Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Chris Law—not here.

All these Opposition opportunities are being lost, and I think that should not continue.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that schools are often targeted in warzones. A couple of months ago, I met year 7 students from Lees Brook School in my constituency, and they implored me to ask the Prime Minister to sign the safe schools declaration, which I understand has subsequently been signed. Does that declaration mean that she will now veto future arms sales to brutal regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which has been targeting schools as part of its military campaign in Yemen?

[The Prime Minister]

The issue of the education of girls and boys in conflict zones is an important one, and it is one that was addressed at the G7 summit. We have been clear, as the United Kingdom Government, that we are providing financial support to ensure 12 years of quality education for girls, particularly in developing countries, and the G7 summit gave its commitment not only in financial terms, as we are contributing more to provide for quality education, but to focus on areas where there are conflict zones and particular action needs to be taken to ensure that education can be provided.

Salisbury Incident

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. We are talking about the use of a chemical weapon—a military-grade nerve agent—against people here in the United Kingdom. That is very clear. It is wrong and outrageous that the Leader of the Opposition’s spokesman has made those comments.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The horrendous incident in Salisbury has placed a huge unforeseen burden on local police. We know that the police service has faced unprecedented cuts, so I wonder whether the Prime Minister can give an assurance that the additional burden will be met from central resources and that it will not fall to the local police to pick up the bill.

[The Prime Minister]

The initial response to the incident was of course taken by Wiltshire police. When the nature of the incident became clear, the force was able to draw on support from neighbouring forces and, crucially, the counter-terrorism capability came into place. Counter-terrorism police have taken on and are running the investigation. This is about not just the resources, but the capabilities that police officers and the counter-terrorism force have brought to bear in this instance.

Proportional Representation

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double]

I admire the hon. Lady for shoehorning that into the debate, although it is not a view I share.

It is often said that one weakness of the first-past-the-post system is that candidates from certain parties often never have a chance of winning particular seats. Voters feel that their vote is wasted if they vote for their preferred party, and are therefore often forced to vote tactically against a party, rather than for a party. That has not prevented parties that promote PR from encouraging voters to vote tactically. Until recently, the Liberal Democrats built their campaign in Cornwall on the message, “Vote for us to keep the Tories out.” It is interesting that those who criticise tactical voting as one of the weaknesses of first past the post are happy to exploit it to their advantage.

First past the post does not prevent voters from being able to remove MPs when the tide has turned against them. Earlier, I cited the examples of Wyre Forest in 2001 and Neil Hamilton in 1997. In those safe Labour and Conservative seats, the voters turned against the MPs and removed them. It can happen.

Possibly the greatest argument for first past the post and against PR is that, more often than not, first past the post produces a clear, decisive result and a stable Government quickly. PR often results in no clear majority and days or weeks of back-room dealing to form a Government.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain his definition of democracy? I would have thought that democracy was about ensuring that the governing party or parties commanded a majority of support in the country. The truth is that that has not happened for some time.

[Steve Double]

Historically in our country, we have had the first-past-the-post-system, which has delivered decisive results and decisive Governments over many years, and that has served our country well. We are one of the greatest democracies on the planet, so I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s views.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Double]

No, I am going to make some progress. I am winding up my speech, because I want other Members to have an opportunity to speak.

Rather than a Government elected on a manifesto that they can be judged against, PR puts more power in the hands of party leaders and can allow parties off the hook as they can explain away their ability to deliver on the basis of having to negotiate a coalition. Let us be honest: the current system has its failings—no system is perfect—but first past the post works in Parliament and in the constituencies. It is favoured because it is understood.

There is no doubt we are living in interesting political times. The election result in June made that clear. While I acknowledge the frustration with our voting system that many feel, the answer to improving our democracy does not lie in changing that system. The onus is on politicians and political parties to do more not to take voters for granted, particularly in what are considered safe seats, and to hold on to the principle of the constituency Member of Parliament, where we are here first and foremost to represent our constituents and recognise them as our boss. The key is not in tinkering with our system, but in ensuring we value and treasure our democracy, which is respected across the globe, and in ensuring that we do all we can to make it work for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. My Green colleagues were incredibly brave to make such selfless decisions for the good of the country rather than tribal political self-interest.

