Rishi Sunak MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, conservation will succeed only if it is done in partnership with the grouse-shooting industry. Let me be clear: I have zero tolerance for raptor persecution. It is rightly condemned by all shooting organisations and is, as the hon. Gentleman says, a crime. Those suspected of illegal activities should face the full consequences of their actions. There is absolutely no place for them in this sector. I turn next to the petition’s comments on the environment. The tightly controlled rotational burning used to manage heather moorland may seem odd to some, but without it, our moors would not regenerate as well or support the rich wildlife and biodiversity that they do; the risk of wildfires would also increase. I have found no clear scientific consensus to support a blanket ban. In addition, contrary to some claims, there is no specific evidence that links burning to flooding. Far from seeking to create drier moors, managers appreciate that wetter is better, and have blocked thousands of grips in order to ensure that peat on their landscapes is rewetted. As for the myth that grouse shooting is somehow unregulated, I would be amused to hear what the gamekeepers in my constituency think of that. There are scores of regulations, codes and licences, and even Acts of Parliament, to comply with, covering every aspect of the sector, including the possession and use of firearms, the use of lead ammunition, the length of the season, the methods of predator control, heather burning, the use of medicated grit, and the protection of wild birds. Banning grouse shooting would undermine the balanced ecosystem of our countryside. It would leave not only many families but our landscape and wildlife poorer. A ban on grouse shooting would be a policy with no winners. It would be a case of a small section of urban Britain imposing its views on rural Britain, and that is not right. The failure to appreciate other people’s views and interests will not bring our country together. I urge the Government to stand firm and reject these ill thought-through calls for a ban. Instead, we should all work together to build on this quintessentially British success story.

• 5 Jun 2025 · Relocating Civil Service Roles · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the CDL for what he said, because the Darlington economic campus has been a huge success. It recently passed the milestone of 1,000 jobs, but crucially, 80% of those people were recruited locally, providing opportunities for constituents in my rural area and across the north-east, as we have heard. The Darlington economic campus is also pioneering a very strong cross-Government approach to working, which is helping to combat the strong departmental DNA that the CDL mentioned. Will he join me in praising the leadership team at DEC for establishing themselves as an indispensable part of Government policymaking, and will he join me in ensuring that Darlington can serve as a model template for other campuses across the UK?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that those on the Government Front Bench were wanting to explain to the young couple in their constituencies saving to buy their first home that their taxes are going up, and to the family wanting to pass on their farm or their business to their children that their taxes are going up. The parents sacrificing to give their kids the best start in life: your taxes are going up. They are taxing your job, they are taxing your business, they are taxing your home, they are taxing your savings. I said during the election campaign: “You name it, Labour will tax it”, And that is exactly what the Government have done, with broken promise after broken promise and working people paying the price. For the final time from this Dispatch Box, let me deliver some basic truths. A Government can foster growth, but they cannot magically conjure it up. We need businesses, workers, investors and entrepreneurs to all back this country and build our economy. It does not matter whether your income comes in a pay packet, from investments, in dividends or in profits. It is a poor politics that is so focused on what people receive that it fails to see that what matters is what people put in. The only way to grow the economy and to create wealth is for people to put in more, so when you create a negative environment for business, when you undermine confidence in our country, when you vilify and penalise people for doing exactly what we need them to do, which is to invest, take risks and work hard, you do not create growth; you hold back growth—and more than that, the promise of growth tomorrow does not pay the bills today. This is not the first Government to peddle the “borrow to grow” myth, but time and again we have seen the same ending: not higher growth, but higher debt, higher inflation, and higher taxes. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, whatever you think about the economic arguments surrounding today’s Budget, there is a more fundamental point with which I want to conclude. The Prime Minister has talked relentlessly about trust, yet today’s Budget reveals above all that those in the Labour party did not tell the truth. They said they would not fiddle the figures; they have. They said they would not increase borrowing; they have. They said they would not raise taxes on working people; they have. There has been broken promise after broken promise, and it is the working people of this country who will pay the price.

