Palestinian Children and Israeli Military Detention

Debate between Chris Williamson and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), whom I know well and like a lot. The way in which she presented the debate this afternoon was in many ways consensual. She acknowledged there had been changes in Israel. However, I would take her to task on some of the things she did not say. The frustrating thing about debates on this subject is that they become divisive—you either believe in human rights or you don’t. On this particular issue, we have to understand not only what is happening on the ground, but the context in which Israel operates the military courts.

As the hon. Lady said, there have been some changes, such as establishing the juvenile military courts and piloting a programme of issuing summonses to minors instead of arresting them in their homes. Those are things we should encourage. I know the Minister will seek to encourage such things, but we should also understand that those are not simple things to implement in a hothouse part of the world.

Many people raise the issues that have been roundly denied and debunked, such as the issue of statements being made only in Hebrew, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell). There have been plenty of examples of the improper conduct of investigations resulting in cases being thrown out, and any claim that a confession has been gained incorrectly results in an independent review, which is exactly as the process should be.

I do not have long to speak, so I will talk about context. There are a couple of things that the hon. Lady did not talk about. My hon. Friends the Members for Henley and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) mentioned earlier how children and juveniles are being used in the conflict. If it were in any other part of the world, we would call some of those people child soldiers and we would be concerned about how they were being wound up and forced towards violent behaviour.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Percy]

No. I do not have time.

We must tackle the issue of Palestinian incitement as part of the debate, and the same goes for the lack of engagement from the west bank authorities for non-custodial sentences. We should also talk in these debates about what we can do as parliamentarians. I am proud to take a pro-Israel position. I am not anti-Palestinian—I consider myself to be pro-both—but those of us who take a more nuanced view on Israel should also talk about what we can do as parliamentarians, using our aid budget and all the rest of it, to bring people together, because that is the best way to bring an end to the conflict. I used to be a teacher and I know young people are quite positive and open-minded. Yes, there are concerns, which I hope the Minister will address, but things have happened, and we also have to remember the difficult context in which Israel is operating.

Consumer Rights Bill

Debate between Chris Williamson and Andrew Percy

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I rise to support new clause 22 which is an important first step in addressing a private rented sector into which many hundreds of thousands of people who would previously perhaps have been allocated a social housing dwelling have been forced because council houses and housing association properties are currently in short supply. Many of them have to move over and over again: often these are people on very low incomes and they are hit with punitive charges by profiteering rogue letting agents. I say that this is an important first step because it is not just about the charges associated with establishing a tenancy in the first instance.

A letting agency in Derby, Professional Properties, hits people not only with the sorts of charges we are debating, which would be covered by the new clause, but with additional spurious charges when they end their tenancy. I am dealing with one case in particular where a young woman who looked after the property in which she had been living very well was hit with an enormous charge of more than £1,000 for spurious repairs. As a result of my intervention that charge was dropped, but there has been a refusal to allow her to have her deposit back. Those are shameful tactics by letting agents who are exploiting a very vulnerable group in society, and it is incumbent on us in this place to stand up for people who are being exploited in this way.

It is important to acknowledge that the private rented sector does have a role to play, but we want a responsible private rented sector and a responsible letting agents sector. Rents in the private sector have gone through the roof, so there is ample money in this system without these additional charges being heaped on people, who, as I have said, are often on very low incomes. I strongly support new clause 22 as a very important first step to regularising the private rented sector in our country.

[Andrew Percy]

I want to speak primarily to new clause 22, but first let me briefly speak in support of new clause 14. I thought I was the only person who had problems with switching, believing it to be another in the long list of failures in my life, but since I got elected I have realised that there is a massive issue to address so I fully support that provision. I have some sympathy with new clause 13, as I would like to see better labelling, but I am not sure I can support it as drafted.

On new clause 22, I should declare that I do not have any buy-to-let properties—I struggled enough to qualify for one mortgage, so the idea of qualifying for a further mortgage is probably a bit of a joke. Going through the list of other Members who have relevant interests, I noted that an awful lot of them were on the Opposition Benches. I assume that no Labour Members who rent out a property do so through a letting agent that charges fees, because to do so would be to fall foul of a word we are not allowed to say in here.

