It is a pleasure to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of the Government. As His Majesty said yesterday, we are living in “an increasingly dangerous and volatile world”. This debate is about the labour market, so let us start with some facts. We have 332,000 more people in work than a year ago; the third highest employment rate in the G7; unemployment lower than most OECD countries and lower than the EU average; unemployment down in the three months to February; and economic inactivity down by over 350,000 since the election—it is lower today than in 13 of the 14 years of the previous Government. Since the general election, real wages are up by more than in the first 10 years of the last Government, and this morning’s growth figures were up by 0.6% in the first quarter of this year—services up by 0.8% and construction up by 0.4%. That is the fastest GDP per capita growth in four years and the highest GDP growth in the G7 reported this year. That is on top of GDP per capita growth last year, and on top of six interest rate cuts since the general election. Our economic management has put the UK in a stronger position, better placed to weather the storm of global shocks, and better placed to weather the volatility of which His Majesty spoke yesterday. The leadership task for the country now is to lead the country through the consequences of what is happening in the middle east, because there is no doubt that the shock from the Iran war and the continued closure of the strait of Hormuz is real. It will affect prices, it will affect jobs and it will affect growth. Our Prime Minister took the decision to keep us out of that war, but the UK, like most countries, will be affected by its consequences. However, none of those consequences were thought about by the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of Reform when they were urging us to get involved. What did the Leader of the Opposition say?

The Secretary of State and many of his Front-Bench colleagues keep reiterating that point. He keeps saying that, but I do not believe it is true. Will he explain exactly what he thinks the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do in those circumstances?

Let me read this out for the hon. Gentleman. The Leader of the Opposition said that the Government were “too scared to make foreign interventions”. She also said: “I say to Labour MPs that we are in this war whether they like it or not. What is the Prime Minister waiting for?”—[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 803.] That is what she said. As for the leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), he said: “We should do all we can to support the operation. I make that perfectly, perfectly clear.” Instead of trying to douse the flames, they sought to pour as much petrol on them as possible. They would have jumped in with both feet, displaying not only a failure of judgment but a total disregard for the price that will be paid by British consumers in higher prices and higher interest rates. That is how much they cared about keeping Britain working when it came to the biggest judgment that this country has had to make for a long time. The Conservatives’ record when in office was: the lowest business investment in the G7; wages flatlining for their entire period in office; the worst Parliament on record for living standards; and the public finances trashed as debt soared. The reason I point that out is that month after month, and nowhere more than in the arena of welfare, the Conservative party finds things that it is outraged about in the system that it built, it designed and it created. Before I come to the system itself, let me state something that is obvious but too often left out of these debates: the welfare system is often the end of a process in people’s lives, not the beginning. I will tell the House what contributes to higher welfare bills and to people not working: hollowing out the NHS and leaving one person in seven on waiting lists, with a higher likelihood that they are unfit for work; increasing child poverty by 700,000, making it less likely that children will be ready for work when they leave school; explicitly rejecting the post-covid education recovery plan, and doing nothing about rocketing absenteeism from schools; neglecting our town centres and high streets, leaving too many places without hope or confidence in the future; and presiding over a 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts, kicking away the first step in the career ladder for those who lose out. You cannot do all that and then stand at the Dispatch Box and credibly express outrage about the rise in benefit bills. It did not come from nowhere, and if we are going to tackle this area, we have to understand that.

In that case, can the Secretary of State credibly stand at the Dispatch Box and talk about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions and of the Employment Rights Act 2025 on employment? The Government are now paying companies to employ young people because of the mess they made.

If it was down to those policies, we would not have seen a rise of a quarter of a million in the NEET—not in education, employment or training—numbers in the last three years of the hon. Lady’s party’s time in office. My point is that this did not come from nowhere, and we have to understand that. If we are to have a serious response, education, health treatment, youth apprenticeships and changes to the welfare system itself all have a part to play. On the health front, I have good news to report: waiting lists today are down by 110,000—the biggest monthly drop since 2008. Elective waiting time targets have been hit, and four-hour waiting time targets have been hit. This is how we get Britain working, whereas simply picking a number for benefit cuts, with nothing behind it, is not an answer; it is a press release. The Conservative party has shown no understanding of how people end up on benefits in the first place.

I would like to raise with the Minister the fact that we are looking at around 1,000 redundancies across the NHS in Devon, which is a significant employer. That is cutting the legs off employment in communities such as mine in Torbay.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the figures that I just read out. For the first time in many years, the NHS is heading in the right direction. That is good for people’s health, and it is also good for getting people back to work. As I said, the Conservatives show no understanding of how people end up on benefits in the first place. They are like a workman who wanders around someone’s house asking, “Who installed that?”, when the answer every time is that they installed it. The Conservatives say that the welfare bill is too high, but it went up by £100 billion when they were in power. They say that they want more face-to-face appointments, but they shut them down almost entirely, and then the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), now the shadow Chancellor, signed off a bunch of contracts that allowed the assessors to work from home. The Conservatives say that there are too many people on health benefits, but they designed the system, they designed the gateways, and they designed the differences in income that have made that happen. We did not just inherit a mess; we inherited their mess. In fact, the shadow Chancellor personally oversaw the biggest single increase in welfare spending on record during his time as Work and Pensions Secretary. Two weeks ago, the Leader of the Opposition railed against there being 1.5 million more people on universal credit. She was outraged by the figure, as she often is, but there was only one problem: around 80% of the increase was a legacy transfer from old benefits that was decided, organised and begun by the Conservative party. It is no wonder the chair of the UK Statistics Authority wrote to the Leader of the Opposition to correct her. Her letter said of the figures quoted: “A substantial proportion reflects the ongoing transfer of claimants from legacy benefits to Universal Credit. This process has been a longstanding policy and has been implemented at scale by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) since May 2022, predating the current administration.” When it comes to the Conservatives owning their record, they might as well be giving CV advice to the leader of the Green party. As the King’s Speech made clear yesterday, reform of the welfare system is under way and will continue. Support must always be there for those who need it, but circling the wagons around the status quo is not the right answer. Nor do I believe that the system can act as a fantasy cashpoint for every cause going; instead, I believe that our task is to recast this system to put work and opportunity at its heart.

Twelve months ago, the Secretary of State’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), attempted to cut the welfare bill and was sent packing by Labour Back Benchers. In the autumn, the Government had to get rid of the two-child benefit cap because of Labour Back Benchers. Is the truth not that the Secretary of State is incapable of reforming the welfare system because he does not have permission from his Back Benchers?

I will outline the changes to the system that we are making. At the heart of it, we have to change the question that the system asks in order to have a system that is suited better to the conditions of today. We should ask people not just what benefit they are entitled to, but how we can help them change their lives, and we have begun that task. The change to universal credit that came into force last month narrowed the gap between the health element and the standard element. Crucially, it is matched by an increase in employment support. Another change is the provision of £3.8 billion to help people into work over the next few years, ensuring personalised help to maximise people’s chances of moving into a good, secure job. We have to change the old Tory habit of people being signed off and written off, and instead move to a system that more actively helps people into work. Nowhere is that more true than among the young, because the longer young people are left on benefits or out of work, the harder it is to come off and the worse the consequences are. The issue with the system is not just about monthly income; it is about the story of people’s lives and how we change it.

I thank the Secretary of State for enabling me to ask a question, and for the positivity in his comments so far. Like him, I am incredibly worried about whether young people are getting job opportunities, and many in my constituency unfortunately have not been. May I ask a question about apprenticeships? We need to get people into the building and construction sector, for instance, where there are opportunities because house building is continuing to grow, as is the Government’s commitment. Will he outline some of the good things that have been done for young people in relation to apprenticeships?

Apprenticeships are really valuable and important. I visited construction apprentices with the Prime Minister just a couple of days ago, so I heartily endorse what the hon. Gentleman says. The issue of youth employment is really important to us because of the long-term consequences of young people staying on benefits. Let me illustrate this for the House. A young person under the age of 25 who is on the health element of universal credit is now less likely to get a job than someone over 55 on the same benefit. A 20-year-old on incapacity benefit is more likely to turn 30 and still be claiming it than to have held a steady job for a year. Perhaps worst of all, a young unemployed person is over 70% more likely than their peers to die prematurely. Changing those stories has to be at the heart of what we are doing. There are practical ways of doing that. We know that many disabled people—young and old—and people with health conditions want to work, but have been held back by the fear of losing their benefits if things do not work out, so just last month we changed the law to bring in the right to try. Keeping people locked on benefits because they lack the confidence to work is in no one’s interests—not the individuals’ and not the state’s. The change means that entering employment will not automatically trigger a benefit reassessment. This is practical welfare reform and this is what getting Britain working looks like. We also know that disabled people and people with health conditions need localised support to get back into work. There is no greater fan than me of the wonderful work that our elected local mayors are doing, so we are putting £1 billion of funding into local areas to help 300,000 people into employment over the next few years. That is what practical welfare reform looks like. Today, the Department has published new figures on fraud and error. They show continued progress and a fall since the post-pandemic period, but this is an ongoing effort. There is always more to do because there are unscrupulous individuals who will try to game the system, but whether it is £5,000 or £5 million from an undisclosed source—possibly someone located abroad—people are expected to declare it. There cannot be one rule for some and another rule for everyone else. In the coming weeks, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will set out our plans to deliver our manifesto commitment to tackle the Access to Work backlog. This important scheme provides grants to thousands of disabled people to help them get into and stay in work, through things like specialist equipment, assistive technology and adaptations. Members from across the House have raised with me the issue of backlogs and waiting times that grew under the Conservative Government. Well, under this Government, we are changing that to reduce the backlog and to help more disabled people into work. This is practical welfare reform and this is what getting Britain working looks like. We are restoring fairness in the system too. We are providing better value for money in the Motability scheme, with a target for half those cars to be made in Britain by 2035, so that this important scheme supports the British car industry too. We are stopping those who have not contributed from getting a British pension on the cheap. The work of reform will continue this year when, in the coming weeks, we receive interim reports from both the Milburn and Timms reviews, before they conclude later in the year. We will bring forward further proposals for reform, with work and opportunity at their heart, when those reviews have reported.

Reports suggest that unemployed people who are signing on are getting trained for jobs that do not exist, not for the jobs in the sectors where there are opportunities to work. Will the Secretary of State reform the system so that those who are unemployed and seeking a job are trained to do the jobs that are available?

That is precisely what we are doing, including by providing apprenticeship courses that are shorter than the usual eight-month minimum, because employers have told us that such short courses are exactly what they need. I am all in favour of more flexibility in the apprenticeship system to suit what employers need. Getting Britain working is also about the levels of investment in the economy: it is about the roads and railways we build, the capital programmes in education and health, and the year-on-year modernisation of the country. Here too there is a contrast with what we inherited. Compared with the plans that we inherited, there will be £120 billion more public investment over the course of this Parliament. That is what getting Britain working looks like—building and modernising the country. Underpinning all of this are measures in the King’s Speech to raise living standards in every part of the country, to attract investment, to work in partnership with business, to take advantage of new trading opportunities, to reduce the burden of unnecessary regulations, to unlock airport expansion, to build the roads that need to be built and, finally, to deliver a fair deal for the north of England. At the heart of our reforms should be the young, for the simple and obvious reason that if we do not get the young into work, there can be lifelong effects. We have almost a million young people not in education, training or employment. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), in the last three years of the Conservative Government, that figure went up by a quarter of a million. Although the numbers have barely moved since the election, they are still far too high.

On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?

I will proceed, if the hon. Lady does not mind. Unlike the Conservatives, who did nothing about the number of young people not in education, training or employment, we are doing something about it, because we will not leave a young generation behind. We will not give up on young people, and that is why our youth guarantee is so important. It will invest £2.5 billion in support for young people and employers over the next few years. From June, there will be hiring bonuses of £3,000 for employers who take on a young person who has been out of work for six months. For small businesses, there will be a hiring bonus of £2,000 to take on a young apprentice, and the Government will pay for all the training courses for young apprentices employed by small and medium-sized enterprises. [Interruption.] Youth hubs across the country will take support out of the jobcentre to where young people are, giving them access to community-based advice, skills training, mental health support, housing advice and careers guidance. In the spirit of generosity, I will give way to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths).

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way and for his astounding shopping list of action that he is taking, but the Conservatives can make life easy for him: if he had not put 2% on national insurance, increased the national minimum wage and used the Employment Rights Act 2025 to remove the option of zero-hours contracts, businesses in my constituency and across the country would not have been forced to remove jobs focused specifically on young people. It is this Government who are responsible for the increase in youth unemployment.

I have to disappoint the hon. Lady. If this Government were responsible, it would not be case that youth employment never in a single year reached the pre-financial crash levels when her party was in power. If this Government were responsible, we would not have seen the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training rise by a quarter of a million. Beyond the hiring bonuses and the youth hubs, we are offering more work experience or workplace training with a guaranteed interview, designed in partnership with employers. For those who have been out of work for 18 months, we are offering a six-month paid job placement of 25 hours a week at national minimum wage rates. The reason we are doing all this is that we will not stand back and allow young people to graduate from school to a life on benefits. There has been too much of that in recent years, and to do that would be to accept the scarring effect for the rest of their lives and to accept the huge cost to the country and to businesses in lost talent. Changing this situation should be a cause for us all, and it should certainly be a Labour cause, to give hope to the country’s young people and to show that we believe in them, we back them and we want them to have a better future. This is a generational challenge. Of course it is an issue for young people, but it is also an issue for their parents and grandparents, because they all want a better future for young people, and so do we. There is an urgency about this issue. As the population ages and net migration falls, we need the young people of this country more than ever. They are our greatest resource and our greatest asset, and an investment in them is an investment in the future for all of us. In the volatile times that His Majesty spoke about, people look for security, and rightly so, but the future is not just about security; the future is about building opportunity too. It is about not accepting so many young people being written off and about giving them a chance to change the story of their lives. That is the message at the heart of the King’s Speech and that is what is at the heart of our youth guarantee. It is at the heart of all the changes in welfare reform that I have listed, and it will be at the heart of the changes to come, and I recommend them to the House.

I respect the Secretary of State. He has talked at some length about what is wrong with the welfare system, but the fact is that there is no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. I reckon he is stuck between a rock and a hard place: he knows the benefits bill is out of control; he knows that the public are sick of seeing their taxes go on ever higher welfare handouts; he even knows how the savings could be made because I have told him [Laughter.] They are laughing, but they are the problem. The Secretary of State also knows that the MPs behind him will have none of it. With the Prime Minister clinging on by a thread, no wonder there was no welfare Bill in the King’s Speech. Here is the problem: failure to grip welfare puts the Government dangerously out of touch with people out there—the people he, I and all of us are here to serve. Let me read from an email that I received recently from a constituent; I will call her Sandra. She says: “I am writing to you with utter frustration. We work so hard and for what? What is the point of working please tell me. To watch everyone else do nothing and get paid more than you! I’ve done the benefit calculation online and I’d be better off quitting my job…I’d be better off getting universal credit…how is that normal or fair?” My constituent is far from alone. I have heard that feeling expressed time and again since I have been shadow Secretary of State—on the doorsteps, in the pub, in the supermarket, on the train and all over social media. Beyond Westminster, people are despairing. Family breadwinners are losing their jobs, homes are being sold to pay the bills and young people are losing hope. Millions have drifted out of work, and for many, claiming benefits simply makes more sense. For those who are working, each month they are seeing their earnings disappearing in higher taxes and higher bills, with nothing left over. No wonder they are fed up. People who are doing the right thing are paying for people who have opted out. And what is Labour doing about it? Absolutely nothing. The Government are making a big mistake because the bald fact is that alarm-clock Britain is sick of paying out for “Benefits Street”.

The hon. Lady makes a powerful case, but her party was the future once, so why were all the challenges that she identifies not fixed when the Conservatives were in government? They were the ones who set up and built this welfare system.

I hate to tell the hon. Gentleman, but Labour is in charge now. It has had nearly two years and nothing is changing. You do not have to take my word for it, Madam Deputy Speaker; here are the numbers. Over 8 million people are claiming universal credit, almost 4 million people are claiming sickness benefits and over 600,000 households are getting over £32,000 a year in benefits. That is more than the take-home pay of the average British worker. Ninety-one thousand households are getting over £50,000, which is enough to put them in the top 10% of our nation’s earners, and 16,000 are getting over £60,000 in benefits every single year. A person who works would have to earn over £70,000 to have that. All that is costing the country £140 billion a year. People know when they are being taken for a ride. Yesterday, the Prime Minister had a chance—one last chance—to hit reset, reverse those trends, get people off benefits and bring down the welfare bill. But with his back against the wall, it is no surprise that the Prime Minister’s King’s Speech contained none of that. While hundreds of thousands of people struggle to find work, the Prime Minister is only interested in protecting one job: his own. Yes, the Secretary of State can claim that he is doing something—his work experience programmes, his youth schemes, the savings-free Timms review and all that—but we all know that that is just tinkering at the edges. The Government tried welfare reform last summer and failed. Now, they have given up altogether. They had no plan when they got into office and they still have no plan now, and that matters. For every day of inaction, hard-working taxpayers pay the price. Doing nothing costs money. The welfare bill will reach £170 billion by the end of the decade and that money could be so much better spent on things such as defence or making our streets safer or—think of this—it could be left in people’s pockets for them to spend.

rose—

The hon. Gentleman wants me to give way. Does he have a welfare savings plan? If so, let us hear it.

I certainly do. It is this Labour Government and it is getting people off NHS waiting lists and back into work. However, it is not for me to answer the questions; my intervention was simply to give the hon. Lady another opportunity to answer the question that was put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) and which she did not really answer. This broken system that she described as “Benefits Street” is a system that the Conservatives created. Why, in 14 years, did they do nothing about it? It is easy to create political anger, rather than to have dealt with it, and that is why this Government are now dealing with the Conservatives’ mess?

