Proportional Representation: House of Commons

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order. Members can see how many people are standing. The wind-ups will start at half-past 5, so please show enormous constraint—just make your points and then allow others to get in. I call Vicky Ford.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford]

We could use the German system—a national system with a national list, which means that a candidate needs 0.7% of the vote to get a seat. My point is that, especially as turnout is low, a very small number of votes can give people with quite extreme views credibility, funding and access to support, so we should be very wary.

In my experience, proportional representation also really changes a Member’s relationship with their voters. Because there are multiple Members for each seat, there have to be wider constituencies, meaning that Members do not have the same close relationship with their voters. [Interruption.] I will not give way, I am afraid, because lots of people want to speak. Under proportional representation, Members do not have the same intimate relationship with their voters, in which the voters know, “That is my MP; I can hold that person responsible,” and the Member knows they are responsible to those people. Proportional representation breaks the link between the voter and the elected representative. I would be very wary of doing that to our democracy.

Democracy, as Winston Churchill said, is the worst form of government, apart from all the rest. Trust in our politics is very low, but I do not believe that changing our electoral system is a miracle cure or a silver bullet that will solve that problem.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

I am extremely grateful for the hon. Lady’s brevity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Thomas]

In Cornwall, the Conservatives polled about 49% in 2017 and the other two parties each had about half of the remainder, so I agree with the hon. Lady. There could have been a different way of representing Cornwall, although I probably would not have been elected if that had been the case.

If there were a general election in a few weeks’ time, it would be interesting for us on both sides of the House to find out what we could agree on in a manifesto. When people say to me, “Do you think there will be a general election?” I say, “I hope so, because at the moment I don’t know what the manifesto would even look like.” The hon. Lady is right; we need to clarify again what we stand for and give people a reason to believe. I agree with her and I welcome her intervention.

It is important to maintain the constituency link, and I will give an example of that. As a Back-Bench Member, I was encouraged early on by one of my colleagues in Cornwall to get as many Back-Bench debates as I could, mainly in this Chamber. I have done that. Every single debate that I have sought to secure has been driven by a conversation with a constituent who has come to see me. It has been a privilege to meet someone 300 miles away and talk about an issue that matters to them, and then bring it to the Floor of this House.

I am talking about important issues: community pharmacy, which was raised by a pharmacist who told me about changes to funding that would affect rural areas and which became my first ever debate; the post office network, which is a big issue for rural communities; fuel poverty, which is a concern in my constituency; the environment, which as we know from the last couple of weeks is important to many people and about which I have recently secured a debate; horse and rider safety, which was raised with me early on because where I live people on horses take their lives in their hands when faced with cars coming around corners; and employment opportunities for people with disabilities. We need to maintain the opportunity for people to turn up and say, “Can you raise this on my behalf?” and for us to get on and do that.

Our system encourages conflict and aggression; people are shocked to see the adversarial nature of this place. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) that proportional representation or any type of electoral system reform will not be the silver bullet that some believe it would be. However, something must be done to secure a more constructive and productive, and less adversarial, Parliament. I would love that: as a Back-Bencher, I find that working with colleagues across the House, through Select Committees or all-party parliamentary groups, can be really constructive. The idea that we sit opposite each other, trying to pull the most curious faces that we can, seems peculiar to me.

As I have said, it is not for the main political parties to sort this out. I suggest to the Minister that the Government find an independent means to review our current system and see what opportunity exists to improve public trust and public engagement through electoral system reform. It is right that we look at this seriously, that we take voters seriously and that we listen to what they have to say. I believe there is a sea-change in Great Britain and a desire to find a different way of moving forward. The time is not now, but I imagine that in the near future we will be forced to look at doing things differently. It would be better for the Government and the main Opposition parties to be ahead of the curve.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

There are four people wishing to speak, so if they all stick to about three minutes, we will get everybody in.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

I confess right away that I am not a recent convert to PR; there has been no damascene conversion for me. One of the reasons why I joined the Liberal Democrats when I did was that it seemed obvious to me that the current system has a fatal flaw. That was obvious to me from a young age, because my parents lived in a safe seat, but did not vote for the party that won every single time for as long as that party existed, until 2015. I learned at an early age that first past the post does not represent everybody.

