Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence
John Cooper Excerpts(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who have signed this petition and secured today’s debate. I also thank the organisations I met during this process, including Unlock Democracy and its chief executive Tom Brake, who is a former Member of this House, as well as the Hansard Society and the Electoral Reform Society, which are universally recognised as independent, non-partisan authorities in this area. Whatever views Members have on this proposal, the fact that so many people have taken the time to sign the petition demands that it is treated with seriousness and respect.
The petition calls for the introduction of a mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public support. The petitioners state:
“We voted for a party based on promises made before the general election, yet we feel none have been delivered—in fact, the opposite has happened.”
I could not have put it better myself. Since the election, we have seen nothing but chaos from the Prime Minister. The Government are making bad decisions: they are damaging our economy, crushing businesses, driving unemployment up, piling on debt, giving away sovereign territory and allowing our veterans to be dragged through the courts. That is because the Prime Minister came into office with no plan for our country.
This Labour Government have now made at least 15 major U-turns, including hiking taxes on working people despite promising not to do so before the election; the cruel cuts to winter fuel payments that left pensioners freezing in their homes last winter; the family farm tax; the refusal for many months to hold a grooming gangs inquiry; scrapping welfare reforms; digital ID; the betrayal of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—the list goes on and on.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
This is unquestionably a really important issue, and the petition is indicative of the public’s unhappiness with this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difficulties people have with this Government include the number of manifesto pledges that have been broken, the introduction of policies that were not in their manifesto, and their constant U-turning, which would spin heads?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point that goes to the nub of the motivation behind the petition, which lies not so much in a desire for constitutional change but in a feeling of being let down by this Government—a Government who promised change but has delivered none. All the promises they made have been abandoned, and they have tried to introduce other measures that were nowhere near their manifesto at the time of the election.
The Prime Minister promised the highest possible standards—in his own words, “a Government of service” —yet all we have seen is scandal and chaos. Peter Mandelson was appointed US ambassador despite his links to a notorious paedophile. A communications chief was appointed to the House of Lords despite his links to another paedophile. A Deputy Prime Minister was caught evading tax. A Homelessness Minister resigned after making her tenants homeless. Just last weekend, a Cabinet Office Minister was forced to quit after it was discovered that he had hired a firm to gather information to discredit journalists. We have seen many other scandals—too many to mention today. People signed this petition because they are fed up with the chaos, with the U-turns and with this Prime Minister.
Let me turn to the petitioners’ proposal. Members of Parliament, of whatever party, serve at the pleasure of the British people; it is their right to elect us, and to remove us at an election. There are many questions about how the petitioners’ proposal would work in practice. Would the public go back to the polls in a new general election, or could a new Government with a new Prime Minister be formed within the current House of Commons?
There is also the significant question of a defined national threshold. It would be easy for a well organised, well funded campaign group to remove a Government of any political party, should the threshold be set too low. Would the threshold be 10% of the British public—the same as it is today for recall petitions for Members of Parliament? Should it be 50%, or perhaps a higher percentage than the incumbent Government secured at the previous general election? Whatever the number, it would have to be high enough to demonstrate a genuine national consensus.
Over what period would the signatures need to be gathered? How would they be verified to ensure democratic legitimacy and prevent foreign state actors from interfering politically? There is also the question of frequency: if a petition succeeded once, could another be launched shortly thereafter? Important questions would need to be answered for such a profound constitutional change; however, none of those practical concerns should blind us to the message being sent by the people who signed the petition.
Less than two months ago, I led another debate in this Chamber on behalf of the Petitions Committee, after more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. People are deeply angry about the performance of this Government. They feel unheard. They are sick and tired of the constant mistakes being made by the Prime Minister and his Ministers almost every day. Rather than focusing on making our country better, Labour MPs’ energies are seemingly being consumed by leadership speculation and political survival.
The easiest way to remove this Government almost immediately would be through a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons by MPs. Having the confidence of the House of Commons is essential to any Government’s authority. When Governments have lost a confidence vote in the past, the Prime Minister has either resigned in favour of an alternative Government, or requested a Dissolution from the monarch to trigger a general election.
We do not necessarily need new legislation. Labour MPs know the message their constituents are sending them. They know how deeply unpopular the Prime Minister is. They know they no longer want him to be in charge. As the Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has said on several occasions, Labour MPs have an opportunity to join with the Conservatives and remove this failing Prime Minister from office by uniting on a vote of no confidence. That would be in the best interests of this country.
