European Council

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

It is nearly a year since the Lancaster House speech, but the British Government have not published the detail of their preferred trade framework to replace membership of the single market and the customs union. Why has it taken the Prime Minister so long to summon the Brexit war Cabinet to start that work? Is it not the case that the Government and the Conservative party are split about what happens after transition?

[The Prime Minister]

No. There have been various stages to the negotiation. I set out the framework for that future trade relationship in my Florence speech in September, and we will of course now negotiate the further details of it.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jenny Chapman]

I hope that Ministers are listening and taking note.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Do the Welsh First Minister, and indeed the Welsh Cabinet Secretary for these matters, agree with the wording of new clause 64? Given their public comments, I think they would find it very difficult to agree totally with its current drafting.

[Jenny Chapman]

My understanding is that the answer is yes. We have not worked alone on this—we have worked together with the devolved Administrations—so I am slightly surprised by that question. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is angling for something. Is he trying to extract something from this that I am unaware of?

[Jonathan Edwards]

The plight of the First Minister has always been that new UK frameworks have to be made collaboratively in a partnership of equals. The new clause seems to suggest that this would be a matter determined by Westminster, in negotiation with the devolved Governments, but that is a totally different thing.

[Jenny Chapman]

The intention is that the frameworks would be achieved collaboratively. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve. It is, of course, a matter for the hon. Gentleman if he is trying to force a wedge between me and my hon. Friends and the First Minister, but I do not think he is going to be successful.

Proportional Representation

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I am grateful for that intervention, one that I was wholeheartedly expecting and that is no surprise at all coming from the right hon. Gentleman. Historically, first past the post has delivered, the vast majority of the time, the strong and stable Government that the country needs to lead it.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Double]

I will make more progress before taking further interventions.

The things that are wrong with our voting system are, in my view, more down to the manner in which political parties can operate and the way candidates are often selected—especially in what we might call “safe seats”—than the voting system itself. The petition sets out to make the case that proportional representation would make votes count, yet its opening statement says:

“The vast majority wants PR.”

I would like to challenge that view. As recently as 2011, a referendum was held in this country to consider changing the voting system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.

Why is having special rules, including multiple voting, and then using some slide-rule technique hours after the voting has taken place considered a better system? That seems strange to me, as it risks over-complicating what should be a straightforward process of voting. That is before we get into the debate about which form of PR we should adopt if we were to go down that route. There is a veritable plethora of different systems on offer, each with its own complexities. One strength of our current first-past-the-post voting system is that it is simple and gives a quick and decisive result. Churchill liked it, and so did Tony Benn. They did not often agree with one another, but on this they did.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that first past the post is inherently an electoral system for a two-party political system? In England, there are at least five competitive parties, and in Wales and Scotland, which have national parties, there are six. How can first past the post possibly reflect that diversity of political parties?

[Steve Double]

It has served this country well over a number of years in elections in which we have had more than two parties standing, so I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s point.

There is a broad consensus across the political spectrum that first past the post works well and is understood by all, and that its perceived flaws are less grievous than those of any of the alternatives. Another argument for first past the post is that it prevents extremist parties from gaining seats. It is interesting to note the outcome of the recent election in Germany. The media commentary the morning after the vote said:

“Angela Merkel will seek to form a government in the coming weeks.”

Weeks to form a Government! That is what we could get regularly with a proportional system. Angela Merkel will likely form a Government with parties diametrically opposed to one another, which caused another commentator to say:

“This difference shows how incoherent any such new government could be”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to be able to follow a member of the Petitions Committee. I thank the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) for opening the debate, although I am afraid that I disagree with him on nearly all the points he raised. I have always been a supporter of electoral reform. It has always seemed to me that the obvious starting point for any electoral system is that the number of votes that people cast for parties should be reflected in the composition of Parliament or whatever body is being elected.

Frankly, I find it absurd that on several occasions in British history we have had elections where a party with fewer votes than another has won the election and formed the Government. That happened as recently as 1974, and before that in 1951 and on several other occasions. People will cite other countries and perhaps compare the situation with the last presidential election in America, but America is different—America is a republic, not a democracy. It clearly has a system based on the representation of the electoral college and the states’ votes as part of that. It is an absurd comparison with this country.

The number of votes cast should be reflected in the composition of Parliament. That is the start and end of the debate for me, but it is not just about the technicalities of systems. In particular, I remember the deep sense of alienation growing up in the north-east of England in the 1980s, which was a time of huge change. The mines and shipyards were going and the social fabric of the area was being completely transformed. There was this sense of having no purchase, no say and no input into a Government who frankly did not care how the north-east voted. In places such as Sunderland and Durham, where I was from, there was this sense of having no ability to change the country’s direction when it was having such a big impact.

We have this argument about strong and weak government, but strong government to me means good government. It does not mean a Government with an artificial majority propelled into that majority by the system when the people have not voted for that majority. Whatever we think of things such as the Iraq war or the poll tax, they are examples of strong government, but I argue strongly that they are not examples of good government.

