Proportional Representation

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 168657 relating to proportional representation.

It is a pleasure to open today’s debate on this important issue and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I thank those who organised the petition, which has gathered some 103,000 signatures, and their supporters. I wish to make clear from the start that I am opening the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee—the Committee that considers petitions once they have reached the threshold for debate. The fact that I am introducing the debate does not necessarily mean that I support the views expressed in the petition. Given the number of hon. Members here today, I am sure that we are going to have a lively and constructive debate.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

It is probably just as well that the hon. Gentleman is not speaking in support, as about 70% of voters in Cornwall voted against this proposition, along with the vast majority of the rest of the country outside London and the university towns.

[Steve Double]

I am grateful for that intervention. The right hon. Gentleman has made a good point, which I will come to later.

The petition calls to “make votes matter” by adopting proportional representation for United Kingdom general elections. Although I may not agree with the views expressed in the petition, it is right that we begin by acknowledging the strong and sincerely held views of those who are frustrated with our democracy and voting system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, it did not, but people argued at the time that it was a step towards proportional representation. It was a clear choice about changing our current system, and there was an overwhelming vote in favour of keeping the system that we have. If we want to make votes count, we surely have to respect the votes that were cast in that referendum.

[John Spellar]

Would it not be worthwhile to ask those who raise such doubts about the previous referendum whether any of those who supported proportional representation voted against the proposal and voted no?

[Steve Double]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point; that would be interesting to know. I am sure the answer would be no, because the argument was made very strongly that voting for AV was a step towards PR and part of that process. The country overwhelming rejected that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I absolutely agree with the hon. and learned Lady. When we look at the alternatives available to us, we see that no system will satisfy everyone, but the best way forward has to be a system that provides a constituency link—that is clearly such an important feature of our political system, and one that I support entirely—but also a representative election. Through that the whole range of political opinions cast in an election are reflected in the result and the system gives a majority, as the SNP had in the Scottish Parliament for some time, when the public have given their consent to that majority, but it does not give a majority based on this false notion that there should be some multiplier effect when the public are unwilling to give one party a majority.

[John Spellar]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Yes. My right hon. Friend and I have had this debate for many years, and we will continue to do so.

[John Spellar]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He cited with approval Scotland and Wales. Is it not the case that every area in Wales voted to reject change and stick with first past the post in the referendum? In Scotland every area apart from the university seats in Glasgow and Edinburgh voted to keep the current system.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We will come to that issue when I go through some of the commonly raised points that my right hon. Friend and I have discussed for some time.

The crucial point I want to make is that the additional member system used in Germany, Scotland and Wales avoids the vast electoral deserts where people in a part of a country, whether a county or a region, get no plurality of representation despite casting votes for a range of political parties. Front Benchers are called to respond to debates in Westminster Hall. I remember responding to a debate on travel in the south-west of England when I was shadow rail Minister. There were 20 Conservative MPs on the Government Benches and just me on the Opposition Benches to respond. Members would get up and say, “Only the Opposition Front Bencher is here,” but if we look at the election results, we see that even in the south-west more people voted against the Conservative party than for it. Clearly it was the biggest party, but the system delivered 100% representation for a party that was not even getting a majority of the vote in the region. That cannot be right.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At the moment, there is an unlimited fine, but the Government are considering a range of other measures, including in relation to criminal proceedings, in order to move forwards.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

11. Rather than focusing on the very few cases of fraud and the limited number of convictions—the same issue the Trump Administration have raised to discredit the democratic process—why does the Minister not worry about the millions who are not registered and consider using national insurance numbers and automatic registration in order to ensure both an accurate and a complete register?

