October EU Council

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Will the Prime Minister be clear that she is abandoning the promise of a deal that delivers the exact same benefits, particularly as far as services are concerned, and will she acknowledge that that is yet another pledge that has been broken and therefore yet another reason for a people’s vote?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Lady looks at the various speeches that I have given throughout this process, I have been clear that there would be differences and there would be changes in our relationship with the EU. There will be, but what we are doing is proposing a good relationship with the European Union—a good trading relationship and a good security relationship—which I believe is in the interests of the UK.

Electoral Commission Investigation: Vote Leave

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

Not at the last count. I believe that there were 60-odd individuals who did want to do so, but I am not sure whether they are on or off the Front Bench at this time.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Government’s response to electoral fraud is shockingly, obscenely complacent. In trying to give some impression that she is taking this matter seriously, could the Minister agree to three really simple things? First, the fines should be unlimited, because £20,000 is pitiful; it is a tap on the wrist. Secondly, campaigns should declare their expenditure online in real time so that they cannot overspend in this way. Thirdly, does she agree that we need a digital bill of rights so that we can clear up the data harvesting that has been taking place on an industrial scale by organisations such as Facebook?

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s policy suggestions as a contribution to this point. If she will forgive me, she underlines exactly what I have been saying—that we need to look at a number of these issues in the round. For example, her last point does not at all come from the report before us today; it comes from the Information Commissioner’s work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

My constituents in Brighton are, sadly, used to chaos from Govia Thameslink Railway, but the last seven weeks have been a new level of rail hell. Since the GTR franchise is, effectively, run by the Department for Transport, will the right hon. Gentleman shake up the Government so that they finally take some action and show some leadership: action in restoring the Gatwick Express services at Preston Park, which have inexplicably been slashed, and leadership in getting rid of the hapless Transport Secretary? The Prime Minister has been reshuffling her Cabinet over the last week; will she reshuffle it a bit more and get that Transport Secretary replaced by—

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you very much indeed.

Leaving the EU: Negotiations

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Vince Cable]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We could of course have had a trade deal with India already under the auspices of the European Union, as we do with South Korea, Canada and various other countries. The country that blocked the deal was the UK, because increased services trade would involve increasing numbers of people crossing over to the UK.

I was struck by the comment by one of the more strongly pro-Brexit Conservative MPs—the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh)—when he was being critical of the Government yesterday. If I am correct, he said that he had no objection to cherry-picking, but that the Government are picking “the wrong cherry”. Actually, services are fundamental to our trade, and the Government have put us in a very difficult position.

The question now is: what should be done? The first step is for those on both sides of the House who believe that we should maximise the closeness of the economic relationship through the customs union and the single market—there are people of a similar persuasion in all parties—to try to achieve that. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden says we have a customs union already, which is exaggerating, but we can certainly converge on having a common approach. Of course, the nearer we get, the more the question arises of why on earth Brexit is happening at all. That leads us back to the question we started with about the need for the public to have a say on the final deal.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a compelling case. I imagine that, like me, he gets a steady trickle of emails from Brexit supporters, all of whom say that the 17.4 million people who voted leave in June 2016 knew exactly what they were voting for, because the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) had spelled it out for them. Yet the former Foreign Secretary now only uses four-letter words to describe the proposed deal with the EU, and is so appalled by it that he has resigned from high office to spend more time with his photographer. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that no one knows how many of the 17.4 million now support the Prime Minister’s approach, and the only way to find out is precisely to have a people’s vote?

[Sir Vince Cable]

That is exactly right, and the current numbers suggest that a substantial majority believe that there should be a vote on the final deal.

If the Government were totally rational, they would see the arguments for doing so from their own point of view. The Prime Minister could say, “I’ve done the best I can to achieve a deal. It’s obviously difficult with the Conservative party in disarray, but I’ve done the best I can. I have negotiated hard with the European Union”—we would all believe that, because she is obviously conscientious—“and this is what I’ve got. Do you, the public, who voted for this originally, want to accept it, or would you rather stay where are and be in the European economic union?” That would be a perfectly honourable and sensible way for her to proceed politically, and it is constitutionally sensible. It reflects the fact that conditions have changed enormously since the original vote. I strongly recommend that approach to the House, and I look forward to hearing contributions from Members on both sides of the House in this debate on the Chequers statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman enormously and to some extent I regard him as a friend, but I also recall that from time to time he indulges in pantomime in his constituency, and that may be the case today if he is arguing that we ought to be out of a policy that he in fact believes we should be in. I do not think that his is the consistent position.

