the Government’s damaging jobs tax and where is the meaningful reform of business rates? New Liberal Democrat analysis reveals that 40,000 businesses are still waiting on decisions after appealing their business rates revaluations from 2023, with average waits now hitting nearly a year. When those cases are finally heard, more than half are overturned. Business owners just want to get on with running their businesses, but instead they are stuck in a slow, broken, expensive, impenetrable business rates system. The Conservatives promised reform in 2015 and Labour promised it at the last election, but after a decade of inaction, businesses are still paying the price. In my constituency of St Albans, 11 pubs now have rateable values of more than £100,000 because of the revaluation, even though they cannot all be considered to be large business premises. One of those, the Beech House, on our main high street, St Peters Street, saw its rateable value soar from £97,000 to £125,000, and just last week took the decision to shut up shop for the final time. Hotels have been particularly hard hit as well. Staff at the Samuel Ryder hotel in St Albans told me in January that its bill will increase by 157% this year. Play centres have been penalised too. DJ’s Play Jungle, a soft play centre, has been frozen out of the 15% U-turn discount offered to pubs and music venues. The rates bills of many play centres will quadruple over the next few years, and what will be the result? Children will be priced out of indoor play. The Government are introducing a competition reform Bill, a regulating for growth Bill and an enhancing financial services Bill. Taken together, those Bills aim to improve regulation. As Liberals, we recognise that regulation has an important role to play. We believe that good regulation can be a win-win-win: protecting consumers, promoting innovation and competition, and delivering economic growth. However, regulation works only when it is effective, proportionate and responsive. Too often compliance costs are high, regulation is focused on process not outcome, and our regulators are far too slow, lagging far behind the industries they are supposed to oversee. That is especially true in financial services and fintech, where companies can spend months waiting for approvals and authorisations while investment dries up and opportunities disappear. For start-ups operating on tight funding runways, those delays can be devastating. If the Government are serious about growth, they must ensure that our regulatory system is agile, modern and capable of keeping pace with innovation, and that it delivers competition and growth without abandoning consumers. At a time when financial co-operation with Europe is more important than ever, it is deeply disappointing that stronger UK-EU financial services co-operation appears to have been overlooked in the Government’s so-called reset agenda. We Liberal Democrats welcome the principle behind the electricity generator levy Bill. It is right that the excess profits of electricity generators are fairly taxed, and it is right to break the outdated link between electricity prices and wholesale gas prices. We Liberal Democrats were the only party at the last election to commit to that decoupling, but the Government must go further. The revenues raised should tackle the cost of living crisis head-on, with an emergency home insulation programme for low-income households, an energy security bank, action on heating oil and fuel costs, and stronger protections for small businesses struggling with energy bills. Finally, let me turn to the overnight visitor levy Bill. In principle, Liberal Democrats support devolving more economic powers to local areas. Different communities face different challenges, and local leaders are often best placed to decide whether a visitor levy is appropriate for their area, but there is real concern that the Government will use this levy not as an additional source of local investment to boost tourism, but as a mechanism to quietly offset future cuts to local government funding. We have seen that approach before: the Government have already relied on council tax rises to compensate for reductions in central support to local authorities. Will Ministers make it absolutely clear today and put it on the record that any revenue raised through a visitor levy will genuinely be additional funding for local communities, tourism infrastructure and public services, not a way for central Government sneakily to offset future cuts to local government funding? If the Government hand new powers to mayors in this area, they must go hand in glove with extra, proper support for the tourism and hospitality sector by exempting hospitality from the jobs tax, considering lower rates for part-time staff, introducing a temporary cut to VAT for the sector and launching a serious strategy to promote Britain’s tourism industry overseas. The Labour leadership hopefuls say that they want a battle of ideas, not personalities—well, we Liberal Democrats are fizzing with ideas. We have the ideas to fix our broken social care system, which has been ignored by this Government for 18 months. We have the road map to fix our broken relationship with Europe. We have the plan to fix our broken voting system—something that Labour hopefuls said that they would fix and now say that they will not. We have the ideas to save our high streets, fix the broken business rates system and the broken energy market, tackle the cost of living, and unleash everything that this great country has to offer. I genuinely hope that the Labour leadership contenders are listening, because for our country’s sake, I flippin’ well hope they can match our level of ambition.