[Chris Skidmore]

The Government are committed to ensuring individual voter registration. A complete register means nothing unless it is underpinned by accuracy, and we have the most accurate register. On electoral fraud, I make the point, as I have done repeatedly before, that it is the perception of fraud that is so corrosive to our democracy. The Electoral Commission’s report published today shows that 38% of people recognise that electoral fraud is an issue at general elections.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Chris Skidmore]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. People deserve to have confidence in the security of our democratic system of elections. Voter ID has been in place in Northern Ireland for decades, and the use of photographic ID was introduced in 2003 under the previous Labour Government. The Electoral Commission has consistently called for use of ID in polling stations to protect the integrity of the polls. The Government will conduct voter ID pilots in the local elections in May 2018 to enable us to learn what works best, and to ensure that we develop a system in which there is full public confidence.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Are we not supposed to have policy driven by evidence, and is it not significant that the Minister gave not one shred of evidence in his reply? Quite frankly, in every election there are one or two cases of people being convicted of fraud, out of tens of millions of voters. This is straight out of the Donald Trump disinformation playbook, because Ministers are again trying to suppress voter participation. The Minister cannot come up with any evidence—if anyone has such evidence, they should take it to the police—and he should be ashamed of himself.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

I realise that a broader issue underpins those fears, which is the extent to which there is scope for private sector involvement in our national health service, and that is part of a much bigger argument that I have taken part in for 30 years. I was not aware that a distinction was drawn between British, French and German private sector participation and American participation in our national health service. I can assure the hon. Lady that nothing in the agreement would open up access to the national health service beyond what is already permitted, and what was permitted under the previous Government. Overseas suppliers are already able to offer hospital services and health-related professional services through a commercial presence here. The important thing for anyone who engages in the provision of professional health services and health care companies in this country is that they have to comply with UK standards and regulations in just the same way as British health care providers, and, as I say, those standards will remain under the sovereignty of this country.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman was asked a question regarding the involvement of micro-businesses, but the note from the Library states that the average cost of an arbitration case is $4 million per party, about 82% of which is legal fees. The panel members can claim a daily fee of $3,000 a day plus expenses, and billing rates for arbitration lawyers run up to $1,000 an hour. Only major corporations will therefore be able to participate in this. I am not detracting from the main thrust of his argument, but this really is for major companies, is it not?

[Mr Clarke]

I am not encouraging small companies to start engaging in arbitration in major commercial disputes. That is an average. It depends on the complexity of the issues. I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that full-scale commercial litigation—probably on either side of the Atlantic—is more expensive. This is a quicker arbitration process to substitute for the enormous costs that would be involved in challenging a public body, on either side of the Atlantic, on a commercial dispute about a breach of treaty obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak, and I will truncate my remarks.

I start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing this debate. I apologise for not being here in the Chamber for his comments; I was chairing a meeting elsewhere in the palace.

A number of colleagues have spelled out the considerable economic advantages of a transatlantic trade and investment partnership. The US is already our most important single market and trade with EU countries is a major part of our trade, even if—encouragingly—we are making significant advances in other markets.

An EU-US agreement would encompass more than 40% of world GDP, and along with EU agreements with Canada and Japan would encompass more than half of world GDP. Removing tariffs, however limited they are, and—more significantly—removing artificial restrictions would also provide a welcome fillip to these major economies, benefiting not only themselves but the rest of the world. The Foreign Office has made an interesting and useful assessment of the impact of such agreements on individual American states, and it would be very welcome if it did the same for both the countries and the regions of the EU as well.

However, it is clear from many of the articles that have been written and from some e-mails that we are receiving that we may have to take the debate back to first principles, starting by explaining why free trade is not only a good idea but why it has been a major driver in the removal of a massive number of the world’s people from poverty during the past two centuries, particularly during the past 30 years. The mass migration of hundreds of millions of people in China, the development of Chinese cities and infrastructure, and the raising of the Chinese people’s living standards have been awesome. That does not mean that I am oblivious to many of the faults, problems and stresses in Chinese society; given my political history, it would be surprising if I was. However, everyone must recognise the seismic shift that has happened on the back of the world’s freer trade environment.We must also consider the effects of that shift on wage distribution and the environment in other countries, and understand that generally protection does not benefit the worker or the consumer; mainly it benefits the monopolist, the corrupt bureaucrat or the profiteer and black marketeer.

