5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

   Hansard source
2. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

   Hansard source
3. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

   Hansard source
4. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Desmond Swayne

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

   Hansard source
5. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Youth Justice

   I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. The Justice Committee heard that, as of February 2026, there were only 412 young people in custody, of whom about 44% were on remand, so when he says, with a great flourish, that he intends to reduce the number by 25%, he is talking about reducing a very small number—about 185—down to about 135. That is a very small number of individuals. Rather than making a huge effort, as he appears to be doing, to bring about this very small reduction, his efforts would be better spent on improving education and training in the youth custody system.

   Hansard source
6. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

   Hansard source
7. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

   Since being elected by the people of Bridgwater, I have sought to be a strong voice for local families, small businesses and community groups across my constituency. I am saddened that, during those two years, life has got more difficult for so many people. The cost of living is rising faster than two years ago, unemployment is higher and small businesses are struggling. The reason for these problems is that this Government are making life harder for people who work hard and do the right thing, and too often they reward those who do not. Labour is taxing and spending and borrowing too much. It is taxing those who work, those who employ people, those who save, those who invest, those who create jobs, and those who build up a family farm or family business and want to pass it on to their children. It seems that the only people better off under Labour are train drivers and those on benefits. Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out the borrowing plans of the last Conservative Government. We planned to borrow £323 billion in the five years from April 2024. This Labour Chancellor is planning to borrow £583 billion over the same period, which is an 80% increase—an extra £260 billion borrowed over five years. All that extra borrowing must be paid for. Poor economic management and chaos within the Labour party mean that Britain is now paying 5.1% to borrow money for 10 years.

   Hansard source
8. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

   I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The rate that Britain is now paying is higher than at any time over the last 20 years—in fact, it is the highest rate since the last time Labour was in office. Britain’s finances are in a precarious position precisely because Labour is doing what it always does: spending other people’s money like there is no tomorrow. The Government announced a holiday tax in the King’s Speech. This will enable councils to tax holidays taken in this country even more than at present. Most people who take their holiday in Britain are British. They already pay VAT at 20% on their holidays, and Labour wants to tax them further. This will hit local businesses in Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean in my constituency. Many families who holiday in Somerset are not wealthy. A tax of £2.50 per person per night will take £70 a week away from a family of four. That is money taken out of their pocket that they cannot spend with local businesses. It has been interesting to watch Liberal Democrats in Somerset squirming over their plans for a holiday tax. While their colleagues in Bristol and Bath have welcomed the tax, calling its introduction a victory for Liberal Democrats, those in Somerset do not quite know what to say. No doubt they will make their position clear before next year’s local elections.

   Hansard source
9. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

   Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

   And I would like to know from the Liberal Democrats in Somerset whether they think it appropriate to take money from my constituents in Berrow, Brean and Burnham-on-Sea and spend it in Taunton and Yeovil. For some reason, they seem reluctant to say. The King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s plans to curtail our constituents’ right to a jury trial. It is a tragedy that this Government are trampling on our ancient rights and liberties. They claim that it is because of the backlog of cases in the Crown courts, but that backlog was not caused by jury trials, and it will not be reduced by curtailing the right to a jury trial. Labour Ministers have failed to provide any evidence that this will increase court efficiency. It will not bring swifter justice, but it will undermine confidence in our whole justice system. It is a reform without any rational justification. I believe that the Government are wrong, and must reverse their course. My constituents want secure borders, affordable energy, safer streets, economic growth and opportunities for their children, and that is why the Conservatives are setting out our alternative King’s Speech. At a time of international instability, the Government should be cutting welfare spending in order to spend more on defence, but instead we are stuck with a feeble Government who threaten both our economic and national security.

   Hansard source
10. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Sir Ashley Fox

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is one of my favourite socialists in the Chamber. Does he accept that were he to change the duty of trustees from getting the best return possible for their pensions, the result will be that future pensioners will enjoy a lesser income? Is that what he wants for future pensioners?

