External Private Contractors: Government Use and Employment

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I first wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker). In the short time she has been here, she has made a great contribution to the House. She has also made a great contribution to our party and to the union movement, where she spent many years on exactly these sorts of issues.

In May, the Prime Minister promised us a world-beating track and trace system. What we have instead is a system in disarray. The NHS Test and Trace system is not run by our national health service. Frankly, it is offensive to link the NHS with the shambles that the Government and the private sector have created. Our track and trace system is provided by Serco, the outsourcing giant responsible for a plethora of well-documented scandals. There was the electronic tagging scandal for which it was fined £23 million by the Serious Fraud Office. There was the extensive cover-up of sexual abuse of vulnerable women at Yarl’s Wood, and there is the ongoing scandal of asylum seekers’ accommodation and the “squalid, unsafe, slum housing”—not my words, but those of the chief executive of the Refugee Council. And Serco won a further £2 billion of contracts from the Home Office last year.

Why do the Government choose to award contracts worth hundreds of millions to run track and trace during a deadly pandemic, in what is literally a life-or-death situation? Why have the Government ignored the recommendations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and the BMA? Would it not make more sense for track and trace to be run by local public health experts? My Labour colleagues and I have been asking such questions since the contracts were awarded, but answers have not been forthcoming.

The problems that have since arisen have shown the Serco system for what it is: completely unfit for purpose. By the end of August, after a month of encouraging British people to eat out to help out, and around the time the Government launched their back to work campaign, track and trace was failing to contact more than 30% of those who had been in contact with someone who had tested positive. Only 40% of test results were being returned within 24 hours. Since then we have seen lockdown after lockdown. Both lives and livelihoods have been put at risk because of a Government so wedded to the private sector that they are unwilling to admit their mistakes and give oversight to local health protection teams who, by the way, have reached 97% of close contacts of those testing positive, in contrast to Serco’s 62%.

It is not really a surprise that the system is doing so badly when we consider that staff employed by Serco to work on track and trace have spoken of days without contact from supervisors, or without being given any work to do. They are paid the minimum wage while Serco’s profits have surged. Low-paid, badly trained workers are not to blame for the failure of track and trace. The Government’s ideological obsession with outsourcing and subcontracting is. Track and trace has failed, testing is in chaos, and the track and trace app is mired in a multitude of technical issues.

In early February I was forced to self-isolate for two weeks after attending a conference where there was a coronavirus patient. I could not be told by the system at that time whether I had been in contact with that person or not. When I returned here, I asked the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to introduce a track and trace app. He promised to look at it. Now, more than eight months later, we still do not have a working app.

Months of sacrifice and a Herculean effort on the part of the British people have been given scant regard by the Government. Now we have businesses on the brink and whole industries—tourism, hospitality and the arts, to name but a few—at serious risk of collapse. We are in recession and unemployment is climbing. No one is asking the Government for instant medical solutions to coronavirus, but we need a track and trace system that works to keep the public safe, delivered by local authorities with knowledge of the communities that they serve—not private profiteers, costing both public money and the public’s lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Julia Lopez)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) for securing the debate. The Government are the custodian of public money and it is very important that we retain the confidence of taxpayers about how that money is spent. It is similarly important that we have a robust, highly skilled civil service, with the expertise and capacity to deliver projects and services over the long term and at pace, and that we treat those in the private and public sectors who carry out work for the Government with respect. That is why I welcome not only the way in which the hon. Member has raised issues about external private contractors but the respectful way in which she makes her case.

The civil service has historically used contractors, working alongside civil servants, to provide additional capacity and specialist skills and to manage short-notice urgent requirements. Where it is cost-effective to do so and the requirement is temporary, this makes sense, but let me also be clear that we are focused on driving down the use of consultants, improving internal civil service capability and driving greater value. We will do this in a variety of ways: revamping our in-house training; looking again at procurement rules, particularly relating to social value; and continuing the work of my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, in dealing with issues about outsourcing raised following the collapse of Carillion.

Consultants are used to provide advice on the strategy, structure, management or operations of an organisation, and where an external perspective may be helpful or even necessary. We also use professional services firms to support the implementation and delivery of services—for example, PwC supported the delivery of the reform programme for Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service—and we use contingent labour to fill gaps in business-as-usual or service delivery activities. It is also right to say that the civil service itself has grown in number over recent years, partly because of the EU exit operations but also because of covid. We have recruited an extra 6,000 civil servants in the Home Office, for instance, to tackle security, counter-terrorism, crime and policing issues.

I will now address some of the points made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree. I met the leaders of the three civil service unions yesterday. I have not been in post for long, so it was simply an introductory meeting, but I know that some of those unions also represent workers within private sector contracting companies, and I will be very happy to look into some of the issues that she raised today about outsourced workers and their pay and conditions, particularly as regards sick pay.

Other Members have also raised issues about working conditions during the pandemic and it is important to say that not everybody can work over Zoom. In many ways, it is a privilege to be able to do so and not to have to go into an office. On the other hand, I am also aware many workers’ office jobs are not easily conducted at home, and it is important for the Government, as an employer, to provide safe work spaces, so that we can take into account those who are in shared or cramped accommodation.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree also talked about delivering social value through contracts, and we quite agree. We recently took a new look at social value, considering how we take into account environmental factors in how contracts are delivered, whether a contractor is improving the skills of their workforce or their approach to apprenticeships, and so on. We will look at social value in quite a comprehensive way, because once the EU transition period has ended, we will be in a position to come up with a new procurement strategy. Indeed, we are working very hard to draw that up. She raised a number of issues about how we extract value from existing Government contracts, and I will take those away to consider them.

