Mike Wood MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and allowing me to give one further example that I hope the reviewers will consider. Lloyds will this month close the last existing bank in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, leaving all of my constituents, whether urban or rural, without a proper bank. However, none of the villages are eligible for banking hubs because of the presence of building societies—sometimes part-time building societies —within the villages. Does he agree that while our building societies provide a fantastic service, they do not provide the range of services that my constituents, particularly those with small businesses, need that could be offered through a banking hub?

• 28 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last week, I tabled a written question to the Foreign Secretary, asking whether Jonathan Powell was subject to scrutiny vetting before or after he was appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy on the Chagos negotiations. I have not yet received a response. Given that Morgan McSweeney appeared to tell the Foreign Affairs Committee this morning that the vetting process began only after Powell was later appointed as National Security Adviser, how can I secure an official answer from the Foreign Office to this basic question before Parliament prorogues?

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  I think the House and the public outside will have heard that the Minister is refusing to give that commitment to the representatives of this vital sector. However, he will know that the high cost of fertilisers is one of the biggest pressures on British farming and food prices. Raising carbon prices to the level of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is projected to add around £100 a tonne to that cost. At a time of high food costs and squeezed food security, does he really think that now is a sensible time to hammer British farming yet again?

• 23 Apr 2026 · UK-EU Relations · Hansard source

  More

  The UK has become a global leader in agri-tech and particularly selective breeding, largely because of our flexible regulatory framework, including the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. That would not have happened if we were still members of the European Union. The BioIndustry Association says that dynamic alignment would threaten UK leadership in biotech innovation. Will the Minister commit to securing a carve-out for precision breeding so that our success in this vital sector is not threatened by new or future EU legislation?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  I begin by paying tribute to our fantastic public servants, civil servants and postal workers. The vast majority give so much in service of our country and the general public. This week, perhaps more than any other, is a reminder that it is Ministers’ responsibility to provide the political leadership so that those workers can deliver. The Minister’s decision to terminate the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme is enormously consequential and will be welcomed by many in this House, but more so by our many retired postal workers. While I appreciate being given advance sight of today’s statement, it does seem that the Minister, particularly in regard to the civil service pension scheme, has come to the House with more of a plan than a statement. It is clear that the current situation, as the Minister said, is the culmination of a series of entirely unforced errors by Capita. Its failure to adequately administer the CSPS has caused significant financial distress to thousands of former public servants, such as my constituent Chris. He has found himself without the pension he was relying on at just the time that his wife has had to step back from work after a cancer diagnosis. These people worked hard and planned responsibly for retirement, on the basis that the CSPS would be there for them when they needed it. Capita’s failures have left them anxious, frustrated and, in many cases, desperately out of pocket, but in all too many cases that I am aware of, Capita has been utterly unresponsive. Sadly, the constituents and others from around the country who have contacted me about Capita simply would not recognise the Minister’s claim of answer times being down to two minutes. This is not the way to reward a career of dedicated public service. Last year, the National Audit Office highlighted that Capita had failed to meet three of the six key transition milestones that had been due by March 2025. All those milestones related to scheme design and operational readiness. In October last year—two months before Ministers had to make a final decision on the transition to Capita—the Public Accounts Committee noted that Capita had missed milestones to deliver its IT systems. The Committee called on the Cabinet Office to fully develop contingency plans before making a final decision about whether Capita should take over administration on 1 December last year. The Minister’s Department confirmed that—four months after the transition was completed—Capita had still not met three transition milestones, while one was only partially met It is only at this point that the Minister has brought forward the contingency plans—the same contingency plans that the Public Accounts Committee recommended months before—but the warning signs were there, and they should have been clear and obvious. Despite that, last November, a full year and a half after the Government took office, they wrote to trade unions, confirming that Ministers were pressing ahead with Capita’s contract.. We all agree that it is in everyone’s interests that the operational stability of the CSPS be restored as quickly as possible. After all, Capita won the contract because of the failure of the previous MyCSP contract, and clearly a further change would mean more disruption, causing further harm to those who have already been so badly impacted. Ministers must ensure that Capita meets its contractual obligations consistently, and that any penalty clauses in the contract that can be enforced are enforced, to allow compensation to be paid. The Minister has some questions to answer. For those who are missing out because of Capita’s failings, will the Minister unequivocally commit to delivering a functioning service in the timeframe that he has set himself? Will he confirm that his Department has delivered the standardised mitigation letter that CSPS members can share with lenders to explain their temporary financial difficulties? That was promised last month; has it been delivered? I understand that there will be a commercial session on 28 April to discuss the penalties that Capita is facing, and what officials have called the “wider commercial position”. Will the Minister be attending in person? Will he commit to updating the House at the earliest opportunity, following that meeting? Will he elaborate on exactly what his officials mean by Capita’s “wider commercial position”? Finally, and most importantly, what contingency plans has the Minister put in place in case it becomes necessary to terminate Capita’s contract for the CSPS, just as he has today terminated its contract for the Royal Mail scheme?