Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
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?
Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying—his attitude is unbelievably patronising—that the more than 1 million people across the UK who signed the petition are basically all children who do not know what they are doing? That is his implication, which is deeply insulting to 1 million-plus people, including our constituents.
The hon. Gentleman may recall that 17.3 million people voted in that referendum, peacefully and democratically, to leave the European Union. That is a lot more people than voted for Labour at the general election. If he is not prepared to respect the opinion of the million people who signed the petition, and as he is all about numbers today, will he respect the will of the 17.3 million people who voted to leave the EU? Or is that not a big enough number for him either?
I beg your pardon? Withdraw!
At least we buy our own glasses.
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the ongoing interruption to water supplies in East Grinstead and the surrounding villages and support for people affected.
My condolences, Minister. Again, we have no water across parts of Sussex and Kent. That is expected to continue at the very least until tomorrow in my area. Again, we have a shambolic response, with more than 16,000 households in East Grinstead, Ashurst Wood and some of my Wealden villages affected. Again, my constituents have been left with poor, misleading or no communication from South East Water, with too many vulnerable people—even those on the priority services register—left waiting. Again, we have livestock owners struggling to get water for their animals. Many businesses have shut, as have many schools and nurseries. Again, water bottle stations have been poorly organised, with little or no clear provision for hard-hit rural villages and areas, forcing residents to make long drives. There have been failures to open or stations running dry far too quickly, creating huge gridlock, frustration and anger. All this, unbelievably, coincides with East Grinstead train station serving as the terminus for Gatwick airport rail replacement buses, which demonstrates a complete lack of joined-up planning. The local resilience forums are in place, but the logistics are failing. What penalties or sanctions will the water company face, and what level of compensation—which my constituents and, indeed, many other constituents deserve—will they actually receive? Given the numerous and repeated serious failings on the part of South East Water in just the last five years, does the Minister agree with me and with many others that South East Water urgently needs new leadership that is capable of addressing emergencies properly and, crucially, restoring much-needed confidence in the company’s ability to manage its systems, infrastructure and water supplies and to provide the service that is needed, now and in the future?
The Minister says that pensioners who only receive the new state pension will not have to pay income tax. Can he say whether pensioners paid the old basic state pension, but who were contracted out and have alternative provision that brings them up to the same level as the new state pension, will have to pay income tax?
Will the hon. Lady give way?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. This Labour Government came to office on the back of so many promises, and more than a million people have signed this petition because so many of those promises have been broken. Labour promised our farmers that it would protect British agriculture, but it slammed them with the family farm tax, threatening food prices, threatening food security and causing misery for families who have farmed for generations. Labour said that it wanted to help Britain’s high streets and small businesses, but it battered them with the jobs tax, hiking up business rates and slashing reliefs. Pensioners were promised security and support, but they had their winter fuel allowance ripped from their hands and were forced to sit in the cold and make the decision between heating and eating. Labour promised to cut energy bills by £300, yet the average family is now paying almost £200 more. [Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair] Labour promised us more police officers and police community support officers on our streets. Instead, we have seen cuts to police numbers and prisoners released early. We are now looking at an end to jury trials, and police chiefs are telling us about a funding shortfall of half a billion pounds. Labour promised to end the use of asylum hotels, but the number of such hotels has risen and the number of those arriving illegally in the country has gone up, not just by a bit, but by 50%. Of those who have arrived illegally, fewer are now being deported. The Prime Minister promised every council tax payer in the land “not a penny more” on council tax, yet council tax is on the up. In fact, taxes are on the up left, right and centre, and have reached a record high. Under this Government, those who work are paying more and more in tax and those who do not are getting more and more in benefits.
We are talking about the end of the two-child cap and the ever-increasing amount spent on benefits in this country, while hard-working people—the guys who get up early and go out and graft all day—are paying more and more in tax. It is simply not fair. Then there is the one thing in particular—it is one of many, actually—that did not feature at all in the Labour party manifesto but looks set to be imposed: digital ID. We do not want it, we do not need it and nobody voted for it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state, and this Government have no mandate to do it.
