Strengthening Community Resilience
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(3 days, 1 hour ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and join him in sending my condolences to the families of the two men who lost their lives in the storms over the weekend.
We welcome measures to address the resilience gap—a process that started under the previous Government, as the Minister said. I am a little surprised that the Housing Secretary’s suggestion of stockpiling sauvignon blanc has not been taken on board by the Minister, but it is absolutely right that the Government tell people to be prepared for adversity. However, I have a number of questions that I hope he will be able to address this afternoon. First, the Government’s Be Ready campaign website lists 18 hazards, ranging from terrorism and adverse weather to animal and plant health and fires in the home. Which of those 18 hazards do the Government consider to be the highest risk, and have there been any recent changes to risk assessments that led to the launch of this campaign?
Secondly, how do the Government plan to reach people who are digitally excluded, and will they be distributing printed resources? Not only are such resources vital for those who are digitally excluded, they could become a lifeline for anyone who is unable to access the internet at the time of an incident. In his statement, the Minister rightly pointed out that only 13% of people in the UK feel they are prepared for an emergency. This is in stark contrast to other countries, such as Spain, where I believe the figure is just below 70%. Can the Minister tell the House whether he has a specific take-up figure that he would like to achieve by the end of the Be Ready campaign?
I now come to the issue of costs. We all know that times are tough for people right across the country, so how much do the Government expect this preparedness to cost the average family, and how much do they expect to spend on this campaign over the next three years? It has been reported that since the Government announced the campaign last week, supermarkets have seen water and baked beans sell out, as well as a run on wind-up radios and torches. Did the Government communicate with major supermarkets and other retailers to prepare them before they made this announcement, or was it just dropped on them?
With reference to emergency response coverage, the most important thing across the nation is that we have a joined-up approach, so that nobody is left behind. We cannot have a postcode lottery of an emergency response system, so can the Minister tell the House how he is working with the devolved Administrations across the four nations, and how he is working with local authorities? The Government became familiar with the emergency alert system over the summer after using it to warn people about disposable barbecues. Has the Minister reflected since then and made any assessment of the threshold for future use of the system, and of how many people may have turned off their emergency alert capability following its use in August?
Next, I would like to address vulnerable people, and what consideration the Government have made of them in the Be Ready campaign. How will the Government ensure that our vulnerable, our elderly, people with illness, parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and others are effectively communicated with and supported in a time of emergency? This cannot vary from place to place.
Turning to national security, the former Defence Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), said this week that the cyber-attack that caused £2.1 billion of damage to Jaguar Land Rover last year was a state-sponsored attack. First, Jaguar Land Rover deserves to know whether it was a state-sponsored attack, and I hope the Government have told it. Secondly, can the Government say whether there needs to be more awareness among businesses that they are at risk from these types of attacks, and what more are they doing to support our critical national infrastructure with cyber-resilience and cyber-security?
The Government have claimed that defence spending will reach 2.7% of GDP by the end of 2028. Considering the valuable work of our intelligence services, can the Minister confirm that the entire single intelligence account is included in that figure, and can he explain how this fits with the NATO definition of defence spending? Finally, the Government have refused to confirm whether improving broadband infrastructure is included in the classification of critical infrastructure for the purposes of reporting against the additional 1.5% NATO commitment. Can the Minister clarify today that improving broadband infrastructure does not contribute to the NATO spending commitment?
In conclusion, we welcome the continuation of the previous Conservative Government’s efforts to address the resilience gap. We will support the Government where appropriate, and look forward to scrutinising the Be Ready campaign as it progresses.
Dan Jarvis
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for the reasonable way in which he has presented quite a long list of questions today. I will endeavour to work my way through them in as systematic a way as I can; if I miss anything, though, I am happy to write to him or meet him to discuss this matter, not least because it is my intention that the work we do to make our nation more resilient is a shared endeavour across this House. I do not believe that it should be a matter of political disagreement. I think the measures we have brought forward are reasonable and common-sense ones, and I hope we can work together across this place to ensure our communities—our constituencies—are as resilient as possible, not least because that activity will contribute to our overall national resilience and national security as part of this work.
