Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

John Hayes Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Since being elected by the people of Bridgwater, I have sought to be a strong voice for local families, small businesses and community groups across my constituency. I am saddened that, during those two years, life has got more difficult for so many people. The cost of living is rising faster than two years ago, unemployment is higher and small businesses are struggling.

The reason for these problems is that this Government are making life harder for people who work hard and do the right thing, and too often they reward those who do not. Labour is taxing and spending and borrowing too much. It is taxing those who work, those who employ people, those who save, those who invest, those who create jobs, and those who build up a family farm or family business and want to pass it on to their children. It seems that the only people better off under Labour are train drivers and those on benefits.

Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out the borrowing plans of the last Conservative Government. We planned to borrow £323 billion in the five years from April 2024. This Labour Chancellor is planning to borrow £583 billion over the same period, which is an 80% increase—an extra £260 billion borrowed over five years. All that extra borrowing must be paid for.

Poor economic management and chaos within the Labour party mean that Britain is now paying 5.1% to borrow money for 10 years.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

King’s Speeches are partly about what a Government do, and partly about what a Government do not do. The omission in this King’s Speech is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests: a macroeconomic approach, particularly to productivity. This is a huge drag on our economy, and one might have expected further measures to be announced dealing with that macroeconomic problem, for it relates closely to the problems that he has set out in his speech already.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

The rate that Britain is now paying is higher than at any time over the last 20 years—in fact, it is the highest rate since the last time Labour was in office. Britain’s finances are in a precarious position precisely because Labour is doing what it always does: spending other people’s money like there is no tomorrow.

The Government announced a holiday tax in the King’s Speech. This will enable councils to tax holidays taken in this country even more than at present. Most people who take their holiday in Britain are British. They already pay VAT at 20% on their holidays, and Labour wants to tax them further. This will hit local businesses in Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean in my constituency. Many families who holiday in Somerset are not wealthy. A tax of £2.50 per person per night will take £70 a week away from a family of four. That is money taken out of their pocket that they cannot spend with local businesses.

It has been interesting to watch Liberal Democrats in Somerset squirming over their plans for a holiday tax. While their colleagues in Bristol and Bath have welcomed the tax, calling its introduction a victory for Liberal Democrats, those in Somerset do not quite know what to say. No doubt they will make their position clear before next year’s local elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

Last year I attended the funeral of my step-grandmother, Diana Faure Walker. I adored her, and I was so proud that she had been decorated in the war for her service as a nurse after D-day. She believed that Britain was a hope for the world. That was not naive idealism, but the resolve of the generation who won the war.

Today, liberal democracy in Europe is under threat from a dictator again, and too many of our generation are turning to fear. We are facing a Reform party Government, consisting of the same people who cost us £100 billion a year with the Brexit vote. Put them in government and the current chaos will seem like nothing. But there are still three years until the next election: enough time to set a new national mission, achieved with a new economic model to bring new hope. Of course we must restore economic relations with Europe, but we must also dramatically increase defence research and development to power economic growth and defend liberal democracy.

Academics now agree that the economic dominance of the United States is powered by public research and development, especially in defence. It was through American and British research and development that we learned how to mass-produce penicillin, which saved thousands of lives after D-day, yet for the last 30 years we have failed to use at scale the No. 1 policy to maximise growth. The Government have made some progress, but today we spend £22 billion a year on public research and development while the fastest-growing advanced economies spend double that.

The Government are rightly concerned about more borrowing, but we can remove most of the credit risk for defence research and development borrowing by issuing bonds jointly with our European and Canadian allies. We should follow the advice of Draghi, the former president of the European Central Bank, who urges the EU to reduce debt by borrowing for R&D at scale. Even with additional borrowing, the debt-to-GDP ratio falls as growth takes off.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, which relates closely to an intervention that I made a few moments ago. If we are really to address the productivity gap, two things are essential: R&D, which breeds innovation to make our economy more efficient and effective, and investment in skills—particularly high-level skills, but skills across the board. Neither of those elements is emphasised in the King’s Speech. The hon. Gentleman clearly thinks they should be, and so do I.

[Chris Coghlan]

I entirely agree.

