Afghanistan

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right, in that what matters is the end of the process. If we can get into a political process in Afghanistan with people who have separated from al-Qaeda, given up violence and accepted the basic tenets of the Afghan constitution, that will be a success. However, we cannot shade or fudge the idea of letting armed terrorists into government. We need to have some red lines in our minds about what is possible and appropriate, otherwise we will not end up with stability or any form of functioning state.

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

The Prime Minister will know of increasing concern about the use of drones in Afghanistan and elsewhere, particularly about the risk that they will strike civilians. Just yesterday it was confirmed that a drone had killed four Afghan civilians and injured two others. Given that military officials are saying that almost one third of the Royal Air Force could be made up of drones within the next 20 years, will he review the use of this policy?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course it matters hugely that we avoid civilian casualties, whether in Afghanistan or in Libya. However, I do not think that the answer is to turn our face away from the modern technology that can now pinpoint people who are doing us harm. The technology being used in Afghanistan, including drones and other aerial ISTAR—intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance—cameras, has been hugely effective in driving back the Taliban insurgency and taking out people who are doing us harm.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

We had precisely that discussion in the cross-party committee and, for the exact reason the hon. Gentleman sets out, we believe that the best basis on which to proceed—we will remit the exact details to an independent panel of academics and experts—is to have clusters of counties, because they are, quite literally, a familiar territory and a familiar landscape for millions of voters up and down the country and should be the building blocks of the large constituencies or districts that elected members of a reformed House of Lords would represent.

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

I welcome the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement, but given that a poll released today shows that 74% of people are against unelected bishops having a place in our legislature, including 70% of Christians, and given that expertise and wisdom are not the monopoly of any one religion, will he look again at that aspect of the reform?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I hear the hon. Lady’s strength of feeling on the issue and respect it, but the fact is that we have an established Church, which has always been reflected in its representation in the House of Lords. As I said earlier, leaders of other denominations are very supportive of some form of continuation of that representation, even though it will be on a much smaller scale than is presently the case.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I give way to the leader of the Green party.

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

I am grateful to the Prime Minister. I am sure he would agree that any military action needs to be principled and consistent, but last year, the UK issued £231 million-worth of arms exports licences to Libya and £55 million of licences to Saudi Arabia, including the very personnel carriers that were rolling into Bahrain just last week. Does he not agree that our position would be a lot more consistent and a lot more principled if we stopped selling arms to repressive regimes anywhere in that region?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, which we have discussed several times during statements and questions. We are having a proper review of not just arms exports, but training licences and other relations. Of the 118 single and open licences for Libya, we have revoked all licences that cover equipment of concern. However, I agree with the hon. Lady that there will be lessons to learn from the conflict for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this crucial debate. I also welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women in our armed forces, whose courage and commitment are beyond question. However, I think we owe it to them, and indeed to all in the middle east and north African region, to ensure that the role that Britain plays is beyond reproach or misunderstanding. That means that it must be consistent, that it must be principled, and that it must be likely to do good rather than harm. Measuring the military intervention that has taken place so far against those benchmarks, I am not sure that they are being met.

Let us take consistency. I have heard no serious answers to the charge that we are being enormously selective in the battles that we are choosing to fight. The Prime Minister has been asked whether military intervention in Libya signals a new direction for British foreign policy, and whether we might expect similar action to be taken against other oppressive regimes. Libya, we are told, is special. We are also told that the fact that we cannot do good everywhere should not be an argument against doing whatever we can. I consider it critical that if we choose to move in this direction, we should do so with clear principles that are as independent of self-interest as we can possibly make them. The fact that we are operating in the same week as invading Saudi forces are executing unarmed democracy protesters on the streets of Bahrain raises serious questions.

In considering whether our action is truly principled, we surely have to say why we think it appropriate to continue to sell arms to the region. I do not apologise for returning to that issue, because the Colonel Gaddafi who has been rightly described today as a murderous dictator has not suddenly become one. He was already a murderous dictator a few months, or weeks, ago, when we were happy to sell him tear gas, crowd control equipment, ammunition for wall and door-breaching projectile launchers, and plenty of other military equipment as well. In the nine months leading up to September last year, the United Kingdom issued millions of pounds’ worth of arms export licences for Libya, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

We cannot ignore our own complicity in arriving at this point. We cannot continue to arm regimes that abuse their own citizens, and try to claim the moral high ground when addressing the conflicts that those same arms have helped to perpetuate. As recently as last month, Ministers attended the IDEX—international defence exhibition—arms fairs in Abu Dhabi, and in less than six months the United Kingdom will host its own arms fair in London, where, no doubt, regimes that abuse their own people will once again seek to buy the tools of their repression. I hope very much that the commitment that we are hearing today—the commitment to upholding human rights in the middle east—will extend to our policies on arms exports, so that we can finally not just review but end the policy of selling arms to repressive regimes.

