Dr Roz Savage
MP for South Cotswolds · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“I express my gratitude to the Minister and to the Government for delivering this second nature and climate statement, as they promised to do during the conversations around the time of my Climate and Nature Bill last year. It may not be exactly what I had envisaged, but I welcome it none the less.”
“Q8. My constituency is the ninth most sewage-polluted constituency in the entire country, with thousands of hours of sewage pouring into the Thames, Avon and Coln, but that metric of hours conceals the truth. It does not convey the actual volume, and clearly a trickle is very different from a gush.”
“T7. The Government recently shelved plans to require solar panels on new car parks, despite the significant potential to generate clean electricity, support electric vehicle charging and provide greater shade cover.”
“First past the post encourages parties to focus their policies on core marginal seats that they want to influence. That means the kind of policies they present and whether they suit a constituency will depend largely on the postcode and political history of that constituency.”
“I feel like I now personally have a representative in Westminster.” At the last general election, the current Government got 30% of the vote, 60% of the seats and they now have 100% of the power. How can that be fair? In effect, that means that 70% of votes have no power.”
“I wish the Government had gone further and introduced alternative vote for those single-position elections. The proof is in the result. In last year’s mayoral elections, the Mayor of the West of England won with just 25% of the vote. That is clearly not democracy.”
The complete record
Every one of 479 lines we hold for Dr Roz Savage, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 10.
“I absolutely support renewable energy—I have spent decades campaigning for climate action—but the transition works best when communities have ownership and agency. I would like the Government to address the barriers facing community groups that want to supply local customers directly. Liberal Democrats believe that communities should be able to generate clean energy, sell it to local households and keep the benefits locally. Food security is national security. To quote again from the Joint Intelligence Committee report: “Without significant increases in the UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.” Let that sink in for a minute.”
“They deserve bathing water designation for the sites that they have swum in for generations, and a Government who are willing to ask the deeper question: is the ownership model fit for purpose? The Government have to get upstream of the problem and ask whether profit-making monopolies, focused on short-term gains, can ever serve the long-term greater good of customers and nature. On energy security, instability in the middle east, gas price volatility and the direct hit on household bills demonstrate why home-grown renewables are the right choice for the climate while also paying a security and peace dividend. However, I would like to see the public brought with us on the transition, not pushed away. In my constituency, a huge solar farm has been proposed that would industrialise thousands of acres of farmland.”
“Water is a vital public good that should not be owned and operated primarily in the interests of shareholders, many of whom are based overseas, extracting returns from an essential service while communities downstream live with the polluted consequences. It is promising to see reforms coming down the pipeline, so to speak, that would see Ofwat replaced—something the Liberal Democrats have been calling for since 2022. However, my constituents need to see that legislation enforced more rigorously. South Cotswolds is the ninth most polluted constituency in the country, so my constituents want real transparency on what is being discharged and when—not just for how many hours, but in what volumes.”
“I am sure the House has heard these facts before, but I remind Members that we have lost 38 million birds in the past 50 years; wildlife abundance has fallen by a third since 1970; we have lost 93% of our wild flower meadows; and only 15% of our rivers are in good ecological health. I am sure that those statistics cause Sir David great distress and anxiety, yet we continue to treat nature as though it were expendable. I would like to pick up on some aspects of nature that are particularly worthy of our attention. Rivers are the lifeblood of our natural world, yet too many of them are in an appalling state. I commend the clean water Bill mentioned in the King’s Speech, which is a good start, but it does not address the underlying problem.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We must be telepathic, because my very next paragraph is as follows. Five days ago, Sir David Attenborough celebrated his 100th birthday, and I am sure that colleagues would like to join me in wishing Sir David the warmest congratulations on his long, wonderful and highly influential life. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He has spent much of his century on this planet showing us what the natural world looks like, but in the course of that long lifetime the UK has become one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth.”
“They are asking for rivers that are safe to swim in, farmland that can feed us, landscapes that function and communities that are resilient in the face of a more uncertain world, all of which is eminently doable with political will. The cost of inaction will far outweigh the cost of action; nature is the foundation on which our present and future security, prosperity and wellbeing ultimately rest. It would be a fitting gift, on the occasion of Sir David’s 100th birthday, to hear that the Government had found the political will to do what is necessary for our national security, and for the security of future generations. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Deirdre Costigan.) Debate to be resumed tomorrow.”
