Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Chinese Embassy

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, not least because she came along in good faith this morning and attended the briefing at our invitation. I hope she found it helpful. I am acutely conscious that there are technical details that the House will understand I am not able to get into, and that is why we took the opportunity to brief the hon. Lady and other right hon. Members this morning. I am afraid that I do not agree with her analysis of our understanding of the threat. I referred earlier to the significant number of measures that we have taken in recent times to protect our national security.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the cables, so let me take this opportunity to update her and the House on that specific point. The allegations that have been much discussed in the media are not new to us or to the security agencies. Our intelligence services have scrutinised the plans, and an extensive range of measures have been developed and are being implemented to protect national security, including putting in place additional resilience measures to protect sensitive data—

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What does that mean?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member asks me what that means. I hope he will understand that it would be unwise of me to get into the technical detail of the mitigations that we are seeking to put in place. Surely he understands that the Security Minister is not able to get into the guts and the detail of precisely what we are going to do—[Interruption.] If he is just patient for—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis with regard to consolidation. This Government will always work to ensure that the British public are safer—that is our job, our abiding mission and the first responsibility of Government. I am confident that the decision that has been taken, with the mitigations in place, will deliver good national security outcomes for our country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Government’s decision to approve China’s spy embassy is utterly wrong and puts national security at risk. Now that the embassy has been approved, if—or rather when—we get evidence that China is using the embassy for surveillance, torture or other inappropriate means, will the Government guarantee to close that embassy?

[Dan Jarvis]

As with any embassy, either in this country or around the world—let us not be naive about the fact that Britain has embassies right around the world—the Vienna convention lays down the way in which different Governments should behave with regard to the conduct of their diplomatic presences. We take our responsibilities under the Vienna convention very seriously, and we expect every other country, including China, to do the same.

Call for General Election

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 727309 relating to a general election.

It is truly a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Democracy is fundamental to any free and functioning country. Every hon. Member in this House is here for one reason: our constituents put their trust in us through the ballot box. We stood on manifestos, political parties made promises, and voters judged those promises and placed their faith in those they believed would honour them. That is why this petition matters.

More than 1 million people have signed this petition calling for a general election, including 1,124 people in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. It is important to be clear: under our constitutional arrangements, a petition itself cannot trigger a general election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That authority rests with the Prime Minister, unless he is overridden by a vote of no confidence. Even so, I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the scale of this petition. Parliament considers many petitions, but this one is set apart by its size and by the speed with which public support has been mobilised. Each week, as I speak to constituents across the Scottish Borders, most fair-minded people accept that Governments must adapt to world events and unexpected challenges, whether a pandemic or a war. What they will not accept is a party promising one thing before an election and then doing the complete opposite once in power.

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what Labour promised before the election, to people from farmers to publicans, has been completely betrayed? Almost 2,000 of my constituents in South Shropshire have signed this petition because they believe that the Government have failed and betrayed the British people.

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am going to return to the word “betrayal” later, but there is a real sense that what was promised before the election has simply not been delivered.

During the 2024 general election campaign, Labour promised one thing above all else: change. We have certainly seen change, but it is not for the better. On the morning of Friday 5 July 2024, the new Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10 and promised a “Government of service”. He promised to put the country before his party.

[Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[John Lamont]

He promised not to raise taxes—Labour Members are not “Hear, hear!” now, are they?

The Prime Minister promised accountability and transparency. The question that many of us are now asking is: service to whom? To his hard-left Back Benchers? To his trade union paymasters? This Labour Government have now been in power for 18 months, and Britain is suffering as a result. We have a Prime Minister surrounded by advisers who appear to lack both clarity of purpose and a coherent plan for the country.

Let us remind ourselves of some of the broken promises that have fuelled the public anger. Winter fuel payments were cut within weeks of Labour taking office, leaving pensioners feeling the cold last winter. Labour promised in its manifesto not to increase national insurance, yet the jobs tax raised employer national insurance contributions and, combined with the un-Employment Rights Act, has increased the cost of hiring a worker by around £1,000. In total, we have seen £64 billion—£64 billion—in tax rises across the Chancellor’s first two Budgets. Let us hope, for all our sakes, that the Chancellor does not get a chance to deliver another Budget.

