College Funding

Debate between Catherine West and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 21st January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend and near neighbour is absolutely right, and that is a key issue for the east of England, which is often seen as a prosperous and successful region, but its skills shortages have been a problem for a long, long time and they need to be addressed.

I will also quote Yolanda Botham, the principal of Long Road Sixth Form College, another excellent college in Cambridge. She tells me:

“The current level of funding has meant for Long Road that we have had to reduce our curriculum offer. We no longer provide A-level German, for example. We have had to reduce the broader opportunities and enrichment opportunities that we can provide, limiting the number of trips and experiences we can offer, which really matter for social mobility. Visits and trips show what’s possible and enable students to see beyond their immediate horizons.”

She says that it is particularly galling to note that

“our private school neighbours, charging £17,000 annually, do not have to pay VAT, yet we do.”

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems a bit perverse in the days of Brexit to be cutting back on foreign language provision?

[Daniel Zeichner]

Indeed it is, but this place is full of ironies on a daily basis, is it not?

Yolanda Botham said that for her college

“that £200,000 extra a year could really make an important difference, such as supporting through subsidy more students to take advantage of university summer schools and other opportunities.”

That is exactly the kind of point about social mobility that colleagues have been making. She continued:

“An increase in funds would allow us to better cater for the mental health needs of our students and so, over time, maybe reduce the demands on the NHS. This is in increasing need amongst young people.”

Vote Leave Campaign: Electoral Law

Debate between Catherine West and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 10th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his excellent opening speech. On the point about people attending Committees, does he agree that the social media element has an impact on the close scrutiny that we need, not just of ourselves as Members of Parliament, but of elections in general? Because it is so new, it adds confusion and layers of fake news, making it even more difficult for the average citizen or voter to get to the bottom of what the truth is.

[Daniel Zeichner]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s observation. I do not think anyone would dispute the layers of complexity and difficulty, and the greater difficulty presented by social media. For some of us who have been grappling with electoral law over many years, social media makes it a whole lot more difficult, and I suspect we all know that we will need to update our procedures to try to cope with the challenges that are posed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making those points. I quite understand that there is another, more attractive option coming up soon in the other Chamber, and I will be in no way offended if he leaves. On his point about whether there can be an independent arbiter, I am slightly dubious. We are all sufficiently experienced, even in local contests, to know that that would be a difficult thing to set up. I would worry about it. We have all seen examples where all candidates are given an equal space in a booklet, and we have perhaps noted that that is not necessarily the bit that cuts through to the electorate in comparison with reporting from other sources. It is a difficult area, and I have some scepticism about his proposals, although there may be some value in exploring the checking of statistics.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way to me for a second time. Does he agree that if there is a referendum and the Government of the day say that they will implement whatever the people decide, there should at least be a briefing in the Library of the House of Commons the day after the referendum goes one way or the other so that those of us who are rather surprised by the result know what the Government intend to do?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for her suggestion. I am just remembering some bleary-eyed politicians trying to recalibrate in the middle of the night, and I am wondering how quickly such a briefing note could be produced accurately. This is a theme of what I have been saying, but I am not sure that one can design legal systems to cope with all these things. In the end, these are political judgments, and we live in a democracy with a fair amount of hurly-burly and a free press, as there should be. We do not want our elections and decisions being bought by money and external states. That is the worry, and that is the difference from some of the problems we have had in the past.

I will make some progress and move on to the separate but related question of article 50 and the ongoing debate as to whether it is rescindable. Lord Kerr was responsible for drafting article 50 as secretary-general to the European Convention in 2002-03 and is frequently quoted on this issue. Last year, he said that article 50 was revocable. That interpretation is supported by Jean-Claude Piris, former legal counsel to the European Council. Marie Demetriou QC, Jessica Simor QC and Tim Ward QC have written a joint legal opinion, which they have sent to the Prime Minister, in which they conclude that article 50 can be withdrawn before 29 March 2019 without the need to seek the agreement of the other EU member states. They also say that if that happened, the UK would retain its membership and privileges. The joint legal opinion notes that the wording in article 50 refers to a decision to notify an intention to withdraw. The QCs argue that an intention is not a binding commitment; it can be changed or withdrawn.

