Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament is unique, made up of Privy Counsellors from both Houses. However, last month the Committee took the highly unusual step of publicly criticising the Government for their failure to allow the Committee the staff and independence to fulfil its role overseeing the circa £3 billion annual spend, for which
“there is no oversight capability.”
The Committee is led by an experienced Labour peer, and it just wants the basics: to have staff who are not totally beholden to the Cabinet Office, so that they can do their job on behalf of Parliament and the country, and to meet the Prime Minister. The work of our intelligence services has never been more important, given the grey zone that states are acting within at the moment, which must be properly overseen.
I asked a written question about when the Prime Minister would deign to meet the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Ms Oppong-Asare), said that one was being arranged. Has that now happened? I also asked written questions about the independence and resources of the Committee and was told that discussions were ongoing. On a matter of this seriousness, does Parliament not deserve more than fob-off half-answers, and will the Minister provide further details now?
Pat McFadden
I do not think the shadow Minister listened to my first answer. For the avoidance of doubt, I said that we have agreed to the Committee’s requested uplift on budgeting and resourcing. Of course, the Prime Minister will be happy to meet the Committee at a convenient time that both can agree.
Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England
Richard Holden Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I am pleased to speak in support of this important motion concerning the appointment of the next Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England—collectively known as the ombudsman. That office is one of the cornerstones of accountability in our democracy. It exists to ensure that when individuals are let down by Government Departments or the NHS, their voice is heard, their complaints are fairly investigated and, where appropriate, redress is delivered. In short, the ombudsman plays a vital role in protecting the rights of ordinary citizens, especially the most vulnerable among us. I am sure that, if they have not done so already, Members on all sides of the House will at some point refer constituents to the ombudsman— I certainly have.
This appointment comes at a critical moment. Our public services, particularly the NHS, are under real pressure. Complaints relating to delays, miscommunication and administrative failures are unfortunately becoming more common. In that context, the role of the ombudsman is not just reactive; it must be proactive in identifying systemic failings and recommending improvements to prevent harm before it occurs. We Conservatives have carefully considered the proposed candidate, and believe that she brings a strong track record to the role, a deep understanding of institutional accountability and a proven ability to lead with integrity. It was great to have the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), involved in the selection process.
We must have confidence that the next commissioner can act independently of Government and party politics, guided only by the principle of fairness and the interests of the public.
The effectiveness of this role lies not in its visibility but in its vigilance. The ombudsman must be diligent, thorough and fearless in pursuit of justice, particularly for those who may feel powerless in the face of large institutions. This role is not an easy one. It requires judgment, patience, empathy and a readiness to confront uncomfortable truths. We believe the nominee has those qualities and will serve the public with distinction. We therefore support this motion for the sake of those who rely on these services and for the sake of good government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I hope to continue the positive cross-party approach to this question. I particularly like the Minister’s commitment to a clear data picture. The Sullivan review into Government data was published in March this year, and Professor Sullivan made 59 recommendations to ensure that across Government accuracy and consistency are maintained. I do not expect the Minister to have a full formal response to that review today. However, can she reassure me that the Government will issue a full formal response to the review and its recommendations to provide that clear data across Government within, say, a year of the report’s publication?
Georgia Gould
I appreciate this collegiate style of discussion. There is a huge amount to do here. When we came into power, we set out, as I said, a review of the picture that showed just how hard it is for citizens to negotiate. When moving home, one has to announce it to 10 different organisations using different public services, sometimes 40 different services, so we need to change. We have not waited for the review. We have already set out our own plans, but we will of course respond to external reviews that come forward.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
ByteDance, the company that owns TikTok, is required as a Chinese company to have an in-house Chinese Communist party committee. We all know that attacks from China on our national infrastructure as well as on our cyber-networks are becoming increasingly common, and it is clear that elements of the Chinese Government are behind them. Yet, astonishingly, the Government are still failing to fully declare ministerial meetings with TikTok representatives. Will the Minister ensure that meetings with TikTok executives are declared by Government Ministers alongside other senior media executive registrations, given TikTok�s huge presence in the media space, the massive public influence it has and the known cyber-risks posed by this Chinese platform?
Pat McFadden
There is a well-established process for transparency about meetings between Government Ministers and outside organisations, and TikTok will be treated in the same way as anyone else.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Marriage between first cousins carries significant health issues for their children, many of which are not knowable until post-birth. When practised generation after generation, there is a significant multiplier effect. In addition, the real impacts on the openness of our society and women’s rights in our country are significant. After all, there are significant dynamics in sharing the same set of grandparents. On Friday, this Government have the choice to let my Bill to ban first cousin marriage go through to Committee stage. Will the Prime Minister think again before instructing his Whips to block this legislation?