Domestically, we have passed legislation preparing us for Brexit, such as the Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018, the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 and, most recently, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. The Haulage Permits and Trailer Registration Bill has also completed its passage through Parliament.

I am sure we will hear speeches claiming that a second referendum is the democratic thing to do, but that is not the case. The issue has been thoroughly democratically tested. Let me run through the ways. In the run-up to the 2015 general election, the Conservative party’s manifesto stated:

“We will...give you a say over whether we should stay in or leave the EU, with an in-out referendum”.

It quite clearly did not say there would be one referendum at the start of negotiations and another at the end. That manifesto commitment was given statutory footing through the European Union Referendum Act 2015, which specified there would be one referendum, not two. To recap so far, there was an election-winning manifesto and an Act was passed through this House, but perhaps that is not democratic enough for the Lib Dems.

As this House well knows, the referendum held on 23 June 2016 saw a majority of people voting to leave the EU. That was the biggest single democratic act in British history. Following that, the House of Commons voted, with a clear majority, to authorise the Prime Minister to trigger article 50, by passing the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017. As hon. Members know very well, amendments were tabled requesting a referendum to ratify the deal negotiated with the EU. One such amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), was defeated by a margin in excess of 10:1. That was democracy in action once again.

There is more in the democratic treasure trove. In last year’s general election, more than 80% of voters supported the Conservative and Labour parties. Both parties’ manifestos committed to respecting the result of the referendum. Let us not forget how many voters supported the position of the Liberal Democrats, whose manifesto called for that second referendum: 7.4% of them.

Most recently, of course, there has been the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, where amendments attempting to secure a second referendum surfaced once again. One, in the name of the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), was defeated by a margin in excess of 13:1, yet he still has an appetite for this old democracy idea.

[Caroline Lucas]

What the Minister does not appear to appreciate is that the referendum was a vote about departure, not destination—it could not be about destination because the leaders of the Brexit campaign never set out what the destination would look like. It is as if people who had been offered a wonderful mansion had ended up with a hovel with faulty wiring and a leaking roof. Does she not agree that they have the right to another say—the first say, in fact, on the actual detail? There has been no detail in anything that the Government have put forward so far.

[Chloe Smith]

I will tell you what I think the British people have the right to, Mr Deputy Speaker: trust in their politicians. As the Prime Minister said herself, this is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision that they took.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jenny Chapman]

I think “end of story” pretty much sums it up actually.

Instead of another Lib Dem coalition, the Prime Minister should first allow votes in this House on her customs proposals, and ours, to see which one has the support of the House. Similarly, she should put her White Paper to a vote and see whether there is a majority for that, and if not, she must accept that her approach has failed. She needs to change the red lines, particularly on a customs union and a close single market deal, or better still, make way for a Government who can deliver the Brexit deal that we need. The sooner she does that and ends the chaos of the last day and a half, the better.

The second proposal in the motion concerns “a people’s vote” on the withdrawal deal. To be absolutely clear and to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the Labour party is not calling for a second referendum, and we never have. Our manifesto was perfectly clear on this:

“Labour accepts the referendum result…We will prioritise jobs and living standards, build a close new relationship with the EU, protect workers’ rights and environmental standards, provide certainty to EU nationals and give a meaningful role to Parliament throughout negotiations.”

We have also said that, should the Prime Minister fail to get a withdrawal agreement through the Commons, or fail to get a deal at all, it would be a moment of real crisis. At that stage, all options should remain on the table, and Parliament should be able to say what happens next. That could take many courses, but it should be Parliament that decides.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady says that the Labour party will support a Brexit that delivers jobs, and all those positive things, but she knows as well as we do that every single economic analysis demonstrates that we are going to be massively worse off as a country if we are not part of the single market and the customs union. Does she not think that those people—for the many, not the few—would actually do an awful lot better if Labour got off the fence and, at the very least, supported a less damaging Brexit than the one it is supporting right now?