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Government Procurement Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) on securing this urgent question—I know how rare it is for a Government Parliamentary Private Secretary. [ Interruption. ] She is not any more—I apologise. I welcome the Government’s ambition to modernise public procurement, but ambition, as ever, must be matched by delivery. There are a number of questions that the Minister must answer today. The Government promised transparency through a new online register of commercial agreements. When precisely will that register be live, and will it be comprehensive from day one? Ministers often speak of backing small business. Will the Minister publish in a single, accessible place every Department’s SME target, its latest outturn and whether it is on or off track? On prompt payment, how many suppliers have actually been excluded from major contracts for failing to meet the required standards? If this strategy is truly about value for money, why have the Government still not resolved the fragmentation, poor-quality frameworks and poor use of data and technology that were identified by the National Audit Office? On national security, contracting authorities are now required to assess risks not just from prime contractors, but from associated persons and subcontractors. How many procurements have been referred for national security consideration, and how many suppliers have been excluded or challenged as a result? What assurances can the Minister give that public contracts are not still flowing into supply chains with links to hostile states? What assessment has the Minister made of the EU’s emerging “Buy European” policies? Is that not a protectionist barrier by the European Union? Finally, if social value is now mandatory at 10%, what assessment has been made of the risk that it adds cost and complexity, particularly for SMEs? I know that the House will want clear answers.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 22 April.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Prime Minister deny that Downing Street considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic position?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way on that point?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister dissembles over what he knew about Sistema and Mandelson, but the Cabinet Office due diligence report sent to the Prime Minister on 11 December 2024 stated: “Mandelson served as a non-executive director of the Russian conglomerate Sistema, which is itself the majority shareholder of RTI, a defence technology company…Mandelson remained on the board until June 2017, long after Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.” Will the Prime Minister finally confirm that he knew that Mandelson was a director of Sistema long after the invasion of Crimea, but appointed him anyway?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement and for providing an advance copy. We naturally welcome the progress reported today. The fact that 3,273 people have received offers totalling more than £2 billion is a significant milestone in a decades-long struggle for justice. I thank the Infected Blood Compensation Authority for its work to speed up the payments. As Baroness Finn said in the other place, “what we call the scandal was, in truth, the infliction, collectively, of grievous harm upon thousands of people by the state.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 4 November 2025; Vol. 849, c. 1821.] Nowhere was that more egregious or more shocking than in those cases where victims were infected as a result of deliberate experimentation in the name of science. We therefore commend the Minister for the specific increases to the unethical research awards, and in particular the uplift to £60,000 for the survivors of Treloar’s school and the expansion of the scheme to include those treated as adults. Those are necessary recognitions of a truly outrageous chapter of the scandal. However, while the Minister spoke of tangible, systemic change, many victims and their families will be looking at the fine print with a degree of trepidation. I therefore have a number of questions regarding the delivery and scope of these announcements. The Minister noted that further legislation will be required later this year to enact these substantial changes. Given that the infected blood inquiry’s additional report was published back in July last year, will he reassure the House that the legislative timetable will not lead to further agonising delays for those in declining health? Will the first quarterly feedback summaries, which he has promised will come in July, provide a hard deadline for when those new level 2B severity awards and backdated supply chain management payments will actually reach bank accounts? If not, does he have an expectation of when those payments will be made? I think the Minister mentioned increased core injury awards for bereaved parents whose children died before the age of 18. Can he provide greater clarity on the justification for excluding parents whose children were infected when they were young children but turned 18 before the time of their death? Regarding the 50% increase to the core autonomy award for those infected at age 18 or under, will he confirm that that will also apply to those infected through their mothers in utero? The Government rightly aim to minimise the administrative burden and the demand for evidence. We welcome the £60,000 lump sum for those with clear potential to earn but who lack evidence of earnings, but how will the Infected Blood Compensation Authority define “clear potential” without falling back into the lengthy, individualised assessments that the Minister says he wants to avoid? Finally on the compensation scheme, the Minister announced that for past financial loss, the Government will use whichever calculation is “most financially beneficial” for the recipient. We welcome that pragmatic step, but can he clarify whether the removal of the 25% deduction for past care will be applied automatically to all existing offers, or will those people who have already received offers need to reapply to have their awards adjusted? As the Minister said, the compensation scheme must “embody their stories”. Justice delayed is justice denied, and we must ensure that the new supplementary awards do not become a secondary bureaucratic hurdle for a community that has already given so much testimony and waited so long. Before I close, I turn to a matter that seems to be missing from the Minister’s statement: the inquiry. When he last updated the House before Christmas, I raised the need to “move from a period of review to one of rectification and delivery.