In the face of the local election results last week, it is undeniable that what we have done so far is not enough. The long tail of austerity means that we have so much more to do. People see a world moving at a rate of knots and are frustrated at this Government’s slow pace of change. We live in a world where we can order almost anything we want in the morning and have it delivered later that same day. For consumers, satisfaction is now almost instantaneous. That is in complete contrast to Government, where improvements are seen as slow. The expectations and the challenge that we face are there for all to see. What does the King’s Speech do to address what I consider to be the holy trinity of what good Labour Governments do: jobs, homes and health? First, there are two pieces of legislation on homes. The social housing renewal Bill will alter the right to buy by increasing the eligibility requirement by 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum discounts and exempting newly built social housing from the right to buy for 35 years. This area is like so many other Thatcher legacies. The sugar rush felt in the short term by those able to buy their home at a substantial discount has long been replaced by a broken social housing market in which people living in identical properties next to each other can pay massively differently rents. It is a market in which the taxpayer often subsidises inflated rents through housing benefit and millions of young people who might once have seen a council home as their natural route into adulthood have the option forever denied to them. We can see where the logic of right to buy takes us. Between April 2012 and March 2025, 133,000 social homes were sold, but only 51,000 were replaced. With 1.3 million people on council house waiting lists, the problem is obvious for all to see. Secondly on housing, the long-awaited draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will bring us closer to ending the feudal leasehold system. It will finally ban the use of leasehold for new build flats, it will place a cap on ground rents, and it will create a new legal framework for commonhold. There is huge demand for this to be done as soon as possible, and I know the Minister is going as fast as he safely can, but he also needs to tackle rip-off estate management fees—he has to stop that model in its tracks. If we are determined to tackle the cost of living crisis, that is one obvious and indefensible practice that we can end. Alongside addressing the problems that people face now, the Government must take steps to address the problems that are coming down the track. I believe that the unwritten social contract that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, they can expect a good standard of living in return, is disintegrating and under real threat. Across this country, economic growth no longer translates to better outcomes in life, something that is only set to continue with the increase in AI in the workplace and developments in automation. Graduate roles have already been hit—graduate vacancies have fallen by more than one third this year—and that trend will only continue and diffuse across other areas of the labour market. Young people are therefore growing up and entering a world of work that is detached from previous norms, and we are nowhere near ready for the resulting changes that we will see in the next decade. The state needs to be ready to respond to those shifts, to ensure that not only those entering the workforce, but those who are already in it and those who are displaced, are properly skilled for the needs of the future labour market. That future labour market has to include significantly more manufacturing roles, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his speech. The more we can make ourselves, the more insulated we will be from the inevitable disruption that AI is going to cause to jobs, particularly in the service sector, but it will also better protect us from the global supply chain shocks that we are far too exposed to at the moment. The moves to protect UK steel are the right first step in recognising that we need to do much more to protect our manufacturing base. I am not proposing that we nationalise everything—I will leave that for other people to do—but my visit to the local Vauxhall car plant last week was a clear lesson in how we need to sharpen up across the whole of Government to protect manufacturing, and the UK automotive sector in particular. The decision on employee car ownership schemes in the last Budget was welcome, as is support for energy costs next year, but of course, the industry would like that support to be much sooner and much stronger than what is proposed. There are a number of factors challenging the automotive sector, but the biggest one and the one over which the Government have the most control is the ZEV mandate. There has been huge investment in the Ellesmere