Getting Britain Working Again

Wera Hobhouse Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Adam Thompson]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I am going to talk momentarily about one of the businesses in my constituency. When I discuss this topic, I particularly think of Cluny Lace in Ilkeston—not in the automotive sector, but a brilliant high-end lace manufacturer. It was workers from Ilkeston who produced Princess Kate’s wedding dress and Queen Anne’s tablecloth. Cluny Lace is an internationally renowned producer and exporter of high-quality British goods, supplying the European high-end garment manufacturing industry, in particular.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

The hon. Member mentioned small businesses and delays at the border. Is it not true that the problem of double tariffs for small businesses when importing from third countries and then into the European Union will only be solved by us rejoining the customs union?

[Adam Thompson]

The hon. Member raises a point that I was about to touch on. When I met Charles Mason, the managing director of Cluny Lace, he told me at length about how post-Brexit export and import difficulties have caused him immeasurable pain, because the lace that we make in Ilkeston can only be dyed in France, where they have professionals with the appropriate expertise. Moving the lace to France for that part of the process, then back to England for further processing before sale, and then often back into Europe, has become all but impossible for his company. What was once a frictionless part of Cluny’s manufacturing process and sales chain, is now a crippling quagmire of tariffs and business model-breaking roadblocks.

For businesses across Erewash, whether they are producers, suppliers or distributors, a closer trading relationship with Europe means less time navigating bureaucracy and more time growing their businesses. Businesses in Erewash have also suffered from increased energy costs. If we want lower bills for working people, we must break our dependence on volatile global gas prices. British families will not see meaningful long-term reductions in energy costs until we produce more clean, affordable energy, here at home.

In Erewash, such a transition is not theoretical; it is obviously visible on our local skyline. Sawley, in my constituency, on the banks of the River Trent, lies adjacent to the former Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish). Ratcliffe was the UK’s last coal-fired power station; it closed its doors for the final time in September 2024.

As we move forward, my task as the MP for Erewash is not simply to help the country move on from coal, but to ensure that Erewash is at the heart of what comes next, and that my constituents benefit from the new investment, the new jobs, and the cleaner, more secure energy future that this Government are delivering through this King’s Speech. That is why I am excited about the Government’s energy independence Bill, which will shield our economy from the fossil-fuel price shocks that have caused half of the UK’s recessions since the 1970s.

This Government are bringing industry back to Britain, with well-paid engineers working in clean energy, powering steel production in the east midlands and across the country. On the ground, that means that families in my constituency—and the constituencies of hon. Members across the House—will no longer wonder how events thousands of miles away affect their bills or their ability to book a holiday.

Families in Erewash voted for change in 2024. They are tired of limited opportunities and of feeling vulnerable every time the world becomes more unstable. They want more control over their lives. With this King’s Speech, we are bringing industry home, investing in British jobs, and putting control of our future back into the hands of working people.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to take part in this King’s Speech debate. I am a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, and I look to grow our economy and get Britain working, with a special focus on the green economy and its many opportunities and challenges.

The regulating for growth Bill promises a framework that supports innovation, yet current proposals from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero risk doing the opposite. Under the plans for the new home energy model, any technology other than a heat pump or heat battery could automatically receive an energy performance certificate rating of D. In practice, that means that innovative zero-emissions systems would be treated the same as fossil-fuel heating. That would make many new technologies commercially unviable and leave consumers without practical alternatives where heat pumps are not suitable. The plans are already affecting innovative businesses in Bath, including Luthmore, which has developed a pioneering, zero-emission alternative to the gas combi boiler. Combined with exclusion from support schemes, VAT barriers and delays in the assessment process, such policies risk pushing Britain’s clean tech innovators overseas instead of backing them at home.

I am encouraged by the announcement of an energy independence Bill in the King’s Speech. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and now the war in the middle east have laid bare the need to go much further and faster to secure our energy supply, which means getting off the rollercoaster of global prices. In the midst of an energy price crisis, cheap, home-produced energy has never been more vital. There is huge nationwide potential for growth in small-scale renewable energy generation, especially by community groups that can distribute the benefits locally. Nobody in the House will be surprised to hear me say that we Liberal Democrats are the greatest champions of community energy.