[Jenny Chapman]

The hon. Lady does not respect the outcome of the referendum. I understand that. There is an honesty and a consistency to her approach, but that approach does not happen to be shared by the Labour party. We do accept the outcome of the referendum. Over the last year we have consistently fought to ensure that Parliament has a proper role in the process. Of course, we would have liked the outcome on that in the withdrawal Bill to be different. But by focusing on that and working with Members on all sides of this House and in the other place, we made real progress toward a meaningful vote, and we will look to return to it in other legislation.

We are not supporting calls for a second referendum or a people’s vote. Why is that? I know that some people are frustrated by our approach, but the reason is that we respect the outcome of the referendum. We have been entirely consistent about that. When we asked people to vote in the 2016 referendum, we said that their vote counted, and we meant it. The impact of now telling voters that we did not mean it, or that we did not like the answer that they gave, would be profound. Members do not need to take my word for it; they can take the words of the leader of the Lib Dems, who—freed from the trappings of coalition—said in 2016:

“The public have voted and I do think it’s seriously disrespectful and politically utterly counterproductive to say ‘Sorry guys, you’ve got it wrong, we’re going to try again’.”

Spot on. It is a shame that that kind of insight does not survive becoming a Lib Dem MP.

Syria

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

On the first point, I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about persecuted Christians in the region. Indeed, we are discussing with the Foreign Office how we can look at this issue of Christians and other religious groups who find themselves persecuted in wherever they might be, including in this region. I can give him the absolute assurance that, from the intelligence that I have seen, from the analysis that I have seen and from the assessments that I have heard, I am in absolutely no doubt that the Syrian regime was responsible for this attack in Douma.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Prime Minister has said that the legal basis relies on there having been no practicable alternative to the use of force. Further to that, can she confirm exactly when the UK identified Him Shinsar as a chemical weapons storage facility, when it identified the chemical research facility at Barzeh as a chemical weapons research centre, when this information was reported to the OPCW and whether the UK has asked the OPCW to inspect both sites?

[The Prime Minister]

We have been very clear that we would like it to be possible for the OPCW to investigate sites in Syria, for there to be proper identification of the chemical weapons and for there to be proper accountability for the use of those chemical weapons.

[Caroline Lucas]

Did you ask?

Syria

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) for her initiative in securing this important debate.

I share the moral outrage expressed on both sides of the House—Assad and his henchmen are barbarians and the desire to do something to stop them is deeply and keenly felt, as colleagues on both sides have expressed sincerely and passionately—but our guiding principle must surely be that whatever we do must have the best chance of reducing suffering in the region, and I remain to be convinced that the military strikes we have seen are the best way of doing that. Airstrikes against chemical weapons facilities might help us to avoid feeling impotent and irrelevant, yet taking action that risks escalating and creating further loss of life and suffering would only perpetuate the problems we all want to solve. Moreover, in places such as Libya, as in Syria, such action has time and again proved a distraction from the difficult, relentless and all too frequently neglected work of waging peace, which is a lot more difficult than waging war.

In my brief speaking time, I want to challenge those who suggest that those of us who question the military action are somehow in favour of doing nothing. That is not the case. There is a vast amount we could be doing. For example, we should be cracking down on Russia, through further sanctions, and pursuing diplomatic channels too. It is worth noting that US sanctions against Russia are finally beginning to bite. Last week, new US sanctions against seven oligarchs, 17 top officials and 12 companies led to tens of billions of dollars in losses on Russian markets within just a few hours last Monday, and the rouble recently suffered its biggest daily fall in over three years. We now need to double down on these actions, even if that has an effect on our own economy. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) would probably find it as worrying as I do that I find myself in agreement with him over the issue of energy in the EU. We could be taking more action there to put pressure on Russia, even if it comes at a cost to our own economies.

While moral outrage is all very well, we also need to invest in our own moral authority. Britain urgently needs to get its own house in order if it wants to be a credible, positive influence on the world stage. That means deploying the UK’s considerable power and influence in the world to advance the full enjoyment of human rights; scaling back and ending alliances of convenience with repressive, aggressive or corrupt states such as Saudi Arabia, beginning with a ban on arms exports to such states; restoring the UK’s diplomatic capabilities, starting with a reversal of the cuts to the FCO budget; championing constructive engagement and multilateral forums; and in the longer term, as others have said, working towards reform of the UN as well. We also need to expend serious and sustained effort to enhance and expand UN peacekeeping and peacebuilding capabilities and to strengthen and fully resource the International Criminal Court and the process of establishing and supporting war crimes tribunals. How can we be serious as a state about peacebuilding if the Government continue to boycott UN attempts to prohibit nuclear weapons, especially at a time when the world faces the renewed threat of nuclear strikes?