Port plant so that it can manufacture electric vehicles, and I believe that most of the UK automotive sector is supportive of an electric future. However, the reality is that the current level of sales is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to hit the ZEV mandate, and that gap is only going to get bigger each year. We need to be clear that this is not just a case of “Oh, well, we aren’t going to hit the target.” Every sale short of that target has direct financial consequences for UK manufacturers. Looking around the world, we see that most countries that have put in place sales targets for electric vehicles have had to row back from them in light of the evidence that uptake just is not where it was predicted to be. We need to bring the review forward and make the decision now that the escalation of targets under the ZEV mandate needs to be turned off. This is not something to be looked at in the abstract, on a graph in the corridors of Whitehall; it needs to be looked at in the context of the cold reality of consumer choice and the importance of protecting UK manufacturing. Let us not lose good manufacturing jobs in pursuit of the unattainable—all that will do is supercharge the Chinese automotive sector. That is not going to help the planet as much as we would like, and it certainly is not going to help this country. We have a great tradition of building vehicles in this country, and we want to be at the vanguard of taking the industry into the future, but let us do it in a sustainable way that protects and builds on what we have. We need to do more to support UK manufacturing through procurement. I was delighted recently to take a Royal Mail delivery van made in Ellesmere Port for a spin, with permission from the owner. That electric van, made down the road, is delivering mail to my constituents. We need to see much more of that, and we need to encourage UK companies to buy from the UK. Every part of the public sector should be required to buy British. Every council, every hospital and every school should seek to maximise that, because every taxpayer pound spent on UK goods goes back into our economy. We can do a lot without legislation, but we need to pursue it with great zeal. This is all about levelling the playing field, because more needs to be done. When people see barber shops and vape shops proliferate on their high streets, they know that something is not right, as there simply is not the market to sustain them all. When they see some shut down, perhaps for selling illicit goods or for illegal working, it confirms their suspicions that they are not competing with legitimate businesses. When we see them reopen a few months later, perhaps under a different name, people see a system struggling to cope with the scale of organised crime infecting our high streets. The time for which a shop can be closed for breaching the law will be doubled, but let us also go after the landlords for, at best, failing to do due diligence, and at worst for being complicit in illegal activity. We can do more to support our small businesses on the high street and get the level playing field that we desperately need. We also need a level playing field in how we treat people at work. We have to accept that bogus self-employment is a business model based on denying workers basic protections at work, and it is absolutely the wrong direction for this country. We promised in our manifesto that we would tackle this, so we should get on with it. On a related note, the proposed strengthening of the growth duty, which will apparently reduce unnecessary risk aversion, is misguided. Good businesses want their staff to work in safe environments, and they want them to be treated well. This so-called unnecessary risk aversion, referred to in documents that the Government have produced, is an illusion—a straw man—and it has been used to put up with other shortcomings. We face many challenges. I think we are on the right track, but we need to go much further and much faster. The public are telling us that they need to see results. We are now two years into this Government, and as much as the news cycle is hyper-focused on personality, the King’s Speech is all about policy. It is about how we shape a better future and show voters that they were right to put their trust in the Labour party to deliver for them. Everyone here knows the perils that lie ahead if we are not bold enough, if we are not determined enough and if we do not use the time that we have to deliver real change. We are nearing the halfway point of this Parliament and, while progress has been made, it is abundantly clear that we need to go much further if we are to show that we have the power to transform the lives of ordinary people in this country. The clock is ticking. Incrementalism will not cut it. We now need a response that rises to the urgent challenges that our country faces, so let us go out there and do it.

