[1st Day]

Before I call the mover and the seconder, I want to announce the proposed pattern of debate during the remaining days on the Loyal Address: today—debate on the Address; tomorrow—getting Britain working again; Monday 18 May—backing business to create economic growth; Tuesday 19 May—energy security; Wednesday 20 May—defence readiness. I now have the privilege of calling Naz Shah to move the address, and I will then call Chris Vince to second it.

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as follows: Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament. It would be remiss of me not to say a few words about the outstanding state visit by His Majesty to the United States. We saw eloquent oratory, remarkable wit and genuine statesmanship from His Majesty. Presenting President Trump with the original brass bell—inscribed with his name before he was even born—from the second world war submarine HMS Trump and suggesting, if he needs us, to “give us a ring” was a masterstroke in diplomacy. His Majesty returned—very humbly, of course—having secured the lifting of trade barriers on Scotch whisky. Given the performance, I was rather worried His Majesty might come back with the 13 colonies as well. It is a huge honour for me and my constituents in Bradford West for me to move the Loyal Address. This is the second time that my constituency has been honoured in this way. In 1959, the then Member for Bradford, West, Arthur Tiley, seconded the Loyal Address. When the Chief Whip called me about today, my first reaction, like many across this House when the Chief calls, was, “Uh-oh, what have I done?” However, that “Uh-oh” soon turned into, “Oh my days—no way!” with the biggest smile ever. I clearly remember listening to the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Bootle (Peter Dowd) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) the last time this occasion happened, and thinking, “Now, that is an honour.” Had I known God was listening, I would have asked to win the EuroMillions. In fact, had I known that not always voting with the Government also works, I might have done more of it. [Laughter.] I am indeed humbled and honoured, primarily for being trusted by the people of Bradford West in placing their faith in me and sending me to this place, but also by being given this opportunity to be the first ever Muslim to propose the Loyal Address in this Chamber—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear”]—and, of course, seeing the meltdown of the far right online at a “Muslim takeover” and even an “act of domination”. In the light of this, I must assure them this is not a takeover. I must state it is, per convention, a joke—[Laughter.] But if seeing black and brown people on TV makes you feel sick, my speech is going to make you vomit. [Laughter.] On a more serious note, over the last few months I have had the opportunity to tell my own story: the story of my life and the challenges I faced growing up. I often pinch myself while in this Chamber, questioning how a girl who lived the life that I lived could be given such an honour to represent her city in the mother of all Parliaments. It is because, despite the challenges we may face as a nation and the differences in approach that we present across the House, I know without a doubt that, as someone who comes from the ethnic, religious and socioeconomic background that I came from, and whose entire live crashed before her, I would never have been given such an honour in any other country than this one—my own country, our country. For me, there is no nation greater than ours. We are the greatest nation on earth, and I am a true patriot. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Raised in abject poverty, living in a single room because we could not afford to heat the whole house and suffering tuberculosis as a result, I understand at first hand what this means. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s continued commitment to prioritise addressing the cost of living crisis. In doing so, we cannot ignore the instability across the world around us: the plight of the Palestinians, the war in Ukraine, the instability in the strait of Hormuz, and the growing global threats for which we must also be ready. Living in a globalised world means that there is an ever-growing connection between the local, the national and the international. What happens out there reaches every home and doorstep across every constituency. The defence of our country is rightly also among these top agenda items. As a proud graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme—I recommend that all Members take part in and support it—I have nothing but admiration and thanks for those who have served and continue to serve to protect our tomorrow. I also have the honour to serve as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy for Indonesia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, a region of more than 660 million people, and a hugely important geopolitical and trade corridor. I welcome the continued commitment to strengthening our place across the world. Without international trade and growth in our economy, we cannot deliver the jobs, investment and support we need across our country. I will continue to play my part in securing trade and investment for the UK, and championing British business abroad with colleagues from across the House. Closer to home, I had the honour to serve in Committee for the assisted dying Bill—something that went beyond party lines—where I had the opportunity to work with colleagues from across the House, including the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger). While I did not eventually support the Bill, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for her work, commitment and passion. Talking about going beyond party lines, I noted with interest, as I am sure the whole nation did too, the rather peculiar fascination of the previous Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the noble Lord Gove, with our Home Secretary. He actually confessed to browsing the internet for her images. Thankfully, knowing our Home Secretary as I do, I am confident that this is not the kind of cross-party mischief that she would reciprocate. [Laughter.] But I do have a guilty pleasure of my own—and no, it is not a Tory. [Laughter.] Unfortunately for my calorie count, it is custard and cake. I blame Godfrey and Sharon in the Tea Room for their unwavering encouragement to indulge “sparingly”. [Laughter.] I am proud to be the first woman elected to Parliament for the constituency of Bradford West, a constituency with a history of extraordinary women who broke every barrier that patriarchy put in front of them. The Brontë sisters changed English literature forever but had to use men’s names to publish their writing. The suffragettes of Bradford went to Holloway prison for the right to vote. The women of Manningham Mills walked out into the cold, changing our political landscape forever. Margaret McMillan pioneered free school meals—trialled in 1904 in the school I later attended, Green Lane primary—leading to the Education (Provision of Meals) Act 1906, which cemented free school meals in our history. Barbara Castle, shaped by Bradford’s streets and schools, went on to write equal pay into law, and I am proud to serve alongside equally formidable women, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) and for Shipley (Anna Dixon). There is something in the air in Bradford as a whole that produces women who will not be told. I promise this House that I have zero intention of breaking with that. Today our country beams with pride because of the many great changes made by successive Labour Governments, but none of those changes would have been possible without the women who led the Manningham Mills strike. That strike led to the founding of the Independent Labour party, conceived and formed in Bradford West. It was in Bradford that a man named Keir first took the chair of the Labour movement, and despite 130 years, two world wars, and roughly 47 leadership elections, the party remains in the hands of a Keir. Prime Minister, nobody can say that you do not know how to fight on. I could not make this speech without recognising David Hockney—a boy from a Bradford terrace who pushed his paintings around the city in a pram. David went on to become the world’s most famous living artist. He once said that if you look closely, Bradford is a city with magic. I do not know whether he was looking into the future and describing Bradford magician Dynamo, Zayn Malik’s magical music, or the leg-spinning, world cup-winning magic of our very own Adil Rashid, but Bradford is without question a place of wonders. Bradford is also a place of culture. The Bradford literature festival is often referred to as the jewel in the crown; it is now one of the largest literature festivals in the UK, and the largest of its kind throughout Europe, pairing excellence with access for those who would otherwise be excluded from culture. In 2025, Bradford was proud to be named UK City of Culture, home to a rich, diverse population, built on the back of the historic title of the wool capital of the world. In the 1850s, German-Jewish merchants came to Bradford and built the magnificent warehouses of what we now call Little Germany, helping to make Bradford a global trading city and the proud home of the oldest synagogue in the north. It is a synagogue that the Muslim community recently stepped in to save when the roof was about to cave in, illustrating the relationship between the Muslim and Jewish communities in Bradford. A century after the German-Jewish merchants, men from Azad Jammu and Kashmir, India, and Pakistan arrived in the 1950s and 60s, and worked tireless nightshifts to keep the mills running, ensuring Britain’s economy continued to flourish after the second world war. Each generation of newcomers did not just come to Bradford—they built Bradford. Chicken tikka masala might be the UK’s national dish, but I must inform the House that they have not had a curry until they have had a Bradford curry. Whether it is the legendary family naans on trees invented by the late king of curries Shabbir Hussain, the founder of Akbar’s, or the subcontinent flavours of Aaghra, Mumtaz, Jinnah, MyLahore, or any one of hundreds of restaurants across the city, Bradford does curry like nowhere else. The curries are that good they even defy the Mounjaro jab. A note to the Health Secretary: he may have to develop a stronger solution. I recommend Bradford’s curry to all Members of the House. Now that Bradford has a few Reform councillors, perhaps the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who I see is not in his place, could pay them a visit and treat them to a good curry, followed by a pint brewed in Bradford. In fact, given the size of the gift he received that we are all now aware of, he could probably take half of Bradford out and still be left with plenty of change. Bradford is the youngest city in the United Kingdom. It has been named the most entrepreneurial, too; Morrisons grew from a market stall in our city to a household name. Bradford has no poverty of aspiration, talent or ambition, but decades of poverty of infrastructure have left us behind. Bradford is, however, turning a corner, with £270 million in public sector investment building private sector confidence, with a combined pipeline now reaching £2.3 billion. I am grateful for our Government’s support, which includes: a new hospital in Airedale; a £2 billion integrated settlement for West Yorkshire, giving our Labour Mayor, Tracy Brabin, the power and flexibility to invest in local jobs, new homes and improving skills; a Bradford city station; and £2.1 billion investment in transport for the city region, enabling West Yorkshire to deliver mass transit, better buses and repair our roads and potholes. All that is pumping confidence into a city ready for investors to benefit from its untapped potential. Northern Powerhouse Rail is not a “nice to have”, but the difference between Bradford’s young people building their futures at home and building them somewhere else. I give thanks to all the House staff across the estate who ensure that Parliament can play the role it does. They are hugely deserving of our appreciation for everything they do. Outside of this place, I also thank the security services and our police forces, who keep us safe with the ever-increasing risks and threats to our democracy. Given the magnitude of this moment, I also emphasise the huge weight and burden of responsibility on our shoulders. When we speak in this Chamber, it carries meaning and impact; it impacts the boy who takes off his kippah and the girl who removes her hijab, fearing for their safety because their race and religion have become a political football. An attack on anyone, or anyone’s place of worship—a synagogue, a mosque, a church, a temple, a gurdwara or any kind of religious institution—is an attack on our British way of life. We must strengthen our communities against the rising tide of nationalism and populism. In an ever more dangerous world, and an ever more toxic online world, society needs unity, calmness and leadership more than ever to make our country the best it can be. The burden of responsibility falls on all our shoulders, and it has never been greater. It is also convention to part with words of wisdom for those who are slightly newer to this place. With that in mind, I simply say this: nurture the pragmatism of being an elected representative of the people who have put their trust in you and sent you here, but never forget the passion of an activist. Keep that fire burning—it is that passion that will sustain you and carry you through, because sometimes it gets difficult here. A King’s Speech is meant to be a fresh start—Parliament’s version of clearing the kitchen table, making room for the work ahead, gathering the family round and reminding ourselves what the country has sent us here to do. As hon. Members may know, I believe in a full table. In my home, hospitality matters. You make space, listen and serve people properly. But good hospitality and politics itself is about more than who speaks first or loudest. It is about noticing the quiet ones, those who may be less organised or not as powerful but who are none the less equally, if not more, important—the voiceless whose voices we need to become. For someone like me, who spent her formative years fighting a campaign to release her mother from prison and who did not have a formal education beyond the age of 12, spelling, grammar and parliamentary language do not come naturally. Forced into a marriage at 15, forced to live a life with hearing aids, lugging around a black bin liner of belongings as a homeless teenager, left all alone as a guardian to a younger brother and sister without a shoulder of support or stability in life, attempting suicide as I could not see a way out from my despair, yet here I stand—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Here I stand with the world’s eyes watching the state opening of Parliament on this momentous occasion, having been given the privilege of this moment. If this was not my story, I would believe it to be fiction. But the truth is that there can be light at the end of the tunnel. As I believe, and as my life personifies, after hardship comes ease. When I stood in this Chamber for the first time, I pinched myself—and I still do—that someone like me can end up here representing the city they love in the mother of all Parliaments. Bradford and my country gave me everything. I intend to spend every day in this House returning the favour. It is the honour of my life to move the Loyal Address on behalf of the people of Bradford West. I commend the motion to the House.

Hear, hear.

I won’t mention the Bolton-Bradford game on Thursday. I call Chris Vince to second the address.