Finally, two quick things: I completely agree with everything that the hon. Member for Wirral South and others have said about the importance of taking more refugees, and I have been supporting a war powers Act for many years, but it has to be a free vote. We cannot outsource our responsibility for making that decision to the party Whips. We, as MPs, have to take that moral decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I join my hon. Friend in recognising the work that is done by the Welbeck Defence Sixth Form College in his constituency and the skills that it gives young people who wish to enter the armed forces, but he raises an important point about funding in relation to our armed forces. I can announce today that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I have agreed that the Ministry of Defence will have access to £600 million this coming financial year for the MOD’s Dreadnought submarine programme. Today’s announcement will ensure that the work to rebuild the UK’s new world-class nuclear submarines remains on schedule, and it is another sign of the deep commitment this Government have to keeping our country safe. Along with the £200 million carry-forward agreed at the supplementary estimates, that means that the MOD will benefit from an extra £800 million in the next financial year. We continue to exceed the NATO 2% target and remain the second biggest defence spender in NATO.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The Cambridge Analytica revelations suggest that there is something rotten in the state—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is very unseemly. [Interruption.] No, I am sorry, it is very unseemly. The hon. Lady—[Interruption.] Mr Pound, your expertise in gesticulation is well known to all Members of the House, but it is not required to be on display at this time. Caroline Lucas will be heard.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Cambridge Analytica revelations suggest that there is something rotten in the state of our democracy. The current electoral law is woefully inadequate at dealing with the combination of big money and big data, so will the Prime Minister commit to urgent cross-party talks to kick-start a process to ensure that we have a regulatory and legal framework that is up to the challenge of dealing with the digital age?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have said previously, clearly the allegations relating to Cambridge Analytica are concerning, because people should be able to have confidence about how their personal data is being used. It is right that we are seeing the Information Commissioner investigating this matter. I expect Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and any others involved to co-operate fully with the Information Commissioner’s Office in the investigation that is taking place. As I said earlier, our Data Protection Bill will strengthen the powers of the Information Commissioner, but it will also strengthen legislation around data protection, as will the other steps that the Government are taking—for example, through our digital charter. This is a Government who are committing to making sure that this is a safe place to be online.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the tone of the debate so far is incredibly disappointing? We are discussing something that goes to the very heart of our democratic processes. If the allegations in the report are correct, it shows that there is something rotten at the heart of our democracy, and it would behove the other side to take that rather more seriously, because it affects all of us and the credibility of our democracy.

[Tom Brake]

I could not agree more. I am sure that others will contribute to this debate—they may principally or exclusively be from the Opposition Benches—express their concerns about these allegation and ask that the matter be fully investigated in the way it deserves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I have to start by saying that it is truly shocking that Government Members do not seem to think that this debate is worth taking part in. The staggering hypocrisy of MPs—

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you confirm that listening is taking part in a debate? We do not have to speak to learn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps we can now proceed with the speech of Caroline Lucas.

[Caroline Lucas]

I recognise that the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been doing some incredibly important work this morning. Notwithstanding that, I still make the case that there is staggering hypocrisy among a large number of MPs who promised to enhance democracy by leaving the EU, but who cannot even be bothered to turn up to talk about the potential radical undermining of our democratic processes. I find that genuinely quite breathtaking.

I start by paying tribute to the dedicated, fearless journalism of Carol Cadwalladr over the past year. She has led us to the extraordinary revelations that we are debating this afternoon.

Much of the discussion so far has been about the validity of the referendum vote itself, but I want to argue that this goes much deeper and wider than that single vote, vastly important though it is. The revelations by The Guardian, Channel 4 and others over the past few days go right to the heart of the kind of country we think we are living in. I argue that they demonstrate that current electoral law is woefully inadequate. I think they show that the regulation governing our democratic processes urgently needs to be updated and reformed. They show, I believe, that something is rotten in the state of our democracy.

