Brexit Negotiations

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I appreciate that point. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to emphasise the importance of getting consensus in Northern Ireland, but that is why we place so much emphasis in these proposals on consent, and that will be a key part of the discussions.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Following the discussions this morning, it is now no longer at all clear which parts of the political declaration the Government actually support, so it would be helpful for everyone if they could set out which parts still exist. This is important because, for instance, the other day I was listening to the Universities Minister trying to reassure some of our senior researchers that we will stay as close as possible to the European research frameworks—overseen ultimately, of course, by the European Court of Justice. Is that still the Government’s position?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course we will have a very close relationship with all European projects—whether on research, science, education, or whatever it might happen to be. I will be very happy in due course to share with the hon. Gentleman and the whole House where we are on the political declaration. The objective of the changes to the political declaration is really to set out the difference in this Government’s approach to the future relationship on trade and the customs union, and to set out our ambitions to do global free trade deals.

Prime Minister's Update

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously I would prefer a deal, and I hope I could count on the hon. Gentleman’s support if we were to get one. As for my desperate pleas for an election, actually I am not desperate for an election at all. I rather thought it was the function of the Opposition to be desperate for an election. If he is desperate for an election, perhaps he could communicate with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

In his speech to the United Nations yesterday, the Prime Minister used his in-depth research into the tech sector to talk about artificial intelligence and the possibility of a dystopian future, yet last week it was reported that his chief of staff, Dominic Cummings, had instructed that all Government data held on UK systems should be brought together—an extremely dangerous suggestion. Can he tonight assure the House either that no such instruction was given or that it will be withdrawn?

[The Prime Minister]

All I can say is that what I think every Member of the House would like to see, and what our constituents would certainly like to see, is the maximum efficiency in government. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned something about which I am afraid I was hitherto unaware, and I cannot tell him whether he is accurate in what he says, but I certainly know what we should be doing as a country. As I said in the UN last night—at four o’clock in the morning—this is the country that leads in the tech sector in all sorts of ways, and we intend, as part of our Government programme, to turbocharge that. That was one of the reasons why we needed a Queen’s Speech, and still do.

Priorities for Government

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

It is a great pity, in my view, that the current Mayor of London—not a patch on the old guy—decided to cancel the contract with Wrightbus of Ballymena, which has been of great value to the people of this country. I give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will do everything we can to ensure the future of that great UK company.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

Optimism is one thing, but pantomime is quite another. On what is likely to be the hottest day on record for the UK, it is astonishing that the Prime Minister is seeking to outsource tackling climate change to the private sector. Can he tell us one thing that his Government are going to do in the next month to tackle the climate emergency?

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that we are doing: we have secured for this country the COP 26. We will be hosting the world climate change conference here in the UK, once again showing the world what UK technology and technological optimism can achieve.

EU Parliament Elections: Denial of Votes

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

One of the handy things of having my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration on the Bench beside me is that I know that there are still more EU citizens coming to this country than leaving. We very much welcome that, given the skills and talents they bring to this country.

The process we follow is similar to the one used in other EU states for UK citizens living abroad. I understand that people have concerns. My big concern would be if turnout had gone down, but in fact turnout went up. One of the biggest threats to European parliamentary elections was the absolutely dismal turnout 20 years ago.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It really does seem that sorry is the hardest word. My constituents have faced all the problems outlined by my hon. Friends, including the situation where the form has been properly filled in but they are still denied the vote—and, of course, denied their vote in their home country, so they are doubly disenfranchised. At the end of these exchanges, could the Minister show some grace on behalf of the Government and apologise not to Opposition Members, but to the people who have been disenfranchised?

[Kevin Foster]

As I touched on earlier, we would expect the Electoral Commission’s review to look at issues with local councils where the form was returned in compliance with the law and then not complied with. The Government would not have dealt with that directly. Election turnout rose compared with previous similar elections, and we hope that this election will not take place again following the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Housing Associations and Public Contractors: Freedom of Information

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing the debate and making an extraordinarily persuasive case, as he always does. It was so persuasive that, were the Minister not constrained by her place on the Government Front Bench, I am sure she would agree with it entirely.

This is not a new issue. I should declare at the outset that when I worked for the public services union Unison before coming to this place, it was already a matter of great concern to us. We could see the way the world was changing and the potential pitfalls that lay ahead. We were delighted that through our work with the Labour party, via our Labour link, we were able to secure a commitment from the then shadow Front Bench that freedom of information would indeed be extended to all public service providers.