    Hansard source
11. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Nick Timothy

    Youth Justice

    It is obvious that we are now in the legacy-hunting stage of this Government. Less a range of exhausted volcanoes, more a row of trampled molehills, Ministers are desperate to be remembered for something. This morning a word cloud was published by the pollsters at More in Common. The public were asked for the Prime Minister’s greatest achievement, and emblazoned across the page, in huge capital letters, was the sad word “Nothing.” Today’s announcement, however, is a fitting tribute to the Justice Secretary and his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood). So desperate are they to find the causes of crime that they sometimes forget that their job is to prevent and punish crime itself. The truth is that Labour just does not have it in its DNA to be tough on crime. The Government have let 60,000 criminals out of jail early, they are abolishing short-term sentences—so that almost all shoplifters and the majority of knife criminals will no longer be sent to prison—and they are pretending that they are doing these things because they have to, but they are doing them because they want to. The Prisons Minister says that only a third of prisoners should be locked up. The Minister for Sentencing, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), says that a pretty big chunk of the overall population should not be in prison, and today’s announcement is more of the same. So I have some specific questions for the Justice Secretary. He wants to increase the age of criminal responsibility to reflect a “modern understanding of childhood, vulnerability and development”. From smoking bans to voting rights, this Government have a confused view of childhood, so what should be the age of criminal responsibility? With a wave of sexual and violent crime committed by illegal immigrants, many of whom pretend to be children, can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those people will not escape justice a second time by giving a fake age to the police? The Government say they will review the function and purpose of criminal courts for child defendants, but the purpose of a criminal court is obvious: to try criminals. Can the Justice Secretary rule out abolishing criminal trials for under-18s? The Government also say that they want to end lifelong disclosure requirements for the under-18s. Can the Justice Secretary guarantee that those requirements will still apply to people guilty of violent crimes and to prolific offenders? The Government say they will slash custodial remand for young offenders by a quarter, but remand should be used in response to need, not arbitrary targets. What is the Justice Secretary’s alternative? Will he just send criminals home? Will he stick to that target regardless of the level of violent crime and repeat offending? The Government want more parenting orders, but this morning the Justice Secretary said that they are not used much at the moment because all judges can do to enforce them is issue a fine. He was unclear on this question. So will Ministers—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman was asked on the radio this morning whether parents who do not comply will face custodial sentences. He fudged that question, so I am asking him to answer it now. The figures show that young repeat offenders often start with theft and move on to drug offences and violence, yet the Government’s big idea is to stop punishing swathes of crimes committed by under-18s. The gangs who swarm shops to steal goods in places like Oxford Street, Ilford and Clapham do not need to be put on a course; instead, they need clear punishment, which can include prison. The results of soft-touch liberalism are visible in towns and cities up and down the country, yet the changes that the Justice Secretary is announcing today risk amounting to more of the same. This is a big call. If youth crime goes up as a result, it will be on this Government.

    Hansard source
12. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    The right hon. Member will know, when mentioning other colleagues in the Chamber, to ensure that those colleagues are given fair warning in advance. If that has not already been done, I assume that it will be done swiftly.

    Hansard source
13. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    I call Kirsty Blackman, after whose contribution there will be a speaking limit of five minutes.

    Hansard source
14. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    Order. May I give a tiny bit of advice? Let us keep this short, because there are many hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate.

    Hansard source
15. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

    Youth Justice

    Let us be honest: tens of thousands of young people have been let down in this country by successive Governments. The right hon. Gentleman said that those in care are drawn “disproportionately” into the justice system, and all that talent—in my view, forgive me, God-given talent—is wasted. We talk about productivity in this country, but what about social productivity? What about social justice for those young people in care homes? It is completely wasted talent. People go from children’s homes, paid by the state, into prison, also paid by the state. Although I welcome some of what the Secretary of State has said, the fact is that the Government, and previous Governments, have lectured parents on how to parent, but the worst parents of all—look at the evidence; look at the data—are the Government themselves. Will the right hon. Gentleman work with the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that social workers in whatever part of this country keep an eye on what young people are doing at school, follow up when they are failing in their exams, and ensure that they leave school with qualifications, so that fewer of them end up in the criminal justice system?