The combination of big money and big data is overwhelming the chronically weak structures that are supposed to protect us against cheating and fraud. As others have said, we are trying to apply laws from the analogue era to the very different reality of the digital age, and it simply is not working. It took the Information Commissioner almost a week to get authorisation to get through the front door of Cambridge Analytica, during which time presumably the delete button had been pressed a great many times. The Electoral Commission, meanwhile, has been investigating claims of the misuse of electoral funds for almost a year. Why on earth do we not have rules that require donations to be reported in real time, and the same for spending? Why do we not have a body with more resources and real teeth? Things urgently need to change.

Electoral law is based on two fundamental principles. The first principle is that parties and candidates compete on what should be a level playing field in terms of resources, which is presumably why we have national and local spending limits in elections. The second principle is that elections are open and transparent, so parties and candidates have to be transparent in their communications with the voters and it is unlawful to make false claims in those communications. The allegations about the true nature of the relationship between Vote Leave and BeLeave suggest that there may well have been cheating when it comes to the first principle, and the investigations into Facebook and Cambridge Analytica, and the spending of huge sums of money on micro-targeted political advertising based on data harvested from voters’ social media profiles, suggest that the second of these two principles is also under great strain in the digital age.

Frankly, Facebook’s desperate adverts on the back pages of Sunday’s newspapers, just a couple of days ago, suggest to me that it knows that its bubble is bursting. We now need to update the law to ensure that people are protected from this social media mega-monopoly. Just because the chief executives of Facebook and Google wear T-shirts to work and turn up on skateboards does not mean that they are not aggressive capitalists, and we need to get a bit wiser to that fact.

The law regulating campaign activity and finance—the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—was drawn up almost 20 years ago, long before Facebook or Twitter even existed, let alone had any role in political campaigns. It is considerably more difficult to ensure the compliance of adverts on social media than the compliance of adverts in newspapers or on billboards. Voters simply do not know what is being done with their data by a company that, ultimately, wants to make as much money as possible from the information it has on each of us. Not surprisingly, the regulators struggle to regulate.

This undoubtedly presents a complex challenge to all politicians, as social media platforms overtake the national and local press and media through which we have traditionally communicated with our electorate, but without the same level of transparency and scrutiny. However, it is a challenge that we must meet. The need for a reprogramming of the way parties and campaigns are funded could not be greater. Whether it is donations from Russian oligarchs on one side of the House or from former Formula 1 bosses on the other side, people are sick and tired of a politics that is awash with big money without proper oversight. I argue that the case for state funding for political parties could scarcely be stronger.

[Layla Moran]

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the House voted for the Democratic Unionist party’s donation not to be scrutinised before 2017, so that massive donation now cannot be scrutinised in the proper way? We do not know the origin of that cash.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern; she is right that that should have been looked into at the time, rather than pushed into the long grass. It is yet another reason why I am calling for urgent cross-party talks on updating our online campaign regulations and reforming the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, including consultation with the Electoral Commission and the Information Commissioner on what new powers and resources they need in order to fulfil their role in safeguarding our democracy.

The revelations by Shahmir Sanni about Vote Leave and BeLeave raise related but somewhat different questions, some of which need to be addressed to, and answered by, certain Members on the Government side of the House, for they strongly suggest that some of those who worked for the official Brexit campaign during the 2016 referendum, some of whom now work for the Prime Minister in Downing Street, committed criminal breaches of electoral law on overspending and collusion. Vote Leave, whose leading members included the current Foreign Secretary and Environment Secretary, formally declared it had spent £6.77 million during the 2016 campaign—this was within the £7 million limit. But that sum does not include a £625,000 donation that Vote Leave gave to BeLeave, the Brexit campaign aimed at students and young people, which BeLeave spent on the very same digital marketing company, Aggregate IQ, used by Vote Leave. As the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) set out powerfully, there is substantial evidence of constant communication between Vote Leave and BeLeave, which were based in the same office, shared the same computer drive and seem to have had advice going between them as to the setting up of their constitution, their bank account and so on. It is insulting to suggest that these two organisations were not co-ordinating very, very closely.