Oh dear; what a shame. There were no ideas for savings there at all. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that will get him a job under the next Labour leader, I am afraid that he will have to keep trying. Labour claims to be the party of working people, but the facts do not back that up. Labour always leaves office with unemployment higher than when it arrives, and it is on track to do that again. There are now over 300,000 more people unemployed than when this Government came to power. Their policies—the jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act—have actively killed jobs. Now, as mentioned in yesterday’s King’s Speech, we have the regulating for growth Bill. You couldn’t make it up. Employers are being asked to swim against the tide with bricks in their pockets, and now the Government are planning to make it worse. Many businesses have stopped hiring; others are letting people go. Businesses tell me that they are getting hundreds of applications for jobs that they might have struggled to fill a couple of years ago. No wonder that there are 700,000 graduates on out-of-work benefits. Youth unemployment is at over 14%. This is a disaster. Young people want to get their lives going, earn money, pay their own way, save for a car; instead, hundreds of thousands are stuck. The Secretary of State knows that. That is why he has frantically announced a flurry of schemes at the cost of £2.5 billion. Obviously, a work placement is better than nothing, but the young people I speak to want jobs, not Government-funded work experience. Less than two years ago, the country voted us out and Labour Members in. They have laughed and jeered at us, but they are not laughing now because they have found out that governing is hard. They promised voters change, but the only change that most people have seen is that they are poorer. Who knows what they got up to in opposition? Clearly, it was not working out what they would do if they won the election. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is chuntering. I know that yesterday he called the Leader of the Opposition “rude” when, actually, she was just telling the truth. He does not like to hear the truth. Maybe he should do a little less talking from the Front Bench and a little more listening. Being in power is not an end in itself; what matters is what someone does with the power that voters trust them with. I am sure that many of those on the Government Benches care about our country, but caring is not enough. The question is: what are they going to do to fix it? If the King’s Speech that we are debating today tells us anything, it is that they do not know. The only things they can think of will make the situation worse; and on welfare, they have given up. I believe in learning lessons whenever one can. One lesson that Labour Members should learn is to make good use of time in opposition; work hard, think hard and make a plan. That is what we have been doing, and that is why we have been able to set out an alternative King’s Speech, which has more in it than the actual King’s Speech. Take our plans for welfare—and to be clear, these are just our plans so far. We have a plan to reform welfare and make £23 billion in savings. We will bring back the two-child benefit cap, stop handouts to foreign nationals, stop sickness benefits for anxiety and ADHD, bring back face-to-face assessments, ban “sickfluencers”, reform fit notes and restore the household benefit cap to its original purpose of ensuring work always pays better than benefits. No more gaming the system, no more free cars for tennis elbow or acne—Britain will no longer be a cash machine for the world. People have had enough. They can see our welfare system is not working. It is not even working for people who are seriously ill or disabled. We are not keeping our plan secret; it is all out there. Other parties are adopting our policies. Reform, for instance, has not been shy about doing so, although it has been confused, and its Members are not here today. The Secretary of State should feel free to do so too, and though the MPs behind him will hate it, we are here to help. This is the most surreal King’s Speech debate I have ever taken part in. People out there are angry, frustrated and fed up. They can see the country is not working. They want the Government to fix it, but Labour are too busy working out who should be in charge. The saddest thing is that it will not make a difference. They can change their team captain, but they are still the same team. I have heard them cheer on taxes for farmers, family businesses and schools. I have heard them cheer for lifting the two-child cap. I have heard them argue against welfare savings. They think you fix poverty by giving out free breakfasts, paid for by people who are struggling to pay the bills themselves. Labour’s answer is always the same: tax more and spend more of other people’s money, and it is the wrong answer. Sometimes in life you have to pick a side. We have picked one: we are on the side of people who get up each day and go to work. They are doing the right thing, and we back them. Sometimes things go wrong and people need help. That is why welfare should be a safety net, not a lifestyle choice. Labour have made their choice: it is to carry on as if nothing is wrong. Yesterday’s King’s Speech was a chance to fix things, and they blew it.

It is a pleasure to follow the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I will try to address some of the points she made, but I am bound to mention the recent elections. Engaging in the democratic process is important, but not all areas had elections. The turnout across the wards in Walsall and Bloxwich was an average of 38%. I want to put on record my thanks to all the councillors who served their community in Walsall and Bloxwich. The leader of Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), thought that Walsall council was Labour-controlled, but it was not; it was controlled by the Conservatives—I know it might be slightly difficult to see constituencies from a helicopter. Some of his candidates said that they had to pay to personalise their leaflets. The £5 million gift is quite interesting as he says it is for his personal safety. I know that Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers take the safety of each and every one of us in this Chamber very seriously. The Representation of the People Bill is a carry-over Bill, so there is still time to ensure that we have compulsory voting and that we prevent cryptocurrency and bitcoin being used for donations to political parties—say, from Thailand—particularly from donors who go under two different names. I welcome the announcement in the Gracious Speech on improving our cyber-security defences. I do not know whether Members saw this, but there was an investigation by a consortium of journalists from The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, The Insider, Delfi and VSquare about a Russian school called “Department 4” that provides special training on hacking and password attacks. A hacker unit known by western Governments as Sandworm is accused of unleashing destructive cyber-attacks targeting, for example, Ukraine’s power grid, the French presidential election in 2017 and the investigation of the Salisbury poisonings. That article was published on 7 May, and it is worth reading. We need to protect our democracy from the constant drip, drip of misinformation and disinformation on online fora. I welcome the energy independence Bill in the Gracious Speech. We have seen how we have been at the mercy of other countries, but now we are investing in renewables, which will protect our planet, roll out energy efficiency and bring down bills.

The energy independence—or dependence, as I think we can probably call it—Bill will make us more reliant on overseas imports of oil and gas. We will use oil and gas for many years because our system needs it. The Bill bans new licences in the North sea, making us more reliant on imports. Does the right hon. Lady really welcome that?

I welcome the energy independence Bill. Let us see what is in the clauses when it is published, but the Secretary of State wants to make this country independent of outside forces. This is the first time a Government have invested so heavily in renewables. All this will get Britain working. It is outrageous that oil companies have made massive profits and traders have bet on the outcome of war in Iran as petrol prices go up. Someone somewhere is making money, and it is not my constituents. They may not even know who is making the money, yet they blame us.

I commend the right hon. Lady for her contribution. It is really important that we look upon renewables as an option, whether we like it or not—that is the way I see it. The Government are pushing their renewables policy for England and Wales, but does she believe that we should be doing this collectively? I think that Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England should be working together on a policy that can take us forward and meet the targets, which are very important not just for us but for our children and our grandchildren.

We are the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so it is very important that we all work together. When it comes to climate change policies, we cannot specify a particular area; they are for our whole country, and our whole planet. Those of us who were around at the time of Brexit—and I am pleased to see an EU Bill in the King’s Speech—will remember that we were allowed to see the impact assessments only if we left our phones behind and went across the road with just a pencil and paper. There we saw the impact assessments for each sector, and how leaving the EU affected every single one; we knew how important it was. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that post-Brexit red tape and costs are driving smaller companies out of European markets. In a survey of 645 businesses, 30% indicated that they might reduce or cease trading in the EU without eased regulations. Many small businesses—64%—reported issues with customs documentation, 21% reported issues with physical inspections and 17% reported issues with product marking. To get Britain working, we need a closer relationship with our nearest market. If these small businesses close, working people and all of us lose out. I believe in the dignity of work. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent mentioned that there is no welfare Bill in the Gracious Speech, but measures have already been taken to increase the national minimum wage, rights at work and safety at work. We will get Britain working with the new work coaches and the right to try. I do not know whether Members have seen the television programme “The Pitt”, but in season two, a construction worker has to be taken to A&E and cannot afford his medical care, which is about $20,000. Watching that, we all know how lucky and blessed we are that we have our NHS, free at the point of need. We give people dignity when they fall ill. We take it for granted that our doctors and nurses are trained to the highest level. The NHS modernisation Bill will bring back the Department of Health and Social Care as one Department with accountability to the Secretary of State. There will not be the extra cost of NHS England; instead, there will be more money for the frontline. I have found some money down the back of the sofa, so I hope the Chancellor is listening. Fifty million pounds has been allocated for a free school in my constituency that, on the evidence, is not needed. The National Audit Office has reported falling rolls in primary schools, and that fall in numbers will feed into secondary schools. I was told that the decision about the school was made in 2017. There was a Walsall priority education investment area programme, and the Windsor Academy Trust just so happened to have a member on the programme’s board. Surprise, surprise—it got the contract for the free school. It is like insider trading with public money. A review was undertaken, but Ministers are pressing ahead with the decision. I am not sure why, when schools like Joseph Leckie, Blue Coat academy and All Saints academy require support for their buildings, as do many other schools. Despite what the evidence shows, there will be building on Reedswood Park, which is not what local people want. It is the same with the Walsall Leather Museum, a beloved local cultural and heritage icon; the deal with the then Conservative-controlled council was a novel and contentious transaction, made against the wishes of visitors, constituents and Government policy on promoting arts and culture. The museum must be retained in its current position. I believe in the dignity of education, which is why I welcome the Bill to raise education standards for all. We already have Best Start hubs in train—we know what a difference Sure Start made—and breakfast clubs. Anyone who has visited breakfast clubs knows that there is a glorious cacophony of excited children who have had a good meal. There are also quiet places, and I am pleased that some are taking part in the year of reading. Children are set up for the day. We cannot measure the results of a good education tomorrow; we have to see the benefits over a lifetime. I believe in the dignity of opportunity, and that is what this Government are giving people. We give people the tools to find and exploit their talents. Many do not know what their talents are when they start off in life, and they want to discover them over the years. That is how we get Britain working. We live in a society where, if we see something we want, we can buy it, and it is with us the next day, but Governments do not operate in that way. I want to end with a story about three workers constructing a road. When they were asked what they were doing, the first one said he was breaking stones; the second one said that he was constructing a road; and the third one said that he was constructing a road that would take children to their school, or the sick to hospital. We have to show people the significance of the actions that the Government are undertaking, so that they are like the third worker. Equality, opportunity, skills, justice and tolerance take time, patience and perseverance. We need to explain to people that our Government are standing up against vested interests and for all our citizens, and that is why I support the measures in our sovereign’s Gracious Speech.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Walsall and Bloxwich (Valerie Vaz). One would normally imagine that the King’s Speech was an opportunity to press the reset button, but I fear that Labour Members are searching for another reset button at this time. We Liberal Democrats fear that the King’s Speech is somewhat timid in its ambition, and does not drive the change that many of our communities have a thirst for. I will focus on youth unemployment and our NEETs—those not in education, employment or training. This is a massive challenge for our society. People are three times more likely to be unemployed if they are under the age of 25. To be fair to the Government, the issue was not created on their watch, but during their watch, they built on what happened under the Conservatives, due to the pressures on the system. When I meet young people, I know that they have faced a lethal cocktail, when it comes to being work-ready. There was the covid crisis through much of their educational life; there is the pressure cooker of social media, which eats into their confidence; and finally, there is the cost of living crisis, which young people are not immune from. It may mean not only that they have less opportunity, but that mum or dad face real pressures, so there are some real challenges. I pay tribute to organisations in the Torquay and Paignton area of Torbay that support young people, such as Eat That Frog, Sound Communities, Doorstep Arts and the South Devon college, which have all benefited from the shared prosperity fund. That ended without a replacement, and the world is therefore a poorer place, particularly for youngsters who had adverse childhood experiences and are on the margins of employment. As we have seen, the tax on work—the national insurance hike—has really hit opportunities for employment hard. Employment in the hospitality sector has shrivelled, with the loss of more than 100,000 jobs. It is a cold hand on the heart of the west country and our hospitality industry. When I speak to organisations such as Splashdown, a water park in Paignton, they say that they have money to invest, but fear a further economic shock. Sadly, Wild Planet Trust, which managed Paignton zoo for many years, had to pass the zoo over to a Dutch company, because the national insurance hike had a massive impact on its ability to make the figures work. Other businesses across Torbay, whether it is the Livermead House hotel or the outstanding Rock Garden pub and restaurant, tell me that they face real challenges and have had to shrink the number of youngsters they take on just to meet their budgets, partly due to inflation, but also because of the national insurance hikes, so we face some real challenges there. I say to the Government that we need to think about driving positive changes, because at the moment, it appears that they are papering over the cracks, rather than getting to the root causes of problems in our economy and helping to grow the opportunities for young people across the United Kingdom. I was pleased that the Secretary of State talked about Access to Work, and the Disability Minister often refers to Access to Work as the best kept secret, but the reality is that the system is broken. We are looking at 37 weeks for decisions on Access to Work applications, and people are losing job offers. The No Limits café in Newton Abbot, which served my constituents from Torbay, closed after a lack of liquidity in its finances because of delays in payments. We need to ensure that there are no behind-the-scene cuts to Access to Work through the Government failing to make inflationary increases to what people can claim, as was highlighted by the Disability News Service only last week. The Liberal Democrats fought the last general election on a pledge to clean up our waters, be they seas or rivers; the cost of living crisis; and the NHS. In Torbay and across the whole of Devon, we are looking at hundreds of redundancies in that service. The argument we regularly hear from the Government is that they have put up national insurance rates in order to invest, but we have had hundreds of millions of pounds of cuts to our services in Devon. That means fewer job opportunities for our people in Devon, which is hitting some of our most deprived communities. In conclusion, we need to back our communities. We Liberal Democrats believe that nobody should be enslaved by poverty, ignorance and conformity, and we need to set the foundations for supporting communities. However, the communities we really need to work with much more closely are our friends on the other side of the channel; we need to build stronger working relationships with our European partners to grow our economy.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and to speak in a debate on work in support of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. There are few Secretaries of State who have a work ethic as strong as his, and I thank him for that. I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address. The phrase “Get Britain working” goes to the heart of the challenges facing both this Government and the country, and I will start by welcoming today’s growth figures. Debates such as this and the programmes of any Government will make no difference without stability as a foundation. I say kindly to colleagues on all sides of the House that economic stability matters. After the revolving door of Ministers and policies in the past decade, stability is not just a nice-to-have, but a must-have. From economic stability we can create the opportunities, fix our public services and share prosperity across our country. Nothing goes to the heart of Labour’s mission to grow our economy more than the dignity of work. Nothing will propel that growth more quickly, more justly and more sustainably than creating the jobs and opportunities to sit squarely behind the programme of this Government and the policies put forward in the Loyal Address. But equally, nothing says more about the challenge the Government face and the opportunities the Government need to pick up than the 70% drop in apprenticeships we inherited after the past decade of Conservative rule. These are challenges writ large in my constituency of Peterborough. In 2023-24 apprenticeship figures hit the lowest level in the six years for which data is available, with a fall in achievements across all apprenticeship levels. That not just an economic failure, but a moral failure that we inherited from the previous Government. Therefore, I welcome the focus in the King’s Speech on creating jobs, support and opportunities for young people to succeed. This is an agenda that builds on the existing achievements around apprenticeships and youth employment. Over the past couple of years I have spent as a Member of this House, I have met businesses, education providers and young people who have been shut out of opportunities for too long because of the bureaucratic nature of our skills system and the apprenticeship levy. It is this Government who have the opportunity to change that. The DWP has itself described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot, so the Government’s moves in the King’s Speech are welcome. I am pleased to put on record that Peterborough and Cambridgeshire were chosen for one of the first pilots for the youth guarantee, with up to £10 million over two years to support young people into education, employment and training. We get the welfare bill down by increasing opportunities and backing the next generation of taxpayers, something that this Government are focused on. Within the city I represent, we have the appetite to meet the Government’s ambition to address those issues. Peterborough College’s JobSmart provision is a great example of working with stakeholders—the DWP, Peterborough Council for Voluntary Service and the combined authority—to get more people into work. The youth employment hub, opened recently at Peterborough United, funded by the Government’s youth guarantee and opened by our Secretary of State and mayor, is a physical example of the bricks and mortar investment in our young people, as is the new Green Technology Centre opened at Peterborough College last year. This takes traditional apprenticeships and training opportunities, and updates them for new green skills such as EV mechanics, heat pump installation and sustainable construction skills. I welcome the expansion of the youth guarantee and the focus on expanding work experience and guaranteed employment for young people; the jobs guarantee, our promise of a work placement for all, with costs paid for by the Government; the youth jobs grant, a £3,000 grant for businesses that hire a young person who has been on universal credit for six months; and a £2,000 grant for small businesses that take on an apprentice. For cities like mine it could be transformative, creating opportunities and getting more people into work. I look forward to the legislative programme that will follow changes recommended in the Timms and Milburn reviews. It cannot be right that we write off so many young people as unfit to work, with a life on benefits. It also addresses something bigger: a greater inequality for too long between vocational and university education. This is not just about policy; it is cultural. For too long, we have made apprenticeships a second-class option. We have created a bias in our schools that favours university over apprenticeships. That, in turn, has been compounded by the destruction, under the previous Government, of careers advice and work experience for young people in cities such as mine. For a working city such as Peterborough, that legacy has been a disaster for people and for economic growth. I welcome our new university in the city, Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough, which does things differently. It has a focus on local students, business relationships and degree apprenticeships, growing our talent in the city, so that the talent of our city can grow the economy for this country as a whole. I also want to talk about jobs for the future and how we build jobs for the next generation of young people coming through. One third of people working in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are employed in occupations that will be directly affected by the transition to the green economy. Major local companies such as National Gas and Caterpillar are already driving innovation in sustainable industries. Peterborough sits at the heart of the national gas transition and hydrogen networks. We could truly be the King’s Cross of the green industrial revolution for hydrogen. This transition from blue collar to green collar jobs and skills is one of the hallmarks of this Government’s achievements so far. I welcome the £800 million private sector investment that National Gas recently put into Peterborough and my region, and its choice of Peterborough as its new regional headquarters. We have the talent in our city which allows those jobs for the future to be grown, with Government support. I will say one more thing—a friendly piece of support, but I would like to stretch my elbows a bit—which is that what I know perfectly about my city is the potential of the young people who live in it. I also know the struggles that Peterborough college and further education have had to put up with. I welcome the investment the Government have put into further education, but I also know that my colleges could support many more small businesses and many more young people if they had the physical resources to do so. We are on the journey and we are making the investment to change that, but if we could do it faster, we in our city could deliver more for young people, but also for the Government’s ambitions. The appetite is there from learners, providers and businesses. The drive exists to meet Labour’s ambitions for new homes, clean energy and infrastructure, but we need the means to deliver it. It is a privilege to speak in support of the Loyal Address. We can get the job done with the Government’s support and with the Prime Minister’s support.

Businesses in my constituency are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a Government who stop making it harder to employ people, harder to grow and harder to invest. Right now, too many feel that Labour is taking the country in the wrong direction. Through my business club and regular conversations with employers across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I keep hearing the same thing: costs are rising, confidence is falling and businesses are becoming more cautious about taking people on. In a coastal constituency, that really matters. Our local economy depends on innovation powered by fantastic small and medium-sized enterprises and on the entrepreneurs who pour everything into growing them. These are not massive corporations with endless room to absorb new costs. They are businesses working hard to keep people employed, keep high streets going and keep our communities alive outside the summer season. James and Marcus Fenton, who run Meridian Medical in Littlehampton, employ around 130 people locally in skilled manufacturing jobs. It is a family-run business and a living wage employer. It should be exactly the kind of business the Government are backing. Meridian is a British success story, exporting highly specialised medical devices around the world, but it is now becoming one of the businesses that tells me the UK is becoming a harder place in which to invest and grow. I also heard recently from Mark and Liz Warom, the founders of TEMPLESPA, a science-led, Mediterranean-inspired premium skincare brand run by my constituents, whose products I highly recommend. Their clear view is that firms are becoming “more cautious on hiring and investment due to rising costs.” They are worried about rising employment costs, higher borrowing costs, growing compliance burdens and energy prices that remain far too high. That is the real-word impact of the Government’s decisions. When businesses stop hiring, young people pay the price first. The first job in a café, the apprenticeship, or the hospitality role in a pub or hotel all give young people the chance to get on the ladder and earn their own money. The Government talk constantly about growth, but businesses in constituencies such as mine are asking a very simple question: when will this Government stop making growth harder? If we really want to get Britain working again, we need to start backing the businesses that actually create the jobs.