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Labour Members do not like it, but this is the truth: they have fiddled the figures and raised tax to record levels. They have broken their promises, and it is the working people of this country who will pay the price. The Chancellor and Prime Minister have tried to say that they had no choice, but let us be in no doubt: their misleading claims about the state of the economy are nothing but a cynical political device. Today’s situation is a world away from the genuinely bleak legacy that we Conservatives inherited from the last Labour Government. The Chancellor forgot to point out that borrowing was £1 in every £4 that they spent, with debt rising every year and unemployment at 8%. I understand the Chancellor’s shameless political motivations and why it suits her to cook up a false justification for her agenda, but today, the OBR has declined to back up her claims of a fictional £22 billion black hole. It appears nowhere in its report. It is deeply disappointing that she has sought to politicise the independent OBR, which should be above party politics. As the Chancellor now knows, her playing politics has done real damage to our economy. She talked about being a Bank of England economist, but the Bank of England’s former chief economist has said that Labour’s approach has generated fear, foreboding and uncertainty among consumers, businesses and investors. The rhetoric of this Chancellor and this Prime Minister is damaging the British economy for political purposes. We need only to look at the facts to see that the Chancellor’s claims about her economic inheritance are nonsense. Labour inherited an economy with inflation back at its 2% target, mortgage rates cut and unemployment low. When we left office, the United Kingdom was the fastest growing advanced economy in the world. When it comes to the public finances, not once has the Chancellor acknowledged that we took the right decision to spend half a trillion pounds to protect the British people from the impact of covid and Putin’s war. Let me remind the House that not only did the Labour party support all those interventions, it wanted us to go even further. When I made the tough choices to fix the public finances afterwards, the Prime Minister and Chancellor opportunistically opposed me every step of the way, so I will take no lectures from those two about difficult decisions. But because of the decisions we made, the Chancellor inherited lower borrowing than France, America, Italy and Japan, and the second-lowest debt in the entire G7. Any which way you look at it, Labour’s claims about its inheritance are purely ludicrous. These are her choices, so stop blaming everyone else and take responsibility for them. [ Interruption. ] Let me turn to the substance of those choices. During the election, the Chancellor repeatedly promised that her plans were fully funded. Only a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said the Budget would “balance the books”, but this Budget does no such thing and reveals that they have not been straight with the British people. [ Interruption. ]

• 30 Oct 2024 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Today, the Chancellor has launched an enormous borrowing spree, saddling our children and grandchildren with billions upon billions of pounds of more debt, pushing up interest rates, leaving our economy more exposed to future shocks and leading the OBR today to now forecast higher inflation in every year of the forecast. Her decision to let borrowing rip makes a total nonsense of her claims on the state of the public finances. If they truly were in such a dire state, as she has said, what we should have seen today is a significant reduction in borrowing to repair them, not the splurge she has just unleashed. Instead, what we see is borrowing higher in every year of the forecast and debt higher in every year of the forecast. Now, the Chancellor has tried to cover up that splurge by fiddling the fiscal rules. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the new measure will not actually even be a constraint on the amount she can borrow. It says it is: “hard to escape the suspicion” that the Government are attracted to this change “by the fact that it would allow for significantly more borrowing…without any need for tough choices elsewhere.” “Fiscal fiddling” is what it has called it. The Chancellor herself actually agrees. She specifically told the British people she would not change the debt target. She said she was “not going to fiddle the figures” to get better results, but that is exactly what she has done. She has gone back on her word and fiddled the figures so she can borrow billions more—broken promise after broken promise, and working people will pay the price. The reason the Chancellor has increased borrowing and increased taxes is because she has totally failed to grip public spending. First, she has no meaningful plan to deliver the £20 billion-worth of savings available if the public sector simply returned to its pre-pandemic levels of productivity. Instead, one of the first things the Chancellor did was to hand out inflation-busting pay rises to the unions without getting any productivity-enhancing reforms in return. The Chancellor also scrapped her predecessor’s plan to get the civil service back to its pre-pandemic numbers. She does not seem to think that the civil service can be reduced by a single person. And the Chancellor has no plan to control welfare spending. Yet if we simply got working age welfare spending on people with a disability or health condition back to pre-covid levels, that would free up £30 billion-worth of savings. Whether it is scrapping our plans to shrink the civil service or their failure to control welfare spending, this is not her inheritance, these are her choices. The result: higher spending, higher borrowing, higher taxes. It is broken promise after broken promise, and working people paying the price. Let me turn next to growth, and remind the Prime Minister and Chancellor that they did, in fact, inherit the fastest-growing economy in the G7. That is testament to the last Government boosting investment by introducing full expensing, increasing the labour supply by expanding childcare, reforming welfare and cutting tax on work—all decisions the OBR said would increase growth. The Chancellor has said that growing the economy is the Government’s No. 1 priority. The Prime Minister even said that higher growth would come “very quickly”. To be fair, the Prime Minister and Chancellor have had a rapid impact on growth. As their plans for the economy became clear, survey after survey showed business confidence plummeting. No wonder the Government’s own