I am not one of the Members in this House who has been elected by proportional representation, although there are many. My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) was elected to the Scottish Parliament by proportional representation, as were many Government Members, yet this place remains the only national Parliament in the EU that uses first past the post. We often get caught up in talking about percentages, representation and types of PR, but if we look at first past the post, there is only one figure that really matters: 44% of the votes cast are meaningless. Those people are failed by a system that sets one party against another.

Living as I do in Scotland under a PR system at every level—except the Westminster level—I see the difference. I see the difference in a Scottish Parliament that has had, with one exception, minority Governments, and has been forced to find consensus and a way that suited the majority of the people represented in that Parliament. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is just leaving, we also have PR at council level in Scotland, and a direct link between the voters and their representatives.

Next time we find ourselves in deadlock in Parliament, where one side cannot win over the other—I am sure it will not be long in the current political climate—we should think how different it would be if we had a proportional representation system, in which we all had constituencies and constituents watching what we were doing, but also had a way of being forced to find consensus, and had more than two big power brokers that had everything at stake and no reason to listen to anybody else.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Earlier, when I counted the Members standing, I did not notice that Chris Heaton-Harris was one of them. We will allow three minutes each for those who are standing, which will eat very slightly into the winding-up speeches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Change UK)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) on initiating this debate. I will try to make three quick points in the three minutes that I have.

First, while I do not want to repeat the points made in favour of proportional representation—hon. Members can take it as a given that I agree with them all—the big problem, which the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) mentioned, is that our system is a two-party system. It is essentially rigged in favour of two parties. That worked, one could argue, in a Britain of a different age, when our country was essentially divided between the interests of business and capital on the one hand, and the interests of labour on the other. We cannot divide up our country in that way in this day and age. I do not see how two political parties can possibly do justice to the modern tapestry that is Britain, and to the range of interests within it. Traditionally, the response to that argument has been that they are closed coalitions of interests in any event—that they are broad churches. They are not broad churches. I know, because I used to be a member of one. They are straining to keep those divisions and different interests in one place.

We therefore end up with the absurdity that on an issue as crucial as the national security of our country—“What would you do with the future of our nuclear deterrent?”—we have a whole group of people in the Labour party, which I know well, who are committed to retaining the nuclear deterrent, but a leadership and a potential Prime Minister saying that they will never use that nuclear deterrent. I use that simply to illustrate the unsustainability of the system, and how impossible it is for the two main parties in British politics to do the job in the way they used to.

Surely it is better and more honest to have open coalitions governing together. Perhaps each of the two main parties in this country should become two or even three parties. In practice they might govern together, but at least everybody would know where everybody stood and people would not have to pretend that they agreed with each other when they did not. It would make for an altogether more honest system of politics.

Secondly, the other problem with the system is that millions of people in this country vote for a party not because they want to, but because they think they have to in order to keep the other lot out, or because it is the least worst option. How can we go on with a system that forces people to make that kind of choice? If I am wrong about that and people do want to vote for those parties, why does poll after poll show that when we have the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and “Don’t know” lined up as the options available to people, “Don’t know” scores much more highly than any other option? Thirdly—

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but your three minutes is up. In fact, you have gone over the limit.

[Chuka Umunna]

Can I finish the sentence?

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Go on, then.

[Chuka Umunna]

I am very grateful. Thirdly, to address the point about extremism, we can get around that in any system of proportional representation—as they do in Germany, where they know those dangers all too well—by having a threshold that parties must exceed in order to be able to stand in an election. That is all I wanted to say; I am grateful for your indulgence, Mr Evans.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans.

I am a Lib Dem partly because I believe that we need extraordinary change in our political system. I am delighted by the damascene conversion that has happened, but as hon. Members have eloquently said, when someone is under the umbrella of a party that helps to deliver the safe seats, it is all too easy for them to forget that they are not necessarily representing everyone in the constituency. While I appreciate what some have said about ensuring that they as MPs are there for everyone, I think we all know of Members of this House who do not always behave that way, and who, because they are in a safe seat, choose instead to campaign to and speak to only the part of their electorate that they feel will deliver them the next election. Whatever proportional system we end up delivering, it must fundamentally challenge that situation.