The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) made a number of important points, but it is important that we recognise that we could not have responded to some of the challenges of the pandemic without expertise from both the public sector and the private sector. Again, I assure him that social value is at the heart of the new procurement strategy that we are drawing up, particularly on issues such as climate change and waste.

The hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) raised a number of important issues about track and trace. We all want this system to work. Let us not pretend that it has been perfect from the outset, but a lot of things have been done to improve that service and we are now conducting hundreds of thousands of tests daily. We hope to be on track to deliver—I do not want to get the number wrong, but there is certainly a much increased capacity when it comes to testing and we have ironed out some of the problems that we saw around September with demand on the system.

It is also important that we understand that this process is a partnership between national and local, and between public and private, and I think that it is naive to suggest that the public sector alone could have built up this service so quickly and delivered it at such a great pace. We appreciate the expertise that we have received from the private sector.

[Alex Sobel]

Local authorities can furlough staff, so many local authority staff who could not do their normal jobs were still employed by the local authority. There was capacity in local authorities to deliver this programme. Should that capacity not have been taken up and used before going to the private sector?

[Julia Lopez]

It is important to understand that the private sector has provided the framework for the system, with local authorities able to plug into that framework. The private sector provides the national call centres and so on, but a lot of the local expertise is provided at local level from healthcare experts on the ground, particularly in some of those harder-to-reach instances where we need to go knocking on people’s doors. Ultimately, we share the hon. Gentleman’s aim to improve the service and build plenty of public confidence in it because it is such a key tool in dealing with the pandemic.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) is a PCS union member, and I met his leader yesterday. It is important to remember that successive Governments of all colours use outsourcers. In a previous life, I was a councillor in Tower Hamlets. There were a number of outsourced contracts there and not very impressive in-house management of them, I should say. Outsourcers can provide a lot of expertise and capacity and it is naive to suggest that the public sector alone has all that capacity and expertise in house. Let us not do down some of the people who work for those contractors and bring a lot of capacity and sense to the system.

Both the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) and the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) seem to take an ideological view that effectively says private bad, public good. That is a great shame because it fails to acknowledge what the private sector can provide for public good.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

I am very grateful, Dame Eleanor. Any time the hon. Gentleman wants to debate Northern Irish psephology with me over a glass of Irish whiskey, I would be happy to do so.

The essence of the debate this evening—I mean this afternoon, but I am anticipating a long debate, as you can tell—is really not about whether the devolution settlement is as the SNP would want it to be or as it actually is, which is a productive relationship, I think, between those in the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers with the United Kingdom Government. Certainly, that was how it was when I was a Minister—I had a very positive relationship with my friends in Scotland and Wales and throughout our kingdom. It is not really about that. It is about whether we believe that the Government’s hands should be tied in the negotiations as they go forward and try to strike the best possible deal with the European Union. No responsible Member of this Parliament should want to dilute the strength of our position in those negotiations in what is, inevitably, a challenging process with a very wily European Union. Whatever one thinks about the faults and frailties of the EU, and I could speak at great length about them, no one would deny that it is experienced, determined and wily in its attempts to defend the EU’s interests. We must be as united and strong as we can be in backing those who are fighting for Britain, as our Prime Minister is, has and will continue to do.

In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, Dame Eleanor —I know that you will be pleased that I am about to, although disappointed simultaneously—let me say this. It is absolutely true that, in gauging both trade policy and infrastructural investment, we need to be mindful of the particularities of the needs and wants of people across the kingdom, and of course different circumstances prevail in different parts of the UK. Good Governments and good Ministers have always done so, but, in the end, it is for the national Government—it is for the Queen’s Ministers—to make decisions on these matters, and however much that may trouble those who have moved the bulk of these amendments, I have to tell them that it is how it is and how it is going to be. We will back Britain. We will back Boris and in doing so we will get the best possible deal.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I stand here after three of the most bizarre years of constitutional contortions, when parliamentary conventions were stretched to their very limits. However, on Monday we topped them all when Government Members voted to breach the very same withdrawal agreement they voted for just months ago. We have to wonder what the point is of making law and entering international agreement when just months later the Government seek to overturn it. The same Members who voted to breach the withdrawal agreement had hailed the Prime Minister’s renegotiation of it as a masterstroke and then campaigned for it and voted to enact it.

I cannot compete with my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in making the Prime Minister look like a petulant child, so I will not try, but I will try to make Members opposite think about the damage they are doing to our international standing, to their individual reputations and to the fabric of our Union, and to a Bill which could render the Good Friday agreement asunder.

I have some interest in constitutional law; I know the power it has to create new opportunities, to spread power to the people, and to have decisions made closer to where people live, but this Bill is about putting the foot down on the accelerator and driving the constitutional settlement off a cliff with the Union as its trailer. Clause 46 breaks the settled will of the devolved nations, so allow me to outline some of the problems with this Bill.

First, there is the Executive power grab: the Bill has enabling clauses that enable a Minister to make unilateral regulations. Secondly, there is the breach of existing law: the enabling clauses allow a Minister to create regulations regardless of whether those regulations are in breach of domestic and international law. Let that sink in for a second before I carry on: we are giving Ministers the power to break the law.