assessment says their French-style labour laws will impose a £5 billion— [ Interruption. ] Labour Members will be explaining it to the businesses in their constituencies that their labour laws, by their own assessment, will impose a £5 billion direct cost on business, disproportionately hitting smaller businesses. As business group after business group has pointed out, the tax rises on jobs and enterprise in today’s Budget will “hobble growth”—a “poll tax on business” is what they have called it. Despite the record-breaking tax rises, despite fiddling the figures and despite letting borrowing soar, today the OBR has forecast that growth will be lower under this Government than it was forecast to be under the Conservatives. That is the change they have wrought. This is what happens when the Labour party is led by people who have no experience of business and enterprise: relentlessly talking down our economy, delivering a tidal wave of anti-business regulations, destroying our flexible labour market and raising taxes to the highest level in our country’s history. It is the classic Labour agenda: higher taxes, higher borrowing, no plan for growth, and working people paying the price. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister specifically said there would be no tax surprises under Labour. The Chancellor went even further, saying she wanted to bring taxes down. Each time they made those promises, we warned that they were not telling the truth. Today, the Chancellor and Prime Minister have done what they were always planning to do, but chose to keep hidden from the British people. Far from reducing taxes, as a result of today’s Budget never in the history of our country have taxes been higher than they are under this Labour Government. They specifically promised that they would not raise tax on working people. The Chancellor said: “Labour will not put up your income tax, national insurance or VAT.” Just this month, the Prime Minister gave an “absolute commitment” to not raising tax on working people. What does today’s Budget do? It raises tax on working people by increasing national insurance and breaking Labour’s promise. As the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, this is a straightforward breach of Labour’s manifesto, because, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear, this tax rise is “passed through entirely” to working people. Even since the Chancellor started speaking, the IFS has already confirmed that the vast majority of this tax increase will hit working people through lower pay. However, we do not need to take it from the IFS or even the OBR; we can take it from the Chancellor herself. She has previously described her tax rise as a “jobs tax” which “takes money out of people’s pockets”. —[ Official Report , 19 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 675.] And not only that—the Chancellor also said that the problem with national insurance “is that it is a tax purely on people who go to work and those who employ them”. Far from protecting working people, she is literally raising the only major tax that exclusively hits working people. But it does not stop there. Businesses on the British high street: your taxes are going up. Businesses investing in British energy: your taxes are going up. The small business owner looking to reap the rewards of years spent growing a business and creating jobs: your taxes are going up. The young couple saving to buy their first home: your taxes are going up. The family— [Interruption.]

• 30 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Finally, may I point out that tomorrow is Diwali? I became leader of my party during Diwali, and I now stand down during that same festival. I am proud to have been the first British Asian Prime Minister, but I was even prouder that it was not that big a deal. That speaks volumes about the values of the British people, of our country, and of this Parliament. Will the Prime Minister join me in applauding the kindness, decency and tolerance that have always been the British way?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  That is very clearly what the Government have said. Only last week, the Prime Minister said at the Dispatch Box that he would give the security forces “the powers that they need”. —[ Official Report , 9 October 2024; Vol. 754, c. 297.] If he is to fulfil that promise, I urge him to get up to speed on this issue and implement the scheme. Furthermore, Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee has warned that British universities are increasingly a rich feeding ground for China to exert political influence over us. That is why we passed the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, with new powers to help to defend universities from that threat, but the new Education Secretary has since blocked it. Can the Prime Minister tell us how, without that tool, the Government will prevent Chinese influence over our universities?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The FIR scheme and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act were new tools—new sets of powers—that the previous Government passed in order to give our universities and security services the powers that they need to tackle a growing threat. The Opposition will of course continue to support the Government in protecting our national security, but we believe that those tools are needed, and we are concerned by reports that the new Government have paused their implementation or indeed scrapped them. Finally, the Chinese Government have sanctioned multiple Members of our Parliament for championing human rights. As a result, they have faced intimidation, abuse and surveillance. I commend you, Mr Speaker, for your defence of the right of every Member of this House to speak out on crucial issues without fear of retaliation from foreign states. I know that the Prime Minister will agree with that too, so this week will the Foreign Secretary in his meetings not just raise the issue but tell the Chinese Government to lift those sanctions on our colleagues?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Given what the Prime Minister said—I agree of course that we must engage and should use that engagement for our national interest—I hope that the Foreign Secretary will unequivocally condemn this military escalation and stand up for democracy in Taiwan. The whole House will be concerned about the fate of the democracy campaigner Jimmy Lai. He is a British citizen who has been wrongly imprisoned in Hong Kong for four years. The previous Government pressured China for his release. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is a politically motivated prosecution and that it is a breach of China’s legal obligations to Hong Kong under the Sino-British declaration?