Call for General Election

Debate between Stuart Anderson and John Lamont

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.

[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.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Stuart Anderson and John Lamont

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

In the short time available to me, I want to focus on the aspects most relevant to Scotland. This Bill is about protecting those who work or do business across the four nations of our United Kingdom. That single internal UK market has served us well for centuries, creating a barrier-free internal market that was one of the core purposes of the Acts of Union. Until we joined the European Communities in 1973, that internal market was regulated by this Parliament. From the point that we joined the European Economic Community, the crucial aspect of market control passed to the European level. Europe took those powers for pragmatic reasons, because they were simply needed to operate its single market. That is the spirit behind this Bill too.

We have heard a lot about devolution in the context of the Bill, including from a number of Members during the debate. The devolution settlements were made in the late 1990s, when there was virtually no thought that the UK would leave the EU. EU law was binding on the devolved Assemblies, and the UK Government, acting on behalf of the whole UK, represented all four nations at the Council of Ministers, including in devolved areas.

[Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill strengthens the Union rather than weakens it as Opposition Members are saying?

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point and completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill not only protects jobs but strengthens the bonds of the Union that ties the United Kingdom together. As well as remembering the history, we must understand what devolution is in the United Kingdom. It is a means of giving people in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the freedom to craft policies and take decisions on matters that affect them, while continuing to derive all the benefits of membership of a unitary United Kingdom. Right from the very beginning, it has been a central assumption of devolution that matters essential to the operation of the United Kingdom would be decided at UK level.

This Parliament is the democratic embodiment of the United Kingdom, and it contains Members who have been elected on an equal basis and who represent every square inch of the United Kingdom. It is here that decisions affecting the UK as a whole should be taken, just as those that affect the whole of the European Union are taken in Brussels—a fact with which very few Opposition Members had any problems at the time. That inconsistency speaks volumes, especially when the net effect of Brexit will be a massive increase in devolved powers, including those on air quality, energy efficiency and elements of employment law. It is a further irony that SNP policy is to hand those new powers straight back to Brussels at the first available opportunity.