Representation of the People Bill

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir James Cleverly]

I am not sure that that addresses the point I was making, but I will come to votes at 16 in a moment. This Government have chosen political advantage over consensus, and that is part of a pattern not confined to this Bill. We have seen that in the handling of local election pilots, which were advanced without proper transparency or meaningful consultation with political parties. We saw it in the attempt to cancel this year’s May elections. That was another decision taken without proper engagement. Elections are the foundation stone of democracy. They are not an administrative inconvenience to be switched off and on at the whim of Ministers.

Against that backdrop, Ministers say that this Bill defends against political interference. The Secretary of State has said at the Dispatch Box that the Government have commissioned a review on that very subject, but they have not waited for that review to report before bringing forward the legislation. If the Rycroft review matters, why legislate before it reports? If it does not matter, why commission it in the first place? The correct action would be to await the findings of the report, and then bring forward legislation in a coherent manner at the next King’s Speech.

I appreciate that the Bill’s timetabling, and the time available for this debate, were not in the Secretary of State’s hands, but we have a huge number of Members wanting to speak on this important matter and a constrained timetable, because the Prime Minister rightly gave a statement on the middle east. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) would like to not have this debate, and for the Bill just to be rushed through. That says a lot. This legislation is important, and time should be taken on it. We are running out of time in this Session, so why does the Secretary of State not do the right thing, pause for just a short period, introduce the Bill after the King’s Speech, and give us a proper opportunity to debate it and get it right?

I have been Foreign Secretary and Home Secretary, and I saw how persistent and serious the threats from hostile states are to the democratic process in this country and other countries. That is important, and I recognise that the Government are seeking to take action. Russian aggression, Iran’s hostile activities on British soil and the interference and espionage activities of the Chinese Government have sharpened the risks to our political system, but why have the Government not engaged with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), who led the defending democracy taskforce before and during the last general election? He has been targeted by foreign Governments, and his advice has not been sought.

It is right that the Government should seek to protect our democracy from foreign interference, dirty money, intimidation and corruption, but this Bill fails to match the scale of those threats. It does not address, for example, the consequences of devolved franchise changes to UK political finance rules—the devolution loophole. We agree that no Government should accept impermissible donations. The question is not whether we should; it is whether this Bill properly targets the sources of hostile state interference. Fund transfers to UK banks are already subject to robust anti-money laundering checks. If the objective is really to stop hostile state money, enhanced security should be focused on the higher-risk routes, not on duplicating existing restrictions and stifling legitimate domestic activity. The hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) is no longer in his place, but the mask slipped when he basically invited the Secretary of State to ban donations from legitimate British companies because he just does not like the industry they are in. That is what causes concern about the integrity of the decisions being put forward in this Bill.

Turning to automatic voter registration, individual voter registration was introduced for a reason: to improve accuracy and reduce fraud. Automatic registration cuts right across that principle. It risks adding names from datasets not designed to determine eligibility. People move and datasets lag behind, and an inaccurate register creates vulnerabilities and opportunities for abuse. This roll-out will be phased, which means that some parts of the country will have automatic voter registration ahead of the next general election, and others will not. The Government are making the case that automatic voter registration increases turnout, but they will be choosing which parts of the country have increased turnout and which do not. Surely the Secretary of State must see how cynical that looks in the eyes of an already sceptical electorate.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State not accept that 8 million people being either registered in the wrong place, or not on the register at all, is also an example of an inaccurate register? Would it not be better to have people over-registered—presumably they would then not turn out, because they had moved away or whatever—than under-registered and disenfranchised? Of the two inaccuracies, being unable to vote is the one we should be more worried about, if we believe in democracy.

[Sir James Cleverly]

The hon. Gentleman makes a not unreasonable point, but it is a point of debate. Registration in the UK is not difficult, and the fact that some people have not registered is not in itself a rationale for undermining the integrity of the voter registration process and introducing errors. He asks whether it would not be better to have errors of over-registration than of under-registration. That is a point for debate. I think it is better to have accuracy of registration. In many parts of the world, people literally put their life at risk to vote. People who do choose not to vote in the UK do not do so because voting is too difficult; it is not difficult to vote in the UK. Both Labour and the Conservatives have taken steps over time to make it easier to vote. If people are not voting, perhaps political parties—all of us—should ask why we are not inspiring people enough to register, rather than taking up the point that he is making, and putting people on the register who should not be there, because they do not live in that place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)]

Let me start by expressing my commiseration with my former hon. Friend—he is still my friend—the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who was inadvertently confused with somebody who might want to join the Reform party. It is difficult to imagine a Member less likely to want to do that, or indeed to be received by the Reform party, than him—I am sure he is happy to hear that. That is perhaps except for the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly)—but he once had his own problems with counting votes in a Conservative party election.