With this new clause we have a campaign going on. We have student union politics at the moment whereby the Opposition pick an issue and throw it out there in the hope it gets some traction. They do not think it through; there is nothing more to it than that. This time the issue is letting agent fees. It is my belief that they have not spoken to the letting agents or to many of the tenants who have to pay the fees—if they had, they would not be proposing this measure in such a way. I want a sensible debate on this, but we do not get it. As I have said, what we have had is an orchestrated campaign in which Labour opponents, many of whom live in massive houses in particular constituencies, have been told by the Labour party centrally here in London to parrot a particular line. They do not care about it to the extent that they have ever stood up and talked about it before. My Labour opponent, who wrote to me about this, certainly never had a word to say about it before she was told to do so by Labour headquarters in London. That is what is going on here. We are not having a sensible debate about this measure, which hits some of the big cities such as London, or about repeat fees. Labour has taken this scattergun approach in the hope of trying to drum up support for the measure, but what will happen is that rents will go up, because these charges will not disappear; the tenant will have to pay them in some way.

In many houses in my constituency, particularly in Goole which is relatively poor, the landlords do not charge bonds. They say is that if they cannot charge a relatively small fee—the biggest company in my constituency, Goole Property Centre, does not charge repeat fees or fees to people who do not then get a property—they will charge bonds instead. The cost of getting into a property to begin with could double or quadruple in my constituency.

I can tell Members what some of the letting agencies use their fees for. A large number of those who are renting are foreign tenants, and the agencies try to provide somebody who speaks their language and who gives them additional support, often getting them signed up to gas and electricity. They also help out with some of the simple things, which lead to a huge number of letters in my postbag. I am talking about things like bin collections—how to follow the rules—and community cohesion problems, which occur when large numbers of foreign migrants live in homes in multiple occupation. Landlords use their letting fees to subsidise such activity, and that is what will disappear. This is an ill-thought out policy from the Labour party. Let us have a sensible debate about it. The hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) said that it was too early to make a decision, because we need to see what happens with the trial in Scotland. Unfortunately, Labour has decided not to wait, but wants to continue with a student union type approach to try to build something around the cost of living issue. It is a bit pathetic in my view, which is why I will not support this measure until we have a proper and sensible debate.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Williamson and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I can give an assurance that I will not be speaking for nearly two hours on this subject; I am sure the House will be relieved to know that. However, I urge hon. Members to oppose the amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Let us recap: every single London borough is in favour of the Bill—

[Andrew Percy]

Where are the MPs?

[Chris Williamson]

I shall come on to that point, but let us be clear that every London borough, of every political persuasion, favours the Bill. Surely it is not the role of this House to frustrate the will of the locally elected people who have come together and proposed what I consider to be a perfectly reasonable Bill, which I would have hoped could pass through the House without the objections and the—I believe—spurious arguments that have been put forward to suggest that it will lead somehow a diminution of British freedoms. It is complete nonsense to suggest such a thing.

[Andrew Percy]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks these provisions are so great, why does he not come to the House and propose a similar Bill to apply to Derby? Does he think they should apply to Derby, and if they should apply to Derby as well as to London, why is there not a Bill for the whole country?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Andrew Percy]

I want to probe the shadow Minister further on the issue of MPs who do not represent London not being allowed to vote on the Bill.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think I have heard enough from both sides. We ought to be discussing the amendments rather than that sort of detail, and I am sure the shadow Minister wishes to deal with them.

Gypsy and Traveller Planning

Debate between Chris Williamson and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing the debate. Debates about the Travelling community often tend to generate more heat than light, but today we have heard some useful contributions. I did not agree with everything that hon. Members said, but we heard some helpful pointers to a way forward. Anxiety about the issue clearly exists in a number of communities—that is stating the obvious—and it is incumbent on Members to represent the views and concerns of their constituents. I would like to make it clear, however, that the Opposition Communities and Local Government Front-Bench team believe that the law should apply equally to all sections of our community. There should be no special favours for any community, whether the Travelling or the settled community.

With all due respect to the hon. Member for Witham, her criticism of the previous Administration was a little unfair. They did not get everything right, and some criticisms are legitimate, but a good deal of work was undertaken under the previous Labour Government and a considerable number of additional sites were created. The introduction of temporary stop notices made a useful contribution to the whole issue of dealing with the Travelling community. The hon. Lady’s faith in the Localism Bill could be misplaced because it might not secure the outcomes to which she alluded.

