European Union: UK Membership

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700005 relating to the UK joining the European Union.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. The petition is on an important subject and has gained more than 128,537 signatures. The lead petitioner, Robert McMaster, is sitting in the Public Gallery with his amazing wife—we were chatting earlier on. He is not a stranger to this place: he informed me that he was shown around the whole estate as a very young boy as his father, Stanley McMaster, represented Belfast East between 1959 and 1974. Welcome back, Robert.

The petition makes a straightforward request of the Government:

“Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible”.

It states:

“I believe joining the EU would boost the economy, increase global influence, improve collaboration and provide stability & freedom. I believe that Brexit hasn’t brought any tangible benefit and there is no future prospect of any, that the UK has changed its mind and that this should be recognised.”

This matter has sparked considerable debate across our nation since the referendum in 2016, and it is essential that we approach it with a balanced perspective, considering both the benefits and the challenges that it presents. The decision to leave the European Union was a momentous one and has had profound implications for our country. We must reflect on the journey that we have taken since and consider the path that lies ahead. The question before us is whether the UK should seek to rejoin the European Union, and if so, what the implications of such a move would be.

Many people would contend that there are several compelling arguments in favour of the UK rejoining the European Union, and I am sure that we will hear many of those during the debate. First, EU membership provides significant economic benefits. The EU is one of the largest single markets in the world, and being part of it would grant UK businesses access to more than 450 million consumers. The argument is that that access would boost trade, create jobs and stimulate economic growth. I am sure that a number of colleagues in the Chamber today will argue that rejoining the EU would facilitate smoother trade relations with our closest neighbours.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Mr Mundell, you and I both know that the European structural funds were fundamental to some of the remotest parts of the UK for investment in harbours, roads and other infrastructure. May I just say to the hon. Member that that was a benefit that we enjoyed when we were part of the EU and, whatever happens in the future, we hope that this Government or future Governments will seek to replicate and replace it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn]

I do agree. He has great expertise and knowledge, and I am sure that it will be used for the benefit of people in Northern Ireland, particularly patients waiting for appointments.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

My daughter lives in Donegal. When her two little boys were born, she had the choice of them being born in Derry or Sligo—on either side of the border. The Republic of Ireland has introduced an initiative called shared island. That is not a united Ireland, but it works in improving services. Will the Government look at its success, and consider how Scotland might work in a similar way to Northern Ireland, for the benefit of services?

[Hilary Benn]

As I understand it, there is a long-established arrangement under which people can move from one side of the border to the other to seek care, particularly in Donegal and Derry/Londonderry. Things would be slightly different in Scotland, for physical reasons, but once again, I am sure that all opportunities that can be taken to help people get the care they need would be welcomed.

General Election

Jamie Stone Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700143 relating to a general election.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members and, I bet, a whole heap of politicians in this Parliament when I say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 3 million—3.1 million—signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a truly vast number of people all across the country. For that reason, I personally and most sincerely thank its creator, Mr Michael Westwood, who is with us with his wife, Tanya, and whom I had the pleasure of meeting during the run-up to this debate before Christmas, when we had a long chat.

Mr Westwood created this e-petition with a clear and very simple call. Michael Westwood

“would like there to be another General Election”

on account of his belief that

“the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises”

they made during the lead-up to the last election, which was held, as we all know, in July 2024. When Michael Westwood and I spoke, Michael explained that his reason for creating this petition came from his personal frustration at the lack of transparency and accountability in our election process. He feels that the system does not ensure that the Government of the day are made answerable for unfulfilled manifesto promises and poor governance. Put simply, Mr Westwood believes that it is too easy for political parties—all of us—to mislead the public in order to gain their vote. In the case of the current Government, he believes that there is as yet no sign of Labour’s pledge to kick-start the economy, even after six months in office.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jamie Stone]

I give way to my hon. Friend with the greatest pleasure.

[Dr Savage]

My hon. Friend has my gratitude. Does he agree that although the Government have committed to growth, increasing national insurance contributions to the extent that small businesses—the lifeblood of our economy—are having to lay off staff is an odd way to go about it?

[Jamie Stone]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, that is one particular matter I shall touch on shortly.

On account of the sheer number of signatories to Michael’s petition, it is only reasonable to assume that similar feelings are held by a great number of people currently living in the UK; but before I explore the technicalities of this request for an election, I want to address the purpose of petitions and their significance in our political system as it is today in the UK.

Let us remember that petitions are first and foremost a mechanism of civic engagement and political expression. As individual politicians, each and every one of us resides in this place, in this House, only at the behest of our constituents, and it is surely paramount that a dialogue is always facilitated between us and the public. I say to colleagues that whether we agree or disagree with Mr Westwood’s petition, we should not lose sight of the fact that a petition that garners this much support is surely the sign of a healthy democracy. The fact that we are here today, in this place, debating this matter is surely evidence that we live in a democracy in which our electorate can express discontent, demand our attention and know that we will listen to them and take their concerns seriously. Ultimately, we work for all those who put their name to this petition, and I believe that the Government should welcome their input as a sign that our representative democracy in the UK is alive and well, which is a lot more than can be said for far too many other parts of the world where it is not alive and well at all.