“Thriving ecosystems buffer communities against flooding and drought. This is not just idealism; it is the conclusion of the Government’s own intelligence analysts. My asks of this Government are simple: restore proper funding for sustainable farming, bring in a good food Bill, and deliver a right to local supply for community energy. On the international stage, I ask them to implement the long-promised measures under the Environment Act 2021 to remove deforestation-linked products, such as unsustainable palm oil, from our UK supply chains. Britain signed international commitments to halt forest loss by 2030, and those promises now need action; 2030 is just around the corner. My constituents are not asking for miracles, but they are asking for urgent and radical action to protect nature.”
“Absolutely. Nature is very resilient; when we leave her alone, or give her a bit of a helping hand by rewiggling rivers, for example, or through rewilding projects, she does come back. We just need to stop pummelling nature from every direction with chemicals, and in the many other ways that we assault the world of nature. There is a word that the Government’s national security assessment uses repeatedly: cascade. Ecosystem degradation creates cascading risks. Water insecurity leads to food insecurity, which leads to geopolitical instability, which leads to conflict and, yes, even immigration—the risks compound. However, the same logic can be applied in reverse. Investment in nature creates cascading benefits. Healthier rivers mean healthier soils, and healthier soils support pollinators; pollinators, in turn, support food production.”
“T7. We have already heard about the NEET crisis; nearly 1 million young people are being denied the opportunity to develop their potential through education, employment or training. The problem is even more acute in rural areas like the South Cotswolds, where we have the additional challenges of poor public transport, limited careers advice and fewer apprenticeships, making it harder for young people to get into work or training. What is the Secretary of State doing now to support those young people, and to tackle the extra barriers that they face in rural areas?”
“First, to keep people safe, from crime, from conflict and from harm. Secondly, to provide common rules and fairness, the laws, rights and frameworks that stop power being abused. Thirdly, to provide public goods: clean air, clean water, flood protection and infrastructure, the things that markets cannot easily deliver because they are not profitable. Fourthly, to support stability and reduce risk through things such as healthcare and social security, the safety net that helps people to cope with illness, unemployment and old age. Fifthly, and finally, to represent our collective choices about the future, things such as how we balance growth with nature, freedom with fairness, and short-term need with long-term resilience. To sum up, Governments exist to do together what we cannot do alone.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of use of alternative measures to GDP within Government. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec, and an honour to introduce this debate on what I believe is a very important subject: alternative measures to GDP. Gross domestic product is still the predominant metric that we use to measure whether Governments are succeeding. I want to suggest today that it is not just an imperfect measure but the wrong one. Before we can agree on a better measure, it might first be helpful to ask what we are measuring for. That means asking a more fundamental question: “What is Government actually for?” My thoughts on that are that Governments exist to do five things in particular that individuals, families and markets are not able to realistically do on their own.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree with, and will elaborate on, his points about what GDP fails to measure and how it must be complemented by other metrics. So the crucial question is: if those five things are indeed what Governments are for, how well—or not—does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding?”
“Secondly, to require natural capital accounting in all major infrastructure and land-use decisions, so that the destruction of a flood plain, a peatland or a water catchment carries a recorded cost on the national balance sheet, not just a planning objection. If we value it, we must measure it. Thirdly, to introduce a parliamentary committee for the future, as called for by a coalition of organisations, including the School of International Futures and the Policy Institute at King’s College London. The committee would consider the long-term wellbeing of those who will inherit the consequences of today’s decisions. It should be not just a gesture but a committee with real teeth. Wales has shown that that is entirely achievable.”
“Thirdly, in Sabah, Malaysia, my good friend Cynthia Ong began the Forever Sabah movement, with a single simple question: where will Sabah be in 50 years if it continues down its current development trajectory? That question should be the founding question of every Government; not how fast are we going, but where are we going and what will we leave behind? I have requests of the Government that would make a significant difference to my constituents, to every person here in Westminster, to the country and to the generations not yet born. The first is to use the data we already have. I am delighted we have a Minister from the Treasury here. Maybe he could relay the request to ask the Treasury formally to integrate the ONS wellbeing dashboard into spending decisions, alongside GDP, not instead of it.”
“Iceland rebuilt after the economic collapse, not by chasing GDP recovery but asking its people what they wanted. It is now one of the wellbeing economy Governments, alongside Scotland, New Zealand, Wales, Finland and Canada, all of which have introduced wellbeing metrics to guide public policy and budgetary processes. In Wales—not so far away—the Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 legally requires every public body to act in the long-term interests of the next seven generations. That was initiated by Jane Davidson, a woman I am proud to call my friend. While I was at the conference last week, I had a long conversation with Sophie Howe who was Wales’s first future generations commissioner, and is now an internationally respected voice. If it can be done in Cardiff, I see no reason why it cannot be done in Westminster.”
