Badger Culls (Assessment)

Debate between Anne Main and Chris Williamson

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct in his summary of the position. Of course bovine TB is a dreadful illness, but the way in which the Government have gone about tackling it is precisely the wrong thing to do and is likely to be making matters worse. I do not understand why they are ignoring the overwhelming scientific view that the badger cull should be abandoned and a different approach taken.

I was referring to the opinion of the chief scientific adviser to Natural England, who described the cull as an “epic failure”, and was about to ask, what did DEFRA do in response to such overwhelming criticism? It simply changed the methodology. That was described by one badger expert, Professor Woodroffe, as “very crude”. She went on to say that the Government targets

“are all rubbish because they are based on rubbish data”,

and that

“with the data that is being collected, it will be impossible to know how effective this year’s culls have been.”

The Government did not like the conclusions of their independent expert panel, so they moved the goalposts again by disbanding it, but the new Secretary of State says that the outcome of the latest culls will determine whether there will be a roll-out across the rest of the country.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Is he aware that the BBC is reporting today that a journal of the British Ecological Society has offered to assess the trials independently, in the light of the fact that the independent panel has been disbanded?

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. It is important that there is independent assessment of the culls, as there is a real fear of a lack of trust if there is no independent assessment of their effectiveness. We cannot leave it to the Government to determine whether culling has been effective because, as we have seen, they simply ignore the wealth of evidence put before them.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anne Main and Chris Williamson

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly valid constitutional point, but I thought that his party was in favour of localism and wanted greater local determination on the ground. Indeed, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made that point earlier.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman will have to excuse me, but I find it vaguely insulting to hear that my constituents in St Albans, 50% of whom travel into London, will have no concerns about things that may be imposed in London. He might be aware that under the previous Government, much to my chagrin, St Albans was designated as part of the north London arc for planning purposes. To say that I am not concerned about what happens in London is quite specious. We are concerned because many of our constituents will visit London and use the facilities.

[Chris Williamson]

I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I did not say she was not concerned about London. I merely pointed out that it was rather significant that every MP who has stood up today to oppose this Bill represents a seat that is not in London. I find that an extraordinary thing for Members from outside London to do, given that every London borough favours the Bill, and it has already undergone considerable scrutiny in this House and the other place. It was scrutinised by a Select Committee, to which the hon. Member for St Albans has referred, and there was a three-hour debate on Second Reading. For goodness’ sake, how much more scrutiny does it require?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

That is a fair comment, but in our system of local government, people in London elect the councils to represent them and to take care of boroughs’ interests. I repeat that every one of those boroughs has come together in support of the Bill, which has already received considerable scrutiny. Also, many of the provisions in the original Bill have been amended or removed. Indeed, the Bill has been weakened by the removal of some measures—for example, on houses in multiple occupation and on food safety—again on the specious ground that they somehow diminished British freedoms. That argument is complete nonsense; nevertheless, the House has had its say, Members’ views have been considered and various amendments have been agreed to. Therefore, in view of the scrutiny to which the Bill has already been subjected and the fact that it has already been considerably modified, I hoped that we could proceed with greater speed today and agree the remaining provisions of the Bill, which is still worth supporting.

[Mrs Main]

rose—

[Chris Williamson]

I can see that the hon. Lady is desperate to intervene.

[Mrs Main]

Before the hon. Gentleman moves away from the fact that not a single London MP has spoken against the Bill, I note the absolute paucity of Members on the Opposition Benches, and the fact that not one London Member from the Labour party is standing up to defend the Bill.

[Mrs Main]

It may be a big issue in some of our constituencies, when our constituents visit London, and we are making those points, but no Opposition Members are prepared to stand up and make any comments whatever; they are not even in the Chamber.

