General Election

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700143 relating to a general election.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, I believe I speak for all its members and, I bet, a whole heap of politicians in this Parliament when I say that it is always encouraging to witness public participation in politics. With more than 3 million—3.1 million—signatures, it is evident that this petition has engaged a truly vast number of people all across the country. For that reason, I personally and most sincerely thank its creator, Mr Michael Westwood, who is with us with his wife, Tanya, and whom I had the pleasure of meeting during the run-up to this debate before Christmas, when we had a long chat.

Mr Westwood created this e-petition with a clear and very simple call. Michael Westwood

“would like there to be another General Election”

on account of his belief that

“the current Labour Government have gone back on the promises”

they made during the lead-up to the last election, which was held, as we all know, in July 2024. When Michael Westwood and I spoke, Michael explained that his reason for creating this petition came from his personal frustration at the lack of transparency and accountability in our election process. He feels that the system does not ensure that the Government of the day are made answerable for unfulfilled manifesto promises and poor governance. Put simply, Mr Westwood believes that it is too easy for political parties—all of us—to mislead the public in order to gain their vote. In the case of the current Government, he believes that there is as yet no sign of Labour’s pledge to kick-start the economy, even after six months in office.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I give way to my hon. Friend with the greatest pleasure.

My hon. Friend has my gratitude. Does he agree that although the Government have committed to growth, increasing national insurance contributions to the extent that small businesses—the lifeblood of our economy—are having to lay off staff is an odd way to go about it?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. Indeed, that is one particular matter I shall touch on shortly.

On account of the sheer number of signatories to Michael’s petition, it is only reasonable to assume that similar feelings are held by a great number of people currently living in the UK; but before I explore the technicalities of this request for an election, I want to address the purpose of petitions and their significance in our political system as it is today in the UK.

Let us remember that petitions are first and foremost a mechanism of civic engagement and political expression. As individual politicians, each and every one of us resides in this place, in this House, only at the behest of our constituents, and it is surely paramount that a dialogue is always facilitated between us and the public. I say to colleagues that whether we agree or disagree with Mr Westwood’s petition, we should not lose sight of the fact that a petition that garners this much support is surely the sign of a healthy democracy. The fact that we are here today, in this place, debating this matter is surely evidence that we live in a democracy in which our electorate can express discontent, demand our attention and know that we will listen to them and take their concerns seriously. Ultimately, we work for all those who put their name to this petition, and I believe that the Government should welcome their input as a sign that our representative democracy in the UK is alive and well, which is a lot more than can be said for far too many other parts of the world where it is not alive and well at all.

All that said, the petitions system was created to bring to Parliament’s attention issues of policy on which there is strong public feeling. It was not ever intended as a mechanism to circumvent parliamentary democracy or change the terms by which it is conducted. Creating a petition is a means of advocacy and participation. A petition is not an autonomous decision-making tool that can act as a substitute for a representative democracy. We need to remember those important principles.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that the petition allows the public to express their anger and disappointment at the failure of the Labour Government to deliver on so many pledges, particularly—appositely, given the sub-zero temperatures across Scotland in the last few days—on the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment, when it had been promised that that would be retained?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, my former colleague from the Scottish Parliament. I will touch on that issue shortly. I also invite him to perhaps surmise that petitions are dealt with rather better in this place than in that other place where we once served, but we will leave that aside for the moment.

I will put it very simply: an election cannot be called as a result of a petition. It is a fact that on 4 July, the Labour party won a majority, and they will remain in office for the duration of their term or until the Prime Minister seeks permission from the sovereign to dissolve Parliament at a time of his choosing. That is the way we do things in this country. Furthermore, it is absolutely intrinsic to the proper function of democracy to respect and uphold the democratic mandate that the current Government hold from the British public. I assert that that mandate cannot be overturned by this or any future petition; that would fundamentally undermine the existing institutional constitutional mechanisms that empower the public. The British people had their say in July. They chose the current Government and we must continue to honour that choice. I believe that is a fundamental principle of the way we do things in this country.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the word “mandate”. I think most people would accept and acknowledge that the Government were elected on a mandate for change, but would he agree that one of the reasons why there is so much traction and engagement with this petition, including in my constituency, is that people feel so let down and disappointed? We have seen so many manifesto promises broken already.

I accept the point, but I remind the right hon. Lady that I am a servant of the House and have to be an impartial chairman in this matter. I think we all know that that is the way this place works. Tempting though it might be for me to say something, it would be very wrong, but I may touch on some things like that in due course.