I call Sir Desmond Swayne.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early on the third day of five that we are investing in scrutinising the Government’s programme, at a time when the party of government is abandoning its unique selling point of bringing political stability to our economy after a time of so much churn, with so many Prime Ministers in such a short space of years.

And who was responsible for that?

Irrespective of who was responsible, the question is: what is happening now? The reality is that we are facing a danger, notwithstanding the investment of time we are putting into scrutinising the Government’s programme, that it will not remain the Government’s programme for very much longer, such are the very different priorities of those who are lining up to take the Prime Minister’s job. When the Prime Minister warned his party last week that unleashing a leadership election would bring about chaos, he was quite right, but that chaos also comes with a cost. Such is their horror at the prospect of those lining up to take the Prime Minister’s job, the markets that fund our gargantuan and growing appetite for borrowing are charging a risk premium higher than was charged for the Truss regime, and higher than is charged for Greece when it seeks to borrow. I am not a particular fan of the current Prime Minister, but I urge Labour Members—and, indeed, the voters of Makerfield, who will apparently have a rather more significant input in the settling of this matter—to take account of Hilaire Belloc’s cautionary verses, and, in particular, the tale of poor Jim, who ran away from nurse and was eaten by a lion: “And always keep a-hold of Nurse For fear of finding something worse.” His Majesty told us that the legislative programme would include a Bill to strengthen our relationship with the European Union, but it is far from clear what that actually means. Do the Prime Minister’s red lines—no return to a customs union, or to free movement, or to the single market—still hold firm, and do they hold firm in the view of those who have expressed a much more enthusiastic agenda for returning to closeness with the European Union, among those candidates who are lining up behind him, seeking his job? Labour said in its manifesto that it was going to make Brexit work, but it has made it the excuse for the lacklustre performance of the British economy. There is a measure of cakeism going on whereby Ministers, including the Secretary of State, tell us how wonderfully they have been doing. They have delivered the fastest economic growth in the G7, much faster than the countries that the Secretary of State identified in the European Union. They have delivered a reduction in inflation. They have delivered—

Interest rate reductions.

Quite right: interest rate reductions. They have done all these wonderful things, but at the same time they languish because we are not a member of the European Union. We have heard that criticism several times already today: we would be doing so much better if we were a member of the European Union. The reality is, however, that the European Union is not doing as well as Ministers are trumpeting that we are doing.

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No. The hon. Lady has had her turn.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will not. The reality is that Ministers are trying to have their cake and eat it by saying that the British economy would be performing so much better if it were a member of the European Union while at the same time trumpeting its performance.

Now will he give way?

I am with the hon. Gentleman—I believe the reality is that the British economy is performing in a lacklustre way. But I put it to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the cause of that lacklustre performance is the huge imposition of regulation in the previous King’s Speech, and the delivery of new employment taxes on every enterprise in the land as part of that deal. The best King’s Speech that we could have had would have been a very, very short one, containing only a statute of repeal of all the impositions of the previous King’s Speech.

What an abrupt end that was. What a cliff-hanger! I want to speak briefly about the justice measures in the King’s Speech. Important Bills are being introduced or carried over, and it is disappointing that the Opposition did not nominate justice and home affairs for a full day’s debate, even more so because today those in the other place are debating those very same subjects, which are indeed important.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

It is a bit early, but all right.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way on the subject of home affairs. As the Liberal Democrats’ home affairs spokesperson, I too am disappointed that there is not a day for me to have my say on this matter, and I will try to do so in this brief intervention. When I am opposite the Home Secretary, who makes a great play of shouting things at me as if I am a terrible liberal making unreasonable statements, she tends to imply strongly that by moving to the authoritarian right, the Labour party is seeing off the challenge of the Reform party. I wonder whether Labour Members are reflecting on that in the wake of the recent election results.

That was a bit off-subject, so I will confine my comments to saying that, as usual, we are all disappointed by the official Opposition. We will leave it at that. Fortunately, the Justice Committee has been involved in scrutinising some of the legislation being carried over—namely, the Courts and Tribunals Bill, which I believe has now been reborn as the courts modernisation Bill, and the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, by which I mean the Hillsborough Bill; I hope the House is keeping up with these nomenclatures. I will deal with those Bills before outlining what else the Committee is doing. First, on the courts modernisation Bill, the Justice Committee has been engaging closely with the Government’s proposals for reform of the Crown court, holding evidence sessions and collecting written evidence to gather views. We have heard from Sir Brian Leveson, whose independent review of the criminal courts formed the basis for the proposed changes, and from a wide range of practitioners, including barristers, solicitors, magistrates, retired judges and victims’ representatives. The Government declined to allow the Committee to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny, so we have conducted our own on behalf of the House, and next week we will publish a major report of our findings. The passage of the Bill through the Commons has been rapid, and there has been little opportunity for scrutiny of its contents by Members and indeed the wider public, despite the profound constitutional implications.