While legal arguments continue on the matter, in political terms the French Government have stated that they would welcome the UK staying in the EU on the current terms. EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and Council President Donald Tusk have both said that Brexit is reversible. Lots of people have said lots of things over a period of time. When it comes down to it, I suspect that it is the political will of law- makers that counts here. However, it has been made very clear to us that we are welcome to stay, should we wish.

I have tried to present the petition in an even-handed and fair way, even though everyone already knows where I am going with my speech. In many people’s view, June 2016 was not a great example of a mature democracy working at its best. We know that in our system, referendums are used mainly by Prime Ministers who are in a fix, trapped by divisions within their own party. That was most certainly the case in 2016. Although I have not an ounce of sympathy for David Cameron, he must wonder every day how it came to this. In 2016, the country was hideously divided on the issue, but a decision was made. Two and a half years on, it looks as though we face another difficult decision: to accept whatever deal can finally be arrived at, or not. That is a different question from the one that was posed in 2016. I have argued this afternoon that the law around referendums should be changed to make them consistent with other electoral processes.

Almost 200,000 petitioners and many, many more in the country feel very strongly that the 2016 decision, close as it was, was sullied by actions that have been proven by the Electoral Commission to be unlawful. It may be Parliament’s responsibility or fault that the law is inconsistent, but many of the people we represent feel that the law has not provided adequate recompense for wrongdoings, and that is the force of the petition. That the law was broken is not in doubt, but alongside that, many believe that the campaign was grossly misleading. What was offered by Vote Leave and other leave campaigns is not what is being delivered, and as with parties that renege on their manifestos, the country will not forgive the political system and the politicians who allow this to happen.

The two strands—breaking spending limits and misleading people—are separate issues, but for many people the two are inextricably linked. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who is the grandson of Winston Churchill, told the House in the urgent question on this matter in July that

“one of the great glories of this sadly now diminished country was our electoral and democratic system…I say…that if we are to retain the integrity and the trust of the voting public, the whole damn thing needs to be blown and started all over again.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 228-229.]

The point is very well made. To maintain trust in our democracy, a political response is needed, and that political response is to ensure that justice is done and that we have a people’s vote.

The petition mentions article 10.3 of the Lisbon treaty, which states:

“Every citizen shall have the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union. Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

I do not want to leave the EU; I have been explicit on that point. I truly believe that the economic, social and political damage that leaving would do to our country—hitting the most vulnerable the hardest—could be mitigated by remaining in and reforming the EU. Tackling the underlying causes here at home is the way to truly bring back control to the people, not to the bankrollers of election campaigns, but while having the conversation about our future relationship with the European Union, it is worth reflecting again on article 10.3. It states:

“Decisions shall be taken as openly and as closely as possible to the citizen.”

That was not what happened in the EU referendum campaign, where electoral rules were broken, a limited franchise excluded those who would be most affected and the question allowed people to vote on what they did not want, but then said nothing about the kind of relationship that should be put in place. As many have said, as we slam the door shouting “We’re leaving”, we are unable to answer the obvious retort, “So where do you think you’re going to?”.

To help our fractured society to move back towards the higher ideals of genuine informed participation in democratic life, it is right to consider the experiences of the past two and a half years since the country went to the polls, as well as the poll itself, and to look at what was promised then and what is being delivered now. It is right to wonder whether we can do better. People have the right to know the price tag before they pay the bill. I am absolutely convinced we can do better. We all know so much more now than we did back in 2016. My solution to the conundrum raised by the 200,000 petitioners is simple. We have an opportunity not to revisit 2016—not to have a rerun, despite the wrongdoing—but to have a new vote on the issue that lies before us. It would be a people’s vote, which would give the people a genuine choice to decide on their future: whether to take the deal, whatever is negotiated, or to reject it and so stay in the European Union.

Bus Services Bill [Lords]

Debate between Catherine West and Daniel Zeichner

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I will return to other examples of the failure of deregulation in a moment. It is not just about the number of services. Fares have risen faster than inflation, and patronage overall has fallen by more than a third. Bus market monopolies have become the norm in far too many places.