The Electoral Reform Society described the 2015 general election, in which a Government were elected on just 24% of the eligible vote, as “the most disproportionate” in electoral history. It further reported that in the election just gone more than 22 million votes —68%—were essentially wasted because first past the post takes no account of votes for the winning candidate over and above what they needed to win, or indeed of votes for losing candidates. In five constituencies 90% of votes made no difference to the outcome because they were cast for candidates who did not win, or cast for the winning candidate over and above what they needed to win. More than 90% of votes—a huge number.

[Chris Williamson]

Does the hon. Lady agree that democracy should be about outcomes, and that a fairer and just electoral system, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) talked about, would be more likely to deliver a fairer and just society, in which the forces of progress trump the forces of reaction? In my view, there is a majority in this country for progressive politics, but that is being frustrated by first past the post.

[Caroline Lucas]

I absolutely agree. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman pre-empts a little of what I am about to say. Exactly as he describes, first past the post does not deliver the best governance. I say that as someone who has been a Member of the European Parliament—elections to the European Parliament obviously take place under a PR system—where collaboration and cross-party working is normal. It is encouraged and welcomed, and people do it, on the basis that no single party has a monopoly on wisdom.

A winner-takes-all approach to elections promotes adversarial politics. It encourages each of the major parties to seek to defeat their opposition unequivocally, negating the need for post-election co-operation, and essentially not to take any real account of what voters wanted when they cast their votes. It also means that policy is likely to change dramatically when Governments change, with greater extremes and a greater impact on economic and environmental policy and on social justice and inclusion. Research has found that countries with PR systems outperform those with first-past-the-post systems when it comes to issues that require a longer term view and policy continuity. Environmental policy is obviously a key candidate for that; countries with proportional systems score significantly higher on Yale University’s environmental performance index.

I want to quote the former Labour MP and Foreign Secretary Robin Cook. He observed that electoral reform is about not just functional outcomes—we have talked about that a lot—but values. PR is one way in which we can express our commitment to fairness, openness and equality in our society. I want to make the case that, under PR, we would be more likely to encourage more people to get out there and vote. It is very hard to persuade people to vote when they live in so-called safe seats and know that their vote will not make a significant difference. There is evidence out there that suggests that those countries that have PR see a higher turnout than those with first past the post.

We would also improve the chances of electing a Parliament that better reflects modern Britain. One of the consequences of safe seats is that it is harder for different groups to get themselves into a position to be able to win those seats. We know that still only 32% of MPs are women. There are 208, compared with 191 in 2015, but that is still shockingly bad. Women MPs are still outnumbered two to one by male MPs, and the UK is now just about 40th in the world when it comes to women’s parliamentary representation.

People of colour, disabled people, carers, and lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are still under-represented in Parliament. PR would make a difference to that, because under PR MPs cannot rely on just the votes of their tribe. To win the support of the majority of voters, they are forced to reach out across the party divide to the wider electorate—women, black and minority ethnic communities and so on—which hopefully means that those traditionally excluded groups would end up standing for election, and with a better chance of being elected.

Finally, I want to say a few things about tactics. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) rightly said that getting PR into the Labour party manifesto is vital. He will not be surprised that I do not necessarily agree with his tactic for achieving that, but I certainly agree that we need to put pressure on the Labour party leadership. I am disappointed that we have not yet had a greater commitment to PR and voting reform from the Labour party leadership—perhaps this evening we will hear a change of mind—because we know that more than 200 Labour parliamentary candidates at the election backed PR, as well as a huge 76% of Labour voters, and indeed many Labour MPs in the Chamber have made incredibly powerful speeches.

What I want to say to the Labour leadership is this: it is selfish for them to continue championing a voting system just because it has traditionally handed them power. It is immoral when millions of people are disenfranchised as a result. No party can honestly claim to be for the many when it denies the many a meaningful vote. Robin Cook understood all of that when back in 2005 he said:

“Our objective, our slogan, should be to achieve an electoral system which puts our democracy in the hands of the many voters, not the few voters who happen to be key in marginal seats.”

