Rishi Sunak MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2025 · Driven Grouse Shooting · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to follow the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). I last spoke on this subject in this very place back in 2016. A lot has changed in the last nine years—notably, 10 Chief Secretaries to the Treasury, seven Chancellors and, indeed, five Prime Ministers—but one thing that has not changed is my view on grouse shooting. For full disclosure, I should say that I have never shot grouse, pheasant or any other type of bird. That is not a request for invitations, but the fact that I do not shoot grouse has not changed my absolute commitment to grouse shooting. Why? Because grouse shooting is fundamental to hard-working people in constituencies such as mine. It is a part of our local social fabric, and it is one of the world’s great conservation success stories. Advocates of a ban often think that the only people who will suffer are rich men in plus fours with port-faced complexions, but as I said back in 2016, nothing could be further from the truth. The real victims of any ban would not be caricatures, but ordinary working people: the farmer’s wife who goes beating at the weekend so that her family can make ends meet; the young man able to earn a living, in the community that he loves, as an apprentice to a gamekeeper; or the local publican welcoming shooting parties with cold ales and warm pies. Let us be absolutely clear that those who support a ban on grouse shooting should only do so if they are prepared to look those people in the eye and explain to them why their livelihoods are worth sacrificing. Some question shooting’s contribution to the rural economy. As we heard, the petition itself uses the words “economically insignificant”, but there is nothing economically insignificant about 2,500 direct jobs and tens of millions of pounds paid out in wages. If anything, those numbers are an underestimate. From the Yorkshire B&B welcoming ramblers drawn to our area by the moors’ summer blossom, to the workshops of Westley Richards in Birmingham or Purdey in London, whose handmade shotguns are the finest in the world, the ripples of employment that grouse shooting creates reach every corner of our country. Grouse shooting makes an invaluable contribution not only to the rural economy, but to our rural landscape. A tendency among some conservationists is to act as though farmers and gamekeepers are somehow trespassing on Britain’s landscape, but without their hands repairing our dry stone walls or their dairy cows keeping the fields lush, the rural beauty of our countryside would soon fade. Heather moorland, as we heard, is rarer than rainforest, and 75% of it is found right here in Britain. It is a national treasure. From Heathcliff to Holmes, the moors have become a proud part of our cultural heritage, and no one has set out a viable, privately funded alternative vision for those uplands. Without the million pounds of private income spent by moor owners on land management every single week, that proud heritage would come to an end. Overgrazed by sheep, used to grow pine timber, or abandoned to bracken, the moors as we know and love them would be lost. That would be a disaster for British wildlife. Academic study after academic study shows that endangered wading birds such as curlew and lapwing are much more likely to breed successfully on managed grouse moors. The vast majority of rare merlin, the UK’s smallest bird of prey, are found on grouse moors. A recent study by the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust in Northumberland reveals the devastating ecological impact on plover, snipe, lapwing and curlew populations of the withdrawal of predator control carried out by moor owners. There has been some discussion about the state of the hen harrier population, and although numbers reached a record high in 2023, more can and must be done, but we must be clear: a Britain without grouse shooting is not a Britain where the hen harrier would thrive. Research carried out on the Scottish grouse moor of Langholm and published in the Journal of Applied Ecology found that when gamekeeping ceased, the hen harrier population plummeted. Without gamekeepers to control the predators, they multiply and hen harriers pay the price. That is why the participation of 1 million acres of grouse moor in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs hen harrier brood management scheme is the right approach, and why gamekeepers supporting diversionary feeding is the right approach. Conservation will succeed only through partnership with the grouse-shooting industry and not through its destruction.

• 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?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Last week I met two of my constituents, Mark Farrow and Stephen White, who volunteer for the Driving Ukraine charity, which takes modified vehicles to Ukraine to serve as ambulances and for other humanitarian purposes. Later this month, they will take one more vehicle out, funded by generous donations from local people. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending their efforts, as well as the charitable contributions made by so many across our country in support of Ukraine and the Ukrainian people? May I also thank her for giving us an opportunity to commemorate their efforts during the week following the recess?

• 21 Nov 2024 · Transport Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for agreeing to meet me and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the A66. While there is a strong economic case for dualling, the road safety considerations concern me most. As she will know, 12 people tragically lost their life on the road last week. I recently met constituents in Ravensworth who live near one of the single carriageway sections of the road. They live daily with those fears. Will she reassure them that she and her team will keep road safety considerations uppermost in their mind as they think about the future of the A66?

