Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for her constituency and for this particular cause. What she has said today has been heard very clearly.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Member for his question. Of course, the House notes the conclusion of the criminal investigation and the judgment that was laid down in this case of embezzlement by SNP officials. That should never happen in public life, and it definitely should not happen when people are making donations to what they think are good causes—it is clearly wrongdoing, and should never be allowed to take place. A number of tests need to be met to establish an inquiry of the nature that the hon. Member refers to, and I would be happy for us to look at those conditions and write to him with the answer.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a great champion of our armed forces, and the fact that the national celebrations are returning to Aldershot this week is a testament to her campaigning. The racist attack that she described is utterly disgraceful. I condemn it, as I hope the whole House will. We stand with our Gurkhas, who have made an incredible contribution to our armed forces and continue to do so. Ministers have met my hon. Friend, veterans and the Government of Nepal for constructive discussions on Gurkha pensions, and those discussions will continue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her dedicated work on this.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I, too, wish Scotland well in the upcoming match, and of course I wish England well in the third match—a little better than last night, hopefully.
The SNP and the Scottish Government need to answer a serious set of questions, and they simply refuse to do so. They call for transparency and accountability from everyone else when they have giant questions of their own to answer. “Nothing to see here, don’t want to know, don’t want to have an inquiry”—totally the wrong approach.
Security Vetting
John Lamont Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister has said various things about Peter Mandelson’s vetting process over the past weeks and months that have now turned out not to be true. Does he accept that he inadvertently misled the House of Commons?
The Prime Minister
No, I did not mislead the House of Commons. I accept that information that I should have had, and that the House should have had, should have been before the House, but I did not mislead the House, and that is why I have set out the account in full.
Middle East
John Lamont Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Yes. We will bear down on any profiteering, at the same time as pushing forward at speed for energy independence.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
May I ask the Prime Minister about one particular consequence of this war in the middle east, namely the rising cost of heating oil, diesel and petrol? Everyone is struggling—I have spoken to many businesses and people who are really struggling to pay their bills—but the support from the UK and Scottish Governments is only for people claiming benefits. When will the UK Government reconsider that approach and ensure that everyone, including working people and businesses, is receiving enough support?
The Prime Minister
We will set out the plans as they develop. Some of the ways in which we protect and support have to be universal, and, in fact, the cut in energy bills until the end of June is universal, but we are looking at the most appropriate support on a wider basis.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Sheffield and the Crucible theatre are the beating heart of snooker, and I am delighted that they will host the world snooker championship for many years to come. This is what Labour stands for: investing in things that make us proud of the places where we live. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are working closely with South Yorkshire combined authority on better transport links and providing over £1.4 billion to spend on its priorities, which could include a new tram fleet and more modern stops, or delivering extensions.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The steps we have taken have been to repair the damage done by the previous Government. We took those steps, and the spring statement showed the results of those steps: inflation coming down; interest rates coming down; and the economy stabilised. I know the Conservatives do not understand that, because they blew up the economy in the first place.
Hatzola Ambulance Attack
John Lamont Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I do not think anybody was surprised by what happened this morning, but it is the absolute requirement of Government to ensure that our response is proportionate given the nature of the threat. Ultimately, all individuals and organisations have a responsibility for their own conduct. Some of the points the right hon. Member makes are not unreasonable. There has been, in my view, an unacceptable climate in recent times where certain sections of certain organisations have thought that it is almost acceptable to allow this kind of antisemitic hate. That is not the view of this Government; the view of this Government is that it is completely unacceptable. That is why we are organising to ensure that we have the resources marshalled in the right place at the right time to give our Jewish communities the reassurance that they absolutely need and deserve.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
This was a horrific attack on the Jewish community. While Jewish communities experience disproportionately high levels of antisemitic incidents, offences targeting Jewish victims are statistically far less likely to result in a prosecution. Does the Minister accept that the Jewish community does not trust that the law will work to protect them? What further assurances can he provide them at this difficult time?
Dan Jarvis
I completely understand that many members of the Jewish community are living their lives under the threat of the kind of activities that we saw this morning, but I hope that nobody here thinks that that is remotely acceptable. That is why we all have a responsibility to redouble our efforts and ensure that not only are we seeking to provide that reassurance, but more practically, we are putting in place the right laws and powers and ensuring that we have the right resource to take on that threat.