We need to ensure that intervention has a better chance of doing good than of doing harm. The motion asks the House to support the Government

“in the taking of all necessary measures”.

Like United Nations Security Council resolution 1973, it commits us to a course of action that is dangerously open-ended. It does not define success, unless it is the over-simplistic success of removing Gaddafi, but if that is our measure we risk simply repeating the errors of our recent history. UN resolution 1973 does not appear to rule out the use of ground forces in support of the rebels or in helping to protect civilians. That is a fairly wide definition. Earlier in the debate, we heard an interpretation of the resolution that suggested it provided for the arming of rebels as well. It is extremely over-optimistic to expect an air campaign to be decisive; hence, presumably, the scope to escalate any campaign further. I believe that could be fatal to the chances of an early peace and I am deeply concerned about the falling away of support so early in this mission. I refer not only to the secretary-general of the Arab League, but to the fact that Egypt and Algeria do not want to be involved in this action, that the US does not want to lead on it and that France’s speed of action seems to suggest that President Sarkozy is motivated at least in part by his domestic concerns.

There is a real risk of our making matters worse. If there is a stalemate—if Gaddafi does not fall in the next few weeks—we could face a civil war, a partitioned Libya and even a potential breeding ground for al-Qaeda. Given the west’s colonial past, its history of adventurism and support for dictatorships in the region, its failure to enforce UN resolutions in Palestine and the legacy of the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I think its motives in Libya will always be in doubt. The Prime Minister himself said a few days ago that a no-fly zone was not a simple solution but one of a series of steps needed to make sure that we

“get rid of this regime.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 291.]

How can that be that be read as being anything other than, in effect, support for regime change, which falls well outside the terms of the UN resolution?

I hope that in the Government’s summing up there will be further clarification of the inconsistencies between what is in the UN resolution and what is in the Government’s motion. I hope that they will review their trade and foreign policy through the screen of a genuinely ethical foreign policy and I hope that we can support the urgent convening of a middle east peace conference.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. He is absolutely right. However, I must confess to the Committee that Prime Ministers rarely said that to me personally, because I was too ludicrously loyal. Almost before the Prime Minister had even thought that a vote might be difficult, I had already decided I would be supportive. In fact, I rarely got to see the Prime Minister for that very reason. I would therefore advise Government Members that if they want to see the Prime Minister on a regular basis, they should start wondering whether they will support Government provisions. However, the serious point is that the freedom of individual Back Benchers will be tethered, because they will constantly be persuaded by the argument, “You don’t want a general election, do you? You must support this piece of legislation, because otherwise I’m going to call it a motion of no confidence.”

The second reason touches on an important element, on which the Minister got into difficult waters—I know that he does not think that he did, but others of us do, and I think that the courts will feel that too. He said that it would be for the Speaker to decide and to announce before any debate what counts as a motion of confidence or, presumably, a motion of no confidence. A minor point is whether a motion of confidence will count as a motion of no confidence if it is not carried. In the past it has, but I am not sure whether the Government intend that.

It would be wholly inappropriate for the Chair to say at the beginning of, for example, a Budget debate that if the House does not carry the Budget and if the Finance Bill falls on Second Reading or Third Reading that would be a motion of confidence in the Government, so he would issue a certificate. The Minister was sighing but is now smiling, and we prefer the smiling. I accept that in that example I am imagining what might happen, but I am more concerned what would happen if hon. Members chose to ask the Speaker whether a motion of censure counted as a motion of confidence. As I understand it, the Minister is saying that the Speaker would be required to adjudicate on whether it was a motion of no confidence. That would be wholly inappropriate, particularly at a time of political uncertainty and high drama, because the Speaker would lose his or her impartiality and be drawn into the political mêlée, and that would be wrong.