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2025; Vol. 774, c. 516.] I also asked him how and when the inquiry might be drawn to a close so there could be a degree of policy certainty. I did not hear him refer to that in his statement, so will he confirm that, with the implementation of the key recommendations from the additional report and Sir Brian’s letters, the public inquiry has now drawn to a close? Once again, I thank Sir Brian Langstaff and his team for their diligent and comprehensive work over the past eight years to help deliver some justice after decades of scandal and suffering. Most of all, I again pay tribute to the tireless campaigning of the many victims and their families who were infected or affected by the infected blood scandal. They have suffered for far too long in ways that we can barely begin to imagine, and no compensation scheme can ever reverse the horrific harms needlessly done to them. I hope, however, that the universal acceptance of the conclusion of the reports and the determination of us all to do what we can to make changes that will stop others suffering in future will bring them some comfort.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  Hospitality adds nearly £2 billion to Northern Ireland’s economy, supporting more than 75,000 jobs, but last year more than 2,000 hospitality workers in Northern Ireland lost their jobs. Does the Secretary of State agree with Unite the union, of which I know he is a member, that this is the result of the Government’s disastrous national insurance rises?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. A Division was called.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Draft Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 (Amendment) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am in the rather fortunate position of being able to stand here as an Opposition Whip and shadow Minister who does not receive a ministerial salary, so I cannot be accused of having any conflict of interest in supporting the Government in what appears to be a sensible and, as the Minister said, technical measure that brings the de jure rules into line with practice over the past few years. It makes sense to exclude the salaries of permanent secretaries, as the previous review concluded, not least because permanent secretary salary bands are so broad as to make a mid-point measurement largely meaningless anyway. As the Minister says, we understand that the pay freeze that has been in place, certainly for the 15 years since the reduction at the start of the coalition Government in 2010, will continue. If I may just speak very personally—this might be a word for the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley—perhaps, in the longer term, the Government may wish to consider whether it is still appropriate that Members of the Whips Office should continue to be paid at a rather lower rate than Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. That is obviously a discussion for a different day and not one on which I think my party, nor the Minister’s, has a collective view. I have only one question. As the entitled salaries are increasing while the claimed salaries continue to be frozen, will the Minister tell the Committee how that affects pension entitlements? Are they calculated according to the salary to which Ministers are entitled or the salaries that are actually paid?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Farmers in Kingswinford and South Staffordshire have contacted me in recent days about the steep rise in the price of key inputs such as fertilisers and straw. Current events are likely to make these pressures even more acute, with serious implications for farm viability and domestic food production. Could we have a debate in Government time on the rising costs facing British farmers and the long-term resilience of UK food production?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Draft Procurement (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  You can never have too many procurement SIs in a week, but for those who did not have the pleasure of Monday afternoon’s Committee, I will spare them some of the background information and just say that the Opposition support the draft regulations. As the Minister says, they will give effect to important provisions introduced by the previous Government’s Procurement Act 2023. The details required to be published for contracts over £30,000 are particularly important, as are the measures to ensure transparency for some sub-threshold contracts. Understandably, the Government have again not produced a separate impact assessment for the draft regulations, relying instead on the broader impact assessment that accompanied the Procurement Act and the associated reforms in 2022-23. Although many of the provisions are technical in nature, they will nevertheless shape how the new procurement framework operates in practice. It would therefore be helpful if the Minister could provide reassurance that the central digital platform is ready to support the expanded responsibilities under the regulations, and that the contracting authorities and suppliers, particularly smaller organisations and enterprises, have been given sufficient guidance to adapt to these changes. