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.