Member Defections: Automatic By-elections
John Lamont Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks 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
Dr Savage
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and valid point. My main job today, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, is to present both sides of the argument, but the point about data on voting intentions, which we work so hard to glean on doorsteps, is a key factor in the debate.
Others raise concerns that a requirement for a by-election could have unintended consequences, including potentially strengthening the power of party leaderships or discouraging MPs from following their conscience due to legitimate dissent. At this point, I want to clarify that when talking about defections, I am not talking about the case where an MP loses the Whip for reasons to do with the leadership, but about voluntary defections undertaken by an MP themselves. I do not think any of us would want a world where party Whips could threaten an MP with a mandatory by-election if we displease them in some way.
Public opinion on this question appears to be mixed, although polling suggests it is an issue on which many people hold strong views. Some surveys indicate that around 40% of respondents believe that it is unacceptable for an MP to defect, while others suggest that a majority of voters think a defection should trigger some sort of electoral test. Those numbers do not resolve the constitutional question, but they suggest that people far outside Westminster really care about this matter.
It is also worth putting the question into perspective. Party defections in this country are relatively rare, although they obviously sometimes occur in clusters during periods of political turbulence—possibly such as we are going through now. The last MPs to resign their seats and seek fresh mandate after defecting were Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless in 2014, when they left the Conservative party to join UKIP. They refought their seats in by-elections.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making the case well on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Over the years, there have been a number of examples of some of my former Conservative colleagues ending up alongside Lib Dems in the House of Commons. In those circumstances, is the hon. Lady of the view that there should have been a by-election for those MPs to get their mandates restated?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. What we are talking about is the principle of the matter rather than specific defections from any one party to another.
This constitutional question has also been considered by Parliament previously. In 2011, a private Member’s Bill proposed that MPs who changed their party affiliation would have to face a by-election, and in 2020, another Bill proposed extending the Recall of MPs Act 2015 so that a voluntary change of party could trigger a recall petition. Neither progressed through Parliament, but the fact that the issue has arisen more than once suggests that it raises enduring questions about representation and accountability.
I would like to share some perspectives from other countries, because this is not a uniquely British debate, and other democracies have taken different approaches. Some, such as India, have adopted strict anti-defection laws under which MPs can lose their seat if they leave the party on whose ticket they were elected. Indian MPs are also, for the most part, compelled to vote with the Whip, which must make votes very, very boring. Others, such as New Zealand, have legislation designed to discourage what is sometimes referred to as “waka jumping”—I am reliably informed that that is effectively jumping from one canoe to another, which I can say from personal experience sounds like a very bad idea—although that approach has also prompted debate about the balance of power between MPs and party leadership. South Africa experimented with allowing MPs to cross the Floor, but later decided that that was a poor idea and prohibited it. That shows that views can change about how best to preserve electoral legitimacy.
The UK system has its own traditions and constitutional principles. Party affiliation plays an important role in how Governments are formed and how legislation passes, but MPs are also expected to exercise independent judgment. All of that means that there is no simple or obvious answer to the question raised by the petition of whether the current arrangements already strike the right balance between representation, independence and accountability, or whether there might be merit in exploring alternative mechanisms.
What is clear from the petition is that many members of the public care deeply about the relationship between voters and their representatives, how it works in practice and whether they feel that they are being represented in this place. I very much look forward to hearing the views of Members from across the House.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. It is unfortunate that although we have a 3-hour allocation to discuss this important topic, other Members of this House that have not felt it worthy of coming along to do so, despite having changed party in this parliamentary Session or in the previous one. It would have been interesting to have gained their views. I thank the over 129,000 individuals who signed the petition, illustrating that they care deeply and are passionate about a subject that is ultimately about trust.
I have been fortunate enough to represent Keighley and Ilkley for more than six years now, facing an election twice in that time in two very different political environments. In 2019, I was elected in a Conservative landslide, and more recently in 2024, I was elected during a time when national results were very much going the other way. Keighley and Ilkley is—or should be—a classic bellwether seat, and up until the last election, there had never been both a Labour Government nationally and a Conservative MP locally since the creation of the seat in 1885. In fact, ahead of the 2024 general election, 12 major polling companies predicted a Labour landslide in Keighley and Ilkley. Electoral Calculus gave me a 97% chance of losing my seat. I do not make these points merely to blow my own trumpet; the point I am making is that politics is ultimately about trust.