“Those trends are invisible to GDP yet are essential to any honest assessment of how our country is doing. Sadly, those measures, no doubt laboriously collected, sit on the ONS website largely unread and almost entirely ignored by Government. I suggest that it is time to use them. Elsewhere in the world, countries are moving ahead. They are building better measures, embedding them in law and using them to govern. Last week, I was at the Wellbeing Economy Forum, two days of serious exchange with policymakers, economists and practitioners from across the world. It was tremendously inspiring. Three things were unmistakeable: we have the intellectual case and the technical frameworks but the only thing missing in too many countries, including this one, is the political will. I will cite three examples of countries showing what is possible.”
“When he was Prime Minister, the former Member for Witney, Lord Cameron, launched the Office for National Statistics national wellbeing programme, and also quoted Robert Kennedy. Since 2011, the ONS has published a framework tracking national wellbeing across 60 measures and 10 topic areas, across personal wellbeing, health, relationships, environment, governance and more. In February of this year, the ONS launched a new set of seven headline measures to be updated quarterly, explicitly aligned with the UN high-level expert group’s recommendations. We have the data and what it tells us is striking. Since the pandemic, self-reported health has been in sustained decline. Trust in Government rose briefly after the last general election before falling back to lower than pre-election levels.”
“As the Wellbeing Economy Alliance observes, our current system has four interlinked flaws: it is unsustainable, unfair, unstable and creates unhappiness. Critically, neither the brake nor the accelerator works any more. Faster GDP growth will only worsen biodiversity loss and accelerate climate change. In a system where a fabulously wealthy former Prime Minister pays an effective tax rate of just 23%, it will almost certainly also worsen inequality. That is the trap that GDP has built for us. It is a metric that makes it structurally challenging to do the right thing, because doing the right thing does not always show up as growth. Moves have already been made in Britain in this direction, and we already have the data, but we do not use it. I will give credit where credit is due.”
“He said that GDP “does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play…It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile.” Meanwhile, Simon Kuznets—the economist who actually invented GDP in response to the great depression of the 1930s—had already warned that it should not be used as a measure of national wellbeing, yet we have been ignoring his advice ever since. Unfortunately, GDP is not just partial; it can be actively misleading, because it creates perverse incentives at the heart of Government.”
“It has no mechanism for accounting for the harm to future generations. By design, it rewards short-term thinking, and it is constitutionally incapable of answering the question, “What kind of a country do we want to be 50 years from now?” The conclusion is inescapable: GDP was designed to measure the volume of economic activity, no matter what form that activity takes. Using it to assess whether a Government are fulfilling their five core functions is like using a thermometer to tell us whether a patient has recovered. The patient’s temperature may be perfectly normal, but their leg may have fallen off. I have a couple of quotes worth remembering. Robert F. Kennedy put it with devastating precision in 1968.”
“In my South Cotswolds constituency, the Thames headwaters and the Cotswolds water meadows absolutely underpin food security, flood resilience and community health, but GDP is blind to all those things. Logging a forest, draining a wetland and concreting a floodplain all register as economic activity and contribute to GDP, while the loss of the natural ecosystems that made those landscapes valuable disappears without a trace. Fourthly, on stability and risk, GDP counts healthcare spending, but it cannot tell us whether people are getting and feeling healthier. It counts anti-depressants and ambulance call-outs as contributions to output. By the logic of GDP, a pandemic is an economic opportunity. Fifthly, collective choices about the future are possibly where GDP fails most completely.”
“However, it counts the cost of building more prisons and policing more disorder, so a rise in violent crime, followed by the state’s response to it, actually adds to GDP. Secondly, on fairness, GDP is just an average; it tells us nothing about distribution. A country could have record growth, but the majority could be growing poorer while a handful are growing extraordinarily rich. It counts the billionaire’s yacht and the foodbank donation as contributions to national output alike. Thirdly, public goods are where the distortion is most severe. GDP has no entry for clean rivers, unpolluted air, well-functioning flood defences or thriving natural ecosystems. Instead, it records the cost of remediation when things go wrong, never the value of prevention.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s perspective that, in rural areas in particular, the aspects of our quality of life that are not measured in financial terms are very much overlooked by GDP. He makes an excellent point that, in fact, using GDP as the pre-eminent metric disproportionately impacts on rural ways of life. As I was saying, if my assumptions about what Governments are for are correct, how well does GDP measure whether Governments are succeeding? My answer to that would be: poorly, partially and, in some important respects—as already mentioned by others—not at all. I want to take each function in turn, looking at how GDP either misses or distorts it, or actively points in the wrong direction. First, on safety, GDP cannot measure whether people feel safe, whether crime is falling or whether justice is accessible.”