The hon. Member asked an entirely reasonable set of questions, which I will run through as best I can. At the outset, he asked whether the campaign is in response to a range of different risks. He will know about the Government’s risk register, and will have heard me say earlier that this campaign is not a consequence of any specific piece of intelligence or born out of any specific concern. He and the House will understand that at any one time, the Government are tracking a range of different threats to the United Kingdom, and this campaign will contribute—I think effectively—to our overall resilience. I think he will also understand that there is a lot of merit in making sure we prepare households and communities at a local level for the kinds of everyday emergencies we have spoken about today, and that there is a broader and wider utility in that preparedness when it comes to other risks that have been debated recently, even those that are much less likely.
The hon. Member made an important point about inclusion, particularly of people who are not online, and he is right to raise those concerns. Over the coming weeks and months, he will see a range of different activities under way to ensure we are able to reach every corner of the United Kingdom, including those who are offline. I mentioned the radio, but I am happy to think more about how we can ensure that nobody is unable to access this important messaging.
The hon. Member asked about the take-up figure. I said in my statement that I expected the campaign to run for three years, but I think it likely that messages of the kind that we are discussing today will continue in the longer term. The work that we are now launching in the United Kingdom is, in fact, done routinely in other parts of the world, and particularly with partners in Europe and Scandinavia. Such messaging is routine in most countries, and I anticipate that this sort of activity will take on a certain normality in the future.
The hon. Member asked me about the alert. The decision to launch any alert is taken very carefully, and we weigh up a range of different risks. Whenever an alert is launched there is an extensive process of review. We are working through the detail of the most recent alert, and I shall be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Member and with other Members.
The hon. Member was right to raise the need to ensure that the vulnerable and the elderly are properly accommodated in the context of the campaign. We have worked very hard with a range of stakeholder organisations, including local resilience forums, the voluntary sector and the British Red Cross, to ensure that vulnerable people are properly catered for. The hon. Member will have heard what I said earlier about the importance that we attach to people signing up for the priority services register. There is a job of work that I hope every Member will do, namely looking into their own communities and encouraging their constituents to engage with this messaging and specifically, when they think they might be eligible—the criterion is fairly broad—to sign up for the register.
The hon. Member rightly mentioned cost of living pressures. I hope that he heard what I said about there not being a requirement for households to assemble all these items in one go: this is the kind of thing that people can do progressively, perhaps adding a single item to each weekly shop. Although many households will probably already have many of the items on the checklist, I hope that, through the process of this campaign, they will think about how they can draw those individual items together and be better prepared should an everyday emergency strike. We are acutely conscious of the cost of living pressures on households throughout the country, and we are determined to ensure that the campaign is carried out in a value-for-money way. The actual costs are relatively low, and we think that it is very good value for money, but we will ensure that that is the case.
The hon. Member asked about cyber, an issue that I take extremely seriously, both in my remit as a Cabinet Office Minister and through the Home Office. As the hon. Member will know, earlier this year the Government published a landmark cyber action plan to overhaul public sector digital security. The next stage of that plan is the introduction of the national cyber action plan, which will drive up standards in businesses and the wider society. A great deal of activity is under way across Government, and I hope we can all get behind that collectively.
Finally, the hon. Member mentioned defence spending. I genuinely welcome this debate, because I think it important for our national security. As the Prime Minister has said, the Government’s commitment to the defence of our country is unwavering. We have already delivered the biggest sustained boost to defence spending since the cold war, committing nearly £300 billion over the next four years. We will honour our NATO commitment to spend 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035, and will specify a target date for 3% in the spending review. We are also delivering on our commitment to NATO by spending 1.5% of our GDP on wider security and resilience. That includes protecting our critical national infrastructure, defending our networks, ensuring our civil preparedness and resilience, and unleashing innovation and strengthening our defence industrial base.
Civil Service Pension Scheme
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to take part in this debate. I take the opportunity to formally welcome the Minister to her role. The turnout for the debate shows the strength of feeling of hon. Members of both sides of the House. I join them in expressing my deepest sympathies to the civil servants and families of civil servants who dedicated their lives to public service and who have been left without the pensions they earned throughout that service. Recent updates from the civil service pension recovery plan show that although progress has been made, thousands of families are still waiting for retirement quotes and pension payments. Of particular concern is the number of older cases involving bereavement, death in service and ill health that have yet to be resolved, as highlighted in the most recent updates. I trust that the Minister will use the opportunity of this debate to highlight what further steps the Government are taking to ensure that those cases are dealt with.