After all Labour’s pre-election promises, it is no wonder people are feeling fed up. They feel utterly betrayed. That is why it is important that Members across the Chamber listen to the message the petitioners are sending. The Prime Minister and this Government have run out of road. The sooner we see the back of them, the better for our country.
Anna Turley
That is absolutely on the record. But the reason that we had those general elections was because of the chaos and instability that the hon. Member’s Government brought about, including the resignation of a wide number of Ministers, which I will come on to talk about. As a result of that instability, some people—particularly politicians and even, dare I say it, our dear friends in the media and the political commentariat—have become addicted to drama and instability in politics. I am sorry to disappoint them today, but we were elected to end that chaos and return the UK to stable and secure Government, and I am proud that we are doing just that.
John Cooper
I am very much looking forward to the ending of this chaos; it seems that we are completely mired in it. As a former member of the fourth estate—I was a journalist for a long time—I am always concerned when politicians blame the media. I do not think the media are creating the chaos; they are simply reporting on it.
Anna Turley
I recognise the hon. Member’s distinction, and I think he is absolutely right. I very much enjoy the role of our fourth estate, but there are many who constantly seek upheaval and drama in politics, which, for those of us focused on delivering for the British people, can sometimes become a bit of a distraction.
As hon. Members here know well, holding the Government to account does not simply stop between general elections; that has never been the case. Parliament remains sovereign and there are opportunities for Ministers across the Government, including the Prime Minister, to account for their actions and explain what they are doing to deliver on the promise of change that the public voted for in 2024. At the last general election, the Labour party promised to take action following years of Tory chop and change. I am sure we all remember the collapse of Boris Johnson’s Government, with 43 members of that Administration resigning in one day.
Our long-standing constitutional arrangements facilitate stability, while balancing the need to test the confidence in the Government of the day in the elected House of Commons. Altering those arrangements could risk creating a constant revolving door and an inability to achieve anything, and would incur significant costs to the public purse, given the expenses associated with administering general elections. Overall, such changes would serve only to undermine public trust in politics, create more instability and cause paralysis in Government.
I remind hon. Members that our constituents already have a clear route to influence the decisions made at the highest levels of Government. All of us here know that our constituents are able to—and do—make representations to us as their local constituency MPs, and we in turn champion their views in this place and make representations to Ministers in Government. In the event that voters signal a desire for an election, the public’s voice will be channelled effectively through their local MPs across the House.
In 2024, the public voted for change; the public voted for more than 400 brilliant Labour MPs in this House. After 14 years of chaos and uncertainty, of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, they voted for stability. Introducing a right for the public to have a vote of no confidence could undermine our parliamentary democracy—the duty, responsibility and indeed primacy of this place—and could weaken the Government of the day’s ability to deliver on their mandate.
As hon. Members have referred to, those who signed this petition have said they feel that the promises we made to them at the last general election have not yet been delivered. We all recognise that change takes time but, with every month and every pay packet that passes, I know that people will feel that change more and more.
I am extremely proud of the positive changes that the Labour Government have brought about since the last general election. Given the reference that has been made to manifesto pledges, I will give Opposition Members some good news to share with their constituents about the many manifesto pledges that we have already delivered.
For example, there is our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025, which brings better maternity and paternity rights, an end to fire and rehire, and an end to exploitative zero-hours contracts—a manifesto promise delivered; an increase in the national minimum wage, rising to £12.71 next month, a sign that wages are up more under this Government so far than under 10 years of the party opposite—a manifesto pledge delivered; the Border Security Command to crack down on criminal gangs—a manifesto promise delivered; the ending of the exemption of private school fees from VAT to enable the investments that we are seeing every day in breakfast clubs, so that every child can start school ready to learn—a manifesto pledge delivered; and the strategic defence review and our plans to spend 2.5% of gross national income on defence to keep our country safe—a manifesto pledge delivered.
Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion
John Cooper Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Ward
The Prime Minister has strengthened the powers of the independent adviser—and rightly so. The independent adviser now has a more central role in compliance with standards. But I am afraid that the question does not quite relate to what is in the Humble Address.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
As a former journalist, I know that the fourth estate do not always get things right, but they are not in the habit of making things up. What, then, are we to make of reports from Dan Hodges in the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday that the Prime Minister is making a last-ditch attempt to limit the amount of documentation that is released under our Humble Address? There is no smoke without fire, Mr Speaker.
Chris Ward
I really wouldn’t believe everything you read in the press. Let me be very clear from the Dispatch Box: the Government are complying fully and transparently, and are working very hard to so do. Any reports to the contrary are just not right.