All that said, the petitions system was created to bring to Parliament’s attention issues of policy on which there is strong public feeling. It was not ever intended as a mechanism to circumvent parliamentary democracy or change the terms by which it is conducted. Creating a petition is a means of advocacy and participation. A petition is not an autonomous decision-making tool that can act as a substitute for a representative democracy. We need to remember those important principles.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the petition allows the public to express their anger and disappointment at the failure of the Labour Government to deliver on so many pledges, particularly—appositely, given the sub-zero temperatures across Scotland in the last few days—on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment, when it had been promised that that would be retained?

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my former colleague from the Scottish Parliament. I will touch on that issue shortly. I also invite him to perhaps surmise that petitions are dealt with rather better in this place than in that other place where we once served, but we will leave that aside for the moment.

I will put it very simply: an election cannot be called as a result of a petition. It is a fact that on 4 July, the Labour party won a majority, and they will remain in office for the duration of their term or until the Prime Minister seeks permission from the sovereign to dissolve Parliament at a time of his choosing. That is the way we do things in this country. Furthermore, it is absolutely intrinsic to the proper function of democracy to respect and uphold the democratic mandate that the current Government hold from the British public. I assert that that mandate cannot be overturned by this or any future petition; that would fundamentally undermine the existing institutional constitutional mechanisms that empower the public. The British people had their say in July. They chose the current Government and we must continue to honour that choice. I believe that is a fundamental principle of the way we do things in this country.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman touched on the word “mandate”. I think most people would accept and acknowledge that the Government were elected on a mandate for change, but would he agree that one of the reasons why there is so much traction and engagement with this petition, including in my constituency, is that people feel so let down and disappointed? We have seen so many manifesto promises broken already.

[Jamie Stone]

I accept the point, but I remind the right hon. Lady that I am a servant of the House and have to be an impartial chairman in this matter. I think we all know that that is the way this place works. Tempting though it might be for me to say something, it would be very wrong, but I may touch on some things like that in due course.

It is the case, however, that the Government must respectfully acknowledge the frustration of those who signed the petition and do their utmost to understand the motivation of those good people. In response to the petition, the Cabinet Office reassured the public that it was committed to

“fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain, and restoring public confidence in government.”

In particular, the Cabinet Office cited the “£22 billion black hole” as the reason for the very difficult decisions that have had to be made in the past and will be made in the future. None of them is easy and, in all fairness, we should recognise that.

In recent months we have witnessed widespread dissatisfaction with various policy decisions that the Government have chosen to make, and that has been touched on by hon. Members today. The decisions to cut winter fuel payments, terminate inheritance tax exemptions for farms, and increase national insurance contributions for employers are three that have proved controversial. That is the case in all our constituencies, including mine, regardless of the colour of the Member involved. We know that from the press comment.

I return to our guest here: the man who raised the petition, Mr Michael Westwood. He placed a specific emphasis on economic growth as a motivation for creating the petition, and made his dissatisfaction with the Government’s response clear. That is an example of the sort of dialogue that petitions should initiate. I learned something from my discussions with Mr Westwood; I think we can all learn from them. I very much hope that this debate will help the Government address some of the inadequacies that have been identified.

I think I speak for us all when I say that we all want to see an economy where large and small businesses can thrive and prosper. That is what drives the nation. We all want an NHS that is properly funded, so that everyone gets the care they need, and we want a society that has proper safeguards so that the most vulnerable are protected from all the horrors that might come their way, which we should stop as best we can. These are, however, huge ambitions. They are very proper and right ambitions that we should sign up to, but they will be expensive. They are not cheap, and allocating resources fairly will be a challenge for a Government of any colour.

May I be so bold as to suggest that we improve engagement still more? I hope that communication will improve in the months and years ahead of this debate and that the Government can also be involved in that sort of discussion and deliberation. The electorate must be reassured that all of us as their representatives, who are here at their behest, are willing to listen to their needs. I think that any Government would be wrong to assume that they act in a vacuum. Explanations will always be necessary in a democracy as long-standing and robust as ours—one that I believe is the envy of many other parts of the world.

We have a particularly well-attended debate today, which I find, as Chair of the Select Committee, immensely encouraging. I am sure we are going to hear some most interesting and thoughtful contributions. I will draw my remarks to a close, Mrs Harris, and listen with great interest to what follows.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jamie Stone]

Mrs Harris, thank you very much. It is a winter’s night and the hour gets late, so I shall be very brief indeed. In the words of Bruce Forsyth, didn’t they do well? We have had a full and frank exchange of views; could you imagine that happening in the Duma, or—perish the thought—Pyongyang? That is one thing that we do very well in this country: we actually debate things properly. That is the British way of doing democracy. So my thanks go to each and every Member, on both sides of the Chamber, who spoke. My thanks also go to my fellow members of the Petitions Committee, and, in particular, to the wonderful staff who support us on it.

Finally, this debate would not have happened if it had not been for the good people out there who put their names to the petition. I think that each and every one of them can feel that tonight they have been part of democracy. That is how we do things in this country. Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 700143 relating to a general election.