King’s Speech

Baroness Finn Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer made her first speech in that office on 8 July 2024, she said that, by growing the economy, the Government could

“rebuild Britain and make every part of the country better off”.

That was not a modest claim; it was the central economic wager of this Government. Ministers told the country that the hard arithmetic of our public finances could be overcome by sustained growth across the Parliament, and that higher productivity, higher investment, stronger real wages and the highest sustained growth in the G7 would produce abundance and avoid difficult choices. That ambition is not wrong: Britain needs growth, and we want the country to be more prosperous, more productive and more secure.

However, growth is not summoned by slogans; it is not delivered by a press release, a reset, a mission board, a pillar or another ministerial speech. Growth is earned by those who embrace risk and sustained effort to produce value. Government can, at best, help enable growth by making this country the best place in the developed world to invest, to hire, to build, to innovate and to make things. Two years on, the question before this House is not whether the Government’s ambition was the right one, but whether their policies have matched that ambition. The answer, I am afraid, is clear: the Government have borrowed too much, grown too little and regulated to excess.

The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that successive plans to reduce borrowing and stabilise debt have “not yet materialised”. Public sector net borrowing was £152 billion in 2024-25 and is forecast at £132 billion this year. Underlying debt has continued to rise. Debt interest spending is forecast to rise from £110 billion in 2025-26 to £137 billion by 2030-31. While government debt is rising and borrowing costs are at a 30-year high, the Government are spending £333 billion annually on welfare. That is more than the Government receive in income tax. That is very the definition of unsustainable.

When the Government sought to cut the rate of the increase in that spending, they U-turned. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister showed us how determined he can be in the face of unsustainable and soaring pressure, but when it came to the essential battle on welfare—the real test of his ability to get those tough and big calls right—he capitulated. The Government’s plans would have merely slowed the rate of growth, not reduced the bill. If we are to deliver the brighter future that young people deserve, we need to be much more radical.

Can the Minister say what measures in the King’s Speech will bring our unsustainable welfare bill under control? Why was welfare, which is so great a challenge, not the subject of one of our debates this week? Those are not abstract numbers. Every pound spent servicing debt is a pound that cannot be spent on defence, roads, hospitals, skills or tax reductions. High debt interest is not a symbol of compassion but the price of policy failure.

At the same time, growth has disappointed. The IMF has cut its forecast for UK growth this year from 1.3% to 0.8%. The economy grew by just 0.1% in the final quarter of 2025. Youth unemployment is up. There are now more than 700,000 unemployed young people aged 16 to 24 and the youth unemployment rate has risen over the year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric. Ministers promised through their words a growth Government, but they have produced through their actions a high-borrowing, high-tax, high-regulation Government. As the outgoing Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls said on Tuesday, it is deeds, not words, that count.

In the first Session of this Parliament, the Government’s preferences were clear. When in doubt, tax. When in doubt, regulate. When in doubt, create a new body, a new duty, a new levy or a new compliance burden. The rise in employer national insurance contributions was a direct tax on jobs. It was accompanied by a lower threshold at which employers became liable. At the same time, the Government pressed ahead with higher wage costs and an Employment Rights Act which, even after the important concession on day one unfair dismissal rights secured in this House, still makes it riskier and more expensive to take on staff. Employment rights matter but so, too, do employment opportunities. If the Government make it more expensive to hire, more uncertain to manage a probation period and more complex to comply with the law, they should not be surprised when firms hesitate before creating the next job. The people hit first are often the young, the inexperienced, the marginal applicant and the small business that cannot absorb another legal risk.

The same anti-growth instinct is visible in energy. The Government have set out plans not to issue new licences to explore new oil and gas fields in the North Sea. At a time of geopolitical instability and high energy prices, it is extraordinary to choose greater dependence on imports over the responsible use of our own resources. It means less domestic investment, fewer high-skilled jobs and more exposure to shocks beyond our control.

Therefore, when we turn to the Bills announced in the gracious Speech, the Official Opposition will apply a simple growth test to each of them. Does it make it cheaper to hire? Does it make energy cheaper? Does it make it faster to build? Does it increase productivity? Does it make investment more attractive? Does it reduce the burden of regulation rather than merely relabel it? Where the answer is yes, we will be constructive and support the Government. Where the answer is no, where a Bill creates another regulator, another levy, another licensing regime, another statutory duty, another offence, another code, another reporting requirement or another cost on business, we will challenge it firmly. On productivity, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide more detail on the proposals to strengthen the productivity of the Civil Service.