The coalition Government at the time did not agree with that and sadly—2015 did not see the return of a Labour Government—this woefully out-of-date position persists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, the Information Commissioner agrees. In the weighty report—we have all been carrying it around—entitled “Outsourcing Oversight? The case for reforming access to information law”, the commissioner makes a compelling case. The argument is essentially that the Freedom of Information Act should be extended to all public services, even when they are carried out by private companies.

I will say a bit more about the report and give some examples of where this creates problems in my constituency—I suspect that similar cases would be found across the country. The Information Commissioner recently came to Parliament to launch her report at an event, which I was very pleased to be on the panel for, organised by the parliamentary internet, communications and technology forum. Her team has done an excellent job of highlighting the problem, which is central to the issues that my hon. Friend has pointed out.

The key point is to understand how different the world now is from the world of the late 1990s, when the Freedom of Information Act was first introduced. Government now spend almost a third of our total expenditure with external suppliers—some £284 billion a year, which is an extraordinary amount of money. These external suppliers deliver services on behalf of public authorities. They are often private companies, charities and other not-for-profit organisations, which are not necessarily subject to freedom of information, thus massively diminishing the accountability of public service delivery.

As we have heard, the Information Commissioner uses the examples of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the collapse of Carillion to show the consequences of a lack of transparency and accountability. They are both particularly awful examples. I have raised that concern with Ministers before. The answer was that extending the Freedom of Information Act would have made little difference, but I disagree. I think there is an essential problem with delivering public services in an opaque manner.

When councils run services, if we think they are doing a bad job, there is a simple solution: we vote them out—we get rid of them. That concentrates minds. Sadly, however good the service delivery may be through housing associations or public service contractors, or local charities providing social services and so on, when questions are asked it is much harder to know what to do about them. Extending the Freedom of Information Act hands that power of exposure and transparency back to citizens, and that ultimately is how to drive up standards. It reduces the risk of narrow or neglectful practices in the delivery of those services.

As constituency MPs—I am sure colleagues have the same experience—residents write to us about all manner of issues, some of which we have more control over resolving than others. In Cambridge, where the cost of living is extremely high, housing makes up a significant part of my postbag. For example, Montreal Square is a small area of housing—a delightful oasis of calm in the busy Romsey part of the city. Cambridge Housing Society, a local housing association, proposed to replace the 18 existing homes with 45 new, affordable, energy-efficient homes. Understandably perhaps, it wants to modernise existing homes on the site, and add more. Equally understandably, some of the residents who live there—some have been there for more than 35 years—are very unhappy about that fundamental change to their local community.

I pay tribute to Cambridge Housing Society and its chief executive, Nigel Howlett. It is an excellent organisation doing a great job, and Nigel is an outstanding leader in the sector. It is a charity that aims to provide the maximum amount of housing possible, but it also wants to take into account the concerns of the local community, so it is in a difficult position. It is trying to balance the needs of existing tenants against potential future tenants who do not have homes at the moment. That is a hard choice, but essentially it is a political one and, in my view, it should be taken by people who are democratically accountable. People come to me and ask, “Who makes the decision? What can be done about it?” If it was a council decision, the answer would be very clear.

Extending freedom of information to housing associations would not automatically solve the problem, but it would be a significant step forward. It would allow far greater accountability for residents and members of the wider community. It would give them a much stronger lever to question how decisions are being made and, most crucially, to get the information behind the decisions. I know that the Minister will say, “We are putting out more and more data.” It is not more data we want; it is the key data that they do not want to share that we want. That is what freedom of information gets to.

My hon. Friend already referred to the National Housing Federation’s briefing. I am delighted to say that there has been no collusion, but my reaction was exactly the same—my office colleague will testify to my reaction. The briefing states that extending freedom of information legislation could put

“not-for-profit providers at a disadvantage against commercial bodies in bidding for land...reducing housing associations’ ability to obtain private investment.”

As my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, those are fairly woeful excuses. The Information Commissioner has assured me that the Freedom of Information Act already has mechanisms in place to deal with such issues. It is a flimsy set of arguments, frankly. I certainly want to find ways of helping housing associations in their battle against developers for land, but diminishing public accountability is the wrong way to go about it. It would be much better to address the very real problem of secrecy in the commercial land market. It should not be forgotten, of course, that huge amounts of public money goes through housing associations, and has done so in the past, to provide essential homes for people. We must protect the democratic accountability of our public services.

I have two further examples in other sectors, which show how freedom of information can make a difference. Across the country, and in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire, we have seen mass academisation of schools, which is often unpopular. Parents, children and local communities feel very strongly about this issue. In my city there is currently a proposal for a merger of a local multi-academy trust with a large national one, which has caused some upset among my constituents, who are concerned—rightly, in my view—about the potential consequences.