“We can see that warning embodied in polluted rivers that once ran clean, in communities that feel left behind and in a politics that too often measures success in pound signs rather than human outcomes. We have the evidence, and we have the frameworks; we just need the willingness to change the definition of what we value, because what we measure shapes what we prioritise, what we prioritise shapes our decisions and our decisions shape the country that we will be in five years, 10 years and 50 years from now. Let us take an active choice to measure what matters: the wellbeing of our people, the health of our planet and the future we hand on to future generations. Let this Parliament be the one that finally aligns how we measure success with what success actually means.”
“I thank the hon. Member for his very insightful intervention. In the doughnut economics model, we are in many ways in “overshoot”, while the basic needs of many in our society are not even being met. That is one of the major failings of GDP: it does not show how the benefits of growth and the wealth of the country are being distributed. I have been very impressed by the work of Kate Pickett, who spoke at the recent Lib Dem spring conference on this very subject. She spoke about her “spirit level” concept and argued that greater equality in a society works better for everybody, including the people at the top. If we are honest with ourselves, we can now see the cost of ignoring the warnings of Simon Kuznets and Robert Kennedy.”
“I would like to hear from the Minister about pooled purchasing support for villages, combining orders, spreading costs and securing better rates. The long-term answer is not just to regulate a volatile fossil fuel market more cleverly; it is to get communities off fossil fuels altogether, particularly through the use of community-led renewable energy projects. That is not a top-down mandate. It is genuine community ownership of clean energy, and we need the Government’s local power plan genuinely to deliver for rural communities, getting rid of the barriers of grid connection, access to capital and planning complexity that stop many community schemes before they start. We need reform of the grid rules so that community energy schemes get priority in the connection queue and rights to local supply.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for initiating this very important debate. South Cotswolds is one of the most rural, off-grid constituencies in England. About 20% of households rely on heating oil; that is about four times the national average. A young mother with two small children faced a sudden increase in the price to get her tank filled up from £305 to £800. Rural households already pay a premium on everyday goods that the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has put at up to 20%, and face a fuel poverty gap of nearly £1,000 compared with urban households. There are some key principles that I think are helpful to consider here. One is how we create genuine long-term resilience to potential future shocks. The second is community.”
“I would like to see the missing piece put in place: community supply licences, peer-to-peer trading and reformed licence exemptions. Of course, ground-mounted solar has a role in the transition to net zero, but it needs to be done right. The tests are simple: is there genuine consultation, real local benefit and protection of our landscape? If we get this right, solar can power our future. If we get it wrong, it will divide the very communities we need to bring with us.”
“I welcome the Government’s support for community solar, including the funding that has reached groups such as Zero North Wiltshire, but we need to go further. Many communities are willing and able to participate. The local power plan and investment through Great British Energy are welcome steps, but they fall short. The Government are proposing about £1 billion for local and community energy; the Liberal Democrats have set out a plan for £3.3 billion. That difference matters. Our approach would scale up community energy into a core part of the energy system, not just a niche add-on. More than 100 MPs have backed reform through early-day motion 2151, so there is clear cross-party support for the right to local supply.”
“It is a financial institution, not a utility-owning institution, so the profits from the solar farm will not go to local people; they will go to Australia. What does good look like, if we are to meet our large and increasing energy needs while also bringing the public along on our journey towards net zero? It is important to the project that there be public support, not public alienation. Smaller-scale schemes can and do work. In my constituency there are successful schemes in Long Newnton and Corston. The principles are clear: projects that are community-led are more likely to have community buy-in, as are those that are modest in scale, that are sensitively sited and that deliver direct local benefits.”
