Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Cadbury]

I very much welcome the work that the Minister for Roads has done on the proposed changes. I welcome the commitment to replace a patchwork of outdated rules with a single consistent framework, which will go a long way to addressing the out-of-area operations and problems that the hon. Member for Birmingham Perry Barr (Ayoub Khan) outlined, and it will fix a system that too often has failed passengers and drivers.

Baroness Casey’s “National audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse” found that inconsistent taxi and private hire vehicle licensing creates vulnerabilities that can be, and were, exploited by grooming gangs. The announcement of that legislation follows the welcome commitment in the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 to introduce minimum standards for drivers, operators and licensing authorities. However, many fear that minimum standards could perpetuate inconsistencies that affect vulnerable passengers, and they are seeking not minimum but absolute standards in taxi licensing.

Let me touch on something not directly connected to transport, which is the draft ticket tout Bill. While I welcome a Bill to stop ticket touts selling on concert and event tickets for vastly inflated prices, I wonder if it could be extended to car driving test slots sold by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency. Or will we have to wait until the agency updates its IT systems, or possibly—perhaps successfully—manages to recruit and retain sufficient driving instructors, so that there is no longer more demand for tests than there are slots available, as that is fuelling the ticket touts? If the Eavis family have managed to stop ticket touts making a killing from Glastonbury tickets, surely a Government agency should have been able to do so before now.

The railways and passenger benefits Bill will establish Great British Railways as a new publicly owned company, setting up a new passenger watchdog that will set consumer standards for railways and investigate poor service, as well as simplifying fares and ticketing. A passenger-focused GBR could—not necessarily will, but could—improve reliability, simplicity and accountability across the network for passengers and freight.

Other Bills in the King’s Speech and the Government’s subsequent briefing are welcomed by many of my constituents. The social housing renewal Bill will benefit many of my constituents who will never be in a position to buy a home in west London. They just need a safe, secure, affordable and stable place they can call home, without being overcrowded or forced to continually up sticks, lose their jobs and support networks, and disrupt their children’s education, only to find themselves in another overpriced, overcrowded, damp, tiny space with shared facilities.

I welcome the fact that young people aged 16 and 17 will be able to vote, as those in Scotland have been for a decade. As someone who voted here nine years ago to remain in the single market and customs union, I welcome the proposals to bring the UK closer to Europe, our exit from which has been one of the most devastating shocks to the UK economy. Many parents and teachers in my constituency welcome the consultation to reform SEND, although they are keeping a watching brief on whether the resources will be adequate to their children’s needs.

Finally, on the commonhold and leasehold reform Bill, although it would be virtually impossible to scrap leasehold entirely overnight, the ban on new leaseholds for flats, the cap on ground rent, and the new process for converting to commonhold are all welcome measures, as is making it cheaper and easier for leaseholders to extend their lease or buy their freehold. I also welcome the remediation Bill for those living in homes with unsafe cladding. Too many residents in Hounslow, Isleworth and Brentford are still living in fear of the consequences of a fire breaking out in their block.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

In the face of the local election results last week, it is undeniable that what we have done so far is not enough. The long tail of austerity means that we have so much more to do. People see a world moving at a rate of knots and are frustrated at this Government’s slow pace of change. We live in a world where we can order almost anything we want in the morning and have it delivered later that same day. For consumers, satisfaction is now almost instantaneous. That is in complete contrast to Government, where improvements are seen as slow. The expectations and the challenge that we face are there for all to see.

What does the King’s Speech do to address what I consider to be the holy trinity of what good Labour Governments do: jobs, homes and health? First, there are two pieces of legislation on homes. The social housing renewal Bill will alter the right to buy by increasing the eligibility requirement by 10 years, amending percentage discounts to better align with new maximum discounts and exempting newly built social housing from the right to buy for 35 years.

This area is like so many other Thatcher legacies. The sugar rush felt in the short term by those able to buy their home at a substantial discount has long been replaced by a broken social housing market in which people living in identical properties next to each other can pay massively differently rents. It is a market in which the taxpayer often subsidises inflated rents through housing benefit and millions of young people who might once have seen a council home as their natural route into adulthood have the option forever denied to them. We can see where the logic of right to buy takes us. Between April 2012 and March 2025, 133,000 social homes were sold, but only 51,000 were replaced. With 1.3 million people on council house waiting lists, the problem is obvious for all to see.