So it is simply not good enough for the Prime Minister to have airily dismissed the questions that were raised by these revelations as she did in the House yesterday. I might add that her attempts to brush off complaints about the disgraceful outing of Shahmir Sanni were beneath her and bring shame on her office. If the laws were broken, those involved need to be brought to justice, because if they are not, and if we do not fix the shortcomings of our electoral law and its regulation, this Government will go down in history as the one who sat and watched while the very lifeblood of our democracy drained away, and voters will have taken back control for nothing. That is why I also think we need an independent public inquiry to establish, as a matter of urgency, whether electoral law was broken by any of those working for Vote Leave and BeLeave, and, crucially, what current Ministers knew at the time.

UK/EU Future Economic Partnership

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are indeed working on ensuring that we have the necessary structures in place, and legislation will be brought forward to this House in due course in relation to those issues. My right hon. Friend made reference to trade remedies. Of course it is very important that we are able to determine those trade remedies, rather than leaving it to the European Union to determine them for us, as would happen under the policy of the Leader of the Opposition.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Since the Brexit that the Prime Minister has set out is nothing like the Brexit we were promised—no “exact same benefits”, and far from £350 million a week for the NHS, we have nurses actually leaving the NHS and fewer coming in—does she not think it will be right to give the people the right to have a say on the final deal?

[The Prime Minister]

We actually have more nurses working on wards in the NHS now than we did in 2010. The British people were given a vote by this Parliament on membership of the European Union, and we are delivering on their decision.

Proportional Representation

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I do not agree. I think we have healthy debates in this country. The nature of our democracy lends itself far more to the first-past-the-post system, which enables us to exchange our strongly, passionately held views in the House. That is a strength, not a weakness, of our democracy.

First past the post has consistently produced majority Governments who can govern. Although it could be rightly argued that two of the last three elections in this country did not throw up a clear majority Government, they were rare in our history in so doing. First past the post means that political parties become broad churches in which a wide range of views are tolerated and debated. It avoids complex coalition Governments who may achieve little, yet, come election time, all the various parties claim any successes as their own and abandon the failures as someone else’s fault.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

First, on the issue of coalition government, I cannot help but say the words, “Democratic Unionist party”. Majority government does not seem to have done very well under first past the post. Secondly, Churchill was actually pro-PR—let us make sure our facts are right. Thirdly, the Conservatives’ vote share in the north-east increased by 9.1% at the last election, but they made no gains in their number of seats. With 34% of the vote, they got 10% of the seats. Do the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues from the north-east think that is fair? Does he think that is fair?

[Steve Double]

I think I can confidently speak for my party when I say that we are absolutely committed to first past the post as the best system for this country.

With first past the post, there is a direct link between the MP and their constituency, which brings focus and creates a strong bond between the MP and their constituents. From having the names on the ballot paper —each party has one candidate—through polling day and beyond, a connection is made. The voter knows whom they are voting for and whom to hold to account if they do not deliver what the constituents want.

Most people know who their MP is, but I suggest that far fewer know who their MEP is, because MEPs are voted in under a PR system. There is a clear understanding in voters’ minds of the accepted truth that, whether they voted for the winning candidate or not, they can get the help, assistance and advice they need from their MP—their local representative. There is nowhere for the incumbent to hide, which I believe is a good thing. Come election time, with a simple cross on the ballot paper, the electorate can bring about change if they wish to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray.

If democracy is about fairly representing the views of the people, we are failing with first past the post. As a country, we pride ourselves on our strong commitment to democracy, yet the vast majority of votes stack up and simply do not make an impact on the overall result. No fewer than 68% of votes cast in June’s general election were, in effect, wasted—they made no difference at all to the outcome.

Yes, I have a vested interest. Some 1 million people voted Green in 2015. Under a proportional system, those votes would have translated into people being elected to fight for Green politics; it could have given us more than 20 MPs. However, I am also deeply worried about what our outdated, dysfunctional electoral system is doing to the legitimacy of our governance system—a system that not only fails the political parties and fails to deliver effective government, but fails the citizens of this country.

Some 33% of people do not think that voting for their preferred party will make a difference, and 44% do not feel that the UK Parliament is capable of understanding and effectively representing their concerns. That is a tragedy, and it is also a bit of an irony. We may well be on the path to leaving the EU, but all those who were promised that they would be given back control simply will not have it without meaningful electoral reform. PR would not just bring much-needed fairness, but go a considerable way towards tackling some of the reasons that people do not bother voting at all. In these times of voter volatility and diversity, it would be a system worthy of the name democracy.

