Proportional Representation

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I congratulate the more than 100,000 members of the public who supported the e-petition to secure today’s debate. This truly is their debate on proportional representation. Given that the petition reached the required number of signatures by March, I also thank them for their patience. The debate was slightly delayed by the June general election, and despite the shared disappointment on both sides of the House that, even with our first-past-the-post system, neither party was able to secure a majority at the general election, I am sure that we all welcome the huge increase we saw in political participation, particularly among young people. Two million young people registered to vote after the election was called and we witnessed the highest youth turnout since 1992. We must continue to build on that high level of engagement, and the petition process plays a powerful role in doing just that.

The debate focuses on the important subject of our voting system and, in particular, proportional representation. I stress that we in the Opposition are committed to taking radical steps to ensure that all eligible voters are registered and can use their vote, and we therefore welcome the opportunity to have a much needed discussion on the wider issue of electoral reform.

As has been said, all voting systems have strengths and weaknesses. On first past the post, although the 2017 general election did not produce a strong majority Government, some have argued that first past the post has a history of returning single-party Governments and of retaining the constituency link, both of which I agree are important benefits to any electoral system. The constituency link is a vital part of British political life. As the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I represent the people of my local area and am directly accountable to them. However, as has been said, moving to a proportional system does not necessarily rule that out.

I am also aware of the argument in favour of proportional representation. The recent election resulted in a minority Government. The Conservative party and the Democratic Unionist party received just 43% of the votes between them but hold a majority of seats in this House. In Scotland, the Labour and Conservative parties received a similar vote share, on 27% and 28% respectively, but the Tories won twice as many seats as Labour. Supporters of PR argue that seats in Parliament should reflect the vote and that a system of PR will give voters the opportunity to vote for what they believe in, rather than having to vote tactically.

The question that must be answered—and the answer is somewhat unclear—is this: what do the British public want? Much has been said about the 2011 AV referendum. The former Labour leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), supported the yes campaign because he believed that it was good for democracy and accountability, and fairer than the current situation. However, the UK voted overwhelmingly to reject changing the system, with just 32% of voters supporting AV. Indeed, public opinion may have changed since 2011. Supporters of PR highlight recent polling by ICM that found that 67% of people believe that seats should match votes, while 61% say that they would support replacing first past the post with PR. It is therefore important to continue to look at different voting systems, which is why today’s debate is so important. However, changing the voting system alone will not fix the disconnect that some voters feel regarding our political process. We need wide-ranging transformation of all the political structures that are in place to help build a vibrant and active democracy in which vested interests and big money do not have all the power.

Labour’s 2017 manifesto committed to establishing a constitutional convention to examine and advise on reforming how Britain works at a fundamental level. As well as having the option to look at different voting systems, the convention would look at extending democracy locally, regionally and nationally, starting by ending the hereditary principle and reducing the size of the other place. That should be part of a wider package of constitutional reform to address the growing democratic deficit across Britain. This is about where power and sovereignty lie—in politics, the economy, the justice system and our communities.

[Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Cat Smith]

I will not, because most of the people who have taken part in the debate want to hear from the Minister and I want to maximise the time that he has.

A recent study by Demos found that only 37% of young adults in the UK feel that British politics today reflects the issues that matter to them. If we are to build a democracy that works for everyone, what are the Government doing to increase democratic engagement and ensure that voters have their say on decision making, both during and outside election time? As we approach 100 years since the start of women’s suffrage, it is important to reflect on the ways in which more people can participate in our democracy. Many Members mentioned this in their contributions, but extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, as is the case in Scotland for local elections, would make our constitution clearer across the whole United Kingdom. At the moment, there is a discrepancy, because 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in local elections in some parts of the United Kingdom but they are not entitled to vote in a general election.

[Mr Lord]

May I ask one important question? In its manifesto, the Labour party talked about a convention. Can we establish that if any reforms were to be made under a Labour Government, they would be subject to a referendum? That is important for our constitution, and for public good will.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady courteously gave way, so the hon. Gentleman has the right to the floor, but I make the point from the Chair that it is customary for Members to come and listen to the debate before intervening.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I call Jonathan Lord.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister agree—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Lord’s question must be heard.

