Prorogation of Parliament

Jo Platt Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I thank all Members who have taken part in the debate for their speeches, which have highlighted the seriousness of the debate. Tonight, Parliament is to suspend for up to five weeks at this most crucial time in our country’s recent history. That slippery manoeuvre by the new Prime Minister is designed to scupper proper accountability and silence scrutiny when it is most needed.

The Government are already operating with even more secrecy than the previous Government, who were certainly not known for their transparency. As we saw last week when the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came to the House to provide an update on Brexit preparations, the Government are determined to conceal what is really going on. Indeed, what we know about the Government’s preparations for Brexit has come mostly from leaks, and from insight from former Tories, including the former Work and Pensions Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who resigned this weekend in protest at the inaction. According to newspaper reports, the Yellowhammer papers, which outline scenarios in the event of a no-deal Brexit, speak of delays at the channel stretching over two days, food and medical shortages, and potentially even protests on the streets.

Depending on who we listen to, the Government’s negotiations with Brussels are either going well or going nowhere at all. I suspect that the Minister himself does not know which, such is the way the Government are run. They are run by a small ring of unelected advisers who are more concerned with their reputations than the interests of the country. Clearly, then, there are serious questions that Parliament and the public need answers to over the coming weeks, but in closing down Parliament, the Prime Minister has denied the chance for questions to be asked, let alone answered. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, he has shown contempt not only for Parliamentary democracy, but for the British public, who deserve reassurances that the Government have their interests front and centre. It is yet another case of the old Etonian, entitled arrogance that seems to characterise so much of this Government’s policies. What this boils down to is the feeling among the Prime Minister and his allies that they know best. Clearly they do not, and every time the Prime Minister loses yet another vote in the Commons, we are reminded that far from knowing best, they have misjudged Parliament. Labour believes that they have also misjudged the mood of the public.

If the Government use the suspension of Parliament to ram through a no-deal Brexit, as many believe they will, they will not be delivering on the will of the people, but setting the country up for a period of more stagnation and hardship. We must expose no deal for what it is. It is not a quick fix to solve Brexit, but a path of more chaos, more negotiations, more unrest and no consensus across the country. Far from settling the chaos, it will take us back years, while we build from scratch the economic relationship that we want with our closest and nearest trading partners. It would be a path of more delay, rather than allowing us to forge our future relationship with the EU. We would see years of turmoil that we simply cannot afford. After a decade of Conservative austerity, that is the exact opposite of what our country needs at this key turning point.

That is why Labour is determined to use every possible means to expose and prevent the no-deal Brexit that has only ever been the desired option of a small group of hard-liners in the Conservative party, obsessed with deregulation and mythical free trade deals. Indeed, it is their obsession with a no-deal Brexit and the failure of successive Prime Ministers to show leadership that has stopped us reaching a consensus and getting a deal that works for the whole country. The Chancellor’s repeated refusal to rule out an electoral pact with the Brexit party only confirms that this Government are prepared to hang on to the coat-tails of hard-liners, just like the last one.

Setting aside the question of Brexit for the moment, let us consider the shock with which so much of the public reacted not only to the news that the Prime Minister was closing down Parliament, but to the very fact that he could do that. For many people, the past few weeks have provided a crash course in how the British constitution works. I hear that Parliament overtook “Love Island” in the TV viewing ratings. Viewers are probably unhappy with the characters in both programmes.

People often talk of our unwritten constitution in glowing terms; they say it is flexible, but that flexibility has allowed the Prime Minister to sidestep Parliament completely. Consider for a moment the precedent that that sets—a Prime Minister who does not like the view of Parliament simply shutting it down and silencing elected representatives. In doing so, he has shown contempt for democracy, but he has also revealed how archaic our political system really is. Brexit is about many things, but for many people, it was a chance to express their dissatisfaction with how our political system works— and they are right to be dissatisfied. The Westminster system is over-centralised, and the second Chamber is unelected. Parliament is dominated by those from privileged backgrounds, and our elections are captured by big and dark money.