I am not going to address the absurd suggestion of votes at 16 as that has been well dealt with by other hon. Members. In particular, there is the obvious point suggested by hon. Members that because young people can sign up to join the Army when they are 16, they should be able to vote. The fact is, they can join the Army not to go and fight, but only as a cadet, and only with parental consent. To anybody suggesting that that somehow means that they should be able to vote, I invite them to suggest whether they think their parents should also be giving consent on how they vote in the voting booth. I think not. I will however come to family voting in a moment.

[Luke Akehurst]

I would like the hon. Gentleman to elaborate on the absurdity that he sees in 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote. What is it about them that he feels disqualifies them or makes them less able to make a democratic decision than an 18-year-old?

[Danny Kruger]

We already prevent young people at that age from driving, from buying cigarettes and alcohol, and from standing for Parliament. We already conclude that they are not responsible enough in general. Obviously, many are far more responsible than adults, but the conclusion is that they are still children and that they should not be exercising this vital responsibility in respect of our whole democracy until they are 18.

I will quickly mention the Rycroft review. May I stress on behalf of the Reform party how much I welcome the review? Many hon. Members rightly mentioned the disgraceful episode of a former Reform MEP taking bribes from a foreign state. It is absolutely right that we look closely into the circumstances that allowed that to arise. We will wait and see what the review comes up with, but it is quite right that we take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that we do not have foreign financial interference in our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Spencer]

One of those criteria should be that one is an adult, because voting is an adult act, and the other criterion should be citizenship. We do not have time for a debate today on how we approach citizenship in the UK and what that actually means, but if we start trying to unravel—

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the hon. Gentleman’s reference to citizenship imply that Commonwealth and Republic of Ireland citizens, who have been enfranchised for about 100 years, should be disenfranchised in this country?

[Dr Spencer]

I am not making any sort of comment on that. My point is very simple: it is citizenship and age. If we are to apportion the respect to voting that we absolutely should—I think all of us in this House think voting is a critical thing to do—giving it the status of being an adult decision, as opposed to one made by children, is also important. To not do so is fundamentally anti-democratic. It diminishes what people have to go through in terms of the status of voting compared with other decisions. Voting is more important than being able to buy a beer, have a driving licence or join the cadets. Voting is absolutely critical, and that is why it is so important that it should be seen as an adult act, not an act that is within the scope of being a child.

Disadvantaged Communities

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I certainly agree. Communities like ours have borne the brunt of these cuts, and we see this playing out on our streets, in our schools and, unfortunately, in the criminal justice system. This should never have happened. It cannot continue, and it must never happen again. That is why I am calling for a project of national renewal for our neighbourhoods, designed to work with communities.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I will.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady is quite entitled to give way, but where Members choose to intervene, it will affect my judgment on where in the batting order they are called.

[Luke Akehurst]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Does she agree that we should pay tribute to the work of the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods, led by Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top? Based on its detailed statistical research, the commission has identified 613 of the most left-behind neighbourhoods around the country—one of which is South Stanley in my constituency—where funding is essential if we are to achieve the Government’s five missions. If investment is not made in those neighbourhoods, we can never achieve our national targets.

[Mrs Brackenridge]

I agree. Hon. Members will hear more about ICON’s work in my speech, because it paints a picture of our communities.

This is a project of national renewal that is designed to work with communities, to rebuild from the ground up and to restore hope and dignity to our places. It is a strategy about the huge importance of cultural capital and social infrastructure for social connections. What makes those communities special? They are resilient, largely because they have had to be. They have felt the brunt of 14 years of austerity. They have been disproportionately affected because they disproportionately rely on good public services, which were stretched to breaking point under the last Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I was not expecting to be called to speak, Sir Roger, as I made an intervention, but I will make some additional points.