Clause 46 allows pork barrelling, a US practice allowing for Government spending for local projects to help a politician in their constituency. It allows pork barrelling by ministerial diktat and over the heads of devolved bodies. The Bill not only creates a situation where the Government are in breach of the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement, but it would provide the statutory basis for new regulations to be made by Ministers that are also in breach of UK and international law.

This does have recent precedent. The Coronavirus Act 2020 gave the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care similar powers, which we saw implemented this week when the new health regulations were published allegedly 28 minutes before they came into force. So 29 minutes later, a family of three meeting a family of four could have been in breach of the law, after a flick of the Secretary of State’s pen, with no warning. So, soon we will have two laws, covering coronavirus and Brexit, where Ministers can create law by diktat, and in the case of Brexit break already agreed international law. We must therefore ask whether Parliament’s only purpose will be to provide a body of personnel to fill the Executive and oversee some functions as a law-making body. This means that when it comes to devolved bodies having to make spending and funding decisions, clause 46 will take it over their heads, and they will be denuded of their powers.

Far from bringing sovereignty to our shores, this Government are stripping our sovereign Parliament of its powers piece by piece, and doing the same to the devolved bodies. The Government’s real purpose is a power grab: they are using a difficult situation as a subterfuge to hoodwink the public. The checks and balances are being eroded—[Interruption.] Yes, they are; Government Members are shaking their heads. Those who are meant to safeguard are brought into the pretence and belittle their own office: the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and the Lord Chancellor. The Advocate General for Scotland has at least shown proper respect for the law by resigning—or at least attempting to resign by tendering his resignation—and the Northern Ireland Secretary himself admitted this Bill breaks the law

“in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

However, a breach of the law is a breach the law, so any breaking of the law in a very specific and limited way is no defence in court: the law does not discriminate on specificity.

Even the need for this Bill has been ridiculed by more constitutional experts than I could possibly name. The Government argue that the powers are needed in case they need to rapidly implement safeguards under article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol, but Professor Mark Elliott, chair of the Faculty of Law at Cambridge University, argues that clauses 42 and 43—I know that we are not debating those today; I will come to the point about those later—

“bear little relation to the matters with which Article 16 is concerned”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a passionate speech and I am grateful to him for giving way. Could he please tell me which powers are being taken away from the Welsh Parliament?

[Alex Sobel]

There is a list of areas in clause 46 where the Government are taking powers for direct funding into the devolved nations.

The upshot is that passing the Bill intact would not provide a safety valve or insurance if the Government’s oven-ready deal threatened to burn down the house; if the house burned down, the tenants—our home nations—would rebuild it several feet apart, ending our historic Union. The Government never were honest that leaving the European Union would create an existential threat to our United Kingdom. They have never addressed the inherent tensions that they themselves created and that the Bill deepens rather than resolves.

Upending our international reputation as a nation that upholds the law, and creating the barriers to trade that no deal would create, will have severe consequences and threatens creating an unstoppable force that will cause our nation’s fabric to be permanently rent asunder. I cannot support that, and neither should Government Members. That is why I support the Labour Front-Bench amendments in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

There were over thirty contributions from the Back Benches, including some excellent contributions from the Benches behind me.

The withdrawal agreement and the Bill, even if passed, do not end matters. Rather, they open up a whole new series of disputes, and what do we hear today? The party that championed employment tribunal fees now asks us to trust them on workers’ rights. The Foreign Secretary at the weekend told us of smart regulations. Let me translate that: this Tory Party does not want to protect our rights; it wants to shred them. I quote:

“the weight of employment regulation is now back-breaking”,

and that includes

“the collective redundancies directive, the atypical workers’ directive, the working time directive and a thousand more”.

Who said that? The man sitting opposite me: the Prime Minister himself. He wants us to take his word on employment laws, but he mocks them when he gets the chance. He will never care about the working people of this country. The Prime Minister promised virtually everything in the debate earlier today, but if he was so concerned about protecting workers’ rights and about safeguarding our environment, he would have left those provisions in a legally binding withdrawal agreement and would not have shifted them to the non-binding political declaration. Why should we believe a word that he says now? That is why the TUC, Unison, Unite and the GMB all recognise that his eleventh-hour comments today are worthless.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech. Does he agree that, as there is no mention of environmental rights in the Bill, there will be no surety in regard to the environment? Should that provision not be put back into legislation?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The damage that the Bill does to workers’ rights is just the tip of the iceberg. It will create a border in the Irish sea and impose burdens on Northern Ireland-Great Britain trade, something that the Prime Minister himself promised would never happen. Clause 21 makes that explicit, yet, extraordinarily, the Prime Minister continued to deny it when he opened the debate. What did he talk about? Light-touch measures to deal with illegal trade in endangered animal species and to ban firearms. That completely contradicts what the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union eventually told the House of Lords European Union Committee yesterday:

“The exit summary declarations will be required in terms of NI to GB”.

I do not know why the Prime Minister is shaking his head. That is what the Bill says. The Prime Minister should read the Bill.

Prorogation of Parliament

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I could not agree more, and I was one of those 17.4 million people. I understand that there are many facets to this complex argument, but we Members are charged with showing political leadership. For three years, we have talked about what we do not want; we have um-ed and ah-ed; we have had political shenanigans; and there have been games afoot. In the last few weeks—it seems a long time since the summer recess—the debate has been like the trash talk in a press conference ahead of a heavyweight boxing match, with people trying to win the fight before the first punch is thrown.

