Elections Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The short answer is no, no and no, and I am happy to explain why. I am sure we will get on to this in the debate, but the point about voter identification is that it is not voter suppression or voter disenfranchisement, which is a word we occasionally hear thrown around. In fact, I look forward to Labour Members explaining why their reasoned amendment suggests that people will be removed from the franchise for general elections. Where in the Bill is the clause that does that? They will not find it, of course, because it is not there. The Bill does not do that, and we should be careful with the words we choose to use, such as “voter suppression” and “disenfranchisement.”

We already have an election check, but the check is so outdated and unfit for purpose that many have forgotten it. People already identify themselves when they go to the polling station, but it is a Victorian test of saying their name and address. The world has moved on, and we need to move with it. Showing photo identification is a reasonable and proportionate way to confirm that a person is who they say they are. Many people would question why it is not already the case.

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

A pensioner can bring their bus pass as identification, but the Bill disproportionately disadvantages young people who cannot bring their student card or university or college identification. Will those young people not be disproportionately affected, and should we not expand the range of identification that is recognised by the Bill, as a minimum?

[Chloe Smith]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is getting into the detail of what is actually being proposed, which is excellent. He makes the important point that schedule 1 has a widespread and broad-based list of identification. In fact, 98% of the population hold those forms of ID.

Afghanistan

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

Thank you very much indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The events of the past few days have caused a great deal of sadness and fear: the sadness, as we have heard, of the members of our armed forces and their families, as the memories come flooding back; and fear on the part of the people of Afghanistan that all the gains that have been made will disappear. Perhaps the best answer to those who ask, “Was it worth it?” is to be found in the desperation of those who are trying to flee the country. They know better than any of us what was achieved, what it meant, and why they fear it will now be lost. For each of them, it was not for nothing.

We need to ask ourselves some hard questions. Why did it come as a surprise that the Government and the forces that we had supported, funded, trained and sought to build up over many years at the last appeared to be made of sand as the Taliban advance took city after city. Was it right of the Americans to announce such a precipitate withdrawal? I think that the mood of the House is no, it was not right, because the speed of their retreat undermined confidence and destroyed hope.

It is essential that we learn the lessons, and I hope that the Government will change their mind about the need for an inquiry—not to be wise after the event, not to find scapegoats, not to point out failures, but to understand what happened. That is for tomorrow, however. Today, the question is how will the Taliban choose to behave? We have all watched the interviews, and it is quite clear that many people in Afghanistan do not choose to believe what they have been told by their new leaders. We know the record—they know the record—of human rights abuses. We must remember that there was no democracy then, and the Taliban have no mandate now; they have the power that comes out of the barrels of their guns.

On the central question of the rights of women and girls, it is, as we have heard, the Taliban’s interpretation of sharia law that then means the subjugation of women. That is what it is about: the subjugation of women. Only time will tell us whether the women of Afghanistan will continue to be able to play a full and equal part in the country’s future.

There has been in the debate a large measure of agreement on the tasks that face us immediately to get people out. Will Ministers please brief Members of Parliament on how the system is working and what we can do when constituents contact us to make sure that their information is passed on? Will Ministers also reassure us that no bureaucracy is getting in the way? My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) made the point that paperwork is all very well, but how do people get the paperwork when they are hiding in a basement because the Taliban are patrolling the street above?

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

My right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is making an excellent speech. Our local council, Leeds, has already said that it stands ready to take people from Afghanistan into temporary accommodation, but we need safe routes across the land borders. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government need to ensure that the borders are open and there is safe passage from third countries to the UK?

[Hilary Benn]

I agree completely. The people of Leeds and the city of Leeds have always had a big heart and we will play our part. There will be a refugee crisis, and we know from the past that the vast majority of people end up in the neighbouring countries. They will need financial support from us and some will come to this country. I welcome the scheme announced, but the test of that scheme is not the numbers promised but the numbers who are able to make it here. Under the Nationality and Borders Bill, an Afghan who finally makes it to the northern coast of France, gets in a boat and knowingly enters the United Kingdom without permission could face a prison sentence of up to four years. I hope that Ministers will explain that they do not intend to apply that provision to those who are fleeing persecution.