When we are elected by our constituents, they are putting their trust in us. They are trusting us not only to be a strong advocate for the area that we represent, but to stand by our manifesto pledges, both at a local level and those of the political party we represent. We stand by the values and commitments of the party we represent. The vast majority of us in this House are supported by volunteers who share our values, often hold party membership and support our policies, which have implications for all our constituencies.
Owing to the Representation of the People Act 1969, at every voting booth across the country our electors are greeted not only by our own names but by our party names and party logos. They put their cross in the box against a name and a party that they wish to represent them. A proportion of people out there will, of course, vote for the individual who they feel is most committed to representing them, but they are also casting their vote for a political party.
As has been demonstrated by all political parties, through the data that they collect, a proportion of the electorate cast their vote based on the national political party, rather than the individual who has been chosen to stand in that local area. It therefore comes down to the point that was made in the opening remarks from the hon. Member for South Cotswolds: this petition invites us to debate the difference between the individual and the party.
I do feel that when an individual is standing for a political party, if that individual then chooses to defect, cross the Floor of the House and join another political party, it is only right that a by-election is triggered. That would give the electorate the absolute reassurance that they can cast their vote according to political party. Likewise, if they want to reassert their trust in the individual regardless of the political party they are now associated with, that should happen in a by-election.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I do not want to downplay his greatness as a local constituency MP, but I am sure that, like me, he recalls the 2019 election in which he was first elected, and how many conversations we had with voters on the doorstep about the relative merits of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. That undoubtedly was the biggest issue driving many people to vote, alongside the desire to get Brexit done. Does that reinforce the point that many people vote on the basis of the national picture and to select a Prime Minister rather than a local MP?
Robbie Moore
That is my point. While a lot of us, as advocates of constituency areas, do our best day in, day out, advocating on behalf of our constituents and campaigning on the local issues that matter to give us the biggest advantage possible by building up our authenticity on those issues, a good proportion of the electorate vote based on the political party with which the candidates are associated.
In 2019, a good proportion of the electorate could not stand the possibility of a Labour Government and voted to get Brexit done, which we advocated for. I know from conversations on the doorstep that there was an element of the electorate who had never voted Conservative before, but who decided to vote for us in 2019 based on the national offering. That builds into my point that, whenever an individual defects—as happened recently north of the border, with the defection of a Conservative Member of the Scottish Parliament to the Liberal Democrats—a by-election should be triggered. It will be interesting to see what the Liberal Democrat policy is on that.
Trust is at stake, because too often disillusionment builds up among the wider electorate, and defections exaggerate that.
Robbie Moore
I thank the hon. Member for that point, but my point is that when a general election takes place, the individual voter casts their vote for an individual associated with a political party, which has a mandate—if it gets into power—based on a manifesto. The party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper. It is the manifesto that is associated with that political party. I do feel there is a difference.
I am strongly of the view that if an individual Member of Parliament associated with a political party decides to change course and stand for a different political party —crosses the Floor of the House—an automatic by-election should be triggered, which ultimately gives their constituents the right to choose. That is slightly different from the debate about political leadership, because a party leader’s name is not on the ballot paper; the name of the party is.
John Lamont
Having reflected on the point made by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer), I would add that the key difference is surely that MPs are elected by their constituents, but the Prime Minister is appointed by the monarch, on the basis that that person can command the confidence of the House of Commons. That is the basis of the monarch’s decision. We do not have a presidential system, whereas we do elect constituency MPs. The appointment of the Prime Minister is based on the monarch’s judgment on who has the confidence of the House of Commons.
Robbie Moore
I thank my hon. Friend for his point, which I think aligns with my own point: it is the make-up of the political party that gains the confidence of the House, and therefore its leader is appointed Prime Minister, should they get a mandate to be so, based on the numbers.
Where I do not feel that a by-election should be triggered aligns with the points made by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds. If a Member of Parliament is unfortunate enough to lose the Whip and therefore sits in the House as an independent, I do not feel that that should necessarily trigger a by-election, because it might be subject to circumstances outside that Member’s control—political difference associated with a particular policy and therefore voting the other way. The Whips may use that as a mechanism for removing the party Whip, but I do not think that that should trigger a by-election in those circumstances. I want to be clear on that.
To summarise, politics is about trust, and at a time when the relationship between politicians and the electorate is, unfortunately, becoming increasingly fractious, it is vital that our democratic system holds us to account for the promises on which we as individuals associated with a political party were elected, the platform on which we chose to stand for election, and ultimately the manifesto commitments that we stood by.