As a fellow Committee Chair, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government could reconsider their relationship with Select Committees and provide more opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny by Committees, which play such an important role in addressing legislation prior to it coming to its formal stages in this House?

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for her intervention, and the answer is that there is a balance. We all want the Government to press on with all the wonderful things that they intend to do, which are in the King’s Speech, but that must be mitigated by the guiding hand of experienced practitioners, such as my hon. Friend, in their Select Committee roles. I hope that our report on the courts modernisation Bill will make a significant contribution to Members’ understanding and analysis of its provisions, and aid their scrutiny and deliberations. I also hope that Ministers will take on board the issues that we will raise. Secondly, I welcome back the Hillsborough Bill, which is the result of years of committed campaigning led by the families, victims and survivors of the Hillsborough disaster and other public tragedies. I spoke on Second Reading to highlight the areas of the Bill where I thought further clarity was required, including the application of the duty of candour to subcontractors, not just those with a direct contractual relationship; the scope of the exemption from the offence of “misleading the public” for acts done for the “purposes of journalism”; and how the expansion of legal aid will be funded. I am pleased to see that the Government have now published their proposals for the last of those. When the Bill’s remaining stages take place, I intend to table amendments to require the Government to consider the merits of a national oversight mechanism—an independent body tasked with collating, analysing and following up the conclusions and recommendations made in the course of inquests and inquiries. I will also add my support to amendments relating to the role of the Independent Public Advocate and its information-gathering powers, and to the extension of the duty of candour to subcontractors, who are used by the vast majority of service provides, including Fujitsu during the Horizon scandal. I look forward to the Bill returning so that these issues can be considered in more detail. The national oversight mechanism, championed by the charity Inquest, is getting considerable traction. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Liaison Committee are discussing what may be the best method of ensuring that the recommendations of inquiries are implemented, and the Justice Committee also has an interest in this matter. We are also exploring the wider issue of how information from inquests can be collated and presented to prevent future deaths, whether or not there is a formal prevention of future deaths report. To that end, I am tabling amendments to the Bill that would establish a national coronial database. Thirdly, I turn to the immigration and asylum Bill. The Justice Committee has been engaging with the Government’s proposal, since it was made last August, for a new independent appeals body to speed up decision making on asylum appeal cases, which is to be implemented via the Bill. In February, we visited the Taylor House tribunal hearing centre in London and spoke to senior judges to try to understand the causes of the current high appeal backlog. From speaking to them, it was clear that the failures in the current system, which have led to high appeal backlogs, are operational. They include: a shortage of administrative officers to check validity and collect papers; a shortage of court lawyers to issue directions and prepare cases for hearing; inadequate legal aid provision, causing essential legal and evidential groundwork to be performed far too late or not at all; poor or absent Home Office representation at hearings; and failure to comply with tribunal directions on both sides. Replacing judges with adjudicators will not solve those problems. Operational investment in the tribunal infrastructure is clearly required. The Committee will endeavour to shine a light on that as the Bill goes through the House, but our initial thoughts are that replacing or supplementing judicial decision making by the first-tier tribunal with Home Office administrators will complicate rather than speed up the process, and simply move contentious cases to the upper tribunal or administrative court. In addition to scrutinising that significant legislation over the coming months, the Justice Committee will be concluding and reporting on its inquiries on the rehabilitation and resettlement of offenders and access to justice, and progressing its inquiry on children and young adults in the secure estate. It was good news earlier to see the Government launch the White Paper on youth justice. The Committee will be holding individual sessions with senior office holders, including the Attorney General, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Lord Chancellor. We will expand our work on tribunals by launching an inquiry on delays in employment tribunals, which currently have a backlog of over half a million active claims. We will also want to scrutinise the impact of the reforms contained in the Sentencing Act 2026 both on the prison population and the Probation Service, and on offender rehabilitation and public safety. There are omissions from the Gracious Speech that are a matter for regret. Despite broad consensus, there is no measure to reverse the Supreme Court’s ruling in PACCAR. The Committee heard in its access to justice inquiry how that is adversely affecting litigation funding. There is also no proposal for anti-SLAPP—strategic lawsuits against public participation—legislation, despite substantial evidence of the use of litigation to stifle free speech, nor is there anything to help the victims of press harassment. It is disappointing that calls to introduce a legal right to consular assistance for British nationals arbitrarily detained or abused by foreign Governments have been ignored, and that proposals mooted to reform the position of cohabiting couples are absent. None the less, this is a substantial King’s Speech with a full programme that includes full, wholesale reform of leasehold and commonhold, social housing renewal, closer ties with the EU, and nationalisation of the steel industry. It is to be commended and supported in all those aspects, which are firmly based on sound Labour principles. Who can argue with that?