As I have said previously, the argument about free trade goes back over the past two centuries. In our great industrial cities, we have monuments to the historic battles against the corn laws, and we may have to fight those battles again. If we do, the Conservatives would be particularly worried as the corn laws tore their party apart. However, we do not have the time available to us today to explore that issue further.

We must deal with three particular issues: the relationship between the EU and the US; the broader strategic approach of that relationship; and the vexed question of the dispute system, which is causing considerable agitation.

Too often, the debates on this subject have been focused on and posed as a choice between either the US or the EU. This agreement clearly shows that the US is not interested in having 28 separate agreements; it is interested in doing a deal with the EU—and not just about trade. A lot has been made in the defence field of the so-called “pivot” of the US between the Atlantic and the Pacific going from 50:50 to 60:40 in favour of the Pacific—by the way, that is still a huge presence from the world’s only superpower. The transatlantic alliance has served us and a stable world extremely well, and reinforcing it would be important in its own right. Agreements between the EU and the US, Canada and Japan make a much better context for maintaining a liberal trading and political environment, because although I have acknowledged the huge Chinese achievement I would not wish to see the economic and political muddle of China dominating the international trade scene. In particular, I would not wish to see the arbitrary use of state power against workers and citizens.

However, there are legitimate concerns about whether some trade deals can undermine the terms and conditions of workers; my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) raised that issue. That has been the particular concern of the American unions about the impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement, including the agreement with Mexico. However, having met representatives of those unions, I know that they have considerably fewer reservations about a deal with the EU, because of the higher level of protection for workers, consumers and the environment that we have in the EU. Indeed, the level in the EU is higher than in some southern states in the US. Only recently, we have seen a massively funded and vicious anti-union campaign against representation in Volkswagen’s plant in Tennessee. This time it was not even the employer, but feral right-wing Republicans—the buddies of some in the Conservative party—who were behind that action. The American Federation of Labour and the TUC have therefore gone into the matter in considerable detail—I congratulate them on their realistic appraisal—to seek reassurance about the impact of any deal on workers’ wages and conditions, as well as on the public provision of health and education, although such provision is not so much about the trade deal as the policies of the elected British and American Governments.

The Minister rightly drew attention to the impact of particular clauses. We have about 92 investment agreements with other countries, but only two have led to cases, neither of which related to public policy. We welcome the result of the World Trade Organisation agreement in Bali, yet the WTO has many arbitration provisions, several of which impact on such issues as tobacco packaging, which we have already considered in relation to investor-state dispute settlements. We need to be clear that investment must be encouraged, but both countries have mature judicial systems, so we must consider whether it is worth the argument about this to achieve the greater goal of what will be a beneficial agreement.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

1. What steps he is taking to recover payments made to former senior staff at the Serious Fraud Office that were not properly authorised.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to recover payments made to former senior staff at the Serious Fraud Office which were not authorised by the Cabinet Office or Her Majesty’s Treasury.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

As set out in my statement to the House on 4 December 2012, on learning of these agreements and payments, the new director of the Serious Fraud Office sought legal advice on whether the arrangements might be reopened and on whether money might be recovered. The advice he received is that the agreements, although entered into without the necessary approvals, are binding on the Serious Fraud Office.

[Mr Spellar]

If one of our constituents is overpaid on tax credits, or on their housing or council tax benefits, which often occurs through no fault of their own, the state claws the overpayment back, yet the Serious Fraud Office has made unauthorised redundancy payments to bureaucrat fat cats—some of nearly £500,000—but seems to be doing nothing to recover them. What, therefore, will the Attorney-General do to get the money back? Perhaps he could get a new lawyer, but he could also take action against those responsible for irresponsibly giving away public money.