    Hansard source
16. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    Youth Justice

    I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Is he concerned that by reducing the relative punishment for youth offending relative to adult offending, he may inadvertently be making the young people of Spelthorne and across the country more attractive to be recruited by county lines gangs? That would clearly be an unintended consequence of his actions, but will he think again if it turns out that that is the case?

    Hansard source
17. 18 May 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

    Hansard source
18. 18 May 2026·Parliament·John Glen

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her elevation to her new position. The subject that I want to focus on—the enhancing financial services Bill—makes me reflect on the fact that I was in office as Economic Secretary for 1,640 days and, since then, we have had seven Economic Secretaries. I fully concede that several were from my party, but it is regrettable that there is not a degree of continuity in that role, because one of the most fundamental challenges facing the financial services sector, which is so important to securing enduring growth, is having Ministers who are able to maintain a relationship with the regulators and work through what, contrary to the way our politics is conducted these days, are quite complicated and delicate changes to regulation, capital requirements, and the way in which the consumer interacts with banks and financial services. I think it is deeply regrettable that that has come to pass. However, I welcome some of the legislative measures put before us in the King’s Speech, such as the changes to the senior managers regime, removing the degree of certification necessary; the streamlining, essentially, of the functions of the Payment Systems Regulator into the Financial Conduct Authority; the re-anchoring of the Financial Ombudsman Service into the FCA, removing a degree of arbitrage existing in the marketplace; and adjustments to the ringfencing regime. Those are good things, and I am sure that we on the Treasury Committee and across this House will examine the detail of them. I want to make three other points, if I may, about some of the challenges we face in the economy and financial services. First, we have to own the trade-offs that exist between financial stability and lending capacity. Post 2008, we made a number of decisions as a country to secure stability on an enduring basis, and we have now become too reluctant to recognise that the world is a completely different place. The question this House needs to answer in 2026 is whether the same calibration remains appropriate, and whether the proposals in the enhancing financial services Bill—for example, on ringfencing—go far enough. Are we used to holding on to a framework that protects and apparently gives stability, but which is in fact stopping significant tranches of capital being available to grow businesses and grow the economy? The second area with which I am very preoccupied is the consumer duty. In the other place, the Lords Financial Services Regulation Committee published a report last year, called “Growing pains”, which explicitly identified the consumer duty’s lack of clarity as a source of “regulatory penalty on investment in UK businesses”. We must ask whether the time has come when responsibility for where to invest and how to invest should lie more with the individual consumer. We are advancing this notion that somehow we in this place can define all the checks and balances, which we delegate to the regulator, and the moment something goes wrong, we expect that regulator to step in and to offer compensation. The emphasis should now be on reforming the Consumer Credit Act 1974—I think the Government are announcing that today—but that has been taking too long. It was first mooted when I was a Minister several years ago, and we have to be real about the reset that needs to happen as we redefine the level of responsibility that individuals take when investing. Thirdly, I welcome the regulating for growth Bill’s sandbox measures. They are welcome as a concept in bringing in innovative businesses, in which this country continues to be very strong in financial services. However, we must be real about the fact that the area is dominated by large firms, and the new Economic Secretary will need to work with the regulators to see how we can bring firms in at an earlier stage, so that smaller firms, which may have achieved only a few million in seed round investment, can access the acceleration through that considerable regulatory burden. Let me finish by making a few other observations about the state of the economy. All Governments intend to do the right thing. The narrative of this Government in their first year was, “We need to reset and bring stability, and from that growth can come.” But when I speak to businesses in my constituency and beyond, I hear that the burdens of the increases in national insurance and the national living wage, the uncertainty around fiscal events, and what happened with regulation have had a material impact. It is not enough to suggest that somehow small retail and hospitality businesses are not where future growth in the economy as a whole is going to come from. That says something about the level of confidence the man on the high street feels about where the Government and the economy are going. I fear, from widespread reports—notwithstanding today’s welcome news from the IMF, if it proves to be true—that the overall consensus is that the burden of taxation on business and wealth creators has reached a level where people will not invest in this country. Unless the Government grasp that fundamental truth, we will be in a spiral. Every few months there might be a little bit of hope with the adjustment of a prediction, but the fundamental trajectory of confidence in the British economy is just not there. That is reflected in the cost of borrowing which, whether we like it or not, is the markets’ fundamental measure of confidence in the economy’s future, at a time of high borrowing. I always try to take a constructive view, as I have today. I pointed to the significant positive things in the enhancing financial services Bill, and I welcome other elements in the regulatory growth legislation. But let us have some fundamental honesty about where we are now, notwithstanding all the mistakes that the Governments I was part of may have made. We are where we are now, and we have to be real about the challenges we face to secure enduring confidence and growth in this country.