It is an absolute honour to second this Humble Address. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for her incredibly powerful speech and echo her words about the importance of communities coming together to tackle the divisive politics that we have seen so often. I thank her for those comments. May I also echo her comments about the House staff and the incredible job that they do to support all of us? Following my recent London marathon run, two of the Doorkeepers suggested that the only reason Sabastian Sawe did it in less than two hours was to get away from me talking about Harlow. As a big fan of curries, I look forward to having the opportunity to sample one in Bradford in the future, although I cannot speak for all my fellow Essex MPs. Speaking to this motion is a unique opportunity. I have checked the records, and I am the first MP for Harlow to have had the opportunity to do so—mind you, Harlow has only been a constituency since the 1970s, and I am not counting Winston Churchill, who represented what is now Harlow when it still came under Epping. It may be the first time that a Harlow MP has delivered this speech, but I believe that this opportunity has come at the right time. When I reflect on the hurdles ahead, a lot can be learned by looking at Harlow’s past and Harlow’s future. My seconding the Humble Address came about when I received a phone call from the Chief Whip on the train home. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West—and most Members across the House, I am sure—my first thought was, “What have I done wrong?” I thought that perhaps, as some Members across the House did, he had misheard me when I said “horned” during a speech; I did not much fancy explaining to him on a train full of my constituents that I had said “horned” and not another word that sounds like “horned”. Thankfully, that was not the case. The Chief Whip told me there were certain traditions around the King’s Speech—that the seconder’s speech should be humorous and was an opportunity to mention the Member’s constituency as often as possible. This did sound like a good gig to me, to be fair. I cannot necessarily promise humour—although I will give it a good go—but I can certainly promise that I will mention Harlow as often as possible. Those listening at home may wish to count the number of times I do so. I believe the current count is seven. [Interruption.] Is it eight? What did I do for a living? Harlow is never a dull place to represent. Members across the House will know that Harlow once again bucked the national trend when it came to last week’s local election results. We are getting quite good at that, even if it might not have been in quite the way I would have liked. However, it shows the ambition of the people of Harlow to see their town improve and grow—something that can only happen with this Government’s continued investment. Hint, hint! The Chief Whip also told me that it was tradition to have an established MP propose the Loyal Address and for a “bright young thing” to second it. I have to say that I am not particularly bright and I am not particularly young—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] But I am definitely a thing, so I can claim one third of that description. I think the Chief Whip asked me to give this speech because he was aware that, on the last day of term, I failed to achieve my 400th contribution to Hansard. I thank everybody for being here so that I can now do so. In this parliamentary term I look forward to making 400 further contributions, with multiple references to Harlow, my mother’s sterling career at HMRC, and the fact that I may have previously been a maths teacher. [Hon. Members: “More!”] There is more; don’t worry. I think we all recognise, as His Majesty does, that this King’s Speech comes at an increasingly dangerous and volatile time that, like hon. Friends and other hon. Members, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about. During this turmoil, I have taken the time to reflect on what it means to be British—those British values. What is our country about? What is the real Britain? We mention Britishness more and more, but it can mean any number of things to any number of people. When I think about what it means to be British, I think about my recent experience running the London marathon. To be clear, I am not referring to when the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), with his Union flag shorts on, overtook me on mile 17, just as I hit the metaphorical wall. I have looked it up and he is two years younger than me, so I have an excuse. During my marathon run—or perhaps in my case I should say my marathon limp—along the streets of London, I saw neither hate nor division. I saw unity. I saw people coming together to cheer on perfect strangers in their shared endeavour. I saw Gordon Ramsay randomly heckle me to carry on. I even got support from a Man United supporter. I saw everyone—man or woman, black or white, gay or straight—all lining the 26.2-mile course. And by the way, that 0.2 miles at the end is only made possible by those supporters. That is the Britain I know. That is the Britain that I love. That sense of supporting one another, and of coming together as a community in hardship and celebration, is alive and well in Harlow. In fact, it was baked into the very foundation of Harlow when it was first conceived as part of the new town revolution under the first majority Labour Government in 1945. Harlow remains a strong community today. When I think of Britishness, I think of Rainbow Services, which supports projects across Harlow by getting young people to build infrastructure for their community; I think of Streets2Homes, the homelessness charity I worked at that supports the most vulnerable in our society; and I think about the Michael Roberts charitable foundation, which runs the local food bank. As I mentioned, Harlow is a post-war new town designed by Sir Frederick Gibberd to be a place of neighbourhoods and communities. It was built as a solution to the problem of overcrowding in London. Harlow sought to alleviate that pressure, while keeping communities tightly knit together. We can still see remnants of that today, with people from Walthamstow moving to The Stow in Harlow, which gives people a fresh start in life with all the comforts of their community. To this day, Harlow is one community built by lots of smaller and close communities—communities like Potter Street, Bush Fair, Church Langley and Little Parndon. As Harlow grew into its new town, so too did its pioneering spirit. Just two weeks ago, I was lucky enough to recognise one of those pioneers by unveiling a blue plaque in memory of Harlow-raised scientist Dr George Hockham, one of the key brains behind the invention of the fibre-optic cable. Fibre-optic cable, created in Harlow, revolutionised modern communication not just in Britain, but across the world. For me, George Hockham and many others like him from Harlow can be an inspiration for Harlow’s next generation—a generation who deserve a Government on their side. I also think of inspirations like Professor Hannah Fry and Paralympian Anne Strike. These inspirations are a reminder of what it means to be British, to achieve so much and to have such a proud community behind you. Harlow has a history to be proud of and a future to be excited about. As a former teacher—I do not know whether I have mentioned that fact—I am filled with pride when I visit schools across Harlow and see the incredible young people learning there. That is why I am proud that education is at the heart of this Government’s offer in the King's Speech, building on the work done in the previous parliamentary Session. Looking to this Session, the Government will tackle the broken special educational needs and disabilities system, giving every young person with SEND the support they need and supporting parents, not leaving them to battle a broken system. This issue cuts across this House. I am sure every hon. Member can recall a constituent coming to them broken, with nowhere to turn, at their wits’ end with a SEND system that benefits no one; I certainly can. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to review the national curriculum to make it broader, recognising the importance of citizenship and financial education and the dangers of online harm. What our younger generation learn is so important. If I could achieve one thing, when I look back on my time serving Harlow, I want it to be achieving for the young people in Harlow the aspiration that they deserve. Every young person now sitting in a classroom in Harlow—primary or secondary—should have the opportunity to aspire to achieve whatever they want to do. That is what I want for Harlow. Some might say the fact that I am standing in this Chamber, giving this speech, means that anyone can achieve anything if they are resilient enough. Let me tell you, Mr Speaker, I can roll with the punches, and believe me, my journey to these Green Benches did not happen without me getting knocked down along the way. I say now, directly to the young people of Harlow: Do not give up on your dreams. Do not let someone tell you that you can’t do it. If you really want something and you are willing to work hard for it, you can achieve it. I am proof of that, and I know that in this Government, you have a Prime Minister dedicated to giving that opportunity to others—because he is even more proof of it than I am. I would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to mention a personal focus of mine in this place: supporting young carers and young adult carers. I call on the Government once again to ensure that support for those particularly incredible young people is a golden thread running through everything that they do. Of course, Harlow is about more than just its young people, and my community has not been immune to the pressures of the cost of living crisis. I welcome the work already done—the freezing of rail fares and prescription charges, the lifting of the two-child benefit cap and the raising of the minimum wage—but most of all I am pleased that this Government, in this King’s Speech, recognise that there is more to do to support families in Harlow. When we talk about cost of living pressures, it is easy to get lost in the numbers— as a mathematician at heart, that is even easier for me. But to bring the issue home, when I think of the reality facing hard-working and proud families in Harlow, I think of my friend Jamie, who works six days a week to pay the bills, put food on the table for his two-year-old son and provide for his family. At the end of the month, he has very little, if anything. He cannot enjoy himself. He cannot treat his family. This parliamentary Session must be defined by being the one where we see living standards improve for everyone in our society, not just for the privileged few. That is what will be in my mind’s eye when I cast my votes in this place. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) is waiting anxiously for me to point out that I stand here in this place as not just a Labour MP, but a Labour and Co-operative MP. I am proud of the Co-operative party and the work it has been doing alongside the Government to empower local communities, like mine in Harlow, through community ownership. I hope this next Session will bring even more co-operative opportunities for people in Harlow. Of course, like those of many hon. Members in this place, my constituency name does not encompass the full nature of my area. The Harlow constituency does not end at the town boundary; I also represent incredible villages with incredible histories. I represent Roydon, a village that first appeared in the Domesday Book. Bordering Roydon are Lower Nazeing and Dobbs Weir, which are home to the Lea Valley growers—some of the biggest vegetable producers in the country. I also represent Sheering, one of whose most notable residents is Rod Stewart. For the first time, Harlow also includes Hatfield Heath and Hatfield Broad Oak—I know that the Leader of the Opposition will vaguely remember those places—which are incredible communities with a strong sense of what it means to look after your neighbour; I have got a “Neighbours” reference in there for the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport! Ironically, one of my predecessors, Bill Rammell, moved out of Harlow to one of the villages, but Harlow was not keen on this so it expanded its boundaries to include him back in the constituency, and we welcome him. Part of the fun of representing such a diverse community, with its healthy share of rural and urban, is the mix I get to experience as its MP. I can visit local businesses in the morning, talk to a group of students in the afternoon, and then round up the day with a community event. I have attended my fair share of community events, although I am not convinced it was a great idea to run the Matching village 10K a week after the London marathon. I did not see the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay there—just saying! Perhaps he had already finished. [Laughter.] On the point about running, when I took part in the London marathon, I received the card from my parliamentary team wishing me luck, with one member of my team commenting: “You’ve run in enough elections, so a marathon should be easy.” That brings me to my conclusion and to the line that I want to end with, which is from one of my own former teachers. Did I mention I was a teacher? Mr Feeley used to teach me science, although I am not really sure that we learned a lot of science in his lessons. However, I think this line perfectly sums up this Government. We should always remember: “it’s a marathon and not a sprint.” I would respectfully remind Members of that.