[Chris Williamson]

If the hon. Lady studies the record, she will see that Members from London on both sides of the Chamber have spoken in previous debates—when, as I have said, the Bill received considerable scrutiny—and made their views well known. So I think that is a fairly unreasonable point to raise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I accept that other provisions are available, but they do not necessarily go far enough, and they leave local authorities in a difficult position because of the inadequate resources at their disposal. I repeat that hon. Members should support alternative ways in which authorities can deal with such problems.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman sums up my worries about the measure. Legislation already exists under which a person who drops litter—even a cigarette butt—can be prosecuted or held to account. I am worried that the Bill might introduce a lazy way forward under which a charge regarding cigarette litter would relate to the building that it is in front of, instead of there being a system of wardens or enforcement officers targeting the people who drop the litter. I worry that the Bill shifts responsibility from the individual culprit to a building, and that is a cost-cutting measure if ever I heard one, in so far as only one person is employed to prosecute the owner of a building or a business, and we will not be chasing the people who drop litter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I am grateful for that clarification. I may have misheard, but I thought the hon. Gentleman told his hon. Friend the Member for St Albans that it was only as a result of her intervention today that he had become aware of the Select Committee report.

[Mrs Main]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend makes the point that this is private business and it nominates only London, but the point I am trying to make, which he made eloquently earlier, is that the clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It is not necessary, and there is plenty of regulation.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Lady contradicts her own argument, because she says that businesses would not want to serve food and drink in a pigsty, implying that they already keep such areas clean and tidy. So I do not understand her objection to the clause.

[Mrs Main]

My objection to the clause relates, in particular, to smaller premises. We have talked a great deal about cigarette butts, but the clause deals with litter that has been deposited on those premises not necessarily by the businesses themselves—and they will be charged. This point has been made umpteen times: most responsible businesses keep their premises clean anyway; we have enforcement officers from the council who go around and can speak to businesses that are not operating in such a fashion; and current legislation and levers can be employed to tackle the issue.

[Mrs Main]

I thank my hon. Friend, because this debate has been going for some time, and he did make that point quite cogently at the beginning.

Principally, when we have argued about the amendment, we have addressed cigarette butts and the fact that outside premises such as an estate agent or an office, which does not serve food and drink or use wrappers, those butts will be considered litter and, therefore, be directly attributed to those premises.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

I shall not give way; I wish to expand my point.

My point is that small businesses that see a pile of littered cigarette butts outside but do not have smokers on their premises will be held directly responsible for clearing up those butts because they have been dropped outside their front door. That, to me, is as unfair as when poor St Albans residents find that things have been thrown into their gardens by loutish people walking home at night. It is not reasonable that a business will have to pay for this in addition to what it already pays the local council to keep its streets and premises clean.

[Chris Williamson]

The truth is that local authorities can already apply this provision to retail and commercial properties, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) said. The proposal will extend it to public buildings. If the hon. Lady objects to the powers that are currently available to local authorities to insist on commercial and retail premises tidying litter away, she should put forward an alternative piece of legislation to repeal those powers.

[Mrs Main]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me down corridors. He has not come forward with a single type of premises that would not be covered reasonably under the legislation that we already have. That is the nub of the matter. We are introducing something that is totally superfluous and unnecessary. There is plenty of legislation for local authorities to use. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley on the amendment because it is sensible, reasonable and proportionate.

I am sorry to say that I want to return to the issue of toilets. It was abundantly clear from the hon. Gentleman’s weak argument that he had not read the Communities and Local Government Committee report. He certainly had not read all the supporting information that was brought to the Committee.

Pubs (Planning Policy)

Debate between Anne Main and Chris Williamson

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. That is not the subject of this debate. We are on winding-up speeches now. I request the shadow Minister to continue with his remarks, which I hope will also address the topic of the debate.

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you, Mrs Main. They will and they are. It is central to the future viability of pubs around the country that we recognise the implications of other decisions taken by the Government and the Members who vote for them.