Community energy puts people at the heart of their energy future by allowing them to generate, manage and own their own local renewable energy projects. These are projects run by the community, for the community. One of many pioneering projects is Bath and West Community Energy in my constituency, which, because of surplus income from renewable energy projects, has been able to donate to more than 100 community projects across Bath in the past decade.

What really worries me, when hearing in the ESNZ Committee about proposals for community energy and the way the Government look at that, is that it is only about an ownership model, rather than a beneficiary model. Community energy should also benefit consumers of energy, not just the energy producers. I get it—it is about both. It is not one or the other, but we must focus on ensuring that the community benefits from community-generated energy.

Community energy projects also strengthen energy security by diversifying sources of energy, reducing reliance on imported fossil fuels. In 2025, community energy groups saved people almost £2 million on their fuel bills due to energy efficiency upgrades. However, community energy schemes currently generate less than 0.5% of the UK’s electricity. With the right support, that could increase by 20 times, powering more than 2 million homes and saving more than 2 million tonnes of CO₂ emissions per year.

However, there are two main blockers to the rapid expansion of community energy projects. The first major barrier is a shortfall in Government funding to scale up energy generation projects. While the £15 million Great British community energy fund is welcome, it has led to minimal growth. I hope that through the energy independence Bill more funding will be allocated to these projects so that their potential can be realised.

Another major barrier facing community energy projects is the prohibitive cost of accessing energy markets to sell the electricity that they generate. This is what I mean: there are now more than 600 community energy groups operating across the UK, yet not a single one is able to sell power directly to local customers. Although it is legally possible, the various regulatory burdens and obligations associated with energy licensing rules make the cost of selling power to local people impossibly high.

In the 2022-23 Session, legislation was brought forward to unlock the potential of community energy and selling directly to local people. The proposal was supported by the current Secretary of State and more than 320 MPs across the House. We have a Secretary of State for Energy who supports reform of local energy supply, but we are still waiting for the legislation to make that reform a reality.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the regulatory changes promised in the local power plan, in particular the commitments from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to establish a route to market for unlocking a smart local energy system. However, if community energy initiatives want to plan ahead with confidence, the Government must provide clear detail on how and when these reforms will be implemented. One option is to untangle completely the licensed supplier model that we currently have and to ask Ofgem to establish a local supply licence. The proportioned costs could create the ability for community schemes to sell to local customers if they wish and make a viable business model. The other option is to have current licensed suppliers offering contracts for the export of community energy to local residents.

Whichever route the Government choose, we need to see action. We must see the necessary regulatory changes in the energy independence Bill to establish a workable model for local energy supply so that community energy products can scale up, become commercially viable and play their full part in delivering a cleaner and more resilient energy system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) for her brilliant opening contribution to the debate on the Gracious Speech.

I acknowledge that this Government have delivered—from renters’ rights and ending no-fault evictions to the new deal for workers, education, Great British Railways, bringing NHS waiting lists down, lifting children out of poverty, and work on violence against women and girls. All that good work deserves to be talked about and celebrated, but it must also be acknowledged that people need more. They are desperate for change following decades of neglect. Unfortunately, the measures in the King’s Speech, although they are in the main welcome, are not the bold moves that we need. We need a Government who will tackle extreme wealth inequality in the UK and deliver for communities, and we need to go back to giving people hope.

We need to ensure that our Government have received the message from the local elections last week: people are unhappy with the direction we have taken and, as it stands, we do not have the trust of our communities. It was devastating to see the two councils from my constituency, South Tyneside council and Gateshead council, which Labour have held for 50 years, fall to Reform. We let those communities down, and we need to deal with that.

We must build on the things that we have delivered, such as the new deal for workers, instead of focusing on divisive commitments such as the digital ID scheme and the removal of jury trials—two things I remain opposed to. When we move away from our Labour values, we let the country down, let our communities down and, scarily, leave a gap for the far right to move into and exploit people’s fears, desperations and legitimate need for jobs, housing and security.

Housing, security and jobs are particularly needed in the north-east. My constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East is commemorating the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow crusade—the march for jobs—yet my residents are facing the same problems as those marchers. For decades, successive Governments have neglected the north-east, and the north-east made its feelings clear last week.