People clearly expect us to get on with the job and leave the EU, with or without a deal. By now, we should be talking about how, not whether, we will leave. The fact that we are still talking about whether we will leave, three years after the referendum, demonstrates the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) made: we cannot pick and choose the election results that we want to uphold, and 17.4 million people—the most people to have voted for anything in a British election—have charged us with leaving the EU.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Do we not need to know whether we are leaving with or without a deal in order to understand what legislation will be required? How can we have a Queen’s Speech on 14 October, before the European Council, and how can we frame legislation when we do not know whether we are leaving with or without a deal?

[Paul Scully]

To be fair, I have allowed the last two interventions to distract me from the fact that the key purpose of a Queen’s Speech is to set out the domestic agenda—to talk about the 20,000 new police officers, and to ensure that people see the benefits of frontline funding for the NHS, levelling up funding for schools, and delivering full-fibre broadband across the country. However, as we ramp up preparation for no deal, we know exactly the kind of thing that we will need if we get a deal, although the deal that we are likely to get—if we get there—will be substantively different from the last withdrawal agreement. Also, we have been trying to pass legislation regarding no-deal preparations over the last few months.

Again, I am allowing myself to be distracted. We keep talking about deal or no deal, but actually we mean the withdrawal agreement; the deal is yet to come. We use the terms interchangeably. The deal, in terms of trade deals, is all about the future relationship with the EU, and we have not even got there yet. All we are talking about—I say “all”; of course it is complicated and significant—is how we physically leave the EU. Deciding what the trading relationship will look like will take time. One of my fundamental concerns—albeit from two and a half years ago, so it cannot be revisited—was accepting the sequencing that Michel Barnier and the EU put to us: that we had to get the divorce done before we could talk about the future relationship. It would have been far more sensible—this formed the basis of the Vote Leave campaign—to do both at the same time.

On the backstop, for example, instead of coming up with the convoluted system that has failed to get through this place so many times, it would have been far easier had we known what the ultimate trading relationship between Northern Ireland, in particular, and the Republic of Ireland would be. We would then have been able to work on solutions—alternative arrangements—not just in the last year, but in the last three years. That would have been a far better and more holistic approach to leaving.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

This is a really important debate, not least because 1.7 million people signed the petition. We have had demonstrations up and down the country, including in Leeds both this and last Saturday. The previous Saturday saw the largest demonstration in Leeds since the protests against the Iraq war, with 5,000 people turning out to hear some of the city’s and the region’s MPs, who are all from the Labour party.

Those demonstrations happened because people think that we need to be in Parliament to scrutinise the Executive at this crucial time, rather than spending five weeks in our constituencies and at party conference. Nor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said, should the Prime Minister be electioneering using public money in that time, before general election spending rules apply.

It is vital that we are here because the country is in no way prepared for crashing out of the EU on 31 October as the Prime Minister seems intent on doing. Today, I read in The Times that our EU negotiating team is composed of just four people. How will four people negotiate a new withdrawal agreement with the European Union in the time that we have left before the European Council? That does not seem credible and does not stand up to scrutiny. That is why Parliament is being prorogued: so that scrutiny does not exist.

What else do we need in that period? A number of Bills that have started to go through the House have not completed the process, and they need to before we reach any watershed moment with the European Union. If they have not been completed, it will be absolutely chaotic—we will live in a chaotic country in which international law has not been properly legislated for; not enacted by our legislature.

The Trade Bill, for example, has not been finished. Why not, because it should have? We were on track to pass the Trade Bill in May—I do not mind if the Minister corrects me on that, but I think we should have completed the Bill then. We have not done so because of the attempts—which I would have supported—to insert a customs union into the provisions of the Trade Bill, and the Government, under both this Prime Minister and the previous one, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), did not want a customs union. Progress on the Bill was therefore slowed down, so we will not complete it in time for 31 October.

An immigration Bill would have provided some surety for EU citizens in this country—though perhaps not, depending on what happened with it—and regulated immigration post Brexit. What now happens to those EU citizens if the Prime Minister does not negotiate a withdrawal agreement and we leave with no deal on 31 October? I hope that the Minister has a good answer, because 3 million people in this country are interested to know what their status will be without the completion of such an immigration Bill. They do not believe the promises that have come from Ministers and the Executive.

What about the Fisheries Bill? Central to the leave campaign in 2016 was that the UK would take back control of fisheries and fishing rights, but how will that be possible without a Fisheries Bill? Without that legislation, will not other countries with which we share our territorial waters contest us in international courts? What a laughing stock we will be if we leave on 31 October without the legislation. The Agriculture Bill, too, is meant to frame what we will have post the common agricultural policy.

I am sure the Minister will say, “Oh, but these Bills will be in the Queen’s Speech”—obviously, he cannot give us a decisive answer on what will and will not be in the Queen’s Speech, but he will try to reassure us. However, I want to know how we will legislate for all those Bills by 31 October.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is my hon. Friend aware—I am certainly not—whether any carry-over motions have been tabled to save those Bills? That would avoid the necessity of them having to appear in the Queen’s Speech and mean that we could get back to them in the ridiculously short time that we will have left.