Hon. Members have referred to the community right to buy. On the face of it, I have no difficulty with it—indeed, I think that it is probably a good thing and will be beneficial in certain circumstances—but when we scratch the surface, it is a little bit of a pig in a poke, is it not? No funding is attached to it. How will a deprived community where many are unemployed, have modest incomes from low-paid employment or are losing their jobs as a result of the cuts to which I referred be able to exercise the community right to buy if the people there do not have the wherewithal to do so?

Before the election, the Conservative party gave a commitment on the community right to buy that the community would be given the right of first refusal. As I understand it, that commitment has now been withdrawn. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on that point.

The hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) made a point about supermarkets. I take the Chair’s guidance that it was not directly related to the topic, but it is important to acknowledge that competition from supermarkets is having a detrimental impact on the viability of community pubs. Again, the Government have failed to take decisive action to tackle the minimum price. They should have gone somewhat further to address it.

The hon. Gentleman discussed the need to strengthen planning legislation. I agree absolutely, but he slightly contradicted himself in the latter part of his speech. In his conclusion, he said that more regulation was not required; I think he said, “We don’t want more regulation.” He will correct me if I am wrong, but he said that stronger planning powers are needed. I agree with him, but what is that if not greater regulation? I accept that regulation can be a force for good in certain circumstances, but over-regulation of the sector can be problematic and a barrier, as can set-up costs, and those issues need to be addressed. I support his aims, but there is perhaps a weakness in his argument. He might consider that, because I know that he feels strongly about the issue and has done a lot of good work to lead the charge on it.

I am also interested to hear the Minister’s comments about the regrettable decision to scrap the Labour Government’s proposed community-owned pubs support programme, which would have provided resources to enable communities to save community pubs from closure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. I have not mentioned anything about planning laws, but I hope that Chris Williamson will respond to that.

[Chris Williamson]

I was merely referring to the hon. Member for Leeds North West, who discussed the need to strengthen planning laws to give local authorities greater powers over the closure of community pubs. I support him on that. The point that I was making is that strengthening planning powers for local authorities amounts to greater regulation, so in certain circumstances, stronger regulation can be a force for good. It can be beneficial in helping promote the campaign that he is pursuing.

The community-owned pubs programme has been scrapped. The Government had set aside £3.3 million—not a huge sum, but significant—which would have gone a long way towards assisting many community pubs to remain open. The chief executive of the Plunkett Foundation, which was charged with administering the fund, said about the decision to scrap the programme:

“This is devastating news for each community that had hoped to save their local as a co-operative. The government has turned its back on communities that were looking to take more responsibility over their everyday lives.”

It seems that the Government propose to replace a meaningful Government initiative, which would have provided resources for practical action to save a considerable number of community pubs, with a mere information leaflet, which will be distributed to local communities. That is no substitute for a properly funded initiative that would have gone a long way in saving community pubs. That was a mistake, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on it. He is quoted as saying:

“"Pubs don’t want state handouts. The new government is to give local communities new powers to save local pubs.”

However, as I have already pointed out, the Government’s proposed power will be meaningful only in those communities that are relatively well heeled and that therefore have the wherewithal to provide the resources necessary to exercise a community right to buy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make a cheap point, because he knows very well that it was towards the latter end of the previous Government. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

Order. Will hon. Members please not make remarks from a sedentary position? I would like to hear what Chris Williamson has to say.

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you, Mrs Main. The reality is that we took action. On another point, we took the necessary steps to stop the economy going into a complete tailspin. I repeat the point that I have already made and make no apologies for doing so: people need income in their pockets from employment, and the measures that we took to keep unemployment lower than it would otherwise have been helped ensure that more pubs did not close. I regret to say that this Government’s measures have taken away the direct support by scrapping the community-owned pubs support programme. They are also introducing new powers that only relatively affluent communities will be able to utilise, and are taking economic decisions that will have a much bigger impact on the future viability of community pubs, because unemployment will certainly increase and many more pubs will close as a direct consequence.

I do not want to take up much more time, because that would eat into the time for the Minister’s wind-up speech.