An adequate explanation from Ministers for why they allowed Capita’s contract to administer the civil service pension scheme to go ahead in the first place has been entirely absent. I know, and the Minister will no doubt point out, that the contract was signed in November 2023 under the last Government. The last Government agreed to a two-year transition period with clear milestones that Capita was required to meet to take over the administration of the scheme without causing disruption to service.
Graham Stuart
The mistake that the Government made was trying to transfer a complex system in disarray. Is the danger not that the Government now will take a system that is still in disarray and seek to transfer it again? It must be put right under Capita and then, at that point, a consideration can be made of its being brought back in house, not before.
Charlie Dewhirst
I could not agree more. It was under this Government’s watch that it became clear that many of the milestones were not being met, and Ministers failed to take the necessary action to ensure a smooth transition and prevent such disruption. That was certainly not through lack of warning, given that both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee published reports in the weeks and months before Capita was due to take over administration of the scheme highlighting a clear risk that it was not ready to do so. Ministers said they received personal assurances from Capita on its readiness to take over the scheme, and they have not said why they chose to believe those claims despite the findings of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee.
Will the Minister clarify who in her Department authorised the go/no-go decision in November 2025, clarify what criteria were used to make that decision, and commit to publishing all documents relating to that decision with only necessary commercial redactions?
Ministers have spoken at great length about potentially insourcing the civil service pension scheme in the future, but they appear far less willing to consider using powers that they already have at their disposal under the Procurement Act 2023 to address issues with suppliers.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
Does my hon. Friend agree that since the Government have got involved in this situation, the backlog has got worse? Does he think that they should prevent Capita taking on any more Government contracts until this is sorted out?
Charlie Dewhirst
I could not agree more, and I am about to come to that point. We have all seen our inboxes full of horror stories of individuals who have been caught up in this situation. I therefore ask the Minister specifically to confirm whether the Government will refer Capita to the Debarment Review Service, or does she intend to allow Capita to continue freely bidding for public contracts while the Government take months to complete their review of insourcing?
It is clear that the mishandling of the civil service pension scheme is the result of not only corporate failures on the part of Capita but the Government’s failure to manage the contract effectively. Ministers should reflect on the Government’s shortcomings in regard to that before outsourcing blame elsewhere. However, I am aware that the Minister took a keen interest in this subject from the Back Benches and I will work constructively with her to try to find a resolution to an issue facing many thousands of people up and down the country.
It is absolutely right that, while we try to understand how we got to this point, we must work more closely together to try to resolve it. That is in the interests of the civil servants and their families who have been so deeply impacted by this travesty. I therefore look forward to hearing what plans the Minister has to take this issue forward and resolve it as quickly as possible. I look forward to her response.
Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(4 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Darren Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows, because I have said it repeatedly at the Dispatch Box, that I take very seriously the role of Parliament holding the Government to account, in particular, as a former Select Committee Chair, the role of Select Committees as well as the statements and questions we make and answer on the Floor of the House. That is why I have gone to lengths to ensure that the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the Foreign Affairs Committee—the lead Committees on this—have been given as full and as transparent access to the process and the documents as I have been able to make available, and why I have secured additional time for Members to be able to ask further questions on Wednesday.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
On pages 115-116 in volume II, part I of the documents released today, there is an email from Olly Robbins dated 16 September 2025 in which he writes to another senior civil servant in Downing Street saying that he has still not yet seen “potentially crucial documents” in relation to the appointment of Peter Mandelson. That date is important: it is the same day that Chris Wormald, the former Cabinet Secretary, wrote to the Prime Minister saying that all “appropriate processes” had been followed in appointing Peter Mandelson. Can those two things be true? Can appropriate processes have been followed if Mr Robbins himself had not seen these “potentially crucial documents”?
Darren Jones
That is an important question, Mr Speaker, but a question I am unable to answer given I was not privy to those discussions at the time. Maybe if other Select Committees are able to ask questions in the future, they might put that to the relevant people.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Kanishka Narayan)
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Llywydd. Ministers from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology regularly meet representatives from science and technology communities. The UK has seized the moment on AI, quantum and semiconductors. We will keep building British sovereign strength, and alongside that, we will work with allies across the European Union.
Charlie Dewhirst
European tech leaders in some member states are concerned that the EU’s approach to digital regulation is strangling their ability to compete. Will the Minister rule out binding the UK tech industry to a legal framework that could stifle growth in this vital area of the economy?