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

This King’s Speech is taking place against the most extraordinary backdrop. We knew that the carriages were booked, that the horses were ready and that the King was coming, but would we have a Prime Minister? It is such an honour to be the Leader of the Opposition who gets to respond today. May I start by congratulating the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address on their excellent speeches? I also congratulate the Whips on finding two Back Benchers prepared to support the Prime Minister at this time. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) gave a moving and funny speech. I especially appreciated her comments about black and brown faces on TV—or, as my children say, “Oh look, it’s mummy again.” She only touched lightly on the fact that she is someone who has faced one of the most challenging childhoods imaginable, yet through the strength of her character, has made it to this place. She is made of tough stuff, and that is something we need more of in this House. Anyone who can boast of chewing up and spitting out George Galloway in an election is clearly formidable. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on successfully delivering a humorous and warm-hearted speech. As he noted, he is my constituency neighbour. He ran the London marathon last month, raising money for the St Clare hospice, which cares for his constituents and mine, so I would like to take this opportunity to thank him for doing that. I have become a big fan of his after listening to his speech, especially as he was so generous in his comments about the Harlow Conservatives’ successful election campaign and my councillors’ outstanding work on regenerating the town centre. If things on his side of the House are getting a bit much, he would be very welcome to cross the Floor and help the Conservatives carry on that work. I think we can say that the proposer and seconder of the Loyal Address have upheld the best traditions of the House. I would of course like to pay tribute to His Majesty the King. His Majesty has served through a period of great personal difficulty, and throughout it he has exemplified the virtues of grace, dignity, humour, modesty and resolve in the face of adversity—virtues that were on full display during his hugely successful state visit to the United States. I am sure the whole House will have admired his skilful speech to Congress. It was a speech full of the wisdom and courage needed for our times. Of course, we would never have got to hear it if we had listened to some people in this House who called for the King’s visit to be cancelled—thank goodness no one listens to the leader of the Liberal Democrats. As for the Prime Minister, when he was young, he called for the end of the monarchy, so I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen the error of his ways, because previous King Charleses took a much dimmer view of that kind of thing. I am only sorry that this new-found appreciation of the monarchy and our country’s traditions has come too late, because this is the first parliamentary Session ever without the hereditary peers. Their departure will be keenly felt and our Parliament will be poorer for it, especially when we consider some of the people Labour has been replacing them with—people who have already had the Whip removed before they have even taken their seats. Mr Speaker, I know that the convention is for this to be a light-hearted debate, but as I have already said, this is a highly unusual moment. The Prime Minister is in office but not in power. Everyone is trying to pretend it is all right—it is not all right. In the past 48 hours, nearly 100 Labour MPs have called for the Prime Minister to resign. Four Ministers have quit. It is clear that his authority has gone and that he will not be able to deliver what little there is in this King’s Speech. This is a Government less than two years in office who have already run out of ideas and run out of road. So how did we get here? There is a great line in the musical “Hamilton”: “Winning is easy, governing is harder”. Everything that has gone wrong in Labour’s first two years comes back to one problem: it came into office with no plan. It did not understand the difference between winning an election and governing a country. It was very easy to make promises in opposition—promises to freeze council tax, promises to take £300 off energy bills, promises to the WASPI women. Hundreds of Labour MPs took photos with them to post on their Facebook pages, websites and election leaflets, but at no point did they bother to think how they would deliver any of it. Labour did not spend its time in opposition thinking deeply about the country’s problems. It assumed that governing in the 2020s would be like governing in the 1990s, but it is not. Britain is facing new structural problems. We have an ageing—[Interruption.] Labour Members all shout at me; I know they cannot wait to get back to their plotting, but it is quite important that we hear what is being said. We have an ageing population, a falling birth rate and a welfare bill that is spiralling out of control. We have an information revolution in the shape of AI that threatens to unravel the world of work as we know it, and the cost of energy is driving industry out of the country. Labour was taken by surprise that we are living in a more competitive and increasingly hostile world. Its manifesto was just a set of misleading promises. It promised no new taxes on working people—fail. It promised to crack down on illegal immigration—fail. It promised to tread more lightly on people’s lives—epic fail. It made promises without knowing how anything works. Let us look at housing. Just after Labour took office, when I was shadow Housing Secretary, I stood at this Dispatch Box and warned the former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), that she had been stitched up and that the 1.5 million new homes Labour promised had been hung like a millstone around her neck. I knew the Government would not be able to meet that target, because they did not understand why more houses were not being built. Sure enough, they are already more than a third down on their target, and well behind what we delivered. Of course, in the end it was not 1.5 million homes that did for the former Deputy Prime Minister; it took just one flat in Brighton to bring her down. It is so obvious—[Interruption.] I know Labour Members don’t want to hear it. Look at them—they are so arrogant that they want to lead our country, but they cannot even lead a coup. It is so obvious that they cannot handle being in government. They hate the responsibility, and they hate having to take tough decisions. They prefer scratching the itches that they had in opposition: giving inflation-busting pay rises to the unions, with 28% for the doctors who, after nearly two years, are still striking, and handing out more benefits to the only people who will still vote for them, because Labour Members do not understand that poverty is created not by a lack of benefits but by a failing economy. We spent the last Session listening to Labour MPs telling us how great everything was going, and no doubt we will hear lots of grandstanding speeches this week, telling us what a fantastic job they did. How absurd, given the number of them demanding that the Prime Minister stands down. We counted, Mr Speaker, and there were 24 U-turns in that first parliamentary Session: winter fuel, family farms, grooming gangs, welfare reform, social media for under-16s, day one workers’ rights—the list goes on and on. Every single one of those U-turns had at its core a single issue: the Prime Minister’s total lack of judgment. This is a man who, faced with a crisis of vision, charisma and electoral success, sent for Gordon Brown. Leadership is about having a vision for this country, and the courage to take difficult decisions, persuading your party that those difficult decisions will pay off in time, and taking responsibility for your mistakes. The Prime Minister has failed on every count. We have had pillars, promises, four-point plans, five-point plans, missions, with none of it achieving anything—reset after reset after reset. Even if the Prime Minister lasts long enough in office for this Loyal Address to be delivered, the Bills announced today do not remotely come close to what the country needs—[Interruption.] Labour Members are chuntering, Mr Speaker, but not a single one of them dares to intervene on me. I welcome the Government’s ongoing support for Ukraine and their commitment to NATO. In this increasingly dangerous world, it is more important than ever that we stand with our allies in the fight against tyranny. I also commend the Government for their commitment to speed up the delivery of infrastructure such as new nuclear. Too many Governments have been frustrated in their attempts to deliver nuclear projects quickly, and we will support efforts to make the process simpler, faster and cheaper. I also want to be generous to the Home Secretary, because I see that she is trying to do something about illegal immigration. The elephant in the room is that she almost certainly will not be Home Secretary for much longer, and sadly, no one else in the Labour party looks remotely interested in bringing down illegal immigration. The rest of the offerings in the King’s Speech make it clear that Labour Members have learned no lessons from their mistakes in government so far. All we have is a load of reannounced policies: hounding our brave veterans through the courts; legislating for digital ID—a policy they told us they had dropped; and banning trail hunting, which is just more class war that makes no one’s life better. Scrapping NHS England is something the Prime Minister announced 14 months ago—but I suppose the Health Secretary has been a bit distracted lately, hasn’t he? [Interruption.] He’s chuntering now. Why don’t you just do your job? There is no point in him giving me dirty looks; we all know what he has been up to. Even worse is what is not in the Gracious Speech. There is no defence readiness Bill, because apparently it is not ready. Where are the plans for welfare reform? There are none, because Labour MPs have blocked them. Where is the plan to make savings? There isn’t one, because Labour Members do not know how to make savings; they only know how to spend money—other people’s money. Where is the plan to support businesses? There isn’t one, because they do not understand that it is business that creates growth, not Government. They have no answers on what really matters: the problems that must be solved to get Britain working again. I do feel very sorry for Labour Back Benchers. [Interruption.] It’s true—I do feel sorry for Labour Back Benchers. They arrived here not that long ago with such high hopes. Some of them, in fact, were so talented that they were made Ministers before ever speaking a word in Parliament. So talented! Although one of them has just resigned; I must not forget that. We have watched their growing horror, day after day and week after week, as this hope descended into total chaos; the dread as they are sent out yet again to defend the indefensible; the injustice of feeling like pariahs in their own constituencies—banned from pubs and banned from hairdressers, which is presumably why all the women on the Government Front Bench have the same hairstyle. We have seen the realisation that their legacy is just going to be—[Interruption.] They can complain as much as they like. I was not expecting this to be comfortable for them. They are the ones who are trying to unseat their Prime Minister; they should face that. We have seen the realisation that their legacy is just going to be breakfast clubs and Peter Mandelson. Labour MPs have been treated as disposable by their leadership: sacked for backing the two-child benefit cap, sacked for opposing welfare changes, sacked for supporting farmers. The Prime Minister then U-turned on all of them. It must be tough when you take a principled stand and have the Whip removed, only for the Government to confirm six months later that they agreed with you all along. It is no wonder that nearly 100 Labour MPs have now called for the Prime Minister to go. I know that there are another 100 who claim to be supporting him, although some of them did not even know that their name was on that list. When you can only get a quarter of your MPs to publicly back you, the game is up, so the starting gun for the Labour leadership contest has been fired. Let’s have a look at the runners and riders. We have the former Deputy Prime Minister—she is not here—who has giving up vaping but still has not paid her taxes. We have the Health Secretary, who accidentally sent his takeover plans to No. 10—almost as incompetent as leaving them on the photocopier. And we have the Mayor of Manchester, a self-proclaimed winner who has twice failed to win the Labour leadership, including against the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). As one Labour MP said about all the candidates in this race, and I quote: “We have to face up to the fact that every single one of them is”— I apologise, Mr Speaker— “f****** useless.” I do feel sorry for the poor Labour MPs who will now be subjected to months of peacocking by leadership candidates while the country is not being governed. I have some advice for whichever of them eventually takes over. Getting to No. 10 is not an award for being in a game show. This is not “Strictly Come Dancing” and, despite appearances, it is not “The Traitors” either. If you are a Housing Secretary who cannot work out her housing taxes, if you are a Health Secretary who can only cut waiting lists by deleting names from them, if you are Gordon Brown’s former Chief Secretary to the Treasury and you think the bond markets are a hoax, I can assure you that being Prime Minister is going to be a lot tougher. Too many have failed because they thought that winning an election or a leadership contest was the success, but it is not. The work does not end when you get the job; that is when it starts. It is absolutely preposterous that the Government are here laying out a programme as their Ministers are resigning and a large proportion of the Labour party is saying that the Prime Minister needs to go. The whole thing is totally illogical. Either Labour MPs agree with this agenda—in which case, why are they trying to get rid of the Prime Minister? Or they do not agree with this agenda—in which case, what on earth are we all doing here? It is time to be brutally honest. The country is angry with the entire political class—all of us here. They are not happy with how we have been doing politics. It is time to get serious.

The right hon. Lady seeks to lecture us on why everyone is so fed up with the political class, but she is using this opportunity not to lay out what the Conservatives would do, but to insult everyone on the Labour Benches. Surely that is not the way to proceed.

Oh, I am not done yet; there is plenty more to come. The right hon. Lady says that she is getting a lecture, and she is. We are all getting a lecture, because we are legislators of the United Kingdom. We were sent here to fix difficult things, not to focus on our personal hobby horses, ranging from the petty to the puerile. Labour Members do not need to be scared of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)—I am not. He is not the cause of Britain’s problems—[Hon. Members: “You are!”] Labour Members are still delusional. I am sorry to puncture the bubble, but I am not here to pretend that what is happening is not happening. They can all pretend and live in la-la land, but I am going to speak the truth to them. The hon. Member for Clacton is not the cause of Britain’s problems; he is a symptom of the failure of the political class to focus on what matters. If you fix the problems that people care about, he goes away.

The right hon. Lady says that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) is a symptom of the problem, but does she agree that she and he have something in common? She very loosely agreed that we should race with America into war in Iran, then just a week later she thought, “Maybe that’s not such a good idea.” Does that not prove why she and he are totally unsuitable for speaking from the Government side of the House?

That was a nice try, but it is not going to work. You cannot solve the problems of the country unless you have a plan to fix the civil service, the regulators, the legislative straitjacket and the powers transferred from Parliament to the courts. Unless you fix the structures of Government, everyone will continue to fail. Britain is not ungovernable and it is not broken. The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asked what the plan was. We have published an alternative King’s Speech, and the reason is that we need to take tough decisions to get the country out of the mess we are in by cutting wasteful spending, funding defence, securing our borders and reducing the cost of energy. If you want to bring down bills for families and bring industry back to this country, you need a plan to scrap the net zero legislation that is strangling industry and making energy costs higher. That is why we are proposing a cheap energy Bill to do just that. If you want businesses to employ people, you need to stop crushing them with thousands of pages of employment laws and stop handing power to the unions. You need to stop hammering businesses with tax rises. That is why we are proposing a get Britain working Bill, which would scrap laws that are no longer fit for purpose and are killing jobs. If you want to get a grip on illegal immigration and remove foreign criminals from the country, you must have a plan to leave the European convention on human rights and repeal the Human Rights Act. Efforts to get control of our borders have been frustrated because power has been taken out of the hands of Ministers. We need to bring that power back, so that we do not have murderers staying in our country because the courts stop us from deporting them. Our alternative King’s Speech shows how it can be done, letting the Government, not the courts, decide who comes and goes. Prime Ministers are going to keep running into problems until they deal with activist lawyers and international agreements that tie the Government’s hands against the interests of the British public. [Interruption.] Labour Members are chuntering that this is “boring.” Does someone want to stand up and tell us who they are supporting: the plotters or the PM? I know that is what they really want to get to. They are not interested in hearing what the plan for the country should be, because they are too focused on Labour party problems. Next, we must reduce welfare spending, which is eating every penny that we generate in income tax and more. We must spend much more on defence. Even former Labour Defence Secretaries are pleading with the Government to do so. That is why we are proposing a sovereign defence fund that will overhaul Britain’s defence industrial base. That is what the alternative could be. The alternative King’s Speech makes difficult choices, because that is what leadership is. We have laid out these plans now because we are more than happy for Labour to take them; they might be our political opponents, but we are all citizens of this country. We recognise the enormous challenges facing Britain. We want to see those problems solved, and so do our constituents. Time and again, I have offered the Prime Minister support to pass difficult legislation. Time and again, he has turned it down. It might be too late for him now, but it is not too late for his successor. It is time to get serious—it is time to deliver. That is what the British public expect, and it is what the Conservative party will do.