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I am very happy to welcome investments that my Government negotiated, but when it comes to the Prime Minister’s answer on tax, businesses across the country would have found his answer just about as reassuring as Sue Gray found it when he promised to protect her job. It is no wonder that confidence is plummeting on his watch, which he did not mention. Turning to another commitment, before the election his Chancellor said that changing the debt target in the fiscal rules would be tantamount to “fiddling the figures”. Does he still agree with the Chancellor?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Pensioners watching today will have seen that the Prime Minister has repeatedly refused to admit or to publish the consequences of his decision. We will continue holding him to account for that. Changing topics, today is Back British Farming Day, when we recognise that British farmers produce food that is of higher quality and has higher welfare standards and higher environmental standards than imported food. At a time of increasing global volatility, it is also crucial for our food security and national security. Will the Prime Minister therefore confirm whether he will be adopting the National Farmers Union’s recent proposal to enshrine a national food security target in law?

• 22 Jul 2024 · NATO and European Political Community Meetings · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement and join him in praising President Biden for his long career of public service both at home and abroad. Working together, we took our AUKUS partnership to the next level, supported Israel after the terrible events of 7 October, defended our countries from the Houthi threat and led global efforts to support Ukraine as it resisted Russia’s assault. On a personal level, it was a pleasure to work with him to strengthen the partnership between our two countries, and I wish him well. As the Prime Minister indicated, the world is increasingly uncertain—the most dangerous it has been since the end of the cold war. Russia continues its illegal and brutal invasion of Ukraine. Iran continues with its regionally destabilising behaviour. Both Iran and North Korea are supplying Russian forces in Ukraine as we speak, and China is adopting a more aggressive stance in the South China sea and the Taiwan strait. Together, that axis of authoritarian states is increasingly working together to undermine democracies and reshape the world order. In those circumstances, our alliances take on ever-greater importance. I commend the Prime Minister on his work with our closest allies at both the NATO summit in Washington and the European Political Community meeting at Blenheim. Across this House we built a strong consensus on foreign policy in the last Parliament, which has stood our country in good stead in this transition. Our allies, particularly Ukraine, know that although our Government have changed, Britain remains an active, involved and reliable partner. I am glad that the Prime Minister also shares our view of the value of the EPC community as a forum. I am pleased by and welcome the fact that he used the summit to discuss illegal migration, because it is one of the most pressing problems facing our entire continent. When it comes to illegal migration, we all face the same fundamental question: how to deal with people who come to our countries illegally while respecting our international obligations. Of course, it is not feasible or right to return Afghans to the Taliban, Syrians to Assad or Iranians to the ayatollahs, but nor can our country accommodate everyone who would like to leave Afghanistan, Syria or Iran and come here. I was pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that he was a pragmatist and that he would look at what works when it comes to squaring that circle. I urge him, in his conversations with other European leaders, to keep the option of further third-country migration partnerships on the table, as other countries have been discussing. I know the Prime Minister is also interested in pursuing a security and defence co-operation pact with the European Union, and here I just urge him to be alert to the trade- offs involved. I hope he can reassure the House that any closer co-operation with the EU will not adversely affect the technological and procurement aspects of our other alliances such as AUKUS. Of course we are a pillar of European security, as our leadership on Ukraine has shown, but we also have alliances and interests that extend beyond the European continent. Turning to the NATO summit, it was good to see the alliance reaffirming its commitment to Ukraine, with the UK at the heart of that leadership. I hope the Prime Minister will keep the House updated on how the new unit to co-ordinate our collective support to Ukraine will indeed lead to an increase in vital support. I urge the Prime Minister to continue stressing to our allies that now is the moment to increase, not to pare down, our backing for Ukraine, as the UK has continued to lead in doing. In the 75 years of its existence, NATO has established itself as the most successful defensive alliance in history. The best way to strengthen the alliance is for its non-American members to do more, to show that we do not expect the Americans to bear every burden, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s indication that the Chancellor will soon set out a clear path to investing 2.5% of GDP in our armed forces—I hope by 2030. That would both show the Americans that the other members of the alliance are serious about boosting our own capabilities, and show President Putin and our adversaries that we are serious about defending our borders and allies from Russian or any other aggression. The Prime Minister also spoke about the situation in the middle east. We all want to see progress towards a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in peace, prosperity and security. However, as we make progress towards that goal, our friend and ally Israel must have the right to defend itself against the threat that it is facing—a threat demonstrated by the drone strike on Tel Aviv at the end of last week by the Iranian-aligned Houthi rebels. In conclusion, I thank the Prime Minister for coming to update the House today. I can assure him that we on the Opposition Benches will work with him on these questions of foreign policy and national security. We will ask questions, probe and push for answers—that is our duty as the official Opposition—but we will always act in the national interest and work constructively with him to ensure the security of our country.