[Andrew Percy]

The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a point about fairness that I missed out during my contribution but would like to put on record. He talks about fairness, but I can give one example of where the system is not working. We have had an application relating to the village green in Brigg for a considerable period of time. A Traveller family has now moved on to that site and we are unable to progress that application properly because the human rights legislation and planning circulars introduced by the previous Government have prevented us from moving that family on. Where is the balance and fairness to both parts of the community?

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point and gives an example from his constituency. The Government clearly need to look at such situations and find a way forward. Such things no doubt cause considerable anger in the hon. Gentleman’s community, so he is right to put that on record.

I will return to the point that the hon. Member for Witham made about the Localism Bill because I am not convinced that it will secure the outcomes for which she hopes. The proposition is that there will be no regional targets, and it is expected that each local authority throughout the country will determine what is appropriate for its area. Given today’s discussion, there is a recognition among most—if not all—hon. Members that one of the biggest problems relating to Travellers arises due to inadequate numbers of legitimate official sites. If we were able to provide those additional sites, the problems of unauthorised encampments would be somewhat diminished.

If we put the onus to provide Traveller sites on to individual local authorities, they may take the view that there is no need for such a site in their area. We have already had that problem, and I fear that such situations may be exacerbated by the changes brought in by the Localism Bill. Paradoxically, the Bill could lead to an increase in the unauthorised encampments about which the hon. Lady is so concerned.

Capital Gains Tax (Rates)

Debate between Chris Williamson and Andrew Percy

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) and for Carlisle (John Stevenson) on making their maiden speeches today.

A week before the general election, the Prime Minister said:

“The test of a government is how it looks after the most vulnerable, not just in good times but also in bad”.

On April fools’ day, he told BBC News that the Conservatives’ plans did not involve an increase in VAT, and when speaking on “The Andrew Marr Show”, the Prime Minister also said that

“any cabinet minister…who comes to me and says, “Here are my plans” and they involve frontline reductions, they’ll be sent straight back to their department to go away and think again.”

That prompts the question: why did he not ask the Chancellor to think again about his dreadful Budget—a Budget that will result in the quality of life of Britain’s most vulnerable people being sacrificed on the altar of Tory dogma, a Budget that will result in massive reductions in front-line services, and a Budget that will lead to a colossal increase in unemployment? It is less than seven weeks since the Prime Minister made those solemn pledges, but the Chancellor’s proposal to increase VAT is making a fool out of him.

We must not forget the Deputy Prime Minister either, who said that he wanted to “hardwire fairness” into society. However, increasing VAT does not hardwire fairness into society; on the contrary, it short-circuits fairness, because it hits the poorest families twice as hard as the richest. Britain’s richest families spend just 7% of their disposable income on VAT, while the poorest spend almost 14%. How fair is that? The truth is that it is not fair at all. Cutting tax credits, freezing child benefit, slashing housing allowances, cancelling the help in pregnancy grant and chopping free school meals are not fair either.

No doubt the Liberal Democrat members of the coalition Government will point to the increase in tax thresholds that they wrung out of the Chancellor as evidence of their influence. However, the sad fact is that the meagre increase that they secured will make little difference to low-paid workers and will be more than offset by the regressive measures that the Chancellor announced yesterday. Worse still, many of the workers who might benefit from the modest uplift in tax allowances will end up losing their jobs if the Liberal Democrats vote through the Budget.

Of course, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor insist on repeating their quasi-egalitarian mantra, “We’re all in this together.” Needless to say, it is nonsense, and it has overtones of the infamous scene in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” when the animals realise that the pigs have changed the seven commandments to read:

“All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”—

or, to put it another way, “We’re all in this together, but if you’re poor, you’re in it a lot deeper than others,” such as the numerous millionaires who sit on the Government Benches.

Increased unemployment will force more people on to state benefits, which will put pressure on the size of the national deficit, which the Chancellor claims to be so concerned about. However, unless he has a damascene conversion, I suspect that he will respond to the failure of his economic prospectus by making even deeper cuts in welfare provision, as happened in the 1930s and 1980s. No doubt he will try to justify his failure by repeating his Orwellian mantra, but the reality is that it will not be his former Bullingdon club colleagues paying the price of that failure. No, it will be Britain’s poorest people, who will be in it up to their necks.