Amendment 5 would remove the two-week provision for a new Government to be formed on the basis of a confidence motion. We may have to return to some of these issues on Report, and I would be grateful if the Minister will clarify whether, if that second motion fell, there could then be a subsequent two weeks. We quite like the provision for two weeks—it seems sensible if an alternative coalition or Government could be formed. I see some hon. Members casting a wry glance as though I am eyeing up the Liberal Democrats. We are not getting on very well with the Liberal Democrats at the moment, so I do not think he needs to worry about that, but obviously if the offer is on the table, we will take it.

Amendment 22 is a minor one, and I would be interested in the Government’s view. The clause refers to the provision of 14 days being allowed after a motion of no confidence. We have suggested that it should be 10 working days simply because all other references in the Bill are to working days. I suppose it is possible that the period could coincide with a royal wedding, a day of thanksgiving, a bank holiday, Easter or Christmas, and it would seem to be sensible to specify working days instead of days.

However, we have not moved to the suggestion in other Committees of 10 sitting days, because if the House were adjourned, there would be a specific problem. I hope that the Minister will say what he thinks should happen if the House had been adjourned for a recess—for example, the day after a motion of no confidence. Should there be a requirement for the Government to bring the House back, and should there be a specific provision for the Speaker to be able to require the House to be recalled within the two weeks? We will come to Prorogation later.

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

On a point of order, Mr Amess. Have you have received any indication from the Home Secretary that she might be coming to the House tonight to make a statement on whether she believes that police tactics outside the House are proportionate? Many hundreds of students and schoolchildren have been kettled for more than four hours and, according to the police, will be out there for several more hours in the freezing cold. Whatever one thinks about the student protest, holding people against their will for no reason is neither proportionate nor effective.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr David Amess)]

The whole House has heard what the hon. Lady has said, particularly those on the Treasury Bench, but that is not a point of order.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for taking part in this. I want the vice-chief of the defence staff, General Nick Houghton, to lead it, and I think that my hon. Friend should be the deputy. General Lamb, who has served our country outstandingly in Iraq and Afghanistan and was taken on personally by the Americans in Afghanistan because of the great work he has done, has also agreed to serve. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) is one of the many people in the House who has served in the reserve forces, but I am afraid that he will not be free to do this. I once suffered a capability gap when he went to Iraq during the last Parliament in the rather hard-to-explain role of liaising with the Italian forces—something I know everyone thinks he is uniquely qualified to do.

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

Given that a nuclear attack on the UK by another state was judged by yesterday’s national security strategy to be of “low likelihood” and in the light of the formal exclusion of Trident from the strategic defence and security review, will the Prime Minister use the delay in the Trident main gate decision to allow a full public review of the necessity of nuclear weapons?

[The Prime Minister]

I think that there will be a continuing debate in this country about nuclear deterrence. I have been through the arguments in my own mind a thousand times, and I always come up with the same answer, which is that, in an uncertain, unsafe and dangerous world, with countries like Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon, it would be a profound mistake for Britain to discard her nuclear weapon. But this debate can always take place in this House. I think that my party has a very settled view on it, and the White Paper safeguards that, but it is for others to make up their own minds.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2010 Commons Chamber

21:57

Division 67

Ayes: 264

---

Labour: 234
Conservative: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 6
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 3
Plaid Cymru: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 326

---

Conservative: 270
Liberal Democrat: 54
Labour: 1

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

I beg to move amendment 7, page 1, leave out from line 7 to end of line 4 on page 2 and insert—

‘(3) The questions that are to appear on the ballot paper are—

“(1) Do you want to change the current “first past the post” system for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons?

(2) If there were a change, list your order of preference, 1, 2, 3, for the United Kingdom to adopt:

(a) The ‘alternative vote’ system,

(b) The ‘additional member’ system, or

(c) The ‘single transferable vote’ system with multi-member constituencies?”.

(4) In Wales, a Welsh version of the question is also to appear on the ballot papers.

(5) The voting for the second question in the referendum shall be in accordance with section (Counting of votes on second question of referendum).’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 230.

Amendment 140, page 1, leave out lines 8 to 11 and insert—

‘Rank your preference for the system for electing members to the House of Commons (a) Alternative Vote (b) First Past The Post (c) The Single Transferable Vote.’.



Amendment 204, page 1, line 9, after ‘vote’, insert ‘plus’.

Government amendment 231.

Amendment 141, page 2, line leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—

‘Graddiwch pa gyfundrefn o ethol aelodau i Ty’r Cyffredin sydd well gennych chi. (a) Pleidlais Amgen (b) Cyntaf i’r Felin (c) Pleidlais Sengl Drosglwyddadwy.’.