Mr Speaker, may I say what a pleasure it is to welcome the Gracious Speech of His Majesty, and the radical agenda of this Labour Government that will tear down the status quo that has failed working people and build a stronger, fairer Britain? In the light of the abhorrent attacks in Golders Green two weeks ago, let me start by briefly addressing that directly. It was the latest in a series of appalling antisemitic attacks; a normalisation of hatred that leads terrorists with warped Islamist ideologies to attack people they have never even met, simply because they are Jewish; a hatred that leads some to march calling for the murder of British Jews, and not to think that there might be something wrong about that. I have fought that hatred in my own political party, and I have sat with others as they describe what it means for them—the fear, the sense that maybe they should not wear something or do something that might reveal their Jewish identity, just in case. It is time for the silent majority in this country to speak up, to stand with British Jews and to defeat this hatred once and for all, just as we will take on any form of hatred, from left or right, that seeks to divide us. In the words of the Gracious Speech, we will “defend the British values of decency, tolerance and respect for difference under our common flag”. That is also why, when far-right agitators try to come here this Saturday to spread their poison of hatred, this Labour Government will block them, this time and every time. The Humble Address was brilliantly proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). Members across the House will have read her remarkable new book, and her list of endorsements is truly impressive, reaching well over 100 Members—at last, a list that we can all get behind. [Laughter.] It is not the first time that she has shown her ability to bring people together. She united her city and many in this House when she sent George Galloway packing. The House will know that my hon. Friend is passionate about the measures that this Government are taking to lift half a million children out of poverty, as we all are on this side of the House—it is the pride of these Benches—but the House might not know about her remarkable effort to get Marcus Rashford to champion free school meals and speak to pupils in her constituency. Most of us would have attempted this via the complex world of agents and managers, but my hon. Friend had a different idea. She spoke, as you do, to the sister of Cristiano Ronaldo. I can imagine that the Ronaldo household is used to fielding some pretty big offers—multimillion-pound transfers, billions in brand sponsorships, Piers Morgan calling for the eighth time that day—but I cannot imagine the confusion in the Ronaldo family when they heard my hon. Friend say not, “Is Cristiano Ronaldo available?”, but, “Can you give me the number of Marcus Rashford? I want to invite him to a primary school in Allerton to have some porridge in our free breakfast club.” On a much more serious note, I know that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to my hon. Friend’s extraordinary courage, together with her mother, brother and sister. Their story is utterly harrowing, and their strength to survive and deep-rooted determination to fight for change are an inspiration for all of us, and the very best of who we are. My hon. Friend brings a lived experience to our politics—an empathy, a compassion, a humanity, and an understanding of how easy it is to slip from a stable and secure life into one gripped by terrible deprivation. As my hon. Friend writes in her book: “Behind every word we utter must lie the foundation of real human experience”. In that spirit, I am sure she will welcome the measures in this King’s Speech, which will deliver change grounded in that lived experience and the work of the tireless campaigners who have fought for justice, whether that is remediation for those living in homes with unsafe cladding, banning abusive conversion practices, our mission to halve violence against women and girls, or the Hillsborough law, which will bring justice for all. As she says so powerfully, “equality, fairness and justice must belong to all of us.” That is the driving purpose of our party, and her speech was in the finest traditions of this House. The Humble Address was also brilliantly seconded by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). We are all proud to represent our constituencies, but few of us so relentlessly name our constituency as those who represent Harlow. Members from previous Parliaments will remember my hon. Friend’s predecessor, Robert Halfon, who seemed to get Harlow into pretty well all of his contributions. Well, my hon. Friend will not be outdone. He has inherited the great Harlow shoehorn, and he is already recognised across this House as a one-man tourist board. I have to thank the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), who is caught in Hansard referring to my hon. Friend as the “Trade envoy to Harlow”—a rare example of a good idea from the Opposition. No matter the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will find the local connection, whether it is championing the role of Harlow college in dealing with climate change, praising the invention of fibre-optic cables in Harlow, or telling us how Harlow doubled for Paris during an episode of “The Crown”. I remember clearly my hon. Friend saying to me that wherever he goes in the world, he is always thinking about Harlow, and he is quite right. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his amazing fundraising at this year’s London marathon, as has been mentioned. I understand his disappointment at being overtaken by the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden). All I can say is that there is no shame in losing to someone whose training was so extensive that it involved running all the way from North West Durham to Billericay. It is perhaps no surprise that, as a secondary school maths teacher for 15 years, my hon. Friend has an eye for detail, boundless energy and an ability to handle those on these Benches who are occasionally unruly, but he also has a real passion for young people, a deep and personal understanding of the invaluable role that young carers play, and total conviction in the power of education to change our country, so I know he will welcome the education Bill in the Gracious Speech. When the next series of “Educating Essex” is made, he will rightly be the star, and I thank him for yet another fantastic speech today. Let me also thank the Leader of the Opposition for the usual warm and generous nature of her contribution. In difficult days, her input is always a ray of sunshine. I particularly like getting tips from her on how to win friends. This is from the party that had previously called us “orcs and goons”; I am a Gooner, so, as usual, she is less than half right. However, we do have one thing in common: both our parties had tough results in the local elections last week. The difference is that she has not noticed. There is another difference: we are in government, and they are no longer even the Opposition. This King’s Speech is a strike against the status quo, which has failed working people. It is a King’s Speech for the young people whose gifts lie in their hands, and who work hard, want their talents to be recognised, and just want an opportunity in their community. It is a King’s Speech for the children who, under the Conservative party, had to go to school without breakfast, hungry, cold and tired, when they should be focused on their learning. It is a King’s Speech for the backbone of this country; for working people who worry about the cost of living and want their town centre to thrive, their public services to work, and their Government to be on their side—and we are, because at the heart of this programme is a plan to make Britain stronger and fairer. Right now, across the country, people turn on their television and see bombs falling; they go to the petrol station and see prices rising; and they are worried sick about the consequences. We cannot stand here in the House and pretend that this is new. Britain has been buffeted by crises for decades now—the 2008 financial crash, the austerity that followed it, Brexit, covid, and the war that still rages in Ukraine—and the response? Their response is always the same: a desperate attempt to get back to a status quo that failed working people, decimated their public services, and made them pay the price. Our response this time must and will be different—a complete break. We will not simply slump back to the old ways. This King’s Speech gives us the strength we need—the economic security, energy security and national security to control our future in a chaotic world. It is an agenda of radical reform across our major public services. This is an urgent, activist Labour Government who tilt power back to workers, renters and the less fortunate, and give a voice to the working class and to all those whom the status quo has repeatedly ignored and dismissed. We are in favour of a Britain where everyone, whatever their background, can go as far as their talent and effort take them, and where people have a pride in where they live and hope in what lies ahead. That is the change of a Labour Government, and this King’s Speech delivers it. We will deliver on economic security, and let me be clear: as the conflict in Iran unfolds, we are in a better position because of the action that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took last year—getting inflation down, borrowing down and mortgage costs down. That is why we have been able to cap energy bills, raise the living wage, strengthen workers’ rights and end the shameful two-child benefit limit, lifting half a million children out of poverty. Faced with challenges, we do not retreat from our Labour values; we use them as our compass—strength through fairness. We will keep supporting those who need it most, including by creating a new national programme to redistribute surplus food, so that no one in this country needs to go hungry because of the conflict overseas. We also need to strengthen our sovereign capabilities, because the days when this country turned its back on our critical industries are over. We have seen that with British Steel, and we will see it with new legislation to clean up our waterways. A failure in the water industry has been going on for decades. It is a disgrace, and this Labour Government will tackle it. We will take that moral urgency to every part of our nation, with Bills to increase the pace of change in our NHS, in law enforcement, in controlling our borders and more. While immigration is down, we need to do more. While violent crime is down, it needs to be lower. While NHS waiting lists are down, we must go further, rewiring the state so that the working people of this country feel that it serves their interests. We will also build in this country sovereign power in the industries of the future, which will give us greater control in a world being reshaped by artificial intelligence. We will tear down the barriers to growth on planning, on faster infrastructure development and on business regulation, helping our great businesses, large and small. We will, as a defining act of this Government, rebuild our relationship with Europe, putting Britain back at the heart of a stronger Europe. That is good for growth, and it will reduce the cost of living and strengthen our security. There is no good reason to oppose it, so for our economic security, and for our Labour values, this Government will act.

Prime Minister, in my part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, we have been subjected for some years to the humiliation of being governed by laws that we do not make and cannot change. Yet you, Prime Minister, now seem to want to impose that same denial of democracy on the whole United Kingdom by making us a subservient rule-taker from a foreign Parliament. How is that in the interests of democracy?

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman has been here long enough to not blame me for the problem. He should not say “you”.

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his intervention. I am very well aware of the tensions in Northern Ireland, and the issues that have to be dealt with in our relations with the EU, but we have to face the fact that promises were made about Brexit that were not true, and which have not borne fruit. It is in our economic interests, our national interests and our defence interests to be closer to Europe. Of course we will navigate carefully, taking on board the issues in Northern Ireland, as he would expect, but it is in our interest to be closer to the EU. That is what we are doing, and we will go further. This moment demands even greater radicalism on energy security. The British people should not have to pay more in their bills, and their living standards should not be hit, because of a war that they did not vote for and that Britain is not involved in, which is happening thousands of miles away. That is a fundamental argument of this Government, and the Conservatives have no answer to it. For decades they ducked the long-term decisions to make our country, our energy and our economy stronger, so we are going to take control. We are going to declare Britain’s energy independence. That does not mean, and it will not mean, that we turn off the taps in the North sea—oil and gas will be part of the mix for decades—but we have to move so much faster on clean energy, with a whole-society effort and everyone playing their part as we take control of our energy security.

I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for giving way. He talks about energy security; he should know that Scotland has an energy surplus—we generate more electricity than we use—and that, in conditions of surplus, prices go down. However, in Scotland, because we are stuck in the GB energy market, we pay for the scarcity of energy in England—not just to the point of equality, but to our detriment, so that there are higher prices for energy in Scotland. Can he explain why that dysfunction exists, and what is in this King’s Speech to fix it?

What is in this King’s Speech to fix that is moving faster to our energy independence. That is the way that we get off the international markets. That is the way that we take control and reduce bills for people across the country. We will, of course, also strengthen our country’s defence security. That starts with the fundamentals, and a recognition that it is not in the interests of this country to rush into a war without any thought of the consequences. That is my position, and that has always been my position, regardless of the pressure—a test of judgment that some in this House have failed. It continues with our commitment to NATO, the most successful defensive alliance in history, and a proud achievement of this party that others would throw away. Today, faced with even greater threats, we need to strengthen NATO, we need to invest in our defence capabilities, and we need to strengthen the European element of NATO, because this nation is stronger when it stands with others, not just in word, but in deed. We are prepared to lead from the front; to bring nations together in this moment of danger; to support Ukraine, including through the coalition of the willing; and to act with our allies to reassure shipping in the strait of Hormuz. We are not content merely to manage the fallout from the Iran crisis; instead, we are building an international effort to solve it and end the economic harm. Of course, standing up for the defence and security of the United Kingdom depends on one thing above all else: ending 14 years of Tory defence austerity with the biggest sustained investment since the cold war. We will go further with the measures outlined in the King’s Speech and our upcoming defence investment plan. We will develop the capabilities that our nation needs. We will also deepen our partnerships to fire up our industries and make sure that British skill, British pride and British resolve are converted into British jobs in a stronger, fairer Britain.

The Prime Minister has used a lot of words about the defence investment plan. I think it was due in the autumn of last year, so when is he going to sign it?

I will take no lectures from the Conservatives. They hollowed out defence spend. Defence spend was 2.5% when they came into power, and 2.3% when they left power. The investment plan is being finalised and will be published soon. However, strength is the foundation, and that is the way we maintain our control, even in the storms of this world.

The Prime Minister quite rightly prioritises the defence of the country. We have depended for decades on the courage, honour and loyalty of our soldiers. However, some of our best units are now losing soldiers, because this Government are undermining them and allowing them, under the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, to be prosecuted and persecuted for alleged crimes—that were not carried out—from decades ago.

The right hon. Member knows very well that the provisions for Northern Ireland are intended to strike the right balance between what needs to be done and protecting our veterans. We are, of course, proud of all those who have served and do serve our country, but the legislation put forward by the last Government was struck down, leaving no protection whatsoever.

On that point, will the Prime Minister give way?

I will make some progress. The way we change our country—[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister will know that in the recent Supreme Court Dillon judgment the Court ruled that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 overwhelmingly was not incompatible with the Human Rights Act—he knows that. He referenced the awful events in Golders Green, rightfully, and he defended the police officers against attacks and the leader of the Green party, rightfully, and said that they had to take split-second decisions. If Northern Ireland veterans had to take split-second decisions to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland, what is the difference?

I have been in control rooms in Northern Ireland, watching decisions being taken on the use of fatal force. I am well aware of the nature of the decisions that have to be taken, the circumstances in which they are taken and how difficult those decisions are. That is not the same as the issues in the Bill, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. Strength is the foundation: it is the way we maintain our control even in the storms of this world, and the way we change our country rather than just manage the crisis. More than anything, change means a Britain where every child can go as far as their talent or effort allows. It is a beautiful idea, one that I know is shared across the House, but as representatives we need to see the country as a whole to make sure we see every child, including the children growing up in poverty, the children who have special educational needs, the young people who cannot get a job, and the people who are ignored and excluded from our highest aspirations because they do not want to go to university. This is a King’s Speech to change that once and for all. My late brother had difficulties learning, and he had to fight every day just to be seen. There are millions of people like him: people who are ignored by a system and a status quo that has no expectations for them. This King’s Speech will make sure that no child is left behind, because everyone has something to contribute to the success of this nation. Every child must succeed if we are to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is how we tear down the status quo preserved by the Conservative party—a status quo that failed working people, a status quo that left Britain’s economy exposed, a status quo that made our country weak. There are some in this country—some even in this House—who would feed the frustration with that status quo into a politics of grievance and division. This King’s Speech sets a different course, a more hopeful course, and a course that sees the conflict in Iran, a war on two fronts, not as something to wring our hands about, but as an opportunity we must take to shape our country’s future, to end the status quo that has failed working people, and to build a stronger, fairer Britain. That is what this King’s Speech delivers and I commend it to the House.

I call the leader of the Liberal Democrats.

I start by giving my sincere thanks, on behalf of all Liberal Democrats, to His Majesty King Charles for his Gracious Speech. We still believe President Trump should not have been rewarded for insulting British soldiers and the Royal Navy, but His Majesty was superb on that state visit. I join others in paying tribute to the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their accomplished speeches proposing and seconding the Loyal Address. Like me, the hon. Member for Bradford West worked in a factory. For her, it was crisps; for me, it was pork pies. If we throw in the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley), who worked in the soft drinks industry, together we are a meal deal. May I say that the hon. Lady is the real McCoy? She has already had an extraordinary life and career, talking from first-hand experience about how violence against women and homelessness touches millions of people. We are in her debt for that, and for her bravery and courage. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow on his speech. I hear he recently ran the London marathon—the House might be shocked to know that I have more experience with crisps than with long-distance running. It is a great pleasure to work with him on young carers and young adult carers, something that we are both passionate about, and I thank him for his leadership as chair of the all-party parliamentary group. As has been mentioned, the hon. Gentleman was a maths teacher for many years, and no doubt had to deal with bad behaviour in the classroom, so he may want to advise the Prime Minister on whether the Health Secretary should be put in detention. There is a lot to cover in responding to this Humble Address, but I will start by directly addressing the atrocious acts of antisemitism that British Jews are experiencing at the moment, and the insecurity and fear that the community now feel. Week after week, British Jews are being attacked, intimidated and persecuted—Heaton Park synagogue, Kenton United synagogue, Finchley Reform synagogue, Jewish Futures in Hendon, Hatzola ambulances, and now the Golders Green stabbings. When I visited Western Marble Arch synagogue last week, members of the Jewish community questioned whether Britain is a safe place for them, or whether they must move abroad to be safe. No one should have to ask themselves that question in our country today—no one. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Jonathan Hall, is right to call these appalling levels of antisemitism a “national security emergency”. He is also right to say that existing laws must be properly enforced. That is why I welcome the Government’s initiative to bring forward a policing Bill, and I urge them to ensure that police and prosecutors receive the right training and support to pursue antisemitic crimes much more effectively. That is why the Liberal Democrats have long called for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation in order to tackle the threat that these Iranian terrorists pose to British Jews. The legislation to proscribe the IRGC—finally confirmed today, I believe—must be a top and urgent priority.

I welcome what the Prime Minister is doing in relation to the IRGC, but he will be aware that some 30,000 individuals who protested on the streets of Iran are in jail. Some of them are on death row, about to be executed for standing up for liberty and freedom. Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, should be taking action to try to get those people free? Now is the time to act.

