Industrial Action
Chris Williamson Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Why do the Government so despise public sector workers such as nurses, doctors, teachers and street care cleaners as to impose a swingeing tax increase when the contributions to pension funds exceed their liabilities? The local government pension fund has an annual surplus of £4 billion to £5 billion. How is that fair and how can he justify it?
Public Confidence in the Media and Police
Chris Williamson Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do. We want a free and vigorous press. Sometimes that is infuriating, but the idea of having “Ofpress” and equal coverage being given to every point of view would kill the vibrancy of the press. If we had to have equal coverage of every Neil Kinnock speech—respecting him as I do—the papers would take a lot longer to read every morning.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
When Andy Coulson stayed at Chequers after his resignation, did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to talk to him about the phone hacking allegations and whether there was any truth in them, and about his reasons for resigning?
G20 Summit
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
First, we are not making reductions in the science budget. It is being frozen in cash terms, and that is absolutely right. Secondly, the next group of Ministers to go to China will include my right hon. Friend the Minister for Universities and Science. He will go out there for specific talks, because the Chinese want to examine the specific areas where they can link up with us. In terms of scientific research, Britain already does more partnering with Chinese scientists than many other countries.
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
Two years ago, the then British Prime Minister galvanised world leaders to prevent a worldwide recession from turning into a worldwide slump. Because of this Prime Minister’s cuts in public spending, companies in my constituency will rely more on the export market and his policies will throw at least 1 million people out of a job. Can he explain to the House how his being a spectator at this year’s G20 summit will assist the companies in my constituency to secure the foreign orders that they desperately need?
The Prime Minister
If the hon. Gentleman wants to help businesses in his constituency, he should stop talking the British economy down. Whatever he says about the previous Prime Minister, who is not here today to join in the discussions, the fact is that the right hon. Gentleman left Britain with the biggest budget deficit in the G20. When we looked at the countries around that table, which included those such as Argentina, we found that we had a bigger budget deficit than they did. That is why we are having to deal with the deficit—the mess that the previous Prime Minister left behind.
Superannuation Bill
Chris Williamson Excerpts(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
This is a mean-spirited, parsimonious Bill that borders on abuse of parliamentary procedures. We heard very plausible, warm words from the Minister for the Cabinet Office; it was almost as though he was in some way sympathetic to the civil servants who will feel the full brunt of this mean-spirited Bill, if it gets through its parliamentary stages. But make no mistake—and I am sure that the civil servants who are following our debate closely will not do so—the Minister for the Cabinet Office has cloaked his iron fist in a velvet glove.
The contributions from Conservative Members left me cold. It is clear that the Conservatives have not changed one iota—they are still the same old nasty Tory party, attacking the most vulnerable and lowest paid people in this country, just as they did in the 1980s and 1990s. We heard some rather sympathetic contributions from Liberal Democrat Members. One or two even said that they will join Labour Members in the Division Lobby. Let us hope that all Liberal Democrat Members have the courage of their convictions and join us in helping to defeat this terrible piece of legislation.
The Finance Bill introduced by the Con-Dem coalition is likely to lead to a double-dip recession. It received Royal Assent on 27 July, and inevitably it will lead to an increase in unemployment. It is against that background that the Superannuation Bill has been introduced, at a time when people are looking for work and finding it difficult to obtain employment. However, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Conservative Members want to throw people on the dole, leaving them in a vulnerable situation by undermining the terms and conditions that have been built up over many years.
We heard one Member—it may even have been more than one—claim that the measure was fair in some way. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who regrettably is not in the Chamber, said that the Con-Dem coalition was all about fairness and was progressive as well. The Conservatives ought to look up the meaning of “fairness” and “progressive” in the Oxford English Dictionary, because the legislation that they have introduced is the very antithesis of fairness and of progressive politics. The Deputy Prime Minister himself said in the general election campaign that he wanted to “hardwire fairness into…society”. The Bill, however, is yet another example of how hollow his words really are.
The Bill is the direct opposite of fairness, and it does not strike a fair balance between taxpayers’ interests and civil servants’ legitimate expectations. It provides inadequate protection for some of the country’s lowest paid public sector workers. I wonder whether it is the thin end of the wedge. Many people in the public sector enjoy better severance packages than what is proposed in the Bill—in the national health service, in education, and in local government, the ceiling is two years—but time will tell whether they are next on the Con-Dem Government’s coalition hit list.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office told the House that he would introduce the Bill:
“I will bring legislation to the House as soon as parliamentary time allows in a Bill to limit the costs of future compensation payments for both compulsory and voluntary civil service exits.”