There is an interesting question—there will be different views about this in the Chamber—of whether our political culture has shaped our electoral system, or whether our electoral system has shaped our political culture, but I worry a lot about the direction of political culture and how we deal with political problems. We are going further and further down a route towards a deep, reductive tribalism that has forgotten the purpose of politics, which is to come together and solve problems. Instead of that, we are seeing a degree of the partisanship that the system is based on, but it is getting more and more absurd.

For instance, a series of interesting Budget proposals have been leaked from the Cabinet. All those proposals would breach the fiscal responsibility charter of the former Chancellor George Osborne, which many Conservatives would have voted for. It was obviously nonsense, but it was trapped in that two-party system that is propelled by the electoral system. We have seen people elected to this House who have expressed strong views that they will not even talk to people on the other side or be friendly with them. That is a completely false direction for this country to go in, and at the heart of it is an electoral system that asks people not to vote positively for things, but to vote against things. That is all that first past the post can do.

We all would find problems with any system—there is no perfect system—but there are clear examples in the rest of the world that have far better democratic systems. Scotland and Wales have better democratic systems than the one we use for general elections in the UK.

[Jonathan Edwards]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and many valid points. He mentioned Wales. The Wales Act 2017 empowered the National Assembly to devise its own electoral system. Will he join me in calling on all political parties in the National Assembly to use Wales as an incubator to bring forward genuine electoral reform for the UK?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The devolved nations have led the way on a whole range of policy issues, simply because they have a more representative political culture.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jayawardena]

All I will say is that that makes my point exactly—that system is a two-tier system with two classes of politicians, which is not what we should want in our country. We should want each of us to be elected on the same basis and with each of us accountable to our constituents and able to be thrown out by them if they disagree with us. We sit in the mother of all Parliaments, the home of parliamentary democracy, which has been exported around the world. More people use first past the post than any other system. It is an extraordinary system that has been championed across the world.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Is the hon. Gentleman’s argument not undermined somewhat by the introduction of English votes for English laws? Since the introduction of those changes to the Standing Orders, MPs from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland cannot vote in this place on such matters.

[Mr Jayawardena]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, with so many matters devolved to the devolved institutions, EVEL allows English Members to vote on English matters.

I will make one further reference to the House of Lords. Lord Norton simplified the issues of PR and the ability of parties to form coalitions by saying that even though party A might have 40% of a vote and party B might have 20%, that does not mean that their joint manifesto has 60% of the vote. Without a secondary vote in agreement of the manifesto, the Government enjoy 0% support—it is a stitch-up done in a back room between parties. That is in stark contrast to a single-party Government produced by first past the post, who know for certain that they enjoy a large plurality of support and are far more legitimate than a coalition Government.

We sit in the mother of all Parliaments and we all are elected by our constituents. This is a place where the democratically elected representatives of the people come together to govern for the whole of the United Kingdom. It is a place in which the people should be able to have their say without having their vote stolen or bartered away. Some 14 million voted for a manifesto to keep first past the post after 13 million had already voted against scrapping it. Their voice should be heard.

European Council

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 23rd October 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there are grounds for optimism that we will be able to move on to those detailed trade negotiations and get that good trade deal. As her question illustrated, it is precisely because this matters to others in the EU, not just to us, that it is in both sides’ interests to have that trade deal.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

With a third of the designated negotiating time already passed, is it not clear that the EU holds the best cards? Would it not be far wiser for the British Government to perform a tactical retreat and base their position on permanent status within the customs union and the single market, instead of accelerating towards an uncertain destiny that costs jobs and further squeezes living standards?

[The Prime Minister]

The British people voted to leave the EU and that is what we will be doing, and that means we will no longer be full members of the customs union or the single market. We should be optimistic, however, about the opportunities that will be open to the UK, as a sovereign nation, not just from a good trade with the EU but in negotiating trade deals around the world.

G20

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Monday 10th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The UK’s record on this issue is good. We can already point to the actions we have taken here in the UK, but we will of course be looking to do more in future—for example, on air quality. We can already show the action we have taken and the benefit it has had. As I said in my statement, there is no contradiction between decarbonisation and a growing economy.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Is a bad trade deal with the United States better than no deal?

[The Prime Minister]

We will be working to negotiate a good trade deal with the United States.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Edwards Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. We all share a high regard for animal welfare and it is important to have in place strict laws to ensure that we deal properly with people who are not looking after animals. Anyone who is cruel to an animal or does not provide for its welfare needs may be banned from owning animals, given an unlimited fine or, as he says, sent to prison. My hon. Friend is right that sentencing is an issue, which is why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs regularly holds discussions with the Ministry of Justice on sentencing policy for animal welfare offenders.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Q8. With the civil service reportedly having to explain in crayon to the Cabinet that there is no “have your cake and eat it” Brexit option, will the Prime Minister come clean and admit that she is prioritising her own absolutist red lines, not people’s jobs and wages?

[The Prime Minister]

I am afraid the hon. Gentleman and others will have heard the answer before: we want to negotiate the best possible deal for the United Kingdom that ensures we have a comprehensive free trade agreement, that we can continue to trade with our European partners, that we have a new deep and special partnership with the European Union, and that we are growing our economy. But it is not just about our relationship with the European Union; it is about the trade deals that we will do with countries around the rest of the world and it is about ensuring sound management from a Conservative Government.