I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her elevation to her new position. The subject that I want to focus on—the enhancing financial services Bill—makes me reflect on the fact that I was in office as Economic Secretary for 1,640 days and, since then, we have had seven Economic Secretaries. I fully concede that several were from my party, but it is regrettable that there is not a degree of continuity in that role, because one of the most fundamental challenges facing the financial services sector, which is so important to securing enduring growth, is having Ministers who are able to maintain a relationship with the regulators and work through what, contrary to the way our politics is conducted these days, are quite complicated and delicate changes to regulation, capital requirements, and the way in which the consumer interacts with banks and financial services. I think it is deeply regrettable that that has come to pass. However, I welcome some of the legislative measures put before us in the King’s Speech, such as the changes to the senior managers regime, removing the degree of certification necessary; the streamlining, essentially, of the functions of the Payment Systems Regulator into the Financial Conduct Authority; the re-anchoring of the Financial Ombudsman Service into the FCA, removing a degree of arbitrage existing in the marketplace; and adjustments to the ringfencing regime. Those are good things, and I am sure that we on the Treasury Committee and across this House will examine the detail of them. I want to make three other points, if I may, about some of the challenges we face in the economy and financial services. First, we have to own the trade-offs that exist between financial stability and lending capacity. Post 2008, we made a number of decisions as a country to secure stability on an enduring basis, and we have now become too reluctant to recognise that the world is a completely different place. The question this House needs to answer in 2026 is whether the same calibration remains appropriate, and whether the proposals in the enhancing financial services Bill—for example, on ringfencing—go far enough. Are we used to holding on to a framework that protects and apparently gives stability, but which is in fact stopping significant tranches of capital being available to grow businesses and grow the economy? The second area with which I am very preoccupied is the consumer duty. In the other place, the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published a report last year, called “Growing pains”, which explicitly identified the consumer duty’s lack of clarity as a source of “regulatory penalty on investment in UK businesses”. We must ask whether the time has come when responsibility for where to invest and how to invest should lie more with the individual consumer. We are advancing this notion that somehow we in this place can define all the checks and balances, which we delegate to the regulator, and the moment something goes wrong, we expect that regulator to step in and to offer compensation. The emphasis should now be on reforming the Consumer Credit Act 1974—I think the Government are announcing that today—but that has been taking too long. It was first mooted when I was a Minister several years ago, and we have to be real about the reset that needs to happen as we redefine the level of responsibility that individuals take when investing. Thirdly, I welcome the regulating for growth Bill’s sandbox measures. They are welcome as a concept in bringing in innovative businesses, in which this country continues to be very strong in financial services. However, we must be real about the fact that the area is dominated by large firms, and the new Economic Secretary will need to work with the regulators to see how we can bring firms in at an earlier stage, so that smaller firms, which may have achieved only a few million in seed round investment, can access the acceleration through that considerable regulatory burden.