Before the election, the Prime Minister told the National Farmers’ Union that

“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back.”

He was right. Yet his Government introduced the family farm tax, a policy that threatens the future of family farms across the country. Although we welcome the partial U-turn announced just before Christmas, that tax should be scrapped entirely. I pay tribute to farmers for their tireless campaigning over the past year, including many in my constituency, such as Peter Douglas from Hawick and Robert Neill from Jedburgh.

Pubs and hospitality businesses are also facing a bleak future under this Labour Government. Rising business rates, higher costs and the jobs tax are battering businesses that are vital to our economy. Pubs such as · the Allanton Inn in Berwickshire or the Black Bull in Lauder are at the heart of our local communities. Hospitality venues are closing, laying off staff and cutting hours as a direct consequence of this Government’s decisions. While the number of pubs remained broadly stable up until 2024, following the Chancellor’s jobs tax announcements, closures accelerated in the first half of 2025 at a rate of two venues per day. By mid-2025, there were 374 fewer pubs than at the start of the year.

Illegal immigration is another clear example of failure. The Prime Minister promised to “smash the gags”. Instead, small boat crossings rose by 13% in Labour’s first full year in office. Last year, more than 41,000 people entered the United Kingdom illegally, with 32,000 now housed in asylum hotels at the taxpayer’s expense. That outcome is hardly surprising when one of the Government’s first acts was to scrap the deterrent to discourage illegal migrants from heading to the UK. We know that deterrents work. The previous Conservative Government reduced Albanian small boat crossings by over 90% through a returns agreement. We now have a Home Secretary who talks tough, but a Government too weak to make the difficult decisions needed to fix the problem.

Labour also promised to take back our streets and recruit more police officers. Instead, there are now 1,316 fewer police in England and Wales than when they took office. Then there is digital identification— something that people did not vote for, did not want and do not need. Innovation has its place, but we should not mandate ID for law-abiding citizens or exclude those who choose not to participate from taking their full rights.

[Stuart Anderson]

I have made clear my views on the authoritarian approach of digital ID. Many constituents in South Shropshire would be excluded because of remote connectivity. Does my hon. Friend see that as a major issue?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only is it something that was not discussed before the election, it is something that there is no public support for. But in rural communities, such as those in the constituencies that both my hon. Friend and I represent, there is a real issue with connectivity and how it will work in practice. People may be deprived of the ability to access vital public services as a consequence, if we believe the things that some Labour MPs are saying that they hope this ID system will achieve.

This Government have been blown off course, with multiple U-turns on income tax, WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—compensation, welfare reform and the long overdue inquiry into grooming gangs—the list grows longer by the day. This Government are riddled with chaos and scandal, with Ministers resigning over fraud, corruption allegations, tax issues and ethical failures, right up to a Prime Minister who claims excessive freebies. Britain deserves better.

From my emails, surgeries and doorstep conversations, I know that colleagues will recognise the same mood across the country: disappointment, anger and a profound sense of betrayal—the word “betrayal” comes up time and again. Labour Members should reflect carefully on why so many people feel that way. The Government’s response to this petition was to dismiss it, and to dismiss the voices of the more than 1 million people who signed it. Those concerned should not be brushed aside simply because parliamentary mechanisms do not allow this House to act for them directly. This Government are giving the impression that they believe themselves to be above public opinion. The Opposition will not allow that.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, seven of the top 10 constituencies in terms of numbers of people who have signed the petition are in Essex, and they include my own constituency. That is how unpopular Labour is in Essex. Does he think that might have anything to do with why Labour councillors want to cancel the local elections in Essex in May? Or is that just an amazing coincidence?

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This time last year, we had a petition on a similar subject, which millions of people signed, and I think Essex was also at the top of the league table for numbers of signatures. I am a member of the Petitions Committee, which is why I am presenting the petition on behalf of the Committee—a few other members of the Committee are here today. We deal with petitions every single week, but very rarely do we see petitions that attract this level of support and public participation, such is the sense of anger and betrayal felt by people out there in the country.