“Yes, it possibly gives some biodiversity gain; yes, it is maybe possible to graze sheep around solar panels, although I have yet to see it in reality; but generally it is a single purpose for that piece of land. How can we make better use of our land? As the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne suggested, we can put solar panels on reservoirs and on rooftops. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) will point out that that is a much more expensive way of installing solar panels—we have had that conversation before—but I would like to ask where the profits go. A 2,000-acre solar farm, Lime Down, is planned for my constituency. It is 100% owned by Macquarie. Hon. Members might be aware that Macquarie was the owner of Thames Water during the time that that company was loaded up with debt.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. and gallant Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) for securing this important debate. I have heard the statistic that for all the land allocations that have been set aside for housing, for growing food and for renewable energy projects, and for all the other demands on the scarce land mass that we have at our disposal on this small and increasingly crowded island, we would need another two Waleses. Clearly, they are not making land any more, so how can we get better use out of the square mileage that we have at our disposal? Ground-mounted solar gives a single purpose to land.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this important debate and for his very moving speech. I recently had the honour of meeting Eleanor Wroath, who is here in the Gallery today with her son Sam. Eleanor lost her daughter Miranda, aged 18 months, in 2008. Since then, she has been a tireless campaigner for raising awareness of sudden unexplained death in childhood. She and Sam will be running the Great North Run in support of the charity. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as highlighted by campaigners such as Eleanor and Sam, there is an urgent need for more specialist research to understand the causes of and the risk factors underlying SUDC?”
“To go back to heating oil, 20% of households in my South Cotswolds constituency rely on heating oil—that figure is four times the national average—and many of them face high up-front costs. Will the Secretary of State consider supporting more flexible payment or credit schemes, and pooled purchasing models, which would enable villages to combine orders, secure bulk discounts and spread costs over time?”
“I remind the House that RAF Fairford is in my constituency, so it is with grave concern that I note the news of two missiles being aimed at Diego Garcia. The Prime Minister previously pledged that we will not be drawn into the wider war, yet we have already shifted from the defensive to the offensive use of air bases on UK land. As almost 60% of the British public oppose the use of RAF bases in this war, will the Secretary of State commit to bringing back to this House the opportunity for open debate and full transparency on all the factors that are leading to this rapid descent down the slippery slope?”
“Despite their success, many of these community enterprises are under pressure, with 32% of them only just surviving. Some are at risk of closure. The Christian Malford village hall is in urgent need of repair or upgrade, while community pubs often struggle to meet payroll. At the same time, demand is growing as rural populations age and rural transport gets worse. Will the Minister commit to boosting existing support, including the community ownership fund, which needs to be scaled up? We need a dedicated rural community ownership fund that provides the targeted, long-term support that communities need. A little goes a very long way when it is put in the hands of passionate, energetic and community-minded people who know exactly how to use the money to deliver the best return on investment, and to deliver for their communities.”
“They purchased the freehold and reopened the pub in 2012 as a community-owned establishment, and today it is thriving again. In Christian Malford, the community-owned village hall plays a vital role. It hosts events, supports local groups, and creates connection in an otherwise widely dispersed rural population. One of my favourites is in Cirencester, where the new branch of The Long Table shows how community enterprise can go even further. Tom Herbert and his team have established a “pay-as-you-can” model that is based on the premise, “What would it be like if everybody had access to good food and people to eat it with?” It tackles food insecurity and rural isolation, re-imagining what a community space can be, not as charity but as dignity, equality and shared experience.”
“I thank the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) for securing this debate, and for her inspiring opening speech. At a time when the Government seem to have no money and rural areas often feel overlooked, social enterprises and community-owned assets are more important than ever. I will relate that to the rural communities in my constituency, where the loss of a single pub, the village hall or another shared space is not just an inconvenience but can mean the loss of connection, support and community identity. I am constantly inspired by the amazing enterprises springing up across South Cotswolds. The Fleece Inn in Hillesley is one example. It faced closure in 2011 when the pub company went into administration, but local people stepped in to form a community enterprise.”
“Will the Minister please work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure that farmers are compensated for playing their part in reducing potholes?”
“Potholes are dangerous, they are expensive to fix, and they are everywhere. In the South Cotswolds, we know that rural areas are different. Rural roads are narrower, darker, faster and less forgiving, yet they risk being de-prioritised compared with urban areas. That cannot be right or fair. Chronic underfunding has left our council struggling to keep up. I commend Councillors Joe Harris, on the Gloucestershire side of my constituency, and Martin Smith, on the Wiltshire side, for their heroic efforts to turn the tide on potholes since coming to power last May. I draw attention to the fact that potholes are exacerbated by standing water. Here our farmers have an important role to play, but farmers are not charities. If we want them to keep gullies and ditches clear to drain the water off the roads, we need to pay them to do so.”
“They also argue that, if the defecting MP is sufficiently confident in their wit, charm and intelligence and that they hold a special place in the hearts of their constituents, they should not be afraid to return to the polls.”