    Hansard source
19. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

    Hansard source
20. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Harriet Cross

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

    Hansard source
21. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Points of Order

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance on a long-established convention of this House that Members notify other Members when they intend to visit another Member’s constituency in an official or political capacity. Over the weekend, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), together with two of his parliamentary colleagues and a Member from the Labour party, undertook engagements in the Farnham and Tilford parts of my constituency. No notification of any of these visits was received by my office. Given that the leader of the Liberal Democrats is frequently vocal on questions of standards, rules and propriety in public life, could you advise me on whether it is consistent with the expectations of this House that such a convention appears not to have been observed on this occasion, and in light of the fact that this concern relates directly to Members across the House—

    Hansard source
22. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    The Secretary of State talks about deregulation, but does he not accept that adding 330 pages-worth of regulation in the Employment Rights Act 2025, at a cost of a billion pounds to the economy, is having the opposite effect? Youth unemployment in my constituency has gone up by 28% in just one year.

    Hansard source
23. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    The stories the hon. Lady is telling about the poor connectivity in her constituency echo what I experience in mine, where we have some of the worst full-fibre broadband certainly in the south-east, and potentially in the country, despite being only an hour away from London. I recently surveyed my constituents about mobile coverage and, contrary to popular opinion, more than two thirds were willing to have more masts in their area because of the change with people working from home and in how people do business. Does the hon. Lady agree that we need to look forward and ensure that we have connectivity in our areas, rather than looking back to a time when people were operating very differently?

    Hansard source
24. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    I agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) that there seems to be a complete lack of understanding from those on the Government Benches of the absolute disaster they are presiding over when it comes to the economy and, most importantly, growth. The evidence is hard to ignore. The hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) talked about a battle of ideas—

    Hansard source
25. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Exeter talked about a battle of ideas, but those on the Government Benches seem to be totally devoid of any ideas that will actually get this country moving again. The ITEM Club forecasts around 160,000 job losses this year alone, with manufacturing, retail and construction expected to be hit the hardest. Unemployment has risen month after month and now stands at 5.2%. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows 110,000 fewer people in employment than when Labour took office. In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, in Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, there has been a 28% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits in a single year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes from the Government: young people unable to get a foothold in work, businesses pausing recruitment, families feeling the squeeze in their bills, and high streets losing momentum. The reason is not difficult to identify, and businesses across the country are telling us the same thing: Labour has increased the cost of employment, raised taxes and layered on regulation that is undermining confidence. The Employment Rights Act alone introduced more than 330 pages of additional obligations on employers. The Government’s own assessment acknowledged a cost of around £1 billion a year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors warned that the legislation would reduce hiring and investment, which is exactly what we are seeing. What is the Government’s response? A regulating for growth Bill. It is like asking a vegetarian how they would like their steak cooked. The reality is that this is not the way to get growth. At a recent hospitality roundtable in my constituency, one publican told me that there is now “no incentive to hire someone under 25”. That should concern every single Member of this House, but Labour Members simply parrot the Government’s talking points. They are totally detached from what is going on in the real world. The unemployment rate is now close to one in six among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I cannot believe that Labour Members are not being told this by their constituents. For many young people, their first job is the foundation for everything that follows—skills, confidence, independence and ambition—but too many are now finding the door closed.