It is the case, however, that the Government must respectfully acknowledge the frustration of those who signed the petition and do their utmost to understand the motivation of those good people. In response to the petition, the Cabinet Office reassured the public that it was committed to

“fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain, and restoring public confidence in government.”

In particular, the Cabinet Office cited the “£22 billion black hole” as the reason for the very difficult decisions that have had to be made in the past and will be made in the future. None of them is easy and, in all fairness, we should recognise that.

In recent months we have witnessed widespread dissatisfaction with various policy decisions that the Government have chosen to make, and that has been touched on by hon. Members today. The decisions to cut winter fuel payments, terminate inheritance tax exemptions for farms, and increase national insurance contributions for employers are three that have proved controversial. That is the case in all our constituencies, including mine, regardless of the colour of the Member involved. We know that from the press comment.

I return to our guest here: the man who raised the petition, Mr Michael Westwood. He placed a specific emphasis on economic growth as a motivation for creating the petition, and made his dissatisfaction with the Government’s response clear. That is an example of the sort of dialogue that petitions should initiate. I learned something from my discussions with Mr Westwood; I think we can all learn from them. I very much hope that this debate will help the Government address some of the inadequacies that have been identified.

Order. Before we continue with the debate, can I bring to everyone’s attention that guests in the Gallery are not permitted to contribute in any way to it? Any Member who speaks needs to stay for the wind-ups. We will have a tight time limit of six minutes per speech. Can I please encourage colleagues to make short interventions? Otherwise, some people will not be able to speak. I call Yasmin Qureshi.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. Petitions in our Parliament have often been used to discuss a particular issue of concern to people in the country; they are not normally used as a mechanism to hijack and play party politics.

In the last 14 years, we saw crisis after crisis caused by the ill-thought-out policies, plans and rank cronyism of the previous Government, but we engaged in the process and had debates. We did not commandeer a public petition to demand a new election; we opposed the Government and worked within the parliamentary ambit to do what was right. This petition has grown partly because of a lot of misinformation and partly because of foreign interference—[Laughter.] Members may laugh, but that happens to be correct.

When Labour formed the Government—

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I want to make some points and then I will take interventions. When Labour got elected, the first thing we found was a £20 billion deficit—a big black hole that no one knew about. We therefore had to take the decision—[Interruption.] Members can try to shout and whatever else, but I am not giving up. Will whoever is making the noise let me speak, please? There was a £20 billion black hole, so the Government obviously had to make some policy in order to plug it. That meant raising winter fuel bills, introducing inheritance tax and raising national insurance contributions—things mentioned in the petition. We must recognise that if we are going to provide services and bring changes in the country, that requires financial expenditure, and no one knew about the £20 billion deficit.

When we took over, we found that our prisons were incredibly overcrowded. The previous Government said that they would find 20,000 prison places by the mid-2020s, but they created only 50. In our criminal justice system, victims have been waiting for trials to be heard in the Crown court—at least 73,000 trials—including serious cases. When the Conservatives were in power, we had about eight different Secretaries of State for Justice. It is therefore not surprising that our judicial system and prison system are in a complete mess at the moment.

In relation to the NHS, I remember that in 2010, when we left power, the time that people spent waiting in accident and emergency at a hospital was maybe a few hours; now, that time is eight or 10 hours. Getting an operation or seeing a doctor now takes years, as opposed to six months. Again, that is because the previous Government did nothing to deal with the issue, so we have had to deal with it. We have heard today’s statement by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and there will be a debate later about all the things that we want to bring into play to make our NHS work better, because people need that.

We all know that we live in a parliamentary democracy and that there does not need to be an election until summer 2029. There probably will not be an election before then, however many petitions are produced, but I think it would be foolish to ignore this petition, as an expression of public disappointment and anger. I do not want to be overtly party political, but I do think it would be useful for the Government not just to dismiss the petition as having been cooked up abroad—apparently—or by nefarious anti-democratic forces. I think it would be quite wise to listen to the public. If they are in a black hole—if indeed there is a black hole—I say to the Government: just stop digging. If they have to raise money, there are mechanisms, such as income tax, where—

Does the right hon. Member agree that the essence of the petition is in fact the political manifestation of buyer’s remorse, and that the delivery and introduction of proportional representation would not lead to such remorse so soon?

Well, actually, the Liberal party seems to have done very well from this system by focusing its attacks on Conservative constituencies. It seems to have many more seats than the Reform party, for instance, and less votes, but I will leave that aside.