As I was saying, the Conservatives will continue to challenge and force reversals of damaging policies, just as we did on the winter fuel payment, the family farm tax and the grooming gangs inquiry. Labour promised to be different, but instead it has presided over a catalogue of broken promises, scandals and policy announcements that no one supports.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

In preparing for this e-petition debate, I clicked on the House of Commons Library service, which invites Members to look at a Government tracker produced by the registered charity and independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact. Did the hon. Member click on that and look at its findings in relation to the 86 pledges from the Labour party manifesto?

[John Lamont]

I have not looked at that particular facility. I am here to represent the 1 million people who signed the petition calling for an election and all the people I speak to each week in my constituency who are fed up with the U-turns, betrayals and chaos that this Government—the party that the hon. Gentleman represents—are presiding over. I make no apology for standing up for those people and putting the case that they have asked me to make on their behalf. The Labour Government may still have the votes, as the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, but they have lost the country. Britain deserves far better than this Prime Minister and this failing Labour Government.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the Prime Minister saying that

“not a penny more on your council tax”

would be implemented by this Labour Government, yet constituents in the Worth valley, across Keighley and Ilkley, have experienced a rise of 14.99% in the past two years under Labour-run Bradford council. Does my hon. Friend feel that that meets the Prime Minister’s promise?

[John Lamont]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of my recollections from the last general election was the then Conservative leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), saying in the leaders debate, “Mark my words: if you think Labour is going to win this election, start saving now, because they are going to put up your taxes.” And guess what? He was absolutely right. Tax after tax has gone up, despite the promises that the Labour leader made—I will happily take interventions from Labour Members.

After all the Prime Minister’s promises not to put up taxes, look at us now: £64 billion-worth of tax rises, thanks to the Labour Chancellor, just in the past 18 months. What an absolute embarrassment. No wonder people are fed up with politics. No wonder people do not want to take part in voting any more. They feel utterly betrayed, and you lot are responsible.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.

I thank the Petitions Committee for this debate, and I thank those who engaged and signed the petition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), I always look at the petitions that come into this place, because they are a way for the public to raise their voice and set an agenda here. Like him, I can understand why people signed this petition. I will address that today because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), I am concerned about the rise of public mistrust in our politics and politicians—be that at a local or national level—and their ability to achieve positive change. Let me be clear, though: another general election is not the answer. People want long-term development and delivery, not political games.

We are now 18 months into this parliament, and we inherited a mess. I like to think about it in a pictorial way, seeing it as a desolate and broken kitchen. Plates were piled high, some lay smashed on the floor and some were empty. Some cupboard doors were falling off, and some of the cupboards were empty. The justice cupboard was overflowing with victims waiting for their day in court. The education cupboard was empty, having been neglected because trying to fix anything was felt to be a lose-lose-lose situation. The growth cupboard had been abandoned, while the NHS cupboard had just fallen apart and was lying on the floor. The bottle inside the defence cupboard was open and the liquid was spilling down on to the floor, as people and contracts were left. Worst of all, the child poverty cupboard was empty, as were many kids’ stomachs.

We have been in office for 18 months since inheriting that mess. Fourteen years of Conservative failure hollowed out our public services. The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition lit the fuse, and the damage was done in the years afterwards. Cities such as Portsmouth paid the price. Communities, families and individuals absorbed the shock, while those who were responsible simply walked away.

Those who were involved do not get to pretend that that was not their doing. Opposition Members should reflect on their role and not just brush it aside. Then there is Reform, which is a party of grievance, not Government, propped up by failing Conservatives who keep joining it—they could not win honestly, so they changed their logo instead. They are not fighting for Portsmouth or Britain; they are fighting for relevance. Many of my constituents can see through that.

I am not a commentator; I represent and serve my city. Before I came into this House, I spent 24 years as a teacher in Portsmouth—one of the most trusted professions in the country. I worked with children, families and school staff every day, and I saw how bad decisions in Westminster landed in real lives. Indeed, that is the reason why I came into politics. In my opinion, the previous Government trashed primary education and gave up on our young people.