On behalf of the people of Erewash, I give thanks to His Majesty the King for his Gracious Speech to the entire nation yesterday. This King’s Speech recognises the simple fact that Britain cannot afford to leave its future at the mercy of global markets, hostile states or instability abroad. For too long, Governments assumed that the hand of the free market would always act in Britain’s interests. For too long, we outsourced vital industries without considering the long-term consequences and underrated the ability of our businesses to export physical goods to the world. We have been globally pigeonholed strictly as a post-industrial service economy. When dictators spark conflict abroad, British families feel the impact through rising bills and a falling standard of living. Working people in Erewash know that all too well. Britain has been left exposed because we failed to build our own energy resilience. Ilkeston in Erewash is proud of its iron manufacturing heritage, yet we have watched industries like iron and steel decline as production has moved overseas in search of cheaper labour and lower standards. Steel is not just another commodity; its manufacture is strategic infrastructure, in and of itself—infrastructure that underpins our national defence capabilities. That is why it is unacceptable that British Steel has been let down by overseas owners who do not act in Britain’s best interests. We cannot outsource our national security any longer.

I completely agree that we must protect British industries such as steel and oil and gas refining—they are all vital. The carbon tax is a reason why these industries are declining and moving overseas. From what the hon. Member is saying, it feels like he agrees that we should get rid of the carbon tax. Is that correct?

I am not sure the hon. Member and I are necessarily on the same page. I was focusing purely on the renationalisation of the steel industry, which is an important part of the King’s Speech. Indeed, in this King’s Speech, the Government have recognised that markets alone cannot protect the national interest. Sometimes the state must step in to safeguard jobs and to keep Britain safe. Nationalising British Steel means protecting almost 100,000 jobs from unfair foreign competition. I am proud that this Government are going to bring British Steel fully back into public ownership. I have spoken to many businesses and business owners in Erewash, and they report that they have struggled since we left the European single market. They have faced mountains of paperwork and massive delays at our borders. These hurdles do not just frustrate exporters; they directly impact their ability to turn a profit. I am glad that in the European partnership Bill we seek to solve that problem, by streamlining trade and making it quicker, cheaper and simpler to do business with Europe.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Would he agree that the European partnership Bill is particularly important to many small businesses in vital supply chains in the automotive sector and other key areas of our economy, which will benefit directly from that well thought-through measure?

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am going to talk momentarily about one of the businesses in my constituency. When I discuss this topic, I particularly think of Cluny Lace in Ilkeston—not in the automotive sector, but a brilliant high-end lace manufacturer. It was workers from Ilkeston who produced Princess Kate’s wedding dress and Queen Anne’s tablecloth. Cluny Lace is an internationally renowned producer and exporter of high-quality British goods, supplying the European high-end garment manufacturing industry, in particular.

The hon. Member mentioned small businesses and delays at the border. Is it not true that the problem of double tariffs for small businesses when importing from third countries and then into the European Union will only be solved by us rejoining the customs union?

The hon. Member raises a point that I was about to touch on. When I met Charles Mason, the managing director of Cluny Lace, he told me at length about how post-Brexit export and import difficulties have caused him immeasurable pain, because the lace that we make in Ilkeston can only be dyed in France, where they have professionals with the appropriate expertise. Moving the lace to France for that part of the process, then back to England for further processing before sale, and then often back into Europe, has become all but impossible for his company. What was once a frictionless part of Cluny’s manufacturing process and sales chain, is now a crippling quagmire of tariffs and business model-breaking roadblocks. For businesses across Erewash, whether they are producers, suppliers or distributors, a closer trading relationship with Europe means less time navigating bureaucracy and more time growing their businesses. Businesses in Erewash have also suffered from increased energy costs. If we want lower bills for working people, we must break our dependence on volatile global gas prices. British families will not see meaningful long-term reductions in energy costs until we produce more clean, affordable energy, here at home. In Erewash, such a transition is not theoretical; it is obviously visible on our local skyline. Sawley, in my constituency, on the banks of the River Trent, lies adjacent to the former Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish). Ratcliffe was the UK’s last coal-fired power station; it closed its doors for the final time in September 2024. As we move forward, my task as the MP for Erewash is not simply to help the country move on from coal, but to ensure that Erewash is at the heart of what comes next, and that my constituents benefit from the new investment, the new jobs, and the cleaner, more secure energy future that this Government are delivering through this King’s Speech. That is why I am excited about the Government’s energy independence Bill, which will shield our economy from the fossil-fuel price shocks that have caused half of the UK’s recessions since the 1970s. This Government are bringing industry back to Britain, with well-paid engineers working in clean energy, powering steel production in the east midlands and across the country. On the ground, that means that families in my constituency—and the constituencies of hon. Members across the House—will no longer wonder how events thousands of miles away affect their bills or their ability to book a holiday. Families in Erewash voted for change in 2024. They are tired of limited opportunities and of feeling vulnerable every time the world becomes more unstable. They want more control over their lives. With this King’s Speech, we are bringing industry home, investing in British jobs, and putting control of our future back into the hands of working people.

It is an honour and a pleasure to take part in this King’s Speech debate. I am a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and I look to grow our economy and get Britain working, with a special focus on the green economy and its many opportunities and challenges. The regulating for growth Bill promises a framework that supports innovation, yet current proposals from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero risk doing the opposite. Under the plans for the new home energy model, any technology other than a heat pump or heat battery could automatically receive an energy performance certificate rating of D. In practice, that means that innovative zero-emissions systems would be treated the same as fossil-fuel heating. That would make many new technologies commercially unviable and leave consumers without practical alternatives where heat pumps are not suitable. The plans are already affecting innovative businesses in Bath, including Luthmore, which has developed a pioneering, zero-emission alternative to the gas combi boiler. Combined with exclusion from support schemes, VAT barriers and delays in the assessment process, such policies risk pushing Britain’s clean tech innovators overseas instead of backing them at home. I am encouraged by the announcement of an energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and now the war in the middle east have laid bare the need to go much further and faster to secure our energy supply, which means getting off the rollercoaster of global prices. In the midst of an energy price crisis, cheap, home-produced energy has never been more vital. There is huge nationwide potential for growth in small-scale renewable energy generation, especially by community groups that can distribute the benefits locally. Nobody in the House will be surprised to hear me say that we Liberal Democrats are the greatest champions of community energy. Community energy puts people at the heart of their energy future by allowing them to generate, manage and own their own local renewable energy projects. These are projects run by the community, for the community. One of many pioneering projects is Bath and West Community Energy in my constituency, which, because of surplus income from renewable energy projects, has been able to donate to more than 100 community projects across Bath in the past decade. What really worries me, when hearing in the ESNZ Committee about proposals for community energy and the way the Government look at that, is that it is only about an ownership model, rather than a beneficiary model. Community energy should also benefit consumers of energy, not just the energy producers. I get it—it is about both. It is not one or the other, but we must focus on ensuring that the community benefits from community-generated energy. Community energy projects also strengthen energy security by diversifying sources of energy, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. In 2025, community energy groups saved people almost £2 million on their fuel bills due to energy efficiency upgrades. However, community energy schemes currently generate less than 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. With the right support, that could increase by 20 times, powering more than 2 million homes and saving more than 2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. However, there are two main blockers to the rapid expansion of community energy projects. The first major barrier is a shortfall in Government funding to scale up energy generation projects. While the £15 million Great British community energy fund is welcome, it has led to minimal growth. I hope that through the energy independence Bill more funding will be allocated to these projects so that their potential can be realised. Another major barrier facing community energy projects is the prohibitive cost of accessing energy markets to sell the electricity that they generate. This is what I mean: there are now more than 600 community energy groups operating across the UK, yet not a single one is able to sell power directly to local customers. Although it is legally possible, the various regulatory burdens and obligations associated with energy licensing rules make the cost of selling power to local people impossibly high. In the 2022-23 Session, legislation was brought forward to unlock the potential of community energy and selling directly to local people. The proposal was supported by the current Secretary of State and more than 320 MPs across the House. We have a Secretary of State for Energy who supports reform of local energy supply, but we are still waiting for the legislation to make that reform a reality. We Liberal Democrats welcome the regulatory changes promised in the local power plan, in particular the commitments from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to establish a route to market for unlocking a smart local energy system. However, if community energy initiatives want to plan ahead with confidence, the Government must provide clear detail on how and when these reforms will be implemented. One option is to untangle completely the licensed supplier model that we currently have and to ask Ofgem to establish a local supply licence. The proportioned costs could create the ability for community schemes to sell to local customers if they wish and make a viable business model. The other option is to have current licensed suppliers offering contracts for the export of community energy to local residents. Whichever route the Government choose, we need to see action. We must see the necessary regulatory changes in the energy independence Bill to establish a workable model for local energy supply so that community energy products can scale up, become commercially viable and play their full part in delivering a cleaner and more resilient energy system.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), whose comments on community energy I will come to in a moment. It is a real honour to speak in this debate on the Loyal Address on behalf of my constituents in North Northumberland, where the electricity grid is owned by Warren Buffett, the water system is overseen from Hong Kong and most of the buses are run out of Miami. Across many decades and multiple Governments, we have made ourselves a society where everything can be bought and sold for the right price, but the things that matter are often slipping away. We heard renewed commitments in the King’s Speech from the Government to improve our economic security, whether by ensuring a fair deal for working people, responding to the Timms and Milburn reviews on welfare or delivering an energy independence Bill. I welcome those commitments. According to the pollster More in Common, seven in 10 Britons feel that our country is “on the wrong track”, and “many are starting to conclude that the problems…lie…with the system itself.” This is a long-term trend. The job of the Government must therefore be to cast a vision of the future that transforms the status quo and then implements it. But what does that future look like, and how does it relate to the economic issues of work, welfare and energy? The late Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks said: “We are each a letter in God’s book. Like a letter, we have no meaning on our own, but joined together in families, communities and nations, we form sentences and paragraphs and become part of God’s story.” Even if we do not share his religious views, Sacks’s message is clear: life must be lived together. Sacks called this a covenant. We are used to talking in terms of a social contract—a phrase we hear a lot—but the social contract asks, “What am I getting out of this?”, while the social covenant asks, “What do we owe each other?”. We therefore need to legislate for a society that helps us to think about what we owe each other. Work remains central to the task of transforming the country. This is one of the Government’s top priorities—we are, after all, the Labour party. Work is also the main way that we contribute to our shared national life. However, our national relationship with work is threatened. One million young people are not in education, employment or training, and AI is threatening a period of disruption that we have not seen since the days of the spinning jenny. We have done many worthwhile things already to improve work; the Employment Rights Act 2025 was a landmark piece of legislation. However, we need to go further to restore the way that we see and do work. The UK is below average among major nations for in-work training, so we should require employers to invest in their employees’ skills with training opportunities. We should also incentivise a stakeholder economy in which more staff share in the value that they help to create, and replicate the European model of giving ordinary workers seats on company boards. In short, the success of the company should be linked to the thriving of its employees. The steel industry nationalisation Bill creates the perfect opportunity for us to model that for the rest of the economy. Working together in a covenantal Britain, we can see that change. Covenant also speaks to our social security system. According to the last data available, 24 million people in the UK are receiving some form of benefits, including pensions. The total cost of our welfare system is greater than our income tax take, and that strain is weakening our togetherness and the idea of fairness on which the system relies. We need a new Beveridge report for the 21st century. The original report identified—in anachronistic language—the five giants as want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. I suggest that the giants of 2026 are: poverty, worklessness, isolation and hopelessness. I welcome the Government’s upcoming response to the Milburn and Timms reviews. We are a party that will always support the most vulnerable in our society, and it is right and just to support those who cannot work or who need help to work. We need a welfare system that is based on contribution and in which people are delighted to say, “Yes, I am my brother’s keeper.” Finally, I welcome the Government’s commitment to energy security and the energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech, but without a covenantal relationship between Government and community, we will lose support for the green transition. King’s College London has found that the share of those who support net zero sooner than 2050 has halved since 2021. Meanwhile, energy price rises are already affecting parts of our country and our economy, as we all know. When the first American missile was launched into Iran, some of my constituents’ heating and hot water prices doubled. A covenantal response to that is to say, “Let’s work with local communities to meet their needs now instead of pressing on towards jam tomorrow,” so if a wind farm is created in the vicinity of a community with the consent or ownership of that community, the community should benefit financially. We must also acknowledge that many of our constituents will be reliant on oil and gas for decades to come. In my constituency of North Northumberland, for example, 14,000 properties are not on the gas grid. Let us rebuild our energy security and supply using a realistic mix of options, and let us leave everything on the table so that it serves everyone. In conclusion, the dead end of unfettered market capitalism has been broken by its own failure to deliver decent jobs and affordable energy. We all now need our future to be built on something that brings both economic security and restored social relationships. In short, we need covenant. The Labour mission was never simply to get on in life, but for all of us to share in prosperity and common endeavour. Nye Bevan once said: “We have to build a party that is capable of expressing the desires of the people who sent us here—not just their immediate desires, but their deeper longings for a just and generous society.” The task is to build on this King’s Speech and create both a story and programme that speaks to these longings in work, welfare and energy. To do this, all of us—Government, party and country—need to commit to a new social covenant.

They say that a week is a long time in politics, yet during this short debate we have seen the Health Secretary leave the Government. Amid the open revolt and factional infighting, one thing remains abundantly clear: whoever will be steering the ship, this Labour Government lack both the courage and the political capital to confront the spiralling cost of welfare. We hear endlessly about the soft left, the hard left and the moderate left, but the story time and again with every Labour Government is that they eventually run out of everyone else’s money. The numbers are stark. We have a welfare bill projected to rise to over £103 billion by the end of the decade—a figure that continues to surpass the revenues that the Government receive in income tax—and more than 4 million people are now claiming personal independence payment. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to rise, and nearly a million young people are not in education, employment or training. This is simply unsustainable. The Conservatives firmly believe in a safety net for those who genuinely need support, but what we have today is no longer a safety net; it is a fishing net that traps people rather than encourages them to stand on their own two feet. I have seen the value of this support at first hand. I grew up in a single-parent household with my two younger brothers. My mother could not read or write. I can remember us turning the sofa upside down at the end of the week to get loose change to put in the electricity meter. Labour Members often think that we on the Conservative Benches are far too privileged to understand real poverty, but that is simply not the case. Many of us on these Benches have experienced poverty in our own upbringings, and because of this lived experience we know where support is needed and where it is being abused. Sadly, we face a culture today in which some treat dependency as a way of life—a badge of honour, even—and in which, for generation after generation, families are boarding the benefits gravy train. We have all heard stories—perhaps in conversations on doorsteps during the recent local elections—of people claiming every benefit going, while ordering a Deliveroo every night and purchasing the latest 60-inch television. Those are luxuries that millions of hard-working constituents have to think twice about before buying. In our alternative King’s Speech, we have set out sweeping reforms that would end this welfare madness. Our welfare reform Bill would restore fairness, ensure that support goes to those who truly need it and ensure value for taxpayers’ money. We believe in the dignity of work and personal responsibility. We will ensure that benefits are restricted to British citizens, so that people coming to this country cannot simply ride on the coat-tails of British taxpayers. We will ensure that PIP is not awarded on the basis of lower-level health conditions that—let me put this bluntly—are just some of the normal challenges of everyday life that we all have to contend with. We will ensure that the people of 6 am Britain—the families who have to tighten their belts because of the spiralling cost of living—do not simply have to pay for the children of those who choose not to work. We will ensure, through the introduction of a household benefit cap, that people are always better off in work than out of work. These reforms are essential if we want a fair society and economic prosperity for our country. However, welfare reform must go hand in hand with reforms that encourage businesses to get people back into work. That is why I am proud that the Conservative party has set out exactly what we will do to get Britain working again, and our approach is a direct contrast to the actions of the current Government. From the hiking of jobs-destroying national insurance to the burdensome regulations introduced in the Employment Rights Act, these rising costs are forcing businesses to think twice before hiring extra staff. This Government have become a barrier to economic growth. Labour is no longer the party that its name suggests; it has become the welfare party. As our alternative King’s Speech makes clear, we would repeal damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act, from the hospitality “banter ban” to the absurd qualifying periods, in order to give businesses the confidence to hire once again. We would back our private sector—the actual wealth creators—and we would not bow to trade union demands. Most importantly, our plan would tackle youth unemployment. It is shameful that one third of graduates are not in graduate-level jobs and youth unemployment stands at a staggering 18%, and that this Government seem utterly uninterested in doing anything about it. A future Conservative Government, on the other hand, would back our young people by expanding the number of high-quality apprenticeships under our apprenticeship guarantee and by showing young people that there are multiple training routes—not just through a degree—to build a successful career and life. This Government have no plan for welfare reform, no plan for jobs, and no plan for growth, but the Conservatives do. Our alternative King’s Speech shows that we are serious about governing, restoring fairness and rewarding hard work, and about getting Britain working again.

His Majesty’s Gracious Speech announced a wide range of economic measures and fully recognised the vital importance of economic security, but I think we all understand that for that security to be meaningful, it must reach into every part of our country and every community. With that in mind, I make my comments from the perspective of Rossendale and Darwen, recognising that we have much in common with many other post-industrial towns and rural areas—places characterised by small towns and villages with close-knit communities, which have too often felt ignored and left behind. This Government have consistently put growth at the heart of their agenda and have rightly identified many of the actions that we need to see. We have heard announcements on Green Book reform, £113 billion of infrastructure investment pipelines, youth job guarantees, Pathways to Work, the industrial strategy, pothole funds, Pride in Place, and many more measures, yet when I knock on doors in Rossendale and Darwen, people are still asking, “Where is the change that we were promised?” When writing this speech, I looked back at others I have made over the last two years on this subject. In those speeches, I called for more to be done to address issues that are specific to small towns like mine: a move away from the orthodoxy that favours cities and mayoral authorities, where growth is easiest to define; a procurement strategy that insists on buying British; an industrial strategy that understands small and medium-sized businesses; and policies that reward grafters, entrepreneurs and risk takers. Frankly, I could have used the same text today, because the issues remain. We have not moved nearly far enough or fast enough to meet the needs of communities like mine. Last week’s local election results show us that starkly. There has been much talk about the changes that this Government need to make. We must grasp this moment to fundamentally rethink our approach to growth strategy; incremental will just not cut it, nor will being city-centric. We cannot justify Government investment flowing into the likes of Manchester while the towns of Lancashire do not even appear in the picture. We need to learn the lessons of the last two years and do better. If we are going to deliver growth and jobs for places like Rossendale and Darwen with the urgency our electorate demands, we must commit to a scale of action that matches the challenge. That means being willing to take risks, to demand joined-up action across Government and to do the hard things on a scale that impacts every community. What does that mean in practical terms? First, on infrastructure, we have to recognise that on its own, a city-centric approach will do little for communities like mine. Consider Northern Powerhouse Rail. It is a great project that will transform connectivity between cities and major towns across the region, and it is being presented in some quarters as a transformational project for the whole north-west, but when I ask the question, “What will this do for Rossendale and Darwen or any small towns along the route?”, the answer is, “Not much.” Rossendale will remain the only local authority area in the north with no commuter rail link, despite being only 15 miles from Manchester. Darwen will continue to have a patchy and unreliable occasional service. That is why we need to change the way in which we think about such projects, and be far more ambitious in our goals—for instance by thinking in terms of growth corridors, with the requirement that these big projects bring a positive impact to every community. That would include physical infrastructure and connections for small towns as an integral part of the projects, as well as an insistence on buying locally. We need a similar approach to industrial strategy. In Rossendale and Darwen, we have many great businesses, including creative and innovative manufacturers, but none employs more than 500 people and few fall into what have been identified as national priority sectors. That is entirely typical of many places across our country, where such businesses employ the bulk of the local workforce. We need to get behind those businesses, and have a much more comprehensive and urgent industrial strategy that truly understands their challenges and opportunities. First and foremost, the strategy must embed “buy British” at its heart, using the full power of Government procurement to support our businesses. Frankly, the lack of a procurement Bill in the King’s Speech is a concern that I hope we can address. We need to bring down business costs, particularly energy, and open up access to risk-tolerant finance, and we need a tax and regulatory system that encourages employment, enterprise, risk and productivity. Alongside that, we need to restore our town centres and community spaces. Pride in Place is a great programme, and I am proud to have brought this investment to Rossendale, Rawtenstall and Darwen. That £20 million over 10 years will enable us to make significant changes, but for every town that has this support, there are many others that do not. Surely the case for investment in Bacup, Stacksteads and Whitworth is just as strong. In any case, we will enjoy the full value of this investment only if it is aligned with improvements in transport, skills and infrastructure that address the underlying constraints on our local economies. We should build on what works, and go bigger and wider with Pride in Place. We should front-load investment to increase the speed and scale of change, while ensuring that we are delivering the infrastructure that can release the full potential of places such as Rossendale and Darwen. I could list lots of other areas for action, but fundamentally, we need a change in mindset. For too long, geography has meant destiny. Small towns such as Bacup, Whitworth, Rawtenstall and Darwen have been at the back of the queue, left behind as big towns and cities shout louder and offer seemingly easy solutions. We need to break that cycle and ask, “What does this do for our towns?” That question should be embedded in every investment strategy and decision process. We must be willing to commit to strategies that insist on doing the hard things while providing the procurement policy, fiscal flexibility, regulatory framework and sustained leadership to drive delivery. We must learn the lessons of the past, and not allow established orthodoxies and a desire for easy wins to stand in the way. We simply cannot afford to fail the communities that need us most.