Imagine where scaling up defence research and development could lead our country. In three years’ time we could have a resurgent economy and Putin defeated. Together with our European, Canadian and Ukrainian allies, we could have defended liberal democracy. As I left my grandmother’s funeral, they played Fred Astaire’s “The Way You Look Tonight”, a song that she loved and danced to with British soldiers. The hope of that generation lives in us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Member for Exeter talked about a battle of ideas, but those on the Government Benches seem to be totally devoid of any ideas that will actually get this country moving again. The ITEM Club forecasts around 160,000 job losses this year alone, with manufacturing, retail and construction expected to be hit the hardest. Unemployment has risen month after month and now stands at 5.2%. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs payroll data shows 110,000 fewer people in employment than when Labour took office.

In my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, in Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, there has been a 28% increase in the number of young people claiming unemployment-related benefits in a single year. This is the reality behind the rhetoric that comes from the Government: young people unable to get a foothold in work, businesses pausing recruitment, families feeling the squeeze in their bills, and high streets losing momentum.

The reason is not difficult to identify, and businesses across the country are telling us the same thing: Labour has increased the cost of employment, raised taxes and layered on regulation that is undermining confidence. The Employment Rights Act alone introduced more than 330 pages of additional obligations on employers. The Government’s own assessment acknowledged a cost of around £1 billion a year. Both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors warned that the legislation would reduce hiring and investment, which is exactly what we are seeing. What is the Government’s response? A regulating for growth Bill. It is like asking a vegetarian how they would like their steak cooked. The reality is that this is not the way to get growth.

At a recent hospitality roundtable in my constituency, one publican told me that there is now “no incentive to hire someone under 25”. That should concern every single Member of this House, but Labour Members simply parrot the Government’s talking points. They are totally detached from what is going on in the real world. The unemployment rate is now close to one in six among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I cannot believe that Labour Members are not being told this by their constituents. For many young people, their first job is the foundation for everything that follows—skills, confidence, independence and ambition—but too many are now finding the door closed.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is right about young people, and he will be as shocked as I am that over a million of them are not in education, employment or training. Much has been said about growth, but what matters is per capita growth—making all our people better off—and yet, to go back to my earlier point, there is nothing in the King’s Speech about investment in skills, which allows people to get their foot on the ladder, businesses to thrive and the economy to boom.

[Gregory Stafford]

My right hon. Friend is right. Per capita growth is down, and that is a shocking indictment on the Government.

Across our high streets and the hospitality sector, the pressure is becoming severe. To give some local examples, John from Birdies café in Farnham told me that his business rates are rising from around £290 a month to approximately £1,600 a month, and his energy bills have increased from £300 or £400 to about £,3500. As a result, he has already let a member of staff go.

Wey Hill in Haslemere is one of the areas most affected by business rates. The average increase in rateable values is 82%. That is entirely unsustainable for small shops—a butcher, a kitchen shop and a party shop. These are not enormous businesses. At the same time, retail sales are falling and confidence is weakening across the sector, yet the Government still do not appear to grasp the impact of their decisions.

In the King’s Speech, instead of backing enterprise, the Government are increasing the cost of employing people. Instead of reducing the burden, they are adding to it, and instead of restoring confidence, they are eroding it. Thirty-year gilt yields are at their highest level since the 1990s, and higher borrowing costs mean higher mortgages, higher debt interest and less capacity to fund public services. The Government are presiding over stagnation and apparently calling that a strategy. Good news: there is a different path, which we Conservatives laid out in our alternative King’s Speech. I say to the Ministers on the Treasury Bench that we are not precious about it; take every single policy and enact it, because we want the best for Britain. We will support them in every way we can, if they pick up those policies. They include reducing regulatory burdens on businesses, cutting energy costs by removing unnecessary levies, restoring domestic energy security by renewing North sea licences, and properly cutting business rates for high streets and the hospitality sector.

Jobs are not created through legislation, regulation or press releases; they are created when businesses are confident enough to invest, expand and hire. That requires lower costs, lower taxes, cheaper energy and a stable regulatory environment. Labour came in promising growth, but we have seen anything but. Unless there is a change of direction soon, the cost of this Labour Government to our country will only rise further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I will begin with an issue where the Government have promised action time and again but have failed to act: solar mega-plants. If rural communities are to host nationally significant energy infrastructure, we must be compensated fairly for doing so. An entire parliamentary term has passed, and yet the Government have still not regulated mandatory compensation, despite promising to do so.