That the Prime Minister can suspend Parliament so easily is yet another feature of our political system that points towards the urgent need for reform. That is why the Labour party is committed to delivering a constitutional convention when it is in government—a convention that will examine and advise on reforming the way Britain works at a fundamental level. We hope that the convention will provide the impetus for a programme of democratic reform that puts power in the hands of the people. However, in the meantime, it is essential that the Labour party, working with the other Opposition parties, does everything it can to prevent a disastrous no deal. The suspension of Parliament will make that task all the more difficult, but as the last week has shown, the Government’s tricks and attempts to rig the system are collapsing like a house of cards. If they continue to show contempt for Parliament and the British public, they may find themselves leaving No. 10 as quickly as they entered it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Platt Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We are looking at the potential reform of the canvassing operation by local authorities to compile the electoral register. As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, there is a fine balance to be struck between the benefits one gets from data sharing between different Government agencies and the importance of maintaining the confidentiality of very sensitive private data.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today, the Public Accounts Committee found that, incredibly, a third of the funding for the Government’s cyber-security strategy has been transferred or loaned to other Government projects and that £69 million of cyber-funding has been taken from the strategy completely. Will the Minister confirm whether that is because the Government do not think our cyber-security is an important priority for them, or whether that is because even national security is not exempt from Tory austerity?

[Mr Lidington]

What the report shows very clearly is that the cyber-security of this country, and particularly of Government Departments and agencies, has been strengthened since the introduction and implementation of the national cyber-security strategy. The work that the National Cyber Security Centre, in particular, is leading on is helping Government Departments and the private sector alike to keep in touch with the developing and changing nature of the threat and to raise our defences accordingly.

One Public Estate Programme

Jo Platt Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a great honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for securing the debate and making an excellent case, which stems from his vast experience in local government in his area and as a member of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for their excellent contributions, which demonstrated the vast reach of the public estate strategy and its local effects.

On the face of it, the One Public Estate programme appears to be a positive, sensible strategy to reduce waste and get the most out of our public assets, as I expect the Minister will say. Its stated goal of unlocking land to increase house building is commendable, as estimates have put the number of new homes needed in England at between 240,000 and 340,000 per year, but worryingly, on recent estimates, the Government’s target of 300,000 homes annually is already under threat and could take 15 years to achieve. Let us not forget that over the last two years fewer new social rented homes have been built than at any time since the second world war.

To face that challenge, central Government must take a sustainable and transformational approach to resourcing local authorities to provide the homes we desperately need, but the Conservatives have comprehensively failed to do that. The strategy, which is effectively austerity by the back door, sells public land and property for quick cash under the illusion of helping to solve the housing crisis. It is not only disingenuous, but kicks the funding can down the road, rather than confronting the serious realities head on.

I say that the policy is disingenuous because the Government’s figures show that One Public Estate has released land for the development of just over 3,000 new homes, and the public land for housing programme has released land with capacity for fewer than 40,000 homes. That is some way short of the programme’s ambition to release surplus public sector land for at least 160,000 homes by 2020, just one year away.

The idea that this strategy and programmes such as One Public Estate are even scratching the surface of the housing crisis is total fantasy, yet the bigger question remains unanswered: why are public land and property being handed over to private developers in the first place and why are they being sold at a discounted price? Shockingly, analysis by the National Audit Office shows that of the 1,500 or so sites released by Government between April 2015 and March 2018, 12% were released for £1 or less. Let me get to the central point: such is the scale of the challenge, and the consistent failure of the market to tackle it, that we must look at empowering local authorities and housing associations to use public land to build the affordable housing this country desperately needs. Not only is that the best strategy for tackling the housing crisis, but it provides a way for the public to share in any rise in land value, as the Institute for Public Policy Research and others have pointed out. The Opposition oppose the strategy of flogging off public assets for developers to provide insufficient housing.

The Government must be called out for missing their own targets. I ask the Minister, how many of these homes built on public land are affordable? When it comes to central Government land sales, remarkably, the Cabinet Office does not analyse data at the programme level to assess the use to which the land is subsequently put, but let me help the Minister out. Thanks to research by the New Economics Foundation we know that only 20% of new homes built on public land will be affordable. That is simply not good enough.

We know that one of the main reasons that this figure is so low is the fact that developers are able to exploit section 106 loopholes and ride roughshod over desperate councils, leaving the public ripped off. We must also ask why local authorities are signing up to programmes such as One Public Estate, because they know such programmes will reduce the land and property they use for essential services, which are assets that might not be needed today, but may well be needed tomorrow. Indeed, much of the land and property sold under One Public Estate and other programmes is needed, despite the rhetoric around reducing waste. As the National Audit Office report said, many sites identified for disposal are still being used by public bodies to provide services.

How have we got here? Ultimately, because for almost a decade our hard-working local authorities have been forced to implement the Tory austerity agenda. Under the Conservatives, local authorities have faced a reduction to core funding from the Government of nearly £16 billion since 2010. That means councils will have lost 60p of every £1 that the last Labour Government provided to spend on local services. With a £3.1 billion shortfall in funding, many councils are funding essential services or redundancies by the quick sale of their property portfolio for good. The scale of this is staggering.