[Jonathan Lord]

Q10. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it is welcome that 2,500 out-of-work households in London can no longer claim more than the average working family earns—a welfare reform opposed by the Labour party at the behest of its union barons?

[The Prime Minister]

The Labour party has opposed every single welfare change that we have made—£86 billion in total. People in this country, including trade union members, will find it inexplicable that the Labour party thinks you are better off on benefits than you are in work. That shows that not only does it have the wrong relationship with the unions—it has the wrong values, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not think one should seek to be too neat about these things. Of course I accept that there is an issue with how English votes on issues that affect only English constituencies are dealt with in this House. The McKay commission examined that, and we are now reflecting on its recommendations, but that does not mean that we should somehow freeze in time an ongoing process of devolution to other parts of the United Kingdom.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

5. What recent representations he has received on the role of trade unions in the funding of political parties.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

The cross-party funding talks during 2012 and 2013 included discussions on reform of donations, spending, and how to deal with affiliate bodies such as trade unions. In my written statement to the House last Thursday I expressed my disappointment that, as on previous occasions, the talks were not able to reach agreement on beginning party funding reform in this Parliament.

[Jonathan Lord]

I welcome the Damascene conversion of the Leader of the Opposition to the merits of trade union members opting in to the political levy, but does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is way past time for trade union members to be able to decide to which political party they donate?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I agree with my hon. Friend and think that, as on so many other matters, the vast majority of the British people would also agree with him rather than the Labour party. If Labour Members want to turn their leader’s words today into action, we are prepared to work with them and use the forthcoming party funding Bill—[Interruption.] That is a serious suggestion and offer to turn the principle of an opt-in on the political levy into law, and indeed to give trade union members the right to support other parties, if that is what they wish. I hope Labour Members will take that opportunity, because it is time to turn words into actions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

5. What recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on devolving power from Westminster and Whitehall.

[The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr Nick Clegg)]

I regularly meet ministerial colleagues to discuss the Government’s work to devolve power to the most appropriate level, and we are achieving that through local enterprise partnerships, local government finance reforms, giving local authorities a general power of competence, and city deals. We have also accepted in full or in part 81 of Lord Heseltine’s 89 recommendations, which build on that work to decentralise power and drive growth. We have delivered a referendum in Wales, which resulted in the Assembly assuming primary law-making powers, and we established the Silk commission. In addition, the UK and Scottish Governments are working together to ensure the smooth implementation of the Scotland Act 2012, which represents the greatest devolution of fiscal powers from London in 300 years.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Devolution at all levels is a virtuous thing. The more we can devolve power and control over money and decision making from Whitehall to the town hall, and from the town hall to local areas, the better. One of the exciting insights of the Heseltine report, which we are determined to act on, is precisely to give local areas, led—not entirely, but in part—by the local enterprise partnerships in each area, a real opportunity to draw down powers and resources from Whitehall, which have been hoarded at the centre for so long.

[Jonathan Lord]

I welcome what the Deputy Prime Minister has to say about devolving power to local government and the progress made to date. Does he agree that in the medium term we should be looking to local government to be self-financing—not only keeping and setting council tax, but keeping business rates as well? That would be the way towards real power and accountability.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The right hon. and learned Lady says that I am complacent, but we have a laboratory experiment of what happens to the NHS when Labour is in charge: let us look at what happened to the NHS and to A and E waiting times in Wales, where Labour is in charge. Let us not forget that in Labour-run Wales, the last time that A and E targets were met was in 2009. We have met them for the past five weeks.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

T4. May I press the Deputy Prime Minister a little further on the McKay report? I believe that it is crucial that the Scottish people have a clear sense of direction as to where the Government will come out on these matters. The English people deserve a fairer settlement and the Scottish people deserve to know where we are going on this.

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I hope I have made it clear that everybody, north or south of the border and in whatever part of the United Kingdom, should be in no doubt that this coalition Government will do whatever we can remorselessly to devolve power not only to Cardiff and Edinburgh, as we have done, or through discussions about further devolution in Northern Ireland, but within England. That is what the economic reforms I have talked about are all about.

Collective Ministerial Responsibility

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Chope]

I do not know, but it is a good question. Unfortunately, the only way to receive an on-the-record response to that question from the Prime Minister is by tabling a parliamentary question. So far, there are no responses to such questions on the record, but perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten my hon. Friend with an answer.