The consequences are real. In Rutland and Lincolnshire, a 2,100-acre industrial plant with 10-foot solar panels will fence in some of our villages on all sides for the next 60 years—a decision that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) happily signed off on in his first 24 hours as Energy Secretary. Mallard Pass has subsequently been purchased by Quinbrook Infrastructure Partners, a company with a global transaction value of $30 billion.

Last Friday, I convened a meeting with Quinbrook and the affected parish councillors from Rutland and Lincolnshire. I had to intervene just to get the executives in the room, and what they put on the table was an insult. They have refused to honour the promises made during the application process to pay per megawatt generated, reinterpreting it to mean only energy exported—a sleight of hand that will cost my communities £44,000 a year.

Let us put this in plain terms. A solar plant is estimated to generate annual revenues after finance and operating costs of £10 million to £15 million a year, and yet the company claims it can afford to give my communities only a paltry £96,000 a year.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am delighted to hear what my constituency neighbour is saying, because she is right; these careless corporates who have little interest in energy—and even less in the environment—are riding roughshod over the will of local people in order to impose huge plants on the best and most versatile land. As I said to the Prime Minister recently, this compromises our food security at the very time that we should be building greater economic resilience.

[Alicia Kearns]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. What is breathtaking about this offer of £96,000 a year is that in a previous meeting—in a statement the company now disavows—we were told that paying compensation any higher would make the project financially unviable. That is to say that a project generating £15 million a year would be made financially unviable if it upped its offer to £144,000 a year in compensation.

I wonder how Quinbrook’s investors and shareholders would feel if I asked them why margins are so narrow and whether they can have confidence in Quinbrook. I give notice today that if that offer is not substantially improved, that is precisely what I intend to do: I will name every investor and every shareholder on the Floor of this House, and I will write to them and ask whether they are comfortable with what is being done to my communities in Rutland and Lincolnshire.

Quinbrook is offering less than 40% of the rate being offered on comparable developments in the east midlands. In fact, the only national programme offering less than Mallard Pass is Cleve Hill, which—surprise, surprise—is also owned by Quinbrook. Over the two years of construction works, Quinbrook issued a good-will handout of £200,000 as a one-off donation—not for each year, but across the two. Some residents’ homes have already lost 70% of their value. My question is: when will the Government stand up for us? I intend to amend the Government’s energy independence Bill to make community compensation mandatory for solar developments and to backdate it, but the Government could act first.

The King’s Speech also contained no measures to ban SLAPPs—the use of aggressive, unfounded legal threats to silence whistleblowers. I will use parliamentary privilege today to expose one of the most stomach-churning examples I have encountered. I hope this will shame the perpetrator into silence and similarly force the Government into action.

The company, which is called Enough, sells self-swab rape kits to women and children, and it does so on the back of a series of lies: that the kits are admissible in court—they are not; that women are more likely to be raped than to get cancer—they are not; that 430,000 people are raped in the UK every year—they are not; and that owning of its devices will deter a man from raping you—as if it is my responsibility as a woman to stop a man raping me.

More than 40 sexual assault charities have urged against use of the kits. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has also spoken out against them. The Advertising Standards Authority is investigating the company, as is Trading Standards. The kits prevent proper evidence collection and stop perpetrators’ DNA being checked against police records. A case has already collapsed because of the use of one such kit.

In a debate on Times Radio, I told one of the founders, Katie White, that I had seen the threatening letters that Enough had sent to rape charities and young women across our country. When asked if this was true by the journalist, Katie said, “No, not true.” This was also a lie.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

That was a very powerful and upsetting speech. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for raising that issue. There is a lot to think about.

In a world of growing uncertainty, our country’s economic security has never mattered more, which is why I have to say I am delighted by the European partnership Bill in the King’s Speech. Right now, our rigid distancing from the EU is simply holding us back. It has piled costs on to business and has done nothing for ordinary people. If Members visit the Italian-Spanish deli on the King’s Road in my constituency, they will see that the shelves are half bare because the white van person who used to make buying runs across northern Europe cannot or does not want to do the paperwork any more. A drinks importer in Fulham is paying £100 to £150 extra per pallet. These are import businesses, but the costs fall on exporters just as hard, and small businesses can least afford the costs they now face.