He went on to say that
“I hope that the Government’s invitation to the Council of Civil Service Unions will be received in the spirit it is offered and that they will engage speedily and constructively with a view to reaching an agreed, fair and sustainable long-term civil service compensation scheme.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2010; Vol. 513, c. 3WS.]
What a way to conduct negotiations—introducing legislation in the House, leaving the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), to wield the sword of Damocles over the heads of the civil service unions and people working in the civil service. It simply is not the right way to conduct negotiations.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office has said that he is concerned about low-paid workers, and he repeated that today. Where, however, in the Bill is there a proposal to help those workers? It is non-existent. If he was genuinely concerned about assisting low-paid workers, he would include a provision to deal with the very point to which he referred in July, and again tonight. Once again, words from the Ministers of the Con-Dem coalition are meaningless and utterly hollow.
The Con-Dem coalition seems to be abusing the negotiating protocols by manipulating parliamentary procedures to get its own way, and that will not do. That is not the way to conduct negotiations. It is a sad day for democracy in this country when we see such a Bill before us. The Minister acknowledged that it was an extremely blunt instrument. Then why bother enacting it? Why not take a more sophisticated approach in the 21st century to industrial relations?
To conclude, in the short time that I have, what I find so objectionable about the process is the attempt by the Con-Dem coalition to get the Bill defined as a money Bill to prevent proper scrutiny in the other place. My hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) have all made that point. The gerrymandering tendencies of the Con-Dem coalition that were so blatantly exposed in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill are permeating other areas of policy making.
The Bill has been drawn up without consulting the work force. The Minister admitted that. Although he tried to wriggle and say, “Of course I’ve had discussions but, you know, the previous Government had negotiations,” he was clearly nailed when that was put to him. There have been no negotiations. The Bill has not been subject to sufficient pre-legislative scrutiny, but that is not particularly surprising, given the experience of the past few months.
This is a bad Bill, which will lead to a bad law. That is why I will vote against it tonight and support the reasoned amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell). I call on all Liberal Democrats to have the courage of their convictions and join Labour Members in the Lobby this evening.
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
I am 50 years old and have employed people for about half my life. My company was quite lucky relatively recently; we consulted with staff and were able to agree a deal under which there were no redundancies. However, I had to make redundancies in the early 2000s, and it is not a nice thing to go through, although obviously it is a lot worse to be made redundant.
We need to be aware that at the end of this process some people will lose their jobs. The challenge in politics is the national cake, and to some extent the political process can affect how that is divided. Our difficulty now is that we have to get a time machine and borrow from our children some slices that will be baked in future so that we can put them towards the national cake today. The real challenge is how we get, over a period of time, to the stage at which the amount of cake baked every year is the amount consumed every year.
How do we do that in a just manner? The Opposition have argued that our attempt unilaterally to challenge the contract with the civil service is unfair, whereas their attempt unilaterally to challenge the contract with the civil service was fair. They have argued with our proposals, but those are far more generous than the conditions for the staff of Members of Parliament, for instance. Those staff are all hard-working, but they are subject to the statutory redundancy scheme. Birmingham city council also operates the scheme. My wife works for British Waterways, a public body that also operates that scheme.
Basically, the Bill creates a negotiating position that means that the trade unions cannot veto any agreement. That is the normal situation for employers. Employers can present their staff with a new contract, and the staff have either to take it or leave it. That is what has happened in all the pay and grading reviews in local government across the country. Pretty well all local government employees have gone through the process of being presented with a new contract. What is happening now is that a new contract is being presented. We have said that we are aiming to protect the lower-paid. The most important thing to try to do is protect people against unnecessary redundancies. That is the critical thing.
If six years’ redundancy has to be paid to somebody, how can things be reorganised in a cost-effective manner? They cannot. Even paying three years’ redundancy creates a major problem because it costs more that year to make somebody redundant than to continue to employ them. That means that those not covered by the redundancy schemes are the ones to whom people go to find the savings. That does not seem fair.
Chris Williamson
The hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should indulge in a race to the bottom—it is about the lowest common denominator.
John Hemming
I do not think we should indulge in a race to the bottom. It needs to be recognised that this is the Government’s opening position. People who argue that we should propose the final solution here in Parliament are obviously no good at playing poker; one does not reveal one’s hand. We cannot expect the Minister to say, “We’ll settle for X.” The Government need to have a negotiating position, and the trade unions cannot be in a position whereby they can veto it—that would be absurd.
We need to think about our employees. I have always been concerned about the people whom I employ personally, and in the same way we should be concerned about those whom we employ collectively through UK plc. Options that may not cost the Government much money could be looked at to improve the situation. For example, constituents of mine who are civil servants have raised the issue of two civil servants living in the same household who are both under the threat of redundancy. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be possible for one such civil servant to nominate the other, so that if one of them were made redundant the other would be protected against redundancy. Then at least the household would not lose both incomes, but only one. That would be an example of flexibility. It would not necessarily cost the Government any money, but it would protect people from the worst aspects of this process.