I say that having won a marginal constituency at the last snap general election. We were nearly 10,000 votes behind the Conservatives in Oxford West and Abingdon. I will be perfectly honest: I did not think I would win. When I found out the election was happening, I called up a future employer, with whom I had taken a job as a deputy head—it was my first deputy headship, and I was really excited—and said, “If you want to make some money, put a bet against me. There’s no way I can make that up in one election.” I am sorry to say that they lost money, but I will go to their prize-giving in a few weeks’ time, so that is the quid pro quo.

The question is how we did it in Oxford West and Abingdon. Anyone who has ever campaigned will have seen Lib Dem election leaflets saying, “X can’t win here,” and that is what we did in my constituency. The Labour party vote came over. I was in a pub the other day, having a pint with some of the chaps who are often there, and one said, “I’m a member of the Labour party, and I can’t tell you I voted for you, because I’d get thrown out of the party.” He should not have had to make that confession. He should not have to hide that from people. The fact is that we won because of a broad church of voters. I appreciate and understand that I was not his top choice, but he was happy to say, “I’m proud to have voted for you anyway.” We had to get to the point where the Green party stood down in Oxford West and Abingdon to send that message, so that we could win. Yes, we made up that difference. I live in a marginal constituency, and am I happy about that.

What kind of system would I want? I advocate something like alternative vote plus. A lot of work was done on this a long time ago. We need a root-and-branch reform of the whole way that we do politics. That should cover not just proportional systems, but overseas electors and votes at 16. We need a proper look at the entire convention on how we do politics in this country—not just the x in the box, but everything, including how we campaign and how we represent people. That is why we need a more proportional system.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), to his new position, and wish the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) all the best on her maternity leave. I am sure that he will ably cover her post.

Before addressing proportional representation, I want to highlight the feeling, which has come up in the debate, that the current political system is in need of change. The Minister will be getting to grips with the brief, but he will be well aware that our electoral laws are out of date and need looking at as a matter of urgency. Millions of people are missing from the electoral roll, dark money is influencing politics and public trust is at an all-time low.

This debate is about proportional representation. It is important to acknowledge that, as with every electoral system, there are pros and cons to first past the post. Simplicity is the key benefit of first past the post, because it gives the electorate one vote for the candidate or party they support. The other great benefit is the constituency link. As Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Fleetwood, when I go out and speak to my constituents, as I did over Easter, many of them greet me by name—they know me. I do not think they have the same relationship with their MEPs, whom they probably could not name and would not recognise if they fell over them in the queue for the bus.

I have outlined the advantages, but there are cons to first past the post, which have been outlined by many speakers in this debate. The current voting system has been under growing scrutiny. A traditional argument in favour of first past the post was that it had a history of returning stable single-party Governments. That has been well and truly debunked since 2010. Analysis of the 2017 general election also demonstrates the limitations of our voting system. That election saw a rise in marginal seats: 11 seats were won by fewer than 100 votes. Analysis by the Electoral Reform Society found that less than 0.0017% of voters choosing differently would have given the Conservative party a majority.

Moving on to proportional voting systems, proportional representation has a number of good arguments in its favour. It is right for Parliament to reflect the political will of the people—who would not argue that a country should have a Parliament that looks like the politics of its people. I do not think that anyone can disagree with that principle. A proportional voting system would give voters the opportunity to vote for people they believe in, rather than voting tactically to stop the party that they like least.

I am sure that every political party taking part in this debate has at some point or another said to a voter, “Please support me, because if you don’t support me the other guy will get in.” As well as smaller parties standing aside in some seats at the last general election, the Electoral Reform Society estimates that 6.5 million people voted tactically. As I said, they were voting for parties that were not necessarily their first choice in order to stop the party that they perceived to be more likely to win in their area.

PR is of course well established in the UK. There are forms of it in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and here in London, for the Assembly elections. They all use proportional systems, which means that most voters in this country at some point have used more than one electoral system. In Scotland, where STV is used in local government elections, voters have demonstrated that they are capable of using more than one system and more complex systems than first past the post. Finally, all the UK-based proportional systems—except for the closed lists used in European elections—have the strong constituency basis that is incredibly important for any voting system.

Personally, I am on the record supporting PR. However, a major constitutional change such as this must have the support of the public. For example, in the 2011 AV referendum, to which I am sure the Minister will refer in his speech, 32% of voters supported AV, but the vast majority rejected it. AV is not, however, a form of proportional representation, and public opinion may well have changed since then. What has not changed is that our democracy is still fundamentally broken. I do not believe that changing our voting system alone is some magic wand that will fix the problems or mend the disconnect felt by so many voters in this country.