Grenfell Tower Fire Inquiry

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess]

I will come to that point, but I also want the Minister to hear this, because it is not the responsibility of his Department. It is crazy that it is not mandatory for all new school buildings to have sprinklers fitted. We must address that, as a matter of urgency. Again, I hope that, if the Minister is not given the advice that I certainly want him to be given, he will make a contrary decision and recommend that all new school buildings have sprinklers fitted.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said about sprinkler systems in schools, but does he agree that it is also imperative for the regulations to be changed to cover student accommodation? I understand that tower blocks more than 30 metres high will now be fitted with sprinklers, but that student accommodation more than 30 metres high will not qualify. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that that cannot be right.

[Sir David Amess]

I certainly do agree. The Minister has heard what has been said. I understood that every building more than 30 metres high would have to have sprinklers fitted. I hope that at some stage when the Minister is winding up a note will be passed to determine whether or not the hon. Gentleman—he was at our meeting this morning— is right, but as far as I understand, that cannot be the position.

The APPG also agreed on the following:

“without prejudice to the public inquiry or the police criminal investigation, the all-party group…wish to support the recommendation of the coroners at Southwark and Southampton arising from the Lakanal House and Shirley Towers tower block”

—which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey)—

“whereby both coroners recommended in a letter to the Secretary of State that the Department for Communities & Local Government, encourages providers of housing in high risk residential buildings containing multiple domestic premises to consider the retrofitting of sprinkler systems”.

I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with that as well.

The APPG said:

“a letter to the then CLG Minister, dated 1st May 2014…drew the Minister’s attention to”

Ronnie King’s

“personal involvement with the Lakanal House Coroner’s Inquest, where clarification was given from the Department that the current Building Regulations allowed the composite panels under the external wall window sets of such tower blocks not to have any fire resistance”

—that is absolutely crazy—

“and that this weakness in the Regulations remains uncorrected today; despite the upward spread of fire which occurred, resulting in the deaths of six people.

(Under the current Building Regulations guidance Approved Document B, the external walls of Tower Blocks need only have a classification “O” Surface spread of Flame, with no fire resistance)”.

The House would not expect the Minister to be an expert on all these matters, and he will have to take advice from somewhere, but I hope he understands the frustration that has been caused by the ignoring of the APPG’s recommendations. This fire should never have happened, and it would not have happened if notice had been taken of our recommendations.

The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service —who is not in the Chamber at present—said:

“we are maybe looking at a system failure, built up over many years, which we now have to address urgently…over many years and perhaps against the backdrop of, as data shows, a reduced risk in terms of fire, in terms of number of incidents and deaths…maybe as a system some complacency has crept in.”

Well, it certainly has not “crept in” as far as the APPG is concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

May I say what an honour and pleasure it is to be back on the green Benches speaking on behalf of my constituents after a two-year enforced sabbatical? Before I speak about the subject of today’s debate, I should say just a few words about my predecessor Amanda Solloway, who took my seat off me by 41 votes in 2015. She was in some ways an unusual and unlikely Conservative party candidate, coming from fairly humble origins and having herself experienced homelessness in an earlier part of her life. She made it her business to highlight the plight of homeless people and to draw attention to that really important issue, which scars our country, the fifth richest nation on the planet. Another big issue on which she fought hard was making mental health care more of a priority for the Government and ensuring that resources were made available for it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) sought a collective noun for the excellent maiden speeches that have been made today—he referred to a “feast” of maiden speeches. I agree with that description of the excellent contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock), for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) and for Leigh (Jo Platt). I am sure that they will go on to make a big contribution in this place for as long as they are here.

The origins of the catastrophic fire that occurred at Grenfell can be traced back to the neoliberal doctrine that was inflicted on our country back in 1979 and has disfigured our public services over the intervening four decades. A big feature of that approach has been deregulation, privatisation and cuts, which led to combustible materials being perfectly legitimately used on Grenfell Tower and, as we know, many other tower blocks around the country. How can that possibly be? Added into the mix is the move towards compulsory competitive tendering, which was brought into the public realm almost 40 years ago and meant that the cheapest price was all that was looked at when services were externalised. How could the maintenance of our public realm and housing stock be put out to the private sector?