Kanishka Narayan
The feedback from UK tech businesses has been clear: Britain’s share of European venture capital investment is at its highest for 16 years. IT and technology are driving productivity upwards, alongside capital from the British Business Bank and Sovereign AI. Of course, we will work on redoing what was done through the botched Brexit deal, but alongside that we will maintain British sovereign strength in technology and AI.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Ward
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Social value should be integral to the system, but the current system has become too tick-boxy and does not deliver what it needs to for local communities like those in Derby. We are working with businesses, unions and charities on a new definition. I am happy to speak with her further about it, but I think it is an important part of improving the system.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
If the Government are so confident in the Prime Minister’s decision to sack Sir Olly Robbins, will the Minister today rule out settling any employment tribunal in advance of a hearing or imposing any gagging orders on Mr Robbins?
Darren Jones
The House will understand that I am not at liberty to comment on a potential ongoing employment dispute.
Pension Schemes
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
First of all, I say to my hon. Friend’s constituent, Andrew, that I am very sorry to hear about the loss of Katy, and I thank them for their decades of important service to Border Force. In order to take this case forward, it would probably be sensible for my hon. Friend to share the details in a meeting with the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur). We would be delighted to facilitate that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Like colleagues from across the House, I have constituents—veterans and former public servants—who have been treated appallingly by Capita, and who have been unable to access the money that they paid in. The Minister previously promised a standardised mitigation letter that those individuals could take to lenders, so that they did not necessarily have to lend at a commercial rate. I appreciate that there is £7.2 million in interest-free loans as well. Has the Minister delivered on his promise of a standardised mitigation letter, and will he go further, if required, on the £7.2 million in interest-free loans?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, more than £7.2 million is available. I think the standardised mitigation letter was raised previously by another Member. I will certainly take that away and see what progress has been made.
Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill
Charlie Dewhirst ExcerptsTuesday 17th March 2026
(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Act 2026 View all Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for his powerful remarks. I hope he did not spend too many hours trawling through 16 years of emails, but it is yet another example of his hard work and diligence in this place. I sympathise with his points, but I hope he is comforted by the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) that a future Conservative Government will reduce the number of ministerial posts and reduce the size of Government.
As I am sure all Members would agree, it is only right that those who choose to serve the public as Ministers of the Crown should be able to receive a salary if they wish. Although the Government of the day must always be drawn from and ultimately accountable to the elected House of Commons, previous Governments of all stripes have benefited from the knowledge and wisdom provided by noble Lords who have served as Ministers or held one of the great offices of state. I am sure many Members will have had the privilege of working alongside them and know personally of their dedication and public service.
All those who serve as Ministers of the Crown, whether they be Members of this House or the other place, give up their time and energy and take on an extra burden of responsibilities in doing so, both relating to their departmental work and in representing the Government in the Chamber. It is only right, therefore, that Ministers should receive equal payment regardless of the House in which they sit. It should also be noted that the impetus for ensuring that all those who serve as Ministers of the Crown can receive a salary came from the other place, which debated this issue at length during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Although it remains a great disappointment that the Government chose to proceed with that misguided piece of legislation, at least some comfort can be taken from the fact that this debate emerged from that Bill.
In particular, I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who so eloquently made the case for ensuring all Lords Ministers can receive a salary in the other place, and who laid amendments to the hereditary peers Bill to that end. While it remains disappointing that the Government did not support the Opposition’s amendments when they had the opportunity to do so, those Lords who have been calling for this change can take comfort in knowing that their efforts were not in vain. It is also further proof of the quality of debate in the other place, and the importance of its constitutional role in strengthening our laws through scrutiny, that we should be debating this Bill because of their efforts.
To conclude, peers with the experience and expertise to serve as Ministers should not be prevented from doing so due to a lack of private means. I therefore join my hon. Friends in not opposing this Bill.
Member Defections: Automatic By-elections
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this debate on automatic by-elections following Member defections. I thank everybody across the country who has signed the petition. I have brought with me a list of every MP who has ever defected. Given the lack of a time constraint, we could go through it, but I would prefer to concentrate on the arguments.
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on introducing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made an excellent contribution with some very powerful arguments indeed, made all the more persuasive by the fact that he is a much-loved local Member of Parliament. He has as much personal support as party support, and has defied political gravity in recent times. I absolutely sympathise with and understand a lot of the arguments he makes. I will outline an alternative viewpoint that relates not necessarily to principle, but to practicality and the challenges that may arise if a change of law were brought in to deal with the ongoing issue of Members choosing to change from one party to another.
