Tories only reform is self-interest inspired.

• Friday's (Dec 1st 2017) debate on constituency boundaries chalked up another defeat for Government because theTories declined again to vote against. The boundary changes probably will not happen as it will endanger Tory seats and the Government are hopelessly distracted by Brexit.

   

  Luke Hall (Thornbury and Yate) (Con)

   

  Much was made at the start of the debate about trust, but it will not do anything to engender trust in politics, politicians and this place if Labour Members make a party political move by kicking the boundary changes into the long grass, because they are worried about fighting another election on the current boundaries, rather than allowing us to fulfil a commitment made in the last two Conservative manifestos. I say to them that if the answer is 50 more Members of Parliament, they are asking completely the wrong question

   

   

 11.56 am

• Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)

   

  I will try to ask the right question: why is the only measure that the Government are pushing to reform our disfigured electoral system one that will give them a numerical advantage? I should declare a vested interest, in that my constituency will disappear if the changes go through, and I do have a little regret at the fact that that will interrupt my promising parliamentary career just as I am beginning to get the hang of how this place works. However, that is not why I am making a speech.

   

  It is revealing that the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), had to harp back to before 2010, when he became its Chair, to be able to cite an example of a useful reform. I have been on the Committee for three Parliaments, and I know ​that the reputation of Parliament is as it was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). That is the crucial point—it is what this debate is about. The few people who are not looking at the coverage of the royal couple in Nottingham this morning but are watching our soporific exchanges here might be surprised at our self-indulgence, but our reputation fell to rock bottom during the expenses scandal and it is now worse—it is subterranean—and that is what we should address.

   

  We must address the weaknesses in our system. If we want every vote to count, we can do that through a system of proportional representation. We need a system that is fair and through which the views of the people are represented. In two Parliaments during my time in the House, the Conservative party won 20% of the vote in Wales but did not get a single one of the 40 seats for Wales, which is outrageous. If there was a PR system in the United States, we would have been spared a President who behaves like a petulant child, and we would not have had to express our anger in the way we did yesterday. That shows the major weakness in the system.

   

  Other scandals are certain to take place. What happened to the system for disciplining Ministers? Under the system set up by Gordon Brown, two Ministers were called in by the adviser on Ministers’ interests. There was someone in place to do such a job, in accordance with the ministerial code, but since the Conservative Government have taken over, that post has been subsumed into other roles, and people are judged not by the adviser whose job it is, but by civil servants and others.

   

  As has happened in some cases, there is now a process of absolution by resignation. Two Ministers have resigned in order to conceal what they were accused of doing. One was accused of having meetings with Mossad outside his ministerial role, and another was accused of considering giving international aid money to the Israeli army. Those two people lost their jobs, but they were not disgraced in the way that they should have been if the public had been informed. We had the case of two Ministers giving £3 million to a charity that was favoured by the previous Prime Minister.

   

   

• Michelle Donelan

   

  I am a little concerned that we are getting off the important topic under discussion—I would like to get back to it. The hon. Gentleman said that he wants to make votes count much more. Does he concede that the equalisation of constituencies would do that

   

• Paul Flynn

   

  I accept entirely the logic behind the Bill and its arithmetic—I am not arguing about that. I am saying only that a massive programme of reform is urgent and essential. I was making a point about the two Ministers who threw away £3 million by giving it to a dodgy charity that went broke three days later. They were never called to account by the Prime Minister, but that should have happened. We must reform that system. We must get reform in the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments as well. We have a system whereby Ministers, former generals and others can—

   

   

• Mr Speaker

   

  Order. It is very good of the hon. Gentleman to sit down when I rise to my feet. He is an extremely experienced and dextrous parliamentarian, and I was going to say to him, politely, that he has ​started his speech “broadly”—let me put it like that—and he cannot be accused of having attended too closely to the specifics of the measure before us. I feel sure that he will now apply his scholarly cranium with laser-like intensity to the matter before us, rather than to the matter that he might wish were before us.

   

   

• Paul Flynn

   

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. I greatly appreciate that advice, and I shall try to focus my laser-like cranium on the effect that these measures will have in Wales. The Welsh Assembly has PR, but it now has the problem that it does not have enough Members for its increasing workload. If the number of Welsh MPs is to be reduced—it is almost certain that that will happen sometime in the future—there must be a compensatory increase in numbers in the Welsh Assembly. That would make the proposals logical and fair, but at the moment they are a piece of special pleading by the Tory party to cynically increase the number of MPs that they have in Westminster. That has nothing to do with reform of our constitution, which is in a very bad state.

   

   

 12.02 pm

Comments

[Ad]

I would imagine the present state of affairs will buckle under the various pressures at some point. There is not a great deal of loyalty in the parliamentary parties themselves and to them from the outside. There is though perhaps an understanding amongst the big two that the status quo largely suits them. Power less concentrated in ministerial hands would be a good start. It asks too much of the individuals concerned by and large, given the manifold responsibilities required.

We still largely depend on the same system that ran the kingdom and its empire going quite far back to universal suffrage and the beginnings of the Labour Party movement. Then of course being aligned and intertwined with the EEC/EU. Now that this arrangement is set to finish we need long term vision and an equal amount of competence. I feel the incumbent government is ill-equipped in this regard. Five years of siege mentality is scarcely adequate, yet perhaps points to some of the faults we have in the current system i.e. a hung parliament taking us through it.

I doubt the UK is going to find itself isolated. Its a major economy, albeit dwarfed by some. The interests of capital on both sides of the border will see that the profits continue to flow. I've no doubt that there are interests looking to take advantage of our situation and exploit these circumstances, from within as well as without. However, I'm sure the interested parties know all about it. So yes, a very difficult (though not impossible) conundrum to be fair. The fort needs to be held in terms of running the country, managing it in the interests of the many, not in stubbornness and nationalistic brinkmanship.

Maybe I've got my head in the sand, but that's my take on it. We rely on other nations; militarily, economically. Perhaps we do have responsibilities, not to just pull out of a long term relationship whilst potentially destabilising others and just try to grab everything we can for ourselves. Look at the tabloids.

In short, less of the "if Britain goes down you are coming with us" gamble. After all we can see that we will lose out and its not fair on everyone else.