Secondly on housing, the long-awaited draft commonhold and leasehold reform Bill will bring us closer to ending the feudal leasehold system. It will finally ban the use of leasehold for new build flats, it will place a cap on ground rents, and it will create a new legal framework for commonhold. There is huge demand for this to be done as soon as possible, and I know the Minister is going as fast as he safely can, but he also needs to tackle rip-off estate management fees—he has to stop that model in its tracks. If we are determined to tackle the cost of living crisis, that is one obvious and indefensible practice that we can end.

Alongside addressing the problems that people face now, the Government must take steps to address the problems that are coming down the track. I believe that the unwritten social contract that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, they can expect a good standard of living in return, is disintegrating and under real threat. Across this country, economic growth no longer translates to better outcomes in life, something that is only set to continue with the increase in AI in the workplace and developments in automation. Graduate roles have already been hit—graduate vacancies have fallen by more than one third this year—and that trend will only continue and diffuse across other areas of the labour market. Young people are therefore growing up and entering a world of work that is detached from previous norms, and we are nowhere near ready for the resulting changes that we will see in the next decade. The state needs to be ready to respond to those shifts, to ensure that not only those entering the workforce, but those who are already in it and those who are displaced, are properly skilled for the needs of the future labour market.

That future labour market has to include significantly more manufacturing roles, as the Secretary of State acknowledged in his speech. The more we can make ourselves, the more insulated we will be from the inevitable disruption that AI is going to cause to jobs, particularly in the service sector, but it will also better protect us from the global supply chain shocks that we are far too exposed to at the moment. The moves to protect UK steel are the right first step in recognising that we need to do much more to protect our manufacturing base. I am not proposing that we nationalise everything—I will leave that for other people to do—but my visit to the local Vauxhall car plant last week was a clear lesson in how we need to sharpen up across the whole of Government to protect manufacturing, and the UK automotive sector in particular. The decision on employee car ownership schemes in the last Budget was welcome, as is support for energy costs next year, but of course, the industry would like that support to be much sooner and much stronger than what is proposed.

There are a number of factors challenging the automotive sector, but the biggest one and the one over which the Government have the most control is the ZEV mandate. There has been huge investment in the Ellesmere Port plant so that it can manufacture electric vehicles, and I believe that most of the UK automotive sector is supportive of an electric future. However, the reality is that the current level of sales is nowhere near where it needs to be in order to hit the ZEV mandate, and that gap is only going to get bigger each year. We need to be clear that this is not just a case of “Oh, well, we aren’t going to hit the target.” Every sale short of that target has direct financial consequences for UK manufacturers.

Looking around the world, we see that most countries that have put in place sales targets for electric vehicles have had to row back from them in light of the evidence that uptake just is not where it was predicted to be. We need to bring the review forward and make the decision now that the escalation of targets under the ZEV mandate needs to be turned off. This is not something to be looked at in the abstract, on a graph in the corridors of Whitehall; it needs to be looked at in the context of the cold reality of consumer choice and the importance of protecting UK manufacturing. Let us not lose good manufacturing jobs in pursuit of the unattainable—all that will do is supercharge the Chinese automotive sector. That is not going to help the planet as much as we would like, and it certainly is not going to help this country. We have a great tradition of building vehicles in this country, and we want to be at the vanguard of taking the industry into the future, but let us do it in a sustainable way that protects and builds on what we have.

We need to do more to support UK manufacturing through procurement. I was delighted recently to take a Royal Mail delivery van made in Ellesmere Port for a spin, with permission from the owner. That electric van, made down the road, is delivering mail to my constituents. We need to see much more of that, and we need to encourage UK companies to buy from the UK. Every part of the public sector should be required to buy British. Every council, every hospital and every school should seek to maximise that, because every taxpayer pound spent on UK goods goes back into our economy. We can do a lot without legislation, but we need to pursue it with great zeal.