That experience, as well as seeing my own friends and family suffer, shapes everything I do in this place. Progress must be practical, fair and deliverable, or it is meaningless. I represent Portsmouth. I live and have lived its challenges. Since being elected, I have spoken over 170 times in this place, for my place. My team and I have closed more than 9,000 constituency cases. I have visited schools, businesses, charities and community groups week in and week out, from Brownies to breweries, and from bubble tea cafés to boxing clubs. That is what service looks like.

Sometimes, there are tough conversations and real difficulties, but because we are focused on delivering change, change is happening, although positive change takes time. However, the two-child limit on universal credit is being removed, helping 2,460 children in my area, 60% of whose families are working. Breakfast clubs are feeding children for free before school, youth hubs are opening, children are being protected from online harms, school uniform costs are falling and wages are rising. Renters’ and workers’ rights are improving as we scrap exploitative zero-hours contracts and section 21 no-fault evictions. NHS waiting times are coming down, while GP capacity is expanding and dental access is being addressed. For the first time ever, violence against women and girls is being addressed, and men’s health—

[John Lamont]

The hon. Lady is giving a list of her Government’s achievements in Portsmouth North. In her constituency, youth unemployment is up. Will she add that to the list as well?

[Amanda Martin]

We will add it to the list. We need to ensure that children and young people who are not in education, employment or training are not neglected by the Government—and they will not be.

Men’s health is finally being taken seriously. There is money for potholes, parks and policing. Pride in place funding is reaching deprived and previously ignored communities, like where my mum and dad were born, in Paulsgrove and beyond. Many of those policies, the Opposition voted against; if they had been in Government, we would not have had them.

Portsmouth is also a royal naval city. I am proud that my son serves, and that this Government are delivering the biggest armed forces pay rise in decades. Service families’ homes are improving, families can keep pets now and veterans have proper joined-up support through Op Valour. It is delivery, and not slogans, for our armed forces.

Brexit hurt Pompey businesses, and the damage was real. We now need to rebuild trade and trust, as we are doing. The India trade agreement alone will bring £300 million a year into the south-east, and investment in defence and apprenticeships is helping to make life more stable for young people who are out of employment.

For many in our city, it is a far cry from the days when shipbuilding was snatched from us under the previous Government and replaced with three useless Portsmouth Ministers. Portsmouth is receiving £13.1 million for safer streets, cleaner streets, improved bus services, better cycling and vital flood defences for our island city, to name just a few things.

I am especially proud of my own tool theft campaign, in which I led a movement of local tradespeople and national bodies. Despite recent noise from the Opposition Benches, before I was elected, politicians ignored this crime and, in fact, this sector. But tool theft destroys lives, and we know that the trade sector builds homes. We worked with the sector and changed the law. That is what happens when people in Government listen and act.

Do we have more to do? Absolutely we do, always, but in the last 18 months, I, and we as a Government, have listened, learned and delivered. Change works when it is built with communities, not imposed on them. That is why calls for an immediate general election ring hollow. Accountability matters, and chaos does not. My constituents know that life is hard, but they also know who is showing up and who is shouting from the sidelines. The country does not need more noise; it needs people who serve where they live, take responsibility, and get on with the job.

I thank the residents of Portsmouth North who signed this petition, and I assure them that my door is always open. I understand the frustration and the anger, but I encourage them to come along to the coffee mornings, join me for one of my “pint with your MP” events, or attend one of my many public events. I am here to listen and help, and to deliver for Portsmouth North, because it has not been delivered for in the last two decades. Today and tomorrow—and as long as I am here in this place—it is important to me to do that. Everybody I love lives in my city.

Petitions are an important part of our democracy, but this debate will not build a single home, fix a single struggling public service or help a single family in my city. My focus is on delivery, not disruption. I serve Portsmouth and will keep doing this job. We have far more in common than what divides us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson]

Not very many. Actually, Dartford is in receipt of significant additional infrastructure spending, which is putting people into work. An example of how young people are going to be in work in Dartford in the future—

[John Lamont]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jim Dickson]

I am still responding to the last intervention. Dartford is lucky that North Kent college is the recipient of one of 10 national centre of excellence awards for construction. Dartford will be the south-east centre, and that will allow young people to get into jobs as infrastructure spending takes place in the constituency.