[Alex Sobel]

We only have a few hours before the House is prorogued. I am sure that colleagues of the Minister are busily preparing to ensure that we do not have to bring those Bills back in the Queen’s Speech, but one Bill we will without doubt need to be in it is an environment Bill. We were expecting an environment Bill to be introduced; we were expecting to be through First and Second Reading and in Committee—I wanted to be on the Committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), who is sitting next to me—but we have no environment Bill. I would like to know what regulations will exist, and how we will enforce them from 1 November, if the Prime Minister completes the task that he has set for himself.

In Leeds, we are due to have a clean-air zone, because our air quality is among the worst in this country. Three times the Government have been taken to court by ClientEarth and lost, on the basis of EU regulations forming part of UK law to enshrine, embed and widen air quality through a number of local authorities in the UK. The Government have failed to deliver to Leeds what it needs—a charging system, and equipment for such vehicles—so we in Leeds will be in breach of EU regulations on air quality for longer than we expected.

Who will provide the environmental protection that we need? I asked that question of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but until a few hours ago the Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. She said that in a no-deal Brexit scenario, the new agency would not be formed until the end of 2020 or the beginning of 2021, and that people would have to take environmental action retrospectively. That means that we will have no environmental protection in this country from 31 October until that date. I have an issue with effluent discharge into the River Wharfe, and I hope for some enforcement action on it. Will I be disappointed? Will people have to swim in effluent for two more years because there is no regulation? I would like to know.

The issues are not small and minor; they are huge, and Parliament should be here, sitting to debate those Bills, scrutinising them in Committee, and getting them through so that on 31 October we are not in a situation in which the people of this country have a far worse quality of life.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. So many factors are important. On 5 August, we saw the incursion in Kashmir. My constituents want to debate that issue, and to call the Government to account for their actions in the light of the lockdown in Kashmir and the sheer catastrophic humanitarian risk in Indian-administered Kashmir. Surely proroguing Parliament prevents this House from scrutinising the Government’s actions on important global matters as well.

[Alex Sobel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Kashmir, the internet has been shut down, and there is a lack of reporting on the crackdown by the Indian Government. We also have the events in Hong Kong. Britain is a party to the Chinese-British agreement of 1984, so in some senses what happens in Hong Kong is a matter of foreign policy but, equally, it is not. We will not be able to hold any scrutiny of the Foreign Secretary on that matter either.

There is a whole raft of things over and above legislation, but over that period all that people will be able to see are the party conferences, when only one party’s view will be given. In the week of 20 September, it will be my party’s view, which I will support. Once a year, we get a platform and a fair hearing in the media, but that is not the same as the parliamentary scrutiny that we would have if we were here.

The idea that—this is complementary to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes)—we could vote tonight for a general election, hold one and come back with the whole issue of Brexit cleanly resolved is absolute nonsense. In the current circumstances, in what would be a general election with only one issue on the ballot paper, no one can predict what the result would be. That would subvert the general election into a vote on one issue, when it should be about the economy, our health, our education system, our environment and every other issue that is important in the country. That is not the way to deal with Brexit; the only way to deal with it is to confirm the decision of the 2016 referendum, or not, by the Government’s negotiating a withdrawal agreement with the EU. The Prime Minister repeatedly tells us he has almost completed one, although today the Irish Prime Minister said that he had no evidence of any progress on it—I am not sure which Prime Minister I would like to believe at this stage, but on 14, 15, 16 or 17 October we will see which one is correct.

[Paul Scully]

Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Irish Taoiseach also said that if the UK is to leave, it should do so by 31 October? That was stated to be the viewpoint of the majority of EU member states.

[Alex Sobel]

This is an evolving situation on the EU side. If we prorogue tonight without a general election, I hope to go to Brussels tomorrow to meet a number of people in the European Parliament and the Commission, so that I can hear at first hand what is happening in the EU. It is difficult to know what is going on in the EU from the trial by media; it is hard enough to work out what is going on in our Government, never mind in 27 other Governments.

The general election is not an adequate alternative to solve our future relationship with the European Union. The only real way to finally address this question , as my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) said, is a confirmatory vote on whether to accept a withdrawal agreement, or not to and therefore stay in the European Union. That way, people would go to the ballot box on this issue in isolation and resolve it. Underlying Prorogation are attempts not to allow us the time for Parliament to decide that question. It concerns me that this is a politicised Prorogation of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Main.

I begin with a couple of points about the procedure we are engaged in here. Before members of the Petitions Committee leap up, I should say I do not intend any criticism of them. I have been at a number of these debates on matters on which the public have petitioned us, and I wonder if our procedures are effective and robust enough to deliver on the expectations of those who petition Parliament.

First, we are dealing with two petitions. I am not sure of the need to lump petitions together just because they cover the same topic, particularly in this instance, where they represent diametrically opposed views. One petition, which I presume has been organised by pro-Brexit campaigners because they believe this Parliament is made up of remoaners who are antipathetic to their case, has taken five months to get to the requisite threshold of 100,000 signatures. The other petition collected 1.7 million signatures in a matter of hours and reflects serious public outrage at a decision taken by the Government. To give parity of consideration to those two petitions is simply not fair.

I wonder how many people who sign such petitions understand that this is the place where their hopes and aspirations come to die on a wet Monday afternoon, in a Committee Room off the House of Commons Chamber, with 10 Members assembled who have no ability to advocate on behalf of the petitioners, or to influence, nevermind change, Government policy. It is too late for this Parliament, but if I come back to this place in the future, I will seek changes to our procedures and how we deal with those who petition this Parliament. I do not think we treat them fairly enough.