• 17 Jul 2024 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  Before I turn to the Address, I am sure the whole House would like to join me in paying tribute to His Majesty the King. It is typical of his dedication to duty that, despite the medical challenges he has faced, he was here today to open Parliament and will travel to the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Samoa and to Australia this autumn. The King is a true model of public service. I know the Prime Minister will value his audiences with His Majesty as much as I did. We all recognise that the King is aided by the constant support of Her Majesty the Queen, and I know the whole House will join me in wishing her a very happy birthday. Today we also pay tribute to Tony Lloyd. Tony served the people of Greater Manchester for 45 years, and for 36 of those as a Member of this House. He was a great parliamentarian, kind and wise. His family should have enormous pride in the contribution he made to this place and to the community he loved and served. They are in all our thoughts today. I welcome all new Members to their places. Being elected as a Member of Parliament is a great honour and a great responsibility. We serve our communities and our United Kingdom. I know, whatever our political differences might be, we are all motivated by a desire to make life better for our constituents and to make our country stronger. I know the whole House will join me in deploring the assassination attempt on President Trump. Our thoughts are with the victims. Violence and intimidation have no place in the democratic process. I commend the proposer of the Address on his excellent speech. I know the whole House will agree that the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) has set a high bar for speeches in this Parliament. My little sister always reminds me that being the youngest means having to learn how to make oneself heard—well, the hon. Gentleman is the youngest of eight, and it really shows. I had the good fortune to get to know him when he was shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and he was always courteous and pleasant as my opposite number. As he outlined, he comes from a family committed to public service. Both his great-uncles were Members of this House and, although he was very modest about it, he has been in public service for more than 40 years. The new Members of the House have much to learn from him. I know that I speak for the whole House in saying how much we all admire his personal bravery in campaigning for more victim support following the tragic death of his daughter in a hit-and-run accident. Not only is the hon. Gentleman one of the more popular Members of the House, as we heard, but he is also the most popular constituency MP, enjoying the biggest majority of any Member of this place. In a recent election, he even won an astonishing 84% of the vote. He might be the only person who can persuade Kim Jong-un of the benefits of democracy—although “The People’s Republic of Bootle” doesn’t quite have the same ring to it. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman was chosen to speak today to head off the reintroduction of his ten-minute rule Bill. I speak of course of his Bill for a four-day week. I am not sure whether he has consulted his Whips on how compatible that would be with their desire to make Fridays a new norm sitting day. I will say this to him: if they will not let him have his ten-minute rule Bill, he should work to rule—although I suspect that as a Labour Member for Merseyside he needs no tips on trade union organising from a former banker. The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi) spoke with typical verve. She is inspired by a desire to serve and her strong faith, but she never lets any of this go to her head. Today, she was chosen because of the high regard that she is held in, but she is also one of the kindest Members of this House, regularly baking Victoria sponges for her staff and others—although post the election result, perhaps red velvet might now be on the menu. She has campaigned bravely against gang violence, in both the London Assembly and this House, and she is so right that we must not become desensitised to knife crime. She represents the place where she grew up, and does so with passion and determination. Now that I have a lot more time on my hands, I intend to be a regular visitor to the hon. Lady’s constituency—especially in the summer months. One of my favourite places to watch cricket is of course the Oval; as Prime Minister, I had the privilege of playing there with the wonderful Ebony Rainford-Brent and the young black cricketers of the African Caribbean Engagement programme. I applaud the hon. Lady for her work with that scheme. I can reassure her that I will not go as far as the last Conservative Prime Minister to speak from this Dispatch Box, who proposed removing that part of her constituency to a desert island, along with his eight favourite records. The hon. Lady’s story is truly an inspirational one. To go from caring for her mother as a teenager to being a Member of this House shows what is possible in our country. But the online abuse that she has received—an experience that is far too common in this House—shows one of the challenges facing our democracy. The intimidation that some candidates received in this election, both physical and digital, was completely unacceptable and is a threat to our electoral process. There can be no excuse for threats of physical violence or intimidatory protests outside politicians’ homes. The hon. Lady will have been picked to second the Loyal Address because the Whips Office has her down as one who will go far. May I offer some words of advice to Labour Members? On the Government Benches, life comes at you fast. Soon, you might be fortunate enough to be tapped on the