The Prime Minister
Mr Speaker, we have taken our position on that Bill.
Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Consequential and Other Amendments) Regulations 2025
Richard Holden Excerpts(5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. It is also a delight to be with the Minister who is losing her DL plates today—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I thought that was pretty good with two minutes’ notice.
We will not be opposing the draft instrument. The core Procurement Act was introduced under the Conservative Government to consolidate and simplify existing procurement legislation, improve efficiencies throughout the process and improve transparency throughout the procurement pipeline. There remain a number of big challenges with public procurement, which represents hundreds of billions of pounds of public body expenditure every year. I hope that the legislation coming into force in February will help to tackle those challenges.
Of course, I regret the fact that the Government have delayed the implementation of the measures contained within the Procurement Act, and I hope that their new national procurement policy statement will not interfere with its core efficiency and cost improvement measures. I want to ask the Minister when exactly we can expect the updated NPPS. I also want to briefly raise a couple of concerns about the measures that the Government have previously indicated will be in the updated statement.
The Labour party’s make work pay plan, which sets out the most exact information we have as to the content of the updated NPPS, suggests that the new principle of procurement will be based on learning from the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023. As the TUC has pointed out, that Act means that public bodies must consult and work with unions and:
“Attempts to shirk this duty, or lock unions out from decision-making can no longer be done without consequence”
securing the
“place of trade unions as essential partners in public policymaking.”
Is it the Government’s view that the NPPS, implemented through the Procurement Act, will ensure that trade unions cannot be locked out of decision making without consequence?
We also know that the Government have set out their intention for a social value council, as in Wales. I would appreciate some further clarity on the expected make-up of the council.
As the Minister will know, public procurement involves not just large businesses that have the capacity to maintain a stringent Government social value and trade union requirement but lots of small businesses that can offer fitting and cost-effective services and products but that might not have the broader capabilities to uphold some of those tight requirements. Previously, the Minister appeared to confirm to me that small enterprises would be exempt from those requirements and I would appreciate her confirmation of that, as well as her understanding of how exactly that will fit in to the cost-saving and efficiency measures set out by the Act, in which small and medium-sized businesses can play a central role. Anything in that regard would be appreciated.
We can all appreciate the need for public procurement reform and the fact that the Government are taking forward this work, which was initially set out by the previous Conservative Government. However, the Government should offer a little more certainty and clarity about the extent of trade union involvement in the public procurement pipeline and the extent to which they will preserve the potential for small and medium-sized businesses to have a fair go at the bidding process and involvement in that pipeline. If the Minister will write to me on those points, I will be happy not to oppose the regulations.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
We remain steadfast in our support for all LGBT people. It is essential that they are safe, included and protected from discrimination.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Does the Minister consider incredibly high rates of first-cousin marriage in certain communities, which are up to a hundred times that found in the general population, an equalities issue? What discussions has she had with the Ministry of Justice about that?
Bridget Phillipson
We continue to keep these matters under review. We are looking carefully at the Law Commission’s report into marriage published in 2022 and we will respond in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
Richard Holden Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Unbelievably, the Treasury Committee has already raised concerns about the Office for Value for Money, citing issues around its remit, cost, cross-Government duplication and more, which could be expressed concisely as fears around the value for money of Labour’s new Office for Value for Money. Does the Minister agree with the financial markets, which do not believe this Government’s commitment to reforming public procurement or to prudent financial management, which is why they have added a Reeves ratio to the UK Government’s debt, costing taxpayers an extra £10 billion a year?
Georgia Gould
Yesterday, the National Audit Office published a report on the almost £50 billion gap in building maintenance. That is the legacy that the last Government left us: crumbling buildings, 15 years of lost wage growth and stalled productivity. Compare that with this Government’s record in just the past six months: £63 billion investment at the UK investment summit and leading the way on artificial intelligence. The International Monetary Fund upgraded our growth to the fastest in Europe. The Opposition might want to run down this country, but we are determined to grow our economy.
Covid-19 Inquiry
Richard Holden Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I join his tribute to Baroness Hallett for her report.
We all know how challenging the pandemic was. Sadly, far too many lives were lost—I pay tribute to all the victims from across our country and the world. That is why the Conservative Government put in place the inquiry, and former Ministers have been co-operating with its work—I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for acknowledging that. It is clear from the inquiry’s investigations and findings so far that response times and processes were too slow and disjointed—we recognise that—but it is also clear that there was an incredibly challenging process and no easy answers.