Millions of people across the UK feel that politics does not work for them, and it is not hard to see why. Communities are often affected by decisions over which they have no say or, even when they think they have a say, a Government can come in to override it, as in Lancashire in the case of fracking. Many people feel that what goes on in Westminster is a world away from the reality of their lives. Research published by the Hansard Society found that the UK public are increasingly disenchanted with the system of governing.

To move on to Labour’s position, Labour is committed to root-and-branch transformation of the archaic political structures and cultures of this country which work for the few and not the many. At the last general election, our manifesto committed to establishing a constitutional convention to examine and advise on reforming the way in which Britain works at a fundamental level. We will consult on the convention’s forms and terms of reference, and invite recommendations on extending democracy. The convention will bring together individuals and organisations from across civil society, and will act as the driving force behind our democratic agenda.

As well as looking at different voting systems, the convention will look at extending democracy locally, regionally and nationally, and will consider the option of a more federalised country. Of course, a constitutional convention could look at other issues to do with democratic accountability, including whether MPs who change parties and cross the Floor should face by-elections. This is about where power and sovereignty lie in politics, in the economy and in the justice system, as well as in our communities. The convention will build a popular mandate for the deep-seated political change that this country needs.

As I said, it is important that we look at different voting systems as part of a wider package of constitutional and electoral reforms, to address the growing democratic deficit across Britain. That is the change that we must see.

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

In welcoming the Minister to his place, I ask him to leave at least one minute for the proposer, Angela Smith.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We want to ensure we have a migration system that enables us to welcome people into this country on the basis of the skills they will bring and the contribution they will make to this country, not of the country they happen to come from. When people voted to leave the European Union in 2016, they sent a clear message that they wanted things to change. One of the things they wanted to change was to bring an end to free movement and to ensure that it is the UK Government who are able to make decisions about who can come to this country.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

As the Prime Minister seeks to get her short extension upon the short extension, will she make it absolutely clear to the European Union that if they turn around and say that it has to be a long extension and that we will have to fight the European Union elections, she will say no, no, no?

[The Prime Minister]

We had the opportunity on Friday to cement that extension to 22 May and ensure that we left on 22 May. As I said earlier, I am grateful to all who supported that motion. Some did so with some difficulty, and with a very heavy heart. I now want us to find a position where we can, across the House, support the withdrawal agreement and a deal that enables us to leave on 22 May without having to hold European parliamentary elections. We can only do that if we come together and find a way forward that this House is willing to support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about certainty for business. He can give business certainty by voting for the deal—that is what gives business certainty. He complains about no deal, but of course, it was the Scottish National party who wanted to leave the UK without a plan—[Interruption.] Perhaps we should remind the SNP that independence would have meant leaving the EU with no deal.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Q7. I will be chairing a Delegated Legislation Committee while the tributes to David Natzler are paid, so I publicly wish him well on his retirement and thank him for all the support he gave me, particularly when I was Deputy Speaker. Thank you, David—good luck. Slaidburn health centre serves 1,100 people in the village and surrounding rural areas. It is well used and well loved by an ageing population with no bus service. The contract is up for renewal and people really do fear the salami-slicing of services, or even worse, the closure, so will the Prime Minister publicly give her support to health services such as Slaidburn today and say that either the reduction of services, or even worse, the closure, would be totally unacceptable?

[The Prime Minister]

I am aware of the issues with Slaidburn country practice, and of course, we are aware of the pressures facing GPs. That is why there is going to be a major new investment in primary and community healthcare. This is a very important element of our national health service, and that has been set out in the long-term plan. In the event of a practice closure, NHS England assesses the need for a replacement provider before dispersing the list of patients at that GP surgery. I understand that in relation to Slaidburn health centre, discussions are ongoing on the future of the practice, and the local clinical commissioning group is currently exploring options.

Leaving the EU

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

At the 2017 general election, 80% of the people who voted voted for parties that were committed to honouring the result of the referendum and taking the United Kingdom out of the European Union. That is exactly what the Government are working to do. The hon. Lady refers to no deal. We cannot simply take no deal off the table. As I said, if we are not going to stay in the European Union, the only way to ensure that there is not a no-deal is to have a deal.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Surely the backstop has become an unnecessary nightmare for all of us because we do not know what the future trading relationship will be between the UK and the EU27. If Brussels digs in its heels on not giving the small concession that the Prime Minister is asking for, will she seek to go into an implementation period post 29 March for 20 months, in which time we can negotiate the future trading relationship?