My concerns about how we deal with petitions are as nothing to my concerns about the inadequacy of our constitution when it comes to Parliament sitting. Is it not astonishing that our Parliament can be suspended for five weeks in the middle of a major political crisis, the ramifications of which are profound, legion, and no way near being concluded? Most people would find that astounding; I find it astounding myself that this can happen perfectly legally and normally.

The role of Parliament is to scrutinise and hold to account the Executive. It cannot be right that the Executive can relieve itself of that scrutiny by the simple expedient of suspending Parliament. It seems a bizarre situation, yet it is the one we are confronted by. By the time we get to 14 October, the Prime Minister will have held the most powerful executive office in the land for 82 days, and on only four of those days will Parliament have been able to hold him and his Government to account. That is frankly a shocking state of affairs. I do not buy the argument that that is because Government Ministers and their advisers need time to prepare a new legislative programme.

[Alex Sobel]

The hon. Gentleman just outlined that the Prime Minister will have been in office for 82 days, and that Parliament will have sat for only four of them. That means that there will have been only one Prime Minister’s Question Time. Members of this House will not be able to question the Prime Minister until after the Queen’s Speech, even though by then he will have been in office for over three months.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I know; it is staggering.

We need to ask ourselves why this is happening. It is because we have a Prime Minister who has no mandate, no majority in the House and no ability to get legislation through Parliament. Rather than compromise with Parliament or seek a majority, he is determined simply to walk away from it and not have the debate. That is a very bad look for our democracy.

It is also bad that we have a Prime Minister who, in his public pronouncements, is uncertain whether he will deliver on the will of Parliament, and now the law of the land, which is that in the absence of a withdrawal deal with the European Union, we should seek an extension until 31 January to allow further time for an agreement to emerge. That the Prime Minister and his advisers are equivocal on that is a matter for deep concern.

I do not buy the Prime Minister’s suggestion that all we need to do in these circumstances is have a quick cut-and-run election. There is no point having an election if the main point of it—to decide whether or not to crash out of the European Union without a deal—cannot be altered by the outcome. We cannot allow an election simply so that the Prime Minister can escape the obligation that Parliament has placed on him. Parliament has not allowed that to happen, and I am sure that it will not allow it later on tonight.

An election will need to come soon; the delay will be only a matter of weeks. As soon as we are confident that we will not crash out of the European Union without a deal, and have more time to consider options and strategy, it will be frankly impossible to advance the process in the country without going back to the people. It is time for them to have another say.

I sense that an awful lot of Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, understand very well the consequences of Brexit; they are not attracted to them, but they feel that they do not have a mandate to oppose Brexit because of the nature of the manifesto on which they stood in 2017. Shaking up the political cards and allowing a different Parliament to emerge with fresh mandates may open the possibility for reconsideration of this matter. I hope that an election will allow a new Parliament to consider putting the matter back to the people who started the process.

It is not the role of Parliament to overturn, set aside or ignore the will of the people, but it is the role of Parliament to interpret it. If we have found, three years later, that what the people asked us to do—that is, to leave the European Union and make things better—is simply undoable, and if what they ask cannot be done, and the circle cannot be squared, then we need to go back to the people, explain that, and ask them whether they want to reconsider. It may well be that they do not want to do that, and that they are content to leave the European Union knowing that it will impoverish them and their families, and diminish the character and culture of this country. That choice should be for them, and they should be allowed to make it, but I am confident that if we are given the opportunity to fight that election, we can get an alternative point of view to emerge—one that will look at the benefits of remaining in the European Union, and changing it so that it delivers for people’s aspirations.

When that election comes in Scotland, my party will not just say, “Stop and reconsider the process of Brexit,” and campaign for an alternative Government to the one that we have had for nearly a decade, but demand and assert the right of the people of Scotland to choose an alternative future. It should be their right not to go down the path that they are being led down by the Prime Minister, and to say that they want to consider an alternative, independent future, in which they take political control of their affairs and determine their relationship with the rest of the people in Britain and Europe. That is the manifesto that we shall put before people in the election that I am sure will come in November, and I look forward to returning to this Chamber to argue that case.

Priorities for Government

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I have given several times already today, which is that the people of Scotland had a vote in 2014, and they voted overwhelmingly to remain in the Union. They were absolutely right, and I see no reason to dissent from that view.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister mentioned aviation. Norway has an aviation emissions plan that includes making all short-haul flights electric by 2040, and it includes research and development to achieve that. Does he have that scale of ambition?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that in my opening statement I mentioned electric planes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q1. If she will list her official engagements for Wednesday 10 July.

[The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)]

This morning I have spoken to Sir Kim Darroch. I have told him that it is a matter of great regret that he has felt it necessary to leave his position as ambassador in Washington. The whole Cabinet rightly gave its full support to Sir Kim on Tuesday. Sir Kim has given a lifetime of service to the United Kingdom, and we owe him an enormous debt of gratitude. Good government depends on public servants being able to give full and frank advice, and I want all our public servants to have the confidence to be able to do that. I hope that the House will reflect on the importance of defending our values and principles, particularly when they are under pressure.

The whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Tammy Minshall, the student paramedic who was killed in a traffic accident last week while on duty. This is a reminder of the members of all our emergency services who risk their lives each day on our behalf.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Alex Sobel]

First, I associate myself with the comments regarding the tragic accident last week.