Research by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that £2.8 billion-worth of local authority-owned assets were sold between 2014 and 2018. In 2016, the Government said that they expected local authorities to sell assets with a value of £11.7 billion by the end of this Parliament. That same year, the Government passed legislation to allow local authorities to invest the proceeds of assets sold by April 2019 in transforming frontline services. Just how low will this Government stoop? They have decided that the right way to fund social care, youth services, libraries, bin collections and road repairs is not by reversing their tax cuts for millionaires or clamping down on tax avoiders, but by forcing local authorities to sell their assets—assets owned by the public—while further inflating private developers’ profit margins.

If we needed yet another reason to show that this is a Government for the few and not for the many, here we are. For the public, this is a ticking time bomb until the day local authorities have sold assets they will one day need. The housing crisis remains and local authorities have run out of family silver to sell to raise funds. The Tories know exactly what they are doing: forcing councils to implement austerity, leaving them no choice but to sell public assets such as libraries, youth centres and playing fields—assets our most disadvantaged people rely on—to fund vital services.

One Public Estate is part of a strategy that has been rumbling on for many years in different forms. Local government now owns just 40% of the land it owned a few decades ago and the NHS has seen its estate reduce by 70%. As our population grows, as demand is loaded on to local authorities and as our housing crisis deepens, what will this Government say when they have run out of public assets to sell, and their great housing remedy has produced only a few thousand extra affordable homes? I suspect they will not say much at all.

One thing is blindingly clear: this scheme and others like it do little for families who are desperate to exercise their right to an affordable home or for those who rely on public services. They do very little for our councils, which deserve fair funding, not schemes to encourage asset stripping. Our message to the Government is clear: stop messing about, confront these big issues head on, own up and admit that this strategy is really austerity masquerading as partnership and a house building strategy.

The public deserve far better. They deserve a Government on their side, standing up for the public good, building homes, funding and improving their public services, and unashamedly putting the many in this country first. We will make those honest, bold and fair decisions to fund our councils and build the homes we need. We have that plan; it is fully costed, fully transparent and exactly what the next Labour Government will deliver.

[Ian Paisley (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. You have lots of time to answer all these questions.

Electoral Registration: EU Citizens

Jo Platt Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

The advice from the Electoral Commission to EROs is that they should follow the same processes. Everything will be exactly the same as it was in 2014, so there will be no difference in how postal vote notices go out. This is about ensuring that European residents who want to vote here and have not already registered to vote in their home member state, which we have been recommending for a year that they do, are able to register should they wish to do so.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for bringing this important question to the House.

It has never been the desire of the Labour party to take part in the upcoming European parliamentary elections. However, it is now becoming a reality following the Government’s failure to reach a satisfactory Brexit deal. The uncertainty caused by the Government’s shambolic Brexit negotiations is causing havoc in this country, particularly for electoral administrators who are now tasked with delivering a national poll at extremely short notice.

Some 2 million EU citizens who are already registered to vote in this country have until 7 May to complete and return a declaration form to take part in the European elections. In normal circumstances, returning officers would have started writing to registered EU citizens in January to ensure that they have completed the necessary paperwork, which cannot be done electronically. Prior to the 2016 EU referendum, the Electoral Commission began the process of identifying proposals for streamlining this administrative two-step process. However, because this Government repeatedly stated that European elections would not take place, the Electoral Commission decided not to continue working out this area of reform.

Because the Government maintained their positon on EU elections at the eleventh hour, even when it was clear that their botched Brexit deal would not pass, returning officers have only just started the process of contacting registered European citizens. There are now only 13 days left until the deadline and, so far, fewer than 300 forms have been returned, which equates to 0.015% of registered EU citizens.

Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) raised our concerns that thousands of EU citizens will be casting their vote in local elections but will be denied that same right in the European elections, and that many are considering legal action. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), failed to provide proper assurances that this issue is being taken seriously.

Given the shortness of time and the late hour at which local authorities were informed of this major U-turn, we have four demands of the Government. Will they give EU citizens more time to return their declaration forms by extending the deadline from 7 May to 15 May? Will they provide EU citizens with more chances to be aware of their options by ensuring electors are handed a copy of the declaration form when they vote in local elections? Will they pay for all costs associated with maximising participation in the European elections by EU citizens, given the short notice and therefore the higher cost of getting people to sign up? And will they make the registration process easier by confirming that scanned or photographed forms are acceptable?

It is unacceptable that European citizens living here risk being denied their right to vote because of the Government’s incompetent approach to Brexit. This chaos must end.