Lisa Smart
No. The Liberal Democrat position is that elections should happen on a regular basis. We would re-implement the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, because we think it is healthy for people to know how long they are electing somebody for, rather than leaving the power in the hands of the Prime Minister of the day. I believe very firmly that the ultimate power should sit with voters rather than politicians, and that voters should know how long the term is. They should be able to boot people out at the next election, rather than having a special election that costs money and that may end up with the same result, but may not. We do not agree with the petition. However, we believe very strongly in people’s right to express their views through a petition.
We need to change the system and the way we elect our MPs. Under our current system, a Government can win roughly two thirds of the seats on roughly one third of the votes. Millions of people are represented by someone they did not vote for. Seats bear almost no relation to votes cast, and far too many people feel forced to vote for the person they dislike the least just to stop the candidate they really do not want to be elected. Proportional representation would change that. The Liberal Democrats have been advocating for a change in our electoral system for a long time. We already use proportional systems in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The vast majority of democracies worldwide use them.
John Lamont
It is. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we have had that debate in the UK? Part of Nick Clegg and David Cameron’s coalition agreement was a referendum on the alternative vote, and the British people rejected it in very large numbers.
Lisa Smart
I could not be more delighted to go into details about different voting systems. The hon. Gentleman will know that AV is a preferential system, not a proportional one. I am talking about proportional representation. AV would have been a better system than first past the post, but a proportionate system would be even better. It has long been in the Liberal Democrat manifesto that that would mean fairer representation and more people having their say.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman is very impatient, because I was barely getting started on my speech. I will address that, because it is an important question that we have to challenge ourselves with, and it is right that we are here to debate it today, but I wanted to set out the primacy of party politics because, to me, it is about values. It is about what we believe in, and what kind of country and world we would like to build.
While I disagree fundamentally on many issues with Opposition Members, I recognise and respect that so many of them hold equally strong beliefs and values as those of us on the Government Benches, and that they are here to champion those party values in the name of public service, too. I appreciate—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will share this view—that when we cast our ballots at general elections, so many of us do so with a specific party manifesto, set of values or policy priorities in mind. People often elect the party that they want to govern based on a set of principles and priorities that they support or at least believe are preferable to those of the other parties.
As we have heard, people are also voting, albeit indirectly, for a particular Prime Minister. We cannot assume that the public do not see the weeks of general election coverage. The Prime Minister was on the front of our manifesto. People know that they are voting for a Prime Minister, because they know that the party with the largest number of MPs will send that person to 10 Downing Street.
When an elected MP leaves a political party, it is entirely understandable that voters may feel that the contract between them and their local MP has been broken, that trust has been broken and that a remedy, such as a by-election, is required to repair it. They may feel that they voted for that person not as an individual, but because of the shared values they believed they represented. They may feel strongly that they do not share the values of the new party that the MP has moved to. All of that is entirely understandable.
While I acknowledge why the petitioners—and, as we have heard, some in this place—may want to see a by-election to repair that, I believe that it is up to those MPs themselves to examine their conscience and their relationship with their voters, and not for this place to tell them what their principles should be. I have enough respect for and faith in the British public that, when that individual next goes back to their constituents to ask them for the sacred privilege, which we are so lucky to hold, of representing them in this place, the public will make their decision on the basis of all the evidence. They will decide whether that MP has their interests at heart, and whether they jumped ship out of principle—we have heard examples of that—or out of shameless political ambition. I will not point to any particular instances that we may have seen of that recently.
It is true that, while values tend to stay the same, parties can shift and evolve. I have seen that with my own party, as hon. Members have discussed. For example, in 2019, the British public had their say on whether they felt the Labour party had moved too far from where they were, or from where they felt we ought to be. Many people wrestled with that. Ultimately, we should have enough faith in the British public that they will assess the decision that their MP has made in defecting to another party and have their say. Some MPs have won after defecting to another party; others have lost. Ultimately, the public will weigh it all up and pass their judgment.
As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley flagged, it is also important to remember that the public will make their judgment on the basis of a number of issues, not just the party allegiance of the MP. Despite the political differences I have with colleagues in this House, we have all come here to champion our communities and constituencies. Day in, day out, we support our constituents with casework issues, highlight the noteworthy work our local charities and organisations undertake across our communities, raise local issues closest to our constituents’ hearts and fix problems. As we all know, that vital work is personal to us individually, no matter which political party we come from. As such, much of the value of being an MP comes directly from our work with constituents, and they will ultimately price that into the decisions that they make.