[The Attorney-General]

I share the right hon. Gentleman’s disquiet about what has happened. Nevertheless, it is the duty of the director of the Serious Fraud Office, who is the accounting officer in this context, to take legal advice and to observe it when he receives it, and the legal advice he has received is quite clear. It is perhaps worth making one further point. The vast majority of the sums paid out would have been in line with the civil service compensation scheme. In my judgment, some payments may well not have been in line with the scheme, but the majority were—I would stress the totality of the sums involved. Should there be any further developments, I will inform the House of them. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I do not consider the matter to be satisfactory—it causes me disquiet, and the Public Accounts Committee may well wish to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

As I have noted, we intend to introduce a recall mechanism that is transparent, robust and fair. We have set out two different sets of triggers that apply and we are also working with the powers of the House of Commons on these matters, including the definition of serious wrongdoing.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

3. What his policy is on the House of Lords (Cessation of Membership) Bill [Lords], Lords Bill 21 of Session 2012-13.

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

As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear to the House on 3 September, the Government consider that the provisions of the Bill do not address the issues that make reform of the House of Lords necessary.

[Mr Spellar]

I suppose I am not surprised that the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer that question himself. He will be aware, probably more than most, that there are some gaps in the legislative programme for this Session of Parliament. Will he therefore arrange for Lord Steel’s Bill to come before this House and allow adequate time for discussion of that modest but useful measure, rather than allow the best to be the enemy of the good?

[Miss Smith]

That is rather rich considering that it was the Opposition who refused to commit to a timetable motion on the original legislation. We are focusing on economic matters.

House of Lords Reform Bill

John Spellar Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As far as I can remember, I have not sought to make any apology over the past 45 minutes. I feel that the Government have acted in good faith to try to generate cross-party support for a reasonable set of proposals drawing on a lot of work from other members of other parties over several years. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman and other colleagues felt that it was not possible to get behind that reasonable package of proposals with a timetable motion. The coalition agreement said that this Government were going to come forward with proposals to reform the House of Lords. We are not a think-tank. The Government do not talk about proposals just to float them idly in a newspaper article and then do nothing about them. If one is going to propose something as a Government, one proposes it with a view to actually doing something.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has been ducking and diving on the question of the Boundary Commission review. Is he aware that the Boundary Commission has today written to all Members of Parliament saying that it proposes to publish its revised proposals on 16 October? That will involve a huge amount of expense. Why does he not shut this exercise down and save a shed-load of money?

Public Procurement

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have answered the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about the procurement process and I am not going to go into specifics about a particular procurement decision because I have not seen the detail and I was not involved in making that decision. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about such procurement contracts being significant and complex and there is a need to get the specification right in the first place. There has been a considerable amount of controversy about that particular case.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister generously give way?

[Mr Harper]

I will probably regret it.

[Mr Spellar]

First, as a previous Transport Minister may I tell the hon. Gentleman that the Germans always buy German trains and the French always buy French trains? They make it very clear how they do that. Secondly, going back to police cars, I do not know what he does on a Saturday night but if he watches any of the police series from various European countries, he will notice that if they are from any country that produces cars they always drive their own vehicles. I do not want to get into specifics, but this is about the mindset of our civil service. The French, German, Spanish and Italian civil services back their industry. What is wrong with the culture of our civil service that it is always trying to do British industry down?

[Mr Harper]

That is a very good point and I will leave it hanging. I have not seen any evidence that our civil servants are always trying to do our industry down. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will respond by giving me evidence of that on another occasion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

I begin my brief remarks by joining the Minister in thanking members of the European Scrutiny Committee for their thorough work in producing the draft reasoned opinion. As the Minister said, the report concentrates on two key areas: the Commission’s apparent failure to adhere to proper processes and the question of infringement of the principles of subsidiarity. On both those issues, Labour Members are in general agreement with the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusions.

First, we share the concern that the draft directives in question fail to comply with the Commission’s procedural obligations. In an apparent breach of article 2 of protocol No. 2, the Commission neither consulted member states properly on the possibility of setting up a single national oversight body to monitor procurement nor carried out the required “detailed statement” assessing the implications.

