Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill: Committee Stage

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Before addressing the specifics of the motion, let me make a general point. I have no problem at all with the argument that constituencies should be of equal size. My concern relates far more to the fact that the Government are proposing that we reduce the number from 650 to 600, which is a completely arbitrary figure pulled, essentially, out of thin air.

Let us get one thing straight. The Government’s arguments for that reduction are completely spurious. They talk about the cost of politics, but we are already set to lose 73 Members of the European Parliament, which will deprive the public of the representation that they provide; and, of course, they are more than happy to continue stuffing the House of Lords to the brim. The whole process is, in essence, a bare-faced gerrymander.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend observed that there has been absolutely no word from the Government that they intend to cut the number of Ministers? What they are actually doing is proportionately increasing the size of the Executive as well.

[Stephen Kinnock]

My hon. Friend is clearly psychic, because that is precisely the point that I was about to make. The ratio between Front-Bench and Back-Bench MPs is, in terms of balance, vital to the way in which our democracy works. Back Benchers play a critical role in holding the Government to account. The fewer of them we have, in whichever party happens to be in power, the fewer are able to fulfil their public duty, and that will reduce, critically, the amount of scrutiny that is given to vitally important issues. Arguably the most important issue that our country has faced since the second world war is coming towards us, so the House will have an increased workload, and the role of Back Benchers in holding the Executive to account will become even more important. Workloads will increase for not only for Westminster, but for Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.

There is also a compelling constituency reason to undermine the argument for reducing the number from 650 to 600. There is real concern about the impact of the reduction on the social and cultural dynamics of each constituency. It is crucial for MPs to represent areas with natural communities and shared interests.

[Emma Hardy]

I made a point earlier about Hull East and Hull West. There is also a proud fishing tradition among the Hessle Road community in Hull, which goes back for years. The new boundary will divide that community—a community that has existed for hundreds of years. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be looked at again?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Some absurd things are being thrown up by this review. For example, in my constituency the proposal was to have a boundary line which separated the shopping centre from the high street. It is utterly absurd and ludicrous.

The fact is that wherever we draw the line on a map when driven by a rigid mathematical equation we carve up communities, force unnatural alliances and throw communities together in ways that do not make sense and that end up deeply alienating the people we are elected to represent.

[Rachel Maclean]

The hon. Gentleman is right to identify these critical issues that affect communities all over the country, as Members on both sides of the House have done, but does he not agree that this is precisely why the Boundary Commission is doing its work, during which he and all of us, and members of the public, have had the opportunity to put forward precisely such views, which the commission will consider and then produce proposals?

[Stephen Kinnock]

The fundamental problem with the logic of the hon. Lady’s argument is that this is about the terms of reference that the commission was given: it was given terms of reference based on 600 and on a very narrow quota of 5%. Based on that, the Boundary Commission had its hands tied and inevitably was going to end up with some of the completely absurd proposals we have seen.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Does my hon. Friend also agree with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee in the previous Parliament, which said that the changes every five years will mean there is great disruption for communities meaning that they never settle down? It will also cost the Exchequer more because there is a five-year rotation. The Bill’s proposal would change that to 10 years, provide safety and security for communities to build, and save the Exchequer money.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It provides that stability and continuity and also, given the 7.5% quota, the changes would not be that radical even on a 10-year basis, so it is an incremental change.

Why are the Government ploughing ahead? The bottom line is that the entire boundary review process has been a bare-faced gerrymander, and that is combined with the use of procedural devices and backstairs manoeuvring to block the will of the House. That is further evidence of the Government’s willingness to abuse the power vested in the them. The Procedure Committee’s 2013 report concluded:

“Government policy is not to refuse a money or ways and means resolution to a bill which has passed second reading.”

The view of the Procedure Committee must be paramount in this case.

The Government clearly have no respect for this House or our democracy more widely: first, there was their £1 billion bribe to the Democratic Unionist party and now there is this. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who unfortunately is not in his place now, is therefore absolutely right to push the Government to do right by our democracy and to bring forward his Bill.

It is essential that 2.1 million new voters are heard. It is essential that my constituents and many of the constituents across this House are fairly and properly represented. And it is essential that this Government are prevented from riding roughshod over our democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Q4. Figures released by the OECD on 27 April show that inward investment into the UK in 2017 slumped by 90% in comparison with 2016, which is one of the largest one-year drops in foreign direct investment ever recorded in any country. It is crystal clear that if this downward trend continues, it will have a catastrophic impact on steel and the other manufacturing and service industries that are the lifeblood of our economy in Aberavon, in Wales and in the UK. In order to reverse the profound market uncertainty that has caused FDI to plummet in this way, will the Prime Minister now confirm that she is prepared to keep an open mind on our country rejoining EFTA—the European Free Trade Association—and remaining in the European economic area? Will she also recognise the fact that there is a strong cross-party consensus for—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry; this is an extremely important question, but Members really do need to be sensitive to the fact that lots of other people want to ask questions.