[John Lamont]

The intention of my intervention was to be helpful. The unemployment rate among young people in Dartford has gone up 11% in the past year as a direct consequence of decisions that the hon. Gentleman’s Government are making. What does he say to young people who are having job opportunities taken away from them?

[Jim Dickson]

I say: look at the additional spending going into Dartford to create jobs, and look at the Connect to Work project, set up by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is helping young people who are a long way from the labour market into good, well-paid jobs.

We clearly have much more to do to ensure that we have the police we need in Dartford, but I am confident that people in Dartford feel safer and will continue to feel safer, as long as we do not have a general election that sees those changes lost.

Finally—this is something that I am personally proud of—hon. Members may know that I was contacted by the family of Simone White, who tragically died of methanol poisoning in Laos late last year. It has been an honour to work with Simone’s family and the families of other victims of methanol poisoning on greater awareness of the risks. This is why it is important that we have a Government who listen. I am pleased that, as a result of the families’ campaigning work, the curriculum is being changed to add the risk of poisoning from methanol abroad to teaching about the hazards people can encounter when travelling, and that the Foreign Office has worked with the families to update its advice. Those changes are a testament to the courage and campaigning of the victims’ families, as well as to a Government who listen.

Since the election, we have made progress on crucial issues, with more to come in the years ahead. I look forward to working with Dartford residents, our vibrant community groups, our faith groups and our businesses to keep driving positive changes in our area. That is what I say to people in Dartford who signed the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

This is a serious point. I would hope that teachers are not teaching children that. Although I disagree with the hon. Member’s politics, I do not rank it alongside that of the far-right politicians he has mentioned from history. Of course, if this was part of a school assignment, I am sure he would be the first to talk about freedom of speech; children have that right as well. However, I hope that those things are not being taught in schools; in fact, I am sure they are not.

In the schools that I went to, one thing that came up was LGBT rights. Some students were absolutely disgusted by some of the comments from Reform, which were echoed earlier in the debate in relation to access to healthcare for people who are part of the trans community. Students are absolutely disgusted by what is happening because they care; they have friends who face this issue, and they care about it passionately. I urge the hon. Member to represent everyone when he makes his comments.

In the classrooms, I was challenged on what I thought the Government’s greatest achievement was. I am an emotional person, and the thing that got me most emotional was voting for better employment rights for women and making it harder for employers to sack women just because they were pregnant, had had a miscarriage or were returning from having a baby. I think that is something we would all support; I know some Members might have voted against it, but I am sure we all think these are good things.

Likewise, I said I was proud of the work the Government were doing to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. I said that knowing that some of the children in that very classroom would benefit from that policy and that other children in the classroom would maybe know who those children were. I am really proud of what the Government are doing in that space.

[John Lamont]

As the hon. Member will know, there is wide speculation in the Scottish press about a plot among Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. Labour MPs are quoted as describing the Prime Minister as “terrible”, “incompetent”, “mind-blowingly stupid”, and saying they are going to get “slaughtered” in the Scottish Parliament elections. Is the hon. Member part of that plot?

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely not. Those are not comments I am familiar with at all. I would advise the hon. Member not to focus on newspapers’ speculation and to focus on supporting his constituents.

I talked to the young people in school about how the Government take our international treaties on both the climate and human rights seriously, and they value that. I also talked about the plans to extend the voting age for general elections in Scotland to 16. Young voters can already vote at 16 in other elections in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I appreciate the hon. Member’s attempt to reiterate the speech that he made, but I would have thought that he would be grateful that there are 3,250 children in Keighley who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit. Those are children who we are investing in and who are going to contribute to the future. We are breaking cycles of dependency. I would have thought that the hon. Member would welcome that. I am sure that people in his constituency whose mortgages have come down would also be very grateful for that.

In November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a Budget that is bearing down on the cost of living and lifting millions of children out of poverty. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, children will benefit from the abolition of the two-child benefit cap thanks to action taken by this Labour Government.