Obviously, a lot of people are saying, “If we are to have a renegotiation, we should wait to see the outcome before deciding whether we wish to leave.” That view is taken, for example, by the Mayor of London, and it seems odd to announce at this stage that in the future, irrespective of how much or how little is clawed back as a result of renegotiation, no one will be allowed to vote against the Government by voting to leave the European Union, without giving up their ministerial position. Of course that is different from when we last had a referendum on the European Union, when it was possible for members of the Government to campaign on either side of the argument.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

My hon. Friend referred to Parliamentary Private Secretaries resigning over European votes, even though what they resigned over is now effectively Government policy, but what about casualties of the vote on House of Lords reform? The interpretation of many Conservatives, including me, is that they were not voting against their Government because the coalition agreement simply stated that a committee would be established to bring forward proposals, yet they lost their jobs. Just a few months later, they see Liberal Democrat Ministers walking through the Lobby to vote against coalition policy although there was not a comma between the reform of parliamentary boundaries and the alternative vote referendum.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes a good point that demonstrates the inconsistency, and the feeling of unfairness, or even injustice, that it generates among parliamentary colleagues. That is why I hope for clarification on to what extent, if at all, the Government have altered the concept of collective ministerial responsibility. It seems to many, including from a number of comments made by Liberal Democrats, that notwithstanding what is said in the coalition agreement and the guidance for Ministers, there has been a change in the approach to collective ministerial responsibility.

One of the problems is that the Deputy Prime Minister cannot differentiate between collective ministerial responsibility and collective responsibility. He sees everything in terms of coalition, and thinks that Back-Bench Members of either the Conservative party or the Liberal Democrats have responsibility equal to that of members of the coalition Government, which is palpably wrong.

At oral questions yesterday, I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would

“make it a priority to introduce transparency into collective ministerial responsibility, which seems to be being set aside without any proper accountability to the public or the House”.

He replied:

“As the hon. Gentleman and I have discussed before, collective responsibility prevails where there is a collective agreement and a collective decision on which collective responsibility is based. It is not easy, and certainly not possible to enforce collective responsibility in the absence of a collective decision taken first.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 697.]

I think A-level English language students will in due course be asked to interpret that. By muddling up collective ministerial responsibility and collective party political responsibility, the Deputy Prime Minister demonstrates a lack of understanding of the significance and importance of the concept of collective ministerial responsibility; its importance is that it gives certainty to people outside who want to know about Government policy.

The Liberal Democrats have a history of speaking with forked tongue. They often enunciate a different policy for different groups of potential electors, or electors in different parts of the country, because they think no one will check on the inconsistencies between policies. It seems as though their attitude towards speaking with forked tongue is tainting the whole Government.

I worry that a lack of intellectual rigour is being brought to the issue. That goes to the heart of the governance of our country. It is not just an academic topic to be discussed in essays; it bears on how the Government operate, the predictability with which they operate and, most importantly, the information available to people who rely on Government decisions. As I said at the outset, the situation today is that nobody knows the Government’s view on press regulation, because all that we had in response to the urgent question were statements in the House from party spokesmen. The issue will develop further in future, which is why we need proper accountability.

In a debate on 29 January, I asked my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to tell us who had set aside collective responsibility and, if it was the Prime Minister, why. He said:

“My hon. Friend will be aware that the Prime Minister has responsibility for the ministerial code. Indeed, when ministerial collective responsibility is explicitly set aside, it is the Prime Minister who makes that decision”—

the Prime Minister alone, not the Deputy Prime Minister. The Leader of the House continued:

“He is clearly doing it, as the House will understand, in the context of coalition government.” —[Official Report, 29 January 2013; Vol. 557, c. 807-8.]

When I asked the Prime Minister about that, all I got was a reference back to what the Leader of the House had said, even though according to the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister is solely responsible, and therefore accountable for the policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, and I make no criticism of Back Benchers who take that view. I voted for the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on precisely that issue. However, I did not consider that occasion to be the point at which to press the issue further.