Large sectors are also paying heavily for our rigid distancing from the European Union. British cars now have to meet a separate set of regulatory requirements just to enter European markets, and it is costing the automotive sector £600 million a year that they did not used to have to pay. In chemicals, leaving the EU REACH registration scheme and creating an entirely separate one has left the UK industry facing a £2 billion bill. In pharmaceuticals, British products are waiting for four to six weeks for batch testing before they can get into European supply chains.

Ten years ago, none of those costs existed. Why not? We all know the answer: because we and our European neighbours were in a single market together. Once outside that market, Britain became subject to all these new trade barriers, just like any non-EU country, which pushed up costs.

Indeed, in the food and drink sector, costs for British exporters have risen by as much as 20%. Since 2023, businesses have had to pay for over a million multi-page export health certificates just to trade with the EU, at a total cost of between £90 million and £210 million. Each certificate costs up to £200 quid. This did not used to be the case. A salmon shipment can then face sampling costs of £1,400 on top. The cost can be £1,200 for a consignment of beef or cheese. If you have got the forms even slightly wrong, valuable produce can be held at the border, or spoiled entirely.

[Sir John Hayes]

As you might know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I try to read a lot of fiction—I read two novels a month—but I sometimes think I do not need to, because what we are hearing now is a fiction about the European Union. In every Department in which I served as a Minister, I tried to encourage the procurement of British products and services, including vehicles. Every time I did so I was told that it was impossible because of EU regulations and rules, particularly state aid rules. That disadvantaged British businesses large and small. We have been freed from that now, which is why Ministers on the Treasury Bench can preside over a regime that procures British goods and services, and I know that every day they try to do so.

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful for that intervention, but it does not in any way even attempt to address the point I was making about the loss of money to this country through trade and the fact that so many businesses have gone under.

On state aid and product procurement, I will accept that one of the most unpalatable things that civil servants have always said, along with “commercial in confidence”, is, “No, we can’t do that because of EU procurement rules.” After the changes to EU procurement rules there was, even while we were in the European Union, a huge amount that you could do to prefer small and local firms, as I knew when I was deputy leader of my local council and got officials to do that. The civil servants you were dealing with perhaps should have looked again—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

At the heart of the King’s Speech lies a fundamental misunderstanding of how economic growth is created. Growth comes from the grassroots, not central planning. It certainly does not come from Whitehall or European micromanagement and regulation; rather, it comes from everyday people in our constituencies who get up early, work hard and build businesses from nothing while incurring risks themselves. It comes from Governments getting out of the way of people’s lives and allowing enterprise to flourish.

In Romford, the entrepreneurial spirit is deeply ingrained in our community. Ever since King Henry III granted our market charter in 1247, our town has thrived through enterprise. My constituency has always been a town of market traders, small businessmen, shopkeepers and the self-employed. Napoleon’s remark that Britain was a nation of shopkeepers should fill us with pride, as our entrepreneurial spirit is the foundation of Britain’s success as a prosperous, free-trading nation.

Yet today my local high street, like so many up and down the country, tells a very different story. Successive Governments, and this Government in particular, have made it harder, not easier, to operate a successful business here in Britain. Only this Government could stand here claiming to back growth while simultaneously hammering employers with a tax on employment through higher national insurance contributions. The people of Romford made their views known very clearly on 7 May, with every single council seat in my constituency—all 23—being won by Reform UK. Ordinary working men and women have simply had enough. Watching their communities fall into terminal decline while the national Government effectively destroy people’s livelihoods is simply unacceptable.

Two of those Reform UK councillors, Diane and Russell Smith, are landlords of the Wheatsheaf pub—a family-run business started by Russell’s father. They are risk takers, and they are indispensable to our local economy. It was never their intention to enter frontline politics, but they could no longer tolerate watching their community fall into disrepair and seeing the so-called Government of working people fleece small business owners and local traders like them and make running a successful commercial enterprise intolerable. They are right.