[John Lamont]

The Minister is in danger of falling into the same trap that the Government did in their formal response to the petition, in that she is telling people that they should be grateful—“We’re doing all these things. You should be grateful.” People in my constituency do not feel grateful; they feel betrayed by a catalogue of broken promises.

[Anna Turley]

The hon. Member got up and talked about the glass being half-empty. If we are restoring trust in politics, it is important that we remind people about all the things that are happening. Of course, we know that it takes time for people to feel that in their pockets. We are confident that with every pay cheque this year, they will feel that more and more. However, the reality is that we should stand up and remind people about the changes that Governments make and that these changes have not happened by chance, but because of the choices made by this Labour Government, and I am proud to defend them.

In talking about the reasons for calling this debate, Opposition Members have talked about manifesto promises and so on. I want to run through some of the manifesto promises and commitments that this Government have made, to knock down their argument. This year we will take £150 off energy bills, the living wage is up £900 per year, we have extended the £3 bus fare, interest rates have been cut six times, we have frozen prescription fees to keep costs under £10 and we have taken 500,000 children out of poverty—that is an extra 3,000 in my constituency of Redcar. We are also protecting the triple lock for pensioners, which is worth over £1,900 over the course of this Parliament.

As the hon. Member has said, people in his constituency are still feeling the squeeze from the cost of living, but that is exactly why we have provided 30 hours of free childcare to help mums who are struggling to get into work and to get the support they need with childcare. That is £8,000 per year for parents. We have set up 750 primary school breakfast clubs to help those kids to get a healthy start in life. I have been to see them, and children not only get a healthy meal to start the day but dance classes and exercise to get their blood pumping and to get them ready for the day and ready to learn. They are breaking the cycle of poverty, which we have seen hold back too many children in our constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I reassure colleagues that I will not detain them for too much longer. I have to start by thanking the over 1 million people across the UK who signed this important petition, as well as all right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate. Let us be in no doubt; those 1 million people feel very strongly about this issue and the failure of the Government. I particularly thank my Conservative colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—for their excellent speeches that spoke to the nub of our constituents’ concerns.

As for the Labour MPs who bothered to turn up to defend their Government’s record, I do not know what sweeties they were being offered to come along tonight. I will give the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) his dues; he got the tone just right, recognising that people out there have big concerns about what is going on with not just this Government but politics generally. While I think he spoke to those concerns, I do not know what he would say to the extra 15% of young people in his constituency who are currently without work because of his Government’s policies. As he will know, youth unemployment is up across the whole United Kingdom, and 15% in his seat.

I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) got the tone completely wrong and misjudged the moment. I look forward to him bumping into one of his constituents who might have signed the petition this coming weekend, as we will all be out and about in our constituencies.

Many Labour Members spoke about how this is a listening Government, which is why they have done so many U-turns. However, I am afraid that does not really wash; it forgets the worry, uncertainty and fear that come while these policies are being implemented. The family farm tax is one such example, and the winter fuel payment is another. Many pubs and other businesses are terrified and unsure about how they are going to pay the higher rates and taxes. Yes, the U-turn may come eventually, but if there are months and months, or weeks and weeks, when people face the prospect of that change, that causes a lot of anxiety. Sadly, many farmers—I suspect this is why the Prime Minister ultimately had to intervene—are no longer here to see the benefit of the U-turn.

The reality is that taxes have gone up, despite the Prime Minister saying that they would not before the election. The benefits bill is going up more, and hard-working people are having to pay for it, again despite what the Prime Minister said before the election. There is a real sense of betrayal out there. I think that Labour Members, in the deepest part of their souls, also understand that, despite what they have said today. I am very grateful to everybody who has participated, and I hope that the 1 million people who signed the petition—as well as the 3 million or 4 million who have signed other petitions on this issue—feel that they have had their voices heard today.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 727309 relating to a general election.

Digital ID

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for magnificently introducing this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the more than 4,000 local residents in the Scottish Borders who have signed the petition.