Amendment 205, page 2, line 2, after ‘amgen’, insert ‘plws’.

Amendment 142, page 2, line 4, at end insert—

‘(4) In Scotland, the following Gaelic version of the question is also on ballot papers—

Rangaich do roghainn a thaobh an t-siostaim taghaidh buill gu Taigh nan Cumantan? (a) Bhòt Eadar-roghnach (b) A’Chiad Bhuannaiche (c) Bhòt Mhalairteach Shingilte.’.

Amendment 14, in schedule 1, page 15, line 30 leave out

‘in favour of each answer to the question’

and insert

‘in answer to the questions’.

Amendment 15, page 19, line 24, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 16, in schedule 2, page 26, line 39, leave out ‘question’ and insert ‘questions’.

Amendment 17, line 17, leave out ‘answer’ and insert ‘answers’.

Amendment 18, page 32, line 16, after ‘only’, insert

‘in relation to each question’.

Amendment 19, page 47, line 22, leave out ‘to the referendum question’ and insert

‘either or both of the referendum questions’.

Amendment 143, page 54, leave out lines 7 to 16 and insert

‘In England the ballot shall be as follows:

[Caroline Lucas]

I am pleased to move the amendment that stands in my name and those of the hon. Members for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell). I welcome the fact that the Committee is at long last debating the possibility of a referendum on electoral reform, but it is crucial that the public choose the voting system, not the politicians. We do not often have referendums in this country, and now that we are planning to have one, the least that we can do is give people a real choice on their ballot papers. It is hugely disappointing that AV is the only alternative to first past the post in the Bill. As a result, the Bill fails to live up to the promise of genuine reform and of re-engaging people with the political process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Alan Beith]

I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady’s amendment and the argument that she is putting forward. However, before she starts to attack the coalition, she must surely recognise that there is no possible coalition of parties that we could join in carrying through the present House of Commons a referendum that would allow people the choice of the single transferable vote, desirable though that would be, and her one-Member party in this House certainly cannot achieve that objective.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but perhaps I am more optimistic than he is. I hope that the power of argument might just wake up our fellow Members.

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are doing is repairing the damage done by the gutlessness of the Liberal Democrats? They did not have the guts or the integrity to include in the referendum a question on a system of proportional representation, which they always purported to believe in. We are allowing the people to speak out.

[Caroline Lucas]

Many millions of people in this country will be looking at what some Members do in the Committee this evening, and they will be looking with a degree of perplexity, given that what we hear many Members might do runs counter to what was in their manifestos.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very generous. If there was a groundswell of popular support for the single transferable vote, surely the Liberal Democrats, just after the election but before they entered the coalition Government, would have been able to persuade the Labour party to push through primary legislation to deliver the single transferable vote. However, that was not possible because, quite frankly, the single transferable vote is not generally supported by the voting public of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but in fact there are plenty of opinion polls, conducted by the Electoral Commission and others, that show that there is a majority for electoral reform in this country. We are not saying that that necessarily means STV; we are saying that we should let the people decide. It is not right that politicians in this House should basically stitch up the question and then try to present people with a Hobson’s choice between two things, neither of which, as we know, people prefer.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

Given that it is not every day of the week—indeed, it is not every year—that we send out millions of ballot papers to millions of homes asking people to decide whether they want to change the electoral system, does my hon. Friend not agree that the least that we can do is allow them a proper choice, from the full spectrum, regardless of our personal preferences? Rather than confronting them with the politicians’ choice, we should allow them a full range of options.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. In a way, it is pretty arrogant for Members to assume that the population do not have a view and cannot make a sensible choice. Are we really saying that first past the post is such a strong and popular system that it justifies such a narrow question? Recent history suggests that it is not. It is no accident that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, not one of the eastern or central European countries emerging from years of totalitarian rule chose the Westminster model. Similarly, is AV really the only system that we should consider if we want to change?