Of course, the Tories have form on that. I saw what they did in the 1980s to proud working-class communities in constituencies such as mine all over the country. They caused mass unemployment, slashed welfare provision, decimated front-line public services and did not stop cutting until they were thrown out of office in 1997. They even used another Orwellian ploy: to blame the unemployed for being out of work, labelling them as “scroungers”. Indeed, I see that the Prime Minister was at it again over the weekend when he talked about “welfare scroungers”. The Chancellor joined in the Orwellian chorus with his “Ministry of Truth” description of his Budget as a “progressive Budget”.

[Andrew Percy]

I have a quick question for the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell us whether unemployment in his constituency was higher or lower at the end of 13 years of a Labour Government?

[Chris Williamson]

Unemployment certainly fell in my constituency in the 13 years of the previous Labour Government. I will tell the hon. Gentleman this as well: thanks to the measures that they put in place, poverty was reduced in my constituency, people enjoyed the national minimum wage and were able to get health treatment far more quickly than previously, and children were not taught in overcrowded schools, so let us have no more lectures from him.

Let us never forget that everything that I have described has only been made possible by the vacillating Liberal Democrats, who say one thing then do another. Less than seven weeks ago, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his party represented a new kind of politics, with fresh ideas. What we got was a party supporting reactionary right-wing policies instead. Fewer than seven weeks ago, he was apparently opposed to the self-same right-wing policies that he now endorses. This is what he told his party conference on 23 September last year:

“We know what happens when you simply squeeze budgets, across the board, until the pips squeak. We know, because we lived through it before, under the Conservatives. We remember the tumble-down classrooms, the pensioners dying on hospital trolleys, the council houses falling into total disrepair. We remember, and we say: never again.”

In an interview with Jeremy Paxman on 12 April this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“Do I think that these big cuts are merited or justified, at a time when the economy is struggling to get to its feet? Clearly not.”

That is what he said at that time.

Millions of people who rejected the Conservatives’ right-wing policy prospectus were seduced into voting for the Liberal Democrats by the Deputy Prime Minister’s rhetoric. People actually believed that the Liberal Democrats represented progressive values. How wrong they were. People now see that the reality is very different from the Deputy Prime Minister’s rhetoric. People see that he is now so determined to appease his Conservative masters that he is even prepared to sacrifice his own constituents by opposing a Government loan to Sheffield Forgemasters.

That is nothing new. The Liberal Democrats and their predecessors in the Liberal party have assisted the Conservatives into power in four out of the last seven general elections. It is thanks to the Liberal party splitting the centre-left vote in 1983 and 1987 that Margaret Thatcher was able to secure two landslide election victories. Then the Liberal Democrats did the same thing in 1992, forcing the country to endure another five years of Tory rule. The truth is that they are not a progressive party at all; they are merely a collection of self-indulgent political loners.

All the post-war progressive legislation has been introduced by Labour Governments often in the teeth of fierce opposition from the Tories and sometimes the Liberals, too. Examples include the NHS, the welfare state, comprehensive education, equal pay, civil partnerships, the national minimum wage, Sure Start, the ban on fox hunting, and the Open university, to name but a few.

Tackling Poverty in the UK

Debate between Chris Williamson and Andrew Percy

Thursday 10th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on your elevation to your new role. I am sure that you are probably getting tired of hearing such congratulations, but I wanted to add mine.

I also congratulate hon. Members on their maiden speeches. Having made mine a couple of weeks ago, I know what a daunting prospect it is. I particularly welcome the contribution by the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham). We were colleagues on Derby city council before we were elected to the House at the general election, so it is especially fitting to address the House directly after her.

Poverty is an incredibly important issue, and a recognition of its importance is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In many ways it defines the sort of society in which we live. I welcome the coalition Government’s commitment to the previous Labour Government’s commitment to eradicate child poverty by 2020. The big question is, of course, how we will get there under the new regime.