Syria

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Last weekend’s chemical weapons attack on innocent civilians in Douma was a brutal and barbaric act. Seventy-five people, including children, have died. More than 500 have been treated for symptoms of nerve agent poisoning. This outrage clearly breached the Geneva protocol of 1925 and the 1993 chemical weapons convention. Only Assad has helicopters and barrel bombs. His culpability can be in no doubt. It was at least the ninth time that Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people, and he chose to use chemical weapons in Douma specifically to target civilians. This was a war crime that led to unimaginable humanitarian suffering, death and destruction. Such barbarity cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

There should, of course, be a UN investigation, but that is impossible because the Russian Government continue to veto any attempts by the Security Council, and the Syrian regime is now preventing the OPCW from entering Douma. The Syrian regime is responsible for this chemical weapons attack, and its sponsors in the Kremlin are complicit, not only because of their support for Assad and his brutal regime but because of their relentless work to undermine the ability of international institutions to function properly, thereby rendering effective diplomatic action impossible.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiment that it was absolutely right for the Prime Minister to take this action. It is not only Assad who is using chemical weapons in Syria; he is being propped up very much by the Russians. We need to send a message to Assad and the Russians that chemical weapons are just not acceptable.

[Stephen Kinnock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. This is a universal message that needs to be sent to all those brutal dictators who may be considering going down this route.

With the Kremlin effectively dismantling the diplomatic route, we are left with no option but to apply military force. It pains me to say this, but the sad reality is that the future of Syria is in the hands of the Kremlin, Iran and the Assad regime. However, that does not mean that we have no agency or that we should allow the international norms around the prohibition of chemical weapons to wither on the vine. That is why it was right to act in the name of humanitarian concerns and assert the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons. But Parliament should have had a say. That has been the way we have operated in this place for over a decade. The dispute about parliamentary authorisation reveals the shortcomings of a convention-based constitutional system. The Leader of the Opposition is therefore right that we should have a war powers Act. Of course, the devil will be in the detail. Such an Act must not be so loose as to allow the Government to do anything, but it must not be so tight as to bind the hands of the Government and those on the frontline to the extent that it would become an impossibly high bar to pass.

The costs of non-intervention are clear. Non-intervention would equate to a tacit approval of the abhorrent use of chemical weapons. A targeted strike on the installations that enable the use of chemical weapons not only degrades the Syrian capacity to deliver and use chemical weapons again, but sends a signal that their use will not be tolerated. We must therefore be steadfast and consistent. We must also do more to support those who have fled Syria to escape this barbarity, and step up to fulfil our obligations to address the refugee crisis.

My party has a proud history of standing up for the most vulnerable. We led the world to intervene in Kosovo to prevent genocide, understanding that the Russian veto precluded the UN route at that time. The Labour party is not a pacifist party. Indeed, it was a Labour Foreign Secretary, Ernest Bevin, who was the driving force behind establishing NATO. I am truly proud of the Labour party’s role, 60 years ago almost to the day, in the signing of the treaty of Brussels. We are a party that understands that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men—and, indeed, women—to do nothing. We understand the costs of non-intervention, just as we appreciate and learn from the costs of intervention. Where would we be if pacifists had been in charge in 1939?

If the only intervention that we contemplate is that with UN Security Council approval, we will be allowing the Kremlin to dictate our foreign policy. I refuse to allow my country or my party to be held hostage by Vladimir Putin. I will always uphold the fine history of my party, which is to be ready, willing and able to intervene, and to shoulder our responsibility to protect.

European Council

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

A number of proposals have been brought forward as the basis on which we could have the recognition of standards on both sides. Of course, there are some aspects of the financial services sector where standards are set internationally and not just at a European Union level. As part of the detailed negotiations we are going into, we will be looking at exactly what a dynamic equivalence of standards might look like in future.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The 23 March European Council guidelines state clearly:

“Being outside the Customs Union and the Single Market will inevitably lead to frictions in trade.”

Does that sentence not confirm beyond all doubt that the Prime Minister’s red lines are leading us inexorably to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic?

[The Prime Minister]

No, it does not. Of course, the European Union will have set its particular guidelines. We are going into negotiation with it. We have already set out ways in which we can ensure that there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland and we will go into detailed discussion on those.