I acknowledge that the alternative vote system has a number of advantages over first past the post and that, in some respects, it represents a small step forward. The Electoral Reform Society has conducted a thorough analysis of AV, and I share its assessment that there are some positives. Those positives include the ability of voters to record a sincere first preference, thus reducing the need for tactical voting; the widening of the political choice available to the elector; and the disincentives that the system offers for parties to pursue core vote strategies that ignore the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Lady agree that AV, which the Liberal Democrats have accepted and which they imagine to be a halfway house between first past the post and STV, is not a halfway house at all? I contend that it does not go even a quarter of the way towards STV—probably not even a tenth or a twentieth or a fiftieth of the way. It probably does not go even 1% of the way towards STV. The Liberals have been bought off more than cheaply.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree. The alternative vote represents a small step forward, but we should be very clear that it is not a proportional system. We owe it to the electorate to put before them a choice that includes a genuinely proportional system. The debate is wider than whether we should choose AV or first past the post. The relative merits of AV as against first past the post cannot be said to cover all the arguments in a modern debate about real electoral reform.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The hon. Lady is making a constructive contribution, but she must face the fact that, if she were successful in carrying her amendment, there would not then be a majority in the House in favour of a referendum at all. That is surely not an outcome that she would want.

[Caroline Lucas]

I find that incredibly disappointing and defeatist—[Interruption.] Well, it might be said that, had the terms of the coalition agreement been different, and had different priorities been at the top of the list, we might not have found ourselves in this situation. I believe that the role of politicians in this House is to do what we believe to be right, and I believe that it is right to give people this choice. That is what will be respected by the electorate.

[Mr Carswell]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that there is something rather bizarre about the position of the Liberal Democrats? They have been arguing for STV for as long as anyone can remember, but, in order to cook up a coalition, they have abandoned their reformist credentials and are now happy to settle for something that is not even their preferred option.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree, and I very much hope that Liberal Democrat Members will follow us through the Lobby to support this amendment. Even if we do not win the vote tonight, this could become a self-fulfilling prophesy. If some Members are not willing to put their bodies where their mouths are, and are not prepared to fulfil the promises in their manifesto, we cannot be surprised that people lose faith in the political process. This amendment is about restoring faith in the political process; it is about trusting the electorate and delivering on promises to treat them a bit better.

My primary concern as we consider the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill is that it is the public who should choose our voting system, not the politicians. That ought to be a principle around which we can all agree. We can argue about whether to adopt AV-plus, first past the post, the single transferable vote or the additional Member system, but the principle should be that it is for the people to decide.

[Mr Jackson]

Does not the real-world experience of the single transferable vote system show that deals are made by politicians in smoke-filled rooms after elections, after the people have had the opportunity to make their choices? One has only to look at the anecdotal evidence from such systems across the world to see that, in reality, the ordinary voter, having cast their ballot, is shut out from the business of governance. That is the result of the STV system.

[Caroline Lucas]

That is an argument against STV, but I keep stressing that what we are talking about is the right of the public to choose the system. When they have that right, we can have the debate about whether STV does or does not lead to decisions being made in smoke-filled rooms. The hon. Gentleman’s assertion is rather ironic. He is concerned about what goes on in smoke-filled rooms, and perhaps he does not want the public to make any decisions on this. He does not want the fresh air of public opinion to be waved over our debate tonight, but that is exactly what should happen. That is why the public should decide.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that, if we are going to spend £100,000 at a time when money is short, we should at least give the British people a full choice of options, rather than a limited one? That would represent better value for money. People have already had the opportunity to vote for a referendum on AV, when the Labour party put that proposal before them at the election. Sadly, we did not win the election, and there is no groundswell of support for a referendum on AV.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree. It is also important that we do not underestimate the public. Some say that voters cannot understand the different voting systems, but that is a very patronising position and does not bear scrutiny. Voters regularly manage to make the best of first past the post, for example, despite the fact that it fails to deliver seats that reflect the votes cast.

All the systems that appear in the question we suggest should be on the ballot paper have advantages and drawbacks, but none are so mind-bending that the public cannot be trusted to debate and, crucially, choose between them. We need to inject some health and optimism back into our political system, and we can do that if we give people the chance to have a real debate and a real choice. It should not be about whether or not there is sufficient agreement in this House for putting it to the public; it should be absolutely automatic that the public have the right to choose.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

If the Tories and their allies were interested in genuine reform, would they not have produced a draft constitutional reform Bill? We could all have discussed it and consulted the public on it. Is not the reality that this is a shabby political deal between the Tories and their allies on the Government Benches to fix political advantage? The only party that knows it would benefit from an alternative vote system is the Liberal Democrat party

[Caroline Lucas]

Unfortunately, I think that the hon. Member is right that this was a shabby political deal done in the very smoke-filled rooms that the coalition complain about.