It has been a long-standing constitutional principle in this country, most famously put forward by Edmund Burke, that MPs should deliberate and use their reason and judgment, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, and not simply be a delegate of either party or populist opinion. A by-election on the basis of a defection would undermine that principle.
If we mandated that an MP must lose their seat the moment they leave their party, we would fundamentally alter the nature of our democracy. We would also shift from a system in which an MP’s first responsibility is to their constituents, to one where, once elected, they are accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster. As the Prime Minister himself has said, “Country first; party second.”
John Lamont
I am grateful for the Minister’s analysis. I wonder whether she applies the same logic to her colleagues who have lost the Labour Whip because they have not complied with instructions to vote for Government policy that their constituents do not agree with.
Anna Turley
The hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. There is always a balance and a trade-off, which we all make as MPs, between that judgment and a sense of shared and collective responsibility. It comes back to the point I made at the beginning: we cannot achieve much on our own. We achieve much more when we are together, and political parties rise or fall on unity. It is for every MP to decide where their conscience lies. If they genuinely believe that their party is going against the principles and the will of their constituents, they have the opportunity to make that decision, but, ultimately, they must pay the price by losing the Whip. That is party discipline and collective responsibility. The hon. Gentleman raises a really important challenge, which we all think about often.
In the scenario that I described, in which we shifted to a system in which, once elected, an MP is accountable to their party’s leaders in Westminster, MPs who disagree with their party’s leadership, or feel that their political party is moving in a direction that they are uncomfortable with, may lose an important way to express their dissatisfaction. In the last Parliament, former MPs defected from the Conservative party because many felt that they were unable to deliver on the promises they made to their country. I understand the appeal of an automatic by-election to petitioners and to some Members of this House, but that would not make our parliamentary democracy stronger.
We must also consider the more practical impact of the petition’s proposal on our constituents. We all know the importance of our constituents having their own voices represented in Parliament. A by-election is a significant event. Members across the House know that it is costly to the public purse but, more importantly, it disrupts a constituency’s representation in this place. During a by-election campaign the seat is effectively vacant; casework stalls, the community loses its voice in Parliament for weeks or months, and the focus shifts to campaigning and the result’s implications for the Government of the day, rather than the issues that matter most to local residents.
Under our current system, when an MP changes affiliation, that work continues uninterrupted. The MP remains in post, serving their constituents and helping to support them with local issues. Naturally, that does not mean that MPs should be unaccountable for defecting to another party, but, as I have said, the remedy for that already exists in a general election. Of course, if an MP feels it is necessary to seek a fresh mandate, they are free to resign from both their party and their seat and fight a by-election immediately. I personally think that that would demonstrate an integrity that the public would welcome. In either case, the crucial thing is that MPs remain accountable to their constituents.
We do, of course, have a mechanism—
John Lamont
I apologise for disrupting the Minister’s flow, but I would like to ask her to clarify what she just said. She seems to be arguing that she is opposed to a by-election happening at the point of defection, but I think she hinted at a personal view that was contrary to the view that she had previously been articulating.
Anna Turley
Forgive me; my view, and that of the Government, is very clear. It is for each hon. Member to decide; it is not for the Government or Parliament to have a mechanism that forces people. People should examine their conscience: if they feel that a by-election would enable them to rebuild trust with their constituents, it is important that they consider that. However, it is not for Parliament to mandate that for those who defect. It is about integrity. If they believe that they have broken a promise that they made to people, then that is up to them.
We already have a mechanism to remove MPs during the course of a Parliament. Under the Recall of MPs Act 2015, by-elections are triggered by custodial sentences, suspension from the House or false expenses claims. Some have argued that we should add defection to that list, but I strongly urge against that. The core philosophy of recall is that it is triggered by conduct, not a change in values or even, dare I say it, political ambition. Of course, I agree that it is right that MPs who fall below ethical standards or break the law are held to account for their behaviour, but to conflate political disagreement or even naked opportunism with ethical misconduct would set a dangerous precedent. Finding oneself at odds with the direction of one’s party or wanting to jump on the latest populist bandwagon is not a lapse of behavioural standards; it is part of political life, and I believe the public can be trusted to see that and make a judgment for themselves.