The Prime Minister promised us that they were going to be whiter than white—a new start for politics, “in the service of working people”—but it has been one scandal after another. It is entirely appalling. But there is one thing that Labour MPs and the Prime Minister promised everybody that stands out: they promised change. Well, boy have we got change, but it is not the change anybody voted for. The last Government left this country with the fastest growing economy in the G7, but under this Government we are below the G7 average. Growth has limped along at rates so weak that monthly GDP has slipped into contraction. This is not the growth that Labour promised; it is living standards being squeezed and promises unfulfilled. The only place we are seeing any real growth under this Government is in the size of our national debt. Unemployment is up 21%. That is 21% more people without the security of a pay packet; families without the cash they need, having to make tough decisions, unable to fulfil their aspirations. Virtually every Labour Government in history have left office with more people out of work; this Government are set to do it in record time. Nowhere is that seen more starkly than in the hospitality sector. Yes, the sector has faced tough times in the tough environment in which it operates, but under the last Government 18,000 jobs were created in the sector. Under this Government, as a result of the choices made in No. 10, 111,000 jobs have been lost, and two hospitality businesses are closing every day. That is the youngster getting their first job. It is the people who set up a small business and work day and night to create jobs and deliver economic growth. The jobs tax, rocketing business rates and the Employment Rights Act 2025 have real consequences. They are costing jobs, increasing prices and sending businesses fleeing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) when he says that the word that comes up on the doorstep, time and again, is “betrayal”. People feel totally and utterly betrayed by this Labour Government, and Labour Members should ask themselves why. This Labour Government are riddled with scandal and chaos. They have broken pretty much every single promise they made to the British people. People have had enough. This is not the change anyone voted for. Our great country deserves better.
Does the hon. Member know how many people have been put out of work in Dartford as a result of this Government’s actions?
3. What recent progress his Department has made on delivering 1.5 million new homes by the end of this Parliament.
In my Spelthorne constituency, as a result of action taken by the independent, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green-led borough council, we have not had a local plan for a couple of years. It was finally submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 25 November, but there has been a planning wild west in Spelthorne for the last couple of years, which I am keen to bring to an end. Will the Secretary of State use his good offices to influence the planning inspector to try to turn around this local plan as soon as possible?
Just for the elucidation of the public, who the Minister knows will be glued to our proceedings this evening, I want to make a couple of points. First, he said that debt is falling. Will he confirm that it is levelling off as a share of GDP and may possibly fall slightly by the end of the forecast period, but is rising in absolute terms? Secondly, when he says that income tax rates are not changing in this Bill, he is technically correct, but fiscal drag means that, for hundreds of thousands of people, the tax rate on their marginal earnings will actually change very significantly in the years to come.
Will the Minister give way?
I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wonder if the shadow Minister shares my concern about the change in the taxation rate on dividends? Even more important than building a savings culture is building an enterprise culture. Sadly, by continuing the modern trend, started under George Osborne, of taxing the return on risk, we destroy any idea of having an enterprise culture in the UK. If fewer people see that the investment of starting a business, or investment in plant and machinery, results in a return that is taxed more lightly than un-risky income, they are less likely to take that risk.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s points about the hospitality industry and how difficult that is right now, but I come back to his party’s commitment at last May’s elections. I have a leaflet from the May elections, with his party leader on it, which says the party would “Reduce waste and cut your taxes”. I will be the first person to admit that governing is more difficult than it looks from the outside, but does he agree that that set unreasonable expectations among the electorate in those May elections?
It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Dr Huq, not least because when I was a teenager Dr Hook was one of my favourite bands—not all hon. Members will have heard of them.
I was, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition. With 1 million signatories—including 2,040 people from my constituency of Thirsk and Malton—this is the eighth most-signed petition in history. This is such an important debate. The petition states that this country wants and needs “an immediate general election”. I am the first to admit, having been in government myself, that governing is not easy; it is a difficult business. But one or two Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), said that this petition was somehow about us sowing division. The hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) said that there was somehow a Conservative plot to bring this petition to a debate. As a number of hon. Members have said, there are real people out there very concerned about what they see as betrayal and about how much they have been let down. They are angry. Dismissing their concerns on the basis that there is some kind of political plot is a big mistake. It was also a mistake for the Government to respond, as they did to this petition on 11 August 2025, by saying that they are “fixing the foundations, rebuilding Britain and restoring…confidence”. This Government are not listening and do not understand what the people are saying to them.
I welcome the hon. Member’s explanation. I appreciate it; he seems like a very decent Member. It is very important that we listen to the public. There are some genuine concerns about what the Government set out to do, and about what they are actually doing.
I agree with the hon. Member entirely. That is a terrible Bill, which we have opposed at every stage. Paying tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money to give away our own territory and rent it back is ludicrous.
That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq. One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is. There is growth in inflation and in unemployment—including youth unemployment, which is rising significantly, with 5.2% of the working-age population unemployed compared with 4.2% when this Government took over. Taxes are also growing, to the tune of £60-odd billion a year. That is against the backdrop of the promises made about a fully costed, fully funded manifesto. No wonder people are angry. Debt and borrowing are up—on interest alone, gilt yields are higher than ever, at 5.72%. We pay £116 billion every year purely in debt interest. Small boat numbers are up 13%, year on year. The cost of living is one of the greatest concerns of my and no doubt all hon. Members’ constituents. Against the backdrop of a promise to cut electricity prices by £300 a year, the average household now pays £190 more.