The hon. Gentleman is right to mention those in Iran who have been persecuted by the appalling Iranian regime. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will have heard that and will make as many representations as possible, but I accept that it is not an easy matter, given the regime in Tehran. This is the 23rd Loyal Address that I have listened to in this House, and it is the most surreal by far. Everyone in this House and across the country knows that the Prime Minister may soon not be in power—not in place for his own programme and not able to deliver these promises. The votes on this King’s Speech ought to be interesting—a test of confidence in this Government and Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it, but how many Members on the Government Benches will? By my reckoning, if every Labour MP who has called for the Prime Minister to go voted that way, the Government’s huge majority would be at risk. Let us see if they have the courage of their convictions. The Liberal Democrats will be voting against it not just because the Prime Minister is now one of the weakest in post-war history, but because this King’s Speech does not offer the change our country needs. It does not offer the change needed to fix the insecurity that people and businesses are increasingly fearful of. It does not offer change to do with rising prices. People know that inflation in food, energy and fuel is set to rocket, but people do not think the Prime Minister has their backs on the economy. The financial and economic insecurity stalking our country is hitting growth, investment and jobs. We were promised change and a Government with growth as their mission, yet rather than change, we have had continuity from the failures that came before. Faced with that calamity, what has the Prime Minister offered on growth? We have been offered an EU reset Bill that fails to reset. With a Prime Minister who knows a thing or two about failed resets, perhaps we should not be surprised. The Prime Minister’s refusal to remove his red lines on a new EU-UK customs union, to go further than his red lines on the single market and to deliver a new deep trading relationship with our European partners with a proper youth mobility scheme all mean that he is consigning our country to higher prices and lower growth and failing to address the economic insecurity plaguing our economy. Instead, we have been given taxes on jobs and the family farm tax.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Not at the moment. To be fair to the Government, some of our current economic problems stem from President Trump and his reckless war in Iran. Let us be absolutely clear: Trump’s war is stoking the cost of living crisis to new and alarming levels—fuel prices are up at the pump, food prices are set to go up even more, and people’s holidays are threatened. The Prime Minister’s biggest success was not taking us into Trump’s damaging war with Iran when the Conservatives and Reform were urging him to do so, yet because of the Government’s failure to build new and deeper economic alliances with Europe and the Commonwealth, as we have been urging them to do, this country is set to be hit far harder by the inflation caused by the situation in the strait of Hormuz.

We all recognise the impact that Trump’s war is going to have on our economy. The right hon. Gentleman offers membership of the single market and the customs union as a solution to that, but prices in Edinburgh South West are going up right now. How long, in his estimation, would it take to access the single market and become a member of the customs union?

The hon. Gentleman has obviously not noticed that we are the only party who have put forward a costed package to reduce the cost of petrol and diesel at the pumps—something that could be done immediately. I think he should pay more attention. Trumpflation is predicted to be worse here because of the failures of this Government, and indeed the last. Cosying up to this White House was never going to work, and it has not. I suspect that history will show that the Prime Minister’s approach to President Trump was one of his worst mistakes. The sad truth is that President Trump is one of the reasons why so many people in our country feel insecure, anxious and fearful about the future. From trade tariffs to the weakening of NATO, President Trump has broken all the certainties British people and businesses used to rely on, yet this Government have been far too slow to realise that and to respond to this new reality. The Conservatives and Reform may not have woken up, but there is no excuse for the Government. It has therefore been left to us. The country can know that my party will champion the new and changing international alliances that are so vital for the British economy and the defence of the United Kingdom. Let me try to find an area of agreement. I do welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward an energy independence Bill, although we will scrutinise it line by line and advance our more ambitious ideas. I have long felt that energy independence should be a long-term goal for our country and our allies; even before Trump’s war in Iran, people and businesses were being hit because of our dependence on others for fuel. Energy bills for households are still around a third higher than before Putin’s war in Ukraine. When fossil fuel dictators like Vladimir Putin can hit the pockets of every family and pensioner in our country and tyrannical regimes like Tehran’s can hold our country and the world to ransom, surely it is time to wake up. Oil and gas prices have a long history of spiking and hurting our economy. Even when North sea oil and gas production was at its height—now almost 30 years ago—the UK could still be hit because we have always been price takers. While I have always been pragmatic about our North sea oil industry for our economy—not least in Scotland—it is simply fantasy and fabrication for some in this House to pretend that there is a solution in the North sea to high energy prices. The best way to cut energy bills is to invest in home-grown renewable power. We will therefore push the Government to go further in the energy independence Bill, just as we did on solar power early in this Parliament with the sunshine Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson)—now reflected in law. The Prime Minister, or whoever replaces him, must take up our plan to protect people from Trumpflation on fuel bills and cut fuel duty, rail fares and bus prices to protect British families and businesses right now. The Liberal Democrat agenda of greater security for families and businesses begins with greater economic, financial and energy security, but it is also built on greater security for our country. The Government must do far more to bolster our nation’s defences. With Vladimir Putin waging war in Europe and the need to redouble our efforts to support our brave Ukrainian allies to beat Russia, with a wildly unpredictable President sitting in the White House, leading a dangerous and idiotic war in the middle east and undermining NATO at every turn, and with a world order challenged by the rise of China, the case for an urgent and significant rise in defence spending is clearly a strong one. It is even stronger when one looks at the state of our defence readiness. The Conservatives failed on the No. 1 task of any Government: to defend our country and back our armed forces. They left our Army at its lowest size since the Napoleonic war, and they left our Navy at its lowest size since the English civil war. Yet this Labour Government have moved at a snail’s pace, failing month after month to publish their own defence investment plan. In contrast, we have called for the immediate launch of defence bonds to raise £20 billion over two years, building on successful models used by Poland, and for a commitment to spending 3% of GDP on defence by 2030 at the latest. We have argued for a new European rearmament bank so that our defence industries will lead the next generation of defence technologies. If the history of the last century taught us anything, and if the experience of President Trump has taught us anything, it is essential and urgent that we work with our European and Commonwealth allies to secure and defend our country, our values and our way of life. Central to our British way of life is the NHS, to which I now turn. It is important I do so, because I am likely to be the only Opposition party leader to stand up for healthcare in this debate, as the Conservatives are so embarrassed by their record and Reform’s leader has spent decades saying that he wants to get rid of the NHS entirely. The Government would have us believe that they have turned the NHS around after the mess left by the last Government, but when he is not plotting his next leadership bid against the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State would have Labour Back Benchers believe that he is fixing the NHS. If only. Now we are told that the Health Secretary is planning to resign tomorrow. This resignation is taking so long that it would give NHS waiting lists a run for their money. Anyone who visits their local hospital knows that the NHS remains in a critical state. Thousands of people are still being treated in hospital corridors every day. We are now even seeing job adverts for people to provide care in corridors.

It would be interesting to be reminded of how the right hon. Member voted on Andrew Lansley’s reforms of the NHS, many of which are still creating problems in our NHS today.

The hon. Gentleman ought to know that although there was a long time when the Conservatives were messing up our NHS, Labour has had two years and has absolutely failed. Let us turn to Labour’s promises to turn around primary care with more GPs, NHS dentists and community pharmacists. Some areas of the country have been going backwards since this Government came to power. When it comes to people feeling more secure in their lives and their futures, quality healthcare is central. I will not list off our policies for fixing the NHS, except one: care—social care and family care. Not for the first time, I must declare an interest. I focus on care because it is the central, radical and transformational change that has to happen if we are to fix our NHS. Two years ago in the debate on the last Loyal Address I raised care with the Prime Minister as the big challenge that the Government had to tackle to rescue the NHS. I welcomed promises back then for cross-party working, but what has happened? Almost nothing. True, the excellent Baroness Casey has been dispatched around the country, on a timetable written in the Treasury, but her report will land just before the election so, once again, nothing will happen for care in this Parliament. That is a betrayal of the elderly and disabled who need better care, of their families and of the NHS. We will not let up in the fight to fix social care and to back people caring for their loved ones at home. We will put forward the changes that our country needs for people to feel less insecure when they face old age and illness. Another aspect of our national life where insecurity has got worse and worse is farming and food. British farmers are world renowned. They are the key to ensuring that everyone has high-quality and affordable food on their plates. Yet they have been let down and forgotten time and again. They were let down by the Conservatives, who undermined our food security with bad trade deals and botched funding. The Conservative Government left England as the only country in Europe where farmers are not supported to produce food. But somehow the Labour Government have managed to make things worse for farmers, not least with their terrible mess over the family farm tax. That is why we called for the inclusion of a good food Bill in the King’s Speech, to prioritise food security and back British farmers to produce British food. With Trump’s idiotic war in Iran hitting farmers with everything from higher fertiliser costs to higher prices for red diesel, the need for our good food Bill could not be more urgent. If that is coupled with our plans for a much closer trading relationship with Europe, there is a pathway to greater food security and lower food prices, and the Government must seize it. There are many ways in which our party believes the Government should tackle the insecurity that people across the country feel right now: from quicker, tougher action on the damage being done by social media to our young people and people’s mental health, to backing the case for more community police officers to keep our communities safer, and having a fair asylum and immigration policy that is genuinely effective against irregular immigration but welcomes people who play by the rules and contribute to our great country; and from tackling the continuing scandals in our water industry to building the affordable and social housing that so many families and young people desperately need, and ensuring that children and families are at the heart of reforms to special educational needs. My right hon. and hon. Friends will set out our approach on all those issues over the course of the debate, but I will end by addressing the threat to our country from another source: populist politicians and extremist parties that sow division, play the blame game and make wild promises, and that are a threat to our very democracy. They are exploiting our broken political system, which both the Conservatives and Labour have failed to fix. The first-past-the-post electoral system of “winner takes all” was supposed to bring stability. It was supposed to provide majority Governments who could take the tough long-term decisions necessary to deliver for our country on the economy, the NHS and defence. We see how badly it has failed. We have majority Governments, yes, but with six Prime Ministers in a decade—soon, probably seven—we hardly have stability, when so many people now ask, “Is Britain governable?” The concentration of power undermines so much and leads to the scandals that undermine the standing of our democracy even more: a twice-sacked Member of the House of Lords is handed our most prestigious ambassador post, despite the Prime Minister knowing his links to a convicted paedophile and sex trafficker; a Conservative Prime Minister consistently broke the rules that he himself set for the rest of us during one of our nation’s most severe crises; and a leader of a political party thinks a £5 million gift from a Thailand-based crypto billionaire does not reek of corruption The threat is clear. Under our electoral system, a Reform party that takes its orders from its American boss at Mar-a-Lago could win a majority on less than a third of the popular vote. We must fix our broken political system before it is too late, but the King’s Speech is not up to that historic, vital task. We need a new Magna Carta to enshrine the rights of citizens and protect us from the populist extremists now threatening our country.

The results in the Bradford district were some of the least representative, with Reform taking a majority of seats despite getting only 23% of the popular vote there. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, while Reform made gains in seats, it is not what the majority of people in this country support?

I certainly hear the figures from Bradford; the hon. Lady makes the same case that our party makes for electoral reform of both local and national government. In the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Liberal Democrats now have every single councillor, but we do not have every single vote, and we would welcome electoral reform in those councils where we are over-represented. I hope the hon. Lady’s Government listen to the voices of Members on these Benches. It is clear the country wants change—and, given the battering that the two old parties received at the recent elections, it is clear they are not offering it. Worryingly, many people are looking to the extremes on the left and the right, thinking that if we burn the system down, things will improve. Yet I do not believe the British people want Trump’s divisive, unfair America here, even though that is Reform’s offer of change. I also do not believe the British people want a reheated Corbynista agenda put forward by a Green party that no longer offers serious action to protect our nature and our climate. It falls to the Liberal Democrats, then—the only non-populist, non-extremist party left standing—to offer the real change that people crave. Our change is about building things up, not burning them down. Our change is about bringing people, communities and our country together, not dividing and blaming people. From Europe to social care, from energy to defence, from political reform to our environment, I am proud to lead a party that is preparing for government so that our country can be changed for the better.