One of the main barriers to people getting back into work is poor mental health. We have very long mental health waiting lists, with a million people on them. Many of those people would rather be in work, and it is also good for their mental health to be in work. I want to highlight a initiative in Winchester that I have brought up before. It has won awards, including NHS awards. It involves Winchester citizens advice providing a person for two days a week in the local mental health unit, which is called Melbury Lodge, to help in-patients with all their life admin. People who are suffering from mental health issues, especially in-patients, are more likely than average to have debt, housing issues and other life admin problems such that, when they get discharged, they are back in the same situation as when they were admitted in the first place, and their mental health can deteriorate. The initiative is fantastic. It has been proven, through published peer-reviewed papers, that the people involved have a shorter duration of stay, are less likely to be readmitted and are more likely to engage with social services once they are discharged. Ministers will find it particularly interesting that every £1 spent on the project saves the NHS £14.08 through cost avoidance. I have met the team several times. Rolling it out in every mental health unit in the country seems like an absolute no-brainer. Given that it saves so much money and that the saving is so quick, there is no question that it cannot be afforded. This is not an investment that takes five, six or seven years to pay off; the savings are seen within months. I urge the Government to look at the project. I would be keen to have a meeting with the relevant Minister—whoever the relevant Minister turns out to be—and the team who are running this project, Winchester citizens advice and the Melbury Lodge unit. It could be hugely impactful in helping many thousands of people to get back into work. That is good for the staff, the patients and the taxpayer. We were heartened that the previous King’s Speech specifically stated that mental health would be treated as seriously as physical health. We were disappointed there was not a specific mention of mental health in this year’s King’s Speech. We urge the Government to remember to put the issue at the forefront of their efforts to try to get people back into work.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for her brilliant opening contribution to the debate on the Gracious Speech. I acknowledge that this Government have delivered—from renters’ rights and ending no-fault evictions to the new deal for workers, education, Great British Railways, bringing NHS waiting lists down, lifting children out of poverty, and work on violence against women and girls. All that good work deserves to be talked about and celebrated, but it must also be acknowledged that people need more. They are desperate for change following decades of neglect. Unfortunately, the measures in the King’s Speech, although they are in the main welcome, are not the bold moves that we need. We need a Government who will tackle extreme wealth inequality in the UK and deliver for communities, and we need to go back to giving people hope. We need to ensure that our Government have received the message from the local elections last week: people are unhappy with the direction we have taken and, as it stands, we do not have the trust of our communities. It was devastating to see the two councils from my constituency, South Tyneside council and Gateshead council, which Labour have held for 50 years, fall to Reform. We let those communities down, and we need to deal with that. We must build on the things that we have delivered, such as the new deal for workers, instead of focusing on divisive commitments such as the digital ID scheme and the removal of jury trials—two things I remain opposed to. When we move away from our Labour values, we let the country down, let our communities down and, scarily, leave a gap for the far right to move into and exploit people’s fears, desperations and legitimate need for jobs, housing and security. Housing, security and jobs are particularly needed in the north-east. My constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East is commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow crusade—the march for jobs—yet my residents are facing the same problems as those marchers. For decades, successive Governments have neglected the north-east, and the north-east made its feelings clear last week. We need a Government who take action to improve our communities. The Labour party is the party of the people and the party of workers, and that is the Government we need to see now—a Government who deliver for people and who deliver change that communities can see. We need actions, not words. We need to drastically redistribute the wealth, so that it is invested in communities. We need to rebuild trust locally and nationally, with bold and ambitious policies and action. There are some highlights in the Gracious Speech, including the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill, the Hillsborough law, legislation to clean up the water industry, the nationalisation of steel, the £45 billion to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, the legislation to support small businesses and stop late payments, and the licensing for private hires—all subjects that I have spoken about many times in this place and at events in Parliament. But we need to do much more than this tinkering at the edges. We need to legislate to bring water back into public ownership. We need to stop the scandal of water company bonuses. It is an absolute disgrace that they are profiting from the pollution they are dumping into our waters. It is also welcome to see proposals around education for all, but we must ensure that any reforms to special educational needs and disabilities do not push children into a one-size-fits-all approach. The SEND consultation ends next week, and we must listen to the views that are submitted. The consultation responses need to be read thoroughly, not filtered by AI. We must have a genuine consultation and ensure that the reforms do not harm SEND children with the most complex needs. Around 1.7 million children are now identified as having special educational needs. I know that MPs are all being inundated with correspondence from constituents, and many of us have held our own consultation meetings. In my constituency, I have 5% more children with SEND than the national average, and the same issues have been raised in every one of my local consultations. My constituents are worried about their loss of legal rights and their children being forced into mainstream schooling. Sense, the national disability charity, has said that while inclusive mainstream education should be strengthened, that must not come at the expense of specialist provision. Disabled children with complex needs must continue to have access to specialist settings where those are the most appropriate environments for them to thrive. I completely agree with Sense, and it is evident that many families are struggling to find adequate provision. I have held drop-ins in Parliament with people from across the political spectrum, and I want to thank Rory Bremner and Nick Ferrari for coming into Parliament to meet young people and their families and to listen to their stories. The last Government described the SEND system as broken, and of course they did a lot of the breaking with their destruction of local government budgets, but the system has been neglected for decades. It is in desperate need of reform and investment. We can and must get this right to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. To that end, while I welcome the Gracious Speech, I will be bringing forward a simple amendment highlighting the difference that the right placement makes to a child with complex needs and the costs to families, life outcomes and the state when we get that placement wrong. We must ensure that those children with the most complex needs who cannot be placed into mainstream schools do not lose out with these reforms. I have written to the Secretary of State on this issue and would be happy to meet at any time to discuss it. I have an autism diagnosis, as do some of my family. It is something those close to me are aware of, but is something I have not spoken about publicly before. I know the impact it has when you are failed in school. This matters personally and politically to me and is something I care deeply about. I am hugely pleased to see in the Gracious Speech a commitment to bring forward a draft Bill banning abusive conversion practices. While it has appeared in many a Gracious Speech, I firmly believe that the Minister will bring forward a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices as soon as possible.

Along with the hon. Member and other colleagues, I have been campaigning on bringing in a trans-inclusive conversion therapy Bill to ban that awful practice. Will she support me in asking for a proper timeline for when the legislation will be introduced?

Yes, setting out a timeline would be most helpful. I recognise the work of the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), and the time she has taken to speak to me over the last few months and even this morning, and she has committed to setting out a clear timeline as soon as possible. In every meeting I have had with the Minister on this issue, I have been impressed by her determination to finally deliver this legislation and by her understanding of the harm caused by continued delay. My one concern on the delay, which I have already raised, is that this is the only legislation in the King’s Speech where the promise is for a draft Bill rather than a Bill. We absolutely need to get this right, but we must not give people an excuse to delay and frustrate this vitally needed legislation. Earlier this year, I was proud to deliver a report at the Council of Europe calling on member states to ban conversion practices. I will continue to work with the Minister to take both the spirit and framework details of that report into consideration as the legislation is developed. Although I am happy with that particular commitment, we need bold, new, ambitious policies that people will feel in their pockets. People need to see change in their communities. People need action, not another year of delays and U-turns. Labour needs to do what it was elected to do: govern in the interests of workers and our communities and deal with the obscene levels of wealth inequality in the UK.

I rise to address the issue of getting Britain working again, but also to make some observations on this Government’s chaotic performance since July 2024. The focus of today’s debate is on employment, and I will come to that, but so many Labour Members seem utterly preoccupied with the employment of one person: the Prime Minister. No vacancy exists, apparently, but at least one, maybe two, possibly three candidates may apply for said position. I am happy to provide a reference, but it will not be a good one. This shambolic and unstable Government are in stark contrast to the political stability that we have enjoyed in Scotland since 2007. We will continue to enjoy that stability for another five years following our landslide victory in the Scottish parliamentary election on 8 June—a landslide victory bigger than Labour’s in July 2024, with 58 of our successful applicants being sworn in today in Edinburgh. Prior to the election and over the last six months in particular, so many Labour MPs from Scotland used their valuable question time in this Chamber to attack the SNP. So many of them told us that the people of Scotland would reject the SNP, but last Thursday, the people of Scotland rejected the Labour party, rejected the Reform party and, indeed, rejected the notion that this is a United Kingdom.

The hon. Member said that the victory secured by the SNP at the elections earlier this month was bigger than the victory secured by this Government in 2024. Could he clarify whether the SNP won more or less seats at that election than it previously held? Has the SNP’s majority increased or decreased?

The plain fact of the matter, if we look at the percentages, is that it was a bigger landslide. Labour Members would also do well to take consideration of the now 73 MSPs in favour of independence for Scotland. This Union has now been served with its redundancy notice, like so many workers in Scotland these last two years—like the workers in Grangemouth, who should have been treated in the same way as the steelworkers in Scunthorpe, the 1,500 jobs that could have been created at Ardersier, or the derisory coastal growth fund allocation to our precious fishing industry. Now this chaotic Government have turned on their leader, scapegoating him for their collective failures. The wonder of it all is that the branch manager of the Labour party in Scotland has not resigned, for he carries responsibility for this abject failure of the Labour party in Scotland. We have not abandoned our pensioners, the vulnerable, the disabled, our young people, our students, our apprentices or our children. Unemployment is lower in Scotland than in the rest of these islands. Most of all, we have not demonised the many thousands of people who come from abroad to work in our essential services, or those who seek sanctuary from war, famine or persecution. They are not taking away our jobs, houses or GP appointments, as some populist politicians would have us believe. Years of austerity managed that and, sadly, Labour is continuing in that vein with its planned assault on the welfare system. Is the former Health Secretary now ensuring that the King’s Speech included a relentless focus on the health service, on labour shortages in social care, on an end to the privatisation of our health service, on the availability of lifesaving drugs, and on reassuring this House about the hidden costs of the US-UK pharma deal by publishing his Department’s impact assessment? No. He focuses on his own personal ambitions to enter No. 10 Downing Street. He should not have been allowed to resign; he should have been sacked. Finally, I wish to highlight the Palantir contract, which was discussed recently in Westminster Hall. Many Members from across the House spoke about it, and only yesterday I learned that NHS England has allowed staff from the US tech firm and other contractors to access patient data before it has been pseudonymised, despite internal fears of a “risk of loss of public confidence”. An internal NHS briefing has said that it would allow “unlimited access to non-NHS staff” to part of the NHS’s federated data platform, which holds identifiable patient information. That should concern everyone in the House, no matter their political persuasion. Indeed, it should concern everybody in the country. Members across the House have called for the Palantir project to be reviewed next year, and I urge whoever replaces the erstwhile Minister for Health Innovation and Safety to act on that misuse of our NHS data. In conclusion, the Scottish National party will continue to have a relentless focus on matters relating to health and social care that are reserved to this Parliament during this Session, and on matters that adversely affect our small businesses. But the real solution to these issues is to give the people who live in Scotland the democratic right to bring this Union to an end, and allow Scotland to become an independent nation if it so chooses. The concept of Britain just is not working any more.

A big part of why I became an MP was for the young people in my constituency. I have a 20-year-old Cornish son, and I want young people to have the choice to stay and work in Cornwall, and not be forced to go elsewhere and not come back. There are genuinely exciting opportunities for good, well-paid green jobs in the renewable energy sector in Cornwall, for example floating offshore wind. We also have a new Government critical mineral strategy, and an awful lot of lithium and other critical minerals under our feet—enough, apparently, for 20% of the needs of the whole of Europe. We also have digital, creative arts and our amazing hospitality sector. I was a teaching assistant in a secondary school for seven years, and I saw the impact that successive covid lockdowns had on a generation of young people who missed out on the in-person, social interaction and developmental milestones. I know how much they suffered from a broken SEND system for a decade, and I realise how difficult it is to re-enter education after time away, or enter the workforce for the first time under those circumstances. We inherited nearly 1 million young people not in work or education across the country, and Cornwall is particularly highly represented in that. It is so important that we give those young people the skills and confidence they need to move forward with their lives. That is why the Government commissioned the Milburn review, to identify the root causes of youth unemployment and to make recommendations for how we can improve opportunities for our young people. We have introduced some of those policies to support young people into work, backed up by funding. For example, the jobs guarantee will lead to the creation of 90,000 extra subsidised jobs over the next three years for those aged 18 to 24. New foundation apprenticeships, including in hospitality and retail, will help my area and provide employers with up to £2,000 to support 16 to 21-year-olds into work. The apprenticeship initiative will give SMEs £2,000 for each new employee aged 16 to 24, and the youth jobs grants provides £3,000 for a business that hires someone on universal credit for six months. I am hopeful that those policies will complement and add to some of the brilliant work that Cornish employers are doing, particularly on apprenticeships. Cornwall Marine Network in my constituency plays a vital role in supporting SMEs in the marine sector to take on apprentices, and it delivers high-quality training, as does Truro and Penwith college in my constituency. Firms such as A&P, Pendennis and Cockwells provide fantastic apprenticeship schemes in the marine industries, and the Cornish Fish Producers’ Organisation has developed an 18-month level 2 fisher apprenticeship to equip young people with the skills and knowledge that they need for a career in fishing. I welcome the fishing and coastal growth fund, which will invest in skills and workforce development in the sector. Furthermore, leaders of the world-class hospitality industry in Cornwall are keen to train more young people. For many Cornish young people, a job in a pub, café or restaurant provides a valuable introduction to the world of work, but it can also lead to a good career in hospitality. Cornwall is perfect for a pilot of the new foundation apprenticeship. I am pleased that the Government are transforming the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy. Some of that money could perhaps be used flexibly as training for employers in the hospitality sector and others who support apprentices, or by funding some of the skills courses at FE providers such as Truro and Penwith college in my constituency, or by looking at the way some of those apprenticeships are funded. This is not only about supporting young people in their teens and their twenties, because we must also take steps to improve the lives of children from their earliest years, ensuring that a child’s background does not dictate their chances or leave them struggling to catch up. I am proud that this Government have introduced free breakfast clubs, state nurseries, 30 hours of funded childcare from the age of nine months, free school meals and Best Start family hubs. Those are a start to replacing Sure Start, which was a transformative thing for our families. A number of times I knocked on doors in my constituency and met women about my age who were accountants or who had a variety of jobs. They said that without Sure Start they could never have retrained or got that help—it was fundamental.

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

That makes perfect sense. Early years and education are pretty much the most important things that any Government can focus on, and I am so proud that that is what we are doing. The King’s Speech includes legislation to enable the delivery of this Government’s much needed SEND reforms. Parents of children with SEND in my constituency have made clear that the current system is not fit for purpose. I have shared their experiences and concerns as part of the consultation, and I will continue to do so. If young people cannot access education because their needs are not met, it can become harder and harder to get into work and back into society later on. I recognise that for some people the barriers to employment, education and training can feel insurmountable right now. The Government are trying to take meaningful steps to remove those barriers and invest in those jobs, skills, apprenticeships, to reform and prioritise early years provision, and to address some of the failures in SEND provision. Taken together as a whole, moving forward, those measures represent a real commitment to our next generation, which I am hopeful will benefit young people in Truro and Falmouth, in Cornwall, and across the country.