Both academies and multi-academy trusts are subject to FOI, but the position is far from clear. Academies were brought under the FOI Act in 2010 and have to answer FOI requests. With multi-academy trusts, the situation is a little more complex. I sought advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which told me:

“MATs will be covered by the FOI Act (and are ultimately responsible for the FOI obligations of all the academies)”,

but

“the information requested must be held ‘for the purposes of the proprietor’s functions under Academy arrangements’. It’s very likely that the information held will fall into the purposes specified”.

However, it is not hard to imagine that if a multi-academy trust wanted to, it could use the FOI exemption for information that is a trade secret or

“would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person or body”

in some of those cases. Where questions have been asked locally regarding the merging of academy trusts, I have been assured by the MAT in question that it is releasing as much information as it is permitted to through the current FOI regime. I commend them for that, but it is easy to see that less scrupulous trusts may not always choose that course of action.

This is not simply about the facts of legislation; it is also about how it feels to the public, and the need for communities to feel that they have genuine ownership over the services that their taxes fund. After all, whose schools are they? I think they are our schools, but all too often it does not really feel like that. Extending the Freedom of Information Act in the way suggested might help a little, although I would argue that a much more substantial overhaul is needed.

This is not my first foray into arguing with the Cabinet Office about extending the Freedom of Information Act. I have an excellent exam board in my constituency, Cambridge Assessment, which is a major local employer. As Cambridge Assessment is a department of the University of Cambridge, it is subject to freedom of information requests. Other exam boards are not. That issue was first raised with me, astonishingly, as long ago as 2010, at a public hustings event hosted by Cambridge Assessment and chaired by the inestimable Simon Lebus, then chief executive. He challenged each candidate to declare whether they would pursue the issue and help him resolve it before his retirement, which at that point he thought was still some way off. As happens at public hustings events, we all pledged to pursue it. Little did we know that it would be quicker to build the fantastic new buildings that those visiting Cambridge see on the railway line—a huge set of buildings—than to get the Cabinet Office to move on this question. The skewed playing field for exam boards does a major disservice to Cambridge Assessment, because it is treated differently from its competitors. It argues that the Act should be extended to all exam boards because they use public money to perform a public service.

The Minister has been good enough to sit down with me and her officials on a number of occasions on this issue, a while ago. The letter I received from her this week was profoundly disappointing. She told me that she had had discussions with the relevant Education Minister, with the conclusion that although

“the Minister of State agreed in principle that there are other awarding organisations that carry out functions of a public nature”,

because

“the Department for Education has undertaken significant reforms of A Levels and GCSEs, which has placed significant additional burdens on awarding organisations, the Government is currently not in a position to being another process of consultation and possible legislative change”.

That is a dreadful argument, even by this Government’s miserable standards—I am cross about this. They have made some woefully unpopular and regressive education policy changes, and they are using that as an excuse for not being prepared to make some that might actually improve the accountability and transparency of the way we educate our young people.

[Andy Slaughter]

My hon. Friend has a long track record of campaigning on FOI—far longer than mine—and I am grateful that he is here for the debate. Does he agree that the decision to move freedom of information to the Cabinet Office—I do not mean this to reflect on the current Minister—was a mistake? It has been put in with data protection, which is often about restricting access to information, for the right reasons. In the Ministry of Justice, and with the Justice Committee, there was a far more robust approach to calling out the Government’s questions. A reassignment of Department and Committee might be a suitable step.

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend is far more of an expert than I am on the matter. He has made an interesting observation that might be worth pursuing further. He may well have a very strong point there.

To return to my quest that is now nine years on. In fact, it is probably more than nine years, because I know that my predecessors, Julian Huppert and David Howarth, pursued the matter. I fear it might go back as far as Anne Campbell’s time. As I have said, I made a pledge to Simon Lebus that we would try to resolve the issue before his retirement. Sadly, it has not been achieved. I fear it might have to wait for a Labour Government, which I am sure will be along soon.