Ministers have an obligation to support Government measures. As a Back Bencher, I do not have the same level of obligation, although I have a significantly greater desire to do so now that the Government have such a successful policy of cutting the EU budget. At least my party has the policy of holding an in/out referendum. I look forward to being as enthusiastic a supporter as I can be of the Government and what they are trying to do. However, Ministers should vote for Government policy and should not be allowed to abstain. The hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) abstained in a vote on the welfare cap, and then boasted that she did so despite being a Minister, and nothing was done about it.

I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was responsible for a positive abstention on the issue of Catholic succession to the Crown. I assumed that was because she is also the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities and, as Equalities Minister, she was abstaining because of discrimination against Catholics, but apparently that was not right: it was a mistake. There was also an abstention, however, on the matter of the boundaries, so we had not only the Liberal Democrats voting against Government policy, but a Conservative Minister failing to support it. We need to clarify the position on collective responsibility so that we can all understand it and work with Ministers and our constituents successfully.

[Jonathan Lord]

Does my hon. Friend not think it ironic that the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) talked about the transparency of the coalition agreement? The most transparent part of that agreement was the deal for a referendum on the alternative vote, in exchange for fairer boundaries. That was the one promise, as my hon. Friend so eloquently said, that the Prime Minister gave to his parliamentary party. If we voted for an AV referendum, that could have affected the Conservative party adversely, reducing our potential to get a majority Government in future. We crawled through the Lobby on the absolute, cast-iron promise in the agreement and from our Prime Minister that it was in return for fairer boundaries.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend said he crawled through the Lobby, but I did not see that, because I abstained. I felt that we had been told by the Deputy Prime Minister that the Labour party had offered him AV without a referendum. When my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) found out that that was not the case, first from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and then from the Deputy Prime Minister, it seemed to me that the deal we had done had been based on something that did not appear to hold water or—

Outsourcing (Government Departments)

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful, Mrs Main, for this opportunity, and it is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship for what I believe is the first time. Today, I hope to raise a very important issue, put down a few markers and seek some answers from the Minister to a series of questions that I will pose. I want to place on record my thanks to the Public and Commercial Services Union, the TUC and Unison for various pieces of briefing information that they have provided in support of my efforts today.

When the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General was Financial Secretary to the Treasury under John Major, he sought to

“extend competition in the provision of public services further and faster than ever before”.—[Official Report, 18 November 1991; Vol. 199, c. 25.]

He said that he would do so with no bias between public and private sector providers. It must surely have been a setback for him personally that, shortly after setting out that agenda, his then constituents in the North Warwickshire constituency decided to ditch him at the 1992 general election in favour of Labour representation. However, in 1997, he returned to Parliament in the far safer Conservative seat of Horsham and he waited patiently for 13 years in opposition before returning in 2010 to his privatisation agenda of 20 years earlier to make private everything that is public.

I give this preamble only to set out the context of the debate: we can all understand that an individual who has waited 20 years to achieve his ambition may be more keen to implement his policies and to do so somewhat quicker than otherwise would be the case. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman has made his intentions clear. In June 2011, he spoke to the business community on the subject of public service reform, saying:

“Spending cuts are one-offs. What we need to do, and are doing, is fundamentally change the way we operate.”

However, the problem with the coalition Government’s approach is that it is not evidence-based; it is ideologically driven. Whether they are outsourcing services, opening them up to a range of providers or decentralising them, the Government are gambling with the nation’s hard-won assets.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

We seem to be hearing a political diatribe against outsourcing. What would the hon. Gentleman say the previous Government were up to when they successfully outsourced many services? Indeed, many Labour councils, as well as Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils, followed in the footsteps of those pioneering Conservative councils of the early 1980s, by outsourcing services to give people a better service at lower cost.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The basis of my argument essentially is that there is no evidence base for that approach. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument a little further, I hope to illustrate that point.

If we look at the evidence base, it is in fact a constant lesson from history that reform has often come, as the hon. Gentleman has indicated, in the form of privatisations and outsourcing, but it has not always led to service improvement. Whether the justification for such reform has been a desire to bring perceived good practice from the private sector into the public sector or, indeed, the belief that savings can be made through outsourcing, the question that we parliamentarians must ask the Government and that I wish to put to the Minister is this: where is the evidence for those reforms?