Of course, if the work had been done properly and there were firestops on every floor of Grenfell Tower, as there are supposed to be, even if there had been a fire, it would have been contained on the floor where it started. The combination of compulsory competitive tendering and the business-friendly inspection regime has culminated in this appalling, catastrophic fire in which so many people lost their lives.

We can also look at the cuts that have been imposed and see the number of fire safety inspectors who have been taken out of the system—between 60% and 75% depending on which fire authority we are talking about. So now the fire and rescue authorities cannot undertake the safety checks that they used to be able to carry out as a matter of course. The slapdash, corner-cutting approach that we have seen over the past few decades has ultimately led to this appalling, catastrophic fire.

There was an exchange earlier in the debate about the laissez-faire approach to student accommodation. Legislation requires new residential tower blocks over 30 metres high to have sprinklers installed in them. However, nurse and student accommodation is deemed to be “other accommodation”, so there is no requirement for sprinklers to be installed there. It is as if nurses and students are expendable—that cannot be right.

I mentioned the fire safety inspectors who have been taken out of the system, and while we are talking about cuts, it is important to remember that fire station after fire station in this capital and right across the country has been closed. Since 2010, 11,000 firefighters have lost their jobs, which I think means that one in five firefighters have effectively been removed from the system since then.

That creates its own problem. I spoke to Fire Brigades Union representatives, who talked about such things as the use of breathing apparatus. The fact is that reducing the number of firefighters available to deal with emergencies means that when we have a catastrophic fire, such as the one at Grenfell Tower, firefighters repeatedly have to go into the building to rescue people. The problem with that is that when firefighters use breathing apparatus, their blood thickens, putting them at greater risk of a coronary attack. We know from eyewitness accounts that some firefighters were entering Grenfell Tower to rescue people up to three times each. They should not have been in that situation.

When the Prime Minister was interviewed about that, she said that London fire brigade had the resources it needed and implied that the fact that it was able to respond to the fire was proof of that. But the truth is that London fire brigade did not have the resources it needed, because if it did have them, individual firefighters would not have had to enter Grenfell Tower time after time to rescue people, as there would have been enough firefighters to ensure that they each had to enter the building only once.

If we are seriously going to learn any lesson—we hear rhetoric about the importance of learning lessons from catastrophic events, but often it is just for the birds—from this dreadful fire that should never, ever have happened, surely it must be that we need a different approach to the neoliberal agenda that has influenced and informed the way in which public services have been delivered in our country. Surely we have to reverse the deregulation agenda to which we have been subjected and abandon the privatisation of our public services.

We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber about the importance of installing sprinklers. It is an unanswerable argument. If Grenfell Tower had been fitted with sprinklers, we might have lost the building, but we would not have lost human life. I do not think that there is a building anywhere in the world that has been fitted with sprinklers in which people have died in a fire—there have been very few deaths, if any. Surely we must learn that lesson.

We should also listen very carefully to the survivors, the community and the residents who have been so affected by this appalling episode. When I spoke to somebody from the Justice4Grenfell group just yesterday, she said that they had a number of demands, including two that I hope the Minister will agree with and deliver. First, the survivors want to ensure that everybody affected is housed within the borough in decent, good-quality accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) made the point that there is empty accommodation in the borough that could be acquired. The local authority in Kensington has the resources within its reserves to acquire those properties, but it seems to me that the Government are responsible and they should ensure that those resources are available.

The second thing that the survivors want is help in their present situation. The person from the Justice4Grenfell group said that she had spoken to one survivor who had been put into a hotel and just left to fend for themselves. They did not know where to go to get food or a change of clothes, so more needs to be done. There needs to be more immediate help for the survivors and, in what should be the shorter term, we should make accommodation available. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that that will happen.

When I attended a meeting of the Local Government Association Labour group fire services commission earlier this week, I was shown a paper that had been put to the fire services management committee, which included a number of recommendations. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to them. The paper said:

“Government should agree to have Sprinkler Systems fitted in All High Rise Flats in the Country”,

and that

“Any Cladding fitted to High Rise Flats should be of high quality Fire Resistant Material approved by the Fire Service to a Uniformed National Standard.”

