General Election

Debate between Jamie Stone and Wendy Morton

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[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.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Jamie Stone and Wendy Morton

Report stage
Tuesday 13th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I welcome the way in which Ministers have listened to the concerns of many of us on this side of the House and sought to improve the Bill, recognising in particular that planning is always local and it is vital that we have a locally led planning system, with local communities at its heart. I pay tribute in particular to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for the huge amount of work that they have done on what was new clause 21.

On housing targets, I am pleased that local housing need is now acknowledged as the starting point, and that centrally determined housing targets are advisory and not mandatory. That, coupled with ending the obligation of the five-year land supply—which is actually six years when the 20% buffer zone is factored in—is a step in the right direction. I would just press the Minister on how much councils may be able to challenge and reduce their targets, because that will be important to many local areas, including mine. I really hope that the changes secured will start to help local communities feel that they have a meaningful part to play in the planning process. In Aldridge-Brownhills, our experience of being listened to or even engaged with during the consultation on the Black Country plan was woefully inadequate, but the plan is now, thankfully, defunct.

The measures in the Bill will see our communities start to be able to shape their towns and villages. I am also pleased that the Government will incentivise and enable development on brownfield sites first, not least because of the real difference that could make if we are serious about delivering. Fundamentally, we all know that we cannot justify building on the green belt, greenfield and green spaces when brownfield sites on high streets and in town centres are ready to be regenerated. Continuing to tilt the playing field in favour of brownfield first is a win-win.

I welcome the response on seeing what more can be done to unlock development on small sites, especially with respect to affordable housing, and the prioritising of brownfield land again. I well remember getting the keys to my first home, and I want the next generation of homeowners to be able to get on the property ladder like I did. We can be the regeneration generation. The Bill is now in a much better place to start moving us in that direction.

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

As ever, I will contribute to the debate from a highlands perspective. I hope that all hon. Members will one day visit my constituency and see Caithness and Sutherland. If visitors drive across Caithness in a north-westerly direction on a road called the Causewaymire, they will see abandoned houses to left and right. That is because for far too long depopulation was the curse of the highlands, and that is why we have so many people with highland surnames in Canada, in the Carolinas and in Virginia.

The advent of the nuclear facility in Dounreay halted and reversed that depopulation in the 1950s. The Labour Government in the 1960s established the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which in turn led to the fabrication of oil facilities at several yards in the highlands. That, too, helped to halt and reverse depopulation in the highlands, and it is why I got married and had children myself—I worked in one of those yards at the time.

My point is a fundamental one: we talk about the definition of infrastructure and, in my mind, it is about quality employment. If we do not have quality employment for the young generation for the future, the finest housing plan, however we put it together, will be undermined. It is no accident that, after Dounreay came to be, we saw house building on a very large scale in Caithness, around Wick and Thurso. When the yards at Nigg and Kishorn in Ross and Cromarty opened, we saw large-scale housing developments—private housing and social housing—in my home town of Tain, in Alness and in the village of Balintore. Without that part of infrastructure called employment, it ain’t going to work, folks, I am afraid.

That is why I go on quite a lot in this place about space launch in Caithness and, in particular, Sutherland—because it is about jobs. This is an unashamed sales pitch, Mr Deputy Speaker; I hope you will forgive me. I hope that His Majesty’s Government and the Scottish Government will look favourably on the bid to establish a green freeport on the Cromarty Firth. I must register my disappointment that there are no Members of the party that is running the Scottish Government here with us today, because I would have liked them to hear that message loud and clear.