Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Chris Williamson and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Although it is welcome that those jobs have been created, will the Secretary of State accept that many of them are insecure and low paid? If people do not have money in their pockets because they are working on zero-hours contracts, that will have a negative impact on the long-term economic recovery of our country—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need Back Benchers to join in at this stage. We are all right; I am sure the Secretary of State can handle it himself.

Winter Floods

Debate between Chris Williamson and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that the Government will work to defend “both town and country” and that there are lessons to be learned about the “resilience of our nation”, so I assume that he regrets the swingeing cuts to flood defence work. In view of the increased extreme weather, will he accept that it is time to implement the Pitt review in relation to the statutory responsibilities of the fire and rescue services, and to reverse the cuts that he is making to firefighters? [Interruption.] There will 5,000 fewer firefighters by 2015 than there were in 2010. They do heroic work in rescuing people—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I think that the Secretary of State has certainly got the message. It is not helpful for other hon. Members to join in, because I may have to ask for the question to be repeated if I cannot hear it. I want to get you all in, but please help me to do so.

Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Williamson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I rise to support the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), on new clauses 1 and 2. To some extent, we rehearsed the arguments in Committee, when the matter was considered in some detail. The Minister and his colleagues were singularly unconvincing in their opposition to our proposals, but I hope that, having had time to reflect on those discussions and the contributions of my hon. Friends today, the Minister will accept our reasonable new clauses.

On new clause 1, considerable amounts of local and national funding are now used jointly. It therefore seems appropriate that they are subject to proper scrutiny and auditing arrangements. To argue against that is unacceptable. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that funding is subject to proper scrutiny after deployment, particularly at a time when significant austerity and swingeing funding cuts have been imposed on public services, especially local government. They must ensure that we get the maximum benefit for the public pound in communities up and down the country. I hope the Minister will concede that the arguments that have been made are persuasive, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly.

On new clause 2, it seems appropriate that proper measures are put in place to ensure that we do not end up with a cosy relationship between auditors and local authorities. There is a real danger of that, particularly as the Audit Commission is to be abolished. There could be significantly increased opportunities for corruption and the misuse of public funds. We could find situations such as the infamous “homes for votes” scandal involving Westminster council and Shirley Porter—or maybe we would not find out about them. Without new clause 2, they would be more difficult to uncover, so there might be more such examples around the country, which would be extremely regrettable.

In the case of that Conservative-controlled council in Westminster, we saw more than just the “homes for votes” scandal. We know from the records of officers who were employed there at the time that the council leader, Shirley Porter, bullied officers, and that anybody who had the temerity to question her direction of travel was slapped down in no uncertain terms. They were told, “You’re not one of us”, or “You are a negative officer and you need to decide which side you are on.” That was totally unacceptable behaviour by the leader of a council, and I fear that such behaviour is likely to increase if new clause 2 is not accepted.

As I said, it was not just the “homes for votes” scandal. Shirley Porter rose to notoriety when she sold three cemeteries in London for redevelopment for 5p each—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As interesting as this may be, we are discussing audit. I know that the subject of Dame Shirley Porter may create some interest, but we have to try to stick to the new clauses and amendments. We are drifting a little wide of them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman is desperate to get back on track.

[Chris Williamson]

Indeed I am, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful for your guidance. I was just about to conclude my remarks about Shirley Porter by saying that she privatised at will, as well.

In Committee, we heard a lot from the Minister about his commitment to transparency. His Back-Bench colleagues reinforced that point. However, the Bill will make transparency considerably more difficult, because arrangements within local authorities will be considerably more opaque. Transparency International, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) quoted, was scathing about the Bill, stating:

“The range of measures outlined in this Bill, combined with recent legislative reforms under the Localism Act 2011, remove key institutional defences against corruption, replacing them with arrangements that are likely to be inadequate to protect the public interest and the public purse.”

We hear a lot from the Government about their concerns for the public purse and the need to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for money, yet it seems that, unless they accept our new clauses, they are being cavalier with the public purse in this case.