I and other Labour Members strongly believe that work is indeed one of the best pathways out of poverty, but to ensure that it is a genuine pathway out of poverty, it is vital not only that we continue to support measures such as the national minimum wage and move towards a living wage, but that we recognise that we must also support initiatives such as child tax credits. Child trust funds have also made a big contribution by encouraging people to save. I very much regret that the Government have decided to do away with those funds. Particularly for families from low-income backgrounds, not to have that start in life or that incentive to continue to save and to build up a nest egg for when they reach the age of 18 is a very big mistake.

On work as a pathway out of poverty and the importance of the measures that I have identified, we must acknowledge—I used to work in welfare rights, so I have some knowledge of this—that the work disincentives that used to exist have now been addressed in large measure. Although I accept that more probably needs to be done, work has become a genuine pathway out of poverty. I stress that I am very concerned about the Conservative party’s proposals. The precise detail of some of them remains to be seen, but I would be concerned about any attempt to reduce support for things such as tax credits, which are so vital to the process of helping people into the labour market.

Of course, ensuring that employment pays is one of the most important methods of addressing poverty, but we should also acknowledge the measures that are vital in relation to tackling pensioner poverty and the fact that many disabled people also experience poverty. Again, that is why I would be concerned if measures were proposed to undermine some of the support mechanisms that we put in place. For example, concessionary travel has liberated whole swathes of older people in our country who were previously imprisoned essentially in their own homes, unable to travel beyond their immediate neighbourhoods. The pension credit system has also made a big contribution to tackling poverty, as have the cold weather payments. I remember that many elderly people simply could not afford to heat their homes in the 1980s, but those sorts of things are no longer among the concerns of many elderly people in our country because of the measures put in place by the previous Labour Government.

In the end, growth is the key to tackling poverty, so the big question is how we deliver growth in our economy so that we make the welfare payments that are so important to addressing poverty a reality. Labour Members believe that it is vital that the state and public spending play a role in ensuring that the economy continues to grow. Conservative Members say that they are sick of hearing history lessons from us, but if we do not learn the lessons from history, we will make the same mistakes. It is therefore essential that we acknowledge the role of the state in ensuring that the economy continues to grow.

For example, Bombardier, a company in my constituency, is bidding for the Thameslink contract. We hope that the announcement will come shortly and that it is in favour of Bombardier, because that will secure 2,600 jobs directly in the company, as well as a further 5,000, 6,000 or even 7,000 jobs in the supply chain. If we cut public spending and such programmes, however, that would throw 7,000, 8,000 or perhaps 9,000 people out of work, which would put more pressure on the state, because of increased unemployment benefit, and lead to the downward spiral of having to make cuts to people’s welfare provision to accommodate the diminishing tax revenue resulting from a declining economy. I therefore urge Conservative Members to learn the lessons of history because they are otherwise destined to repeat the same mistakes, and it will not be they or many Labour Members who will pay the price of those mistakes, but ordinary working-class people in my constituency and throughout the country. They will pay the price for a failed economic prospectus that was tried in the 1980s and the 1930s but proven not to work. For goodness’ sake, people need to look at their history books and learn these vital lessons.

[Andrew Percy]

We are hearing a lot about history from the hon. Gentleman, but the Labour party does not seem to have learned one lesson from history: whenever it has left government, the country has been more bankrupt, more in debt and with unemployment higher than when it came in. Interesting as it is to hear history lessons from the hon. Gentleman, he should perhaps look to his colleagues before he starts lecturing Conservative Members.

[Chris Williamson]

The hon. Gentleman ignores the fact that we have just experienced the most significant worldwide recession for 80 years. Worldwide opinion acknowledges that the previous Government’s leadership, particularly under the auspices of the former Prime Minister, is getting the world’s economy back on its feet. It is somewhat unfair for the hon. Gentleman to talk in such terms about the economic situation that the coalition Government have inherited.

As independent commentators have said on a number of occasions, without the measures put in place by the previous Government, at least 500,000 more people in this country would be out of work. The largest proportion of this country’s deficit is a direct consequence of unemployment. If the Government parties’ policies are put in place, however, I fear that unemployment will continue to grow, which will put further pressure on the public finances and mean that we will not get the growth that we desperately require.

I know that the Government parties are set on a course, but we will scrutinise very closely and expose all their shortcomings to ensure that, at the next general election, they are held to account for the actions they take.