    Hansard source
26. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    My right hon. Friend is right. Per capita growth is down, and that is a shocking indictment on the Government. Across our high streets and the hospitality sector, the pressure is becoming severe. To give some local examples, John from Birdies café in Farnham told me that his business rates are rising from around £290 a month to approximately £1,600 a month, and his energy bills have increased from £300 or £400 to about £,3500. As a result, he has already let a member of staff go. Wey Hill in Haslemere is one of the areas most affected by business rates. The average increase in rateable values is 82%. That is entirely unsustainable for small shops—a butcher, a kitchen shop and a party shop. These are not enormous businesses. At the same time, retail sales are falling and confidence is weakening across the sector, yet the Government still do not appear to grasp the impact of their decisions. In the King’s Speech, instead of backing enterprise, the Government are increasing the cost of employing people. Instead of reducing the burden, they are adding to it, and instead of restoring confidence, they are eroding it. Thirty-year gilt yields are at their highest level since the 1990s, and higher borrowing costs mean higher mortgages, higher debt interest and less capacity to fund public services. The Government are presiding over stagnation and apparently calling that a strategy. Good news: there is a different path, which we Conservatives laid out in our alternative King’s Speech. I say to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are not precious about it; take every single policy and enact it, because we want the best for Britain. We will support them in every way we can, if they pick up those policies. They include reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, cutting energy costs by removing unnecessary levies, restoring domestic energy security by renewing North sea licences, and properly cutting business rates for high streets and the hospitality sector. Jobs are not created through legislation, regulation or press releases; they are created when businesses are confident enough to invest, expand and hire. That requires lower costs, lower taxes, cheaper energy and a stable regulatory environment. Labour came in promising growth, but we have seen anything but. Unless there is a change of direction soon, the cost of this Labour Government to our country will only rise further.

    Hansard source
27. 18 May 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

    Hansard source
28. 18 May 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    The hon. Member makes an important point about regulation in Northern Ireland. When in government, I championed the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, which gives this country the ability to grow disease-resistant and drought-resistant crops—the potato that typically requires 14 applications of high-carbon toxic fungicide can, with technology developed in Norwich, be grown without. Does the hon. Member agree that the Act is a big opportunity for Northern Ireland? It could be growing those potatoes without the fungicide, with huge environmental benefits, but under the European partnership Bill, it will be denied that opportunity.

    Hansard source
29. 18 May 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    My hon. Friend is making a really important point. I was previously the Minister responsible for the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Traditionally, the MHRA’s influence has been in denying proper companies permission. It seems to me that now, in a digital age, we have a different problem, which is people coming up with rubbish and selling it over the counter unofficially—digitally. Do we not need a much more powerful set of legal and financial disincentives to really hammer the people selling these sorts of products?

    Hansard source
30. 18 May 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    There is no more important issue for the country than the stubbornly low growth rate and the structural barriers to the growth, productivity, enterprise, innovation and investment that this country so desperately needs, solutions to which have defied successive Governments since the coalition and the political crisis that Brexit unleashed in 2016. It gives me no pleasure to highlight that, for my constituents in Mid Norfolk, the King’s Speech is irrelevant without real delivery on the ground. In Mid Norfolk, the small businesses on which we rely are shedding jobs; disposable incomes are falling; high streets in market towns such as Dereham, Watton and Attleborough are struggling; pubs are closing; farmers are moving away from farming food to take the Government incentives for solar panels and commuter housing estates; and public services are being overwhelmed by rising demand from new housing and an ageing population. This is fuelling a surge in political anger, which explains a lot of the election results last week. Across Suffolk, Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, rural deprivation, rural poverty and the disproportionate impact of high energy prices on the rural economy—where, according to Treasury figures, every cup of coffee, schoolbook, pencil, lesson and journey costs 20% more than in cities, yet rural areas are underfunded—are driving real anger, based on real grievances. People are now paying European levels of tax for American levels of public services, and they are fed up. Unless we—this Government, this Parliament, this media, this Whitehall—respect and understand the grievance and set out a truly bold plan to deal with it, I fear that the rich will continue to leave this country, that the middle classes, the engine of growth, will conclude that it is no longer worth putting the work in, and that the poor will turn to the black market and crime.