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Digital ID: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the briefing a short time ago. It is said that in 1720, gullible investors were invited to put their money into “a company for carrying out an undertaking of great advantage, but nobody to know what it is”. Today, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister appears to be reviving that proud tradition. For months, his Department has insisted that digital ID was absolutely essential, and until a few weeks ago, it had to be mandatory—even for babies. However, after months of insisting that the scheme was indispensable, the Government are now asking the public to tell them just what it is indispensable for. There was a time when this was supposed to be the magic bullet to tackle illegal migration. Now, the Cabinet Office seems to be suggesting that it might just help to reduce hold times in Government call centres. This great undertaking has gone from promising the elixir of eternal youth to the equivalent of, “Well, you never know, it might help if you have a slightly upset tummy.” The public know snake oil when they are offered it. We should not be surprised, because this never was a thought-through policy; it was always a distraction stunt. For years, officials have been looking at the ID file on the shelf, hoping for a Government desperate enough to pick it up, and last September they finally found one. Desperate for an announcement to shove Andy Burnham off the front pages before a tricky Labour conference—look how that turned out—the Prime Minister dusted off this scheme with no clear idea of how it would work, what it would cost or what the consequences would be. After one of the Government’s many U-turns, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister now assures us that this digital ID will not become compulsory. Nothing is ever compulsory until it suddenly is. We know how this story goes. At first, it is voluntary, then it becomes strongly encouraged. Then, you discover you need it to open a bank account and see your GP. Before long, your phone battery dies while you are in the queue at Costa, and you are essentially a non-person: “Sorry, sir, no flat white for you. Computer says you no longer exist.” It is no wonder that even the Health Secretary wants nothing to do with this particular headline. Of course, the Government tell us not to worry because the system will be secure. This is the same Government who cannot even keep their own Budget secret. How much confidence can the public really have that their personal data will not be misused, when the Minister who was responsible for the scheme this time last week had to resign following reports that he hired a firm to spy on journalists who had written negative stories about his organisation? In November, the Office for Budget Responsibility put the cost of this boondoggle at £1.8 billion over three years, which is more than the cost of building and operating a new Type 45 destroyer—and nearly as dangerous if not used properly. The OBR did not change that figure in last week’s projections, so we can assume that £1.8 billion remains the best estimate. And for what? Britain has managed perfectly well for centuries without a peacetime national identity system. Society functions without citizens having to authenticate themselves to the state every time they wish to open an app or go about their daily lives. Before we rush headlong into constructing the world’s most elaborate digital clipboard, the Government should recognise some serious concerns. If their system fails, it will be expensive; if it is hacked, it will be dangerous; and if it expands, it will be intrusive. So what exactly is the overwhelming crisis in British life that requires us to take all three risks? Until the Government can answer that question convincingly, the British public will view this proposal in exactly the same way that they view most grand Whitehall technology schemes: with deep suspicion, a modicum of mild amusement and a firm determination to keep their identity exactly where it belongs—in their own pocket, not floating somewhere in the Government’s cloud.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Draft Procurement Act 2023 (Specified International Agreements and Saving Provision) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Desmond. The Minister will be aware that we have some concerns about part of the UK-India agreement, but those concerns do not apply to the provisions on public procurement, and as such we support the measures in the regulations. In effect, the regulations add the UK-India agreement to schedule 9 to the Procurement Act 2023 introduced by the previous Government. That will mean that suppliers from India that fall within the scope of the agreement will be entitled to participate in relevant UK public procurement processes on the same basis as UK suppliers. We are proud of many of the changes brought in by the last Government through the Procurement Act to boost the UK economy, including the move from the EU’s most economically advantageous tender system to our own, broader, most advantageous tender system. That subtle change of language has massive real-world implications. It lets contracts reflect real value and not just price. Instead of the rigid focus on the lowest price under the previous EU-derived rules, under our new procurement framework we can consider value more holistically, including social and local benefit; instead of restrictive procedures, there is more competitive flexibility, so that buyers can design the process; and instead of it being difficult to exclude bad actors, as was the case under the previous system, robust powers are in place to debar suppliers on national security grounds. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that those powers will still apply under the regulations. Importantly, buyers can now give significant weight to bids that create jobs in their specific region or the sector for which they are responsible, and for the first time, public bodies are publishing key performance indicators for major contracts. If a supplier fails to deliver for the public, it can be held to account and potentially barred from future work. Given those positive changes, it makes sense to apply the new system to procurement covered by the UK-India trade agreement. Of course, due to the transitional provisions currently in place, some procurements continue to be governed by earlier legislative frameworks, including the Public Contracts Regulations 2015 and the Utilities Contracts Regulations 2016. That is one of the reasons why we agree that the regulations before us, which will ensure that the procurement chapter of the UK-India agreement can also apply to procurements still conducted under those earlier regimes, are necessary. In practice, that means that economic operators benefiting from the agreement will be entitled to the same treatment as UK suppliers in procurements carried out under framework agreements, dynamic purchasing systems