China and Japan
John Cooper Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Let me give my hon. Friend that reassurance for those from Hong Kong, in his constituency and throughout the country, on the support that we will put in for them.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The SNP Scottish Government undertook a secretive trip to Beijing last year, and caught a case of renminbi fever while they were there. They are now blundering around on the world stage, desperate for Mingyang to put money into Ardersier. Notwithstanding the jobs issue, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will take cognisance of national security issues? We do not want jobs at any cost, and we cannot allow wind farms to have Chinese kill switches fitted.
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say a moment ago, no decision has been made yet, but as I explained in my report back to the House, the overarching approach that we take to all matters involving China is that national security always comes first.
Foreign Interference
John Cooper Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Who is in charge of our national security, and who is a risk to our national security? Those are simple questions, but the answers are tough to determine. Take China, for example: this Labour Government are attempting to ride multiple horses—or should that be dragons? Whatever decision is taken on Beijing, it should be shaped here in this place, for perhaps no other foreign policy area is so delicate and holds such peril for national security.
Yet blundering into the powder keg of Anglo-Sino relations comes the SNP. Despite having no remit in foreign policy, Scottish Government Minister Richard Lochhead undertook a stealthy visit to Beijing in April under the cloak of trade promotion. What occurred is hard to determine, but worryingly it has since emerged that First Minister John Swinney gave what might be loosely called a letter of comfort to Chinese firm Ming Yang as it seeks to insert itself—possible kill switches and all—into our critical energy infrastructure. Alongside fellow Scottish Conservative MPs, I have signed a letter to the Security Minister asking what effect Mr Swinney opening up this new front might have on UK national security and international trade. That is in part because the Scottish Government have a dreadful track record in this area. Embarrassingly, former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon inked a deal with Chinese firms in 2016. She boasted of a $10 billion boost, but that deal fell apart when corruption concerns emerged regarding one of the firm’s parent companies.
There is more. John Swinney is just back from Dublin, where he was incorrectly hailed as the first head of a Government to meet the new President, Catherine Connolly. Although they style themselves as the Scottish Government, Holyrood are a devolved Administration—small beer, Madam Deputy Speaker, or perhaps small stout. But make no mistake: the missive from the Áras an Uachtaráin, the House of the President, cocked a snook at this House. Worse, Mr Swinney also met Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald. The Northern Ireland Secretary confirmed to me that the Windsor agreement allows for such discussions if they are confined to devolved matters, but Miss McDonald bragged, “We discussed our aims for constitutional change and will continue to work together.” As the House knows, the constitutional aims of the Shinners—so democratic that they dodge scrutiny in this place—are to damage Britain by ripping Northern Ireland out of the Union, and the constitutional aim of the SNP is to defy the 2014 Scottish independence referendum and to tear Scotland from that same Union.
As Labour stands idly by, the SNP has created an effective boycott of our ally Israel. Former First Minister Humza Yousaf seems more concerned about Gaza than about Glasgow Pollok, which he is actually meant to represent as an MSP. Meanwhile, the SNP’s lack of financial support has undermined the defence industry north of the border to the extent that the Defence Secretary has called them
“a threat to our security”—[Official Report, 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 620.],
so the threats to our national security are not all external. When will this Labour Government stop facilitating the Scottish Government’s damaging shadow foreign policy, show some backbone, and stop Britain being undermined by John Swinney—the pound-shop Parnell—and his fellow travellers?
Official Secrets Act and Espionage
John Cooper Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member will understand that it would not be appropriate for me, as a Government Minister, to make commentary about the performance of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The CPS and the DPP are operationally independent of Government. The hon. Member will have heard me say that we approach these matters with a degree of humility, and that is the right approach. I gently say to him that he may also want to approach these matters with a degree of humility, given recent events in his own party.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Minister and I have clashed over Sun Tzu in the past, but at the risk of riling him again, I want to tell him that Sun Tzu said that sometimes a strategic advantage is to be had by feigning weakness. Every day we fail to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, that is not us feigning weakness; it is weakness. Is that not the case?
Dan Jarvis
As Christmas approaches, I hope there may be an opportunity for me to have a cup of coffee with the hon. Gentleman, and we can compare our various quotes. I give him an assurance that I never had any concern about his seeking to quote Sun Tzu. My concern was that I think it is possible to find a quote from him that matches any particular argument one wants to progress.