This is all about levelling the playing field, because more needs to be done. When people see barber shops and vape shops proliferate on their high streets, they know that something is not right, as there simply is not the market to sustain them all. When they see some shut down, perhaps for selling illicit goods or for illegal working, it confirms their suspicions that they are not competing with legitimate businesses. When we see them reopen a few months later, perhaps under a different name, people see a system struggling to cope with the scale of organised crime infecting our high streets.

The time for which a shop can be closed for breaching the law will be doubled, but let us also go after the landlords for, at best, failing to do due diligence, and at worst for being complicit in illegal activity. We can do more to support our small businesses on the high street and get the level playing field that we desperately need.

We also need a level playing field in how we treat people at work. We have to accept that bogus self-employment is a business model based on denying workers basic protections at work, and it is absolutely the wrong direction for this country. We promised in our manifesto that we would tackle this, so we should get on with it.

On a related note, the proposed strengthening of the growth duty, which will apparently reduce unnecessary risk aversion, is misguided. Good businesses want their staff to work in safe environments, and they want them to be treated well. This so-called unnecessary risk aversion, referred to in documents that the Government have produced, is an illusion—a straw man—and it has been used to put up with other shortcomings.

We face many challenges. I think we are on the right track, but we need to go much further and much faster. The public are telling us that they need to see results. We are now two years into this Government, and as much as the news cycle is hyper-focused on personality, the King’s Speech is all about policy. It is about how we shape a better future and show voters that they were right to put their trust in the Labour party to deliver for them.

Everyone here knows the perils that lie ahead if we are not bold enough, if we are not determined enough and if we do not use the time that we have to deliver real change. We are nearing the halfway point of this Parliament and, while progress has been made, it is abundantly clear that we need to go much further if we are to show that we have the power to transform the lives of ordinary people in this country.

The clock is ticking. Incrementalism will not cut it. We now need a response that rises to the urgent challenges that our country faces, so let us go out there and do it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Sir Desmond Swayne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

Let me give the hon. Gentleman some, then.

We all know that this King’s Speech is not worth the paper it is written on—there is nothing in it. Speaking as a former Minister, it is made up of the very policies that officials pull out of the third drawer of a desk and hand to weak, inept Ministers who have no ideas of their own: “Here you go, Minister. Here’s a substitute for your own thoughts.”

I will tell the House some things that we would do— that Reform would do, were there a Reform Government. No. 1, we would get a grip on the ballooning benefits bill. Let us get the millions of people in this country who are out of work back into the workplace to get the benefits bill down, as a moral imperative. Why write off millions of our fellow citizens, especially the young? How can people be off work with mild anxiety? How can we have people claiming PIP who have not even had a face-to-face appointment with a genuine clinician? This is madness. It has to change. Of course as a country we want a proper safety net, but that is not what we have today, and we all know it. At the moment, we have a farce where people are choosing not to work. That can change. It will not change under this Labour Government, but it can change, and we can save billions of pounds from it.

I will give the hon. Gentleman a second thing we would do: scrap net zero, so that we end the deindustrialisation of our country. Steel, chemicals, fertilisers, glass, ceramics, car making: 2 million jobs depend on high-energy intensive industries. All will be gone within the next 10 years. I wager that many Labour Members represent the good, decent, patriotic Brits who work in those businesses. They are selling them down the river. We need to end net zero and adopt a pragmatic and intelligent way to decarbonise our economy that does not immiserate working people and ruin what remains of our heavy industry. Those are two things that we could do.

I will give the hon. Gentleman a last thing we would do: end illegal migration. The way we do that is not merely to stop the boats, but to end the farce of people coming here on indefinite leave to remain, knowing that they will ultimately become citizens of this country on a short path, costing the Exchequer hundreds of billions of pounds. The Labour party has a policy, we are told, that takes us some way to that; but then we have the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) saying that the Home Secretary should be sacked for having the audacity to propose some pretty weak, but none the less sensible, changes to our legal and illegal migration systems. That gives us a clue about what is to come.