Secondly, on the substance of the directives, we are particularly concerned by the proposal that would require the UK to allow the introduction of a single oversight body with the power to “seize” jurisdiction from British courts. As the Committee makes clear, that proposal would force the UK to combine non-judicial and judicial responsibilities within the same organisation. Crucially, the proposal could be seen as breaching the principle of subsidiarity due to it requiring an administrative body to carry out functions that would normally be dealt with by UK courts. As the Committee states,

“this aspect of the proposal amounts to an unwarranted interference in the domestic legal order of the UK, in which administrative and judicial powers have traditionally been exercised separately.”

In addition, the National Assembly for Wales has said that the proposal to introduce a single oversight body in the UK fails also to have proper regard to the principle of devolution.

The Commission’s draft proposals are simply not the right approach. Indeed, it is our view that they amount to little less than another power grab by the European Commission. As the European Scrutiny Committee has outlined, they will add another layer of bureaucracy.

There is a growing public perception in the UK—one that has been echoed by Members on both sides of the House during the debate—that when it comes to EU procurement rules, the current system does not function fairly. The Commission has to face up to that perception. How the rules are interpreted has been allowed to vary too much from country to country over the years. Too often, it seems like one rule for us and another for other member states. Too often, weaker Ministers, in all Governments, have been rolled over by officials, often at the Treasury, who, at best, have an ambivalent attitude to British industry. They have used EU procurement rules as a basis to make recommendations to Ministers that simply do not do the right thing by the United Kingdom.

[Mr Spellar]

I have always thought that there was precious little to commend Chairman Mao’s misrule in China, but his policy of sending recalcitrant officials back to the countryside for re-education seems to have something to commend it. Would not undertaking a shift in respect of Britain’s manufacturing be salutary for many of our civil servants, who are letting Britain down?

[Michael Dugher]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention: he is not noted for being on the left of any party, so it is refreshing—surprising—that he refers to Chairman Mao, but he is of course right.

I referred to weaker Ministers, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend: whether he was a Defence Minister or a Transport Minister, he was assiduous in standing up for British industry and challenging his officials—indeed, challenging other Ministers, whether in this Government or the previous Government—on behalf of the UK taxpayer and British industry.

The strictest and most inflexible approach to EU procurement rules seems to be almost an article of faith for some parts of the system here at home. Officials and Ministers might believe that they are acting like good Europeans, but the truth is that they do not act like other Europeans. Little wonder that the British public remain so sceptical of many of the European institutions.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Last year, when Christopher Kelly’s committee published a report containing its ideas for a package of reforms of party funding, all parties made clear that it was inconceivable that any of us would advocate an increase in overall state funding at this time. I will therefore stipulate in my letter to the leaders of the other main parties that such an increase is not on the agenda for now. However, that does not mean we could not make progress on many other areas of party funding reform on what I hope would be a cross-party basis.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

11. As Members know, if one of our constituents buys a car in all good faith and it subsequently turns out to have been stolen, he or she must hand it back. Will the Deputy Prime Minister’s examination of political funding explain why his party is insisting on holding on to the £2.5 million that it was given by the convicted criminal Michael Brown? Will the right hon. Gentleman give it back, or, at the very least, spare us the usual sanctimonious holier-than-thou sermon? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

They liked that one.

As we have explained before, the Electoral Commission has made crystal clear that, given the knowledge and information available to the Liberal Democrat party at the time—well before my time as leader—the money was received in entirely good faith.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Spellar Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Let me pay tribute to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who does this patient work at the heart of government and does not always get recognised for it. We have reduced management consultants by 70%, saving £870 million; we have spent £490 million less on temporary labour; we have spent £400 million less on marketing and advertising: that is an 80% reduction. These are serious changes to cut the cost of central Government and make sure we provide good value for money. None of those things was done under the last Government.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Q7. Before the election the Prime Minister claimed that anyone caught carrying a knife should expect to go to prison. Has he read Brooke Kinsella’s article in today’s The Sun, revealing that 40% of all knife crime is carried out by under-18s? Why will he not deliver on his promise and put them in jail?

[The Prime Minister]

We are doing something that the last Government failed to do, which is to create a mandatory sentence for adults who are caught with knives to make sure that happens.