I hope that the Minister will address this issue, which is about the economic and social evidence base rather than an ideological base that is behind what seems to be a rush to sell off services and public assets. It is my contention that the Tory-led policy on public services reform that is being followed by the coalition is ideologically driven and light on any such evidence base. I want to develop that point by presenting some evidence to suggest that the Government are on the wrong side of public opinion and, indeed, wrong about the whole issue of public service reform.

I hope that the Minister is aware of a report by Ipsos MORI entitled, “What do people want, need and expect from public services?” The report presents the most up-to-date and detailed data on current public attitudes to public services and public service reform. I want to put three headline findings on the record. First, people

“want public services to be based on notions of the public good, rather than just what’s good for me”.

Secondly, people

“understand the public good largely in terms of universalism, with equality of access to benefits”.

Thirdly, people

“struggle to see a compelling or urgent case for reforming public services to cope with economic pressures and social changes”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady. The issue was raised during questions to the DWP on Monday—by myself, I think—and the papers this weekend illustrated a number of examples of service failure. Service users feel huge dissatisfaction with Atos and A4e, and there has been a huge uproar about the quality of service provision in training or retraining ex-offenders.

The evidence base is littered with failures from the private sector, so it is difficult to hold up an example. If there is a good example, I suspect that it might be the exception rather than the rule. Most often, there is a negative impact for employees, with the prevalence of short-term contracts and the use of part-time and temporary staff who are often recruited through employment agencies. Indeed, Unison commissioned a report on the rise of the multi-billion-pound private public services industry and raised significant concerns about the increased dependency on private firms.

The privatisation of public services has already become a huge industry, through which the private sector receives more than £80 billion of taxpayers’ money every year, yet it has become characterised by increased cost, deteriorating quality, the loss of accountability and the greater risk of service failure. The reason why we had the birth of municipal provision in the great northern cities—Manchester, Bradford, Leeds and Wigan—was that the city fathers saw that public provision was more efficient and accountable than the existing private sector provision that was available at the time. Those arguments are not new in that respect.

I want to give another couple of examples. I mentioned A4e, and it would be remiss not to mention the Southern Cross care homes debacle. Other scandals in relation to welfare have also raised such issues and brought this agenda to the fore. That will happen more often as more services are passed over to the private sector. There is also a risk that we will lose control over our public services altogether. Indeed, in 2007, the Local Government Association warned that the amount of local authority spending on external private sector contracts and the ability of local government to make efficiency savings when it has already signed contracts without further damaging services was not realistic.

The Government’s central argument in favour of the increased commercialisation and privatisation of public services rests on the importance of consumer choice as a driver for increased efficiency, accountability and value for money. However, again, that is not supported by the evidence contained in the public surveys that have been carried out. One area that features genuine consumer choice is the provision of utilities. In most parts of the United Kingdom, people can choose a provider of gas or electricity from a handful of companies. However, is that a good example? There is massive public concern that prices have increased way above inflation and that the profits of the energy companies have soared. So the panacea of private-led competition is not everything that the coalition would have us believe it is.

[Jonathan Lord]

The hon. Gentleman is making a delightful speech in favour of socialism, the big state and the state always providing, whether nationally or locally. He talks about the utilities and so on. British Telecom is not perfect, but I remember as a young man when one had to wait weeks and weeks, if not months, to have a phone installed, and I think there was a choice of about three phones. As soon as BT was privatised, it saved taxpayers’ money and gave a much better service to its customers.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that I am sure that he would like to give the Minister enough time to respond to the questions that he has asked.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jonathan Lord Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think the hon. Gentleman is wrong, for a very clear reason. If we look at immigration, we find that migration between European countries and the UK is broadly in balance. The excess immigration all comes from outside the EU. The current figures—under the last Government—are for net migration into the UK of 200,000 a year, and that is 2 million people across a decade. In our view, that is too high, it needs to be cut and a cap is a very important part of that.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

Q9. What assessment has the Prime Minister made of Len McCluskey’s statement that “there is no such thing as an irresponsible strike”?

[The Prime Minister]

I think he is completely and utterly wrong, and the world is in a slightly mad place when someone who supports Militant Tendency can be elected to the largest union in the country on 17% of the vote. Indeed, that same union basically picks the leader of the Labour party and pays all his bills. It is completely wrong, and if the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) is going to be a reformer he had better do something about it.