Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Debate between John Spellar and Cat Smith

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith]

Quite the opposite: I am arguing that under the status quo the only blockage to the passing of a boundary review has been the Government, and they would, under this Bill, still have the power to put up the same block as they have the past two times that a boundary review has failed to go through this House. It is worth noting that if it was not for parliamentary oversight, we would have a 600-seat Parliament today. Perhaps that is an example of parliamentary scrutiny at its best.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the issue. The reason why the Government failed to put the past two boundary commission reviews to the House of Commons was that their stubbornness in sticking to 600 seats meant that they would not be carried. The fault lay with the Prime Minister rather than with the House of Commons. That is the real problem.

[Cat Smith]

My right hon. Friend made some thoughtful and interesting contributions in Committee and continues to do so on Report. The points he raised are entirely correct. The Government would do away with Parliament’s role in the process—a role that Parliament has always had. In short, the Bill removes the power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. The Government’s justification for the change simply does not stack up. The Minister says that her Government are removing Parliament from the process to prevent delay and interference from MPs, but according to Professor Sir John Curtice—and who are we to challenge him?—delay and interference by the Executive will still be “perfectly possible”.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between John Spellar and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

The Opposition welcome clause 5. We have argued to keep the number of MPs at 650. I also welcome the Minister’s explanation of why the Government have U-turned and returned to the idea of having 650 Members of Parliament.

The Minister made the argument that the UK population has grown by 5% since 2011. I ask her, and she is welcome to intervene, whether that is an indication that we should expect the 650 figure to increase in subsequent reviews if the UK population were to increase in that time.

I also ask why the number is fixed. We heard in our evidence sessions that one of the difficulties that commissioners have in drawing seats is that they must finally reach the 650 figure. Is there not a strong case for having a target number of MPs that the commissioners should reach within a percentage range? Overall, the Opposition welcome the clause and the decision to maintain 650 MPs.

[John Spellar]

Briefly, several of the factors that the Minister outlined were blindingly obviously after 2015 as well. The population in this country was going up and there had been a referendum to leave the European Union. Was it not, frankly, the shallowness of David Cameron and the stubbornness of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that meant that the Government have had to make the change now that they could have made before? We would then have been here representing different constituencies. There is no shame in saying that the former leadership of the party—it is probably unwise to attack the current leadership—got it wrong and that is why they have done a U-turn.

Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Third sitting)

Debate between John Spellar and Cat Smith

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

Q I will direct a question to Professor McLean, who I hope now has the right Bill in front of him. Back in 2010, Professor, you wrote an article for The Guardian about the boundary review commencing then. I was interested to see that in it, you progressed the argument that the most accurate way to ensure that every vote counted equally would be to move towards proportional representation. That is outside the scope of the Bill, but it shows up the conflict that we have. Would not the way for every vote in the United Kingdom to count equally be to have just one constituency—the United Kingdom—and a system of proportional representation, even though that comes into conflict with the communities that we represent? Ultimately, if we are to maintain the constituency link, we have to have a percentage variance between seats; we cannot have every single seat with exactly the same number of electors. It is a question of where we draw the line.

How can that balance be struck? Is the 5% tolerance most appropriate, or if we are not moving towards a system of proportional representation, should there be a larger tolerance, so that community ties are considered more important?

Professor McLean: For clarity, it is important to separate the question of proportional representation from that of the 5% tolerance, because they are different questions. As I evidently said in 2010—you have better recall of what I said than I do—a single-member district system cannot be proportional. That is a mathematical truth. Legislators must make a choice, and the choice that the UK Parliament has made is reflected in this Bill and many others: the single-member district system.

I do not think that it would be a good use of this Committee’s time to talk about whether the UK should switch to proportional representation; with your permission, Chair, I would rather duck that part of the Member’s question.

On equality, the Member poses an important question: is it correct that the equality criterion should override the other ones—the ones on local ties, and on the constituency boundaries following local government ones where possible? My view, which is an arithmetical view, not a political one, is that it is right for the equality criterion to override the others.