This issue cuts to the very heart of the relationship between our constituents and the state. I am completely against digital ID. It is expensive, intrusive and will be completely ineffective. It was not in the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto, so this is not something that anyone has voted for. Putting that to one side, this Labour Government do not seem to understand why digital ID is needed or what it is for. The Prime Minister initially claimed that it was an essential part of cracking down on illegal migration. Illegal migrants are making long, dangerous crossings over the channel; I hardly think the requirement for a digital identification card is going to deter them. Realising that this argument was not persuading anyone, the Government now claim that it is about simplifying access to Government services. Government services do need to be simplified, but we do not need digital ID to achieve that.

Whatever the actual reasons behind the policy, we are inevitably going to see mission creep. I was particularly concerned to hear the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), say that the Government are

“starting with this issue of right to work check first, but there are loads of other applications for digital ID”.

What will be next? Will digital ID be needed to access NHS services, to get a school place for someone’s son or daughter, or even potentially to go to the pub?

The policy puts the personal data of all our constituents at risk. It would be a honeypot for cyber criminals and foreign state actors at a time when we are under increasing threat. I implore the Government to, for once, listen to the people and to the genuine and principled concerns of Members across the House. There is no deep need for digital ID. People do not want it and the Government have no mandate to introduce it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and its citizens. We must say no to digital ID. It must be scrapped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

I will not. I have loads more to cover.

Millions of people right now are digitally excluded. That is not a status quo that we are prepared to accept. We will need help to meet this challenge. Civil society, businesses, trade unions and community groups across the UK will be our partners. That is why we are consulting on how to do this. If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable—people experiencing homelessness, the elderly and people with special needs, but also veterans and people without access to the internet. This programme will empower them, because we will invest resources to reach and to include them. They will not be left behind any more.

Our second principle is “secure”.

[John Lamont]

Will the Minister give way, please?

[Josh Simons]

He will not.

We are working with the UK’s leading national security experts, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to build a system with cutting-edge protections against cyber-attacks and identity fraud. Let me be specific: we are not creating a centralised master database.

[John Lamont]

On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could you clarify how long the Minister has left to speak? By my understanding, he has until 7.29 pm so as to give the proposer of the motion a minute to respond.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

We are running quite well at the moment. We will be finishing completely at 7.30 pm, but the Member who moved the motion wants a minute to wind up, which he has a right to do. So the Minister has a bit longer should he need it.

Trade Negotiations

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

We have not compromised our animal welfare standards in any aspect of what we have agreed on behalf of the United Kingdom today.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for dragging the Minister to the House tonight to explain the terms of the deal. After hammering farms with the family farm tax, it now looks like Labour is selling our farmers down the river, allowing cheap, low-quality imports from the United States. President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture has said:

“This deal puts our great American Agricultural Producers FIRST!”

Is she wrong?

[Mr Alexander]

It is hardly a surprise that a member of the Trump Administration should talk about America first. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the north star by which we have negotiated is the UK’s national interest. Today’s agreement reflects the quiet but determined diplomacy of a serious Prime Minister to deliver a deal. The hon. Gentleman’s party does not have a great track record on serious Prime Ministers, or on beef quotas. To put today’s announcement in context, the hon. Gentleman’s Government agreed to a UK-Australia FTA with a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year. That might be a point that he wants to make to farmers in the Borders.

Trade Negotiations

John Lamont Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

For both the digital sector and the healthcare sector, the deal offers significant opportunities in a huge and expanding market in India. It will deliver a degree of certainty as well as significant tariff reductions across a range of sectors, and it also affords us the opportunity to think long-term. We want to support the advanced manufacturers with which my hon. Friend is very familiar in the north-east of England to be able to make strategic investments in exporting to the Indian market. They will be investing in exporting not just to a large but to a growing market, and one that holds significant commercial opportunities for the decades ahead.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Just a few weeks ago, the Business and Trade Secretary said that he would

“stand up for British workers”,

so it is quite astonishing that the Minister has come to the House today to announce tax breaks for immigration. This will undercut workers in Scotland and across the UK, and it comes just weeks after Labour introduced its own tax on UK workers. It leaves us all wondering: do this Labour Government ever back British workers?