The paper also proposes:

“The Fire Service should have overall responsibility for Fire Safety for High Rise Flats, which includes the Flats, corridors, public spaces, fire alarms, safety advice to tenants, and the Fire Service should provide Fire Safety Assurance for Residential High Rise Flats. All High Rise Blocks should be inspected by the Fire Service once every 2 years, and inspected after a major refurbishment.”

The paper goes on to say:

“New High Rise Flats should be regulated to ensure they are built to include all of the above, and in addition they should be built with two Stair Wells within the building”,

and that

“Government urgently review the fire regulation order and fully fund the Fire Service to re-enable planning and building control applications to be review by Fire Safety issues on a risk assessed basis.”

Finally, the paper says:

“Government will need to recognise that extra Government financial resources will need to be made available to Fire and Rescue Services to enable them to provide for the necessary workload that this will require.”

That seems to me to be a list of common-sense requests. We should remember that it came from a cross-party group, so there are people from the Conservative party, the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats in the Local Government Association saying this, as well as independents. I therefore hope that the Minister will take into account what that cross-party group has said, take into account the very sensible suggestions made on both sides of the House today and, most importantly, listen to the survivors and the community and respond appropriately, because this is a stain on the very character of Great Britain. We need to learn lessons to make sure that we mean it when we say that this will never, ever happen again.

Grenfell Tower

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

What we are doing is ensuring first of all that the fire service and landlords—local authorities and housing associations—assess what is needed for the safety of those properties. Where action is needed and work is needed, the Government will work with those landlords to ensure that that can be done.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister concluded her statement by saying that it was the Government’s job to show that it is listening. Will she listen to the experts in the Fire Brigades Union and reverse the cuts to the fire and rescue service as well as retrofitting sprinklers in all high-rise residential accommodation?

[The Prime Minister]

As I have already said on the issue of sprinklers, some tests on retrofitting have been undertaken across the country, but it is not as simple as saying that retrofitting sprinklers is the one thing we need to do. There are a variety of ways in which action needs to be taken in blocks and what needs to happen is for the experts to assess that for every block.

Iraq: Coalition Against ISIL

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Friday 26th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This is the third time during my lifetime in Parliament that I have been asked to vote to invade or bomb Iraq. I have voted against on previous occasions, and I will not support the motion today. I ask the House to think a little more deeply about what we have done in the past and what the effects have been. We have still not even had the results of the Chilcot inquiry.

The current crisis descends from the war on terror, the ramifications of which have been vast military expenditure by western countries and the growth of jihadist forces in many parts of the world. Many people have lost their lives, and many more have had their lives totally disrupted and are fleeing warzones to try to gain a place of safety. Only two weeks ago, it was reported that 500 migrants had died trying to cross the Mediterranean to get into Malta, and many die every day trying to get to Lampedusa. Many of those people are victims of wars throughout the region for which we in this House have voted, be it the bombing of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the intervention in Mali or the earlier intervention in Afghanistan.

We need to give a moment’s thought to where the problems come from. The growth of the Taliban came from 1979, when the west decided to support the opposition in Afghanistan. The Taliban morphed into al-Qaeda, which then morphed into various other forces in Africa, particularly in Nigeria, and of course into the current group, ISIL. That is an absolutely appalling group of people—there is no question whatever about that. Their behaviour, with the beheading and abuse of people, is quite appalling.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend comment on the argument that the air strikes have so far prevented the expansion of ISIL forces? Would more air strikes go further in preventing ISIL from taking more ground?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The air strikes have had some effect, but I do not believe that further air strikes and the deepening of our involvement will solve the problem. I will come to that in a moment, if I may.

We are right to talk about ISIL’s appalling human rights record, but we should be careful with whom we walk. The Prime Minister pointed out that there had been a ministerial visit to Saudi Arabia to get it on side in the current conflict. We sell an awful lot of arms to Saudi Arabia, and there is an awful lot of Saudi money in London in property speculation and various other investments. Saudi Arabia routinely beheads people in public every Friday, executing them for sex outside marriage, religious conversion and a whole lot of other things, but we have very little to say about human rights abuses there because of the economic link with Saudi Arabia. If we are to go to war on the basis of abuses of human rights, we should have some degree of consistency in our approach.