Today is a pantomime. We know this King’s Speech does not exist. We know this King’s Speech will be chucked into the dustbin in a few months’ time. Maybe there will be another King’s Speech. What we know is that what follows will almost certainly be worse. The fate of our country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, does not rest on what is happening in this Chamber; it rests on the Labour party members who will choose the next Prime Minister, because this Prime Minister is finished. We all know that. What comes then will be more failed policies, no answers to the challenges that face our country and no response to the yearning in the country for real change. The only way to achieve that—and we all know it—is a general election.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

As much as I enjoy lectures from the Widow Twankey of Reform, I see this King’s Speech as an opportunity for us all to reflect on the anger that I suspect we all heard on the doorsteps in every constituency across this country during the local elections. To do that, we must be honest with ourselves about the anger that we may feel. How can any of us who say that we believe this country is stronger together—that love is stronger than hate—not accept that we are also angry? I must be honest: this weekend I bumped into the “Unite the Kingdom” protesters, many of them swaggering, beer in hand, through my local station. I honestly felt a guttural sense of anger, which is not right. I do not know those people and I do not know their motivations, but in our current political environment, that was how I felt.

I was angry because I felt that their sense of uniting this kingdom would not include my beloved Walthamstow, a community where we pride ourselves on the diversity of thought, background, and cultures that we all share—although I can promise Members that they are of one mind when it comes to the importance of bin collections, stopping fly-tipping and Thames Water not ripping up the roads. It is now a community in which my Muslim neighbours are scared and my Jewish neighbours fearful because of the violence, intimidation and fury in this place and in our culture wars, where they are used as cannon fodder.

If I am honest, though, my anger was also at myself. I bumped into those people because I had been in central London, at one of those conferences that I think all political parties have on Saturdays, where we all make the same kind of speech, using the same buzz words that we have all been using for the last 20 years. They are a comfort zone of political life, where everyone nods along but no answers are provided. This country is crying out for answers—we are all agreed on that—but the honest truth is that people are not sure that answers are coming from this place, and that is the test that the King’s Speech must deal with.

People want change in every corner, in every community and for every citizen, because right now nobody thinks that anything is working the way it should. As ever, the problem is not Muslims or Jews or bankers; it is politicians—it is us. Whether here, in Palestine, Gaza, the White House or the Kremlin, if we want to show the public that we can build a better world through debate, decision making and discourse, that starts with us. It starts with what we spend our time doing here on behalf of this nation, and whether this King’s Speech offers the difficult questions and answers that this country needs to face the world we are in.

The reason I spend too much time at weekends talking politics is that, for my sins, I chair the Labour Movement for Europe—and yes, looking at the King’s Speech and the European partnership Bill, I think how Brexit has broken all of us. Whether we voted leave or remain, the evidence is indisputable that Brexit has not turned out how anybody thought it would. Jobs and businesses have been lost—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) asks what is the problem. He should go and speak to the 16,000 businesses that have given up trading altogether because the only benefit of Brexit was for paperwork creators.

We all walked out of the room, when we needed to be in the room to face the challenges of the modern world, whether that is national security, trade, or the climate crisis that we face. This is not a call to rejoin—that relationship with Europe is gone, and it will be a long time before we are able to rebuild it—but it is a call for us to recognise how damaging that has been for our chances as a country, and why we need to rebuild that relationship.

The European partnership Bill will do deals on food, emissions trading and electricity. Those things are all needed, but they are not enough to answer the challenge that our communities face us with: “How does life get better for us?”. Many of us who were here at the time of Brexit will already be deeply triggered by some of the things that have been mentioned, and it only makes sense to have this argument again if we are talking about a relationship that makes sense in 2026 and 2028, not 2016 and 2019. We must recognise that in the past six months we have been threatened with the invasion of Greenland, by continued aggression in Ukraine, and by a climate crisis that means we have to look again at the single market, the customs union and, yes, at freedom of movement. Any political party that denies that those conversations need to take place is not being honest with the public, because a customs union alone will not cut it.

The right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) might be surprised by this, but I agreed with the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) when he said we should get a deal that looks like the Switzerland deal. I am sorry he is not here today—I had hoped he would be, Madam Deputy Speaker, to refer to him—to agree with me that to do that, we must put behind us the fights of the past and the old red lines, and use the Bill to give the Government the negotiating mandate to do that.