[Brandon Lewis]

On one of the hon. Lady’s last points—I invite her to look at the form later in the Library—I am not sure how the form could be simplified any further. It literally takes 30 seconds to fill it in; it is a very simple, direct form. On the wider issues, the Electoral Commission is the body responsible for ensuring that these processes are followed through legally, and I am sure it will be listening and looking at what she has outlined.

We have been very clear about advising EU citizens over the last year to make sure that, for the European elections, those who wish to vote are registered in their home member state. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect that many will have done that, but there is the opportunity, if they wish to vote in the UK should we hold these potential elections, for them to do so by filling in a UC1 form.

The hon. Lady spoke about the deal, and I gently remind her that we are potentially fighting these elections because, when Labour Members had the chance to vote for a withdrawal agreement that fits their own party policy, they decided to play politics rather than deliver on the referendum.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Platt Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

Clearly, any tendering exercise that the Government undertake has to be subject to the normal rules on open public procurement, but I know that the Home Secretary, who is responsible for the proposed database, will give the highest priority to ensuring the security of that sensitive personal data.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

It has been reported that the Prime Minister has given Huawei the green light to help to build the UK’s 5G network, against the advice of Ministers, our international allies and our security services, yet Huawei has itself said that it will take up to five years to secure its equipment. Why do the Government have more confidence than Huawei has in its ability to build our 5G network safely and securely?

[Mr Lidington]

As I said in response to the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), the security and resilience of our telecommunications networks are of paramount importance in every decision the Government take on these matters. We have undertaken a thorough review of the entire 5G supply chain, which is designed to ensure that we can roll out 5G in a secure and resilient way. We will announce our decisions about that to this House in due course.

General Election (Leaders’ Debate) Bill

Jo Platt Excerpts

Friday 15th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

I associate myself with the comments of other Members on the terrible atrocities that took place in New Zealand. I place on record my support for and solidarity with all those affected in Christchurch, and the Muslim community throughout the world.

Although it sometimes feels as though Westminster never changes, something extraordinary has been happening across the country in recent years: democracy is returning to politics. In every election since 2001, turnout has jumped. It now stands at 68.7%. It was even higher in the EU referendum. Throughout our digital age, more and more people are increasingly getting organised and coming together to campaign for better communities and a better country.

Increasingly, people want a meaningful say in how our country is run. I see it in my constituency of Leigh, and it was this same spirit that powered Labour’s 2017 general election campaign and the surge in our vote share. Of course, this has not been without problems. As all of us in this House know, the past few years, and especially the past few weeks, have been a trying time for politics in the UK, but we must not ignore the appetite among the people for a revitalised politics in which debates about ideas, policies and the future of this country are put out in the open.

That brings me to the issue before us today—whether or not to have a leaders’ debate in general elections. Surely there is little debate to be had here about whether this is the right thing to do, so let me explain. The UK is unusual in developed democracies for not regularly holding televised debates between party leaders during general election campaigns—although in 2010 and 2015 leaders from the main parties did participate in one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) rightly pointed out, we would have had one in 2017 had the current Prime Minister not bottled it and refused to attend and debate, sending the Home Secretary in her place.

As it stands, there is nothing in electoral law that requires televised election debates between party leaders. If they take place, they are a matter for the broadcasters and political parties. However, as many Members here no doubt remember, during discussions that led to the 2015 debates, Labour suggested that an independent commission should be set up to put the debates on a statutory footing. The Government’s response then was that it was appropriate for broadcasters and parties to make arrangements for any such debates but that this was not a matter for the Government. Now is the time for this to change. Now is the time for the Government to take responsibility.

Democracy is about accountability and openness. Democracy is about putting ourselves directly before the public and answering their questions. All of us do this every week in our constituency surgeries. This is what motivated me and many of us to get involved in politics in the first place. It was to represent but also to be accountable. It surely sends the wrong signal to voters that the most senior people in politics—those who lead our parties and even the country—are not required to come before the public and test out their policies and priorities. It cannot be right that they are not required to debate with each other or answer questions from the public at the very time when the public have to decide whom to cast their vote for.

Beyond the democratic principle, though, there are other reasons why we should look to make it mandatory for there to be TV election debates between party leaders. The Hansard Society’s report “Audit of Political Engagement 2018” analysed sources of election-related news and information for the 2017 general election. It found that debates or interviews with party leaders or other politicians were the most important source in deciding how to vote. We also know that 87% of 18 to 24-year-olds—traditionally the demographic most likely to be associated with voter apathy—said that the debates led them to discuss the elections and relevant issues with their peers. In other words, TV debates work. They reach and inform people and they spark conversation. That should not be surprising. TV debates, though not perfect, provide a different space within a media that is often geared towards quick headlines and soundbites. They provide an opportunity for more in-depth scrutiny of the policies on offer and the differences between parties and their visions for our country. Knowing this, how can we reject TV debates and deny one of the most popular forms of political engagement in general elections, while at the same time bemoaning the fact that young people do not care about politics, when they do? Perhaps it is we who need to care more.