One should be cautious of the idea that bombing will be cost-free and effective. There was a military attack in Tikrit on 1 September, as reported by Human Rights Watch. It was an attempt to strike at a supposed ISIL base of some sort in a school. It resulted in 31 people being killed, none of whom was involved in ISIL, which was nowhere near. We will get more of that.

I believe that the motion that we are being asked to support will lead us into one war after another. There has to be a political solution and political development in the region. I have had a lot of e-mails on the subject, including one this morning from a lady aged 91 that said, “War begets violence, which begets the next war.” We need to take a different stance.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

I think that the conviction rates speak for the efficiency of the CPS. I have seen nothing to suggest that cases are not being pursued outside the ordinary tests of public interest and the reasonable prospect of getting a conviction. Obviously, if those do not apply then there should not be a prosecution at all. I am certainly not aware of there being any fiddling and of decisions being made not to prosecute certain cases that should be prosecuted.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to increase the effectiveness of the pursuit by the Crown Prosecution Service of high-value confiscation orders.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Crown Prosecution Service is generally very effective in the pursuit of high-value confiscation orders. My office and the CPS are represented on the Home Office-led criminal finances board, at which asset recovery performance is discussed. Asset recovery is a long process. Assets are often hidden. Third-party litigation, appeals against conviction and confiscation orders all mean that the enforcement of such orders may take a significant amount of time. Due to the way in which the value of a confiscation order is calculated, in many cases it is not possible to recover the full amount that has been ordered.

[Chris Williamson]

Four out of five of the largest confiscation orders sought by the CPS in the past three years have concerned VAT fraud. Will the Attorney-General ensure that prosecuting these high-value and highly complex fraud cases is prioritised by the CPS?

[The Attorney-General]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will raise the matter with the CPS, but I have no reason to think that it is not doing that. The evidence suggests overall—I cannot break it down for VAT fraud—that year on year the amount being confiscated is rising from what was a very low and rather unsuccessful level after the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 first came into force. In the past year, £107 million was realised through confiscation. I will write to him about his specific point on VAT.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. I think the whole country has not only been shocked by these appalling events, but that frankly it has been lifted and incredibly impressed by the response of the community in Machynlleth, and everything that everybody has done to help the police and the emergency services. We have seen a whole community come together, not just in grief but in action to help this family, and it is a huge credit to everyone involved.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Q3. At the Prime Minister’s energy summit last year, he promised faithfully that he would take action to help people reduce their energy bills. Will he tell the House and the country: how is it going?

[The Prime Minister]

We have encouraged people to switch, which is one of the best ways to get energy bills down. I can announce, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome, that we will be legislating so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers—something that Labour did not do in 13 years, even though the Leader of the Labour party could have done it because he had the job.

Regional Pay

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend speaks powerfully on behalf of her constituents in the Wirral, and I know they will appreciate that.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the fact that yet again the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has gone AWOL? We have had debate after debate in which the Government have rolled out junior Treasury Ministers, and now he has ceded his responsibility to the Cabinet Office. Can my hon. Friend shed any light on what on earth is going on?

[Rachel Reeves]

Given that the policies have such big implications for the public purse, especially as anticipated costs go up because of the extra bureaucracy, I would have thought the Chief Secretary had a clear interest in them.

I suggest that Ministers take this opportunity to call a halt to this exercise, end the uncertainty and confusion and put people’s minds at rest. They did that for charities, churches and caravans, and even for pasties. As the Prime Minister has said:

“When you’ve got something wrong, there are two things you can do in government: you can plough on regardless, or you can say, ‘No, we’re going to listen, we’re going to change it’”.

I therefore hope the Minister listens to what Members say in today’s debate and changes course before the Government get into even greater difficulty. Trying to make public sector workers in hard-hit parts of the country the scapegoats for our economic problems is disreputable and divisive, and it is a distraction from the task to which the Government should be giving their full attention—a plan for jobs and growth that can get us out of the recession they have got us into.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Maude]

I am going to make a little progress, but I will give way in due course.