The Government believe—and I believe too, just to clarify for the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont)—that our current constitutional arrangements strike the right balance. They preserve much-needed stability in democracy and enable MPs who do change political parties to continue their vital constituency work, while reserving the public’s right to judge the work and principles of that MP at the ballot box. As chair of the Labour party and a proud member of this Labour Government, I strongly believe in political parties providing competing visions of the kind of world and the kind of country we would like to see and seeking a mandate from the public to enact them.
It is in the nature of our democracy, to support effective government in this country, that a party is able to command a majority in this House. Party values allow us to build our vision, turn our manifestos into reality, provide collective leadership and service, and enact the change that the country voted for at a general election. I understand why the petitioners and some Members across the House feel that an automatic by-election would add another layer of accountability in this place, but for the reasons I have set out, I do not believe that those changes would in any way enhance our parliamentary democracy.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
I thank my hon. Friend for that really important question. We have undertaken an arm’s length body review, and it is making serious progress. We have already seen NHS England removed, to make sure that we bring our important services under democratic control. We are also looking to make a huge amount of savings in this area. I look forward to updating my hon. Friend and the House on progress shortly.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
Both contracts that the hon. Gentleman refers to were negotiated by the previous Government; he might want to reflect on that. In both those contracts, we are reserving our contractual rights. The Cabinet Office has already withheld payments from Capita for not meeting particular milestones, so the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we will use every lever in these contracts to enforce them.
Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence
John Lamont Excerpts(4 months 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.
The Minister without Portfolio (Anna Turley)
It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate, and thank the hon. Members for Chippenham (Sarah Gibson) and for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for their contributions. I particularly thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), for his thoughtful analysis of some of the questions and challenges that this debate has provoked.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk introduced this debate on behalf of thousands of signatories of the e-petition asking for the public to be granted the right to a vote of no confidence in the Government. As hon. Members in this Chamber will know only too well, at the heart of our parliamentary democracy is the willingness of all our political parties to engage in debates, sometimes robustly, on the critical issues that affect our constituents’ lives. It is therefore important that we are holding this debate. Although the Government do not agree with the central premise of the petition being debated, we will always respect the public’s right to voice their opinions, particularly in this place, through their elected Members of Parliament. Petitions debates are an important means by which to do that. As ever, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government.
In our parliamentary democracy, the Government of the day hold office by virtue of their ability to command the confidence of the House of Commons. The composition of the Commons is decided at the general election. A general election is brought about by the Prime Minister requesting, from the sovereign, the dissolution of Parliament within five years.
In recent years, thanks to the instability caused by the reckless decisions of the Conservative party, the public had the opportunity to decide not just in 2015 but in 2017 and again in 2019, before the last general election was held in 2024. It is, of course, quite unusual to have so many general elections in such a short space of time, and that reflects the previous Government’s chaos.
John Lamont
For the record, it is also important to note that in each of those elections—with the exception of the last—the Conservative vote actually rose.
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 Lamont
I had not anticipated having an hour to fill—I joke; I am not going to fill the hour. I thank the petitioner for creating the petition, all the people who signed it, and the Members who have participated in the debate. It has been an example of quality over quantity.
I particularly enjoyed the Minister’s speech, although I feel that she is living in a parallel universe in terms of the chaos, division and uncertainty that this Government are apparently moving on from. For most of us in the real world, I think our perception is somewhat different. The Minister made much of the 14 years of Conservative rule, although it is useful to remember—she mentioned the many elections that took place in that period—that in four of the five general elections that took place in the 14 years of Conservative rule, the Conservative vote went up. More people were voting Conservative and more people had Conservative MPs as a consequence, so it was not all bad.
The petition is less about the proposed constitutional change and more about the feeling, which many people have, of being let down and betrayed by this Government: the sense of promises being broken and not delivered, and a real sense of a lack of direction. We all heard the Minister’s account of all the things that have apparently been achieved during Labour’s time in office, but in many ways that is part of the problem—the Government’s feeling that people should be grateful and should feel better.
The reality out there in the real world is that people do not feel any better; they feel that things are getting worse. Unemployment is up, debt is going up and people are waiting longer for NHS appointments. People feel very let down, and this debate has been an opportunity to reflect on that. I hope that the petitioner and everybody who has been watching the debate have had an opportunity to listen to both sides of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 734311 relating to the public being given a right to a vote of no confidence.