The Taliban may now be back in power but, as many have said, we will judge them on what they do, not on what they say. As has been said, we will need brave journalists to bear witness to what now happens in Afghanistan, so that the truth can be told. They will be judged, and we will be judged, above all by the people of Afghanistan, for what we do now in response to the tragedy that is unfolding before our eyes.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

This Budget is made in the context of the UK having the worst economic performance during covid of any major economy and the highest death toll per capita. The Government have failed to protect the nation’s health or its economy. However, as the chair of the net zero all-party group, I have called for an infrastructure bank and, as a Leeds MP, I have called for that to be in Leeds, so I am pleased that one thing that I have lobbied for has come to fruition. My experience on the Environmental Audit Committee in looking at the performance of the Green Investment Bank, sold to Macquarie in 2017, means that I will scrutinise the detail of the bank’s capitalisation, mission and governance very closely to ensure that it supports net zero and biodiversity, and is not greenwash.

Tourism supports 3.1 million jobs in the UK, and I am pleased that the Chancellor has announced measures to support the tourism industry, including the extension of furlough and the extension of the reduced rate of VAT. That will be of some comfort to the sector after months of uncertainty and last-minute announcements. However, these announcements were again made at the 11th hour, with the current measures running out in just a few weeks. The Chancellor’s announcements fall short of Labour’s calls for 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure to be extended in England for at least a further six months from July. We need more support for our tourism sector than has been offered today.

Although I am trying to take the positives from the raft of measures today, the reality is that many of the Chancellor’s previous announcements, promises and funds have been sorely lacking, with money promised but never arriving. I hope that this Budget does not repeat those mistakes. A glaring example is the zoo animals fund. Only £5 million of the £100 million promised has been spent. It is hard to know whether this is wilful penny-pinching or unbridled incompetence. Either way, it has meant that zoos have had to make painful cuts to their operations, including conservation, education and research work, in order to prioritise animal welfare. This is putting the lives of our zoo animals at stake, but it is not just about animals. The same goes for the green homes grant, where vouchers have been issued very slowly or not at all, and installers have not been paid in a timely way, risking that industry as well.

People have been left suicidal by a lack of support. The Chancellor may remember receiving a letter from Stephen Liddell, one of the 3 million taxpayers excluded from meaningful support during the pandemic. He said:

“I paid my taxes for 2019-20 in May as I am a good person. Yet I have received zero help and support, absolutely nothing.”

Will the support announced today reach Mr Liddell, as only 151,000 people out of the 3 million excluded, according to the Office for National Statistics, will receive any support? I hope so and I am sure that we will hear from Mr Liddell in due course.

At a time of crisis, those in charge have a duty to act. They also have a duty to listen, understand and admit when the tack needs to change, and, on some of these measures, that is what needs to happen.

Armed Forces Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

Two and a quarter years ago, I attended the armed forces covenant debate in this House and spoke about service family accommodation. There were many warm words said then about the standard of our armed forces, the bravery that they show on a daily basis and the need for us as lawmakers to value them. However, there was very little of legal substance.

I am pleased that we now have the opportunity to speak on a Bill that will finally give the armed forces covenant a firm base in law, but like my colleagues I have deep concerns about the weight of the legislation. As others have said, the phrase “to give due regard” to the principles of the covenant is too vague and does not provide any real legal recourse to the families living in service family accommodation. We need measurable, national standards set at a higher level than the existing voluntary commitments.