I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said today. Unless the new auditing arrangements are subject to freedom of information provisions, their opacity will grow. I do not want to strain your patience too much, Mr Deputy Speaker, but circumstances such as the Shirley Porter case will not be uncovered. It is essential that new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Corby and for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), is accepted; otherwise private sector audit companies will not be subject to the scrutiny that was previously available under the Audit Commission arrangements. Even when there were external auditors, the information that they held was deemed to be held by the Audit Commission and was therefore subject to scrutiny by the general public. My hon. Friends and I say that it is important that proper scrutiny is still available under the new arrangements. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, local enterprise partnerships are now also spending considerable sums of money.

Badger Cull

Debate between Chris Williamson and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 5th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The Opposition have called Members to the House for this debate, and the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Front-Bench team have proposed the motion:

“That this House believes the badger cull should not go ahead.”

This is the biggest animal health crisis is Britain and it is costing £1 billion, with 28,000 cattle slaughtered last year—and the Opposition have no policy, no alternative. Do they have a feasible alternative that they would like to put forward?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have suggested short interventions, and if Members want to pass judgment on others, it would be better if they had been here at the beginning.

[Chris Williamson]

If the hon. Gentleman had been in his place and listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, he would have heard her set out the alternatives. There are alternatives, and that is the point that we are making. The Government are taking the wrong course of action. It is not just me saying that as a trustee of the League Against Cruel Sports; this is the scientific evidence. Let me quote some of the scientific evidence for the record.

Lord Krebs, who chaired a review team that originated the idea of the RBCT, said on 12 October 2012 on the “Today” programme:

“The scientific case is as clear as it can be: this cull is not the answer to TB in cattle. I have not found any scientists who are experts in population biology or the distribution of infectious disease in wildlife who think that culling is a good idea. People seem to have cherry-picked certain results to try and get the argument they want.”

Lord Robert May, a former Government chief scientist and president of the Royal Society, said:

“It’s very clear to me that the government’s policy does not make sense.”

He added:

“I have no sympathy with the decision. They are transmuting evidence-based policy into policy-based evidence.”

The recently retired Government chief scientist, Professor Sir John Beddington, has also refused to back the cull.

A letter published in The Observer on 14 October 2012 and signed by more than 30 scientists, including Professor John Bourne, former chairman of the ISG, Professor Sir Patrick Bateson, president of the Zoological Society of London, Professor Sir John Lawton, former chief executive of the Natural Environment Research Council, Dr Chris Cheeseman, formerly of the Food and Environment Research Agency, Professor Denis Mollison, former independent scientific auditor to the RBCT, and Professor Richard Kock of the Royal Veterinary College, states:

“the complexities of TB transmission mean that licensed culling risks increasing cattle TB rather than reducing it”.

The letter ends:

“culling badgers as planned is very unlikely to contribute to TB eradication.”

The Government are taking the wrong course of action. Government Members have spoken as though they were somehow the friends of the farmer, but they will make matters worse and cause incredible suffering to the badger population. They are enraging the vast majority of the British public and they are wasting police money. They have cut the police service to the bone and yet they want the police to waste resources policing the culls—estimated at about £2 million per cull. This is absolutely bonkers. It is criminal and it should stop.

I urge the Secretary of State, having heard the cogent argument put forward by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State, to pause for a moment, to think what he is doing, to consider her words, to consider the scientific evidence, to think again and to take a different course of action.

Banking (Responsibility and Reform)

Debate between Chris Williamson and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

I am not repenting, but the hon. Gentleman might like to repent for the fact that the real origins of the problems that we are facing can be traced back 30 years to Margaret Thatcher’s Government. [Interruption.] I can hear hon. Members cheering, but it was Margaret Thatcher’s Government who undermined the manufacturing industry, used financial services as an alternative engine of economic growth, ran down the mining, steel, shipbuilding and car-making industries and totally destroyed manufacturing in this—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Shorter interventions, as I have already expressed, are the order of the evening.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Chris Williamson and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot have five Members on their feet trying to intervene at once.