As Member of Parliament for Chelmsford, I am proud to represent a city with a breadth of businesses, industries and educational institutions that do so much to support people from all backgrounds into employment. On today’s theme of getting Britain working again, over recent months I have held several roundtables with local small businesses, from independent restaurants that serve as important community spaces to local shops that provide high-quality, high street based alternatives to major multinationals. Those businesses face many challenges, but I am concerned that the Government’s proposed solutions outlined in the King’s Speech fall far short of where we need to be. At the end of last month, I hosted a roundtable with Chelmsford businesses in the construction industry. I must declare an interest here, because I have for many years run small businesses in construction, working as a specialist subcontractor. We have been through good times and bad times. I know that the often incredibly tight margins are difficult for the industry to work with, and I know the huge temptation for main contractors, desperate to win work, to overpromise and underdeliver. Some of the most unscrupulous contractors rely on putting their subcontractors out of business at the end of a contract through non-payment, delayed payment or ridiculously long retention clauses, hoping that avoiding paying a subbie will keep the main contractor afloat. I welcome the proposed introduction of legislation to tackle late payments and hope that, in so doing, the Government will listen to all those across the industry, at all levels, to understand the imperatives and the complexities of this matter. The construction industry is essential to our economy and our lives. The sector creates, sustains and draws on an enormous range of trades and skills. Far from being just about getting muddy and cold on a building site, the industry requires highly skilled engineers, surveyors, planners and logistics experts. It needs administrators and accountants alongside plumbers, brickies and sparkies. The industry is critical to the functioning of our country, from ensuring that we build enough homes to maintaining and expanding critical transport infrastructure. However, owners and representatives from the companies that I met highlighted the significant decrease in young people entering the construction workforce, as well as the overall proportion of women in the sector being extremely low, at around 16%. The industry is already working hard to tackle that, but businesses cannot do it alone. Let me highlight one specific example raised with me, which goes to the very heart of the theme of “getting Britain working again”: getting young people to site. If we want young people to take up careers in construction—and we surely do—we need them to not just learn the skills and gain essential knowledge through further education courses, but get hands-on, practical experience on building sites. I know that that is more of a challenge, but the industry wants and needs that. Time and again, I have heard businesses tell me that there is simply no substitute for a young person learning alongside a master craftsman or craftswoman and learning the tricks of the trade that allow them to adapt to the unpredictability of the myriad issues that come up on real sites, rather than in the theoretical world of a classroom. The problem is that these young people cannot get there. Building sites tend not to be conveniently located along a bus route or next to a train station. Indeed, by definition a “new site” is often in an entirely new, undeveloped area. The work is creating the infrastructure that will be used in the future, but in the meantime how do we get young people to the sites? Many of them are too young to even hold a driving licence. If they do not drive, they are reliant on getting a lift, but it is very difficult for businesses to provide that lift, due to safeguarding rules for under-18s. That inevitably generates inequality, as only those who can afford to take taxis or have a parent available to take them can do so, with others being left behind. I am in no way saying that we should scrap safeguarding, but this is the kind of practical issue that businesses tell me directly they need help with—perhaps in the form of grant funding for transport for young apprentices or those on work experience. We also need to start earlier in inspiring young people to consider a career in the construction industry, and this is where education must play a key role. How can children choose a career if they do not have a wide view of what is available to them? At this point, I will highlight the fabulous work done in my constituency by Chelmsford city council, which for many years—under Liberal Democrat leadership—has been running a skills festival every summer for pupils in year 8. It is called a festival, because that is exactly what it looks and feels like, but instead of the marquees and tents being filled with musicians or stalls selling merchandise and pop culture paraphernalia, they are packed with interactive stands from local businesses and other organisations based in Chelmsford and Essex. They usually have hands-on activities for 12 and 13 year-olds and hopefully encourage them to consider choosing GCSEs in the coming months that fit well with what they see in front of them—in year 8 they will not yet have chosen their GCSEs. However, this is about not just broadening the horizons of children, but strengthening and deepening the knowledge of their teachers and schools about what is out there, so that they can support the children going forward. The feedback from Chelmsford’s “Skills Fest”, as it is known, is fabulous, with many parents commenting afterwards that they have never seen their child so “brimming with enthusiasm” for something. That is a direct quote from a parent; their child was so enthusiastic about town planning, which they had never considered before. It is pretty inspirational to hear that. This kind of inspirational, collaborative and innovative activity is the sort of thing that I would like to see and suggest that we need to see right across the country, learning from Chelmsford’s example and experience. In short, if we want to get Britain working again, it can never start too early, and it must start with supporting children. Indeed, it is these practical solutions that would offer young people from diverse backgrounds the opportunities to experience and begin successful, challenging and meaningful careers in crucial sectors such as construction. Let me turn quickly to the issue of health. It is clear that we cannot get Britain working again if we cannot get Britain healthy again. On that subject, I am afraid that I continue to be dismayed by the state of Broomfield hospital, which is just outside my constituency but serves as Chelmsford’s main healthcare facility. I have held numerous roundtables and surgeries with staff and patients alike to hear from them directly about the challenges facing the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, of which the hospital forms a part. That is easily one of the most concerning issues to local residents, myself included. Like everyone else, I want to ensure that my friends and family know that they can trust the trust if the worst happens. That is why I was genuinely pleased in March, when the Health Secretary announced that our trust was being placed into an intensive recovery programme to ensure that swift action was taken to address its many challenges. However, almost two months on, I received word yesterday that the trust is yet to receive any details on what the recovery programme even entails. It is almost unbelievable that a programme labelled “intensive” and announced in March to begin last month has given precisely zero details about what it means, even to the management of one of the five trusts singled out as desperately in need of support. Unfortunately, that is entirely symptomatic of a Government approach that has led to the rather precarious position that the Prime Minister finds himself in today—or possibly even worse. There are promises of swift delivery, meaningful change and competent leadership, then a failure to do any of those things. Healthcare is essential to every one of us. Staff in the NHS do exhausting, incredible work and are definitely to be commended, but they cannot be expected to turn failing trusts around if the Government cannot begin to describe to them how they want to help them, what they want them to do or how they will be supported in doing so. Our NHS and my constituents deserve and need far better. I ask the Health Secretary—whoever that turns out to be in the weeks and months ahead—to communicate urgently the programme’s details with the relevant trusts, such as Mid and South Essex, so that work can begin right now. Let me turn briefly to other matters. The previous King’s Speech promised a draft Bill to ban conversion therapy, but that did not happen. Here we are again, with a promise in yesterday’s King’s Speech, as has been mentioned by other hon. Members across the House, for “a draft Bill to ban abusive conversion practices.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 May 2026; Vol. 856, c. 3.] As a slight aside, I know that I have spent quite a bit of time talking about the construction industry and I am now talking about conversion practices, but I want to be very clear that these two issues are very different. It was a bit strange to hear cladding remediation and conversion practices lumped into the same sentence in the King’s Speech. I wonder whether there was a bit of confusion in the Government about how wildly different those two issues are—we are not talking about converting buildings. Then again, perhaps that highlights the scale of the challenge and why the Government have not prioritised this matter; perhaps they truly do not understand the issue. I must remind the Government that we have heard time and again of the impact that abusive conversion practices have on the LGBT+ community. Indeed, it was Theresa May’s Government in 2018 who first proposed such a Bill, yet here we are, almost a decade later, without even a draft in front of us. As other hon. Members have done, I ask the Government what assurances they can give that such a Bill will finally come forward, given that it has been promised before but did not happen. The LGBT+ community must not again be told to wait until the end of this Session only to see another promise broken. The Government must publish a trans-inclusive Bill to ban conversion practices as a matter of urgency. The Government recognise a lot of the challenges that face our country, and I do not doubt their desire to improve people’s lives, but they either refuse to carry out the appropriate solutions or are too timid to make an argument for the bold change that our country has been crying out for, even if it is sometimes controversial. We are fortunate to live in an amazing country. We have wonderful people, world-class skills and expertise, globally admired institutions and businesses, a deep history built on the principles of fairness, tolerance and inclusivity, and enormous potential to lead the world in so many ways—politically, economically and morally. However, we need to do more than just recognise that it is not currently working for everyone; we need real, workable, practical and pragmatic ideas that can and must be implemented at pace. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches want this Government to make positive changes. It matters for us and our constituents that they do that, so I encourage them to listen to the calls of Liberal Democrat Members, who are willing to work together to achieve the positive changes that we need to reduce inequality, increase economic security, and ultimately see off the politics of hatred and grievance.

I start by declaring that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment, of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, and of the all-party parliamentary group for classics. I welcome the ambitious agenda set out yesterday in a King’s Speech that places working people at its heart—an agenda that builds on our promises to deliver a safer, stronger and more prosperous country. It is an agenda that will get Britain working and break down the barriers to opportunity, both for our country on the global stage and for every young person in it. Opening up new opportunities for growth and trade is a vital part of this Government’s commitment to working families, because it is crucial that my constituents not only hear about the change we are delivering, but feel it in their pockets. As such, the Prime Minister is right when he says that a stronger relationship with Europe is in all of our best interests. Our European neighbours are our closest friends and allies, and greater opportunities on the continent for our businesses and our young people can only mean a more prosperous country with more opportunities for all. [Interruption.] It does not make sense to be so fixated on an ideology that we act against the interests of our nation and reject the opportunities that are on our doorstep—we are hearing some of that in the chuntering from Conservative Front Benchers. I remind those lining up to cry “Brexit betrayal” that the Leave campaign never promised that we would be completely isolated from our closest economic and defensive allies. In fact, it promised quite the opposite. A closer relationship with Europe means a safer, stronger, more prosperous Britain at a time when that has never been more important, and youth mobility offers brighter futures for our young people. I am proud to support the Government’s clear leadership in this area. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to supporting British businesses and jobs through tackling unnecessary regulation and supporting businesses to introduce 50,000 more apprenticeships. I was delighted to see this in action in my constituency with the recent opening of a new youth employment hub in Bracknell, which will support hundreds of young people to enter the workplace and develop their skills and futures. I extend a huge thank you to the local businesses across Bracknell Forest that are supporting this initiative, because I and this Government recognise that youth unemployment is not just a problem that lies with individuals. It will take a whole-of-society approach to reach the one in eight young people who are not in education, work or training, and give them hope again. We also know that for many young people the barriers to opportunity begin far before they even think of entering the workplace. Of all the issues that constituents have raised with me since I became Bracknell’s MP, none has been as complex, pervasive, emotional or deeply personal as those I have heard from parents and children experiencing our broken SEND system. As such, I could not welcome more strongly the commitment this Government have made to face the problem head-on and reform our broken system. This Government’s determination to deliver for SEND young people is already making a big difference in my constituency, where funding has been confirmed for a new SEND school at Buckler’s Park in Crowthorne. Under the previous Conservative Government, that school was promised, but never funded. This Government are ending the years of empty promises, and are not only investing in the services that families so badly need, but getting on with the work we were elected to do and rebuilding those services so that they actually function. My only ask—the SEND Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), who is in her place and always listens very attentively on this issue, knows what I am going to say—is that we build that school as quickly as possible. Having visited my constituency, she knows all too well that in Bracknell, and across the country, there are very many young people who need us to act as quickly as we can to get them the places in mainstream education and specialist provision that they so badly need. On that note, it is also hugely welcome to see the Government delivering an initial £1 million in funding to Bracknell Forest council to establish our new Experts at Hand service, which will improve the availability of occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and educational psychologists to our local schools. I was delighted to get an update on that new programme earlier this week. Many parent carers are concerned about the need to train more practitioners. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister also recognises those challenges, so I hope we can set out an ambitious but deliverable workforce plan as soon as possible, to make sure that the new service can make the difference it is intended to make. Recently, I hosted a meeting with parents in my constituency to discuss the SEND proposals. There was no doubt among those who attended that the system is badly in need of change, but parent carers raised concerns about individual support plans containing the right safeguards to ensure that every young person gets the support they need. I know that Ministers take that task extremely seriously, and I welcome their resolve to listen to families and educators and to make sustained, meaningful change. Accountability is important, so I simply ask Ministers to focus on that issue as they respond to the consultation. I look forward to the Government setting out all of their proposals in the education for all Bill, to rebuild a system that will give every child the education and opportunities they deserve. Reform to our education system is about high standards for all, but it is also about preparing our young people to be active, informed and ambitious for their futures. As a former teacher, I know that young people have much to contribute to our political and civic life, and I wholeheartedly welcome the plans set out by this Government to extend the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. As chair of the APPG for schools, learning and assessment, I have been leading an inquiry into votes at 16 and how we can ensure schools are supporting young people to engage in our democracy. I thank the democracy Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon), for attending one of our evidence sessions. We have heard from a wide range of young people, educators and civic organisations, and the message has been clear. This is the moment for a wider reflection on our education system and how it serves all of us in areas of civic life—not just in the classroom, but across society. The success of votes at 16 will be reflected, not just in how many young people vote, but in how they feel about their experience of voting and the tools that are available to support them to exercise their right to vote. I welcome the work that is already being undertaken in this area, including the curriculum and assessment review and the schools White Paper. I urge Ministers to grasp the opportunity to embrace a fully cross-departmental approach to delivering this policy, so that our young people develop the skills that employers are crying out for, the skills that will empower them in every area of their life, and have a sense of belonging. It is so important for everyone to feel that they belong to, contribute to, and are part of this United Kingdom. This Government are fixing the foundations of this country. A quality education and secure employment are the gateways to opportunity, but so too is having a safe and decent home to live in. Too many people are denied that—stuck in insecure, impermanent accommodation and on long waiting lists for social housing simply to find somewhere suitable to live. We have already done a huge amount to tackle those injustices through our Renters’ Rights Act 2025. I am proud that Bracknell’s history as a post-war new town shows what ambition a Labour Government can have when staring a housing crisis in the face, a point that was made eloquently yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) when seconding the Humble Address. Let me quickly put on record that I am as proud of Bracknell as he is of Harlow. As everyone in this House will know, that is quite a big boast, given how supportive he is of Harlow. I welcome the announcement of a social housing renewal Bill, including measures to protect our vital social housing stock and to introduce greater protections for tenants in instances of domestic abuse. I am pleased that the Government are proposing reforms to tackle disposals, but I would like us to go even further in this area so that local authorities are not just informed of any disposal of valuable housing stock, but must approve of it. Given that we have so many families on our waiting lists, I think that is very important. The social housing renewal Bill will ensure the investment and reform needed so that the great legacy that made Bracknell and other new towns what they are today can belong not just to Labour Governments past, but equally to this Government. Finally, I will touch on something a bit more personal, but no less important. There is no place in the Britain I know and love for abusive conversion practices to continue. The promise we made to ban them is one we must keep, and I offer my full support to the Government’s plans to bring forward draft legislation to do so in this Session. It is right that that ban will be fully trans-inclusive. The British people elected this Labour Government to deliver change. In my maiden speech, I emphasised that that would not be easy and would not necessarily always happen as quickly as we would like. Transparently, this week has demonstrated the truth of those words far more than I would have liked, so let me simply finish with this promise to the constituents who put their faith in me and sent me to this place to represent them. Whatever the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune care to throw at me, I will remain focused on the one and only thing I was sent here to do: delivering change for my constituents.

It is a real pleasure to speak in this King’s Speech debate, which is my first in this Chamber. Last time around, I was sat on my own in a hotel room on the south bank with covid, warmly shared as a welcome gift by a lovely new colleague just after I entered this place. After the local election results last week, it is clear that the country has spoken. People right across this great nation are deeply, viscerally disappointed in the performance of this Government since the general election two years ago. This Government came in with such promise and such a huge majority that they could have done anything they wanted. They could have swung into action on day one, giving people real hope, with a real commitment to turbocharge the economy, to clean up our dying and degraded natural environment and to provide truly affordable and social homes, rather than more million-pound new builds like those we see carpeting South Devon. Instead, two years on, people are struggling to pay their bills, young people are failing to find their first job, parents are still fighting with local authorities to secure a decent education for their child, and thousands upon thousands of people simply cannot afford a secure roof over their head.

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

What I said is absolutely correct. In my constituency of South Devon, new build homes in developer-led housing estates are selling for £950,000. We are not providing the homes we need—the social homes and the truly affordable homes that young people, young couples, young families and people who want to move out from their parents’ home need. We are providing the wrong sort of homes. Having a system led by housing developers that are driven by profit will never provide the homes that we need. Is it any wonder that voters across the country have turned to the extreme ends of our political spectrum to stick two fingers up at what they see as an ineffective political class that has completely ignored them? “Blame the immigrants” or “blame the billionaires” seem to be the two easy answers thrown out by these parties to the difficult, thorny, complicated questions that this country faces. The sad truth is that neither of those two propositions will be enough to make the changes we need to see to reform the structures of our economy and public services and to improve the lives of those who need it most. Ten years ago, we saw a referendum that cut our country in two, like a chainsaw through the trunk of a mighty oak tree, and that division has not healed. The arguments still rage, the communities still feel left behind, and the false promise offered in that awful referendum has turned out to be nothing but smoke and mirrors. People are still angry on both sides of that debate. The House will not be surprised to hear that as a Liberal Democrat, I welcome the Government’s promise to strengthen ties with our nearest neighbours in Europe. The House will probably not be surprised to hear me also say that that promise does not go far enough, especially if we are to get Britain working again. The upcoming EU reset Bill is just the latest example of the Government’s lack of ambition when it comes to rebuilding our trading links with Europe. When we talk of Brexit red tape, nowhere is that more limiting than in the red lines that Labour tied around itself in its 2024 manifesto. It said on coming into office that the previous Conservative Government had left a £22 billion black hole in the UK’s public finances, yet the botched Brexit deal has left a £90 billion hole, similar in scale to the damage wreaked by the 2008 financial crash. Businesses in South Devon regularly talk to me about the nightmare of trying to do business with Europe. Many have just given up on it altogether. Others are hanging on, desperately hoping that trading restrictions will be eased and customers will come back. I welcome the promise of a sanitary and phytosanitary deal, which cannot come fast enough for my food and farming businesses. We want to hear the Government talk about a customs union with the EU to slash the red tape that is holding us back, because economic growth has stagnated in this country for far too long. We also want to see the UK at the heart of European defence co-operation, not only for the benefits it would bring to national security, but for the investment opportunities it would provide for the supply chain. We must be front and centre of those negotiations. Europe would welcome our involvement, and we must be confident about shaping and leading that discussion. There is so much to cover in the King’s Speech, but I will just touch on a couple of other areas. I have talked about people feeling ignored and forgotten. Nowhere is the visible representation of that starker than in our high streets, with boarded-up shops, endless vape shops, cafés and pubs struggling to survive, and exorbitant rents making it impossible to get a new business off the ground. The Government have pledged to nationalise British Steel to protect fewer than 3,000 jobs. I have no doubt that the wider economy in and around Scunthorpe will truly benefit from that decision, but why is there nothing in this speech to protect our once vibrant and precious hospitality industry, which has lost nearly 100,000 jobs in the past year? Those jobs are less visible than the closure of a steelworks or a car plant, because it is 10 jobs here and 20 jobs there, but the effect of the national insurance rise has been devastating up and down the country. Businesses have been calling last orders once and for all or simply shrinking their offer. In my constituency, Rockfish, the California Inn, the Maltsters Arms and the Berry Head hotel—I could go on and on, because hospitality is the backbone of our economy—are cutting staff hours, choosing not to employ extra staff or closing two days a week so that they can manage on one exhausted chef, rather than employing a second, with the owner of the pub having to step into the kitchen when the chef has a few precious days off. This death by a thousand cuts is having a devastating impact on youth employment and part-time jobs. Those are the jobs that so many people rely on to combine with parenting, caring or studying. Let us not forget that every teenager who gets a job washing pots or waiting tables is learning valuable skills that will take them forward in the job market for years to come. As the Secretary of State said earlier today, this is about the story of their lives, and I was pleased to hear his passion for supporting young people into work, but youth unemployment now stands at around 20%. That is utterly shameful. One in five of our young people is unable to even get a start in the workforce. The new small business protections Bill is laudable, but it falls far short of a proper plan to protect small businesses. We are disappointed that the Government have not listened to our plan to scrap the national insurance rise, reform business rates and prioritise a high street revival. As a south-west MP, there is a list of Bills that I would have loved to see in the King’s Speech but are sadly missing. Yet again, the rural south-west seems to have been ignored. We have £45 billion for Northern Powerhouse Rail, but not a word about boosting vital bus services across the villages of the south-west. If we are to get people working again, we have to get them to work. If there are no buses, they cannot get there. There was nothing on boosting digital connectivity for hard-to-reach areas.