    Hansard source
31. 18 May 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The King’s speech that my constituents loved was the King’s speech in Washington, in which he spoke for the very best of this country. My point is that it is in all our interests—I say this as a friend of mainstream politics and democracy—that we tackle this challenge more boldly. I welcome the speed with which newly elected Labour MPs have realised the scale and urgency of the problem of public and voter anger, stubbornly slow growth, rising unemployment and demand for public services exceeding capacity, but they are in danger of going for the wrong prescription. What we need is a renaissance of enterprise and innovation across the public and private sectors. Convenient though it may be for my party politically, the idea that the answer is a regicidal political infighting crisis and a leadership contest in office is for the birds. Take it from me: my party has tested that idea to destruction, and we have all paid the price. We do not need a Labour party beauty contest. We need a Parliament and a Government that get more urgent about the many laudable things they have set out to do, but we do not have 10 years to deliver it—we have a couple of years. If the Labour party knifes this Prime Minister, he will be the seventh who will have been got rid of because of the structural deficit. I remember, when I first arrived here in 2010, the brilliant Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies explaining what the structural deficit is, and it is worth repeating. The normal deficit is when a Government do not earn as much as they are spending; because the economy has taken a downturn, they borrow a bit to keep spending and then pay it back. The structural deficit is that bit of the deficit that goes up every year even when the economy is growing, and it is driven by four things. In 2010, it was being driven by welfare, public sector pensions, and—the big one—health, and debt interest was remarkably low. After the coalition, we had capped off the rise in public sector pensions, incredibly painfully, and we had capped off the rise in welfare, incredibly painfully. Health has continued to defy reform, and it is bankrupting the public sector. We are now spending more than 50% on health, welfare and social support. That is simply not affordable. We cannot cut, borrow or tax our way out of this. The only way out is to grow, not through dumping cheap housing across the countryside, but by backing the industries of tomorrow.

    Hansard source
32. 18 May 2026·Parliament·George Freeman

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make a slightly different point, which is that there are huge opportunities for good growth in this country. Speaking as someone who has had a 16-year career backing the industries of tomorrow, whether it is in fusion, SMR nuclear technologies, agritech, bioscience, the bioeconomy on Teesside, or the satellite economy in Glasgow, we have an opportunity to turn these into the industries of tomorrow. I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy commitment to do it, but it is at 50,000 feet; we need to drop down to some more tangible and bolder policies to back those industries. I know the Secretary of State gave a tub-thumping speech about the 1980s, but the truth is we have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years. I was doing my work as the Minister for Life Sciences, for agritech and for Science and Technology following in the footsteps of Paul Drayson and David Sainsbury. In life science, fusion, AI and quantum, we have built an unbelievably competitive economy, but other countries are moving fast. Our competitors are more agile. We are terrible at adopting technology in the public services. Our scale-ups are not getting the finance they need in the city. Kate Bingham in The Times today is right. How do we unlock this? I want to suggest a ten-point plan for renewal. I support the Government’s ambition. I say this because if all of us fail, the Benches to my left of pub populists who are promising everything will win, and we will see even deeper disillusionment. I am calling in this speech for, first, real honesty of a 1979 scale about the extent of the emergency; secondly, bold devolution to the people, cities and mayors who know how to do it better—frankly, they could not do worse than Whitehall—thirdly, serious Whitehall reforms, so that we end the juvenile process of His Majesty’s Treasury playing Departments off against each other for funding, which in the end comes very late and is taken back; and fourthly, a serious backing for the innovation economy. I welcome the £20 billion of R&D, but how we allocate it is key. We need to allocate it in a way that attracts private investment. Fifthly, we need a bold revolution of tax incentives for enterprises—a new deal for new business. There should be no national insurance or VAT for a couple of years for someone starting a company and growing it. Sixthly, we need regulation for innovation. That is not just cutting regulations, but leading in setting the regulation. I welcome the Government’s work in setting up the Regulatory Innovation Office. We then have skills and patriotic capitalism. I do not think it is communism to get the city investing in British business. Boldness—