In my speech two years ago, I highlighted the deep structural problems caused by the decision in 1996 to sell off 55,000 service family homes on a 999-year lease to Annington Homes. That not only left a black hole in the MOD finances but caused a huge selling off of housing stock to the private sector as well as to desperate local authorities who were under pressure to acquire low-cost social housing to tackle their ever-increasing waiting lists.

Those issues prevail, but today I want to highlight the human impact of the low standards that are common in our accommodation, particularly in respect of cheap outsourcing to Amey, formerly Carillion Amey. In preparation for the debate, my office contacted and spoke with many service families. It is beyond vital that we hear those voices. Our service families have made huge sacrifices in their commitment to our country. Military children are vulnerable to inequalities in health, education, and wellbeing because they move so regularly. The family unit is vulnerable to stresses that most of us are not. Most of us do not have to worry about one parent being absent for weeks or months or sacrifice our own career because of the transient nature of our partner’s. The least that we can provide for these families is dependable adequate housing that is subject to few faults. When problems do occur, we owe it to them to ensure they are dealt with promptly and properly.

We spoke with Rushmoor Borough Councillor Nadia Martin, herself living in an SFA. She has been working for years to highlight these issues and has herself experienced huge problems with Amey, including a poor-quality repair causing injury to her child. She produced a report from a survey she undertook with military families living in SFAs. I am grateful to her for sharing that with me. Sixty-six per cent. of respondents said that the SFA was not in full working order upon march in; 69% said that faults had to be reported at least every quarter; 60% of the contractors do not always turn up; and an astonishing 68% have to call Amey back to redo the same job. That reflects not only the national picture—three in 10 said that they were satisfied with the work done—but countless stories, a couple of which I will relate in the time remaining.

Cathryn, whose husband has been in the Royal Navy for 12 years said:

“It’s very frustrating. I’ve been told a number of times ‘well its cheap housing. should be grateful that you have somewhere to live it’s not meant to be a luxury.’ We don’t expect to live in a castle or in a life of luxury. However I would love to come home from frontline work myself and be able to enjoy relaxing in my bathroom or having a shower without wondering if my boiler works today! I’d love to have the security of coming home and…not have an indoor water feature…every time it rains! We should be entitled to the same as everyone else”.

Another SFA resident, Emma, was scathing:

“We are treated like the lowest of the low, like absolute idiots, made to wait an unreasonable time for fixes, told to live in housing I wouldn’t put my dog in let alone my family. In short there is a nationwide problem with”

service families accommodation.

If I had more time, I could read out many more stories, but I am happy to share those testimonies with the Minister. These families are losing faith in the Government, and in all of us in this House, to help them and improve their situation. They see neighbouring houses sold off to the private sector and their communities lost. They feel as though they are being forced out of SFAs and into the private sector, with all the noted problems that brings. They are seeing their already complicated lives made harder. Is it not time for us to end the scandal of poor service families accommodation and to build, repair and maintain decent service families housing?

Covid-19

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The best thing I can do is encourage my hon. Friend in the excellent work he is doing in holding the Scottish nationalist Government to account, and encourage them to get on and use the funds that the UK Government are giving to the people of Scotland to support jobs in Scotland.

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

I am sure the Prime Minister will agree that councils have borne the brunt of covid, particularly during lockdown, and have given all our communities maximum support. Leeds has incurred £40 million of additional costs, as the council is not covered by the grants the Government have given, and will now face further lockdown costs, with an overall £100 million budget shortfall, in the main caused by years of central Government underfunding. Will the Prime Minister ask his good friend, the Chancellor, to grant local councils a one-off payment to offset the additional costs incurred due to covid-19 and ensure the financial stability of councils this year and next?

[The Prime Minister]

Of course, I know that many councils find themselves under great pressure, although some have handled their budgets better than others. We have given £4.6 billion, I believe, to support local councils, and we will continue to support them. I thank the staff and workforce of councils for the huge and vital role they all help to play in fighting this disease.

Public Health

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I am extremely grateful to Madam Deputy Speaker for my time.