[The Prime Minister]

We will indeed have an opportunity during the implementation period to negotiate the details of that future trading relationship. I expect that to be done by December 2020, such that we are then able to put that future relationship into place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

8. Whether his Department plans to conduct further voter ID pilots; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

A diverse range of local authorities have confirmed that they will be taking part in the voter ID and postal vote pilots for the 2019 local elections. These pilots will provide further insight into ensuring security of the voting process.

[Mr Evans]

I know different local authorities are using different methods as to what constitutes ID, but does the Minister believe enough progress will be made so that, should this Parliament go the full five years, we will have voter ID available at the next general election?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, I do. I am grateful to the authorities that are piloting voter ID this year. Their experience will help us to formulate the right policy to roll it out nationally.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me say first that we have that opportunity today. I, and others, have been listening and talking to Members on both sides of the House about the issues that they have raised—apart from the Leader of the Opposition, who did not want to come and talk to me. I shall mention a number of those issues later in my speech, but one of them, which has been raised consistently by Members, is the backstop. We have an opportunity to give a clear message to the European Union on this matter today, and I also say to my right hon. and learned Friend that I am sure he has thought through very carefully the longer-term implications of the moves proposed tonight in the amendments that he and the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford have put forward and the implications they have for the relationship between the Executive and Parliament in the future.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Does the Prime Minister also get the idea that the European Union too wants to do a deal with the United Kingdom? We have a £95 billion deficit with it; the Germans sell us 850,000 cars every year; we buy 20% of all the prosecco produced in Italy: does she agree with me that the European Union wishes to carry on trading with the United Kingdom in the way it currently does?

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to reference this later on, and I think there is a willingness on the other side—the European Union—to agree a deal with the UK, but what it clearly said when the meaningful vote was lost was that it wanted to know what the UK wanted to see happening in relation to the deal, and that is an opportunity that we have today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I have only 10 minutes, so I will get to the heart of the matter. Last Monday, the Prime Minister should have made a substantive and detailed statement setting out how the Government planned to proceed in the face of defeat—a plan B—but she did not. Instead, she has today taken a radically different course and indicated support for an amendment that cuts across the very deal she negotiated by requiring the backstop to be replaced with unspecified “alternative arrangements”. She said earlier it was not the first time the phrase had been used. It has been used twice in these negotiations in different ways: first to mean the future relationship itself and secondly to mean technology. It cannot mean the future relationship, because if we have a future relationship, we do not need a backstop; and if it means technology, it takes us back to the old idea of technology that is not there.

It is one thing for Back Benchers to lay an amendment at odds with the Prime Minister’s deal, but it is quite another for the Prime Minister to support it, unless she has already got an indication from the EU that it could and would negotiate the necessary changes—but she has not. The danger is obvious: that the Prime Minister today may build a temporary sense of unity on her own Benches while in reality raising expectations she can never fulfil.

On 14 January, on the eve of the meaningful vote, the Prime Minister said at that Dispatch Box:

“I recognise that some Members wanted to see changes to the withdrawal agreement, a unilateral exit mechanism from the backstop, an end date or rejecting the backstop altogether... The simple truth is that the EU was not prepared to agree to this and rejecting the backstop altogether means no deal.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2019; Vol. 652, c. 826.]

Either that was correct, in which case the Government backing this amendment is absurd, or it was not, which raises its own equally serious issues. Earlier when confronted with this, the Prime Minister said you never know if you do not try, which is true, but we have been here before. She told us on 10 December that she was off to seek much lesser concessions, and she failed, so if we are going down the path of giving it a try, we need to consider what happens if we try and fail.

I listened carefully to the Prime Minister when she was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and she refused to rule out the prospect that she herself would apply for an extension of article 50 if this latest attempt to reopen issues, long thought closed, failed. I do not think this House should be so passive in the face of the high likelihood that we will be back here in two weeks facing that very prospect, which is why Labour will support the amendment seeking to prevent no deal, whether by an extension of article 50 or otherwise.