I am pleased to see the Prime Minister is wearing green. I hope it is not merely a greenwash, as I welcome the Government legislating for net zero by 2050. Before they did that, when the target was weaker, the Committee on Climate Change had already reported that they would miss their target, and today it says that the

“policy ambition and implementation now fall well short of what is required”.

Targets are helpful, but what we need is policies that actually deliver. Clearly the Prime Minister wants to leave a climate legacy, so will she bring forward the ban on diesel and petrol cars from 2040 to 2030 or sooner, and when will she end her Government’s opposition to cheap onshore wind power?

[The Prime Minister]

In fact, we have an excellent record on dealing with climate change as a Government. We outperformed on our first and second carbon budgets, from 2008 to 2017; we are on track to meet the third, and the latest projections suggest that we are on track to deliver more than 90% of our required performance for the fourth and fifth carbon budgets; and we are the first major economy to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. The UK is leading the world on climate change; I want other countries to follow our example.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. To be clear, the Bill is about setting up the governance framework. I can reassure him that once the Sponsor Body is established, it will set to work on a business plan and detailed set of costings, which then need to be approved by Parliament; it cannot go ahead and implement the project without doing so. There will also be Treasury commentary on the estimates that come before this place. We will reflect on it in engagement with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, but it is almost certain that the NAO will wish to look at the quality of the Treasury’s work, so that the Public Accounts Committee can make recommendations to the House.

It would clearly be inappropriate to modify the Comptroller and Auditor General’s powers on the face of the Bill. Any extension of powers should be properly considered, fully consulted on and effected globally, and should not be done as part of this specific case. Indeed, such an extension of powers could make the parliamentary building works less attractive to potential contractors.

It is worth pointing out that the Bill already puts in place transparent and accountable funding mechanisms for the parliamentary building works. Schedule 2 specifies that the Delivery Authority is required to prepare a statement of resources, which must be submitted to the Sponsor Body annually for the latter’s review and approval or rejection. If the Sponsor Body accepts the statement provided by the Delivery Authority, it will be reflected in the estimate prepared by the Sponsor Body and submitted to the Estimates Commission for the financial year to which the statement relates.

It is almost certain that the Sponsor Body will be subject to extensive parliamentary scrutiny, and its parliamentary members may, for example, answer oral questions in this House and the other place. I hope the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside feels reassured that there is a range of abilities to audit and that it is unnecessary to press his new clause.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government have just announced their net zero strategy. Will the work of the Delivery Authority take account of that strategy, and will the terms of reference include this building being net zero ready?

[Kevin Foster]

The Delivery Authority and Sponsor Body will be required to adhere to any legislation that has been passed in this place. Members have touched on disability issues and heritage issues. The Bill also refers to environmental considerations. We are keen to ensure that this is not a question of one interest automatically trumping another. Heritage issues will not automatically trump disability issues, and disability issues will not automatically trump environmental issues. There will be a range of choices to be made by Sponsor Body members, and they will then be held to account by Members on their decisions and how the project is taken forward. We certainly know that not taking the project forward will not improve the environmental impacts of this Parliament—in fact, quite the opposite.

I turn to amendments on which there is more disagreement, starting with amendment 1, tabled by the hon. Member for City of Chester. As he rightly said, I made it clear in Committee that I see blacklisting as a scourge. It is an inappropriate and shameful practice. However, we have concerns about particular aspects of the amendment, even though we appreciate the intentions behind it.

Provision is already made in legislation against blacklisting. The Public Contracts Regulations 2015 already provide mechanisms by which the Delivery Authority will be able to look into the practices of prospective suppliers in relation to blacklisting. In particular, it is also open to the Delivery Authority to exclude a provider from participating in a procurement where it can demonstrate a violation of obligations in the field of national social and labour law. That would include a breach of anti-blacklisting legislation. I could go into the Employment Relations Act 1999 (Blacklists) Regulations 2010 in more detail, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman is very familiar with them.

It is a mandatory requirement for potential suppliers to declare that they have not breached any of the exclusion grounds, including labour law obligations. A completed declaration is also required of any organisations that potential suppliers may rely on to meet the selection criteria, including essential subcontractors. If a prospective supplier declares that they have been found to be in breach of the anti-blacklisting legislation by a court or tribunal, it would be reasonable for the contracting authority to ask to see details of the judgment.

The Government believe that the Bill provides mechanisms to address the concerns that the hon. Gentleman rightly raised. For example, it would be open to the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to make specific provision within the programme delivery agreement between the Sponsor Body and the Delivery Authority provided for in clause 4. Such provision could require construction companies to declare their policies on corporate social responsibility for the Delivery Authority to consider. Of course, whether such provision is made in the programme delivery agreement will be for the Sponsor Body and Delivery Authority to agree upon, but I am sure that members of the shadow Sponsor Board here today—including the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside—are listening carefully to the issues that he and other Members have raised.

While I understand the principle behind the amendment, the Government do not consider it necessary. We consider that the current legislative framework and the Bill’s provisions already include the necessary safeguards to ensure transparency, accountability to Parliament through the period of the parliamentary building works and ongoing scrutiny of the parliamentary building works. Parliamentary Committees will also have the opportunity to scrutinise works that are ongoing. While the Government cannot support the amendment, we believe many measures are in place that will allow us not only to tackle blacklisting but to ensure there is constant accountability to this place on the widest range of environmental, social and labour legislation, and to ensure that this project is an exemplar of them all.