I have already paid tribute to ICON, and I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) having reinforced the point about mission-critical neighbourhoods. Given the level of deprivation in neighbourhoods such as South Stanley in my constituency, which is ranked 41st most in need out of 34,000 super output areas in the Government’s growth mission, it is unsurprising that my constituents tell me that they feel left behind and that our area is not getting the targeted investment it needs.

I welcome today’s announcement about major investment in transport infrastructure, but we need to recognise the limitations of that when it comes to deprived communities that are more isolated and away from major conurbations. Too often, big infrastructure projects benefit the core cities, not isolated towns and villages like those that make up North Durham.

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

I am proud to represent wards such as Newgate, Carr Bank and Ransom Wood—mission-critical neighbourhoods as identified by the Independent Commission on Neighbourhoods—and I welcome the signs that the Government are increasingly focused on those places. Does my hon. Friend agree that the spending review must make mission-critical neighbourhoods an absolute priority?

[Luke Akehurst]

I absolutely agree. We need investment in social infrastructure, such as parks, leisure centres and community centres, that will deliver rapid economic improvements and change how communities look and feel. Communities need to be at the heart of the decisions, cutting through the bureaucracy and red tape, and they must decide themselves what will make a real difference in their areas.

After the recent local council election results in County Durham, I spoke about people feeling impatient for change, including economic regeneration, good-quality jobs and the new local infrastructure that they have needed for not just years but decades. The Government are starting to deliver many great things through the plan for change, but we will deliver on their missions faster if we target deprived and mission-critical neighbourhoods —areas with the most concentrated problems in economic activity, health, educational achievement and crime. It is economically, fiscally and morally right to target those neighbourhoods, and it would be a clear demonstration of this Labour Government’s social democratic values.

Coalfield Communities

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, who is 100% correct. I am looking forward to working with her to make sure that we get the progress that we all want to see, up and down the country.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am mindful of your instruction, but I want to touch briefly on four issues that I know many colleagues will expand on, and I want to leave time, believe it or not, for everyone else to have their say. First, on worklessness, a common assumption is that unemployment, however defined, is no longer a problem. So far as the former coalfields are concerned, this simply is not true, but the nature of the unemployment problem facing communities such as ours has changed. In the 1980s and 1990s, in the wake of pit closures, there were large numbers of people out of work on unemployment- related benefits. These days, as the Department for Work and Pensions data presented in “The State of the Coalfields 2024” report showed, an exceptionally large number of people out of work are on other benefits.

Across former coalfield communities such as mine, 16% of all adults of working age are out of work on benefits. The biggest number is those who are out of work on incapacity benefits—there are just over 400,000 people in that situation in former coalfields across the country, and people in that group account for around one in nine of all adults of working age. That goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson). It reflects poor health—I mentioned health inequalities in the House this week—but also hidden unemployment, because in parts of the country where good jobs are more readily available, many of those with health problems or disabilities are able to secure such jobs. Estimates from Sheffield Hallam University point to a real level of unemployment in the former coalfields that is double the rate in south-east England, which says everything that we need to know.

A consequence of the shortfall in local job opportunities is a reliance on commuting to neighbouring areas and further afield. Net out-commuting from the former coalfields —the balance between flows in each direction—accounts for about 350,000 people. The jobs available in former coalfields also tend to be less well paid, with 53% of employed residents working in manual jobs compared with a GB average of 46%, and just 36% here in the capital. It is important to note that the average hourly earnings of coalfield residents are around 6% lower than the national average, as we have heard. We have serious work to do. My challenge to those on the Front Bench is this: we need stronger policies focused on growing the local economy in former coalfields, including by tackling high levels of economic inactivity.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. Would he agree that the example of Nissan, in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), shows that when high-quality manufacturing jobs are put into former coalfield areas, people from those areas are among the most widely respected workforces in the world? Global investors think that they are among the best workforces they can get. The tragedy is that there are not more companies like Nissan in former coalmining areas.

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend is right. Those workforces are not just respected; they are brilliant, skilled, smart and hard-working. They deserve the opportunities that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield have noted, and that I know all colleagues in this House want to see.

My point about policies to tackle high levels of economic inactivity leads me to the next important issue when it comes to improving Government support for coalfield communities, which is local growth funding. We all want to see our economy grow, and the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have my support in pushing that agenda, but growth must be driven and shared across all parts of our United Kingdom. As the Government prepare for the spending review, I urge those on the Front Bench to ensure that, at the very least, present spending is maintained.