Lord Mandelson
John Lamont Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
No matter which party we represent, no matter what deeply held differences we have and no matter how different our beliefs, everyone in this Chamber—indeed, anyone who serves the public—does so in the interests of this nation. We all signed up to serve our country, to do the best by Britain. Peter Mandelson has broken that vow.
From politicians to civil servants, we all commit to the Nolan principles of public life. We promise to serve the public with integrity, objectivity, selflessness, accountability, openness and honesty. The principles state, without qualification:
“Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest…Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work…Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner.”
Peter Mandelson has broken every one of those principles.
Every single Member of this House and the other place swears an Oath of Allegiance to the Crown. Before we take our seats, Members of Parliament stand in this very Chamber and swear to
“be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”
In years gone by, that Oath was to Her late Majesty the Queen. It is an oath to the Crown, but it is also an oath to this country. It is a solemn pledge of loyalty to this nation and its people. Peter Mandelson has betrayed that Oath and betrayed Britain, and the evidence is there for all to see in the Epstein files.
Peter Mandelson distributed critical sensitive material about this country and its affairs. He conspired to work with foreign elites against this country’s interests, and against the policy of the Government he served. He gave some of the most privileged information to some very privileged people with the means and power to wield it. His actions could be classed as disloyal and duplicitous even if the recipient of the information was of good standing, but in this case the recipient of Peter Mandelson’s leaks was a convicted paedophile. Privileged information was passed not only to a very privileged individual, but to a disgraced criminal—a grooming-gang master from a grooming gang for the powerful and elite. Perhaps in the fullness of time, Epstein will be viewed as one of the worst grooming-gang masters this planet has seen. In doing so, Peter Mandelson has disgraced himself. His actions and his lack of candour are shameful in the extreme.
But it is not Peter Mandelson’s actions that we should be concerned about. Earlier, I omitted one Nolan principle—the final one, which is leadership, and that is precisely what has been lacking from this Government since their formation. This Nolan principle requires public servants to
“challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”
Why was Peter Mandelson’s behaviour not challenged by the Prime Minister before his appointment? Why was Peter Mandelson allowed to assume a key role when his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein was known?
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, grounded as it is in the Nolan principles. Does he agree that if the Prime Minister had appointed someone who went on to breach all the Nolan principles to a position as serious as that of ambassador to the United States, that would be a serious issue to deal with, but the fact is that he appointed a person who had already broken all the Nolan principles before his appointment, as well as doing so after it? I think that makes the Prime Minister’s position untenable.
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend is right. The Prime Minister’s position, particularly after his remarks during Prime Minister’s questions earlier, raises serious questions about what he knew and when, and why on earth he made the appointment.
I have been doing this job as a Member of Parliament since 2017, and previously I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for 10 years, so it is almost 20 years. Throughout that time, I have been aware of the rumours and speculation about Mandelson. Indeed, he was sacked from the Cabinet on two occasions for misconduct, and throughout his political life question marks have been raised about his credibility, his conduct and his scruples. Why was Peter Mandelson able to get away with distributing sensitive privileged information while in office? The questions over Peter Mandelson’s character, and his loyalty to this country, have to be answered.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have been a Member of this place for longer than I care to remember, and throughout that time I have seen powerful men go unchallenged and cause havoc in our country as a result. He and I will want to change that for good, because this goes well beyond any partisan concern. Does he agree that it is therefore time to revisit the role of this House in scrutinising appointments, and particularly the capacity of Select Committees to object? Too many people have known for too long that a number of controversial characters are not fit for public office. It is time to bring the disinfectant of democracy back into that process—does the hon. Gentleman agree?
John Lamont
The obvious question that stems from the hon. Lady’s point is why on earth the Prime Minister made that appointment when there was so much information about the toxic nature of Peter Mandelson. What on earth was the Prime Minister doing? The Secretary of State for Business and Trade, a Cabinet member, was doing the rounds saying that it was “worth the risk”, so clearly, even in the higher echelons of the Cabinet—not least the Prime Minister—there were concerns about this appointment, yet nobody did anything about it. This individual, who had this association with a predator and grooming-gang master and was subsequently caught sharing sensitive information with him, should never have been anywhere near the important office of our ambassador to the United States.
There are so many questions that the Government need to answer, but there are crucial questions that the Prime Minister has to answer. For me, the Prime Minister’s conduct in this matter is completely unforgivable.