“Many would argue that party affiliation forms an important part of the democratic bargain made with voters at a general election. However, at the same time, others emphasise that MPs are elected as representatives rather than as delegates, and that they must retain the freedom to exercise their judgment and follow their conscience once elected. This petition therefore invites us to consider where the balance should lie between those two contrasting principles. The question is whether the current constitutional arrangements strike the correct balance, or whether there should be some additional form of democratic mechanism when an MP decides to move to another party. Some argue that a by-election would allow voters to confirm whether they still support their MP after a change in party affiliation.”
“Political parties clearly play a very real role in getting their candidates elected, investing time, money, wisdom and infrastructure. Parties pay the deposits and give their candidates training, campaign support and access to networks of volunteers. It could be argued that an exceptionally cynical candidate could simply align themselves with the party that had the most successful campaigning machine, and then promptly jump ship once they arrive here—I am not for a moment suggesting that anybody would do such a thing. During a general election campaign, the people knocking on doors, delivering leaflets early in the morning, getting out the vote late in the evening and standing outside polling stations in the rain are often long-standing party members, supporting the person they see as their party’s candidate.”
“In our first-past-the-post system, that also increasingly includes tactical voting, as in many cases voters feel that they must choose not simply the candidate that they most admire, but the one most likely to defeat the candidate that they most fear. That is one of the quirks—some may even say flaws—of our electoral system. MPs may like to think that every vote that they win is the result of their particular blend of wit, charm and intelligence, but I suspect that, if elections were decided purely on our unique personalities, many of us might not be in this Chamber at all. My point is that voters often consider a range of factors when deciding how to cast their vote. This petition invites us to consider what should happen if one such factor—political party affiliation—changes during the course of a Parliament.”
“Some argue that voters elect an individual, full stop, and that what matters most is the person whose name appears on the ballot paper. However, others suggest that party affiliation is a significant part of how voters make their decision, as they view a candidate’s political party as shorthand for a particular set of values and attitudes. I would suggest that in the real world, for many voters, the decision that they make in the privacy of the polling booth at a general election is a complicated calculation: an algorithm involving party values, historical loyalties, headline policies, party leaders, local reputations and individual personalities.”
“It may not surprise anybody to hear that the four constituencies with the highest number of signatories were Fareham and Waterlooville, Newark, Romford and East Wiltshire—I shall leave it to hon. Members to spot the pattern. Whatever view Members may take on the proposal, it is clear that the petition touches on what some commentators have called a crisis of confidence in our democracy: the suspicion—we can debate whether it is a fair one—that some MPs are here less to represent the interests of their constituents, and more to represent their own. The petition reflects a wider public interest in the relationship between voters and those who represent them, and in how that relationship operates in the intervals between general elections. The key question is, when voters decide who to vote for, what exactly are they choosing?”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered e-petition 737660 relating to automatic by-elections following Member defections. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank those who have shown up for this debate; we may not have a large quantity here, but I am sure that we will have quality. My role this afternoon is primarily to introduce the debate on this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee, outline some of the arguments that have been raised and give colleagues an opportunity to consider the issue. Let me start by thanking the many thousands of people who signed this petition, which was started by Barry McIlhinney from Perth in Kinross-shire. It gathered more than 129,000 signatures, including 252 of my South Cotswolds constituents.”
“Party defections in this country are relatively rare, although they obviously sometimes occur in clusters during periods of political turbulence—possibly such as we are going through now. The last MPs to resign their seats and seek fresh mandate after defecting were Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless in 2014, when they left the Conservative party to join UKIP. They refought their seats in by-elections.”
“I do not think any of us would want a world where party Whips could threaten an MP with a mandatory by-election if we displease them in some way. Public opinion on this question appears to be mixed, although polling suggests it is an issue on which many people hold strong views. Some surveys indicate that around 40% of respondents believe that it is unacceptable for an MP to defect, while others suggest that a majority of voters think a defection should trigger some sort of electoral test. Those numbers do not resolve the constitutional question, but they suggest that people far outside Westminster really care about this matter. It is also worth putting the question into perspective.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent and valid point. My main job today, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, is to present both sides of the argument, but the point about data on voting intentions, which we work so hard to glean on doorsteps, is a key factor in the debate. Others raise concerns that a requirement for a by-election could have unintended consequences, including potentially strengthening the power of party leaderships or discouraging MPs from following their conscience due to legitimate dissent. At this point, I want to clarify that when talking about defections, I am not talking about the case where an MP loses the Whip for reasons to do with the leadership, but about voluntary defections undertaken by an MP themselves.”