[Sir John Hayes]

The hon. Member is right that the pubs, clubs, small shops and associations—the things that Edmund Burke called the “little platoons”—are what constitute civil society. Yet successive Governments, including this one, have capitulated to huge, corporate, multinational, globalist businesses. Nothing in the King’s Speech casts us in a separate, distinctive direction, and the hon. Member is right to champion those little platoons in a Burkean fashion.

[Andrew Rosindell]

The right Member is, as always, completely correct. Our nation’s success is built on grassroots entrepreneurial spirit, not bureaucracy, corporate control or Government regulation—and certainly not Brussels interfering with our affairs yet again, after we had a referendum in which the British people voted overwhelmingly to get out of a political union with Europe. Now, the Government want us to have a pathway to growth, apparently through closer alignment with the European Union. We do not yet know what the contents of the so-called European partnership Bill will be, but it is bound to mean more powers being stripped away from this place and the British people, with the introduction of so-called dynamic alignment—the regulatory straitjacket that will be imposed on us by Brussels. As the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said to the Prime Minister only last week, the Labour party’s solution to growth is to make the UK a subservient rule taker from a foreign Parliament. That is unacceptable. The socialist solution is always more central planning, more spending and more bureaucracy. It failed in the 1970s, and it will fail again today.

What this country needs is not more Whitehall diktats or Government intrusion into people’s lives, but another 1979-style Margaret Thatcher revolution for enterprise—a period of national rejuvenation defined by cutting back state intervention and giving people back control over their lives. We must cut the waste and red tape strangling business, scrap IR35, and give our tradesmen, freelancers and small firms a fair deal again. We need to lower and simplify corporation tax to make Britain one of the best places in the world to build a business, instead of watching as the wealthy flee our shores.

We must abolish inheritance tax, so that families can pass on what they have built through a lifetime of work. We must reform welfare, so that those who can work do work, but ensure that those who are vulnerable are genuinely cared for. We must reward effort, protect the vulnerable and, most importantly, bring back respect for the hard-working taxpayer. We need to cut waste, restore discipline to public finances, and spend where it helps working people and small businesses, rather than propping up the bureaucracy and needless white-collar workers. I want Romford to thrive again, but we can achieve that only if we stop treating small businesses like cash machines, and start treating them, rightly, as the backbone of our economy and the lifeblood of our communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

There is no more important issue for the country than the stubbornly low growth rate and the structural barriers to the growth, productivity, enterprise, innovation and investment that this country so desperately needs, solutions to which have defied successive Governments since the coalition and the political crisis that Brexit unleashed in 2016. It gives me no pleasure to highlight that, for my constituents in Mid Norfolk, the King’s Speech is irrelevant without real delivery on the ground. In Mid Norfolk, the small businesses on which we rely are shedding jobs; disposable incomes are falling; high streets in market towns such as Dereham, Watton and Attleborough are struggling; pubs are closing; farmers are moving away from farming food to take the Government incentives for solar panels and commuter housing estates; and public services are being overwhelmed by rising demand from new housing and an ageing population.

This is fuelling a surge in political anger, which explains a lot of the election results last week. Across Suffolk, Norfolk and the fens of Cambridgeshire and Lincolnshire, rural deprivation, rural poverty and the disproportionate impact of high energy prices on the rural economy—where, according to Treasury figures, every cup of coffee, schoolbook, pencil, lesson and journey costs 20% more than in cities, yet rural areas are underfunded—are driving real anger, based on real grievances. People are now paying European levels of tax for American levels of public services, and they are fed up. Unless we—this Government, this Parliament, this media, this Whitehall—respect and understand the grievance and set out a truly bold plan to deal with it, I fear that the rich will continue to leave this country, that the middle classes, the engine of growth, will conclude that it is no longer worth putting the work in, and that the poor will turn to the black market and crime.

[Sir John Hayes]

For that to happen, Governments and Parliament must take back control, and successive Governments have divested themselves of that control by, as Simon Case said when he left office, giving more power to unelected and unaccountable bodies of all kinds and types. For the Government to act, they need levers to pull to make the kind of difference that my hon. Friend described, and Governments have less and less ability to do that, yet the King’s Speech does not address that fundamental need for a change of direction.

[George Freeman]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The King’s speech that my constituents loved was the King’s speech in Washington, in which he spoke for the very best of this country. My point is that it is in all our interests—I say this as a friend of mainstream politics and democracy—that we tackle this challenge more boldly.