The primary focus of local growth funding needs to be economic development and regeneration, driven by a mix of investment in people, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), in place, in infrastructure and in business support. The investment in our communities should be fairly allocated on the basis of need, not competitive bidding, and there should be full and timely consultation on the allocation formula. Funding needs to be allocated over a longer term than was the case under previous Governments. The commitment in the Budget to setting five-year capital budgets, to be extended every two years at regular spending reviews, is a welcome step.

The Government’s intention to rationalise the number of local growth funds is also welcome, because it makes sense to allocate funding at the sub-regional level at which most local economies operate. Some will be surprised to hear me say this, but in some ways we need less government. We need a lighter touch in managing this vital funding. The expertise, knowledge and experience of local people and local leaders, including elected mayors—the Minister will enjoy my saying that, for once —should be respected, and they should be given greater discretion, within a broader framework set by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) for securing this important debate. My constituency of North Durham has a proud mining heritage. In almost every village and town there are pit wheels or miner’s tub monuments. Many community halls and schools proudly house Durham Miners’ Association and National Union of Mineworkers banners, and hundreds of my constituents proudly attend the Durham miners’ gala every year, but alongside the celebration and pride, there is loss and tragedy, with monuments to commemorate tragic incidents in which many lives were lost in the service of mining.

The most awful of those incidents in my constituency was the West Stanley pit disaster. Sunday 16 February marks the 116th anniversary of the 1909 West Stanley pit disaster, which took the lives of 168 men and boys, and was one of the worst coalmining disasters in British history. The disaster continues to have profound importance in the local community’s collective memory. The headteacher at North Durham academy talked about families who go to look at the names of their ancestors on the monument. I pay tribute to the resilience, courage and spirit shown by the community of Stanley.

Hon. Members have spoken about the mineworkers pension scheme in detail. I am delighted that 630 former miners in North Durham are receiving an uplift to their weekly pension, and fairer payments for years to come. I welcome the fact that the Government are reviewing the BCSSS, but the investment reserve must be transferred to its members as soon as possible. That is now a political decision; changes to the scheme’s rules can be made only by the Government. I hope that the Minister can say what progress has been made on the review when he winds up the debate.

The decline of the coalmining industry, from its peak in 1913 when 165,000 men and boys worked in Durham’s 304 mines, was long and slow. That decline took place over a long period, and so did the economic damage that came with the closure of the mines. One of the most tragic policies to exacerbate the suffering of the communities in County Durham was the concept of category D villages; was a deliberate decision not to invest in them, and to run them down. Quite a few villages in my constituency were condemned, in public policy terms, in that way, and local people fought for the survival of their communities. My fundamental concern is that even now, so long after the closure of the last mine in Sacriston in my constituency in the 1980s, there has been very little systematic repurposing, economically, in those areas. Levels of poverty and deprivation are still far too high. Some of the economic activity that was intended to replace coalmining has in turn been shut down, such as the Ever Ready factory at Tanfield Lea.

I pay tribute to the CRT for the excellent work it does in communities like mine, supporting jobs and local economic growth. It supports 14 grassroots voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations in North Durham. It has submitted a proposal to the Government for more capital funding to help it expand its vital work over the next five years. I hope the Government will respond positively.

As I said in my maiden speech, there is a need for strategic economic regeneration, and a new economic purpose for regions like mine, and that requires the Government to think about economic growth that is focused on the regions that most need high-quality new jobs. They can do that through investment, infrastructure and procurement decisions, and that needs a joined-up approach across the whole of Government. I hope the Minister will take that into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I remember those debates, of course, as the backdrop to my experiences growing up, along with the miners’ strike and the various interventions that occurred. There is an opportunity—I will put it this way—to learn lessons from that and ensure that the new Government’s approach and future Governments’ approaches take those into account and handle those situations better.

[Luke Akehurst]

If we could move forward from the events of the 1980s, in the last Parliament, the Conservative Benches were full of Members representing former mining constituencies, including three of the constituencies in County Durham. Perhaps the reason those Members were not returned at the last general election was that Government’s sorry failure to deliver the levelling up they promised. Can the shadow Minister in any way defend the failure to economically regenerate mining areas that in 2019 had Conservative MPs for the first time?