    Hansard source
33. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to this debate on backing business to create economic growth. I would like to start by congratulating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion. It seems like only moments ago that she was a colleague on the Treasury Committee, and now she is in charge of the whole nation’s spending, so I wish her the most enormous amount of luck. I also want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be mentioning by name some colleagues who have not been in the debate, but I have warned their offices that I will be doing so. I want to focus in this debate on a simple truth that many businesses across this country have come to recognise, which is that when it comes to backing business to create economic growth, Labour does not know what it is doing. Labour does not know how to govern when times are tough. It entered government without a plan and we are seeing the consequences. I am afraid that this goes deeper than the Prime Minister. Only one Labour Cabinet Minister has started a business, and none of the Prime Minister’s wannabe rivals has worked in a business or a start-up. This matters because it goes to the core of this Government. Whose side are they on? Time and time again, Labour shows that it is on the side of “Benefits Street”, not on the side of people who work, who strive and who save. When this Labour Government came into office, they had a choice. They wanted to deliver growth. They could have backed business. They could have supported enterprise. Instead, they delivered higher taxes, higher costs and higher uncertainty, and I am afraid that the consequences are now undeniable. Business confidence has collapsed to record lows. The Institute of Directors reported its lowest-ever confidence reading in March 2026, and the Confederation of British Industry says that businesses expect their activity to fall. Jobs are being lost, payroll jobs are down, and the ITEM Club has forecast that there will be 160,000 further job losses this year because of a slowdown in growth and rising energy prices. Retail sales are weak, and nearly half of all businesses are now worried about business rates, which are rising sharply. It all started with the Chancellor’s first Budget. Labour’s £25 billion jobs tax has increased the cost of employing someone by around £900 per person and, as a direct result, youth unemployment is at a shocking 15.8% on Labour’s watch. For an average pub with eight employees, national insurance means an extra £7,200 bill every year. At the same time, Labour has squeezed our high streets with rising business rates. The result of all this is that one in eight business leaders are planning to leave Britain and 30% of those on The Sunday Times rich list have fled high-tax, socialist Britain. That is a vote of no confidence in this Government. The damage is not confined to business; it is spreading across the whole economy. Inflation is up. Borrowing costs are surging, with gilt yields at their highest level in decades. Debt interest is spiralling towards £140 billion a year. We are now paying more to service debt than to invest in our future. That is the direct result of a Government without a plan. So what will happen if we get a new Labour Prime Minister? Will that help businesses and the economy? No, because Andy Burnham wants higher taxes and more borrowing, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants higher taxes and more borrowing, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) wants higher taxes and more borrowing. Businesses can see where this ends. It ends in low growth and unsustainable debts. Perhaps the IMF will have to be called in, as it was under Denis Healey. I thank colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have contributed to today’s debate, and spoken powerfully for their constituencies and the businesses that they represent. Their speeches were beams of light shining into this Chamber from the real world. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) spoke about debt and chaos. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the importance of small businesses and deregulation, and the impact on them of national insurance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the debt markets and the pressing need for welfare reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), in an outstanding speech, spoke about his local businesses, and said that the last thing they need is another holiday tax. In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) highlighted the impact on jobs for young people, and in a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke about solar farms and the shocking information about self-swab rape kits. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about rural businesses and rural deprivation, and made an outstanding contribution on turning things around for his constituents in Mid Norfolk. Turning to the King’s Speech, what do we see? We see a King’s Speech full of more intervention, more regulation, more taxes and more uncertainty. There is even—I am not making this up—a regulating for growth Bill: more compliance burdens dressed up as protections and more top-down control from Whitehall. Labour Members describes it as growth coming from an interventionist Government, but they are wrong. Growth comes from entrepreneurs who take risks. Growth comes from businesses that invest and hire. Growth comes from workers who strive and succeed. That is why we have set out a clear alternative: a serious plan, a credible programme.