Our political system is sick, I argue, and getting this question right provides the only road to real recovery. The system is sick because swing voters in just a tiny number of seats effectively decide who is going to run this country. It has resulted in the targeting of funding at marginal constituencies and voters in most other parts of the country being sidelined, if not ignored.

[Mr Carswell]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. Does she agree that if the amendment were accepted and people could vote for a single transferable vote system with multi-member constituencies, they would effectively be returning to the Disraelian idea of three-Member boroughs, which is a profoundly Conservative idea?

[Caroline Lucas]

Well, I thank the hon. Member, but I perhaps agree with that slightly less than with some of his other more constructive interventions.

Let me return to my final point, which is about more than what kind of voting system we select, as it is about reconnecting with the public. It is not long ago that we went through the expenses scandal and gained the sense that people were very disillusioned with this House and wanted MPs to clean up politics—whatever their preference of voting system. That is why I hope colleagues will support this amendment to depoliticise the question and give voters the option to express their real views on what electoral system we should have.

Parliament came to seen with contempt by many, because it was seen to be acting in its own interests and not those of the people whom it was supposed to serve. If this amendment is rejected, people will reach the same conclusion once again—that Parliament is acting in its own interests rather than trusting the public to make a decision. A stitched-up referendum that denies people a real choice smacks of the old politics. Tonight we have an opportunity to create a healthy system, based on respect for the electorate and the creation of a real debate on a real question. I urge hon. Members to support amendment 7.

[Mr Harper]

I want to speak to Government amendments 230, 231 and 232, which relate to the question, and I note that similar provisions were tabled by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, so their names have been added to the Government amendments. For every referendum held under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to consider the wording of the proposed referendum question and to publish a statement of its views on its intelligibility. Where the question is contained in a Bill, this duty is triggered when the Bill is introduced and the report has to be submitted as soon as reasonably practicable after that. The commission completed the process for the referendum on the current voting system on 30 September.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I am very interested in my right hon. Friend’s views. Having a great deal of respect for the Welsh language, and being frank about my inability to speak it, I did not want to abuse it by reading out the Welsh version of the question. I did not intend to do that, and I am not going to do so. I have taken the precaution of talking to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales. He is a Welsh speaker, and he has consulted a number of colleagues. We do not think there is a problem with the language. The Electoral Commission did highlight one potential problem to do with the yes/no question and words such as “should” and “should not” in Welsh. It felt that there was a risk but that, on balance, this was an improvement. We have taken its analysis on board and we have accepted its drafting rather than changing it, because if we were to change it we would have to go through another process of assessing the accessibility.

The Government consider that the new version is no less neutral than the previous one. We do not think it alters in any way the choice that the question puts to the public, but we do think it is clearer and easier to understand, which is why we have accepted it. Our amendments therefore insert the new question into clause 1 in English and Welsh, and it is replicated in English only in the form of the ballot paper, which is addressed in schedule 2. This is supported by members of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and I hope the House will support it as well.

Let me make a point about amendment 7, to which the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) spoke. It refers back to the point to which the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) drew attention. They were both right that many Liberal Democrat colleagues support either the single transferable vote or some other form of proportional system, whereas most Conservative party colleagues do not. The nature of a coalition Government is that we have to reach a compromise, however, and the compromise we have reached is that Conservatives have agreed to put the choice to the public and Liberal Democrats have had to accept that although they have a vote on a system that they prefer to first past the post, that is not everything they would have hoped for. It has been rightly said that there is not a majority in this House in favour of putting a referendum question to the public on proportional representation, and I think Liberal Democrat colleagues have been entirely sensible in reaching a compromise—as, I think, have Conservative colleagues as well. We on the Government Benches are clear that we want to put this question to the public. I agree with the hon. Lady that the public, not politicians, should choose the voting system. We are going to give that choice to the public and see whether they want to stick with the existing system or change it.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not quite understand how the Minister can say he is happy for the public to make the decision at the same time as closing down the very options that the public will make that decision on. I think that, again, we have to say that this is about trusting the public. It is not about what the Government or the Lib Dems want, or what any individual Members want. It is about giving the public the right to choose.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Lady has chosen a selection of things to put in front of the public in her amendment; it is just a different choice from that proposed by the Government. It is no more or less the choice of the public, however. Unless we were to have a ballot paper that listed every single possible electoral system in the entire universe that has ever been thought of, it will always, to some extent, be a choice designed by politicians.