Those pay remits are currently set at 1% a year. We need those constraints in order to address the appalling legacy of the biggest budget deficit in the developed world, which was left by exactly the people who now complain about its effects. Our approach is not about making further savings, but entirely about creating greater flexibility within those pay remit constraints.

Thirdly, this is not about cutting anybody’s pay. Even if we wanted to, we would not be legally able to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Maude]

I will not give way, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I need to make some progress and Back-Bench contributions are already likely to be constrained because the debate started rather late.

The then Chancellor also said that pay for the civil service should include a stronger local and regional dimension, while in that year’s Budget he set out

“action to increase regional and local flexibility in public service pay”.

As I have mentioned, the then Chancellor’s advisers included the current Leader of the Opposition and the current shadow Chancellor. It seems pretty opportunistic for Labour, at the 11th hour, to produce this motion, when its own Government took the public sector further down this path than we are at this stage contemplating.

Indeed, Labour did not just talk about localised pay; it actually introduced it. In 2007, the last Government introduced localised pay for civil servants across the courts service. They did so in response to the Treasury’s pay guidance, issued in 2007, at a time when, as far as I can make out, the current Leader of the Opposition was the Minister in the Cabinet Office responsible for civil service matters and the shadow Chancellor was the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. Yet that pay guidance, which went out across the civil service, asked Departments that operated across different locations to differentiate between pay levels across regional labour markets. Following that guidance, which was issued under the aegis of the current Leader of the Opposition and the current shadow Chancellor, the previous Government introduced localised pay in the courts service across the country. That was, if I may say so, a sensible and unusually well-judged move, and it has been successful.

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mr Maude]

I am going to make progress now.

That policy was introduced at a time when those who are now on the Opposition Front Bench were intimately involved, so it is worth the House asking itself what happened. Did devilish civil servants somehow slide this wicked measure through, as the attention of the current shadow Chancellor and Leader of the Opposition was elsewhere, no doubt overly occupied in trashing the then Prime Minister?

Why is the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury taking up valuable parliamentary time attacking in opposition a policy that her own leaders actively promoted in government? It is not as if the Labour party immediately abandoned the idea in opposition that local and regional variations in the cost of living are important. In January, The Guardian reported that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne)—another previous holder of my post—told a private meeting of Labour MPs that housing benefit

“varies locally and so should a benefit cap”.

In fact, he was reported to have said:

“It makes much more sense to have localised caps…in different parts of the country”.

That revealed that the Labour party still recognises in private the very principle that it is today seeking to oppose. It is humbug, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yet again, the Opposition oppose policies that they introduced in government and that they still support in private.

We know what is behind this. It is the Labour party’s union paymasters who are calling the tune. We know that the Labour party ask their union backers which amendments to vote for and which to oppose. We know that under the current Labour party leader more than 80% of Labour’s donations come directly from trade unions—even more than under the last Prime Minister. No wonder Charlie Whelan boasted that it was Unite that won the current Labour party leadership. Yet again, it is Unison and Unite that are calling the tunes. But even the unions are confused on this matter. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) said, Unison itself has made the case for local variations.

There is a serious case to be made for local market-facing pay. While private sector pay is typically set according to local markets, public sector pay is usually set on a one-size-fits-all basis at national level. As a result, public sector workers are often paid more than private sector workers in similar jobs in the same area. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the overall gap between public and private sector pay averages 8.3%. However, the gap can be as low as virtually minimal in some places and as high as nearly 20% in others.

Academic research also shows that public sector pay is only 40% as responsive to local labour markets as private sector pay. That has potentially damaging consequences for the public sector and the economy. A one-size-fits-all system for public sector pay could limit the number of public sector jobs that could be supported in lower-cost areas. It militates directly against the relocation of public sector jobs to more deprived parts of the country. Private employers looking for staff to set up or grow their businesses might need to compete with much higher public sector wages. The evidence has yet to be examined, but the public sector could be crowding out the private sector in that way, and holding back the private sector-led recovery that the economy needs. Arguably, this makes private sector job creation less attractive. Importantly, it also makes it less attractive to move public sector jobs out of London and the south-east because, without any differential in pay rates to reflect the differential in living costs, it is much less easy to justify the relocation costs and loss of continuity that relocating inevitably involves.