[Mr Alexander]

Let me name some Scottish workers who are absolutely delighted by today’s announcement. Let me quote directly what Chivas has said:

“The announcement of a free trade agreement in principle between the UK and India is a welcome boost for Chivas Brothers during an uncertain global economic environment. India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and greater access will be a game changer for the export of our Scotch whisky brands, such as Chivas Regal and Ballantine’s.”

Whether it is Chivas Regal, Ballantine’s or other Scottish brands, which are the product of a huge number of workers in Scotland, there is much to celebrate today.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the spring statement 2025 on family farms in Wales.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the spring statement 2025 on family farms in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)]

Just this morning I had the pleasure of visiting the Carmarthenshire Day exhibition in the Jubilee Room, which I strongly recommend as a real display of Welsh farming and food produce. The Government are steadfastly committed to the farming sector. We protected the farm budget at its current level and allocated £337 million to the Welsh Government at the autumn Budget. The Welsh Government, in their budget, have used that to maintain the basic payment scheme, providing much-needed support for farmers across Wales—a budget that, as the hon. Lady knows, Tory and Plaid Cymru Senedd Members tried to block.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

Just picking up on the point about national insurance contributions, as the hon. Lady will know, many farmers employ one or two people, so they will come under the category of some of the smallest businesses. We have made sure that we protect them by doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that over half of small and microbusinesses will pay less or no national insurance contributions at all. Her Senedd colleagues voted against the budget for Welsh farmers in the Senedd only a few weeks ago.

[John Lamont]

The Minister seems to have no grasp whatsoever of the constant struggle facing our family farms in Wales and across the United Kingdom, because of the lack of support in both Labour’s spring statement and Labour’s family farm tax. Farming families are not multimillionaires—they are striving to make a profit, with many earning less than the minimum wage. Will the Minister finally accept that farms are crucial to the UK’s food security, and that the Government should support them and scrap the vindictive family farm tax?

[Dame Nia Griffith]

We applaud the work that farmers do—they are vital to our food security. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are many ways in which we have supported farmers, including the £337 million given to them in the Budget this year and passed on by Welsh Government Ministers to our farmers in Wales. He brings up inheritance tax. I remind him that we are maintaining significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others and compared to the position before 1992. Where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on relevant assets over 10 annual instalments, interest free.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will certainly pay tribute to Alan and to the work of all campaigners over decades. I am restless for progress, and I will support the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. On fast-tracking for specific claimants, last week IBCA set out details of how it is prioritising claims from infected people nearing the end of their life.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

What direct discussions has the Minister had with people in Scotland who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal about the slow pace of compensation payments?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the course of the work I have done, I have not only spoken to groups in Scotland, but engaged with the Scottish Government’s Health Minister on this matter. On the pace of the payments, IBCA has taken a test-and-learn approach, which allows it to deal with a sample of the cases and then subsequently to scale up. IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to provide all the support I can to speed up the payments.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

The Scottish Government and SNP Members seem to think that defending the defence industry is done on Twitter. This Government inherited not just a fiscal crisis but an industrial one, because we have had well over 10 years without a clear industrial strategy. I was pleased recently to meet the chair of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, and I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to Scotland last month to meet business leaders at the forefront of Scotland’s industrial future. This Government have already delivered, among other things, £200 million for Grangemouth, £2.6 million for the V&A in Dundee, and job security for 300 skilled workers at Harland & Wolff’s shipyards in Methil and Arnish. Just this morning, we announced £55 million for the Cromarty Green freeport to expand its capability for floating offshore wind. That is the commitment to growth that this Government make to the country.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The SNP Government continue to be opposed to nuclear energy, despite the huge economic benefits it would bring to Scotland. We can see that in the jobs and investment that the Torness power station generates. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that investing in nuclear would help bring down bills for our consumers, help the environment and create many more jobs?

[Ian Murray]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Our nuclear policy in Scotland should allow us to have nuclear power to bring down bills and give us energy security. Of course, he is also right that the SNP is against nuclear power in Scotland, but very happy to take the baseload from England.