Labour believes that British voters have a right to see a head-to-head debate between party leaders during a general election campaign. It is good for democracy; it really is as simple as that, as I am sure many Members here today would agree. But although mandatory TV debates between party leaders during elections would be a welcome step forward, Labour believes that much more fundamental political change is needed.

[Mr Bone]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady’s speech, but she has not made it entirely clear to me—unless I missed it—whether the Labour party supports an independent commission.

[Jo Platt]

As the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, I have not mentioned that in my speech. We do support the principle.

Too many people have lost faith that Westminster works for them, and the gulf between politicians and the people they represent has grown in recent years. It is essential that all Members of this House realise that this is the situation and take the very possible step to change it.

Draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) (No. 2) Regulations 2019

Jo Platt Excerpts

Thursday 14th March 2019 General Committees

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Here we are again, for another of our weekly meetings with the Minister. This is the third procurement SI in a row; two are the result of the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, and one could have been sorted months ago but was recently added to the parliamentary logjam.

It is clear that the Government are in turmoil, but the growing crisis is now beginning to hit previously unaffected areas of government, including procurement, as these regulations prove. However, the context in which we are reviewing today’s regulations has significantly changed. Last night, we clearly and categorically voted twice to rule out no deal. The Government have a duty to respect the clear and unambiguous position of the House and prevent no-deal regulations such as these ever having to come into effect. We understand why the Government feel it necessary to introduce these measures, but we remember that it is the mishandling of Brexit that has left us scrambling to scrutinise and approve hundreds of SIs, the effects of which will reverberate for a considerable period of time.

I will start by looking at the 18-month so-called transition of 18 international agreements covering procurement. The truth is that the transition is anything but that. It unilaterally opens up our procurement market to a number of countries across the world after the exit date. It allows them to enjoy all the benefits, without any assured obligations in return. This could lead to the Government effectively throwing British industry under the bus, allowing the international industry free access to our markets, without reciprocal arrangements, while forcing British business to compete for UK contracts at home.

The Minister will recall that I raised that dilemma in the Committee scrutinising the original SI. His response to my concerns then was that he would expect co-operation. That simply does not cut it for UK businesses that rely on securing international procurement contracts. They need guarantees, not Ministers’ expectations, which these days have a remarkable habit of changing. I ask again: what assurances has the Minister received from other Governments that the arrangements are mutual? Our businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, deserve to know. How many of the 18 countries to which the original agreements applied have agreed to mirror the UK’s 18-month transition period?

During the passage of the original SI, the Minister also said:

“There is a small chance of a gap between the “in principle” accession to the GPA that is already agreed and the “in law” joining of the GPA”.—[Official Report, Thirteenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 13 February 2019; c. 10.]

We now know from the Department for International Trade that the Government now anticipate a short gap. A letter from the Minister confirmed this week that the Government expect a delay, possibly until the end of April. Will the Minister confirm the reason for the change in the situation, how it is being communicated, and that the Government’s no-deal planning is now dangerously off-track?

We cannot escape the chaos in which the regulation has been presented. We are confronted with an amendment to an instrument that passed through Committee four weeks ago—an amendment to which the Minister referred in his speech on that occasion. At that point we were asked to pass the instrument knowing that the Government intended to alter it a few weeks later. It is a total mess, and it is all down to the Government shambles, although after the complete mess of the past few days I guess none of us can act surprised.

What message does this send to UK suppliers, to our businesses and to the rest of the world? There are businesses that need certainty. We are asking them to make investment decisions and fulfil public sector contracts, but the Government are rewriting the rules just 15 days before we could leave the European Union without a deal. They are eroding the UK’s reputation for stability—something we used to be renowned for. Frankly we are a laughing stock.

The Government are destroying not only the nation’s reputation but their own. The Conservative party used to be known as the party of business, but their actions speak louder than words. The past few months have shown them to be abandoning business, and the fiasco I have described is just the latest example. If the Minister were serious in his commitment and his responsibility to protect our procurement market and support UK SMEs, he would support every vote in the House that rules out the chaos of no deal or a hard Brexit, but instead of supporting our procurement market and businesses he voted last night to keep the door open to a no-deal Brexit, which would be chaotic and highly disruptive to businesses, jobs and our economy.