I should say at the outset how much I welcome the opening remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister about antisemitism. Kenton United Synagogue and Golders Green sit very close to my constituency. The attacks were shocking and appalling; I welcome the Government’s determination to crack down on online hatred and antisemitism, and I take this opportunity to commend the courage and skill of the police officers who responded. One of the many important points that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) made in her excellent and humorous speech was the need for those of all faiths—and indeed those of no faith—to stand together against hatred. That point will resonate particularly in a constituency such as mine. My hon. Friend gave a brilliant speech. She is an inspiration, and I suspect I am not the only Member to feel that it is an honour to be in the same party as her. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is without doubt a rising star in our ranks, made me jealous with his marathon-running skills. If hon. Members will forgive me, I will not dwell on his love letter to Harlow, but I will dwell a little bit on our shared commitment to co-operation. Together with other members of the Co-operative parliamentary party, I hope we will see progress on delivering solutions to the need for capital so that more co-operatives can expand in our country over the time covered by this King’s Speech. The biggest challenge facing our country remains how to put more money in people's pockets and drive up living standards at a time of ever-increasing global tensions. It is worth remembering what the Leader of the Opposition is clearly trying to forget: after 14 years of austerity, and after the Conservatives and their friends in Reform led us out of the world’s biggest market, doing huge economic damage, our public services are still in need of sustained investment. In that regard, I share my constituents’ impatience for change. I welcome the determination in the Gracious Speech to continue to reform the leasehold system, for example to make service charges more transparent, fairer and easier to challenge. I welcome the plans to abolish NHS England, to fund more investment in expanding GP services and to bring down waiting lists and waiting times in hospitals such as Northwick Park, which serves my constituents. I welcome, too, the overdue crackdown on late payments by big firms to small businesses. There are two long-term changes that I believe are key to delivering sustained higher living standards, particularly for my constituents. The first will be to secure far better access to Europe’s single market; the second will be to secure far better access to finance for small businesses and the financially vulnerable. On Europe, I particularly welcome the European partnership Bill in this Gracious Speech as the next step towards a closer relationship with Europe. With the US increasingly unreliable as an ally and with the economic damage from Brexit ever clearer, Britain needs to prioritise negotiating a dramatically better trade, defence and security deal with the EU. The imminent deal lowering barriers to trade in food will reduce red tape and lower business costs. The decision to rejoin Erasmus and the coming deal on youth mobility are positive, too. A referendum in my lifetime on whether to rejoin the EU feels inevitable, and if it happens, I will be very tempted to campaign to rejoin. We are, though, a long way from such a moment. The priority, with the next UK-EU summit coming up, should be to reach agreement for a full renegotiation of the trade and co-operation agreement and to secure greater access to the single market, which would be far more beneficial than mere customs union membership. The recently concluded EU-Swiss trade deal offers a helpful pointer, with much more integration into the single market for more sectors of Switzerland’s similarly service-based economy. Further security and defence co-operation, increased business mobility, mutual recognition agreements to remove duplicate product testing and certification to make it easier for businesses to sell British goods in European markets would make a significant difference for businesses here, for our economy and ultimately for living standards.

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

The one thing I would agree with the hon. Gentleman on is that we need a closer relationship. It is this Government who have sought to rebuild relations with Europe, and they are doing so increasingly effectively. On the need to open up opportunities for more co-operation with Europe, I recognise that we will have to pay to access the single market more easily, but given the damage to our economy, the higher costs and the extra bureaucracy that the poorly negotiated Brexit deal brought in its wake, we should be willing to negotiate that hard bargain. The second long-term issue that we should focus on as necessary to deliver sustained higher living standards is banking. Millions of people and thousands of small businesses are locked out of affordable credit and forced into high-cost or illegal lending. Money is being taken from the pockets of the poorest, and economic growth is being stifled. This is an entrenched but fixable market failure, which I hope the coming enhancing financial services Bill may begin to address. Research published in January by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, funded by the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade, made the striking conclusion that if Britain had a network of mutual banks that had stronger direct relationships with their small business owners, growth would be higher by between 1% and more than 2% over its first five years, rising to between 1.7% and 3.5% over the long term. It noted, too, that investment would be almost 2% to 3.5% higher in the first five years, rising to between 2% and almost 4.5% higher in the long run. The research—it is academic research—looks at the impact of mutual banks in France, state-run German regional banks and community development finance institutions in the US, and considers how much more lending would happen if the UK had a somewhat less centralised banking model than we have now. Many suggestions for how to deliver growth are currently doing the rounds, but the scale of the impact of more investment in mutual or community banks, as this serious research suggests, raises the obvious question of what more we could achieve in this area during this Parliament by expanding the reach and scale of mutual banks, building more direct and personal relationships with more small and medium-sized businesses, offering more affordable credit options for personal customers, and creating a greater willingness to back hard-headed community ownership initiatives that help to restore pride in the places where we live. Fair banking legislation—similar to that in the US—would help. Proactive efforts to help credit unions expand through employers, particularly those in the public sector, offering payroll deduction options would help too. The biggest banks should actively help support the expansion of community banks; one or two do, but they need sustained private capital investment. Barclays, Santander and HSBC invest in community development finance institutions or community banks in the US, but they do not here in the UK. That should change. Let me turn to the international situation. I welcome the Government’s continuing support for Ukraine, the decision to stay out of the illegal conflict with Iran and the strong support for NATO. The situation in Gaza remains profoundly disturbing. Every child under five in Gaza is considered undernourished by UNICEF and other aid agencies. Almost every school has been destroyed or severely damaged, and 96% of households lack adequate access to water. Over 1 million children are facing a catastrophic humanitarian crisis, which I suggest demands fresh and sustained UK engagement. I strongly supported the Government’s decision last year to recognise the state of Palestine to protect the viability of a two-state solution and create a path towards a lasting peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people. Distant as that prospect may seem, in my view it remains the only path to a sustainable peace for the Palestinians and Israelis alike. The UN documented more than 1,800 settler attacks last year in the west bank—the highest on record and clearly part of a sustained campaign to reduce the possibility of a viable Palestinian state. Action to clamp down on goods coming into the UK from illegal settlements and to further sanction violent settlers is needed. Lastly, 80 years since the founding meeting took place just across from where this House meets, a renewed commitment to the United Nations has never been more necessary. For all its failings—and there have been many—it remains our best route for addressing conflicts, for tackling global health threats, for promoting the rights of all, for delivering humanitarian aid and for championing the interests of the world’s most vulnerable. With our coming G20 and G7 presidencies, we are in a unique position to support the current UN Secretary-General as he seeks to rethink and reaffirm the UN’s role for the world we are in now. I hope that we will support him in those efforts.

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me a chance to contribute to this King’s Speech debate at such an early point. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), and I want to express strong support for what he said about the determination of the Government and of the whole of Parliament to crack down on antisemitism. I hope that he will have carried everyone in this House in the words he used. It is also a great pleasure to congratulate the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on their brilliant speeches, which entertained and amused the House. The hon. Member for Harrow West said that it was an honour to be in the same party as both of them, but I think all of us can say that it is an honour to be in the same Parliament as both of them, and they certainly did very well. I have to admit that it is now 34 years since, in 1992, I had the privilege of seconding the Queen’s Speech from the Government Benches. On that occasion, I referred to myself as an “oily young man on the make”—[Official Report, 6 May 1992; Vol. 207, c. 56.] Those were the days! There are three points I wish to contribute briefly to the debate, all of which came off the doorsteps in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield during the recent elections, when I was listening carefully to my constituents—elections, incidentally, which were extremely successful for the Conservatives in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield, where we hold now all 10 seats on Birmingham city council, having got rid of the last vestiges of the Labour party in the royal town. That clean sweep in the royal town of Sutton Coldfield was not echoed across the city of Birmingham, where six significant parties are now represented on the council, making governance even more difficult than it was before. I urge those on the Treasury Bench, in particular the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government, to be on red alert about what happens now in the city of Birmingham. They are, I think, going to need to give the commissioners far greater powers. Vulnerable people, old and young, depend on Birmingham city council turning a page and becoming a more effective giver of good local governance. The words of the Conservative leader of the Conservative group on Birmingham city council, Robert Alden, are important. He said that the group would try to “work with people across the political spectrum” to deliver these priorities. Birmingham has languished under a profoundly inadequate Labour administration, which even the Labour party nationally did not think was doing a proper job. It will now require a herculean effort of restraint and good will to deliver the governance that the people of Birmingham are entitled to receive. That will involve devolving more power locally. Governance is always best when it is closest to the people it seeks to serve, and certainly the royal town of Sutton Coldfield’s town council, under its outstanding leader Simon Ward, is ready for more devolution, which we think will make life better for local people. My second point is about defence, because although the words are in the King’s Speech, an awful lot more needs to be done. Ukraine and President Trump have ushered in a new era on defence—and, incidentally, thank goodness the last Conservative Government were so fast to realise, arm and train the Ukrainians ahead of and during the early days of the illegal invasion by Russia. The Prime Minister complains—he may or may not have some justice in doing so—that the armed forces have been hollowed out over many years by both parties. However, it is on his watch that these acute problems have come to pass. George Robertson, who was respected on both sides of the House over many years, has made clear that we must now rearm and increase our spending on defence, and I very much hope that the Government will provide far more urgency than they are providing at the moment to that cause. President Trump was not the first person to complain about Europe failing to pull its weight financially in NATO, but he is the first American President to take action. Britain needs to step up. We need to lead European NATO with France and Germany, but also with Poland and in co-operation with Ukraine, whose technology has redefined modern warfare. Australia and Canada are significantly increasing their spending, and I very much hope that the Government will now entertain far greater urgency in addressing these matters. I am pleased that Gordon Brown is now at the heart of this Labour Government. I hope he will explain the importance of soft power being the other side of the defence coin. Many hon. Ladies and Gentlemen on the Labour Benches are experts on defence, and they know that the Government made a terrible mistake in cutting further the amount that we spend on development. Development is a very important arrow in the defence quiver, and I very much hope that Gordon Brown will be able to explain to the Government why this is so important, and why they have made such a mistake. My third and final point is about welfare, which is now consuming every penny that we raise in income tax. We simply cannot go on like that.

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

I am worried that the hon. Gentleman, who is my friend, was not listening to what I said. I said that the first rule of benefit reform is not to take cash off very poor people, and I explained that it cannot be done. That is what Labour found when it outlined its policies for welfare reform and then had to back off. The third rule is to narrow the gateways into a benefit. We have seen—particularly with the personal independence payment, but in other ways as well—that narrowing the gateways is an important aspect of any reform. I very much hope that the Government will return to the issue with a well-thought-through plan and will manage to carry people with them. Finally, the hon. Member for Harlow said in seconding the motion that this is a King’s Speech for young people. I hope that it is; I fear that it is not. We need to recognise that we are presiding over a period of growing intergenerational inequality, and this House must address it. I hope that the hon. Member’s point will inform the decisions that the Government make now.