Salisbury Incident

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My understanding is that discussions are indeed taking place on the funding of the World Service and that we expect a resolution in due course.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

I should like to add my full support to the Prime Minister’s robust response today. As director of the British Council in St Petersburg from 2005 to 2008, I have first-hand experience of the utterly ruthless way in which the Russian state can operate. Does she share my concern that holding the World Cup in Russia this summer could be perceived as a global vindication of Mr Putin’s regime? If so, will she be making representations to FIFA to explore the possibility of postponing the World Cup until 2019 and holding it in a more appropriate host country or countries?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he is doing to support the steel industry. He was at the forefront of the debate two years ago when the steel industry was facing a particular crisis, and it is through his influence, with others, that we have introduced an energy compensation scheme, flexibility over EU emissions targets and 45 trade defence measures to prevent illegal steel dumping in Europe. His influence is pretty strong in this debate.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that when President Bush introduced steel tariffs in 2002, it led to 200,000 job losses in the US? What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that American politicians, employers and trade unions are pressing President Trump to drop these utterly self-defeating tariffs?

[Alun Cairns]

We have said that we disagree with the statements the President has made. I was in the US just two weeks ago, and I spoke to our ambassador and the UK’s trade commissioner about this issue. I subsequently met the US ambassador here in the UK and I spoke again, just last Friday, to the UK trade commissioner in the US. This is a cross-Government effort. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade is travelling to the US as we speak to pursue and raise these issues. There has been a whole cross-Government approach to this issue and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has raised it directly with the President.

Carillion

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

This is one of the projects in Scotland that has been the subject of conversations between UK and Scottish Government officials. Because it is a Transport Scotland project, it is indeed a matter for the devolved Government in Scotland to take forward in seeking alternative providers, but the Government will continue to do whatever they can to support the Scottish Government in that endeavour.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

This whole sorry tale is a textbook example of the privatisation of profit and the socialisation of risk. Companies such as Carillion have been taking taxpayers for a ride to the tune of billions of pounds of profit. Is not today the day when the case for a windfall tax on these sorts of companies became unanswerable?

[Mr Lidington]

I normally have time for the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that in this instance he wrote his script before listening to the statement. There have been no payments to Carillion except payments for services actually delivered by Carillion companies, in line with their contracts. What today has demonstrated is that the financial risk is transferred to the private sector contractor, and it is right that that should be the case while the Government concentrate on continuity of public services.

European Council

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that reassurance. We envisage negotiating a separate treaty to cover the security arrangements. There are a number of programmes and operations in which we are involved in the European Union that we think it would be beneficial for us to continue to be able to access precisely to maintain the security of people here, but also in the EU 27.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Referring to the transition period, the conclusions of the European Council make the position clear. It says:

“In order to ensure a level playing field based on the same rules applying throughout the Single Market, changes to the acquis adopted by EU institutions and bodies will have to apply both in the United Kingdom and the EU.”

Will the Prime Minister please confirm, therefore, that the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice will apply in precisely the same way now as it will during the transition period?

[The Prime Minister]

I have answered a question on that in previous statements that I have made in relation to the matter. We would expect, yes, that the European Court of Justice jurisdiction would start very similarly at the beginning of that implementation period, but as I said in response to one of my hon. Friends earlier, we are also clear that, if it is possible to negotiate, for example, the dispute resolution mechanism at an earlier stage and introduce it at an earlier stage, we would do precisely that.

Brexit Negotiations

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As we move into the next phase, we will be negotiating our future relationship and future partnership with the European Union. That will be across all aspects of our current relationship with the European Union, so it will be about negotiating on trade and negotiating on security. I set out in my Florence speech that we expect to negotiate a separate treaty on our security arrangements and co-operation.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has repeatedly claimed today that the financial settlement is subject to the conclusion of the future deep and special partnership. May I draw her attention to paragraph 96 of the progress report, which clearly states that the financial settlement is contingent only on conclusion of the article 50 withdrawal agreement and the transitional arrangements? Will she please provide some clarity on this vital issue and confirm that her precise understanding of paragraph 96 is that the settlement is contingent only on the withdrawal agreement and the transitional arrangements, not on the future partnership?

[The Prime Minister]

No, that is not my understanding of the joint progress report or the position that we will be in. It is very clear at the beginning of the joint progress report that this is a set of proposals that have been put forward in the context of negotiating that final agreement. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reference to the framework for the future relationship in paragraph 96.

Proportional Representation

Stephen Kinnock Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank the Petitions Committee for enabling this debate. I rise to argue that the central purpose of the campaign for proportional representation must be to shine a light on the clear, strong and manifold causal links between the state of our broken politics and the state of our discredited voting system.