I might contrast the Government’s actions last night with our proposals, which would protect our procurement market. They would also unblock the passage of the Trade Bill—the issue that has led to our having to deal with today’s emergency measure. Their refusal to back the proposals not only endangers the long-term stability of our procurement market, but is blocking the path towards the Commons majority needed to back a Brexit deal in the national interest.

The proposals before the Committee are symptomatic of the total chaos across Government that is eroding the little trust that the procurement sector still has in them. There are serious questions for the Minister to answer now about the assurances he has received that UK suppliers will be adequately protected and supported. They are serious questions about our membership of the GPA, but there are also serious questions now about the competence of the Government.

The Opposition expect nothing less than concrete assurances and prompt communication with the procurement sector. The fact that the Minister is unable to provide those things today speaks volumes. Yet again, we are presented with regulations that could weaken our already broken procurement market. It is unforgiveable that that is because of the Government’s negligence. The sector simply deserves much better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jo Platt Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the challenge of cyber-security, but we have responded to that challenge. That is why we have created the National Cyber Security Centre, funded by £1.9 billion of additional money. On the WannaCry incident, we have learned the lessons since that attack and we are, for example, rolling out Windows 10 across the NHS.

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

We know that 43% of businesses experience cyber-security breaches each year and, as we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), we know that half of all local authorities in England still rely on unsupported server software. We know from the Minister himself that the Government have no idea how many cyber-attacks hit Government. Does the Minister accept that we need a new approach? We need to look at how we foster cultural cyber-change and we need to look at how we put the public good rather than private interest back at the heart of Government cyber strategy.

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Lady says that we have no idea of the level of attacks. I am happy to set out the number for her. We have already managed more than 1,100 major incidents through the National Cyber Security Centre. The national cyber security strategy is delivering, for example, the removal of more than 4.5 million malicious emails every month, and the taking down of 140,000 fraudulent phishing sites. This strategy is bringing together the commercial side and the Government side and it is delivering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q3. Monday will mark 40 years since the Golborne mining disaster in the constituency of Leigh. The disaster resulted in the tragic death of 10 miners, which still reverberates throughout our community and affects the families of those involved. Will the Prime Minister send her support for the commemoration service on Sunday and recommit, in their honour, to increasing work safety standards and providing all the necessary support to our ex-mining communities?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in sending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends of those affected by that terrible tragedy. I am pleased to say that our health and safety record for mines has improved greatly since 1979. That improvement has resulted from learning from previous incidents such as the Golborne tragedy and preventing as far as possible disasters like it. As the hon. Lady may know, in 2015, following an extensive review, the Mines Regulations 2014 replaced all previous legislation relating to health and safety in underground mines. They provide a comprehensive and simple goal-setting legal framework to ensure that mine operators provide the necessary protection for mine workers and others from what we all accept are inherent hazards in mines. I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to review safety regulations so that we can make sure that a tragedy like this never happens again.

Draft Public Procurement (Electronic Invoices Etc.) Regulations 2019

Jo Platt Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 General Committees

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I will start by expressing our support for efforts to modernise and improve the UK’s broken procurement system. From the outset, I should state that we support the principle of e-invoicing. However, there are a number of specific issues with these regulations that I must raise.

First, the timing of the implementation of this regulation derives from an EU directive passed on 16 April 2014, but it has not reached this House until close to the deadline of 18 April 2019. As the Minister is well aware, we are in the midst of a Brexit crisis, with dozens of essential SIs hit by a parliamentary logjam. For the Government to wait until now to lay this SI seems grossly negligent.

There were ample opportunities to pass the regulations—for example, during the passage of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, which had its First Reading on 25 June 2014. I hope the Minister will explain why the Government have waited until the deadline and laid this SI at a time when Parliament is facing enormous and unprecedented pressure. Why has the Minister also chosen to delay the implementation of provisions relating to sub-central contracting authorities and contracting entities until next year?

One of the most important aspects I wish to raise is the support available for small businesses to adopt these changes. Currently, the Connecting Europe Facility provides funding to businesses adapting to new regulations such as these. Between 2014 and 2016, the Connecting Europe Facility provided over €430 million of funding to the UK. When we leave the European Union, funding such as that will no longer be available. As we know, the Government have consistently refused to commit to replacing EU funding for key areas and have failed to invest in sectors of our economy that need it most, especially regions such as the one I represent.

If we leave with or without a deal, will the Government provide the necessary support businesses need to adapt to these new e-invoicing changes? The regulations are a positive move towards supporting and encouraging e-invoicing, but as prevalence increases we must also ensure that our small businesses, which are often less able to adapt to new and emerging technology, are not left behind.