No deal would be catastrophic for jobs and living standards; it would weaken our security; and it would risk a hard border in Northern Ireland. Members should be under no illusion about this: no deal is not a way to prevent a hard border, but a way to guarantee it.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in a moment.

The first step in preventing the rush to no deal is to reduce the time pressure on the article 50 process. That is what some of the key amendments seek to do, and we will support them, but before there are cries of “Brexit delayed,” let us be clear: we are only at this stage, with 59 days to go, because the Government have run down the clock.

The word crisis is overused in this House, in our media and in our national debate, but we should be in no doubt that this is one of the greatest national crises our country has faced in a generation, and in the absence of leadership from the Government and this Prime Minister, Parliament must now act.



I recognise that there are concerns among some Members, including some on my own side, about voting for these amendments tonight, and I understand those concerns. I also understand the anger and frustration felt by many of our constituents about the handling of these negotiations and about the way in which this place has conducted itself in recent weeks.

[Mr Evans]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

However, we do not have the luxury of being bystanders in this debate. We are active participants. What our constituents are looking for is leadership, and it is time for us to provide it. We cannot say that we want to prevent no deal if we are not willing to take steps to stop it. We cannot tell the people that we do not want no deal and then sleepwalk towards it. We must act, and we must act tonight. Our constituents will not forgive us—nor should they—if we dodge difficult questions.

[Mr Evans]

rose—

[Keir Starmer]

The Prime Minister may pretend otherwise, but I want to be very clear: delay of article 50 is now inevitable, and it is irresponsible to pretend otherwise. That is the honest truth, and our constituents need to be told it. Even if the Prime Minister were to get a deal through the House in the coming weeks, a swathe of legislation would still need to be passed: six Bills, including a complex implementation Bill, and 600 statutory instruments. It is simply not credible to pretend that all that could be forced through in the remaining time. All that the amendments do is face reality.

[Mr Evans]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will not, because I do not want to leave the Secretary of State without the time that he needs.

The next task that the House will have to undertake is to explore credible alternatives to the Prime Minister’s deal that might be capable of gaining majority support in the House. That is not an easy task, but it is one that we need to get on with. Time is now needed in which to debate and vote on these options. That is why Labour’s Front-Bench amendment was tabled, and it is also why Labour supports amendment (g), in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and amendment (f) in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).

One of the great tragedies of this last two years is that we have had a Prime Minister who is unwilling to listen to Parliament and wants to push Parliament away, unwilling to build consensus and unwilling to listen to reasonable amendments. But the Prime Minister is now out of time, and Parliament must take control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Barclay]

If the hon. Lady had read the political declaration, she would know that the alternative arrangements are referred to in paragraph 19, but what she has drawn attention to is the stark difference between Labour and the Conservatives.

The amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition has barely been referred to today. Members on his own side did not even want to mention it as they referred to amendments tabled by Back Benchers. They did not seem to want to engage with it. That is because the Leader of the Opposition starts from a position of calling for unity, but cannot adopt the unified position of accepting an amendment from his own Back-Bench colleagues.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Stephen Barclay]

I will happily give way.

[Mr Evans]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for showing such great generosity in allowing Members to intervene on him. If Members vote for the possibility of extending article 50 this evening by up to nine months and the EU allowed it, has he estimated how many billions of pounds that would cost, and could he estimate where that money would come from—which public services would be damaged because that money was going to Brussels rather than public services in the UK?

[Stephen Barclay]

The reason we are willing to take interventions and debate is that we have a clear position from the Prime Minister, whereas the position of the Leader of the Opposition is confused. Is he for a second referendum, like the shadow Business Secretary, or does he support the position of the shadow Education Secretary who thinks a second referendum would be a betrayal? Does he or does he not support the position of Len McCluskey, who is willing to engage with the Prime Minister?

European Council

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answers I gave to those questions earlier.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

When President Juncker is not ruffling the hair of female colleagues—I think the Prime Minister got away lightly there—we know that he follows what is said in this House very carefully. He will have heard her say today, “No revocation of article 50 and no second referendum”, and I suspect that he does get some succour from some of the things said in this Chamber. Can she now state for President Juncker the exact date when the United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union?

[The Prime Minister]

We have that date in our legislation: it is 29 March 2019.