The current unrepresentative voting system is doing long-term, pervasive damage, which manifests itself in phenomena such as the widespread lack of trust and faith in public servants, and the growth of what some have coined, with Orwellian overtones, “post-truth politics.” Far too many of our constituents are disillusioned, disaffected and disengaged. Continuing to deny them a voice in decisions that affect us all only perpetuates that problem, yet that is exactly what is happening under first past the post—a system in which votes are not all equal. Unless someone lives in one of the small number of heavily targeted marginal seats, their vote simply does not count.

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Is the hon. Lady not an example of how that is not the case? In her own constituency her party won less than 3% of the vote 20 years ago, but in the most recent general election it won 50%. Large numbers of votes can be moved in a relatively short time.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not agree that that felt like a relatively short time; it felt like a very long time. As I said, under PR, 1 million votes would have given the Greens more than 20 MPs in 2015. That is the bottom line. Yes, we occasionally find a way of bucking the system, but that does not give confidence to our constituents up and down the country, who simply want to know that their votes count. That does not seem a lot to ask. Interestingly, it has been estimated that between 20% and 30% of people voted tactically at the last election. In other words, people are trying the best they can to fix the system themselves, but they should not have to try to game the system; we should change it.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

My constituency was marginal in 2015. I was returned with a larger majority this time, but I went door to door asking Liberal Democrat voters to lend me their vote, and there was no Green candidate because the Green party recognised that splitting the vote might allow a Conservative in. I was grateful to the local Green party for making that choice, which delivered a more progressive outcome.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. My Green colleagues were incredibly brave to make such selfless decisions for the good of the country rather than tribal political self-interest.

The Electoral Reform Society described the 2015 general election, in which a Government were elected on just 24% of the eligible vote, as “the most disproportionate” in electoral history. It further reported that in the election just gone more than 22 million votes —68%—were essentially wasted because first past the post takes no account of votes for the winning candidate over and above what they needed to win, or indeed of votes for losing candidates. In five constituencies 90% of votes made no difference to the outcome because they were cast for candidates who did not win, or cast for the winning candidate over and above what they needed to win. More than 90% of votes—a huge number.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Lady agree that democracy should be about outcomes, and that a fairer and just electoral system, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) talked about, would be more likely to deliver a fairer and just society, in which the forces of progress trump the forces of reaction? In my view, there is a majority in this country for progressive politics, but that is being frustrated by first past the post.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman pre-empts a little of what I am about to say. Exactly as he describes, first past the post does not deliver the best governance. I say that as someone who has been a Member of the European Parliament—elections to the European Parliament obviously take place under a PR system—where collaboration and cross-party working is normal. It is encouraged and welcomed, and people do it, on the basis that no single party has a monopoly on wisdom.

A winner-takes-all approach to elections promotes adversarial politics. It encourages each of the major parties to seek to defeat their opposition unequivocally, negating the need for post-election co-operation, and essentially not to take any real account of what voters wanted when they cast their votes. It also means that policy is likely to change dramatically when Governments change, with greater extremes and a greater impact on economic and environmental policy and on social justice and inclusion. Research has found that countries with PR systems outperform those with first-past-the-post systems when it comes to issues that require a longer term view and policy continuity. Environmental policy is obviously a key candidate for that; countries with proportional systems score significantly higher on Yale University’s environmental performance index.

I want to quote the former Labour MP and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. He observed that electoral reform is about not just functional outcomes—we have talked about that a lot—but values. PR is one way in which we can express our commitment to fairness, openness and equality in our society. I want to make the case that, under PR, we would be more likely to encourage more people to get out there and vote. It is very hard to persuade people to vote when they live in so-called safe seats and know that their vote will not make a significant difference. There is evidence out there that suggests that those countries that have PR see a higher turnout than those with first past the post.

We would also improve the chances of electing a Parliament that better reflects modern Britain. One of the consequences of safe seats is that it is harder for different groups to get themselves into a position to be able to win those seats. We know that still only 32% of MPs are women. There are 208, compared with 191 in 2015, but that is still shockingly bad. Women MPs are still outnumbered two to one by male MPs, and the UK is now just about 40th in the world when it comes to women’s parliamentary representation.