That last point is complete nonsense. I was going to agree with the hon. Member that generally Government borrowing is higher because of where interest rates are. The most important thing we can do is get inflation under control to reduce the cost of debt. But the reality is that our margin above the rest of the world is higher than it has been for years; I am sure the hon. Member will not dispute that fact. How do we get growth? We do not go about it the way Members on the Government Benches are talking about. I listened to the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who made a good speech about the priorities of his constituents and what he is doing. But, as with a number of other Members, when it came to achieving growth all he talked about was long-term spending and infrastructure—I am not saying that is not important—or certain allocations of cash from the Government to those areas. What Government Members are not talking about is where growth is really driven from: small businesses. Governments do not create jobs— not sustainably. The only thing that creates growth and increases the number of jobs in our economy is small businesses. That point has been notably absent from the comments of Government Members.
The UK economy went through many challenges, of course, some of them caused by Brexit; the reality is that a change like that was bound to have a short-term effect—but only a short-term effect. The country grew faster than Germany and France during that period of time. The reality is that we were the third-fastest growing economy in the G7 over that period. To go back to where we are today—[Interruption.] If only the hon. Member for Southport would accept, rather than chuntering from a sedentary position, that the reality is that small business drives growth and the number of jobs in the economy. Business confidence in July 2024 was plus five, according to the Institute of Directors; today it is minus 66—one of the steepest falls in history. I speak as someone who has not been a politician all his life. I have done this for 10 years; in the 30 previous years, I started a small business that grew into a large business. I have been through the ups and downs. What the country needs, and what those businesses need, is confidence and stability of policy making.
I will make some progress. What have we seen in terms of that policymaking? We have seen U-turn after U-turn. My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) mentioned the number of U-turns. [Interruption.]
Thank you, Dr Huq. I was talking about the many U-turns we had seen from this Government, which my hon. Friends also mentioned, such as on the winter fuel allowance and the family farm tax. I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for the incredible job he has done campaigning on that, as well as on the family business tax, of course, which is even more pernicious in many ways, and the grooming gangs, which he did a huge amount on. Business rates is the latest U-turn coming down the track. That is why people feel betrayed and angry. I am sure—having been there in the past as well—that hon. Members on the Government side of the House also feel betrayed and angry with their own leadership, for marching them up to the top of the hill and marching them back down again on many of these issues, but they do not feel as betrayed as the businesspeople in this country in particular. Those businesspeople need stability and need to understand exactly what is coming down the track next. We have had a Chancellor who constantly allowed speculation to take place, months before a Budget. That destroys confidence, which damages the economy—the source of the investment needed to drive forward the economy and the number of jobs. That is the antithesis of what a responsible and good Chancellor should do. As I said before, governing is not easy; we had many challenges ourselves, and we did not get everything right, but what we did during that difficult period of time—those 14 years—was get 1.2 million more people employed in our economy. Unemployment was halved during our time in office. Our schools went from 68% good or outstanding to 90% by the end of our tenure. We got 100,000 more doctors and nurses in the NHS. We got record numbers of houses being built—a 50-year record. That was all against the backdrop of covid, the cost of living crisis, and the other challenges that we had when we were governing this country. That shows what is possible, and, of course, at the same time, we were keeping the very dangerous right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) out of No. 10 Downing Street. Of course, many Government Members supported his leadership challenge. We are here now, looking forward to a general election coming down the track. We are ready for a general election when the Government are, because, unlike them, we have a strong leader—against their weak leader. We will bring forward a stronger economy, with stronger borders and a stronger country. We will cut the cost of doing Government and make £47 billion of savings. With those savings, we will reduce the debt and, crucially, cut the cost of doing business, particularly for small businesses. We will scrap stamp duty for primary homes and scrap business rates for any business spending less than £110,000 a year on business rates. These measures support small businesses. That is what we would do, given the opportunity. We are all here in the national interest of course—to try to do the best by this country—but in our view, it is in the national interest for this Government to leave office and put a general election to the people.
Does the Minister agree that we do not end dependency and bring children out of poverty by driving their parents out of work? Hundreds of thousands more people are unemployed because of the policies that the Minister’s party has pursued. Does she acknowledge that that is the case?
2. What discussions he has had with the Mayor of London on the rate of house building in London.
The Secretary of State mentions a countrywide problem, but numbers of housing starts in London are particularly pitiful. There were only about 370 new starts for every month of last year, which is the lowest level for almost any region for any year that I have been alive. There are nearly six times as many starts in the south-east, even though the housing crisis there is exported from London. It would be good to hear a little more about exactly what the plan involves, what number of starts the Secretary of State expects to see this year, and, if that target is missed, what will happen next.