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on two terrific speeches. I have to say that I am quite surprised to see my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow here without his London marathon medal around his neck, but I gently say, “Come back when you’ve done two of them, and then you can start talking”—[Interruption.] I’m not doing another one! The lives of my constituents in Blackpool South may feel far removed from this place, but the legislation announced in the King’s Speech will impact them. For 14 years, Blackpool was the poster child for Government failure. My constituents have lived through the consequences of decisions made in this place. They have felt sharply the pressures of insecure work, poor housing, rising living costs and overstretched public services, and they have felt forgotten. But if Blackpool became an example of how badly politics can fail people, it can also be an example of what happens when this place gets it right. If the Government can turn around the fortunes of a town with the worst health outcomes, lowest wages and highest levels of deprivation in the country, there is nowhere that cannot succeed. When Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds. When we talk about the cost of living crisis, we are not just talking about the price of a pint of milk or a loaf of bread. In Blackpool, we are experiencing food insecurity alongside debt, poor housing and an acute mental health crisis. Families already struggling to pay the rent are pushed further behind by insecure work and rising bills. These are not isolated problems, and there is no quick fix. Legislation passed in this House matters so much in constituencies like mine. Strengthening employment rights, increasing the minimum wage, expanding free childcare provision and providing security to renters are all examples of the real difference being made right now to working families in Blackpool, but, with parents still skipping meals so that their children can eat, there is still much work to be done. I hope the legislation announced today will ease the pressure on working people, who have carried the burden of economic instability for far too long. Energy security is part of the challenge too. The devastating conflict in Iran is having a growing impact across the world. For families in Blackpool who are already struggling to make ends meet, another spike in their bills is devastating. My constituents deserve the security of knowing that their energy supply is reliable and affordable, and the energy independence Bill will hopefully give them that. I welcome the commitments to improve patient care and support early intervention through the NHS modernisation Bill, because health inequality remains one of the biggest injustices facing my constituents. People in Blackpool spend about a third of their lives in poor health, and the healthy life expectancy for men in my home town is 50 years old. My son was born in Blackpool, as was I, and this simple fact means that he and all the other children born in our town are expected to live 10 years less than a child born in Hampshire. That is 10 years stolen before they have even had the chance to live them. There is nothing inevitable about those figures; they are the result of political choices and years of inequality. NHS reform must be meaningful to improve outcomes and give people the chance to live longer and healthier lives. Having visited schools across my constituency, met with the parents of SEND children and read hundreds of the responses to my constituency SEND survey, it is clear to me that the current system is not working for families in my constituency and beyond. Parents speak about fighting for support that should already be there. Schools are under enormous pressure, and children are waiting far too long for the help that they need. The funding secured earlier this year and the two new SEND schools in Blackpool are welcome, because they will mean that more children are getting support closer to home and that fewer families face months of uncertainty and delay. However, areas with the highest levels of need must receive support that reflects the reality in their area, because children growing up in Blackpool deserve the same opportunities as children growing up anywhere else in this country. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for hospitality and tourism and the MP for a town built on tourism, I have followed discussions about the visitor levy closely. Tourism supports thousands of jobs in Blackpool and gives young people opportunities to join the jobs ladder, as was the case for me; I sold crisps and KitKats at the age of 14. The tourist pound reaches far beyond hotels and guest houses and supports pubs, cafés, restaurants, theatres, attractions and transport links across our area. Before the introduction of the overnight visitor levy Bill, the concerns of the sector must be taken seriously, because additional costs and burdens will hit them the hardest. If we are serious about supporting British tourism, I repeat my call for the Chancellor to reduce VAT for hospitality and tourism in line with other European countries. Just under two years ago, when we were in opposition, I stood from the Opposition Benches to ask my first question as the MP for Blackpool South; I called for taxi licensing reform. Taxis are an essential part of Blackpool’s transport network, but the licensing scheme has failed both passengers and our local economy. We need reform so that local drivers are protected, passengers are safe and Blackpool gets the benefit of the revenue that is created in our town, instead of it leaving down the motorway at the end of each day. After a long campaign, I am delighted that the Government will take action that I have long campaigned for to modernise taxi and private hire laws. This Bill can finally address the issue of out-of-area working, protecting public safety and supporting local taxi revenue. This place has the power to change the direction of my seaside town’s story and, in doing so, to change the story that Britain tells about itself. Let that be the challenge for this Labour Government. If we want the trust of the country, we must prove that we can rebuild places that were unfortunately written off too often by the previous Government. We must prove that prosperity does not belong only to the wealthiest postcodes and that working people, coastal towns and forgotten communities matter just as much as anywhere else in the United Kingdom. It will stand as proof that a different future is possible—one that is fairer, more hopeful and more equal—because, as I have said before, when Blackpool succeeds, Britain succeeds.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to catch your eye in this important King’s Speech debate. I follow other colleagues in congratulating the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) on their amusing and well-informed speeches. One of the few things that this Government have got right in the King’s Speech is the expedited Bill to nationalise Scunthorpe steelworks in order to safeguard domestic steel production. The plant is costing the taxpayer £1 million a day, and therefore modernisation and future private and public investment under a Government-owned company need to be implemented. However, our economy is in a very fragile state. It grew by only 1.3% in real terms in 2025, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that it will grow by only 1.4% in 2026—the lowest level of any G7 country. The United Kingdom is carrying one of the highest levels of borrowing in the western world. National debt is a staggering £2.9 trillion, which is equivalent to 93.8% of our entire GDP or £102,000 per household. Even more concerning is the fact that we are expected to spend—wait for it—£111 billion on debt interest alone to service that debt. If that were a Government Department, it would be the third largest. We are heavily reliant on international markets, and our national balance sheet is highly leveraged. That leaves our economy dangerously exposed to external shocks, such as the war in Iran and the Ukraine conflict. As a result, our borrowing premium on that debt is one of the highest in the OECD; today, we are paying more in debt interest than Greece. A 1% rise in interest rates adds £1.3 billion in costs in the first year, and £12 billion by the end of the forecast period, as new, expensive debt replaces older, cheaper debt. Indeed, yesterday, 30-year gilts hit a 28-year high at 5.81%. That gives a clue as to what the international markets think of our economic standing. On that note, I observe that one of the Labour leadership candidates does not have a clue how the bond market funding our enormous debt actually works. With inflation expected to rise again—some forecasters expect it to reach 6.7% next year—we face the very real risk of sliding into recession or a bond strike. If those very serious consequences were to occur, this country would be forced to take much more fundamental measures to cut our expenditure. A competent Government should already be doing so, to avoid any chance of this happening and to protect our reputation in the international markets. I note that the Government have included a Bill to reform the welfare system. The fact that 1 million people could work but do not is causing unacceptable tax increases on the rest of the hard-working population’s earnings. On top of that, higher interest rates are leading to higher food prices, higher mortgage payments and higher business costs. No one in this country—especially poorer working people—will be protected. Some of the issues we see today are avoidable. The current political instability is a major factor. It is not my job as an Opposition MP to tell Labour how to sort out its leadership problems, but whatever it does, it is important to convince the international community and the people of this country that there is a stable, well-thought-out economic policy and to give the markets confidence, in order to reduce the current borrowing premium. It is not the job of the Government to subsidise every business, but it is the duty of the Government to create conditions in which growth, prosperity, enterprise and investment can thrive. The Government have included a Bill to target youth unemployment, which is welcome, but the fact that it has risen by 16% or by 100,000 compared with a year ago makes it very hard for youngsters now leaving university or further education to start their careers. Meanwhile, businesses—particularly in hospitality and retail—are being taxed into oblivion and are not hiring as many people. In my North Cotswolds constituency, we employ 3,700 people in hospitality, and the sector provides £220 million to the local economy. However, higher employer national insurance contributions, rising minimum wages, hugely increasing business rates and energy price increases, exacerbated by the Employment Rights Act 2025, are all making it harder to make profits and are stalling growth. Taxes are already at a post-war high and there are threats to hike them further. None of this environment is encouraging businesses to hire and take on more people and so reduce the high unemployment figures.

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

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

I do not think I could design a tax increase that was a bigger tax on jobs than the hike in national insurance. I totally agree with the hon. Lady, and I think it is tragic in particular for our young people trying to get into the world of work today. As Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my focus is on value for money for the taxpayer and ensuring that no expenditure goes to waste. Figures published by the National Audit Office in its “Audit insights” report in January 2026 point to a deeply worrying picture. The Government now spend around £1.1 trillion of taxpayers’ money across 17 Departments. A Department’s accounts are qualified—sorry, this is getting a little technical, but I hope the House will bear with me a little in this section of my speech—when it does not spend its budget as Parliament intends. The Department for Work and Pensions has had its accounts qualified for 36 years because its fraud and error rate is 3.3%, costing the taxpayer a staggering £9 billion. Overall—this is even more staggering—the Government have written off close to £7 billion this year across Departments, including the Ministry of Defence writing off £1.5 billion purely on cancelled projects. I repeat: £7 billion has been written off this year from cancelled and wasted projects. That is staggering. The PAC has consistently recommended that each Department improves its digital and AI efficiencies. We believe that should be implemented from the top down, and that a chief digital and information officer should be appointed at a senior level in every Department and on arm’s length bodies. That would lead to efficiencies and savings. After all, every efficiency and every saving that can be made is more money to spend somewhere else. The public sector is constantly behind the private sector digitally, and we need to do much better to ensure that our public services actually deliver for taxpayers, using the latest and best technology to do so. AI is a tsunami that the Government are nowhere near prepared to deal with. I do not mean this as a criticism of the civil service—it is just how it is—but only 5% of the civil service have specific IT qualifications. Some experts say that needs to rise to 10%, which would be a massive transformation. The Government announced a Bill to reform the welfare system. This year alone, the Department for Work and Pensions budget is expected to reach a projected £333 billion, or around 23.7% of UK spending. That almost outweighs the income tax payments of £330 billion that we receive from hard-working people. Imagine that: the total amount of income tax from hard-working people almost does not pay for the bill for the Department of Work and Pensions. The pension and benefit budgets are ballooning, and that expenditure is only due to increase as we mercifully live longer and healthier lives. Somebody else mentioned that we are at risk of intergenerational unfairness. There is a risk that our children will be unable to pay off this increasing debt, yet this Government have failed to take back control of this skyrocketing budget. Instead, their Back Benchers refuse to support such changes, which would cost just £5 billion. Another issue that the PAC will be examining closely is the cost of Government compensation schemes, which over their lifetime are expected to exceed £102 billion, or just under what we pay in debt interest in any one year. The Government, of course, have a moral obligation to compensate citizens when the state makes serious mistakes, but we must do so in a fair, proportionate and non-litigious way. Finally, and most importantly, I want to turn to defence. The first absolute duty of any Government is to ensure that our nation is properly defended. The King’s Speech made a commitment to NATO and to a sustained increase in defence spending, yet the defence investment plan, promised from that Dispatch Box in June 2025 and in every month since then—alongside the strategic defence review—has still not been published. Until we have that plan, we cannot see how the Government propose to procure all the military equipment that is needed.

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

If the hon. Gentleman is just a little patient, he will find that, two or three paragraphs down, I will address precisely that point. Currently, the defence budget for 2025-26 is £62.2 billion, which is a measly 18% of the welfare budget of £333 billion. The Government have pledged to increase it by 2.6%, or £9 billion, by 2027 and by 3% in the next Parliament, which means a further increase of £14 billion. But none of that new money has yet arrived.

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

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. As someone who worked under my right hon. Friend for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) as a junior Opposition defence spokesman, I understand the value of overseas aid, and I particularly understand the elements of it that he describes as soft power. The other day the PAC conducted an inquiry about the BBC World Service, and I do wish that the Government would fund that service properly. It is an extremely well-respected element of Britain’s ability to project our values around the world, and it is very sad when the Chinese and the Russians come in as soon as we make cuts in it. At a time when the world is increasingly uncertain and bellicose, our MOD budget is in crisis, and as a result a significant number of procurement projects have been put on hold. These delays will have significant cost implications, so when, or if, the extra money does arrive, it will buy less and less equipment. I went to Ukraine earlier this year, and it is clear to me that we need more and more rockets, drones, interceptors, unmanned vehicles and investment in space. However, some of the proposed equipment is designed for yesterday’s wars, and it remains to be seen whether the MOD will be agile enough to make those substitutions in future procurement.

That is pretty obvious.

It may be pretty obvious to some, but it is not so obvious to others. To govern is to make difficult choices. In short, the Government are spending more than the country can afford, funded by ever-increasing amounts of debt. If we are serious about protecting our nation in an increasingly uncertain world, we must also be serious about the strength of our economy. That means bringing our unaffordable welfare bill under control, creating a stronger environment for growth, eliminating billions of pounds in waste—some of which I have identified in my speech, although if time had allowed I could have identified billions more—and reforming how government works through the rapid roll-out of digital reform. The civil service must be reoriented around productivity and efficiency. Only with a stronger, leaner and more resilient economy can we fund our defences, secure our future and meet the challenges ahead.

I congratulate His Majesty on delivering the Gracious Speech, and I concur with the hon. Member for North Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) that investing 0.7% of GDP in international development aid will bring greater stability and increase our ability to secure greater diplomacy, as well as development. I think that should be our focus. I also thank him for the work he does on the Public Accounts Committee. The intersection of crises bearing down on our planet, our nation and our communities demands a bold response in this parliamentary Session. I recognise the current bind, but as we move into the next chapter of Labour’s story, there is one consideration that I want the Government to take through this legislative programme: how we bring our communities, our country and our fractious planet together. Such vision and policy must be the thread that gathers and inspires us. Against the backdrop of fast-paced change, this planet is breaking. The grotesque inequalities, climate degradation and conflict are driving people apart. At home we have had 14 years of austerity, whereby the harder someone works, the tougher it gets. That is why I have called for a new economic orthodoxy, as neoliberalism preys on the working class and exploits all who want to get on as much as those who cannot. As people are fleeced, the energy giants and water bosses profit, despite putting carbon in our air and sewage in our rivers, such as the Ouse in York—the second worst in the country. The clean water Bill must pull this service back into public hands and public accountability.

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

I do agree. It is daylight robbery, and people should not be profiting from our natural resources. We should not see the levels of pollution that exist in our rivers, which should be pure and clean. I have a sewer running through the middle of my city, and it is not acceptable. It is right to legislate, but also to ensure that we are not adding carbon to our natural environment. On airport and road expansion, we should ensure that we bring down levels of carbon, and I fear that might not be the case with airport expansion. The draft commonhold and leasehold Bill is welcome, as is freezing ground rents, but as developers extract all they can and people pay extortionate rents and management costs, we need to see good-quality housing as a right and to rethink the model. As I have witnessed in my constituency, co-operative housing is a powerful antidote that is worth investing in, alongside a new generation of council-built housing for the common good. The system is rigged against ordinary people, as it was 126 years ago, when trade unions came together to form the Labour party. It is our duty in this Parliament to once again set the ambition to drive transformation for our communities, address the grotesque inequalities that drive people apart, and rewire the system to bring us together. That is our purpose. As the unions fought for common terms and better pay, Labour reimagined a society in which everyone can get on, a welfare state for those in need, and an NHS in which Bevan positioned the duke and the dustman as equals. Not understanding a collective, cohesive society puts all this at risk, as Opposition parties seek to exploit opportunity and people, sell off our common assets and sow division. That is why Labour has an immense obligation to be bold and ambitious, not for those who take all they can, but for those who serve, work and play their part—and to take away the stigma and barriers for those who cannot. I implore the Government to maintain the rights of those with indefinite leave to remain, as new communities work alongside established communities. When it comes to restraining traumatised children, on which the Government are consulting, I simply warn them: don’t! I will not support that. All children must be treated with dignity—nothing less.