I do not need to remind the Minister of the potential problems of introducing new technology to procurement. It was recently revealed, for example, that technological flaws in the new shared service platform saw a substantial increase in the number of late payments from the Cabinet Office to its suppliers. Indeed, the number of businesses receiving late payments from the Cabinet Office has nearly tripled in the past two years, despite the Department’s promise to crack down on contractors who pay suppliers late. That has sent a worrying signal to businesses who are looking to the Government for leadership, which the Government have failed to provide.

Without concrete reassurances that our procurement market is ready for another technological evolution, we risk further inflicting financial difficulties, which our small and medium-sized enterprises find harder to bear. That is the reason why we request impact assessments, which are made. The worrying trend emerging of the Government inadequately assessing risk further undermines the long-term stability of our already broken procurement system. This SI is another example of that.

I will also raise with the Minister the cyber-security threats presented by the growth of e-invoicing. What safeguards are in place to prevent fraud and protect the integrity of the system? As the procurement market is digitising, we are faced with unique challenges that require specific and rigorous safeguards. We know that UK organisations are particularly vulnerable, with a recent survey finding that 77% of organisations still operate with limited cyber-security and resilience. We also know that Government communication is poor, with only 4% of businesses recalling using any Government sources of information for their cyber-security. The further promotion of e-invoicing will not be without risk, so I hope the Government are able to detail how they are planning on mitigating that risk.

I turn to the final aspect of the regulations: the imposition of public procurement exclusions based on modern slavery tests. We fully welcome these steps. The Government should lead the way on this issue. However, although this is a positive move forward, because there are tens of thousands of people in the UK living in slavery, there is clearly far more that we need to do.

It is right that our procurement market is evolving and modernising to meet the realities of the modern economy, and we support the efforts to speed up the invoicing process, and to reduce waste and costs. If it is managed well, this would be an extremely positive and beneficial move for some of our small and medium-sized enterprises, but if they are again left behind to fend for themselves, we risk creating barriers to their involvement and competitiveness in the modern economy.

We can only hope that this evolution will not be met with the disruption that is becoming characteristic of this Government’s record on implementation.

Draft Public Procurement (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Jo Platt Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 General Committees

[Jo Platt (Leigh) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I welcome this opportunity to discuss our procurement system and the proposed changes. I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. With just 44 days before our scheduled departure from the European Union, I only wish that this was not happening in such rushed and chaotic circumstances. However, that is what we have come to expect from this Government.

Before I comment on the statutory instrument before us, I must point out, as we in the Labour party have been doing for the last few years, that our procurement system is fundamentally broken. It is a system that works for big business at the expense of our small and medium-sized enterprises and, most importantly, the public. It rewards companies with poor employment practices that do not pay their fair share of tax and, in the cases of Carillion and Interserve, have flawed business models. The explanatory memorandum states that the purpose of these regulations is to transpose into law an “open and competitive” system in which

“suppliers are treated equally and fairly.”

I do not think that is possible without a fundamental shift in Government policy.

We know, for example, that under the current system SMEs receive a declining proportion of Government cloud spending. We also know that the number of businesses receiving late payments from the Cabinet Office has nearly tripled in the past two years, and that many large outsourcers simply do not pay their suppliers on time. Most importantly, a few mega-firms that are too cosy with Government continue to be dominant at the top. Although we accept and recognise that we need to address the statute book deficiencies that result from the UK exiting the EU, if the Government are serious about creating a procurement system that is truly open and fair, they must start at the root and overhaul this broken system.

[Martin Whitfield]

Is it not right that this statutory instrument yet again demonstrates the pressure that the incredibly hard-working civil servants are under to have everything in place for no-deal day? As was mentioned earlier, there are deficiencies that have been identified and not listed. An explanation for that has been given, but I feel that time pressure was probably more of a reason why those deficiencies were not listed. Given the drafting errors that this statutory instrument contains, the pressure pot is about to explode.

[Jo Platt]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point, and share his concerns that this Government are not prepared for a no-deal exit from the EU. The fact is that the Government could stop this today by taking no deal off the table.

I will raise a number of specific issues with the Minister, on which I would like clarity. The first is the e-notification service that is proposed to replace the Official Journal of the European Union, in which tenders are currently published. We are told that the e-notification service will be ready by 29 March, so will the Minister confirm that that deadline will be met? Given this Government’s record on the delivery of technology, there is no reason for optimism. The gov.uk Verify programme, the national security vetting solution, the common platform programme, the digital services at the border project and the emergency services mobile communications programme are just a few flagship Government IT programmes; they have all been plagued by delays, spiralling costs or outright failure. To put it bluntly, this Government have consistently proven themselves incapable of introducing new technology across the public sector without causing significant disruption. Just this month, we have been discussing the Government’s failure to develop a EU citizen registration programme that works on both Android and Apple phones, so why should we have any confidence that they will deliver on this technological aspect of EU exit?