Module 1 examined our country’s pandemic resilience and preparedness, so I will focus on that. The Government’s response has identified a number of overarching implementations from the module recommendations. We are broadly supportive of the Government’s direction. As the inquiry report notes, it is important to strengthen cross-governmental communication and data sharing, and communication and co-ordination between devolved Administrations. I appreciate that the Government recognise that and are taking forward the recommendation to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination.
The Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started under the last Government, who put together the resilience directorate within the Cabinet Office with the goal of ensuring clear accountability and leadership for long-term resilience and crisis planning. I hope that the steps that the Government have set out will successfully build on that. I am also thankful that they are building on the last Government’s work to lay the foundations of the resilience academy, and I look forward to tracking that progress.
It is important to note that the Government intend to strengthen the articulation of requirements for resilience and emergency training qualifications. I am thankful that they are building on the work that we implemented to establish a new national exercising programme, and are planning a full pandemic exercise for this year. Importantly, we need to recognise that the risks that we will face will be dynamic, because we do not know what the future will hold. I hope that the pandemic exercise will involve cross-cutting segments of microbial resistance and technology infrastructure, which will be key challenges that continue to grow in importance.
The Government have also emphasised the holistic work that can be conducted across all types of organisations as a result of the highly transparent risk register that we first published in 2023. I appreciate that they are setting out their intention to build on that, and offer a wider range of scenarios and frameworks to the register in future. However, they do not seem to fully recognise that there is far too much complication in the system, which risks masking fundamental matters of cross-governmental co-ordination with political measures. I recognise in the Government’s response the desire to ensure independent input into the whole-system civil emergency preparedness and resilience and, in doing so, establish a number of expert advisory groups, but I caution them that that must be backed up by real accountability and progress tracking, to ensure that the work conducted by those teams is enacted transparently and for clear reasons. They must not be just talking shops.
The Government have announced a significant number of reviews, consultations and taskforces, but without real accountability and framework clarity, they risk being only a temporary solution to long-term issues. That is a particular concern when it comes to national resilience. Although we support the Government’s direction, I want to raise a couple of questions. On recommendation 3, the Minister mentioned mapping, which is very welcome, but will he expand a little on the combined impacts of different vulnerabilities for certain groups and how they can be overlaid in that mapping process?
On recommendations 4 and 5 on the whole system emergency strategy and, crucially, that data element, is there data to support the strategy? What confidence does he have in that at the moment? Will he use the UK Biobank for that? There are critical issues around academic freedom as we look into very complex issues, and overlapping issues within communities across the country.
On recommendation 6, what response has the Minister had so far from the devolved Governments? He said that they have been very positive, but could he go a little further? In response to recommendation 9, the red groups sounded good, but I was a little worried when he said, “We are establishing eight advisory groups to combat group-think.” That sounds a little like a tautology. I want to ensure that those groups will be properly independent and that the Government are challenged on their plans. On recommendation 7, there was an important point around reporting back the findings of the nationwide investigations. On the publishing and timeliness, the report asked for three-month publications—will the Minister speak to that? The Cabinet Office said that it is scoping and testing solutions to resolve multi-agency reports. Will he speak to that?
Finally—thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker—we must not lose sight of the fact that there are shifting landscapes, and our response will be a long-term thing. I appreciate the Government’s response today, but they have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted. That is slightly overdue, so if the right hon. Gentleman could update us on progress on that, I would be most grateful. We must ensure that the tracker is in place so that on issues such as this, the Horizon scandal or the infected blood scandal, we are always in the right place.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s response and for his broad support for our response, including on the resilience directorate academy and the full pandemic exercise. Let me turn to his questions.
On mapping, the data is getting better. The Government’s ability to gather and use data has improved over time, and it is important that we do that as well as we can. Data has been described as the new oil, and it is important that the Government, which have access to good data around the country, use that to map vulnerabilities and to make sure that the next crisis does not expose cracks in our society, as was the case the last time around.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about work with the devolved Governments. Around those tables, people are not always of the same political party or outlook, but in my experience in the last six months, the spirit has been good and one of co-operation. It has been underpinned by the common understanding that, on an issue such as public protection, the public do not really care about political differences. They expect all of us, whatever our political stripe, to work together for their safety and the common good. That is what we should do.
Red teaming and challenge are important, but they have to be put into context. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned accountability; I said in my statement that accountability for policy and resource allocation decisions ultimately has to rest with the Government. We are all for challenge and all for independent input into that, but at the end of the day, that is where the accountability lies and that is who has to take the resource allocation decisions. We will publish the findings of the pandemic exercise. I want to see inquiries come to conclusions more quickly so that victims of injustices can get justice more quickly.