The hon. Member’s substantive point was about FIRS, and he will have heard what I have said today and previously. The Government are looking very closely at whether additional countries should be added to the enhanced tier. When a decision is made about that, we will bring it forward in the usual way.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Cooper Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jo Stevens
I have been in discussions with Aston Martin, as have Cabinet colleagues. We are doing everything we can to protect the car industry in this country. One of the biggest problems in the car industry arises from the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal, for which the hon. Lady and her Government were responsible.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
The Welsh tourism sector is thriving. Last year, British residents alone took over 7 million overnight trips to Wales. If all councils in Wales were to introduce the Welsh Government’s visitor levy, it could raise as much as £33 million a year across Wales to invest in communities and tourism. This is an excellent example of the Welsh Government leading the way. As announced last week, a similar overnight levy will be introduced in England, allowing mayors to invest across their communities.
John Cooper
Hospitality in Wales and across the United Kingdom is dying on its feet. It needs a shot in the arm; instead, last week’s bin-fire Budget gave it a shot in the head. This is more money coming out of businesses, is it not?
Anna McMorrin
Quite the contrary: the visitor levy would boost the economy by up to £33 million if all councils were to accept it across Wales. I do not think that will—[Interruption.]
China Espionage: Government Security Response
John Cooper Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
First, let me say that I very much appreciate the work of the hon. Member’s Committee, and specifically the report it published on transnational repression, to which we responded fully. I understand why he makes the point about FIRS. He knows what the Government’s position is at this particular moment, and I spelt it out earlier: FIRS is an important tool, and we will carefully consider how best to use it.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Chinese general Sun Tzu said that
“the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.”
Are we not presenting an opportunity for defeat when members of our military ride around in Chinese cars, and why on earth are this Government facilitating secretive trade trips to Beijing for members of the Scottish Government?
Dan Jarvis
Sun Tzu said a number of things, and perhaps they lend themselves to a debate all of its own. I am not aware of the specific point the hon. Member made, but I am happy to look into it if that would be helpful.
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
John Cooper Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
We are here because of activities that happened under the previous Government. That is why we are here—I repeat the point I made earlier about Conservative Members showing a bit of humility—and I gave a response to the shadow Home Secretary.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
A senior Chinese Government official invited Britain to
“fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments”
over the so-called super-embassy, but can the Minister shed light on what those obligations and commitments were? If he is going to say that no such commitments or obligations were offered, can we file that under another threat to this country by the Chinese?
Dan Jarvis
We do not recognise those claims. Of course, given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, it would have been entirely improper for anybody to have made any comment that basically cut across the legal process that is being led by the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
G7 and NATO Summits
John Cooper Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
There is a debate going on across allies as to how we can work together on the increased spending: on the spend itself; on the financial arrangements, be that development banks or others arrangements; and on ensuring that we co-ordinate our capability, because the last thing we want is everybody spending more money in an unco-ordinated way. There has been intense discussion about that.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The situation in Scotland is very difficult. I welcome the news that we are to go further with our at-sea deterrents, and of course the nuclear missile Trident boats are based at Faslane. But as we have heard, First Minister John Swinney and his SNP Administration do not back nuclear weapons. Further, they have created a hostile environment for defence firms in Scotland because they will not back any firms that make ordnance. This week we have also heard former First Minister Humza Yousaf claim—wrongly—that allowing our American allies to use the Prestwick air base to refuel is some kind of war crime. What can we do to nullify the threat to British security from these fifth columnists?
The Prime Minister
Beat them. This is not just the usual politics; it is a serious question of national security. The at-sea nuclear deterrent is housed in Scotland, and just a few months ago I went and saw one of the subs coming back in. It was a very humbling experience, quite frankly, and I got an even deeper sense of what they do for our country. It should be supported in its own right and as an essential deterrent. That matter is among the reasons that we need a change of Government in Scotland.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Cooper Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Jo Stevens)
In 2024, British residents took over 7.5 million overnight trips in Wales, and during these trips they spent a total of £2.24 billion. Wales’s tourism sector is thriving, as was clear to see last month during the visit of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), to Elan Valley Lakes, which will benefit from an £11.8 million investment from both the UK and Welsh Governments. According to the Welsh Government, if a visitor levy were to be introduced by all Welsh authorities, that could potentially raise up to £33 million.
John Cooper
With the Welsh bottle deposit scheme going down the same disastrous dead end as the Scottish bottle deposit scheme, and now more costs are being added to Welsh tourism, making staycations more expensive, the Government appear to be creating a hostile environment for business. Add in the review of the UK internal market, which is meant to make doing business across this great land of ours easier. Why are the Government loosening the bonds of our great Union?
Jo Stevens
Wales is the second-best recycling nation in the whole world.