We must also do what this place consistently fails to do: put families first. If we had not left the European Union, by now every family and every parent would have proper rights to paid leave to be with their kids, and we would finally be able to tackle the gender pay gap and the motherhood penalty. That is why we must ensure that the Bill does not just align for food; it needs to align for families and to put workers and their needs, not just businesses, at the heart of a new deal with Europe.

I give notice that I will try to amend the European partnership Bill, to give this place the chance to fix what it missed in the last Session: the missing piece of employment rights that businesses overwhelmingly support and that give dads and second parents the same rights as their European counterparts. We must also fix the mistake made in the last Session when we removed the European Scrutiny Committee, so that Members can be part of writing that legislation. Even colleagues who may disagree about the outcome of the European relationships that we might want to build would agree that it is time to take back control to this place.

This Bill, this legislation, this King’s Speech must be an opportunity to show our constituents that we get the challenges and barriers that they face in their lives. The honest truth is that they should be a place for discussion. None of the proposed legislation is good to go, but it can be amended through the parliamentary process to get there. Let us start with ensuring that people have confidence in our democracy. Of course we need a representation of the people Bill. There are 5 million reasons why we need to stop cryptocurrencies and company donations that are corroding people’s sense of confidence in British democracy, and we also need to end the loopholes that exist, capping donations for, and indeed from, individuals. Those who can get millions of pounds personally, or who use third-party organisations to hide their tracks, damage us all together.

We must get right the reforms for children with special needs and disabilities. For too long we as MPs have heard those vulnerable stories, seen the frustrations, and recognised that too often the tribunal has been the place of resolution. We must also get leasehold reform and the social housing Bill through. Housing is the cause of poverty in so many communities, particularly mine.

We must ban conversion therapy, because trans people are living in fear right now in this country, and that cannot be right for our fellow human beings. We need the energy independence Bill to work. I want the E in E17 to stand for energy: my community are stepping up to the plate, using our collective bargaining power to lower our energy bills by seeking bulk discounts on solar panels. We need the Government to work with us to get the interest-free loans to ensure that the community can bring everyone together in that energy transition.

We do not want the Government to be caught up in fighting to get rid of juries, when really, if we want to help victims, we should bring in specialist rape courts. Yes, we need to have the difficult conversations about immigration, because in my Walthamstow community we are proud of the contribution of our neighbours, whether they were born here or made their homes here. When we see people attacking others over indefinite leave to remain—people who are our nurses, doctors, scientists, friends and neighbours—we do not see a kingdom being united; we see people playing with culture wars rather than looking at the economic case. We want the legislation to reflect the benefits of immigration to our society.

I will defend to my death the right of people to disagree with me, to hold different opinions about the future of this country and to resolve those through the democratic process, but I will not let myself be silenced or sidelined by them. Maya Angelou taught us that hate can cause a lot of problems, but it has not yet solved a single one. I know in my heart of hearts that feeling angry at the world, including people I do not know at my local train station, solves nothing. It is up to us all in this place to rehabilitate politics through this Session, and to use the King’s Speech to show that we are truly capable of bold, radical thought. I hope to play my part in presenting ideas to my colleagues and securing their cross-party support to make that happen, because this country needs and deserves nothing less.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Lady for entertaining us all; she is having fun. I remember the shambolic end to Humza Yousaf’s tenure as First Minister in Scotland— it was shambolic; she will admit that. Having reflected on that period, which was a real crisis for her party and for Scotland, what advice can she offer Labour Members? What did she learn from that process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will try to give a short piece of advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I were in the Scottish Labour party, I would either say, “We are a separate party from UK Labour, and we make our own decisions”, or I would say, “We back the Prime Minister.” It is clear that Anas Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, does not back the Prime Minister, and does not have confidence in him. He and many of his MSPs and MPs have said that Scottish Labour is a separate party, which makes its own decisions. I assume that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) follows his Scottish leader, supports ending the Prime Minister’s reign, and is looking forward to that, like all his colleagues.

As I said, our amendment can hardly fail to be the most popular amendment tabled, given that so many hon. Members from across the House have explicitly stated how much they support our position, so I am sure that they will vote for it on Wednesday.