Freedom of information is sometimes considered a slightly nerdy issue—no apologies to colleagues present—but it is an incredibly important mechanism to secure proper accountability and democratic oversight. It is disappointing that we have not yet had a proper Government response to the Information Commissioner’s report, although, to be fair to the Minister, she has said that they are considering it carefully and will respond in due course, which of course is wonderful civil service speak. We will await events. We cannot let private companies get away with always doing their dealings out of the public eye when their decisions have a serious impact on the lives of all our constituents. We need the tools to provide the checks and balances. Too often it seems to be a carry-on behind closed doors and it cannot continue.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

We will now move on to the Front-Bench speakers. The first is the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who will be pleased to know that it is not the Chair’s responsibility to sing him happy birthday.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alistair Burt]

Absolutely. Much of our work in global health is designed to support particular projects to eradicate individual diseases, but it is also crucial that we support and sustain health systems where they are. These health systems will do an incredibly valuable job in looking for the sort of illnesses and infectious diseases, such as antimicrobial resistance, that could spread around the world.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that aid spent through the prosperity fund complies with her Department’s duty to reduce levels of poverty.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Harriett Baldwin)]

The primary purpose of the prosperity fund is to reduce poverty through sustainable and inclusive economic growth in middle-income countries. Other Departments are responsible for ensuring that their overseas development programmes from this fund meet the requirements of the International Development Act 2002.

[Daniel Zeichner]

Climate change will hit the world’s poorest people hardest, so why on earth is 29% of the energy component of the prosperity fund being spent on oil and gas extraction, including supporting fracking in China?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my commitment to doing what we can to tackle the incredibly important issue of climate change. We should be wholeheartedly supporting opportunities that work as climate change initiatives to move power beyond coal.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

The Government are absolutely clear that their principal task is to ensure the continued delivery of public services, and that is what we have ensured in respect of our strategic suppliers. The hon. Gentleman raises the case of Interserve. I welcome this morning’s announcement, which I am sure he has seen, which demonstrates that it is making good progress towards refinancing, but we are clear that that is a matter between the lenders to that company and the company itself. The Government are not a party to those negotiations.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the implications for his Department's policies of the Information Commissioner’s January 2019 report, “Outsourcing oversight? The case for reforming access to information law”.

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

The Government are fully committed to transparency and openness across the public sector and have already introduced a range of measures to increase transparency in contracts. That means that we are publishing more data than ever before to the benefit of taxpayers. I am grateful for the Information Commissioner’s report, which we will consider carefully, but we have no plans at present to legislate further in this area.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply but, as the Information Commissioner tells us, the Government spend £284 billion a year on external suppliers that are currently beyond the scope of freedom of information laws. The Information Commissioner tells us that that would have made a difference at both Grenfell and Carillion, so why will the Government not commit to real transparency and adopt the Information Commissioner’s recommendations?

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out an important package of measures last year to improve transparency in contracting. However, I do not think there is evidence that the collapse of Carillion could have been anticipated by the reforms in the report. Indeed, the relevant Select Committees said that Carillion’s directors were responsible, not the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

As the House will know, we work worldwide, including extensively in Pakistan, to fund education. Literally millions of children are accessing 12 years of quality education thanks to the work of the Department for International Development.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

T6. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much of the international development budget has been diverted to the Ministry of Defence?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I have good news for the hon. Gentleman because, even with our immense skills, it is impossible to spend any of the 0.7% on anything that is not official development assistance-eligible. I encourage all Opposition Members, as they hopefully join us to deliver the global goals, to start working for a change with the private sector and the armed forces, without which we will not be able to deliver the humanitarian relief that we wish to deliver or achieve those goals.

European Council

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The 48% seem to count for nothing any more. They did not vote for this descent into chaos, and many cautioned, “You should not leave unless you know where you are going.” Is it not time, in the national interest, to revoke article 50, not least to allow those who claim to speak for the 52% to sort out what they actually want?

[The Prime Minister]

Revoking article 50 means staying in the European Union and it is not possible to revoke article 50, to go back into the EU and then come out again in a few months’ time. The judgment of the European Court of Justice was absolutely clear on this point: revoking article 50 means staying in the European Union.

Exiting the European Union

Daniel Zeichner Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Hon. Members of this House will need to face the fact that there will be a choice between a deal, no deal and no Brexit—[Interruption.] Between a deal—a deal—no deal and no Brexit. There is no majority in this House for any of the alternative arrangements that have been put forward by Members of this House.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister told us earlier that she had been listening, but I am afraid she has been a touch selective in what she has actually heard, because it is not just about the backstop. Will she level with the country and tell people that the political declaration is not actually a deal, but a series of shared aspirations, and the negotiations are likely to drag on for years and years?

[The Prime Minister]

The political declaration makes it very clear that what will be negotiated will give effect to what is in the political declaration. If you like, it is instructions to the negotiators. What is also clear within the deal that has been agreed is that both sides will use their best endeavours, acting in good faith, to achieve that negotiation by the end of December 2020.