I welcome the speed with which newly elected Labour MPs have realised the scale and urgency of the problem of public and voter anger, stubbornly slow growth, rising unemployment and demand for public services exceeding capacity, but they are in danger of going for the wrong prescription. What we need is a renaissance of enterprise and innovation across the public and private sectors. Convenient though it may be for my party politically, the idea that the answer is a regicidal political infighting crisis and a leadership contest in office is for the birds. Take it from me: my party has tested that idea to destruction, and we have all paid the price. We do not need a Labour party beauty contest. We need a Parliament and a Government that get more urgent about the many laudable things they have set out to do, but we do not have 10 years to deliver it—we have a couple of years.

If the Labour party knifes this Prime Minister, he will be the seventh who will have been got rid of because of the structural deficit. I remember, when I first arrived here in 2010, the brilliant Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies explaining what the structural deficit is, and it is worth repeating. The normal deficit is when a Government do not earn as much as they are spending; because the economy has taken a downturn, they borrow a bit to keep spending and then pay it back. The structural deficit is that bit of the deficit that goes up every year even when the economy is growing, and it is driven by four things. In 2010, it was being driven by welfare, public sector pensions, and—the big one—health, and debt interest was remarkably low. After the coalition, we had capped off the rise in public sector pensions, incredibly painfully, and we had capped off the rise in welfare, incredibly painfully. Health has continued to defy reform, and it is bankrupting the public sector. We are now spending more than 50% on health, welfare and social support. That is simply not affordable.

We cannot cut, borrow or tax our way out of this. The only way out is to grow, not through dumping cheap housing across the countryside, but by backing the industries of tomorrow.

[Sir John Hayes]

I might press my hon. Friend a little further. The other way of dealing with that is to improve productivity, as I said earlier. He is right, of course, that the cost burden is fundamentally important, but it can be made better through greater efficiency. Indeed, the Government themselves have said that, as successive Governments have, but we must put in place measures—very often, tough measures—to deliver that kind of productivity.

[George Freeman]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I will make a slightly different point, which is that there are huge opportunities for good growth in this country. Speaking as someone who has had a 16-year career backing the industries of tomorrow, whether it is in fusion, SMR nuclear technologies, agritech, bioscience, the bioeconomy on Teesside, or the satellite economy in Glasgow, we have an opportunity to turn these into the industries of tomorrow. I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy commitment to do it, but it is at 50,000 feet; we need to drop down to some more tangible and bolder policies to back those industries.

I know the Secretary of State gave a tub-thumping speech about the 1980s, but the truth is we have made a lot of progress over the last 20 years. I was doing my work as the Minister for Life Sciences, for agritech and for Science and Technology following in the footsteps of Paul Drayson and David Sainsbury. In life science, fusion, AI and quantum, we have built an unbelievably competitive economy, but other countries are moving fast. Our competitors are more agile. We are terrible at adopting technology in the public services. Our scale-ups are not getting the finance they need in the city. Kate Bingham in The Times today is right.

How do we unlock this? I want to suggest a ten-point plan for renewal. I support the Government’s ambition. I say this because if all of us fail, the Benches to my left of pub populists who are promising everything will win, and we will see even deeper disillusionment. I am calling in this speech for, first, real honesty of a 1979 scale about the extent of the emergency; secondly, bold devolution to the people, cities and mayors who know how to do it better—frankly, they could not do worse than Whitehall—thirdly, serious Whitehall reforms, so that we end the juvenile process of His Majesty’s Treasury playing Departments off against each other for funding, which in the end comes very late and is taken back; and fourthly, a serious backing for the innovation economy. I welcome the £20 billion of R&D, but how we allocate it is key. We need to allocate it in a way that attracts private investment. Fifthly, we need a bold revolution of tax incentives for enterprises—a new deal for new business. There should be no national insurance or VAT for a couple of years for someone starting a company and growing it. Sixthly, we need regulation for innovation. That is not just cutting regulations, but leading in setting the regulation. I welcome the Government’s work in setting up the Regulatory Innovation Office. We then have skills and patriotic capitalism. I do not think it is communism to get the city investing in British business. Boldness—

--- Later in debate ---

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am pleased to speak in today’s King’s Speech debate, with the theme “Backing business to create economic growth”.