I fully sympathise with the frustration that many voters feel when their Member of Parliament chooses to defect to another party. At a time when our country faces many pressing challenges, it is easy to understand why many people feel as though their representatives, if they defect, are choosing party politics over real-life concerns. I would not deny the reality that many voters choose their candidate in an election with party labels in mind. We should not be arrogant enough to assume that everyone voted for us as individuals, regardless of our party alignment. Despite my hon. Friend’s popularity, it is absolutely party alignments, labels and manifestoes that persuade people at general elections. We can do our best to be great servants to those we seek to represent, but much of the time that decision is made on a wider, more national position.
Like most Members, I am proud to work alongside like-minded individuals who share my core beliefs about how we can change our country for the better. Political parties have been an established part of our system for more than three centuries, and they have an irreplicable role in ensuring that the business of government and opposition can work effectively.
John Grobham Howe is said to be the first MP to have defected when, in 1698, he switched allegiance from the Whigs to the Tories, so the discussion today is certainly not about a new phenomenon. It is ultimately only Members themselves who can know their motivations for choosing to leave their existing party. I know that many Members would consider it entirely dishonourable to do so without seeking a mandate from their constituents, and I fully understand why many think that allowing a by-election to take place after defecting is very much the right thing to do. However, making that an automatic requirement could have unintended consequences that would only undermine Members’ standing as elected representatives of the people.
We who serve in this House do so as representatives of our constituents above all else, regardless of which party we represent. We are elected to do what we think is in the best interests of our constituents, above all other considerations. If a Member chooses to defect, that should be because they have judged, rightly or wrongly, that doing so is in the best interests of their constituents. Their constituents are, of course, free to disagree with that judgment, and may well choose to elect a representative of a different party at a later election. However, if we wish to uphold the principles that have made our political system one of the most enduring in the world, Members must be deemed fit to serve as representatives on the basis of their record of serving their constituents’ interests, and not simply on the basis of their party label.
Robbie Moore
I hope that I am not going to lose the Whip by taking a slightly different view from what seems to be my party’s position. Why would an individual not stand as an independent, if he or she had the confidence of getting elected? Surely there is a huge advantage in standing under the brand of a political party, because that inevitably brings a good element of the voter base to that individual. Will my hon. Friend expand on the difference between standing as an independent and standing as a member of a political party?
Charlie Dewhirst
Absolutely. There is a real challenge here, and I agree with the point that my hon. Friend made earlier. Leaving one political party in the House of Commons and joining a distinct grouping is one thing, but independence is a challenge, as I saw on local level when I was a councillor: some councillors were in the independent group, but there were also independent independents. The independent group had, in many ways, a political agenda, and started to work around that. If we were to bring in legislation, defining true independence could become quite challenging. Members may start to work together around certain political issues, and form a political direction, which would actually make them no different from any other small party in the House of Commons.
I am sympathetic to the point, and the challenges around situations that may lead an individual from being party aligned to going independent are varied, but although I agree with the principle, we are concerned with the practicality. On issues such as this, the Conservative party has always been a broad church, so I am sure my hon. Friend and I can agree to disagree today. I do not think that there is any question of his being called into our Whips Office straight after the debate; it would certainly be very unfair if he were.
That the voters choose an individual to be their sole representative is one of the greatest strengths of our constitution, ensuring a direct link between Members and their constituents. I take issue with the views of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on PR, which would break the link between local people and an individual. It would almost make this entire debate irrelevant. How would we have a by-election if someone defected? Would the entire country vote in the by-election, to make sure that it is truly proportionally representative? That would not work. I have always been a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, which I believe is the best way to get representation of the people in this country. We put this matter to the test in a referendum not that long ago, and people made their views very clear.
Lisa Smart
We have not discussed PR sufficiently this afternoon. Does the hon. Member accept that there are different voting systems of a proportionate nature, some of which retain the constituency link?
Charlie Dewhirst
I absolutely accept that there are many different voting systems that one could employ. Those with a mix between a party list and a constituency list create a two-tier system. What if one of the individuals on the party list were to defect? How would that be resolved? It would create a system even more challenging than the one we already have, which has a direct link between local people and their representative in the House of Commons.