[Chris Williamson]

I shall give way to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray).

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you for that guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was aiming to get to the substance of the Bill, but have been deflected somewhat by interventions from Conservative Members. However, I did not say that Members from outside London should not be allowed to vote on the Bill at all; nothing could be further from my mind.

I shall move on to the specifics of the amendments on street litter notices. A perfectly reasonable proposition is being advanced. I think the hon. Member for Shipley was labouring under a misapprehension, because powers already exist for orders to apply to commercial and retail premises, with the agreement of the Secretary of State. The Bill simply seeks to extend those designations, with the permission of the Secretary of State, to public buildings such as educational establishments and hospitals.

The hon. Gentleman spent a long time talking about smoking litter. As a result of the smoking ban there are now undoubtedly considerable quantities of smoking debris, and it is right and proper that local authorities should have another tool in the locker, as it were, with which to address that very real problem. It does impact on the street scene and the visual amenity of an area. I have pointed out that local authorities are already under considerable strain, given the cuts that have been made to their funding, and if they are to fulfil their obligations to their constituents—and to people from Shipley and Christchurch and every other corner of the United Kingdom who visit London—it is incumbent on those local authorities to find ways of ensuring that the street scene is not despoiled by every sort of litter—particularly smoking litter, which creates a real problem. It would be a significant step in the right direction in improving the street scene and helping local authorities to find other ways of ensuring that they can provide the adequate services that local people in their respective boroughs elect them to provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson]

I can give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of anecdotal evidence that I have gleaned in speaking to young families, elderly people and disabled people about the retention of public toilets. Of course we would all love to have access to free facilities, but if there is a choice between losing the facility altogether and introducing a modest charge, 100% of the people I spoke to were prepared to pay the charge. As for the charge being prohibitive, we have to trust locally elected representatives to do the right thing. If local people think that their local councils have done the wrong thing, they have the perfect remedy at the ballot box, and can vote them out accordingly.

There are adequate safeguards and there is support for the measure. Yes, in an ideal world, if we could provide facilities across the piece free of charge, I would certainly sign up to that, but in the real world local authorities are under increasing pressure, even before elections, so it is not unreasonable to give them the opportunity to raise finance to maintain those facilities in good order and stop them closing down. All too many public conveniences across the country have closed because of the lack of resources available to the local authority.

Finally, clause 7 refers to “the use of objects” on the public highway. Again, the Bill makes a perfectly reasonable proposal to give local authorities the ability to levy a charge. At the end of the day, businesses using the public highway should not be able to use it to gain an income as a matter of course or right—it should be seen as a privilege. If street furniture is put out in that way, it often adds to the costs that fall on the local authority. Bearing in mind the fact that those businesses gain an additional profit as a result of being given the privilege of putting street furniture on the public highway, it is not unreasonable that local authorities should be empowered to levy a small charge to help pay for the additional costs incurred by the local authority as a direct consequence of that street furniture being put on the public highway. The alternative is to say that the council tax payer should pick up the tab, which would be completely unreasonable.

I am surprised that some Government Members—I am pleased that this does not apply to all of them—have suggested that the taxpayer should subsidise businesses in that way. That is the wrong thing to do, and a bad principle. On that basis, I support clause 7 and oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I now have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Birmingham. The Ayes were 303 and the Noes were 203, so the Question was agreed to.

I also have to announce the result of the deferred Division on the motion relating to the mayoral referendum for Bradford. The Ayes were 304 and the Noes were 202, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Firearms Control

Debate between Chris Williamson and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 20th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Williamson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Two Members cannot be on their feet at the same time. Is the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) giving way?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I call Chris Williamson.

[Chris Williamson]

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire for giving way.

I think that the hon. Gentleman’s argument reinforces my own point. Does he agree that rather than a voluntary arrangement—which I acknowledge could deter people from going to their GP for fear of losing their firearms certificate in the circumstances that he has outlined—there should be a mandatory test, perhaps annually? If he does not agree, will he explain why?