shoulder and offered a junior ministerial role. Then, you will find yourself attending Cabinet, and then in the Cabinet. Then, when the Prime Minister’s position becomes untenable, you might end up being called to the highest office, and before you know it, you have a bright future behind you and are left wondering whether you can credibly be an elder statesman at the age of 44. [Laughter.] It is right to begin by congratulating the Prime Minister on his decisive victory in the election. He deserves the good will of us all in this House as he takes on the most demanding of jobs in the increasingly uncertain world in which we now live. The Labour party has successfully tapped into the public’s desire for change, but it must now deliver change, and we in the Opposition will hold it accountable for delivering on the commitments that it made to the British people. In the national interest, we will not oppose for the sake of it, but when we disagree with the Government, it is our responsibility as the Opposition to say so. What will guide us will be our principles: sound public finances; a belief that people know how to spend their own money better than Governments do, and that private enterprise, not state intervention, is the key to delivering growth and prosperity; public services that work for those who need them; an education system that gives everyone the best start in life; secure borders; and a strong national defence. I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward Martyn’s law. I am sure that the Prime Minister will find, as I did, that one of the most humbling parts of the job is seeing people whose lives have been touched by tragedy not turn to anger or bitterness, but campaign to ensure that other families do not have to endure the same pain. I particularly commend Figen Murray for her work to get this law on to the statute book. I can assure her that this measure will command consensus in this House, and we will work with the Government to make sure that it becomes law as soon as possible. I am also glad that the Government will continue with plans for a smokefree generation. I know there are deeply held views on both sides of this issue, and I have deep respect for those—especially on my own Benches—who disagree with me on this question. Measures that end access to products are never easy, but I believe that ensuring that our children can be the first generation that does not have to suffer the false choice between quitting smoking and not, because they will have never started, is a truly worthy aim. It will make us a healthier, fairer country where people live longer and better lives. The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm, and we are fortunate in our country to be protected by armed forces who are unrivalled in the world for their professionalism, bravery and skill. I know the whole House will agree that they are truly the best of us. Every month in my previous job, I became more concerned about the threats to our country’s security. We live in an increasingly uncertain world. We need greater investment in our military if we are to deter our enemies and defend our interests. As I warned earlier this year, there is an axis of authoritarian states that are a threat to our values—freedom, democracy and the rule of law—and we must collectively stand up to them. The world is more dangerous now than it has been at any time since the end of the cold war, so I urge the Prime Minister to commit to boosting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. If we lead the way on this issue, we can make 2.5% the new NATO benchmark for defence investment. That is the single best way to strengthen the alliance. It would show the Americans that we do not expect them to bear every burden, and would show President Putin that NATO is serious about bolstering its defences, and be the most effective way to deter further acts of Russian aggression. In the past few years, there has been an impressive amount of consensus across the House on foreign policy—on the importance of supporting Ukraine, and on the centrality of NATO to our national defence. In that spirit, I commend the Prime Minister for his work at the NATO summit, and I am glad that he and the Secretary of State for Defence have taken such rapid steps to demonstrate that, although the Government have changed, this country’s commitment to Ukraine’s security remains constant. I also welcome the visit of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) to the middle east. It is of fundamental importance to this country that, as we make real progress towards a two-state solution, our friend and ally Israel has a right to defend itself and to live in peace. Let me turn next to another crucial issue facing not just our country but the broader western world: illegal migration. The fundamental question is what to do with people who arrive here illegally but cannot be returned to their home country. Our approach was to send them to a safe third country; the Prime Minister was clear that he would scrap those plans, and I acknowledge that. Our fear remains that without such a deterrent the country will end up having to accept that a large number of those who cross the channel illegally will end up remaining here. How to prevent that is something that the Government, I know, will soon look to address. When it comes to legal migration, I urge the Home Secretary to retain the measures that we implemented, which are forecast to halve net migration in the next 12 months. If I may turn next to the economy, I understand well that the Chancellor is keen to paint as bleak a picture as possible, but I would gently point out that that is not exactly what the facts say. With inflation at 2%, unemployment at 4% and the fastest growing economy in the G7 so far this year, the Labour party has inherited an economy that is already