One of my concerns is that making the continuation of that representation conditional on membership of a political party might start to weaken that link, which is a strength of the first-past-the-post system, but there is also the question of how it would be dealt with under the varied systems that we have across the range of PR options. Making representation conditional in that way would reduce Members to delegates of their party rather than individuals chosen to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for—a point that is hugely important to us all. As we have discussed, the threat of a by-election could be used to silence Members who feel compelled by their conscience to go against their party.
As I just underlined, that is where the challenge about how to legally define an independent comes in. I am very sympathetic to the point that those who go independent should not face a by-election, but those who move from one established party to another should. The danger is that introducing mandatory by-elections would encourage Members to favour loyalty to the party over serving the interests of their constituents, particularly if they believed that those two things were in conflict.
Of course, defection is only one means by which a Member can change their party allegiance. While the petition speaks only of defection to another party, there are other methods: resignation, the withdrawal of the Whip, parties’ restructuring and so on are all means by which a Member may choose no longer to represent the party for which they were originally elected. I am sure that no Member believes that every Liberal Democrat should have been forced to stand in a by-election when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged.
This is not the first time that the House has considered the issue of Members changing political allegiance. Previous Governments and Parliaments have wrestled with how to reconcile the independence of Members with the expectations of modern party politics, and in each instance they concluded that the independence of Parliament and its Members should not be constrained through major constitutional change.
Graham Stringer
I am rather surprised that nobody has mentioned that there is a constitutional precedent for by-elections when situations change. It used to be the case that when Members were appointed to the Cabinet, they had to face a by-election. In my city, Manchester, there was a famous by-election when Winston Churchill had to stand again, and he lost. I think that was just before the first world war. Then, a change of circumstances meant a by-election. It is a very serious change of circumstances if somebody changes political parties. I am interested in the hon. Gentleman’s view on that constitutional precedent.
Charlie Dewhirst
Things have changed over time, and I dread to think how many by-elections we might have had in recent years had we needed one every time someone was appointed to the Cabinet. I suspect that would have cost the public purse something quite significant. In the period of which the hon. Member speaks, there was a slower churn of those in the Cabinet, and there was not quite the political turmoil that we have seen in recent years, which would make such a situation challenging. It is a fair point, though, because the change of circumstance in that situation is far less than the change of circumstance of moving from one party to another.
As I have said, it is not the principle of the issue that concerns me, but the practicality. If Parliament did introduce legislation, it would have to be absolutely spot on and watertight, to ensure that it did not degrade the link between individual Members of Parliament and their constituencies, and that the party system did not become more empowered through any such change. That is my principal concern.
Our constitution and political system have drawn their strength from the respect we have for tried and tested convention, and we must always be wary of the danger of rushed constitutional change and unintended consequences. We need only to look at the recent past to see how previous attempts to enforce rigidity within our system have failed. Most notably, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which was seen as an important tool during the coalition Government, ultimately was viewed to have failed and was rightly repealed during the last Parliament.
The independence of Parliament and of an individually elected representative to do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents is one of the longest-standing conventions in our political system. While I sympathise with the frustrations of the petitioners and understand their desire to see the proposed change enacted, I believe we would be unwise to surrender that independence.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The milestones that were set out for paying infected people were met by the end of 2025. The first payment to an affected person was also on time, and was made before the end of last year. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we are now moving into a new phase of paying affected people, which will clearly be a larger number. I will, of course, happily write to him with the precise figures on that.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
In the light of the arrest of three individuals yesterday for Chinese espionage, can the Minister confirm that security vetting for all special advisers is up to date?
Darren Jones
The hon. Member will remember, from the statement I gave to the House, that we are reviewing this policy area, as well as other areas to do with transparency and lobbying returns, as well as the work of the Ethics and Integrity Commission. We will come forward with further updates in due course.
Oral Answers to Questions
Charlie Dewhirst Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The deal we have struck with the EU means lower prices at the check-out, more choice on the shelf, and more money in people’s pockets. It is good for British fishers and farmers, who face less red tape selling our world-class produce into a crucial market. It comes alongside the opportunity for young people to work and travel across Europe, the work that we are doing to cut energy bills, and closer work on defence. All of that is opposed by Reform and the Tories, who sold the myth, botched Brexit, and left families and businesses paying the price.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Let me be absolutely clear about this: as soon as there were any allegations of wrongdoing by Phil Shiner, I had absolutely nothing to do with him.