Similarly, in certain circumstances people might like to move towards a job share if the Government were willing to pay them a sum of money for that reorganisation, which might cost less than voluntary or compulsory redundancy. That would reduce the wages bill and the deficit without necessarily putting people in a very difficult personal position. We need to work with employees to try to minimise the effect on people.
Debate on the Address
Chris Williamson Excerpts(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)
I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to address the House for the very first time, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is a particularly poignant moment for me, because 34 years ago—on this day, I think; it was certainly this month—a predecessor of mine, Phillip Whitehead, who represented Derby North from 1970 to 1983, recruited me to the Labour party when I was a young apprentice bricklayer. Little did I know at that time that I would be following in Phillip’s esteemed footsteps and representing Derby North as I am today. I am also conscious of the fact that 110 years ago Derby sent the first Labour MP in England to this House, so I obviously have a good deal to live up to, as I look back at the esteemed colleagues who have gone before me.
My immediate predecessor, Bob Laxton, who, like me, was formerly the leader of Derby city council, was an excellent constituency Member of Parliament. He was very much a people person. Indeed, there is hardly an individual in Derby who does not know Bob Laxton. I was looking at his maiden speech the other day, when I was preparing to make mine, and I was struck by one of his comments. He said that it could sometimes take him an hour or two to get through what is a relatively small city centre, because he knows so many people. Bob’s record in bringing resources to our city is second to none. I am therefore pleased to be able to follow in his footsteps. I hope that I can live up to his reputation for representing the people of Derby North.
I know that it is the convention to avoid controversy in a maiden speech—I certainly intend to try to do that—but I have to disagree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), who has now left the Chamber, and with the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess), who said that Labour Members were in denial. In my view it is the coalition Government who are in denial. I would urge hon. Members to look at their history books and learn from the lessons. They should look at what happened in the 1930s when the Government in this country made big cuts in public spending, and at the similar situation in the 1980s—it was not quite as bad, but it was a recession—when the Government also made big cuts. That had a devastating impact on the economy and, more importantly from my point of view, on the people whom I represent, because unemployment went through the roof. My father grew up in the 1930s, and he told me about the grinding means test that his family were subjected to as a result of the policies pursued at that time.
Hon. Members should also look at what happened in the 1930s across the Atlantic when Franklin D. Roosevelt came to power. He did not make big cuts in public spending in the face of the worst depression the world had ever known—an economic downturn perhaps on a similar scale to what we are facing today—and nor did he say, “Let’s cut public spending.” Far from it: he used the power of the state—the power of Government spending—to put American people back to work. Before Roosevelt came to power, 25% of the American population were out of work, yet at the end of that decade, America emerged as the No. 1 global economic superpower, never to be surpassed again.
It is also worth remembering that in 1937 the Government in America sought to reduce the economic stimulus, but it was too soon. The economy started to go into decline, and they quickly had to retreat and take a different course. I would therefore say to Members that they should look at their history books and not be too quick to condemn the record of the previous Labour Government, because we were committed to investing in our economy, to ensure that we kept people in employment and protected front-line services.
It is necessary to make efficiency savings and reductions in Government spending—we accept that some reductions need to be made—but it is worth bearing in mind that we need to look at how we can grow our economy. If we can put more people back to work, more people will be paying national insurance and income tax, and businesses will be paying more corporation tax. More resources will therefore be flowing into the Exchequer, making it possible to reduce the deficit. However, my fear is that if we remove the stimulus too soon, our economy will go into decline again, which is the last thing that I want to see.
I welcome a commitment in the Gracious Speech to reduce health inequalities and improve public health, but that prompts the question: if big cuts are going to be made early on in this new Government’s term of office, how will that be delivered? One of the biggest contributory factors in undermining public health and increasing health inequalities is increasing unemployment. In my view the policies being pursued by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will increase unemployment in this country, and therefore increase health inequalities and worsen public health.
I also welcome the commitment to devolving more power to local authorities. As a former leader of Derby city council, that is something for which I have been arguing for some time, but I wonder: why now? Why are those powers being devolved at this time? Is it simply the right to make cuts that is being devolved, to deflect attention away from the coalition Government’s proposals? That is my fear.
Speaking of efficiencies, I do not understand the proposal in the Government’s programme to unpick the proposals to create more unitary authorities. Further, I do not understand the suggestion that that will save money. I do not think that that stands up to examination. I was the leader of a unitary council, and I know that the creation of such unitary local government cuts out a lot of duplication. My advice to the coalition Government would be that, rather than reining back from creating unitary local authorities, they should create more of them. In my view, that would be a way of reducing the cost of local government.