Leaving the EU

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

First, I have been asked that question, and given an answer to it, on a number of occasions. Secondly, I should like to be clear about some of the issues that I set out from the beginning. I said that we would leave the customs union; we are leaving the customs union. I said that we would leave the single market; we are leaving the single market. I said that we would leave the common agricultural policy; we are leaving the CAP. I said that we would leave the common fisheries policy; we are leaving the CFP. I said that we would bring an end to free movement; we are bringing an end to free movement. I said that we would cease the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK, and we are doing that as well. We are delivering, I believe, on the vote of the British people, but doing it in a way that protects their jobs.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

During the people’s vote of 2016, every constituency in Lancashire—Labour and Conservative—voted to leave the European Union, and I am delighted to hear that the Prime Minister has reaffirmed that that is what she intends to deliver. Can she understand, however, why so many people have reservations about this deal? The backstop is one area of concern. Can she understand why it is awkward for some people to understand that we are leaving the European Union on 29 March next year but that we need to seek permission from the European Union and some independent adjudicator before we can be truly independent of the EU?

[The Prime Minister]

I do indeed recall the people’s vote of 2016. I also recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed in relation to the backstop. We cease to be a member of the European Union on 29 March next year, and of course we have agreed that, in the transition and implementation period, we will continue to operate very much as today in order to give businesses the smooth and orderly exit that they require and to ensure that they do not have more than one change in the arrangements they have to put in place. I recognise the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed about the backstop, but the backstop is there in order to provide for the commitment to the people of Northern Ireland. It would be there in any deal that was done with the European Union; that is very clear. Without a backstop, there would be no deal. It is important that we have the different arrangements in place to enable us to come out of the backstop, while always maintaining our commitment to the people of Northern Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

This is of course a tragedy that has caused unimaginable hardship and pain for the people affected. Let me say straightaway that we recognise the hard work that the hon. Gentleman and others from all political parties here have put into campaigning on this issue.

In relation to the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, I am sure he will understand that whether or not the inquiry adopts a Maxwellisation process is a matter for the independent inquiry itself. It is, as the term suggests, independent of ministerial direction, but having talked to Sir Brian Langstaff directly, I know that he and his team are very mindful of the need for speed. Victims of infected blood continue to die, and I know that Sir Brian is determined to complete the inquiry’s work as quickly as a thorough examination of the facts allows. The Government are committed to ensuring that the inquiry has all the resources and everything else it needs to complete that task as rapidly as possible.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Q4. As a proud Welshman and a proud Brit, I say, “Come on England!”Crime is on the increase in the Ribble Valley, including antisocial behaviour orders, but the response from the Labour police and crime commissioner is to close front desk services at police stations, including Clitheroe police station. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we do not better protect the public by degrading the service that they pay for?

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the accessibility of local officers is a vital principle of British policing. He will know that we have provided a strong and comprehensive settlement that is increasing total investment in the police system by more than £460 million in this financial year, and for Lancashire police specifically, we have provided more than £6 million for 2017-18. As he says, decisions about resources, including the use of police stations, are a matter for police and crime commissioners and chief constables, but I encourage those who make those decisions to listen to their local communities to best assess their needs.

Leaving the EU

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Constituents across the country can have confidence in a Government who have been very clear that we will not reduce workers’ rights standards. Indeed, this Government have pledged to enhance workers’ rights, which is precisely why we asked Matthew Taylor to do the report on new forms of employment, so we can ensure workers’ rights and legislation around employment are keeping pace with the changing employment market.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I do not religiously read every tweet that emanates from the hands of President Trump, so I do not know what his views are on the Chequers deal, but the Prime Minister is meeting him later this week. Will she be discussing the exciting potential for trade deals with the USA, and does she believe there is anything in this Chequers deal that could possibly inhibit that trade deal?

[The Prime Minister]

I am sure that trade will be one of the issues I discuss with President Trump, as indeed other key issues will be, such as security and defence; as my hon. Friend knows, the United States is our longest-standing and deepest security and defence partner. The proposal we are presenting to the EU enables us to sign trade deals around the rest of the world, but I would caution hon. Members that of course, when any trade deal is being signed, the United Kingdom will take a decision on what standards it wants to continue to abide by and will make decisions on whether those standards will be changed or torn up, possibly affecting that trade deal. But that will be a decision for us here in the UK.