I wish to talk specifically about the impact of a tier system on the leisure and hospitality industry in Leeds, which would equally apply to other areas under tier 3. As I know is the case for most MPs, the picture in my constituency is very grim. I have spoken to many business owners who have been forced to make devastating choices, considering letting staff go or even closing their business with Christmas just around the corner. Support for hospitality businesses is extremely limited. The furlough scheme is due to expire in January, workers are missing out on self-isolation support payments, and there is no comprehensive hospitality support package for businesses under tiers 2 or 3. Why did we not see an extension of furlough, improvements in the self-isolation scheme and sector-specific packages brought forward today? The £1,000 that was announced for wet pubs is not even worthy of being called a sticking plaster. The fact is, the majority of businesses cannot operate on this basis, with unsustainable income and ever-increasing debt. The lack of meaningful support from the Government is a massive kick in the teeth for those who work so hard to make their businesses safe and have taken additional measures at their own expense during this latest lockdown, trying to survive what has been an apocalyptic year for hospitality.

The one-off £20 per head additional restrictions grant for councils was welcome, but I am not sure how the Government expect local authorities to stretch out the grant for as long as they are in tier 3 when some areas have been under the strictest measures for many months with no end date in sight. So, again, a new extended support package for councils should have been announced today.

I am pleased, however, that as of today the Leeds infection rate is down significantly again, with nearly all wards across the city seeing significant decreases and an R rate far lower than that of many London boroughs. With a city-wide rate now at 200 and dropping every day, the measures are working, and I want to put on record my thanks to all those in Leeds making huge personal sacrifices so that this can happen.

The Leeds improvement shows the need for continued restrictions. However, we simply cannot afford to lose £1.7 million-worth of Government support for each seven days spent in tier 3, which is what will happen if the Government do not step up.

We are on the verge of a vaccine roll-out, but the Government are leaving swathes of the country to fall at the final hurdle. Currently, tier 3 areas, which are predominantly northern and urban, will get no more financial support than areas in tier 1. The only way to prevent mass job losses and business closures unlike anything we have seen before is to provide urgent economic support to both businesses and workers in tier 3 areas.

So I suggest the following changes to the Government, without which I cannot support the proposed tiers tonight. The unit of geography for tiers should have as its building block the upper-tier local authority for unitaries and districts for two-tier local authorities, not sub-regions or counties. I am also concerned that the 14-day review period is insufficiently flexible, as rates are falling fast and there could be an opportunity to get the economy going at an earlier stage, so I ask for a seven-day review period to make the system more responsive; the capacity to deliver that exists given that there will not be any negotiation. There should, too, be council engagement with Government to scale up lateral flow testing on a targeted basis, ensuring it is integrated with contact tracing and supports those who self-isolate. We will deliver this in the most effective way if it is done with councils, to ensure that we do not compromise roll-out of the vaccination and that resources are available to deliver it. I am also disappointed about communications on the tiers, with local leadership not having the opportunity to help lead communications as part of rebuilding trust and confidence.

That is what I call on the Government to do when we next have the review—it is clear that they will not accept any of my suggestions today, although I will delighted if the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announces that they will in his concluding remarks. Without the additional support and additional measures I have called for I cannot support what is happening today, and therefore I will not be taking part in the vote this evening.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

There will now be a three-minute limit. I call Mark Jenkinson.

External Private Contractors: Government Use and Employment

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 Westminster Hall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Sobel]

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

[Julia Lopez]

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

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

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

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[Alex Sobel]

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

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

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

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

and that includes

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

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

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

Prorogation of Parliament

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

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

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

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

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

[Paul Scully]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Whitfield]

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

[Alex Sobel]

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

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

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

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

[Rachael Maskell]

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

[Alex Sobel]

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

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

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

[Paul Scully]

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

[Alex Sobel]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alex Sobel]

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

[Tommy Sheppard]

I know; it is staggering.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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