I was very sorry to hear about the Minister’s father. Thousands of my constituents over the weekend in Headcorn, Staplehurst, Coxheath and the surrounding villages had no running water. It is vital in these situations that we are able to share accurate and timely information, but South East Water had no idea what was going on; there was supposed to be a bottled water station in Headcorn, and yet for the entirety of Saturday, nobody from South East Water could tell me if there was even any water there. We were given multiple conflicting pieces of information, most of which turned out to be inaccurate, and the only way my team and I could establish whether anything was provided was to go there ourselves. Does the Minister agree that this is unacceptable and that it makes a bad situation so much worse?
I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of her statement. Last week, public outrage was rightly expressed about the use of artificial intelligence to undress women and children in photographs by X’s AI assistant Grok. The use of AI in that way without consent is wrong. It is disturbing, and in many cases it is illegal. We support Ofcom in taking enforcement action where an AI tool is used to generate illegal content, especially of children. We support the Government’s stance on nudification tools. X itself has warned of consequences for anyone prompting Grok to make illegal content. The tools in question have been put behind a paywall, for the easy identification via name and bank details of anyone misusing them. Beyond the platform, however, the Internet Watch Foundation has identified cases where perpetrators have used Grok in tandem with other AI tools to generate category A material. As the Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), has rightly said, such mainstream AI tools must not become an enabling step in the child abuse production pipeline. Law already exists to deal with much of this, including the Protection of Children Act 1978, the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025—in which the Government voted against tougher amendments tabled by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge—and the Online Safety Act 2023. Those laws should be enforced. We await Ofcom, the independent regular, setting out its next steps. Regardless of the law, it is right to expect AI companies to anticipate and prevent misuse of products before their deployment through rigorous red teaming. I accept that for a law to deter, the enforcement threat must be credible, but its use must also be proportionate. Notwithstanding the soft back-pedalling of the Secretary of State today, the Government’s appendage swinging over the weekend was extremely serious. Ministers mooted as an urgent remedy the banning of a site with 21 million monthly users in this country, despite another Minister guffawing that banning X was “conspiracy theory No. 3,627.” Since their invention, the internet and social media have been misused—often criminally—by people traffickers, paedophiles and fraudsters: the gutter dwellers of our society. Nobody is on their side, but Government have never before proposed blocking TikTok, Google or Facebook wholesale for the frequent and often flagrant misuse of their sites. That would be an extraordinarily serious move against a platform that can be used for good—for uncovering scandals, sparking democratic revolution, and allowing the free exchange of ideas, day to day, including those that we do not like. It is that very power for good that makes Iran’s mullahs reach to block the internet in the face of courageous protesters. This episode poses legitimate questions about who holds power in the internet age. Many worry about the accrued influence of big tech titans—me included—but they worry, too, about the power of Government to divert, hide and duck accountability. They worry about this Government. The uncomfortable truth for all of us is that some of this imagery sits in a legal grey area. What Grok has produced at scale in 2026 is a modern-day iteration of an old problem, from crude drawings to photoshop. Grok is not the only tool capable of generating false or offensive imagery, and not all of this content will cross the threshold into illegality. Plenty of it is sick, degrading and morally repugnant but does not cross the criminal threshold. What, then, is the Secretary of State proposing to do about the difficult enforcement choices that a regulator or police force must make? The risk is that, with finite resource, and in a highly politically sensitive environment, regulators could be diverted from pursuing the most abhorrent and dangerous crimes. If we wish to mitigate the risk to children, one simple intervention may help stop them sharing their own image too freely: raising the digital age of consent for social media to 16. The cross-party consensus is growing. The Mayor of Manchester, Andy Burnham, agrees with that idea; does the Secretary of State? She knows that there are geopolitical consequences to her rhetoric. Figures close to President Trump have already threatened sanctions. Has the Secretary of State engaged with the US Government? Has she been advised on the nature of any retaliation, were the UK Government to block X? The US-UK tech deal has already been paused. We need clarity on what else is at stake. To conclude, the Tech Secretary has said: “We are as determined to ensure women and girls are safe online as we are to ensure they are safe in the real world”, so will she ensure that the Government enforce against themselves for their failure to advance the rape gang inquiry, their failure to stop puberty-blocking trials, their failure to implement guidance on single-sex spaces, and their inability to deport illegal migrants who have committed sex offences? This Government rightly worry about the online sphere, and we support them on that, but there is plenty to be getting on with in the real world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.