    Hansard source
34. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    I am going to make a bit of progress on our serious, credible plan—a pro-growth alternative King’s Speech, with 16 Bills designed to get Britain working again. First, we will give people jobs and hope with our get Britain working Bill. We will repeal the job-destroying elements of Labour’s Employment Rights Act, saving businesses up to £5 billion a year. We will restore flexibility in the labour market, and reintroduce minimum service levels to protect essential services from strikes. That means more jobs and lower hiring costs—a labour market that rewards work. Secondly, we will back our communities with our back our high streets Bill. We will introduce permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, which will support 250,000 of the smallest businesses with lower bills, leading to stronger high streets and protecting jobs. While Labour targets family businesses and farmers with punitive taxes, our plan is simple: we will scrap the family business and family farm tax, and back those who grow our food, create jobs and create wealth. Thirdly, we will cut red tape with our deregulation of business Bill. We will scrap unnecessary environment, social and governance reporting requirements, which cost businesses millions every year—less bureaucracy, more time to grow and more investment. Fourthly, we will restore industrial competitiveness with our save British industry Bill. We will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism for the offshoring of emissions, axe the carbon tax, which pushes up energy bills, and repeal the zero emission vehicle mandate. That will lower costs and lead to stronger industries—jobs kept in Britain. Fifthly, we will tackle energy costs—many hon. Members raised energy costs in their contributions today—with our cheap energy Bill. We will cut electricity bills for businesses by 20% and household bills by £200 by taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and scrapping the Energy Secretary’s renewables subsidies. That will give businesses immediate relief and greater competitiveness, and lead to stronger growth. Beyond those Bills, we have plans to scrap stamp duty to get the property markets moving, to properly fund our armed forces, to reform welfare, to get people back into work and to approve new North sea licences for energy security. Because growth is not achieved through slogans—

    Hansard source
35. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    I am afraid it is the historical role of my party to clean up the mess that Labour Governments leave behind. Growth is not achieved through slogans; it is delivered through serious and sustained planning. In conclusion, the debate comes down to a clear choice: Labour’s approach—

    Hansard source
36. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    The hon. Member mentions Liz Truss from a sedentary position. Is he not aware that gilt yields are now higher than at any time during that brief period? I am sure he will be welcoming the higher taxes and more borrowing that his Government have caused, the higher energy costs imposed on his local businesses, the more regulation that has led to less growth—or he could adopt the Conservative approach: lower taxes, lower costs and less regulation. [Interruption.] The Business Secretary says “More growth” from a sedentary position. He may be referring to the first quarter of this year when the biggest thing that happened for growth in this economy was vehicle repair. I call that the pothole growth strategy, and I am afraid that that is the reality if we dig into the growth numbers. Our approach is less regulation and more growth. Ultimately, this is about values. Labour has the wrong values. It is for “Benefits Street”, and we are on the side of people who work, people who strive, people who save. Only the Conservative party has a plan to reduce costs and deliver the growth that we all want. Only the Conservative party is ready to govern. Only the Conservative party will back great British businesses to build a stronger economy for the future.

    Hansard source
37. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    Order. I remind Members that if they have intervened in a debate, they might like to have the courtesy to wait a while before departing the Chamber.

    Hansard source
38. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

    Order. We have been here for two years; you have to stop using “you” and “your”, because it refers to me. It was not me who was dealing with civil servants.

    Hansard source
39. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Youth Justice

    I appreciate what the Justice Secretary wants to achieve on reducing the rate of recidivism. He said in his statement that “custody will always be necessary for the most dangerous offences”, but went on to say that there will be “an intention to reduce the use of short custodial sentences.” Will he add some more detail around the length of sentence that he considers to be a “short” custodial sentence? In relation to knife crime, he will know that the minimum sentence for threatening with a knife can be as little as six months. Young people already do not have much fear about being searched for a knife or facing the criminal justice system. If they know that they will not receive a custodial sentence at the end of the process, what deterrent will there be to their carrying or using a knife?

    Hansard source
40. 18 May 2026·Parliament·Ben Obese-Jecty

    Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

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

    Hansard source