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

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We do not have a mayor in Devon, so we miss out on a lot of that legislation’s benefits. I have loads of villages that do not even have a bus, so talk of bus fares is completely irrelevant when there is literally no service. How are young people supposed to get to college or work or seek opportunities if they cannot get out of their village? There was no legislation to require banks to offer a minimum service guarantee to their customers. Lloyds bank made nearly £7 billion in profit in 2025, yet it closed branches with impunity, and the Government’s promises to address the lack of banking services have led to nothing so far. There are some things in the King’s Speech that I would like to welcome. I am pleased to see the Government pledge finally to break the link between gas and electricity prices, which is vital in a country that depends more heavily on gas than many of our neighbours. Investment in home-grown renewable power is also welcome, but we want to see the focus of solar on warehouses and car parks, not on prime farmland. We also want to see stronger community benefits from new renewable infrastructure, empowering communities with the right to buy and sell community energy locally. Talk of farmland leads me to a devastating omission from the King’s Speech: not once was the word “nature” mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) so beautifully laid out in her speech last night, that was probably something that the King himself was disappointed to see. Where is the desire to protect our green spaces, to prompt a revival in nature, to restore our ancient forests and our peatlands, and to clean up our dirty rivers and waterways once and for all? We live in one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, yet nature is not a priority for the Government, despite all the benefits that it brings to people’s health and wellbeing. If we truly want to cut the NHS bill, that would be a really good place to start. The new water Bill is welcome. The Liberal Democrats have long called for Ofwat to be replaced by a regulator that actually has some teeth, but until the Government address the elephant in the room and look at the ownership of the water industry, nothing will really change. No one should be making a profit from water: something that is so vital not only to us as humans, but to the health of all our planet’s ecosystems. The Liberal Democrats have long led the campaign in Parliament against the sewage scandal, tabling 44 amendments to the Water (Special Measures) Bill, none of which the Government or the Conservatives accepted. They must do more. Lastly, I will mention the education for all Bill. We all know that support for children with special educational needs is broken, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to tackling it; we urgently need this reform. As my party’s schools spokesperson, I will scrutinise every line of the legislation when it comes before the House, so I will no doubt have time to say far more about it, but let me say this. We must build a system designed around the potential that every child has and that works to their strengths, noticing their gifts and talents and what they can achieve given the right support. We must stop judging them by their limitations, ostracising them, separating them from their peers and causing lifelong damage to their mental health and confidence. Reform to SEND must be done with children and parents at its heart, with open, honest consultation with families, and with a serious commitment to invest the money needed in our educators and our schools so that they can rise to the challenge and truly build a more inclusive system that works for every child, from those facing the hardest of challenges to the lucky and blessed high achievers among them. It is a strange thing to deliver this speech opposite Government Benches that are so clearly riven by intrigue, and not knowing who will be leading this legislation through Parliament. It is my hope that whatever path our Government colleagues decide to go down today—or over the next few days and weeks—they will commit to going further in the areas that I have set out, remember the challenges and higher costs faced by rural areas in service delivery and communications, and prioritise nature in every single major decision they make about infrastructure and new building programmes. Think bigger, think bolder, think greener for the benefit of everyone.

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I please gently remind Members that we must not make reference to the monarch having particular views?

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in the debate. I had the privilege of making my maiden speech during the last King’s Speech debate. Since then, I am proud to have supported 50 pieces of legislation that are helping to build a better Britain, deliver positive change for working people and, crucially, giving my constituents hope for the future. I will not list all 50 today, but I do want to reflect on some of the changes that I believe demonstrate the positive direction of travel that the Labour Government have set that have helped get Britain working again. In the last 22 months, we have delivered the biggest upgrade in workers’ rights in a generation, giving people greater security, fairness and dignity at work. We have taken decisive steps to strengthen protections for private renters so that families can feel more secure in their homes, and through the removal of the two-child benefit cap over 2,500 children in my constituency—almost half a million more across the country—will be lifted out of poverty. As a former NHS mental health worker for 22 years, I am particularly proud that this Labour Government chose to prioritise the long overdue modernisation of the Mental Health Act. This reform will strengthen patient choice, autonomy and legal protections and help ensure that people experiencing mental ill health are treated with the dignity, respect and compassion they deserve. I also welcome the progress made in my local NHS. I previously raised the case of a coffee shop at the William Harvey hospital in Ashford being converted into an emergency ward to treat accident and emergency patients. Steps have been taken to address corridor care at the hospital, including a share of the £29 million investment that East Kent hospitals NHS trust received to expand the same-day emergency care unit at the hospital. I equally welcome the recent announcement by the Department of Health and Social Care about the new intensive recovery programme. My fellow Labour colleagues and I have been pushing for an intensive strategy to provide help for hospitals in east Kent since we were elected. This is an opportunity for East Kent hospitals to receive the long awaited help they have been asking for and make improvements across the board. I thank the local hard-working frontline NHS staff. As we look to build on the many achievements of the last Session, it is important that the Government are bolder and faster in delivering the change that the people of Ashford, Hawkinge and the villages voted for at the last general election. Against that backdrop, I was pleased that in the King’s Speech the Government set out welcome measures to unblock the barriers to growth, protect households from the pressures of the cost of living and rebuild our public services. Through the King’s Speech, the Government continued to recognise the financial pressures that families are facing and reflected their determination to ensure that economic growth is felt in people’s day-to-day lives, not just in headline statistics. I am pleased to see the Government’s determination about how every child deserves the chance to succeed to the best of their ability and should not be held back by poverty or special educational needs. I also welcome what the King’s Speech said about further rebuilding our relationship with the European Union. In an increasingly unstable world, our long-term national interest is best served by closer co-operation with our European partners on defence, on trade and on strengthening our economy. In my constituency in particular, our trading relationship with Europe is critical to local prosperity. We must do everything we can to help businesses across Kent sell their goods and services to our largest and closest trading partners. That brings me to the vital issue of international rail connectivity and the future of Ashford International. Following the Office of Rail and Road’s decision late last year to grant Virgin Rail access to the international depot in east London, I welcome Virgin’s public commitment that its cross-channel services will stop at Ashford International, provided that the station is reopened. Two other operators, FS Trenitalia and Gemini Trains, are also developing proposals to introduce international services between the UK and mainland Europe to provide greater competition on the line, and both have previously expressed a willingness to include Ashford International as a stop. The return of international services to Ashford would be transformative, because it would deliver a major boost to economic growth locally and across the wider south-east. It would make it quicker and more efficient for local businesses to trade with mainland Europe, and it would encourage inward investment by improving connectivity. It would also open up Kent, Sussex and the south-east to even more tourists. The Good Growth Foundation estimated last year that the return of international services could inject £2.7 billion into the UK economy over five years—a prize well worth pursuing. I therefore urge the Government to work actively with private operators, regulators and other stakeholders to ensure that Ashford International can be reopened in time for new cross-channel services to stop there. As a Kent MP, I warmly welcome the announcement in the King’s Speech that the Lower Thames crossing will be built at pace. I know that work has already started on this highly significant road-building scheme, which will provide a boost to the economy locally and across the rest of the country. It will strengthen connectivity to major ports, including Dover, and will improve resilience and reliability for road users. As we strive to enhance the reliability and resilience of that part of the road network, I hope that we can find a long-term solution to the repeated use of Operation Brock on the M20. Every time it is put in place, it causes disruption and delays for residents, local businesses and haulage firms. Decisions on its deployment rest with the Kent and Medway Resilience Forum, and I once again urge the forum to ensure that it is used only as an emergency measure. I also ask the Government to continue pressing for improved resilience and smarter traffic management on the M20, to avoid Operation Brock being regularly deployed during school holidays and other busy periods. To conclude, I want to mention one final piece of legislation that I am pleased to see return in the King’s Speech. Having recently served on its Bill Committee, I look forward to the Representation of the People Bill completing its passage through Parliament. The Bill will extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, strengthen the rules on political donations, and implement the Rycroft review’s recommendations to better protect our democracy from foreign interference. Its passage will not only fulfil a clear Labour party manifesto commitment but, more importantly, help to safeguard our democratic system by making it more robust, transparent and accountable at a time of growing global instability. That is an objective that I hope Members across the House can support.

Yesterday’s King’s Speech showed that, despite all the noise from Opposition Members, this Government are determined to get their heads down and get on with the job that the British people sent us to Westminster to do. After years of drift, decline and short-termism under the Conservative party, this Labour Government are choosing a different path—one that restores hope to towns like Westhoughton, Horwich, Blackrod and Bolton in my constituency. As the electorate told us last week, and as the Prime Minister has acknowledged, the challenges we face need to be met with substantial systematic reforms. Families in my constituency are feeling the pressure of rising bills, stretched public services and insecure work, which is why I was proud that in the previous parliamentary Session, this Government passed landmark legislation on workers’ rights, protections for private sector renters, bringing rail back into public ownership, rolling out clean energy and achieving much-needed reforms to our policing system. This Session’s programme shows that the Government are prepared to act with urgency and purpose in order to build on the good work that has already been done. One of the most important priorities set out yesterday is ending the opportunity crisis facing so many young people and families across our country. I will focus most of the rest of my remarks on that topic. For years, families navigating the special educational needs and disabilities system have felt exhausted and ignored. At a roundtable that I held recently with concerned parents, I was told about the endless battles to secure assessments, support and specialist provision for children. Frankly, teachers and schools have been asked to do more with less, and children with enormous talent and potential have too often been denied the support they deserve. That is not acceptable, and it is not sustainable for this country. The education for all Bill represents an important step towards the meaningful SEND reform that is vital because, as Labour Members believe, every child deserves the opportunity to go as far as their talent and effort can take them. We all know, deep in our hearts, that it should not matter where children are from or how wealthy their families are, yet all too often the current system bakes in inequalities at a young age that stay with children for the rest of their lives. Alongside that reform, another vital commitment featured in the King’s Speech yesterday: our offer to young people, including this Government’s youth guarantee. For too long, too many young people have been locked out of work, training or opportunity, which is why the Government’s industrial strategy and apprenticeships plan matter so much. It is this Labour Government who are removing the barriers to economic growth that stifled innovation and creativity, and it is this Labour Government who are creating the much needed pathways into secure, highly paid jobs for the next generation of Boltonians.

The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech. One of my big concerns, about which we need to be talking far more, is that jobs for young people in the 18 to 24 category are being replaced by automation and artificial intelligence. That is especially true for young people who are in the age category coming out of university: they are shackled with tens of thousands of pounds of debt and the graduate jobs that they had hoped to get are now being automated. What does he think that the Government can do to ensure that the cohort coming out of university and coming into the workplace have good career pathways in front of them?

The hon. Member makes a valid point about artificial intelligence and the world of work, which is increasingly changing and facing threats but also facing opportunities. I would like the Government to continue to work strongly with our further and higher education sector, to think proactively about what opportunities are coming down the line for work in the sectors that he is talking about, five or 10 years in the future. We have to be creative in thinking about what those opportunities look like, although artificial intelligence is not just about threats.

On the topic of giving younger people access to AI and digital skills, Charminster library in my constituency of Bournemouth East has been closed indefinitely by the Liberal Democrat-led council, which does not have a plan to repair or rescue the library. That library could provide a space for younger people to acquire those critical AI and digital skills, so does my hon. Friend agree that our community is only as strong as the space that we have and that we need libraries, like the one in Charminster, to be reopened, so that younger people can have access to such skills?

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point about Charminster library. I know that he is a terrific campaigner for his local community assets and I wish him all the best for success in that campaign. As a former Erasmus student, may I put on the record my heartfelt support for our re-entry to that programme? My time on the Erasmus programme in Hanover opened up a world of possibilities that were unimaginable to a young lad growing up in Bolton, expanding my horizons, teaching me new skills, preparing me for the world of work and giving me the confidence to go out and get full-time employment after I graduated. It is only right that the kids of today have the same access to the opportunities I had when I was growing up. The King’s Speech recognises a simple, inescapable reality: Britain is stronger when we work closely with our European partners. Businesses across Bolton and the north-west know the importance of strong European ties. Manufacturers, exporters and local employers all benefit when Britain has stable, constructive relationships with our nearest neighbours. The Conservative party wrecked our ties with Europe, damaged trade flows, hindered growth and frustrated co-operation. Businesses faced unnecessary barriers, opportunities were lost and relationships that took decades to build were neglected. Take the trailer supplier Indespension, located in my patch, a pioneering company snared up by Brexit-related red tape. I have been working with the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), to cut through some of that duplicative bureaucracy, but the European partnership Bill should be the vehicle to clear away the very burdens imposed by the Conservatives, aided and abetted by their colleagues in Reform UK. What we saw under previous successive Conservative Governments, whether they were supported by the UK Independence party or the Brexit party at the time, was common sense sacrificed on the altar of ideological purity by a Government then more focused on pithy three-word slogans than on doing the hard yards to negotiate the best deal for Britain. My constituents know it, the members of my party know it and my colleagues on these Benches know it too. That is why this Government’s EU reset is about acting pragmatically in Britain’s national interest to secure the very best for our country. Taken together, this Government’s programme will build national resilience, spread opportunity and restore confidence that the future can be better for working people and their families: a Britain with stronger public services; a Britain where children in Bolton West with SEND receive the support they deserve; a Britain where young people in Westhoughton, Horwich, Bolton and Blackrod all have the chance to succeed; a Britain with clean, home-grown energy and stronger economic security; and a Britain that rebuilds its place in the world with confidence and purpose. There are no silver bullets after 14 years of decline. We must be honest about the trade-offs and investments required to rebuild our country. I am proud to support a King’s Speech that shows that Labour is getting on with the job for my constituents across Bolton West.

I do not know if colleagues noticed, but a lot of rhetoric and rumours have been flying around Westminster recently. MPs have been huddled in the Tea Room and the corridors, whispering feverishly—tensions are high. After all the anticipation and the angst, today was the day. Rumour became reality. Members will have guessed it: today it was announced that, for the start of 2026, we had the fastest GDP per capita growth in four years. In Q1, the UK’s growth was the fastest of six G7 nations for which we have data. Reports of the economy being in demise under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been greatly exaggerated, as have reports of the political demise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Today’s good economic news matters for my constituents in Rugby. Economic growth matters for jobs and public services, for tackling the cost of living and much more. The Labour party is aptly named: labour, work. It is a party founded to represent working people in this House of Commons. We want people to work, and we are doing much to help people find work, to help people who face challenges of all kinds to get into work, to ensure that all have dignity when they are in work, to help them navigate a rapidly changing world of work and to ensure compassion and support for those who cannot work but who can still contribute and lead fulfilling lives. Because we are Labour we believe in an active state, not in the laissez-faire approach of the Conservatives or the money-from-who-knows-where approach of Reform UK. We believe in work. It is easy for people in here and for people outside to assume things about someone’s professional and work background. Even I have made that mistake. After reading the Reform UK leaflets that came through my door about the local elections, emblazoned with the face of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), I made the schoolboy error of thinking that, given his mythical status as a man of the people, his work background was varied, perhaps even working class. It turns out that this tribune of the people was a commodities trader in the City of London—nothing wrong with that. I would not want hon. Members to assume anything about my professional background. To misquote President Reagen in 1984, I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponents’ inexperience in blue collar jobs. My career has been varied. I did a paper round, I have been a gardener, I have done farmwork, I worked in a cinema, and I share with the Leader of the Opposition the fact that I worked in a McDonald’s restaurant for several years, although not the same one as her. I have been a waiter and a bartender, I was a hospital porter for two years, and I even worked here 20 years ago for Labour MPs. However, I have spent most of my career in the private sector in strategic communications consultancy. I say that because all jobs are important. All add value—public or private, blue or white collar, full time or part time. From our teenage years, they teach us that our labour is valuable and that we can benefit not only ourselves but the wider community. Members across the House will know that I have spoken many times about engaging young people and ensuring they have the best start in life. That has been a core tenet of my philosophy as an MP, and I am pleased to see it reflected in the King’s Speech, with policies that give young people more freedom, more opportunity and more hope, because building the foundations of a young life through work helps us strengthen the foundations of our country. In the Prime Minister’s much analysed speech on Monday, he described a vision to relentlessly pursue opportunities for our young people, promising a closer relationship with Europe, where young people can benefit from the Erasmus+ scheme and a new youth experience programme, which I strongly commend. He placed an even greater emphasis on young people: we will invest in apprenticeships, technical excellence colleges and a guaranteed offer of a job, training or work placement for every young person. Those measures will be brought forward in Bills announced in the King’s Speech. I welcome this Government’s laser focus on getting Britain working because, sadly, the latest official statistics make for depressing reading. They show that nearly 1 million 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. I want to see that figure come down, as I am sure all Members do. Not only does this situation rob young people of opportunity; it also risks condemning them to a life of inactivity, reliant on the state for their needs. That is unfair both to them and to the rest of the tax-paying population. The costs are borne by the individual, too. Analysis suggests that someone who is long-term unemployed loses around £1 million in lifetime earnings, which is absolutely shocking. Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker: the scale of the problem is a direct consequence of 14 years of Tory rule. Under their watch, the number of 16 to 24-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training rose from 673,000 to 921,000. Shamefully, young people were written off, while the enormous benefits bill continued to grow. The Green party attracts those who are disillusioned with the status quo, but it offers no concrete pathways into work or training. I cannot see Reform offering anything substantial either, apart from Orwellian, un-British slogans about “remoralising” our youth. Young people do not need their morals recalibrated by that party or any other. Young people already have the initiative and the talent; they just need to be encouraged and helped. The Bills and measures announced in the King’s Speech will do just that and go beyond what this Government have already achieved to tackle the national scandal of young people being written off: the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of new funding; hundreds of thousands of new training and work experience placements; and a new jobs guarantee that fully subsidises six months of paid employment for 18 to 21-year-olds who are long-term unemployed and on universal credit. Alan Milburn’s review seeks to dig deeper into this issue, and I have been in touch with him to contribute to the much-needed work he is conducting with the Secretary of State. I have previously spoken in Parliament about driving job creation for young people. I have visited Rugby College in my constituency and met with Intec Business Colleges, and I am campaigning for a youth hub that will offer employment advice and wellbeing support. I recently supported Jobcentre Plus and the DWP in organising a well-attended jobs fair in Rugby. I want to do all I can to help everyone right across my constituency into work. However, young people need more attention, resources and empowerment. They and their needs must be elevated in the decision-making process and the lawmaking process, as we govern more widely, and among other stakeholders in society. To co-ordinate that, I hope the Government will consider going further by appointing a youth commissioner, or even better, a dedicated Cabinet Minister for young people and the future generations. Such a role would scrutinise the work of Government, so that the benefits and trade-offs are assessed against the needs of young people and the future generations, ensuring that every decision takes their future into account. Their demographic is too often overlooked, but the legislation set out in the King’s Speech offers the Government an opportunity to give young people a genuine voice. Since January last year, I have been making the case for what I call a youth triple lock—a commitment to protecting and expanding the opportunities for young people in the same way that we protect pensioners. That idea is also supported by my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters). It could include free bus travel, increasing maintenance loans above inflation or a voucher scheme for constructive activities—answers on a postcard. Before I draw my remarks to a conclusion, I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her moving words about her autism diagnosis. I am sure it is a difficult thing to speak publicly about. The Government should take this moment, and be bold in their approach. The Prime Minister set out on Monday that we can no longer continue with the status quo, or go back to the status quo ante, and that we must bring urgency to everything we do. I am glad we have a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Government and a parliamentary Labour party committed to ensuring that young people are empowered to become the architects and owners of the future, not merely tenants of one built by others. This is work in progress. This King’s Speech shows that Labour is the party of work, and we are making progress.