People of colour, disabled people, carers, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are still under-represented in Parliament. PR would make a difference to that, because under PR MPs cannot rely on just the votes of their tribe. To win the support of the majority of voters, they are forced to reach out across the party divide to the wider electorate—women, black and minority ethnic communities and so on—which hopefully means that those traditionally excluded groups would end up standing for election, and with a better chance of being elected.

Finally, I want to say a few things about tactics. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) rightly said that getting PR into the Labour party manifesto is vital. He will not be surprised that I do not necessarily agree with his tactic for achieving that, but I certainly agree that we need to put pressure on the Labour party leadership. I am disappointed that we have not yet had a greater commitment to PR and voting reform from the Labour party leadership—perhaps this evening we will hear a change of mind—because we know that more than 200 Labour parliamentary candidates at the election backed PR, as well as a huge 76% of Labour voters, and indeed many Labour MPs in the Chamber have made incredibly powerful speeches.

What I want to say to the Labour leadership is this: it is selfish for them to continue championing a voting system just because it has traditionally handed them power. It is immoral when millions of people are disenfranchised as a result. No party can honestly claim to be for the many when it denies the many a meaningful vote. Robin Cook understood all of that when back in 2005 he said:

“Our objective, our slogan, should be to achieve an electoral system which puts our democracy in the hands of the many voters, not the few voters who happen to be key in marginal seats.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

The choice, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, was between first past the post and an AV system. My point is that there was a choice to change what we have, which was rejected by two to one. I would take a lot of persuading to say that had some other, infinitely more academic, proper PR system been offered the result would have been much different. I will not say that first past the post is a system without flaws. Under various academic analyses, one can come up with a different alternative that might be better. However, I am minded of what Churchill once said about democracy: that it is the worst form of government, but it is better than all the others. That is probably true of first past the post as well. It has the benefit of being understandable and easily completed. It has a defined geographical area, which to me is the most powerful point: we maintain a clear link between those who elect and the elected representative.

[Caroline Lucas]

First, several of us have pointed out that there are proportional systems that keep the constituency link. I wish we could get rid of that argument, because it is not relevant. Secondly, as the hon. Gentleman is talking about Churchill again, I will use this occasion to let him know that Churchill said that if we are to choose between AV, second ballot and PR,

“I have no doubt whatever that the last is incomparably the fairest …and…best in the public interest.”—[Official Report, 2 June 1931; Vol. 253, c. 102.]

The hon. Gentleman quotes Churchill with great alacrity; perhaps he would like to quote that too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

No. I believe that the simplest system—putting a cross in a box and having one Member and one vote—is the first-past-the-post system. That is why the Government want to legislate to return to that system, so that we have a simple system that is well understood across all elections. The Government have serious concerns that proportional representation voting systems are less likely to be understood and followed correctly by members of the public, increasing the likelihood that ballot papers will be completed incorrectly.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the Minister really think that the population of Britain is significantly less intelligent than the population of Germany, France, Denmark and Finland—all the countries that use proportional representation? Is he saying that, with education, people could not work out how to use that system? That is a pretty big indictment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I thank all those who initiated and signed the petition that has enabled us to have this debate. I am sure we all agree that it has been very lively and that some passionately held views have been expressed. Clearly the debate is ongoing; I do not think for a minute that this is the end of the matter.

Good points have been made on both sides. The one thing we can agree on, across the House, is that no system is perfect; every system for holding elections has its strengths and weaknesses.

[Caroline Lucas]

Some are better than others.

[Steve Double]

Indeed they are, and we probably disagree about which, but we all understand that there is no silver bullet. Simply changing our system of voting will not change the concerns that we all share about engaging voters and ensuring that they feel a valued part of the system.

I am still of the opinion that the strengths of first past the post outweigh its weaknesses, and I am not convinced that changing to a PR system would address those weaknesses. However, I am sure that we will go on having this debate. The one thing we can all agree on is that we value our democracy—the freedom we have in this nation to vote to elect our representatives. Whatever debates we have about how we vote, we will continue to value that freedom very highly.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 168657 relating to proportional representation.