I now turn to amendment 6 and the amendment from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru—amendment 4—which are on a similar theme of looking to spread the work across this United Kingdom. In many ways, I welcome the enthusiasm of the hon. Members for Airdrie and Shotts and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), the right hon. Members for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) and the hon. Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) in wanting to make this project one that really represents the whole Union, so that for generations to come and decades for come, Scottish Members of Parliament will be able to see in this House the symbols of being part of this Union Parliament.

Where I have concerns, sadly, is in how this amendment relates to procurement law. The Delivery Authority will need to create a level playing field as per the public procurement rules. Within these parameters, it is of course open to the Delivery Authority to encourage nations and regions across the UK to participate fully in and to benefit from the works processes. For example, the Delivery Authority may take steps to ensure that companies UK-wide are aware of the bids process by taking out advertising in regional media outlets and perhaps by doing roadshows, as Heathrow airport has done. However, in developing its procurement strategy and assessing bids, it would not be lawful to factor in the geographical location of companies. Adjusting the playing field in the way the amendment prescribes would, I am advised, expose the Delivery Authority to challenge under procurement law.

Leaving the European Union

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What will happen is that the withdrawal agreement Bill will be published and the draft workers’ rights Bill will be published, and we will see them progressing in tandem.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Prime Minister has repeatedly talked about having a democratic mandate. However, the Information Commissioner’s Office found repeated data breaches in Cambridge Analytica’s work for Vote Leave, and Chris Wylie, the Cambridge Analytica whistleblower, said:

“if we allow cheating in our democratic process …what about next time? What about the time after that? This is a breach of the law. This is cheating…this is an irreversible change to the constitutional settlement of this country.”

Does the Prime Minister not really need a democratic mandate for this withdrawal agreement, considering how tampered with and damaged the campaign was in the last referendum?

Proportional Representation: House of Commons

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sweeney]

I am sympathetic to that point. Indeed, who voted for first past the post? Was a referendum ever held on that? Why is it assumed that the burden of proof must lie with those who oppose the existing system? We need a thorough root-and-branch review of the entire structure of our politics as part of a constitutional convention and national conversation. Hopefully we can achieve some consensus among the parties about what needs to change. That could be delivered through a manifesto and a general election.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that we are in the midst of a constitutional crisis, and that a national debate, as he suggests, with a constitutional convention and citizens’ assembly, might help our broader understanding of how the country operates, and ensure greater democratic participation? The problems around low turnout were highlighted by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford); surely changing the system, following a national debate, would raise turnout.

[Mr Sweeney]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. This is the issue with referendums: they present simplistic answers to very complex questions, and binary referendums in particular often lead to contentious and unfortunately hostile arguments being made. A spirit of conflict rather than consensus envelops such contests. We must cut across those points and develop a much more consensual method.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I am not going to give way.

There are five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. I firmly believe that the country has, by and large, reached acceptance. Many Members of this House have reached acceptance of the referendum result, but some clearly have not, as we hear time and again. It is time to move on. It is time to draw the withdrawal phase of this EU exit to a conclusion. There are many other political issues that the country desperately needs us to be talking about and focusing on, and yet here we are, time and again debating the same issues. As the Brady amendment showed at the end of January, the issue is around the backstop, but we are all debating and falling out over a backstop that is an insurance policy that everybody hopes is never needed, to solve a problem—a hard border on the island of Ireland—that nobody wants to see.

For me, there are a number of tests of whether this withdrawal agreement should be approved tonight. I have set those tests out in a letter that I will send to my constituents shortly. Does the withdrawal agreement, if passed, lead to greater certainty? I believe the answer is yes. It will at least enable businesses and individuals in our constituencies to plan ahead, certainly with regard to the transition period. Does it deliver on the exit from the EU that the majority of the United Kingdom voted for in 2016? The answer is yes. It gets us closer to leaving the European Union. There are Members on both sides of the House who have campaigned for that for years, and yet they say they will not vote for the deal this evening.

Does the withdrawal agreement enable the governing party to carry on governing after 29 March and pass legislation? Yes, it does. If a stable majority were to pass the withdrawal agreement, would that mean we could pass the withdrawal implementation Bill and all the other legislation? And that is my problem with the challenge laid down by Opposition Members about why the Government do not make an appeal to them. Although I think a compromise and a consensus could be found in the House on a so-called softer Brexit, it will not lead to anything like a stable majority for future legislation. I have heard nothing that promises that from those on the Opposition Benches.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

If alternative arrangements for the backstop have not been found by December 2020, we will have a Hotel California Brexit where we will have checked out but not be leaving. There is a real danger that passing the withdrawal agreement tonight is just for short-term gain, with pain down the road. Does the right hon. Lady agree?

[Nicky Morgan]

I do not agree. I think there will be a gain. The Treasury Committee has been quite clear that we do not think there is a deal dividend, as the Chancellor has described it, but I think there would be a benefit in terms of stability for businesses and individuals in this country.

Changes have been secured to the withdrawal agreement that was considered in this House in the middle of January. I have been very happy to be part of the alternative arrangements working group, and I thank the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for his engagement. I started this process as something of a sceptic, but believing that compromise had to be found to make this work. There are alternative arrangements, on the basis of existing customs checks and processes, that can be put in place to ensure that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland.

[Alex Sobel]

indicated dissent.

[Nicky Morgan]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. If he has explored the detail, perhaps he will cover that in his remarks, but it is perfectly possible.