I know from meeting businesses across my constituency in all fields—be it hospitality and retail, manufacturing, haulage, technology, agriculture and horticulture, or the creative industries—that they are ready, willing and able to play their part in achieving economic growth for this country. However, right now it is hard to see how that will be achieved given that businesses are being squeezed from all directions. They are facing rising costs, additional employer national insurance contributions, sky-high energy bills and a workforce who are struggling to get to the end of the month with anything left in their bank accounts.

Although my Chichester constituency is often described as “affluent”, the cost of living crisis is felt acutely there. In fact, last month a Resolution Foundation report entitled the “Slurp Index” looked at the ratio of average gross hourly earnings to Guinness pint prices. It concluded that in somewhere like Trafford, the average median hourly wage will earn someone just over four pints when they are getting a round in on a Friday, but in Chichester, it does not even stretch to two and a half pints, which would not make anyone popular with their co-workers. It’s halves for everyone in Chichester—I’m very sorry.

The high costs in Chichester are compounded by the fact that desperately needed improvements to the A27 have been removed entirely from the Government’s road investment strategy. Without investment, the road will continue to strangle regional trade and competitiveness for Chichester. It feels more and more likely that it is quicker to get around by sea than by the roads in my constituency.

That brings me to the clean water Bill, which aims to undo years of dissatisfaction with the water industry. Over the weekend, I joined the Surfers Against Sewage paddle-out protest. Ironically, we were told not to get in the water because a sewage outflow had discharged into the Solent and the water was not safe. It did not stop us from getting in and highlighting just how important our water is to us in the Chichester constituency, as Chichester harbour is a national landscape.

The legislation that the Government are bringing forward must deliver an overhaul of how our water industry is regulated, starting with the scrapping of Ofwat—a measure that the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since 2022. In the legislation, I hope that we will see many of the 44 amendments that the Liberal Democrats tabled at Committee stage of the Water (Special Measures) Bill, and which the Government chose not to accept.

One of those amendments included a statutory responsibility for water companies to measure the volume of spills they release, rather than the arbitrary measure of time, as doing so would accurately reflect the actual levels of pollution. This is vital, as the Environment Agency looks to enforce stricter targets at waste water treatment works around my constituency in sensitive areas that have seen high levels of pollution, like Bosham, Chichester harbour and the chalk stream River Lavant. There was discharge into the River Lavant for a total of 285 days in 2024—but that was counted as one discharge; we need to know the volume rather than the time spent discharging. This issue fills my inbox, because in Chichester are passionate about our rivers, coastline and national landscape.

Another key issue that residents raise with me is the behaviour of rogue property management companies. Chichester residents are living in properties where the verge is not maintained and saplings are dropped into holes in the ground and left to die, before being removed six months later for the whole process to start again. Residents describe management companies as faceless, with non-existent customer service except when they are told that their service charge is increasing exponentially. In some cases, that has led to residents moving from the homes they fought so hard to purchase, because they can no longer afford to live there. In the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, the Government have the opportunity to tackle this issue head on.

[Sir John Hayes]

I met residents of Georgian Court in Spalding a day or two ago. They live in a McCarthy & Stone home, and their freeholder has put up their ground rent by around 100%. That is exactly the kind of thing to which the hon. Lady is drawing the House’s attention, and it must be dealt with in the Bill set out in the King’s Speech.

[Jess Brown-Fuller]

Regulating these companies effectively and putting a cap on excessive service charges, particularly when there is no evidence that the service is actually being delivered, would really change the game for a lot of people who feel trapped in their estates. I have met with the Housing Minister and shared my residents’ accounts with him, and I hope that the legislation being brought forward will start to address the issue.

As has been seen throughout the country in the recent local elections and current polling, the Government have failed to seize the initiative when it comes to the direction of the economy. People wanted change, but they are still left wanting. There was much in the King’s Speech that my constituents hope will make a difference to them, including in relation to the matters that I have raised, the police reform Bill, the ticket tout Bill or the European partnership Bill. However, given the record of this Government, many people will be quite rightly concerned that these reforms will once again be either U-turned on or fudged. I hope they are wrong, and I will of course continue to work for my constituents in Chichester to ensure that their concerns are properly represented.