We need a Government who take action to improve our communities. The Labour party is the party of the people and the party of workers, and that is the Government we need to see now—a Government who deliver for people and who deliver change that communities can see. We need actions, not words. We need to drastically redistribute the wealth, so that it is invested in communities. We need to rebuild trust locally and nationally, with bold and ambitious policies and action.

There are some highlights in the Gracious Speech, including the Leasehold and Commonhold Reform Bill, the Hillsborough law, legislation to clean up the water industry, the nationalisation of steel, the £45 billion to deliver Northern Powerhouse Rail, the legislation to support small businesses and stop late payments, and the licensing for private hires—all subjects that I have spoken about many times in this place and at events in Parliament. But we need to do much more than this tinkering at the edges. We need to legislate to bring water back into public ownership. We need to stop the scandal of water company bonuses. It is an absolute disgrace that they are profiting from the pollution they are dumping into our waters.

It is also welcome to see proposals around education for all, but we must ensure that any reforms to special educational needs and disabilities do not push children into a one-size-fits-all approach. The SEND consultation ends next week, and we must listen to the views that are submitted. The consultation responses need to be read thoroughly, not filtered by AI. We must have a genuine consultation and ensure that the reforms do not harm SEND children with the most complex needs.

Around 1.7 million children are now identified as having special educational needs. I know that MPs are all being inundated with correspondence from constituents, and many of us have held our own consultation meetings. In my constituency, I have 5% more children with SEND than the national average, and the same issues have been raised in every one of my local consultations. My constituents are worried about their loss of legal rights and their children being forced into mainstream schooling.

Sense, the national disability charity, has said that while inclusive mainstream education should be strengthened, that must not come at the expense of specialist provision. Disabled children with complex needs must continue to have access to specialist settings where those are the most appropriate environments for them to thrive. I completely agree with Sense, and it is evident that many families are struggling to find adequate provision. I have held drop-ins in Parliament with people from across the political spectrum, and I want to thank Rory Bremner and Nick Ferrari for coming into Parliament to meet young people and their families and to listen to their stories.

The last Government described the SEND system as broken, and of course they did a lot of the breaking with their destruction of local government budgets, but the system has been neglected for decades. It is in desperate need of reform and investment. We can and must get this right to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected.

To that end, while I welcome the Gracious Speech, I will be bringing forward a simple amendment highlighting the difference that the right placement makes to a child with complex needs and the costs to families, life outcomes and the state when we get that placement wrong. We must ensure that those children with the most complex needs who cannot be placed into mainstream schools do not lose out with these reforms. I have written to the Secretary of State on this issue and would be happy to meet at any time to discuss it.

I have an autism diagnosis, as do some of my family. It is something those close to me are aware of, but is something I have not spoken about publicly before. I know the impact it has when you are failed in school. This matters personally and politically to me and is something I care deeply about.

I am hugely pleased to see in the Gracious Speech a commitment to bring forward a draft Bill banning abusive conversion practices. While it has appeared in many a Gracious Speech, I firmly believe that the Minister will bring forward a fully trans-inclusive ban on conversion practices as soon as possible.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Along with the hon. Member and other colleagues, I have been campaigning on bringing in a trans-inclusive conversion therapy Bill to ban that awful practice. Will she support me in asking for a proper timeline for when the legislation will be introduced?

[Kate Osborne]

Yes, setting out a timeline would be most helpful. I recognise the work of the Minister for Equalities, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey), and the time she has taken to speak to me over the last few months and even this morning, and she has committed to setting out a clear timeline as soon as possible.

In every meeting I have had with the Minister on this issue, I have been impressed by her determination to finally deliver this legislation and by her understanding of the harm caused by continued delay. My one concern on the delay, which I have already raised, is that this is the only legislation in the King’s Speech where the promise is for a draft Bill rather than a Bill. We absolutely need to get this right, but we must not give people an excuse to delay and frustrate this vitally needed legislation.

Earlier this year, I was proud to deliver a report at the Council of Europe calling on member states to ban conversion practices. I will continue to work with the Minister to take both the spirit and framework details of that report into consideration as the legislation is developed. Although I am happy with that particular commitment, we need bold, new, ambitious policies that people will feel in their pockets. People need to see change in their communities. People need action, not another year of delays and U-turns. Labour needs to do what it was elected to do: govern in the interests of workers and our communities and deal with the obscene levels of wealth inequality in the UK.