or qualification systems that remain subject to the previous rules. The amendments will apply only to procurements commenced after the UK-India agreement enters into force; procurements already under way will not be affected. The Government have indicated that a full impact assessment has not been produced on the basis that the regulations are not expected to have a significant impact on the private, voluntary or public sectors. Given the scale of public procurement in the United Kingdom, it would be helpful if the Minister provided some clarity on a few points. First, what assessment has been made of the value of procurement opportunities in the UK that will now be accessible to Indian suppliers under the agreement? On the flip side, can the Minister further lay out what reciprocal access UK businesses will gain to public procurement markets in India, and what practical support will be available to help UK firms, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to take advantage of those opportunities? Thirdly, could he clarify the expected timetable for the agreement to enter into force and, therefore, for these provisions to begin applying in practice? The regulations are, in many respects, technical in nature, but they form part of the broader implementation of the UK-India trade agreement and therefore could have significant implications for access to public procurement markets, both here in the UK and abroad, so it is right that the Committee carefully scrutinises how they will operate in practice. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 5 Mar 2026 · EU: Mutual Interests · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows very well that the choice was that of the biggest democratic exercise in UK history. His party promised to respect the result of that referendum but is instead seeking to row back on it. Members of the House and the wider public will have heard that the Minister clearly did not rule out the UK having to adopt new European Union legislation. The Minister will know from his time as shadow International Trade Secretary that we would never accept a trade agreement where the arbiter is an institution on one side, so can he at least rule out having the European Court of Justice as a body adjudicating in any disputes that follow from his reset?

• 5 Mar 2026 · EU: Mutual Interests · Hansard source

  More

  After at least 15 major U-turns, it is helpful to check which promises the Government still intend to keep. On 22 July 2024, when I asked the Prime Minister whether he could promise that he would not accept the automatic application of EU rules unless they had been specifically approved by this Parliament, he answered simply, “Yes.” Can the Minister say that it is still the Government’s position that we will not be required to adopt new European Union legislation?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  For many of my constituents, a daily postal delivery is a fiction, with post sometimes taking weeks to arrive. That includes letters about hospital appointments and other important appointments, which often arrive after the appointments have happened. Can we have a debate in Government time on the performance of Royal Mail and its responsibilities under the universal service obligation?

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor claimed to be cutting debt, but she will know that paragraph 5.9 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” says that “Public sector net borrowing is forecast to increase” public sector net debt “in each year, by an average of £92 billion”. To avoid misleading the House, will she correct the record?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Public Right to a Vote of No Confidence · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, thank the more than 120,000 people across the United Kingdom who signed the petition. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) in acknowledging the many organisations that have engaged constructively on this issue, many of which have already been named. They include Unlock Democracy, whose chief executive Tom Brake is a former Member of this House, the Hansard Society, the Electoral Reform Society, and many others that have worked on an independent basis to review our constitutional arrangements. Members’ views on this proposal will differ in line with their views on the effectiveness of this Government, but the number of signatures demands that we treat the petition with the utmost seriousness and respect. The petition understandably calls for a further mechanism that would allow the public to remove a Government who no longer command public confidence. My hon. Friend read an excerpt from the petition, in which the petitioners said that they feel they have seen the opposite of what the Government promised before the election. Many people across the country in all our constituencies will recognise that sentiment. The Government have seemingly lurched from error to error and from crisis to crisis. Decisions that have been made have damaged the economy, undermined business, driven up unemployment, increased debt, and left communities and public services struggling. Above all, they have hit confidence in the Government, because people were promised so much but have seen so little delivered. Whether it is veterans being dragged through the courts or sovereign territory being conceded, the public are not getting what they expected—indeed, they are not getting what the Government said only months ago, in some cases, before the 15 major U-turns. Commitments made before the election have been abandoned: the promise of no tax rises on working people was broken and pensioners were left struggling after cuts to winter fuel payments. My hon. Friend raised many other examples in his opening speech. The crux of the debate comes down to perhaps the biggest promise that the Prime Minister made before the election: his pledge to deliver the highest standards in public life and “a Government of service”. Instead, the Government have delivered scandal after scandal, many of which were of their own making. Only this weekend, the inquiries Minister had to resign after being investigated by his own Department. It is no surprise to see members of the public signing petitions such as this one to try to regain an element of control from a Government who were elected with an enormous majority but are failing to deliver what they promised. While the public’s frustration is clear and understandable, we must look carefully at the proposal itself. Any new mechanism must work in