Becoming somewhat more political, my observation of boundary inquiries is that since local ties are not further defined in the Act, I have observed on several occasions that for a number of very shrewd operators, who will be well known to members of this Committee, Conservative local ties go one way, Labour local ties go another, and Liberal Democrat local ties go yet another. Each of them, because they are paid to do so, makes a plausible case before a commissioner, who in England is deliberately chosen not to be from the area. Moving on from the mathematics, my view as a political scientist is that the local ties criterion is eminently manipulable, whereas the plus or minus 5% criterion is not.

Is the criterion wide enough? In the United States the courts have said that as near as possible to 0%— not 5%—is the accepted tolerance for US congressional districts. So, it is possible to have a tolerance lower than 5%, but that is not in this Bill and it is not in the earlier Acts.

[John Spellar]

Q Should we have districts?

Professor McLean: Well, since we have more time than we thought, we could have a discussion about US congressional districts, but Members may wish to move on.

Draft Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Amendment) Order 2020

Debate between John Spellar and Cat Smith

Monday 24th February 2020 General Committees

[John Spellar]

Although election day may be 10 weeks away, a considerable number of people in many parts of the country—particularly where there are high levels of postal votes—will receive their postal votes some three or four weeks earlier.

[Cat Smith]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct; I cannot argue with his logic at all. These elections are far sooner than many of us might think.

Legislation should be clear at least six months in advance, so this is clearly very late in the day to make changes. What conversations has the Minister had with the Electoral Commission regarding support for disabled candidates who claim the financial exemption provided for by the draft order?

While Labour Members are happy to support the draft order, we believe that there are many more barriers to remove before disabled people can participate equally in politics. I suspect the Minister knows what I am about to say—we have had this discussion before—but it is imperative to recognise the huge financial barriers that penalise disabled candidates. The support provided by the Government to mitigate that is completely insufficient, and we know why.

The Conservative Government’s decision to cancel the access to elected office fund was completely unjustified and severely damaging. The Government’s own evaluation highlighted the fund’s positive impact on disabled candidates, enabling many to stand for election, and noted that the Geneva-based Zero Project selected the fund as one of the top global innovative policies to support and encourage political participation by people with a disability. Despite that, the Government repeatedly refused to listen to disability campaigners who rightly called for the fund’s reinstatement, which the Labour party fully supports, as does the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The EHRC said:

“The UK Government should reopen the Access to Elected Office Fund in England, and work with the Scottish and Welsh Governments to explore options for making the scheme, or similar funds, available across Great Britain.”

Does the Minister agree that the access to elected office fund was a success, and that its abolition has weakened the support available to disabled candidates? Will she do the right thing and work with disability campaigners and the Scottish and Welsh Governments to reopen the fund? The current approach simply is not working. The funds recently provided by the Government to support disabled candidates have been inadequate. The EnAble fund for elected office, launched in 2018, was intended to support disabled people seeking election in the May 2019 local elections and the May 2020 police and crime commissioner elections, yet the fund ends in just over a month, on 31 March. It is not a long-term solution to the substantial under-representation of disabled people in public life, and there is considerable confusion among disability campaigners as to what Government support, if any, will be available after it ends.

Whatever happens, the Labour party will do all we can to support disabled candidates. However, in the absence of long-term Government support, many smaller and financially precarious parties will struggle to provide the necessary financial assistance, and the case against disabled people standing as independent candidates speaks for itself. The Government have in effect insisted that it is the responsibility of political parties to meet the disability-related costs of their candidates, and as a consequence many general election candidates were forced to pay those extra costs themselves.

When it comes to encouraging the participation of disabled people in politics, the Government cannot continue to offload the responsibility on to political parties alone. That will not lead to the progress that we so desperately need. I commend the Government for the draft order, which we support, but I implore them to restore the access to elected office fund and to provide proper support for disabled candidates, now and in the long term.