The country cannot afford another Session in which every problem is met with a new rule and every industry is treated as a revenue stream. An alternative King’s Speech would start with what the economy actually needs: lower business taxes, cheaper energy, faster planning, lighter regulation and a serious commitment to competitiveness. It would slash business rates for the high street and hospitality. It would remove the most damaging part of the Employment Rights Act. It would bring forward a serious deregulatory programme, not another request for regulators to write letters about growth. It would make energy policies serve industry and households, not ideology. It would use our freedoms outside the European Union to strike a more agile, more pro-innovation path where that is in the national interest. So I ask the Minister: which measure in the King’s Speech will make it cheaper for a small firm to employ its next worker? Which will bring down the energy bill of a manufacturer? Which will cut the number of forms, approvals and licences faced by a growing business? Which will tell investors that Britain is open, not merely in rhetoric but in law, tax and regulation?

Let us turn to Europe. Like many noble Lords, I listened to the Prime Minister’s speech on Monday, hoping that the Government might have learned from the public’s verdict in the local elections and changed course. I was disappointed. What we heard was not a reset but a retreat into the familiar instincts of the left: more state direction, more nationalisation, more guarantees announced from the centre, and closer alignment with the European Union. There is a place for government action but the Government cannot substitute themselves for enterprise. They cannot nationalise their way to productivity. They cannot guarantee their way to opportunity if the private sector is being taxed, regulated and second-guessed at every turn. They cannot align their way to competitiveness by binding Britain more closely to a European model whose own leaders now acknowledge is failing to deliver the growth Europe needs.

This is not an argument for hostility to Europe. Britain should trade with Europe, co-operate and stand with it on security and work constructively with our neighbours, wherever our interests coincide. But co-operation is not submission. Friendship is not rule-taking and a reset does not become re-entry by stealth. The British people voted in 2016 to leave the European Union. At the last election, the Prime Minister promised not to rejoin the single market, the customs union or free movement. Yet with every speech, summit and reset, the Government appear to edge closer to the EU’s regulatory orbit—closer to payments, mobility schemes and alignment for its own sake.

The irony is that Europe itself is now warning against the very model to which this Prime Minister seems so drawn. At Davos this year, the German Chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said that

“Germany and Europe have wasted incredible potential for growth”.

He said Europe had become

“the world champion of overregulation”.

A few weeks later, at the European Industry Summit, he went further, saying:

“Overregulation … hampers our economic growth”.


He called for a “regulatory clean slate” and said that Europe must “deregulate every sector”.

Those are not the words of a British Eurosceptic caricaturing Brussels. They are the words of the Chancellor of Germany, speaking from the heart of the European project, warning that regulation has damaged growth, investment and innovation. The Draghi report made the same diagnosis. It said that Europe

“largely missed out on the digital revolution”.

It observed that only four of the world’s top 50 technology companies are European. It warned that innovative companies are held back by “inconsistent and restrictive regulations”.

If the leaders of the European Union now know that their penchant for overregulation is a central cause of their economic weakness, why is Britain being drawn closer to that system? Why would we import the very burdens that Europe itself is trying to cut? Why would we trade the freedom to be faster, lighter and more agile for the comfort of alignment with a model that has underperformed? The Prime Minister owes the country a clear answer, not a slogan or another platitude about being at the heart of Europe. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no dynamic alignment with EU rules without explicit parliamentary approval? By explicit approval we do not mean a broadly drafted Henry VIII power. Will he confirm that Britain will not become an EU rule-taker? Will he confirm that there will be no new annual payments to EU programmes without a vote in Parliament? Will he confirm that any youth experience scheme will be capped, time-limited and not recreate free movement by another name? Brexit was a vote to govern ourselves. The Government should use that freedom to make Britain more competitive, not bargain it away in pursuit of applause in Brussels.

The Government’s problem is not that their ambition is too high, it is that their instincts are wrong. They want growth but tax jobs. They want investment but raise uncertainty. They want enterprise but regulate success. They want fiscal space but allow debt interest to crowd out the future. They want to be pro-business but treat business as something to be managed, charged and corrected. Britain does not need another reset. It needs a change of course. It needs lower burdens, cheaper energy, faster building, a tax system that rewards work and investment, and a regulatory culture that asks first whether intervention is necessary at all.

The Official Opposition will support measures that genuinely promote growth. But we will not be silent when the Government repeat the mistakes of the previous Session. The British people were promised growth. They have been given borrowing, tax rises and regulation. It is time for Ministers to stop talking about growth and start removing the obstacles to it.