all circumstances. The previous Government introduced a recall mechanism for Members of Parliament who were found guilty of certain criminal offences or who seriously breached the standards of this House. That allowed their constituents to decide whether they wanted those Members to continue. I am not necessarily against looking at whether that principle could be expanded to a national level. We want our political systems to be more responsive to the electorate, but we need to look carefully at how that could be done within a parliamentary rather than a presidential system, because that is the existing system in many countries where the public have the ability to trigger elections or recalls at a national level. It is the electorate who choose us and it is the electorate who remove us, if they wish, at a general election. Under our parliamentary system, a Government hold office because they command the confidence of this House. That is a fundamental principle on which our system and our democracy rely. As the Cabinet manual explicitly states, a Government’s authority flows from their ability “to command the confidence of the elected House of Commons”. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said in his speech, that confidence can be tested at any time through a vote of confidence or a vote of no confidence. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, that option is available for those Members of Parliament whose constituents feel that we need a general election. I urge all constituents who feel that way to make sure that their representatives in Parliament are aware of the strength of that feeling, because the conventions of parliamentary democracy have served us well. Introducing a direct recall mechanism for removing a Government or triggering a general election before the parliamentary term is due to expire would raise significant practical and constitutional questions, some of which have already been highlighted, such as whether a successful public vote of no confidence would automatically trigger a general election, or simply require a change of Prime Minister to form a new Government within the existing Parliament, and whether such a change in personnel would suffice. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk noted, it is unclear what threshold should demonstrate genuine national support that would suggest that a Government have irretrievably lost the confidence of the British people, and are not merely going through what might be temporary unpopularity at a time when they need to make difficult but, perhaps, necessary choices. Would it be at the level that has been set for recall petitions for individual MPs, which has tended to be very low? In almost all such cases, once a petition has been triggered, the threshold has been met. That would lead to some instability. Alternatively, would we be looking at a higher threshold? Would we require 50% of registered voters, or more voters than a Government secured at the previous general election? As has already been mentioned, if the threshold were too low, we risk well-funded groups being able to repeatedly attempt to destabilise any Government of any political party. We would have to seriously consider the risk of that including outside actors with their own motives before making any constitutional changes of this significance. On a national level, how could we be confident that a signature is verified? Where we have postal votes in a parliamentary or local council election, there is something to compare them against, but unless we are requiring signatures alongside voter registrations, which would go against the direction that I know the Government are setting out in this evening’s legislation, there would be unlikely to be any definitive database against which any signature on a petition could be compared. Furthermore, how could we prevent petitions from being launched back to back, creating permanent instability? These are just some of the questions that might be asked. They are not minor details, and it is fundamental that we consider them before we look at major constitutional change. We have seen the consequences of poorly considered constitutional reform in the past, such as in the case of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. It was, genuinely, introduced with the noblest of motives, but we then saw its impact at a time when there was no consensus or majority in Parliament to dissolve Parliament and allow for a fresh election. It seems it was not properly considered. Although we should be cautious about rewriting the constitution, we cannot ignore the clear message sent by petitions such as this one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk said, it is only weeks ago that more than 3 million people signed a petition calling for a general election. That was just one of a number of petitions expressing similar sentiments. Such a level of public anger should concern every hon. Member. Whether or not they happen to agree, in this case, that this Government are not delivering, it should be a concern across the political spectrum that people feel unheard and ignored. I urge those who signed this petition, and others seeking an early election, to make sure that their representatives are aware of their view and to encourage those representatives, if appropriate, to pursue that constitutional route because Governments that lose the confidence of the House have, historically, either resigned or sought a general election. I do not think that Governments can continue for too long when a majority of their Members have constituents who have lost confidence in the Government. After the promises made at the last election it is no wonder that so many of our electors feel let down. That is why this petition matters; it sends a clear signal from the public to Parliament. The message is simple: people want accountability, honesty and the ability to take back control, even where the Government have a very large majority, as this Government do. Above all, the public want competence and a Government who deliver. This Government are fast running out of road and the sooner that the country is given the chance to choose a new direction, the better. Ahead of the next general election we will certainly look at what mechanisms might be appropriate and effective to allow voters to retain control in between general elections. We would be reluctant to rush into committing to specific mechanisms until we have had a chance to properly consider what the consequences, intended and unintended, of such mechanisms would be.