[David Simmonds]

I am sure that all those former Members of Parliament, and, indeed, some of their Labour predecessors, would also be happy to answer for the work they did, some of which was successful and some of which was not, to bring new jobs, opportunities and educational chances to those communities. There are many things we can debate that have brought benefits to those communities. If we examine the statistics in the Library briefing on the impact and legacy in different coalfields around the UK, we see quite a different picture. There are some places where those interventions—based on the statistics—appear to have been effective because there are few, if any, super output areas listed that remain affected by those issues of poverty and ill health today, and there are other areas that have struggled to move on. We all know and understand why that is in some places. If the economy of an area has long been based on mining and natural resource, and there is no other direct employment opportunity there, something different needs to be found, and many Members have referred to the impact of that. I have touched on infra- structure as one element.

Local Government Finance

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is interesting, because the loss of the rural service delivery grant cost my local authority £14 million, so it depends where we draw the line and what the priorities are. The change in the rural services delivery grant is robbing Peter to pay Paul. That is the reality.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

My residents in North Durham are in a local authority area, County Durham, that is rural and deprived. I assure the shadow Minister that the previous version of the formulas was not designed to help that kind of rural authority. It may have helped wealthy rural authorities, but it did not help areas that suffered from both the difficulty of providing services in a rural area and the extreme need caused by deprivation.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

We all have different views on this matter. Many parts of my constituency are not wealthy and have deprivation that is not sufficiently catered for by some of the formulas. That is what we are concerned about. We are keen to see fairness across the board, so we will scrutinise Labour’s plans very carefully on that basis.

The Labour Budget promised a big increase in council spending and the return of the sector to sustainability through a comprehensive set of measures to support local authorities in England. As I said, the Government also promised multi-year settlements, and we support those intentions. However, most of the money provided to local councils under the settlement will be through council tax rises for working people. A number of the rises breach the 5% referendum limit principle. Referendums on council tax rises of up to 9.9% have been waived by the Secretary of State, so local people cannot have a say on these dramatic increases. That means that local residents in the Windsor and Maidenhead borough, Birmingham, Bradford and Newham all face increases of more than 5%. Birmingham is notable due to the mess that Labour made there, which Labour is now forcing residents to pay for, rather than taking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats are also raising council tax without allowing Windsor and Maidenhead borough and Somerset residents a say on how they feel about the increases.

Council tax rises make up the bulk of the settlement, and rather than Labour delivering on its claims that it would fairly fund local government, it is pushing the burden on to taxpayers. The Government have also increased that burden with their jobs tax, which will negatively increase costs on local government finance. Although they have provided £515 million to cover the direct costs of employer’s NI, the Local Government Association has estimated that the national insurance contribution hike will cost another £1.13 billion for increases being forced upon providers of outsourced services.

The costs of those outsourced services will inevitably increase, but the Government are providing no money to cover that. Councils and residents will have to pick up the bill. Council tax receipts in 2025-26 are forecast to be in the order of £50 billion, yet Labour’s nonsensical Chagos islands deal is rumoured to cost up to £18 billion. That is equivalent to a one-off £820 deduction from a typical council tax bill. Alternatively, it could have paid for a council tax freeze for the whole of this Parliament. As with all things, Labour is wasting taxpayers’ money rather than giving them a tax cut.

The settlement will make it more difficult for councils to deliver on residents’ priorities, be they social care or potholes, which I note Conservative councils have a better record of filling in. It is an undeniable fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats deliver worse services and charge more. From Whitehall to town hall, under Labour, people pay more and get less.

Proportional Representation: General Elections

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Members who secured this important debate. I have been debating on this subject outside the House for, unbelievably, nearly 40 years, so I have had some time to assemble my thoughts on it. During that time, I have often heard people argue for or against proportional representation or first past the post based on the immediate advantage for their political party. I urge against such an approach to questions of democracy and electoral systems. One benefit of engaging in this debate for so long is that I have been able to see the political cycle change over time; an electoral system that might benefit a party at one point may work to its disadvantage later. The party that gets a massive boost in seats from first past the post in one election may get a disproportionate kicking from the electorate under another system. The volatility of the modern electorate makes that particularly pertinent.

The core bedrock of support for both major parties is a far smaller group of voters than it ever used to be, and demographic and political change is accelerating that. No party—mine included—should think that the current coalition of voters that it has assembled is here to stay, and that it should design its preferred electoral system around maximising the number of seats that that coalition of voters can win.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

What is the hon. Member’s view on his Government’s proposal to reduce the voting age to 16, given that we were all elected by voters aged 18 and above?