on an upward trajectory. The Government have set out plans to strengthen the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and we will examine those proposals carefully, but the work of the OBR already means that Labour Members had the full details of the public finances when they set out their manifesto. The OBR has rightly taken away from Governments the ability to make forecasts say what they want them to say, but that has also taken away from Oppositions coming into government the ability to say that they did not know the true state of the public finances. As Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said: “The books are wide open, fully transparent.” In his words, trying to pretend that things are worse than expected “really won’t wash”. Labour Members promised no tax rises on working people and no plans for tax rises beyond what is in their manifesto in full knowledge of the public finances. It would be difficult for them to claim that things are worse than they thought and then renege on those pledges, and we will hold the Government to their promises come the Budget. I note the plans for new employment legislation. In this country, our unemployment rate is far lower than the European average, and that is thanks in part to our flexible labour market. I urge Labour not to impose new burdens on businesses. Business leaders themselves have warned of the unintended consequences of those plans—that they could lead to firms being less likely to invest and less likely to hire, so increasing unemployment in the long term. I further note the Government’s desire to impose new, potentially rigid legislation on technologies such as artificial intelligence. We are third only to the US and China in the size of our fast-growing technology sector, and we lead the world when it comes to AI safety. We should all in this House be careful not to endanger this country’s leading position in this field, which will drive growth and prosperity for decades to come. Although today’s King’s Speech contained a slew of Bills, what was missing was a concrete plan to tackle the unsustainable post-covid rise in the welfare bill. Without action, the cost of providing benefits to the working-age population with a disability or health condition will rise to £90 billion—more than we spend on our national defence, schools or policing. That is not only unsustainable, but unfair to taxpayers. That is why in government we had laid out a plan to reduce the welfare bill significantly, but crucially to support all those who could do so to go back into work. I hope the Government look at those proposals when they have the time to study them in detail. On the Conservative Benches we will continue to advocate for a welfare system that is compassionate and fair to those who need it, but fair too to those who pay for it. The Government have set out plans to change the planning system. We will of course study those thoroughly as well, as we all wish to see more homes built and the planning process speeded up. However, I would say that a system that does not allow local people to have a say will damage public consent for more housing in the long term. I regret that there was no mention in the King’s Speech of farming and rural communities, much like my own, but I hope in time that the Government will bring forward proposals. Turning to net zero, this country has decarbonised quicker than any other major country, and we have managed to do that while growing the economy. As a country and across this whole House, I know we will all be proud of that achievement. The Government plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030, but there is a real danger that, if the Government put the speed of doing that ahead of family finances and our energy security, we will again lose public consent for the measures necessary to ensure that we actually reach our 2050 net zero target —a target on which there is genuine consensus between our two parties. As even one of the Prime Minister’s own supporters has warned, this 2030 plan “just means we have to import our energy. Strategically we become more vulnerable. We pay more money for our energy.” I hope that the Energy Secretary reflects on those thoughts. Lastly, the Government have set out plans for reforms to the other place. Looking at the Government Benches, there can be no doubt about their ability to get them through this House, but the effects of the changes will last long beyond this Parliament and long beyond our tenures in these jobs. I would suggest that, when it comes to constitutional reform, it would be good to proceed on a cross-party basis, rather than to use a simple majority in this House to push things through. That consensus should include the Cross Benchers, whose convenor would be removed by the Government’s proposals. I also suspect that the public would prefer the Government to prioritise practical, real-world issues over constitutional wrangling. However, I welcome the news that the Government have paused their plan to force Members of the other place to retire at 80. That proposal always felt like it would be a blunt instrument. Indeed, in the Dissolution honours, the Prime Minister nominated, rightly, the former right hon. Member for Derby South, who will be a strong addition to the other place, despite the right hon. Lady being already over the retirement age that the Labour manifesto proposed. Let me close by saying that we of course recognise that the British people have entrusted the Labour party with the task of governing our country. On our side of the House, we will fulfil our duties, as the loyal Opposition, professionally and effectively. Across this House, we are all, first and foremost, patriots. We all wish to see our country and our people flourish and succeed. In that spirit, I wish the new Prime Minister and the new Government well.