• 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

  On the day that the Prime Minister took office, he said that he wanted to restore trust to British politics with action, not words. Today, his actions speak for themselves, with a Budget that contains broken promise after broken promise and reveals the simple truth that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have not been straight with the British people. Time and again, we Conservatives warned that a Labour Government would tax, borrow and spend far beyond what they were telling the country, and time and again they denied they had such plans. Today, the truth has come out—proof that Labour planned to do this all along. Today’s Budget sees the fiscal rules fiddled, borrowing increased by billions of pounds, inflation-busting handouts for the trade unions— [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 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Britain’s poorest pensioners squeezed, welfare spending out of control and a spree of tax rises that the Government promised the working people of this country they would not do. National insurance—up. Capital gains tax—up. Inheritance tax—up. Energy taxes —up. Business rates—up. First time buyer’s stamp duty—up. Pensions tax—up. They have fiddled the figures. [ Interruption. ]

• 30 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Our two predecessors, Sir Tony Blair and Lord Hague, have repeatedly come together and powerfully argued in their joint reports that it is vital for the future prosperity of Britain’s economy, society and public services for us to be a world leader in technology and innovation. The Prime Minister and I may not yet be at our joint report writing stage, but in a similar spirit of cross-party agreement, could I ask him to find his inner tech bro and continue to support emerging British tech businesses and establish our country as the home of AI growth and innovation?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, thank you for your kind words—and, indeed, I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words. No Prime Minister looks forward to PMQs, but I always did like this pre-Budget one. It was, for a change, nice not to be the main event but just the warm-up act. As you said, Mr Speaker, today is my last appearance at PMQs. I am happy to confirm reports that I will now be spending more time in the greatest place on earth, where the scenery is worthy of a movie set and everyone is a character. That’s right, Mr Speaker, if anyone needs me, I will be in Yorkshire. As an adopted Yorkshireman, I am particularly looking forward to doing the coast-to-coast walk that runs through my constituency and many others. Since 2015, we have made significant progress with the campaign to make it a national trail, and Natural England is close to concluding its work. Can I ask the Prime Minister to ensure that the coast-to-coast walk does indeed become Britain’s greatest national trail, and, in preparation for my return to the Back Benches, will he meet with me to discuss it?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. As he knows, China has become a decisive enabler of Russia’s war against Ukraine, now supplying the vast majority of Russia’s imported military micro-electronics and components and worsening the suffering of the Ukrainian people. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is prepared to sanction any Chinese business or individual involved in aiding Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, including imposing secondary sanctions on financial institutions?

• 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?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I don’t think that even Lord Alli is buying any of that nonsense. I am not asking about the Budget; I am asking specifically about the promise that the Prime Minister made to the British people. So let me ask him again just to clarify his own promise: does his commitment not to raise national insurance apply to both employee and employer national insurance contributions?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear that the Prime Minister has opened the door to raising employer national insurance contributions, including on pensions, and fiddling the figures so that he can borrow more. He talks about what he has achieved, but economic confidence is plummeting, growth is now stalling and the UK’s borrowing costs are rising on his watch. Can I close on another important topic? Yesterday’s intervention from the head of MI5 will have been sobering for the whole House, not least his warning that Britain faces the most complex and interconnected threats in our country’s history. I know the Prime Minister will agree that our security services are owed a debt of gratitude for what they do to keep us safe, but can he confirm that the forthcoming terrorism Bill will give our security services the powers they need to tackle evolving threats? I can assure him of our constructive support on these vital questions of national security, in the same spirit that he provided that support to me.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Tomorrow, the Government will publish their anticipated changes to employment law. Given the weekend’s events, when did the Prime Minister first become a convert to fire and rehire?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  When the Prime Minister talks about security at work, once again it is one rule for him and another rule for everyone else. I know that not everything or everyone has survived his first 100 days in government, so can he confirm that when he promised not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, that commitment applies to both employer and employee national insurance contributions?

• 11 Sept 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  They are shouting now, but those arguments did not even convince 50 of the Prime Minister’s own MPs, who suddenly found yesterday that they had urgent business elsewhere. We know why the Prime Minister is hiding the impact assessment: the Labour party’s own previous analysis claimed that this policy could cause 3,850 deaths. Are the numbers in his impact assessment higher or lower than that?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister talked about the public finances. The UK’s public finances are more robust than those of almost any other major advanced economy. Here we have it: he inherited a lower deficit than France, America, Italy— [ Interruption. ]

• 4 Sept 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister also inherited inflation back at target, interest rates being cut, low unemployment and, indeed, the fastest-growing economy in the G7. But that is not the point, because the Prime Minister now has to start taking responsibility for his own decisions. If, as he says, the public finances are a priority, it was his decision, and his alone, to award a train driver on £65,000 a pay rise of almost £10,000, and it was also his decision that a pensioner living on just £13,000 will have their winter fuel allowance removed. Can the Prime Minister explain to Britain’s low-income pensioners why he has taken money away from them while at the same time giving more money to highly paid train drivers?

• 4 Sept 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the Grenfell community. We will rightly discuss that important issue shortly after Prime Minister’s questions. I also join him in congratulating our record-breaking Olympians and Paralympians on everything that they have achieved. Lastly, I pay tribute to the hard work, bravery and dedication of our police. This summer, in challenging circumstances, they served our communities commendably and kept us all safe. Government is about making choices, and the new Prime Minister has made a choice: he has chosen to take the winter fuel allowance away from low-income pensioners and give that money to certain unionised workforces in inflation-busting pay rises. Could I ask the Prime Minister, why did he choose train drivers over Britain’s vulnerable pensioners?

• 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.