[Luke Akehurst]

I think that is a different subject to the one we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will proceed on the subject of proportional representation.

We do not know how voters would behave if they were confronted with a different voting system. We cannot say that because Labour got 34% of the vote in 2024 under first past the post, it would therefore have got 34% if the 2024 election had been run under a proportional representation system. Voters change their behaviour to fit the voting system. There might also be new parties that would grow under a different voting system.

With tactical voting in its current form, we do not know how many Labour-identifying voters back other parties for tactical reasons in particular seats—the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned voters who had spoken to her about doing so. We do not know how many supporters of other parties voted Labour for tactical reasons, or what the net impact of unwinding those factors might be on each party.

[Florence Eshalomi]

I thank my hon. Friend for his long campaign on this important issue. All of us have probably knocked on doors and spoken to voters who have said that they have never voted because their vote would not count. Does he believe that if we had a different voting system, people would be able to see that every single vote at the ballot box makes a big difference to who is elected on polling day? Does he share my concern on that?

[Luke Akehurst]

I do share my hon. Friend’s viewpoint, and I will come to that later in my remarks. We do not know how much turnout would increase in areas where it is now depressed because the outcome under first past the post appears to be a foregone conclusion. My hon. Friend anticipated the next thing I was going to say.

The current fracturing of the party system, with five parties getting more than 5% of the vote—the number is higher in Scotland and Wales—is probably here to stay. That means there are more marginal seats, more three or even four-cornered fights for marginal seats and more Members of Parliament elected on relatively low vote shares by historical standards. Ironically, that improves the range of viable choices for voters in many seats, and their chances of influencing the result in a meaningful way, because there are fewer safe seats. However, it is trying to pour a multi-party system into an electoral system designed for two parties, so it inevitably leads to more and more disproportional results, where the relationship between vote share and number of seats completely breaks down.

For instance, as has been mentioned, the Liberal Democrats got 72 MPs despite receiving more than half a million fewer votes than Reform, which got only five MPs. I do not blame the Liberal Democrats or my party for seeking to maximise seats rather than votes—that is the game we are supposed to be playing with our current system—but it is difficult to go out to the public and objectively defend such surreal disproportionality. It increases public cynicism about their ability to influence politics.

My motivation for supporting a move to a more proportional voting system is therefore not that I think it will provide an immediate or long-term advantage to the party that I have dedicated my life to campaigning for, and I hope that Members of other parties would not be motivated by assuming that proportional representation will accrue immediate narrow party advantage at Labour’s expense. On the contrary, as a social democrat, my approach to any critical question is based on the core principles of social justice, democracy and equality. That leads me to support a more proportional voting system, just as it leads me to egalitarian and redistributive answers to social and economic policy questions.

We should design an electoral system based not on whether it benefits us as individual politicians or our own parties at a specific moment, but on whether it delivers just and equitable outcomes that can logically be defended. In particular, we should apply the philosopher John Rawls’ theory of justice and try to measure the impact of each electoral system on the most under-represented party and the most under-represented voter, and argue for a system that treats parties and voters as fairly and equitably as possible and that gives voters as equal influence as possible over who represents them and who governs the country.

[Mr Mohindra]

The hon. Gentleman is being generous with his time and has made some valid points, although I may not agree with all of them. Does he believe that to ensure the electorate is fully represented, we need to go to the Australian model of forcing all constituents to go to the ballot box?

[Luke Akehurst]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. I have looked at compulsory voting, which was advocated at one point by Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. I am open to the suggestion, but basically that is about forcing people to vote when we should be trying to enthuse them to vote through both how we do politics and how the system works.

All voters should have equal value wherever they live in the UK, but first past the post condemns millions of voters to living in electoral deserts where just one party dominates all Commons representation. There is no region or nation where that system reflects the diversity of the votes cast, and between different regions and nations it can benefit different parties. We need a system that sends to this place a mix of MPs from each region and nation who represent their political diversity and balance. First past the post privileges and makes powerful a relatively small number of swing voters in a small number of marginal seats, while giving little political power to the majority of voters in safer seats. That distorts our political process. Policies, campaign spending, where politicians visit, where activists travel to, messaging and advertising are all focused on swing voters in marginal seats, while elections in some safe seats can be quiet affairs.