I welcome the commitment to tackling climate change, and I hope that the new Government will build on the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who did so much to move forward the agenda on addressing climate change. It is one of the biggest challenges—if not the biggest—that humankind has faced since the second world war and the rise of fascism and Nazism.
The Government’s reference to removing barriers to flexible working fills me with dread, because that could result in a race to the bottom. I remember when, prior to 1997, before Labour came back into power and introduced the national minimum wage, the wages councils were abolished and millions of people in our country, including thousands in my constituency, had to endure extremely low wages. They were forced to put up with poverty pay. I remember doing a jobcentre survey in 1996, and about 50% of the jobs on offer paid £1 an hour or less. Unemployed people who were subject to the regime that had been brought in were forced to take those low-paid jobs on pain of having their benefits reduced, even if they would be worse off in work than on benefits. My concern is that this talk about flexible working and about changes to welfare will take us back into a period in which people are forced into poverty pay and forced to be worse off in work than they were when they were out of work.
One of the achievements of the Labour Government that I am most proud of was the introduction of the national minimum wage, tax credits and Sure Start. They made it possible for work to be a genuine pathway out of poverty. My fear is that, if this Government’s proposals go ahead in the way that is being articulated, we shall go back to that dark period before 1997 when people in our country were living in abject poverty.
I should also like an assurance from the new coalition Government that there are no plans to move away from the commitment that has been put in place to ensure a legal entitlement to paid holidays. Before Labour came to power in 1997, and before we signed up to the social chapter, if people in this country—particularly low-paid workers—wanted to take time off work, they had to do so at their own cost. They received no paid holidays at all, and it would be a retrograde step if we were to consider reverting to that.
Regulation sometimes receives a bad press, and we all know of silly examples where it has perhaps been a little over-zealous. I used to work in the building industry, however, and when I was a bricklayer in the 1970s, the health and safety standards on the building sites where I worked were woeful. Indeed, there were 54 fatalities in the building industry only last year. That illustrates an absolute need to continue to be vigilant and to support health and safety legislation to protect the workers of this country who work in those hazardous occupations.
I know that there is a commitment to identify efficiency savings, and I am all in favour of that, but there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I understand that one of the areas in which the coalition Government want to make what they deem to be efficiency savings is the regional development agencies. My local RDA, the East Midlands Development Agency, has done an excellent job in supporting business in our region. It has helped to create many thousands of jobs in the east midlands. If we start to take away that support to business at a time of economic uncertainty, it will undermine those businesses and create difficulties and more unemployment. I therefore urge the coalition Government to reconsider that proposal, so as not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. They should consider the good work that the agencies have done around the country.
On the subject of efficiency savings, I would also urge the Government to consider the work that was done by the Local Government Association on the development of the notion of Total Place. That involved bringing together different public sector organisations to cut out duplication and protect front-line services. I also urge the Government not to reject the work of Ian Smith’s review, which followed on from the Lyons review, on taking civil servants out of the capital, where accommodation costs are extremely high, and putting them into the regions. I would certainly like to see some of those jobs coming to my constituency, as that would not only create new job opportunities for those directly employed in those occupations but bring the benefit of their additional spending to other businesses in the area.
I should like to say a few words about my constituency, and about Derby in general. A year or so ago, Jeremy Paxman asked why the rest of Britain could not be like Derby. I think that he was referring to the fact that Derby’s local economy has performed extremely well and, although it has suffered as a result of the economic downturn, it has not suffered as badly as other areas have done. We are the UK’s leading aerospace city, and 11.8% of our work force are employed in high-technology occupations. Derby is the last place in Britain still to make trains. It also has a vibrant creative industry sector; indeed, it was the birthplace of Lara Croft.
Derby has been transformed in the past 13 years. Not only have we seen 13 new schools, a new hospital and 19 Sure Start centres created in our city; we have also seen huge investment in new shopping facilities and hotels. We also have 701 additional nurses, 327 extra doctors and 92 midwives. All of these things have made a massive difference to the quality of life of people in our city. It is almost unique in that it is one of only five towns or cities in the UK to have a world heritage site in its city centre. Indeed, it was the birthplace of the industrial revolution, as the very first factory in this country was located in Derby.
Derby also hosted the country’s first public park, and it is a city of firsts in many other ways, too. The programme of the coalition Government leaves Derby’s future hanging in the balance, however. They would do well to recognise the importance of the city’s high-tech industries to the UK economy as a whole and to learn some of the lessons that we have learned in making Derby’s economy so successful. I am proud to represent a constituency in the great city of Derby and, whatever happens, as long as I am a Member of this House, I will stand up for Derby at every opportunity.