• 9 Jul 2024 · Election of Speaker · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker-Elect, I am pleased to join the Prime Minister in welcoming you back to the Speaker’s Chair, and may I also praise the wonderful speech from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith)? I start by congratulating the Prime Minister on his election victory; as he takes on his formidable task, he and his family deserve the good wishes of all of us in this House. In our politics, we can argue vigorously, as the Prime Minister and I did over the past six weeks, but still respect each other, and whatever disputes we may have in this Parliament, I know that everyone in this House will not lose sight of the fact that we are all motivated by our desire to serve our constituents and our country, and to advance the principles that we honourably believe in. I welcome to their places every Member, new and old, and congratulate them on their results; to be sent to this place by one’s constituents is the greatest honour, privilege and responsibility. I know that every one of us will try to repay the trust placed in us, and I look forward to continuing to represent the interests of my rural north Yorkshire constituents. One of the great aspects of our system is that no matter how high you rise, you still have that constituency, which keeps you grounded, and my advice to all Members is to appreciate the role that you have, every day that you have it. For those of us in my party, let me begin with a message to those who are no longer sitting behind me: I am sorry. We have lost too many diligent, community-spirited representatives whose wisdom and expertise will be missed in the debates and discussions ahead. It is important that after 14 years in government, the Conservative party rebuilds, so we will now take up the crucial role of His Majesty’s official Opposition professionally, effectively and humbly. Restoring trust begins with remembering that being here is an opportunity to do what those we serve expect from us. In our case, that means holding the new Government to account. May I congratulate the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)? He has given 41 years of remarkable, dedicated service to this House and his constituency. I know full well how ferociously my right hon. Friend fights for the interests of his constituents, and I applaud him for that. He is also testament to the benefits of an early morning dip in the Serpentine. Members may be interested to note that the Bottomleys have had a big influence on my right hon. Friend’s career: in 1974, my right hon. Friend ran against Arthur Bottomley in Middlesbrough in his first effort to enter this place. Today, he takes over from Sir Peter, who will be missed. May I also congratulate the new Mother of the House, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)? We have our differences on policy, but no one can deny the right hon. Lady’s important role in this House, and the inspiration she has provided for so many young women of colour. The right hon. Lady is truly in every sense of the word a trailblazer. May I join you, Mr Speaker-Elect, in thanking House staff for their hard work in welcoming our new colleagues to this House and their service over the coming Parliament? Finally, may I congratulate you, Mr Speaker-Elect? When you first ascended to the Speaker’s Chair, you did so with a healthy majority, and that was testament to your wide appeal and the confidence that this House places in you and your judgments. The last Conservative Prime Minister to speak from the Opposition Benches, the right hon. John Major, said about the role of the Speaker: “The job specification is pretty daunting: the patience of Job and the wisdom of Solomon are only the basic requirements. We demand also impartiality, independence and fairness.” —[ Official Report , 7 May 1997; Vol. 294, c. 9.] Mr Speaker-Elect, you have shown over the past four and a half years how to protect that careful balance. The past few years in this House have been at times difficult, and you, Sir, have always brought this House together. That was clear when we lost our colleague Sir David Amess. I know your guidance and support for Members then was greatly appreciated. It is a privilege to be in this House. Our democracy is powerful and, as we have witnessed, it can be definitive, but I know that this House will, true to its best traditions, hold the Executive to account, and that Mr Speaker-Elect will facilitate that. In conclusion, I have no doubt that we will face difficult days together in this place, but I also know that I speak for the whole House when I say that we will all welcome your leadership and guidance in the months and years ahead.