So this approach is about investigating whether this could be another way of supporting local economies, by helping to provide more public sector jobs for the same level of spending and by helping the local private sector to become more competitive and to expand. This could help poorer areas to grow—[Interruption.] Exactly that point was recognised explicitly by the previous Prime Minister. He made exactly that argument. The hon. Member for Leeds West might want to argue with him, but we think that this is one of the few things on which he was right.

More broadly, this Government are determined to support regional private sector growth. Since the last election and the formation of the coalition Government, 843,000 private sector jobs have been created, and promoting regional growth—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Make no mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker, the proposals for regional pay represent a naked ideological assault on public services and on public service workers. In my constituency, 11,800 people are employed in the public sector, representing more than 26% of its work force. Throughout Derby, 25,000-plus are employed in the public sector, and this is yet another example of the fact that this Government represent and stand up for the rich elite in our country, a Government who are prepared to give tax cuts to millionaires while forcing pay cuts on public sector workers.

I know from what Ministers have said that they want to weaken collective bargaining, but that makes no sense. It would be a wasteful approach to go down the road of regional pay because of all the duplication that would be necessary as a consequence of not having national pay bargaining regimes. It makes no economic sense either. Government Members have said that they see the economic recovery as being private sector led, but that ignores the symbiotic relationship between the public and private sectors. If huge demand is taken out of a local economy, that is bound to have knock-on implications for the private sector. This is a self-defeating proposition, because a private sector-led recovery will not be helped by attacking public service workers and undermining their salaries.

I am reading a book by Paul Krugman, a Nobel prize winner for economics, in which he says:

“disasters do happen; history is replete with floods and famines, earthquakes and tsunamis. What makes this disaster”—

the economic crisis that we are living through—

“so terrible—what should make you angry—is that none of this need be happening. There has been no plague of locusts; we have not lost our technological know-how; America and Europe should be richer, not poorer, than they were five years ago.

Nor is the nature of the disaster mysterious. In the Great Depression leaders had an excuse: nobody really understood what was happening or how to fix it. Today’s leaders don’t have that excuse. We have both the knowledge and the tools to end this suffering.”

I have not finished reading the book, but as far as I can see, he clearly does not recommend regional pay as a way of economic salvation.

I know that Government Members revel in the sobriquet, “Thatcher’s children”. However, back in 1993, when John Major was Prime Minister, the Government of the day considered regional pay but saw sense when the Treasury obtained an advice note about the proposition that said:

“At the extreme, local pay in theory could mean devolving pay…to local bodies. In practice, extremely devolved arrangements are not desirable. There are risks of workers being treated differently for no good reason. There could be dangers of leapfrogging and parts of the public sector competing against each other for the best staff.”

Do we really want a situation where a hospital such as Queen’s medical centre, down the road in my constituency, is competing for staff with the Royal Derby? I do not think so.

Over the past few weeks this Government have developed a penchant for U-turns. I would very much welcome a U-turn on this policy, which will be utterly counter-productive and undermine morale in public services, which has already been terribly undermined by the Government’s economically disastrous policies. It simply will not work. I say this to the Government: listen to Paul Krugman and other eminent economists, do a U-turn, and abandon these ridiculous proposals for regional pay.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Party Funding

Chris Williamson Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

As anybody who has anything to do with any financial transactions and any interest in London continuing to be the most vigorous international financial centre in the world opposes the Tobin tax, if he did say that, it would not be particularly surprising.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Does not this whole sorry episode reveal something very rotten right at the core of the Conservative party? Does the Minister agree with me that it stretches credulity to breaking point to argue that Peter Cruddas, a senior—the most senior—fundraiser for the Conservative party, did not understand the law relating to donations to political parties?

[Mr Maude]

The hon. Gentleman refers to Peter Cruddas as the most senior: not any more he ain’t.