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for T-levels. I thank Harrison Willmott, a sixth-form student and work experience student, who helped research some of the figures for my speech today. He is sitting in the Gallery. I also welcome today’s positive growth figures—the highest quarterly growth in the G7 and the highest real-terms growth in over four years, as well as falling unemployment. However, there are moments in a nation when a challenge becomes so large and so deeply rooted that it ceases to be merely a policy problem and becomes a test of national purpose. I believe that is where Britain now stands on work, skills and opportunity, because across our country, but particularly in communities such as mine in Bishop Auckland, a generation of young people are growing up under pressures that no previous generation quite faced in the same combination. Those young people have lived through covid and a youth mental health crisis, and they face rising housing insecurity, economic anxiety and a labour market that is changing faster than institutions have adapted. One in seven 16 to 24-year-olds in Bishop Auckland are not in education, employment or training. I recently visited Dene Valley and Shildon, a deprived part of my constituency that has the highest child poverty rate in County Durham. I met locals to listen to their views about regeneration, and senior citizens with long memories told me stories about a time when these villages were buzzing, with their own swimming baths and the best sprung dance floor in the area. It was a time when people could leave school, and go straight into apprenticeships in the mines, railways or brickworks. It was hard graft, but there was secure work and dignity. The closure of the pits, the wagon works and other industries left deep scars on our community and, in some cases, intergenerational poverty. I know the effect on a community of seeing thousands of jobs disappear, which is why I welcome this Government’s commitment to British Steel in the King’s Speech. I thank the Government for the work done to save 700 jobs at Hitachi in nearby Newton Aycliffe, and I also thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for leading that campaign. Britain’s NEET rate is significantly higher than in many comparable economies, and the consequences are not temporary. Research has shown that prolonged youth unemployment scars earnings, confidence and opportunities for decades. A young person disconnected from work at 19 can still feel the effects in middle age. This is not simply an economic failure; it is a moral failure. If we do not act now, we risk writing off the potential of an entire generation precisely at the moment that Britain needs their talents the most. When they were in government, the Conservatives hollowed out the very systems that help young people find their place, and they talked endlessly about opportunity while cutting away at the ladders that create it. Ensuring good jobs for our people is a fundamental duty for everyone in this place, so I welcome the ambition set out in the King’s Speech that will help to sustain and create new industries in the north-east, strengthening Britain’s energy security, expanding infrastructure, supporting the defence industries, accelerating the building of social and affordable homes, and creating opportunities through growth. When I look across the area that I am so privileged to represent, I see real opportunities: new industry around lithium in Weardale; geothermal energy and other types of renewable power to get us off the fossil fuels rollercoaster, creating energy that we build and keep, and creating local jobs; the potential for house building and regeneration in the Dene Valley area; defence jobs, with fantastic employers such as Cook Defence Systems in Stanhope, PGP and Teescraft already in the area, so we can become an eco-centre for the defence industry; new jobs in healthcare; and jobs for a generation of trained counsellors, educational psychologists, and speech and language therapists who will be in our schools thanks to this Government’s commitment to special educational needs. The King’s Speech also contained plans to strengthen our relationship with Europe. That matters, because it is not all good news. We have lost jobs in my community in Barnard Castle. Pharmaceutical jobs moved to Austria, on the other side of the boundary. We need to be honest: too many businesses I speak to tell me they struggle to find the skills they need in the workforce. We cannot deliver the defence manufacturing jobs without technicians, fabricators, engineers and advanced manufacturing apprenticeships. We cannot deliver clean power and energy resilience without electricians, retrofit specialists, geothermal engineers, heat network installers and construction workers. We cannot build the homes this country needs without skilled tradespeople. We cannot compete in a world transformed by AI and advanced technology if millions of young Britons are left without the skills or confidence to participate in the future economy. The great challenge of this decade is not whether good, honest work will exist; it is whether Britain will equip its people to do it. That requires us to rebuild the skills pipeline in Britain that has been neglected for too long. The answer is strengthening partnerships between FE colleges and local businesses.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I agree with a lot of what he has said, but on FE colleges, I happened to visit Richmond upon Thames College in my constituency earlier this week, and the chief executive of the group told me that this year it has had only 0.55% per student uplift in funding, despite the White Paper published by the Government last year promising a real-terms increase year on year. That means it will not be able to create the places that young people need or to pay its lecturers enough. Does he agree that that is sorely disappointing from his Front Bench?

I am coming on to talk about the importance of FE funding, while understanding the challenges the Government face. There is enormous demand to spend money everywhere, but I want to make the case for why we really need to resource FE. FE colleges endured years of under-investment. Funding per student fell by 11% over 14 years of Conservative government. Vocational education was too often treated as second class, and apprenticeship opportunities declined precisely at the moment we needed them most. Between 2017 and 2024, apprenticeship starts for under-19s fell sharply, while too much of the apprenticeship levy drifted away from creating genuine opportunities for young people to enter the labour market. At the very moment that Britain needed a skills revolution, we got drift. I spent some time as an FE college teacher during that period. It was a job that I loved. I think I loved it even more than this job because of the opportunity, teaching access to higher education courses, to work with school leavers who had struggled and with young adults who needed a second chance. I left because I was not really earning the minimum wage. That is how it is in our colleges. I want to take a moment to pay tribute to the fantastic staff at Bishop Auckland College for the vital work they do as teachers, mentors and carers to people in their late teens and young adult years, and to the work they also do to tackle poverty. I regularly meet Principal Shaun Hope, because I regard Bishop Auckland college as a key partner in everything I would like to achieve in the place I represent. He recently told me that they have a closet of clothes that they give away, and that because of the poverty of the students going to the college, he has had to add extra budget to ensure that everyone can get a breakfast and lunch. The decision to cut the education maintenance allowance and not replace it was one of the worst pieces of vandalism by the previous Government. That is why I welcome the lowering of the voting age in the Representation of the People Bill, giving young people a stake and the power to use their vote to demand better. I also welcome new protections from foreign interference, because I somehow doubt that a Thailand-based crypto billionaire had the interests of young people in Bishop Auckland at heart when he chose to give £5 million—and more—to Reform UK. I welcome the measures and ambitions outlined in the King’s Speech. I welcome the emphasis on growth and opportunity, the focus on rebuilding Britain’s industrial capacity, and the Government’s commitment to reforming skills provision and strengthening pathways into work. For too long Britain has operated with an outdated hierarchy of success—one that implied that the only prestigious route was academic. That thinking has held our country back. There should be no hierarchy of esteem between academic and vocational education, and a young person training to become an engineer, a care worker, a builder, a digital technician or a heat-pump installer contributes every bit as much to Britain’s future as someone sitting in a university lecture hall. Apprenticeships done properly remain one of the greatest engines of social mobility that the country has ever created. They provide not just qualifications but wages, confidence, structure, dignity and purpose. I welcome the move towards a more flexible growth and skills levy, new foundation apprenticeships, and the Government’s efforts to make it easier for small businesses to take on young apprentices again. The Association of Colleges, however, has rightly warned that, while additional in-year growth funding is welcome, colleges remain under intense financial pressure after years of rising student numbers, inflationary costs and workforce shortages. Colleges are being asked to deliver more students with more technical pathways, more specialist provision and more support for vulnerable learners, often without the long-term funding that they need to plan sustainably. If we ask FE colleges to become the backbone of Britain’s growth strategy, we must give them the resources to deliver. FE colleges are not merely peripheral institutions; they are core economic infrastructure. They train the people who will deliver the ambitions that we set out in the King’s Speech. In places such as Bishop Auckland, they are institutions of hope, aspiration and opportunity.

I rise as a former teacher and someone who loves my current job more than that one—although I did love teaching. Does my hon. Friend agree with the Education Committee that FE colleges that are currently not exempt from claiming back VAT are at a disadvantage compared with sixth-form colleges attached to schools that can claim it back, and that there is an argument that FE colleges should also get that advantage?

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention my absolute delight at the education for all Bill included in the King’s Speech. I intend to speak in the debate on that Bill when the time comes. I also thank the Minister for School Standards and the Secretary of State for what I thought was a model of how to engage with charities and parents, as well as with Back-Bench MPs, on that difficult but important piece of legislation. I think everybody across the House will welcome that Bill as they see the battleground over education, health and care plans coming to an end, and the proper resources that children need to thrive entering those schools. I will finish where I started, by saying that it is not a question of whether we can afford to create opportunity; the fact is that we cannot afford not to do so. The future of our country depends on it.

It is a great pleasure to welcome this King’s Speech after the bumper legislative year we have just had. Acts such as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 and the Employment Rights Act 2025 are already making a difference to my constituents, and there are more than 5,000 children in my area with better supported parents because of the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. When I talk to my constituents in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield about their priorities, they talk to me about jobs and wages; about bills and rents; about our towns; about why, for a long time, Britain has not felt like it works for them; about why young people feel written off; and about how we grow and feel the heat of growth in the chilly hills of east Lancashire. They ask whether their kids will have to move away to get a decent job, whether their NHS will get back to working properly and why the old, derelict industrial sites have been left sitting empty for years, blighting our communities. They ask me whether they should have hope for the future; they ask whether they should be able only to look back with fondness, instead of forward with confidence. Now they are being sold a story of grievance, anger and easy answers by the poisonous bubble-gum politics of parties such as Reform. That is why today’s debate matters. To get Britain working is to get Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield working, too. It is to get our economy working for places like ours again after 14 years of austerity and decline. It is to get our NHS working again and to give people the hope of decent jobs, pay and financial security again. This work is not done with slogans or easy answers, but built considerately, constantly and carefully, after being so quickly dismantled over the years.

Beaufort community centre in my constituency has had its doors closed. Employees have been made redundant. For them, it was more than just a job. It was a team; it was a dedication to their community. Children have lost out on their early years and childcare support, and families are having to look around to find alternative provision. Does my hon. Friend agree that our community is only as strong as our spaces, and that as a consequence, the Liberal Democrats should take control of that site, reopen the doors and provide what the community needs?

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend is an ardent campaigner for community spaces like the one he mentions, and I am sure he is taking that fight to his local council on behalf of his residents and the users of that facility. I am completely onside with him. I am not sure how much work my endorsement does, but I wish him all the best in his campaign. Getting Britain working has to mean something real in places such as Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield; it has to mean decent work, proper wages, real skills and investment in our towns to give a decent future and hope to our kids and grandkids. I am proud to say that this Labour Government are delivering on all those metrics, not in an overnight big bang, but through considered and substantial progress. In my constituency, wages are up, employment is up, public and private investment is up and funding for our schools, colleges and local councils is up, while our local NHS waiting lists are down and access to care is going up. As a point of fact, one in seven people were on NHS waiting lists when we took office in 2024, including in my constituency. That is not Britain working. I am glad to say that the lists are coming down at a historically fast pace. For too long, over the 14 years of the Tories, through austerity and cuts, too many constituents felt written off. Indeed, the numbers support that analysis. A big part of that came from a welfare system that the Tories built, which I believe was broken by design, with people signed off and written off, and young people and graduates left on the scrapheap. Under the Tories, the benefits bill ballooned by billions. They have no credibility on welfare reform. They talk tough, but it is this Government who are fixing the mess. The previous Government built a system that classified 2.8 million people as unfit for work and left them there. They built universal credit in a way that actively penalised people for trying—where taking on a few extra shifts could leave someone worse off than before. They left disabled people and people with long-term health conditions in an impossible position, wanting to work and contribute, but terrified that if they tried to do so and it did not work out, they would lose the support that kept them afloat. That was not a welfare system; it was a trap and a cycle of insecurity, worklessness and despair that the Tories perpetuated, while at the same time demonising these people. They talked tough while their system was doing the exact opposite. I welcome what this Government are doing to change that. The right to try is exactly the right approach: it gives disabled people the legal right to try work without the immediate fear of losing their benefits if things do not go perfectly. That might sound straightforward, but for constituents I have spoken to in Burnley—people who want to test for themselves part-time work and gradual return in order to rebuild their confidence—it could be transformative. The fear was real. Disabled people are not a problem to be solved or written off. They are people with expertise in their own lives, people with needs and ambitions. The principle of “nothing about us without us” has to run through the design and implementation of this policy, and I will be considering this through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis. Genuine consultation and involvement backed up with an extra £3.5 billion to support disabled people and those with long-term health conditions into employment represents serious money and a serious commitment. Good welfare policy has to do two things. It has to protect people who cannot work and who need support—the safety net—and it has to genuinely support people who can work back into employment and independence. It must not label them, park them or give up on them, but give them a hand up to get back on the horse. I am glad to see that this Government are committed to getting the balance right. The issues facing young people are one of the sharpest challenges in towns like mine. In 2024, we inherited nothing short of a national disgrace: nearly a million young people—under-25s—were not in employment, education or training, and we had just had the worst Parliament on record for falling living standards. The number of NEET young people went up by a quarter of a million in the final years before the 2024 election, and youth unemployment was at a record high. Once someone does not get their first leg up, the drift sets in and it becomes harder and harder to reverse. The human cost of that—the lost confidence, lost years and lost social impact—is real and lasting, especially in towns like mine. I have talked before in this Chamber about the great social ill of generational worklessness and how communities like mine, scarred from the closures of the mills and the mines, have never been given the chance nor the foundational support to properly recover. Some young people have no parent who can tell them how to do a CV or an interview, so when they leave school they feel abandoned in a scary and increasingly expensive world where there are no opportunities for them. In the short term, a young person may turn to the benefit system, because their mate has. Next thing they know, they are in debt. Then they might have a family and get responsibilities—and change looks scary. They are still looking for work, but know in their heart that they do not have the confidence or the knowledge to get into the jobs market, and feel that they missed their window to do so. That is how people get left behind, how their children get left behind. It damages the social fabric of our country. It is a disgrace that unemployment numbers shot up so high under the previous Government, because it was young people in towns like mine who suffered. Generationally, it is towns like mine that have always suffered—people have no hand up and no help; they are signed off, written off and politically demonised by the people who built the system that is trapping them there. I do not take a soft approach to welfare—of course, if someone can work, they absolutely should—but what has happened is not right. Our youth guarantee is part of the answer, but I hope that the Secretary of State is looking to go further and faster in supporting young people. He is welcome to come to Burnley any time he likes so that I can show him what we can do for young people in our towns if we give them just a little support. At this point, I want to give a shout-out to Burnley jobcentre and all the staff there, with whom I was proud to host a jobs fair in Padiham earlier this year. I hope to host another in Burnley later this year. The youth guarantee that the Secretary of State has set out is excellent: a work placement for young people aged 18 to 24 who have been seeking work for 18 months, with employment costs covered by Government. That is not a pilot scheme but an actual placement with real employment behind it. Businesses that take on a young person who has been on universal credit for more than six months will get a £3,000 youth jobs grant. For the small and medium-sized manufacturers, engineering firms, construction companies and family businesses that make up most of Burnley’s economy, that kind of support genuinely means the difference between making a hire and not being able to afford to do so. I care deeply about apprenticeships. We are backing 50,000 new starts, after apprenticeships collapsed under the last Government, as the Secretary of State said earlier. We are introducing a £2,000 grant for small businesses that take on an apprentice. That rises to £5,000 if the apprentice has been out of work for six months. For a small business on a tight margin in Burnley town centre, that is not a minor detail; it is the difference between offering a young person a future and turning them away. Not every young person wants to go to university and not every young person should feel like they have somehow failed if they choose a different path. There should be real dignity and real ambition attached to practical skills, construction and practical trades in technical work. Burnley has a proud industrial history. We have skilled people and businesses with genuine potential; what we have lacked for too long are the investment and infrastructure to match that potential. Under this Government, that investment is finally coming, and Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield are ready for it. Infrastructure matters. Transport links across east Lancashire still hold us back. Businesses need reliable connections to Manchester and across the north to expand and create jobs locally. Northern Powerhouse Rail and stronger rail connectivity are not luxuries for constituencies such as mine; they are economic necessities. I will always be here asking for more, particularly on buses and rail connections to Manchester, Leeds and Preston. While I am on the topic of small businesses, let me say something about minimum wage increases, which seem to spur a bit of political conversation. In towns like Burnley, we either accept that we are in a race to the bottom and that only low wages will allow businesses to grow—a very Victorian take—or we follow the facts and figures and accept that in such places, where earnings are spent locally, a rising tide lifts all boats. Although paying bar or shop staff might be more expensive for a business this year, the cumulative effect of an increased minimum wage across the constituency strengthens both consumer and retail spending, building a stronger economy in the medium term.

Nobody, and certainly nobody in my party, would argue that we should not pay the lowest-paid more, but businesses in my Chelmsford constituency tell me—I am pretty sure this happens across the country—that the issue is the knock-on effect on the differential. When businesses pay the lowest-paid more, they have to pay some of the people higher up the ladder a bit more as well, to keep the differential. The cumulative effect of that—plus other things, such as national insurance contribution increases—is what has created difficulties. I am not having a go, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to try to find solutions that support businesses to pay their staff more while increasing their business?

I am coming on to say, in fact, that of course the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business. I have heard, if not similar stories, then certainly experiences in the same vein. We had the debate on the national insurance increase in this place, but a good chunk of that increase, if not all of it, was allocated to NHS spend, which had a historic record increase under this Government, with £28 billion or £29 billion committed in the last financial year. A good chunk of that came from NI on employers. When we are looking at strengthening the national health service, asking employers to make a slightly bigger contribution to their employees’ healthcare is probably preferable to increasing the general tax take, which this Government pledged not to do in the election and have not done since. As I say, the increase has its limits and should not be a shock to business, but a downward drive on wages in towns like Burnley hits the whole economy, even if businesses initially want it. That is why real wages have grown more in the past 18 months of this Government than in the last 10 years of the Tory Government. Our economy is stronger because of the decisions we have made and defended. I hear regularly from local businesses about the practical difficulties of trading with European markets since Britain lost unfettered access to those markets. They want fewer delays, lower costs and less uncertainty. They want to get on with it. The European partnership Bill needs to deliver practical answers for businesses like theirs. I am yet to meet a large exporting business in Burnley, Padiham or Brierfield that has been better off since Brexit. In fact, they report to me that they are losing business to European competitors every week. None of that can be separated from what people in Burnley are dealing with financially right now: energy bills, food bills, fuel costs and rent. That comes up in almost every conversation I have. People want to work—they do work—but they want that work to pay enough to build a life. Cutting energy bills by up to 25% for manufacturers, driving forward on clean, home-grown energy, and investing in warmer homes and lower bills are not abstract policy objectives; they make the difference between a family building something and a family just about holding it together. What people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want is not unrealistic. They want decent jobs and opportunities for young people; they want a welfare system that opens doors, rather than closes them; they want wages that stretch far enough to actually build something; and they want investment in the towns that have waited long enough to feel confident about the future again. I think of all that derelict land in Burnley that I started this speech by mentioning—the old sites behind fencing and weeds that have been sat there for the best part of 20 years while people walk past and wonder if anybody in power has noticed. Those sites would be a good place to get Burnley working, to get Britain working, and I look forward to progressing my campaign with the Minister on these issues. Regeneration is not just about buildings; it is about whether people believe their town is moving forward. It is about whether a young person growing up in Burnley can look around and see the future there for themselves—right there, close to home, without having to pack up and leave to find it. For too long, people have felt like leaving is the only option. This Government’s job is to change that. This King’s Speech points in that direction with real intent and real investment behind it. After years of towns like mine feeling overlooked, I am proud to stand here trying to change that, because if we get this right, the people I represent will feel it, and they deserve to.