Back in October, we noted the 30th anniversary of bus deregulation, but it was far from a cause for celebration. It meant 30 years of bus users being ripped off by a handful of big bus operators, which have carved the market into chunks and which go largely unchallenged in their own territories.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for people on low incomes in rural areas, and in some urban areas as well, it is almost impossible to job hunt without a decent bus service?

Neonicotinoids on Crops

Debate between Catherine West and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 7th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Zeichner]

I very much agree. Those of us who have ploughed through the detailed report find it overwhelming. It was disappointing that, after opposing the earlier advice, the coalition Government published a 10-year national pollinator strategy for bees and other pollinators that did not go nearly far enough. Specifically, it ignored the challenge that neonicotinoid use poses to pollinators.

This autumn, the Government, despite the growing evidence demonstrating the adverse impact of neonicotinoids on pollinator numbers, granted an emergency authorisation for their use. In my county of Cambridgeshire, it allowed farmers to plant oilseed rape with neonicotinoid-treated seeds, which sparked many protests across my constituency and contributed to half a million people across the country signing petitions.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision was made a little too soon, as not enough research had been done?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Many people felt that at the time. We all agree that the challenge is how best to take a science-led approach to the use of pesticides. We must balance the need to support farmers and protect food security with the need to protect wildlife and reverse the decline of pollinators.

Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Catherine West and Daniel Zeichner

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point that a number of other Members have made: we are not convinced that TfL gets good deals, so why should we make it easier for it to make even less good deals in the future? We worry about that.

Our fear is that the really contentious clause 5 will make it still harder for local people to have influence over major decisions that affect their community. Our view is that regeneration is much better done from the bottom-up, with the assent of those who will be most directly affected—not top-down. Given that the land has already been sold off, the Earls Court development seems to be a bit of a done deal. What we seek to prevent are further lopsided private-public agreements that steamroll over neighbourhoods in the name of regeneration. We understand that TfL wants greater commercial freedoms, but those freedoms cannot come at the cost of denying a voice to ordinary people in London.

The core of the issue is the imprecise nature of the limited partnership itself. A partnership of that kind is not a distinct legal entity, and a lack of clarity surrounds the roles that would be played by each party in the partnership, where responsibility and accountability would lie, and who would really benefit most, the private developer or the public. We are advised that a limited partnership is able to change its general partner, but the partnership agreement would be unlikely to be made public, and its terms would not be open to public scrutiny. To be in the public body interest, genuine partnerships need far more transparency and accountability.

Furthermore, unless it is agreed for a fixed term, a limited partnership will be at will. A limited partnership at will may be dissolved on notice by a general partner, but, unless the agreement provides otherwise, not by a limited partner, which TfL is likely to be. Limited partnerships clearly vest a large amount of risk in their ventures, and we do not believe that these issues have been properly addressed. There is a real danger that TfL would be taking very large risks—indeed, unlimited risks. We do not think that it has considered carefully enough the long-term impacts of introducing powers to enter into such partnerships. For those reasons, we are cautious about the potential precedent, and we believe that the Government should also assess very carefully the appropriateness of other public transport authorities’ entering into limited partnerships.

Some of my hon. Friends have made powerful points. Much of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)—who is no longer in the Chamber—hit the nail on the head. She was particularly critical about the prospect of a partnership’s changing at some future stage. It was telling that, when she challenged Conservative Members to explain how the process might work, they looked thoroughly uncomfortable and were unable to provide any reassurance.

I think that what my hon. Friend said about the price of a flat being £826,000 was one of the most telling comments that we have heard tonight. It told us so much about the current crisis. I feel deeply about that crisis, being an almost outer-outer London Member. Cambridge, which I represent, reflects all the attributes of the London housing market nowadays. [Interruption.] These are serious issues. Conservative Members are chuntering away as though it did not matter that people cannot afford to live in our great cities, but it does matter. The point that we are making is that if public bodies like TfL do not take this seriously, we are not relying on anyone else to do it.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend has made a valid point. Conservative Members are making light of what is the most important issue in London. Does he agree that it is outrageous that people need an annual income of £75,000 to be able to afford to rent a property in Finsbury Park—not Chelsea—for their families? [Interruption.]