That e-notification service is particularly important because of the consequences of the system not being fully operational on exit day. The UK awards the most procurement contracts by value of any EU nation. Should that system be non-functional or error-prone as a result of the chaotic circumstances in which it has been created, the economic consequences could be dramatic, and the challenges to the public sector of maintaining procurement could be significant. That is the primary reason why we on the Opposition Benches are perplexed that no impact assessment has been carried out. We are especially concerned about SMEs, which often lack the access to technical expertise that large companies enjoy. If there are problems with the e-notification service, the impacts of those problems will be felt unevenly, and the Government will be further baking into the system the imbalances that already exist in our procurement market.

Turning to the Competition and Markets Authority and its oversight role in enforcing state aid rules, which is noted in the SI, will the Minister please update us on the CMA’s preparedness for exit day and whether it has the staff and resourcing that it needs? As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian pointed out earlier, as we know from extensive reporting in the media, the civil service is facing a challenge of historic proportions as it scrambles to prepare for both a no-deal Brexit and a transition Brexit. As the head of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Jon Thompson, recently said, the civil service is “hamstrung” by this lack of clarity. The Labour party has said that the civil service is incapable of fulfilling its role because of nearly a decade of public sector cuts.

These truly are trying times to be a public servant, and it is in this climate that the Competition and Markets Authority will attempt to enforce a state aid regime the nature of which we do not yet know, and in which the CMA has no experience. In other words, we do not know yet how a significant feature of the procurement market will work.

I seek clarification from the Minister on our GPA membership in the event of no deal, which is absolutely essential if we are to protect the access of UK suppliers across the EU. Although, as the Minister mentioned earlier, we have an agreement in principle, will he assure us that we will definitely be ready for independent GPA membership on exit day?

If the UK leaves the EU without GPA membership, the explanatory memorandum states in paragraph 7.20 that Government policy will be to offer other nations access into our procurement market, seemingly without any assurances that this arrangement would be reciprocated. We could then be in the incredible situation of allowing international suppliers competing with UK firms to fulfil our procurement contracts while UK firms might be prevented from accessing global procurement markets. This policy would be disastrous for UK firms and emphasises the totally chaotic handling of these negotiations. It further adds to the uncertainty that businesses are already facing with Brexit.

Let me reiterate that if our GPA membership is not finalised before exit day, this is yet another area in which we are simply not ready for exiting the European Union next month without a deal. Six pieces of legislation are not in place that would need to be. The Government are seriously behind on the passage of statutory instruments such as this, which are needed if we are to leave without a deal or a transition period. Equally, our Border Force is woefully unprepared, without the staff or IT systems needed for EU exit. We can add GPA membership to the growing list of reasons that we are simply unable to leave next month without serious chaos and disruption.

Finally, I have two quick points of clarification. With reference to the transitional measures set out in the schedule, specifically in paragraph 2, what assurances have we received from the EU that existing contracts with UK suppliers will be honoured? Will the Minister clarify the mechanism that the Government will use to cancel or nullify this SI in the event that the UK does leave the EU with a deal? Will he also confirm that a further SI will then be needed during the transition period to prepare the statute book for our future negotiated relationship?

In closing, I want to reflect on and state our disbelief that there are no impact assessments accompanying this SI. I dedicated my speech to pointing out the enormous changes these regulations will cause to the UK procurement system, from a new IT system to the possibility of UK SMEs being restricted from applying for EU procurement contracts.

Impact assessments should quite clearly have been carried out, especially when the stability of some of our SMEs is at stake. However, the explanatory note states that

“no, or no significant, impact”

on the private or voluntary sector is foreseen. It even goes on to say that the impact on small business is expected to be low. How is that defensible after all that we have heard? It is a disservice to those businesses that assessments have not been completed but, quite frankly, I should not be surprised, as it is characteristic of this Government’s handling of this entire process: “Trust us and we’ll sort it out.”

I take this opportunity to restate our position that no deal must be categorically ruled out by the Government. As these regulations confirm, we are not ready for the chaos it would cause. These regulations, most of all, risk baking in the imbalances our SMEs too often face in the system, and they confirm our belief that the procurement system needs urgent transformation, to put real social value at its heart. If only we had a Government willing to stand up in the interests of the many, and to reform the broken system that, too often, works just for the few.