The final thing I say in response to the right hon. Gentleman is that he is right to say that the future may not be the same as the past; that is why flexibility has to be built into all this.
General Election
Richard Holden Excerpts(5 months, 4 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
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I extend my thanks, as many others have done, to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for the way he kicked off the debate. I also thank Michael Westwood, who is sitting in the Gallery, for putting the topic forward for debate. I know I should not be referring to him, Mrs Harris, but with 3 million people having signed his petition, he has clearly caught the public mood.
I would just caution some Government Members. One of them said that this was a debate on a pointless motion, but over 3 million people have signed the petition because they are really concerned about what the Government are doing. I can understand why the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) wants to move on from talking about whether Labour has fulfilled its manifesto commitments, but instead let us try to get away from this idea of a blame game, because there is real concern among the public that people were misled ahead of the general election.
The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), put it really well when he said that the Government should listen to people’s frustrations, because there are real frustrations up and down the country among small businesses, family farms, ordinary working people and pensioners. Thousands of them in my constituency have written to me about their concerns. Although no one should be in any doubt that the Government elected six months ago are unlikely to face a general election any time soon, we should all acknowledge the massive public support that the petition has gained, with 3 million signatures. Government Members should also realise that we are now over 10% of the way into their time in office. If they do not start listening to the public, that might be 10% of their entire time in this place.
With more than 6,000 signatories to the petition in my constituency of Basildon and Billericay, and even more in the nearby constituencies of my right hon. Friends the Members for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), it is clear that the public feeling behind the petition is based on the Government’s significant early failures. That is an understandable perspective, given that the Government’s primary method of governing so far has been consistently to break their biggest promises and then to blame everyone else, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) said. It can reasonably be argued that those promises have been broken in a manner that implies contempt for the public and has been highly damaging for trust in this Government.
The Government’s failures and broken promises started early. On the morning of 5 July, the new Prime Minister walked up to the door of Downing Street and talked about a Government of service. Looking on, with a new pass and new access, was the major Labour donor Lord Alli. From the off, it has been clear that the promises of integrity, accountability and transparency from this Government have been broken. From the literal first day of the Labour Government, the public could not help feeling that Labour was selling out and selling them short.
Soon afterwards, it came to light that the Labour Government were using exceptional civil service appointment procedures to put Labour donors and activists into positions that, fundamentally, are meant to be politically neutral. The sense was that this Government, even in their first few weeks, were systematically destroying the mechanisms that hold an elected Government to account in the interests of the whole public. That sits difficultly with people in this House, but it also sits badly with the public at large.
Members will have already sensed, from their inboxes, surgeries and conversations, an immense feeling of disappointment and perhaps increasingly anger about what the public see as the Government’s broken promises. Those are no longer just about direction or integrity; they are also about specific policies, as Members across the House have said. We know how frustrated the public are.
Labour clearly promised not to raise taxes, but on its entry into government that was one of the first things it did. In the Government’s very first Budget, they announced an increase in employer national insurance contributions, which their own Chief Secretary to the Treasury admitted was in effect a tax hike for workers and working people, because it is a direct tax on their jobs. The Government’s own Chancellor had previously described this tax that was hiked as
“a tax purely on people who go to work”.
That is what it is, and that is what this Government have done, in direct contravention of their own manifesto.
The politically independent Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly stated that the tax that Labour was imposing was a clear breach of the manifesto. The Government response was to flail around about the definition of a working person. Rather than stepping up and being honest with the public—the essence of the petition that Mr Westwood initiated—this Government have failed on that very basic test of clarity and honesty.
Labour promised to stick by farmers. We all know what they did: in truth, they stuck two fingers up at farmers right across the country. Only months before being elected, the now Environment Secretary said that the Labour Government would not make changes to agricultural property relief. The now Prime Minister said that farmers deserved better. What did Labour then do? It risked thousands of small family farms up and down the country by reducing agricultural property relief and imposing a new and fundamentally unsustainable tax on our farming community. What was the Government’s response? No honesty there: I quote from the Environment Secretary, who said that farmers would have to
“learn to do more with less”.
In its manifesto, Labour promised to protect the victims of crime. What has its record been so far? Thousands of early releases were massively extended, some of which were of prisoners who went on to commit violent crimes. Labour promised to deliver “better outcomes” for pensioners: those are the exact words in the manifesto. Government Members stood, in the general election, on better outcomes for pensioners. I wonder how many pensioners out there think that today.