In 2024, the British people, including so many of my constituents, voted for change. After a decade of brutal austerity, they desperately needed a drastic and material improvement in their living standards. The last King’s Speech championed measures that have the potential to radically change the situation for people, from renters’ rights to employment rights and more. I am pleased that this King’s Speech brings forward the Government’s commitments to end conversion practices and to give the vote to 16 and 17-year-olds. Yet we are not seeing the transformative agenda that the country has been crying out for and that people who have always supported Labour want. We have seen policy U-turns, from winter fuel allowance to the lifting of the two-child limit, following significant political and public pressure. We have seen policies that the British public rejected just last week, such as the changes to indefinite leave to remain and, of course, the continued failure to take meaningful action against the genocide in Gaza. We have also seen the targeting of refugees and migrants, and the provisions of the immigration and asylum Bill are incredibly alarming. The direction of travel in policy means that the Government are now left facing existential questions about what the Labour party stands for, who it stands for and why. The Government said in response to their losses last week that there needs to be a faster and quicker shift, but in the same direction. I want to be clear that this is not what my constituents want. My constituents and I refuse to accept that poverty and inequality have to be a normal part of our society and that nothing can be done about it. That is not why I came into politics. It is true that the stark disregard for human suffering displayed by the Conservative Government will never, ever be forgotten. They drove people into poverty then punished them for being poor. They pursued the vulnerable and persecuted the disabled. That is why people have been desperate for real change. It is also true, however, that the United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world and London is the fifth wealthiest city in the world. The richest 1% of Britons hold more wealth than 70% of the population, and the UK’s 50 richest families now hold more wealth than 50% of our population. In that context, people simply do not believe that they must continue to endure more hardship for any longer. I have said before that everything has to be costed and nothing is free in the purest sense, but the fact is that we are a relatively wealthy country and the resources are there in some form. They could be raised, for example, by ensuring that big business and the wealthy pay their fair share. If the wealthiest 1% in this country were taxed just a modest 1% more, it would raise £25 billion and leave more after. It is a question of priorities, political choices and in whose interests decisions are made. I find myself asking again and again, “If there is not enough money, what is the plan to make sure that there is?” Why does austerity still have to be the political choice? That is why I call for the overall benefit cap to be lifted in full; the lifting of the two-child limit alone still leaves thousands of families excluded and trapped in poverty. I appeal to the Government to ensure that there are no further attacks on the rights of disabled people in the UK. The Timms review is due to report in autumn, and I am obliged to make it clear for my constituents, many of whom are already impacted by cuts to the health component of universal credit, that any further attempts to restrict or cut personal independence payments would be disastrous and have to be dropped. If they are not dropped, at bare minimum there must be a full parliamentary vote. Surely the greatest duty of any Government must be to protect and empower the most vulnerable people in our society and deliver social good, not social harm. I am clear about what my role must be, who elected me, and who I am here to represent, and I cannot in my conscience allow the poor, the sick, the elderly and the disabled to be exposed to any further brutality. If there is no money for disabled people not to be further punished through the welfare system, then the money must be found. If the way our economy is run means that large scale human suffering and wasted potential is unavoidable, it is up to the Government to change the way the economy is run. The King’s Speech proposed a step forward towards the nationalisation of British Steel. I welcome that intention, just as I welcomed the first steps towards the nationalisation of railways in the last Session. However, it presents nationalisation almost as a move of last resort, after private interests have extracted all the profits they can from privatised industries. Why can we not have a conversation about nationalisation in the public good? When we are seeing the dire, shameful way that the private water industry is being mismanaged, a new water ombudsman in the clean water Bill is not enough to meet the scale of the problem. If they have the political will, the Government can meet the public support and demand for public ownership for mail, rail, water and gas, and end the disastrous experiments with privatisation. I reaffirm my commitment to a publicly owned and run NHS that provides free and funded healthcare for all. That principle was an ironclad manifesto commitment, yet we have seen a return to private finance initiatives in the NHS—the same initiatives that have had disastrous consequences in constituencies such as mine in east London. Doctors themselves are resisting controversial Government decisions to sign partnerships with Palantir, and along with that, the agreement last year to appease Donald Trump will strip away National Institute for Health and Care Excellence medicine price controls, and lock in higher drug prices, doubling NHS spend on new medicines, and diverting funds from other vital NHS functions. That will only serve to benefit American big pharma. Private interests should never line their pockets at the expense of our society’s health, not least under a Labour Government. The economy must also work to resolve the housing crisis. I have been looking closely at the social housing Bill, and I welcome its provisions and measures to protect tenants who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse—something the sector has long been campaigning for. However, we will be looking at such measures closely because they need to work in practice, and I remain concerned about the Bill more widely. Can it truly provide the solutions needed to solve the housing crisis without ensuring a commitment to a mass social housing building programme and rent controls? My east London constituency has one of the highest rates of child poverty in the entire country. We have people living in uninhabitable and overcrowded homes that are also not affordable. That is set against a backdrop of rising wealth in the financial sector and the encroaching City of London in the west, and the ever-expanding Canary Wharf real estate. It is why many of my constituents are concerned about what the legacy and future of the Billingsgate market site in my constituency could be. Could it provide genuinely affordable homes, or could it lead to more luxury flats being built that will drive local people, including families, out of our area? Likewise, many of my constituents who are struggling in the cost of living crisis are interested to know what the Government’s discussions with the financial giant J.P. Morgan will end up meaning for our area and whether decisions are being driven in the interests of local people and for the longevity of our area. The Prime Minister claimed yesterday that the King’s Speech “will tear down the status quo”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2026; Vol. 786, c. 22.] The risk here is that disillusionment has begun to settle in. I believe there needs to be less talk of delivery and missions and more talk about how the Government will truly rebalance power and address inequality in the interests of workers and working-class people in this country. The Government must be louder and bolder, but in a vastly different political direction. That must mean showing up as a Government who take people’s material concerns seriously and addressing those concerns in line with the Labour values that they were founded on. More incrementalism sends a message to the British people that the Government do not understand what has gone wrong, because this country and its economy are not working for millions of people, and that demands transformative action.

I call the shadow Minister.

It is a privilege to close this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I praise all Members for their contributions; while I did not agree with all of them, I recognise the passion with which they were delivered on topics that Members care about. In particular, I praise my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths). I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that Labour is taking this country in the wrong direction, which is a sentiment agreed with by the newly former Health Secretary, who said in his resignation letter that “where we need vision, we have a vacuum. Where we need direction, we have drift.” That is a damning indictment of a Government who are saying that they want to get Britain working again. The Conservatives are absolutely committed to getting Britain working again. We got a record 4 million more people in work between 2010 and 2024, which allowed millions more people to have the security of their own income, empowering them to own their own home and look after their families. [Interruption.] The Minister chunters from a sedentary position, but we created 800 new jobs a day in those 14 years. The situation has taken a dire turn since the change of Government. Since Labour took office, unemployment has risen to 5.2% and payroll jobs have reduced by 110,000. The Office for Budget Responsibility has even raised the unemployment rate forecast for 2026, 2027 and 2028. There is only one conclusion: Labour is letting people down and consigning more people on to welfare instead of good, honest work. I will focus particularly on young people and their prospects, where unfortunately an even bleaker picture is being painted. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, who said that this Government are failing young people. I have heard a lot of Members talk about getting young people back into work, but the youth unemployment rate is 15.9%—up by 2.7% since the Labour party took office. It has been in power for two years, and that has been the consequence. One in six young people are now unable to find a job. This Government are pushing more young people on to benefits, which has deeper long-term consequences. There are now nearly 1 million 18 to 24-year-olds not in education, employment or training. Among graduates, the Centre for Social Justice estimates that around 700,000 people are out of work and claiming benefits, and the impacts of that cannot be overstated. Every month spent out of work means that people take more than they give to the state. I have been campaigning in local elections across Meriden and Solihull East, and I can tell hon. Members that young people want to work, because there is dignity and hope in work. Every month that a young person spends out of a job makes it harder for them to get back into employment. While their peers are developing critical skills in the workplace, those out of work fall behind. It also weakens their ability to save and put money away for the future, making it harder—for example—to save for their first home, for their family or for their retirement. The number of young people out of work is a calamity, and the Government must do much more to address it, but nothing they have set out has reassured me that they understand that. The Employment Rights Act, passed in the previous parliamentary Session, has already started to have a catastrophic impact on the jobs market. That disastrous piece of legislation has increased costs for businesses and discouraged hiring, especially of young people. Having listened to the previous speech, I say to Labour Members that business owners are not just there to be squeezed until their pips squeak—they are the ones who take the risk, invest and create the jobs. I will, of course, also challenge the Government in the educational space, because I believe they have been completely ineffective. Just this week, the Prime Minister has made new pledges on apprenticeships and skills in an effort to turn his failing premiership around. Perhaps he recognises what I do, because from the data on apprenticeships, the picture is mixed at best. The Department responsible for work should be a shining example of the Government’s commitment to more apprenticeships, but regrettably, it is far from it—the number of apprenticeship starts at the DWP has actually fallen. The Government’s broken promises on apprenticeships are best shown in relation to level 7 qualifications, which are high-quality pathways—[Interruption.] I am talking about level 7 qualifications; the Secretary of State may want to pay attention. Those high-quality pathways allow people to get into professions such as accountancy, engineering and architecture without accumulating the same debt as graduates. However, the Government continue to restrict level 7 funding for those over 22, meaning that they are missing out on those opportunities and also putting level 6 apprenticeships at risk. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is very audible. In opposition, when she was shadow Education Secretary, she promised graduates that they would pay less under Labour. That has turned out to be nothing but another broken promise, because not only is it now harder for graduates to get into work, tuition fees have gone up twice. Those who are paying those fees are now doing so with no promise of valued work at the end of it all. I also want to address the SEND Bill—the education for all Bill—proposed in the King’s Speech. Given the time I have today, I do not have the luxury of asking all the questions that parents have wanted me to pose to the Government, but there are a couple of questions that I do want to ask. [Interruption.] I am happy to take an intervention from the Secretary of State.

I’m all right.

The Government have claimed that the Bill will make generational reforms to the SEND system. The outlines of those proposals have been included in the White Paper, but parents are none the wiser. I have met a lot of parents, and despite the Government’s rhetoric, I see parents with more anxiety, not less. Just this Monday, I met a number of SEND parents from my constituency. All they want is for their children to have a chance at life, so I will ask the Minister a question that has been put to me by parents—perhaps she will address it when she responds. The consultation does not sufficiently address what will be done to help those 16 to 19-year-olds who can work to get into work. With all that is going on outside of the Chamber and in No. 10, if the Government are consumed by leadership contests and machinations, when will the legislation come before the House? This chaos will only further exacerbate the anxiety and anguish of parents and their children. I was told yesterday that the Government have actually been distributing briefing documents to their MPs to get supportive responses to their consultation. If the Government’s proposals for reform are so good, why are they trying to stack their own consultation?

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, but he seems a little confused in his remarks. In the same breath, he is urging the Government to bring the Bill to tackle the broken SEND system before the House as soon as possible, and saying that the consultation has not run its full course and has not brought enough people in. Which is it? It cannot be both at the same time.

I do not think the hon. Member was paying attention. What I said was that I worry that the consultation is being stacked, but parents want to see the legislation, because there is not enough clarity in the consultation and they do not have the answers to the questions they are asking. I certainly hope that the parents the hon. Member meets make that clear to him. With little indication that the Government will set out comprehensive plans to support young people, the Opposition have been busy drawing up their own proposals for an alternative King’s Speech. We have laid out comprehensive plans to help recruit thousands of new apprentices. Our apprenticeship guarantee will remove the funding cap for apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds. This will ensure that employers have fully funded access to training, helping 100,000 extra young people into work every year. In addition, we would encourage more employers to take on 18 to 21-year-olds by introducing a business rebate for investment in training and skills, or BRITS scheme. It would provide a new incentive of up to £5,000 for businesses to take on 18 to 21-year-old apprentices. In the higher education space, the Conservatives have clear plans to rebalance the system. We have a proud record of expanding higher education, but we also recognise that more needs to be done to address the growth of low-value courses. Some degrees have ended up becoming a poor deal for both taxpayers and graduates. They do not help young people into work and the bill ends up being footed by taxpayers, some of whom have not benefited from a university education. That is why our alternative King’s Speech lays out plans to get more people into apprenticeships using money saved from cutting low value, low outcome degrees.

I want to make a point to help the shadow Minister, because I think he has missed a page of his speech or dropped it on the floor in getting ready for the debate. I have heard nothing in his comments about the 40% drop in young people doing apprenticeships when his Government were in power, or the devastating impact on Peterborough from fewer young people doing apprenticeships because of his Government’s policies. If he has dropped that piece of paper and forgot to mention it, I am happy to supply him with the facts.

We created more than 5 million apprentices. If we want young people to be hired, we need an economy that works for the businesses that hire them. I am sure that the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Paul Bristow, will be doing an excellent job in making sure that there is more investment in education and in young people. Alongside rebalancing the system, we are also looking to abolish real interest on plan 2 student loans, ending the unfair cycle whereby higher interest rates mean graduate debt rises faster than graduates can pay it off. Our proposals are much more comprehensive than those laid out by the Government. Labour’s plans to cap student loan repayments at 6% will leave graduates ripped off, paying interest above inflation. It shows that the Government do not have a plan for young people and will continue to tinker around the edges rather than make genuine, bold change. I will finish where I started, because the constant speculation about the Prime Minister’s future means that his Ministers will not be spending time looking at how to make a better deal for young people, whether that is boosting home ownership, reducing youth unemployment or getting the economy growing. In fact, just yesterday, I read reports of the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), asking the Prime Minister to set out a timetable for his departure. Now that the Health Secretary has resigned, I ask this Minister: does she support the Prime Minister?

I call the Minister.

It is an honour to close today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I thank everyone from all parts of the Chamber for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions. I will come to some of their comments in detail, but I start by saying that it is a shame the shadow Minister did not ask for the help of the work experience student who supported the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) in developing his statistics today. The shadow Minister might have been a bit more accurate if he had. As we have already heard, under his Government, apprenticeship starts for young people went down by 40%. Under this Government they have gone up. This year, we have seen more than 300,000 people get into work. Just this morning, we saw the UK have the fastest growth of the six G7 countries that have declared. We are taking action on employment, on apprenticeships and on growth, but I will come to those detailed questions later. First, I will talk about some of the issues that have been raised in the Chamber today. Members have shown the importance of growth and opportunity in every single community. We heard a powerful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), who talked about the importance of investment in towns. We heard from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) about the importance of coastal communities, and from the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) about the importance of rural communities. It has been so powerful to hear MPs bringing the voices of those different communities into this Chamber. I also thank those who raised the critical issue of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. I assure the shadow Minister that that is the purpose that the Secretary of State and I are focused on every day. I spent this morning speaking to special schools. Yesterday, I was speaking to families. We are listening to the voices of children and young people. We have a generational opportunity to get this right, and we will continue that work, led by the Prime Minister. It is a critical issue; we heard from a number of hon. Members how important it is for their constituents. I agree with the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) that we must ensure that we really hear families’ voices. The Secretary of State and I and other Ministers have been travelling around the country talking to families. We have heard that too often they have to fight for the support their children need. The system that we have—a system that we inherited—is failing too many families; it needs to change. Support needs to go in earlier, and we need to ensure that we are supporting every child to develop their opportunities to the best of their ability. I thank my hon. Friend for sharing her diagnosis. Everyone across the House will agree that she is an important role model for people with neurodivergence. She shows how important it is that people with autism take up roles across our society and provide that leadership. I will commit to meeting her to discuss the issues she raised. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) for her contribution on early intervention, the importance of Best Start hubs, support for breakfast clubs, and how critical it is to support families with children with special educational needs and disabilities at the earliest possible point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) made important points about accountability. Again, we are talking about those issues with families. I welcome the promise of partnership and scrutiny from the hon. Member for South Devon. This is such an important issue, and our commitment is to work cross-party to ensure that we are getting it right.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I tried to intervene on the shadow Minister but was not successful. On that cross-party consensus, was she as surprised as I was to see no commitment at all on special educational needs in the Conservative party’s so-called alternative King’s speech? Does she share my concern that that demonstrates its complete lack of seriousness on that really important issue?

The Opposition have been remarkably silent for a long time about the failures in the system. They have been quick to ask us to take action, but less quick to set out what they would do differently. This is an issue that they failed to grip for years. We are tackling it head on, introducing legislation and putting investment right now into our communities. We had mention of the Experts at Hand service and the investment in new special schools that is making a difference today. Almost every single hon. Member talked about youth unemployment and how important it is to get behind our young people and support them into work. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland talked about the scarring impact of youth unemployment and my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) talked about the impact in his community. This is absolutely at the heart of the Government’s agenda. It is why we have introduced the youth guarantee, and it is why we are investing billions of pounds to support that. At the heart of the debate is how we restore opportunity to the British people after decades of that being denied to them. As we heard from so many hon. Members, a job is about more than just a salary; it brings choice, control, agency and freedom over our lives. That is what is at stake here. We want to build a country in which opportunity is open to all. Rather than a privilege of birth or background or the product of luck or circumstances, opportunity should be the right of anyone and everyone willing to work hard and grab it with both hands. That is what getting Britain working again means to me and to this Government, with the opportunities created by our modern industrial strategy open to everyone. That is the story we tell ourselves in Britain: if you work hard, you can get on, no matter who you are. Aspiration should be for all. It is a privilege to serve as Minister for School Standards in a Department driving that forward every day, led by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. It is in education that we can make that a reality, restoring opportunity to people of all ages in every village, town and city and building the economy and society of tomorrow. That is what this Government are doing, and it means reaching young people who are not working or in training. As we have heard today, there are almost a million of them—a million reasons why this Government’s youth guarantee is so important. I have been travelling around the country to speak to families and young people about SEND. I spoke to an 18-year-old who loved computing, who had been out of school and who had applied for hundreds of jobs, but they had been turned down for every single one of them. My hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) talked about that feeling of hopelessness. [Interruption.] Sorry, I just need to take a second.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to recognise the wonderful work that the Doorkeepers do around this House. I do not think they get enough credit, and I would like to ask for your wisdom on how I can put that on the record.

Thank you for bringing to our attention the fantastic work that the Doorkeepers do. I would personally like to put that on the record, mostly because I would not be able to do my job unless I acknowledge the work that they do. That is absolutely the right thing to do. Has the Minister finished her speech?

I will finish. I am really sorry—I have a two-and-a-half-year-old who kept me up all night, and I was feeling a bit faint. I want to conclude by setting out how important it is for this Government to support the next generation and to support young people. As we bring forward our Bill, we will have young people in our minds, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities and those who have been let down. We will do everything in our power to support them. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Claire Hughes.) Debate to be resumed on Monday 18 May.