The simple fact is that the British people deserve an electoral system in which every vote counts. Why do the vast majority of developed nations use proportional representation, while our electorate are forced to accept second best? Why should our people be forced to accept the fundamentally flawed logic of a system whereby seats in Parliament do not reflect vote share? Why should we have to tolerate tactical voting? Polling found that on 8 June 20% to 30% of the electorate voted tactically. Why should we have to put up with a system whereby almost 7 million people felt that they had to hold their nose while voting?

What does it say about our democracy when millions of people are going to the ballot box to vote for the “least worst option,” as opposed to voting for the party or individual they feel will best represent their values, beliefs and interests in this place? Can we really sit here today, in the building that is sometimes referred to as the cradle of modern democracy, and defend a system that fails to pass the most basic principle of democracy—namely, the right of voters to vote for the party or candidate that they actually support? Perhaps most importantly of all, why should the British people have to accept a system that delivers the winner-takes-all political culture that is the root cause of the deeply divided, polarised and fragmented country that we have become?

Decades of research from around the world shows that proportional representation correlates with positive societal outcomes: greater income equality, less corporate control, better long-term planning and political stability, fairer representation of women and minorities, higher voter turnout, better environmental laws and a significantly lower likelihood of going to war. This is the real prize of electoral reform: building a better politics. It is the means of shaping a more inclusive society in which resources are allocated on the basis of real needs and opportunities rather than cynical swing-seat electoral calculations. It should therefore come as no surprise that polls consistently show that a majority of the public want PR. The latest poll shows that 67% want to make seats match votes, and those people are joined by a growing alliance of parties, MPs and public figures who want real democracy.

There are those who argue that the great advantage of first past the post is that it delivers “strong and stable” government—I think the less said about that, the better. We are also told that the great danger of PR is that it will mean back-room stitch-ups. What, like the £1 billion bung for the DUP?

[Wes Streeting]

On the point about back-room stitch-ups, does my hon. Friend also recognise that, under the present system, political parties are themselves coalitions? In the Conservative party we see the libertarian tradition and the patrician tradition. In the Liberal Democrats we see the social democrats and the “Orange Book” liberals. Of course, in the Labour party we agree on everything all the time. [Laughter.] Let us let the people in to some of those compromises, choices and trade-offs.

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right; the transparency of a more coalition-based system whereby parties are able to self-identify clearly as parties in their own right is a far more healthy way of running a democracy.

The truth is that it is first past the post that increasingly leads to smoke-filled rooms, backstairs deals and pork barrel politics. I prefer the open politics of transparent coalition building, in which parties are clear about the trade-offs that they would make in a coalition, and the public clearly do too. They like to see their politicians putting the national interest ahead of narrow party political gain, because they can see that our entire political culture, underpinned and compounded by our winner-takes-all electoral system, is not geared to building broad-based political support right across the country. No, it is geared to focus on approximately 100 constituencies —the so-called battleground seats.

[Mr Jayawardena]

The hon. Gentleman talks about constituencies, but if he is talking about open politics and fairer politics, will he make it his policy—indeed, is it Labour party policy—to allow the redrawing of boundaries so that they are fairer in themselves?

[Stephen Kinnock]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that the equalisation of constituencies is, in principle, right, but it should be on the basis of 650 MPs, particularly in the light of Brexit and so many more responsibilities. As I am sure he will agree, we are taking back control in this Parliament.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Welcome aboard!

[Stephen Kinnock]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is absolutely delighted by that development, but still, arguing for 600 seats does not really make sense.

The system is geared to focus on approximately 100 constituencies that always tip the balance when it comes to polling day, 100 constituencies that hold the future of our country in their hands, 100 constituencies that drive and define our politics, 100 constituencies that can give a party with 40% of the vote the powers of an elective dictatorship.

A proportional system, however, is genuinely representative. It forces parties to come together and build consensus around policies that advance our long-term national interest. What a refreshing change that would make, following the short-term, tactical party management that has driven so much decision making in Westminster for so long. That is why I am so keen to point out that the campaign for electoral reform is not, and must never be, about partisan interests. I favour electoral reform not because I think it will particularly benefit the Labour party, but because it is right for our country, our economy, our society, our people and our democracy; because the campaign for electoral reform is about showing people that this is their society, they have a voice and they can shape their future.

I shall finish in that spirit by calling on political parties to commit to including two things in their manifestos: first, an undertaking in principle to replace first past the post with a more proportional system; and secondly, a commitment to organising a constitutional convention, shortly after the next general election, to identify the best possible proportional system that we can implement for our country. True radicalism is about going to the root cause of a problem, identifying the solution and building consensus for change, so let us for once be truly radical. Let us accept that our politics is broken and that our utterly discredited first-past-the-post system is preventing us from building the new political culture that our country so urgently needs.