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

The hon. Member has put that well and truly on the record. We need to reform the system. It is really prejudiced against so many people who are working hard in our society. We should not increase the time taken to get indefinite leave to remain, because our word should be our bond, and we should honour the agreements we make. That brings me to Labour Members’ ambitions for reforming the special educational needs and disabilities system. We need an inclusive approach, so that every child finds their place and reaches their level. More inclusion means rewiring the culture to be therapeutic and trauma-informed, with new pedagogies; mapping out learning styles for children; and ending harsh discipline and the single channel of exam-based assessments. Instead, we must include children and bring out their best. I urge the Treasury to invest the funding needed to help raise this generation and future generations, by supporting parents and babies with the right foundations during the first 1,001 critical days, and by providing the wraparound support that teachers, health professionals and support staff need, so that our SEND system is fixed once and for all. The benefit of that investment will show in the years to come. As we support our young people into work, we must recognise that state neglect under the last Government caused so much harm. We must be compassionate and work with, not against, our young people, as they struggle to navigate their way and transition into independence and work. Society and our communities should be brought together. Our centralised system is failing; decisions are made far from the realities of the regions and nations. That is building a sense of remote dystopia, and of not being in touch with the daily challenges that are being experienced as the cost of living weighs heavy, while others live profligate lives. Today, we need a radical devolution of power, finance and opportunity to help people see themselves as having agency and purpose. We should recognise the diversity of all our communities, and our common bond. It will not be found in the idealisms of some, or the toxic divisions of the right, which, believe me, will set community against community, while its crypto-backed leaders sow chaos and division, ripping up our NHS and our welfare state—our incredible inheritance that has glued our society together through generations. In the King’s Speech, we have so much to celebrate, and I will sew in the voices of my community in York as we progress. I want to ensure that the Railways Bill protects the wellbeing of all who work in the sector. Having championed the Removal of Titles Bill in the last two parliamentary Sessions, I hope that we can move fast on cleaning up our politics. I welcome the move to tackle antisemitism, as antisemitic graffiti has been found in my community this week. It brings such shame, and we must move fast on that. Improved relations with the EU will help to build the bridges we need. York is a visitor and tourism hotspot, so I will work carefully with the Government on the overnight visitor levy. I trust that businesses will not pay a penalty, and that our city will get the reward. The draft taxi licensing Bill will really help to bring licensing back under control. I trust that we will do more on the climate crisis. As the national emergency briefing highlighted, we do not have the luxury of time. The UK is in the bottom 10% of countries in the biodiversity intactness index, and one in six species is at risk of extinction. While our planet burns and our icecaps melt, we need to invest fast. Finance should be invested to hasten decarbonisation, and projects such as BioYorkshire should be funded to ensure that we hasten agricultural resilience, preventing the low yields and crop failure that are escalating the cost of food. That is why I am really glad that we are moving to independence in our energy market, too. We need a second employment rights Bill to capture the single status of worker, extend collective bargaining, and improve the wellbeing of workers. My final point is this: if we are to bring a diversity of voices to Parliament and ensure that they are heard, this place must change. Governments have been destabilised in recent years due to too much power being held by the Executive, and too little power being invested in Parliament. If that does not change, the discourse of distrust between Parliament and the people will continue. Our voices, representing the diversity of the country, must be heard, and must impact the programme of government. I want all Bills to go through in-depth consultations with MPs, who would input the experiences of their communities. Just running artificial intelligence across consultation responses is not good enough. I want full pre-legislative scrutiny, so that we can ensure that Bills are robust, unifying, and do everything possible to improve the lives of those we represent. Without that, I fear that we will let down the people we were sent here to represent. It is time to include all; the mission is too great to be for just a few. This parliamentary Session must be like no other, connecting communities, unifying society and transforming our future.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). As I listened to His Majesty the King today, there was one part in his speech that reminded me of the Queen’s Speech in 2017, when I was first elected. The then Government promised that their priority would be “to secure the best possible deal as the country leaves the European Union.”—[Official Report, 21 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 34.] That went well. Let us compare our economy then and now. Inflation and unemployment are now both higher. In 2017, we had the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have slipped to sixth since we left the EU. Outside this place, in 2017, people were concerned for the welfare of the refugees risking their lives on boats crossing the Mediterranean. If they landed in a safe European Union country, that was where they had to seek refuge. Not now. Now that we have left the European Union, that rule no longer applies to us. That is something that the Brexiteers omitted—perhaps forgot—to mention then in their campaign, and now in their immigration rants. That is why one part of the speech I welcome is the promise of closer links with the European Union. I am delighted to hear that we will, in the words of the King’s Speech, “strengthen ties”, but what exactly will that mean? At the weekend, I spent time with some non-political friends. It would be a welcome break, I thought, from the constant election messaging of the past few weeks, but they dragged me back here by asking quite clearly and categorically: “When are we doing something to get back into the European Union?” Leaving has been a disaster for them, for their businesses and for the country. “Closer” probably will not be enough for them. They want to know exactly what we will do, and how we will get back to the centre of Europe, to lead and work with our neighbours and build the trading links that are essential to economic recovery. What about the customs union and the single market—does being closer include being in them? While I agree that being closer to Europe will help our economic growth, it will not be enough on its own. It will not be enough to improve the lives of the constituents who come to me every week. It will not be enough to cut their energy bills before next winter, to provide housing that they can afford, or to help their children get on the housing ladder. I welcome the moves on antisemitism, which has rocketed in the past few years. We have seen it go up by 175% in a decade, and it has been all too visible in the recent attacks on our streets. However, while the Government are promising to tackle antisemitism, I hope that they will not forget Islamophobia, which is also rampant, or the misogyny that we see everywhere, influenced by the dangerous views that young men hear expressed on the internet, and that affect how they look at women and girls. Among the 35 Bills are measures to support women and give them greater “agency over the decisions” that affect their lives. I do not disagree with that, but again, as with the measures on the European Union, it is not exactly clear what that will mean. More action on domestic abuse and helping women entrepreneurs sounds good, but I hope there will be bold action, rather than clever language and warm words. Over the past two months, on the doorstep of almost every home I visited, the theme of the conversation was exactly the same: change. It was change that people wanted—the change that people voted for two years ago, but did not feel yet. I am not sure that they will see that desire for change reflected in the Government’s plans today. They are all too bitty, unclear and not absolutely transparent. We know energy security is vital to national security, and that national security is increasingly under threat and needs investment. It is only too clear that Ukraine’s pain is being suffered on behalf of us all, and that without its resistance, the rest of Europe would be even more vulnerable. Again, there is nothing in the King’s Speech on defence that most people would take issue with; what is there sounds good. However, I believe that people will take issue with what is missing from the speech. Where is the bold new direction for this country? Where is the thing that will give people hope that their Government understand what it is like to lie awake at night, worrying about how to pay the bills, or understand the fear that the job that a person has just lost, because their employer struggled with national insurance increases, will be their last? Where is the hope that the Government understand that same employer’s growing realisation that they may not be able to hold on to the company that they spent their life building? I actually think that many in this Government do understand that, because like me, they come from a background where that was an all-too-clear reality, but the country wants to see action and change—and soon.

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on the King’s Speech, which set out the Labour Government’s programme for this Session, and I warmly welcome its measures. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah), and for Harlow (Chris Vince), for their opening speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West showed how she had overcome adversity, and tackled head-on some of the challenges that people who look like me and her face in today’s society. There is, of course, no greater champion for their community than my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow—my Essex friend. He lives, breathes and is Harlow, and I thank him for all the work that he does in his community. This Labour Government have already achieved so much, handing back power to local leaders, supporting local regeneration and growth plans and taking the pivotal step of a new deal for working people. They have also put in place the biggest change to renters’ rights for 40 years, which was particularly welcomed in my constituency of Southend West and Leigh, directly giving greater housing security to our 8,938 renters. We have seen other significant improvements already: a new Best Start family hub at the Blenheim family centre; three free breakfast clubs in my primary schools; a new, extended nursery provision at Chalkwell Hall infant school; more than £2.5 million of investment into South Essex college to upgrade its campus; and a new youth hub—one of 80 being rolled out across the UK. In addition, the removal of the two-child benefit cap is helping 1,800 families in my constituency and, most importantly, lifting children out of poverty. Add to that the fact that we have brought back into public ownership both our train lines, which will soon be part of Great British Railways, and opened the first community diagnostic centre in our city, which is having a huge impact, providing testing early and late, seven days a week, and getting people diagnosed much quicker. I have also been thrilled to see more than £2 million of new Government funding to start to transform the futures of children with special educational needs in Southend. This is the start of a breakthrough moment—one that families in my constituency have waited a long time for. I have heard from these families during my “See Every Need” meetings, which bring together parents, school leaders, health representatives and charities to get the changes right. Reports from those meetings have been sent to the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for School Standards, and I am delighted that local voices from my constituency have been reflected in Government policy. There remains much scepticism among parents of SEND children as to whether these reforms will actually happen and make a difference to their children’s lives as they have quite simply been let down so many times in the past. However, I am confident that seeing the reforms start to come forward in legislation during this Session through the education for all Bill will help to give parents more certainty that this Government are focused on fixing this situation once and for all. I welcome the announcement in the King’s Speech of the enhancing financial services Bill, which promises a major shake-up of financial services regulation. As the current chair of the APPGs on fair banking and on open finance and payments, I have a passion for financial services reforms, and I am pleased to see this legislation coming forward. It is important, though, that Government continue to listen to the voices of industry, ensuring that these reforms are appropriate and genuinely designed to fix the challenges the industry faces, and I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for her work in listening to industry to date. Moving on, conversion therapy and similar practices are appalling. Sadly, I am aware of people who have been subject to some of these despicable acts. I believe interventions intended to change or suppress a person’s sexuality or gender identity are wrong, so I am delighted to see a full trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices coming forward. The LGBTQ+ community has waited far too long for this ban; after promises made and broken by previous Governments, this Labour Government are finally bringing it forward through the draft conversion practices Bill. It cannot be delivered a moment too soon for our community. I am grateful for the Government’s water reform legislation, which is set to go even further with the clean water Bill, and I applaud their approach to ban bonuses for water company bosses when companies pollute or fail customers. Since being elected, I have been holding regular water summits, focusing on storm overflows, sewage discharges and bathing water quality as well as many other related matters on which we have called our water company, Anglian Water, to account. I am delighted that the local community has now taken ownership of these summits, proving that they are just as invested in this agenda as our Government are. My constituency has a diverse and growing Jewish community. I have met with many from the community recently, and they have told me of their fears following the recent rise in antisemitic attacks. I know that they will be particularly assured by His Majesty the King’s specific mention of this in his speech and the Government’s desire to do all they can to stamp out this scourge. I conclude by touching on the enormously challenging international situation we face. I support the priority that this Government have placed on standing firm with Ukraine, and I stand firmly with Ukraine too after Putin’s appalling illegal invasion. I am also pleased with this Government’s stance on the middle east conflict. I am pleased to see our commitment to a sustained increase in defence spending. The challenges that we face demand that we work together with our allies through international co-operation. I am glad to see in this Humble Address support for strengthening and rebuilding the ties of trust, trade and friendship with our European friends that were so badly damaged by a poorly implemented Brexit. We will fix them through our European partnerships Bill. The promise of a return of the Erasmus scheme and better opportunities for our young people to live, work and study in Europe is also welcome. A good relationship with our closest neighbour is vital in this uncertain world. It is pleasing, therefore, to see the desire to bring forward primary legislation in this area. I am excited to see the legislation announced in this King’s Speech unfold, so that we can make even more of a difference to the lives of people in Southend West and Leigh and across the rest of the country. In an uncertain world, I am confident that this Government are now moving at pace to make the country fit for the challenges we face while prioritising hope and renewal for our country.

If I was not cheered by the landslide victory of the SNP in Scotland last week, I certainly am after this King’s Speech. It is just as well that the people of Scotland have John Swinney as First Minister and the SNP as the Scottish Government to stand as the buttress of fairness and justice between them and the remote and unaccountable UK Government in Westminster. They are not just remote and unaccountable but dysfunctional to an alarming degree, and that dysfunction is what has precipitated this most vapid of King’s Speeches. If somebody who was unaware of the UK malaise, and the multiple economic crises affecting it, saw the Government’s solution in the form of this King’s Speech, they would be unable to identify the problem. That speaks to an obscurity of purpose. Government should have a clarity of purpose—see also the SNP Scottish Government in Edinburgh—but this Government have not got a clue. They are so busy bickering with one another, arguing with each faction about who gets the next shot at being the Prime Minister, that they cannot focus on the problems ailing the people up and down these islands—and the problems are profound. People are unable to pay their energy bills, and they do not know whether they will have a job this month, next month or the month after that. There is a crushing concern about everything, not just this or that. People are now terrified about their washing machine breaking down or their car getting a puncture, because they are so hard up. Under this Labour Government, the margin of economic resilience in people’s homes has been eroded to a translucent wafer. There is nothing between the wolf and the bank account, after less than two years of a Labour Government. I do not understand why that could be. I am a political bore and I understand these things—or I thought I did. They have a majority that would choke a horse. They have been preparing for government for 14 years, yet they come in and it is like they just landed. They even said as much: “Well, we didn’t know the state of the books.” If they never knew the state of the books, they were the only people who did not, yet they had the temerity to come in, take power and make it even worse. Labour Members kid themselves about the reason Labour was elected, but really they know it. They tell themselves, “It was our manifesto. We have a mandate.” There was no mandate for this guddle. Nothing that has happened over the last 22 months was backed up by a mandate. Labour was elected, and ushered in with a colossal majority, for one reason alone: Labour was not the Tories, and it is a two-party system in this place—or rather, it was. That is why Labour Members are here.

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

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

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

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that issue, which is so important to many people across the UK but especially in the north of England, and in Liverpool in particular. But it is not just that. It is the way Labour rushed during the campaign to stand shoulder to shoulder with WASPI women before abandoning them when they got into office. It is about the family farm tax, which the Labour party expressly said before the election that it would not introduce but then got in and did exactly that. That was a gross betrayal of our agricultural industry and our rural communities. The change to employer national insurance was self-evidently anti-industry, self-evidently inflationary and self-evidently a tax on jobs. It was going to have one potential outcome. The £25 billion that the Government said that it would bring in was complete fantasy; by the time they had compensated for the public sector, it was down to single figures of billions, and even that did not take into account the drag on the economy and the lower fiscal receipts as a result of that disastrous, self-defeating policy.