[Caroline Lucas]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

Let me just finish responding to the previous intervention. Those on this side of the House have made a judgment, we are going to put that question to the public, and members of the coalition parties will then campaign vigorously. I think I have detected that Opposition Members too will be on both sides of the debate. We will have that battle and the public will make a decision.

[Caroline Lucas]

I just wish to explain that the options we have proposed for the ballot paper are not ones that we picked out of a hat at random. We were trying to create a set of questions that were most likely to be acceptable to the House by, for example, including both AV, because that was what was in the original question, and those existing electoral systems already used in some form or another in the United Kingdom. We were not proposing a random set of choices. Of course we cannot give 100 different options, but we can propose those voting systems that people in this country are more or less familiar with, perhaps because they have voted for the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. There is a rationale behind what we are doing, and this is not a random set of options.

[Mr Harper]

It sounds as if the hon. Lady and those on the Government Benches are doing the same thing; we are putting to the House amendments that we think will get support. If she wishes to test hers and we test ours, we will see which of us has made the right judgment about which will get the support of the majority of Members in this House.

Superannuation Bill

Caroline Lucas Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2010 Commons Chamber

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

I too shall be brief, because I know that time is short, and one way in which I can be brief is by associating myself with the eloquent remarks of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who is no longer in his place.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak, as more constituents have written to me to express concern about changes to the civil service compensation scheme than have written to me about any other issue since I was elected in May, so I am very keen to ensure that they are properly represented here today. There is a palpable sense of anger and disillusionment among public servants, and a real feeling that they are being made to pay for an economic crisis that was not of their making.

My constituency in Brighton is home to a large number of civil servants. Under their current compensation scheme, they have accrued rights that will simply be scrapped—torn up and thrown away—by the Government’s proposals, despite the court ruling that a failure to recognise accrued rights is unlawful, and that any amendments to the civil service compensation scheme must be made on the basis of agreement by all the relevant unions.

Morale in the civil service is at an all-time low. One Brighton Pavilion resident who came to see me in my constituency a few weeks ago put it like this:

“Many civil servants will, like me, have planned their finances on the basis that their jobs were reasonably secure and that if they did become surplus to requirements they could rely on a particular level of compensation. I have not, for example, taken out any insurance against not being able to continue to pay my mortgage through loss of employment. The government’s plans for deficit reduction mean that civil service job security is now very questionable, whilst the Bill puts paid to the second part of my planning assumption. I feel unsettled and vulnerable at this unilateral change in what I had thought was the deal with my employer.”

From his words we get a clear sense of a bargain being broken, of a contract being unilaterally torn up and of people being treated as if they were expendable, which is particularly hurtful to many civil servants who have given many years of loyal service. His words also highlight the anxiety and uncertainty that permeates the civil service, particularly those who face a future in which they might not be able to work again.

As many have said in today’s debate, the lowest paid will suffer most, and there are many of them. The Minister for the Cabinet Office himself acknowledged that

“large numbers of civil servants are not very well paid—half of them earn £21,000 a year or less”.—[Official Report, 14 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 932.]

Yet the scheme before us offers them no protection, and that is the key problem. Its proposals are fundamentally unfair and unjustifiable.

I should like to discuss the context of these changes, because the public sector already faces unprecedented uncertainty in the form of cuts and redundancies under the coalition’s policy of deepening and accelerating the previous Government’s cuts programme. Surely the very least that the public sector can expect is to be given a proper voice in negotiations and the chance to agree a fair settlement.

As with so many of the swingeing cuts on the table, there is a perception that the planned changes to the civil service compensation scheme are not just about saving money; they are also seen by many as an attack designed to weaken the public sector—the same public sector that, for now at any rate, is the backbone of our education system and health service. It also includes civil servants who keep up and running services such as Brighton county court family centre, the Brighton and Hove learning partnership and the city’s benefits service.

I end by pondering the irony of the fact that so many of the civil servants who will be adversely affected by the planned changes to the compensation scheme and to jobs, and by the service cuts, actually work for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Surely it would be much fairer to help reduce the national deficit by keeping those HMRC workers in their jobs and enabling them to collect and crack down on the £100 billion a year in unpaid and dodged taxes—tax evasion and tax avoidance. That would save public sector jobs and protect working conditions in the process.

In the meantime, it is clear tonight that many of us are not prepared to stand by and see the vast majority of the civil service pay disproportionately for the economic crisis. That is why I shall vote against the Bill.