The Labour party threw the pensioners out into the cold. The Government knew that the decision to cut winter fuel allowance for millions would lead to hundreds of thousands more in fuel poverty, in absolute poverty and in pensioner poverty. What did they do? They concealed their own analysis, which showed what would actually happen—the devastating effect that cutting the winter fuel allowance would have. The Government slipped that analysis out months after the policy had been announced, hoping that no one would notice it.
What do the Government do? They break a promise and cover it up, time after time. Energy bills are the same. What is the first duty of Government? To protect the country. What have we seen? The promise of spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been pushed back and pushed back. The Government have been warned repeatedly that they are seriously hurting our nation’s ability to defend itself, leaving us less safe. Is it any surprise that the public lose faith in a Government who leave them less safe?
Labour promised to give more opportunity to young people. All it has done is take a class war to independent schools while trying to reverse the positive reforms of the last Government, and indeed of the previous Labour Government, that helped to provide great new schools right up and down the country. They are taking opportunity away from young people up and down the country. It does not stop at the school gates: under this Government, tuition fees have increased for the first time in more than a decade, despite the Prime Minister having said that he wanted to scrap them.
Illegal migration is another example. The Government have literally removed any deterrents we had left. They have replaced our deterrent not with a policy, but with a slogan: that they would smash the gangs. Who knows how on earth they even plan to do it?
The hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) mentioned the lower Thames crossing. I cannot believe that the decision has been put off twice already under this Government. Hundreds of millions of pounds were invested under the last Government and the decision is waiting to go. The cash is already there—it even has its own separate area of policy and spending.
Drivers are worse off. What else have the Government done on transport? For bus passengers, they scrapped the “get around for £2” scheme a few days ago, which will mean people paying an extra £10 a week at least. It will be scrapped in total in a few months’ time.
Essex colleagues have mentioned the huge hammering on housing. It was promised that local people would be consulted, yet my constituents are facing 27,000 extra homes in Basildon and Billericay. We have seen London’s housing targets slashed by 17,000, yet across the home counties there has been an increase of 18,000 a year. That does not sound like consultation with local people; it sounds like a failing Labour Mayor in London having to be bailed out by the people of Essex and the other home counties.
It is understandable that people wanted change, and fast. The petition expresses the wish of a public who want to see a Government based on honesty. That is the change they want to see: a Government who are prepared to be honest. [Interruption.] If the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), wants to speak in this debate, he should resign and take a seat on the Back Benches so he can do that.
The Government’s response has consistently been, “No, no, no—don’t worry. This is about a broader mandate. This is actually about general principles. Let’s move on from the manifesto.” Let us examine what they said. They said that they would kick-start the economy. In fact, their missions have failed and have changed. The goalposts have been so frequently moved that it is hard to keep track. We can probably all agree that economic growth lay at the heart of what Labour was talking about in the run-up to the general election. Where is it now? It has ended: there is no economic growth. As Opposition Members have pointed out, in the six months before the general election we had the fastest growing economy in the G7. What has happened since then? Absolutely nothing. It has flatlined. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Swansea West is right to point downwards: that is exactly what his Government have done to the country.
It was interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), who asked about the inheritance. When we came into office, £1 in every £4 that the Government spent was borrowed. That is what a really tough inheritance looks like. This Labour Government came in when we had the fastest growth in the G7, with no deficit of 11.1% of GDP. Look at the inheritance that the last Labour Government left. My greatest fear, which I think the petitioners share, is what legacy this Labour Government will leave for our families and our country. That is what the petitioners fear: that we might see the exact same legacy.
Labour promised honesty, but instead it dished out broken promises, a Chancellor accused of lying about her experience and a Transport Secretary who was revealed to have had a criminal conviction. Frankly, it is increasingly obvious that Labour sold the country and sold the people a false promise, so it is no surprise that the petition has received so many signatures.
Sadly, the Government have dismissed the petition, just as Government Members have done today. They have dismissed the voices of the public. This Labour Government are giving the impression that they just do not care and that they feel they are above the sentiments of the public. I am sure it would be easier for the Government if the public just shut up and went away for a few years to let them get on with the job, but I have to tell the Government that on every day of this Parliament, the Opposition will hold them to account for their manifesto.
The public are not stupid. They can see exactly what is happening and what this Government are doing in office. Labour Members would do well to take serious notice of the discontent displayed by Mr Westwood and by the over 3 million people who signed the petition. Otherwise, not only will trust in the Government fall further, but we will continue to decline and this Government will face nothing but further anger and further disappointment from the public.