When parties are in opposition, first past the post makes them narrower based. In recent Parliaments when Labour was down to a small parliamentary party, it often appeared to be a sectional voice for big cities and university towns, which was unhealthy, even though we had millions of votes but few MPs in demographically different parts of the country. Now, the Conservative parliamentary party may appear to be dominated by rural interests as its votes in urban areas delivered few MPs. Both situations are unhealthy.

Support for proportional representation is now the consensus position at a grassroots level in the Labour party: polling says that 83% of grassroots members support it, and the vast majority of constituency Labour party members backed it when our annual conference voted in favour of electoral reform. In fact, I think it is the topic on which the largest number of local Labour parties has ever submitted motions.

Mixed Member systems used in places such as Germany and New Zealand prove that the undoubted merits of the constituency system, such as having a voice and champion for a specific geographical area in Parliament and giving voters greater access to us as local representatives, can be combined with a proportional element to produce stable and effective Governments—and, I would say, Governments who pursue the social democratic values that my party stands for. I hope that it will not be too long before the Labour Government align their stance on our voting systems with our guiding values of equality and democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I am delighted to report that my bar charts have been measured and are accurate to the millimetre.

[Luke Akehurst]

rose—

[Lisa Smart]

I would be delighted to give way on that subject.

[Luke Akehurst]

Does the hon. Lady accept that one of the great advantages of moving to a proportional voting system would be that there would be no need to put any bar charts on any leaflets—it would be highly misleading to do so—that there would be no “two-horse race” graphics or squeeze messaging, and everyone would be able to vote for the party they really wanted?

[Lisa Smart]

I could not have been more delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I wonder if he has been listening in to the Hazel Grove constituency Liberal Democrat executive meetings. I agree with the him, though. When thinking about how to vote, I would much rather—as, I imagine, would a number of voters—talk about values, principles and policies, instead of a rather grim-looking canvasser pointing earnestly at a bar chart, worried about who might get in if the vote splits. PR would be better for our politics and better for our communities.

There is widespread and growing support for change, both in Parliament and across the country. A national commission for electoral reform would provide the necessary first step towards finally addressing the failures of first past the post—a step that must be taken well before the next general election. To ignore the urgency of this issue would be to further undermine our democracy.

Governments are not always known for doing things that they do not see as being in their best interest; however, like a number of colleagues across the House, I argue that proportional representation is in our whole country’s interest, and that is why I urge the Government to act. The public are watching, and the demand for fair representation cannot be ignored forever—our democracy depends on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

Well, I have not finished making my point yet and I intend to do so. The electoral system in Israel elects people from extreme wings, from both sides of the aisle, who have a disproportionate impact on the policies and outcomes of the Israeli Government.

[Luke Akehurst]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Paul Holmes]

Not at the moment, as I will make some progress.

Over the past several hundred years, our country has undergone myriad complex and contentious reforms that have revolutionised our systems of governance. Those changes have often been made in a piecemeal fashion over many centuries, from Simon de Montfort’s Parliament of 1265, in which representatives from towns and the shires were summoned together to discuss matters of national concern, to the great Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867, permitting the expansion of suffrage, to the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Act 1928, which extended the franchise to all persons, male and female, over the age of 21. Those evolutionary changes have allowed us, as a country, to forgo frequent domestic upheaval and civil wars, which are a feature of other less stable systems.

I know I am in a minority of one this afternoon—apart from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal)—but the Conservative party has long championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives—[Interruption.]

[Paul Holmes]

I say to the hon. Lady, who intervenes from a sedentary position, that my colleagues in the Conservative parliamentary party are out in their constituencies, campaigning and standing up for their constituents, not focusing on a debate about an outdated system that will never last.

The Conservative party has championed first past the post as the fairest and most effective way to elect representatives, ensuring clear accountability, stable governance, and a direct link between elected officials and their constituents. Indeed, we continue to do that even after our historic and momentous defeats of 1997 and 2024. The party has continued to support first past the post, as evidenced by the submission to the Jenkins Commission in 1998, because we believe the way to win elections is to gain the trust of the public, not to gerrymander the system when things get tough.

Voters have already shown their preference for first past the post, as shown by the decision made by 13 million people who voted against the proposals set out in the 2011 voting system referendum. I know this is not popular among the parties in opposition, but I believe we should respect the results of referendums.

[Luke Akehurst]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?