Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

First, I salute the hon. Gentleman’s tribute to Sir Gerald Kaufman.

In response to the hon. Gentleman’s challenge about the police, I would say that the police—like all parts of the public sector—have, indeed, had to face up to the need for very difficult decisions about budget priorities. Those decisions were made necessary by the parlous state of the public finances that the Government inherited in 2010, but chief constables, and police and crime commissioners, have responded extraordinarily well. Testament to that is the fact that there has been a significant fall in crime despite the reductions in police funding described by the hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to the work that the police are doing and the leadership they have shown in setting those priorities and getting on with the job successfully.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

May I apologise to the House and to you, Mr Speaker, for not being here earlier? It was just not possible for me to be here, as I indicated yesterday.

I would also like to say a few words about Gerald Kaufman. I pay tribute to him, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have done. If there ever was a one-off, it was Gerald—in the way he approached his job and in the way he had various enthusiasms, not least films. Apparently, he saw “Singin’ in the Rain” 70 times, but he was not entirely satisfied with that, so he made an appointment with Gene Kelly in Hollywood and wrote about it—it must have been one of the high moments in his life.

I knew of Gerald before I came to the House in the mid-60s, because he was quite a well-known journalist by then and wrote a regular column in the New Statesman. When I came here, he was what we now call the “spin doctor” for Harold Wilson. If you look at all the diaries about the kitchen Cabinet—the rows that went on, the difficulties about Harold Wilson’s private secretary and the rest of it—it is all very interesting, gossipy stuff, and it is perhaps politically interesting as well, but you will not find a single mention of any of that by Gerald. He never wrote about it, although he could easily have done so—he was a professional journalist, and he might have kept a diary, for all we know. The reason he did not write about it was that he was so dedicated to Harold Wilson as his employer, and he did not gossip about what went on in private proceedings. As I say, none of the exploits of the kitchen Cabinet at 10 Downing Street, which became so well known in political circles, was written about by Gerald.

I was once in the Members’ Lobby during the days when Gerald was a spin doctor. He said to me, “Come here a moment,” so I did. He said, “Look at those two”—they were two of my Labour colleagues. They were chatting together, and it was simply innocent, as far as I was concerned. He said, “You know, those two were hardly on speaking terms until recently, and look at them now.” What he was implying was that they were plotting against Harold. If Harold had paranoia, his spin doctor contributed to that, but he did so out of a dedication to the Labour Government.

Gerald spoke in the House when Harold Wilson died. He told us about his time as a junior Minister in the Environment Department dealing with transport matters. He said, “I received a memo from the Prime Minister saying, ‘Will you make provision for former Prime Ministers to have a car and a chauffeur?’” He said, “At that moment, I knew Harold Wilson was going to retire,” and he was probably right.

If I may, I will make two other points before I sit down. As has been mentioned by others, including Manchester colleagues of his, Gerald was dedicated to his casework. You will know, Mr Speaker, and you mentioned it yesterday, how he would rise in the Chamber and ask why he had not had a reply about so-and-so and so-and-so. It was not just occasionally—he did it quite frequently. That shows his dedication. Despite the fact that he did 46 years, he was as dedicated as a constituency Member of Parliament, by all accounts, as he was in his first week or his first year here, and that says a great deal about him. It also says a great deal about Members of Parliament in general, because there are very few now who do not take great care of their constituents in replying as promptly as possible and pursuing their cases.

The last point I want to make is perhaps controversial. Gerald was born in 1930. If ever there was a person of Jewish origin who understood the horrors of what was to take place by the time he was 15, it was Gerald. He knew from the very beginning, when the stories came out and the statements were made in the House of Commons, how Jews were being slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands—in the end, 6 million—not because of their politics or anything else, but for no other reason than that they shared the same origin as Gerald, and indeed myself for that matter. From early times, he was an ardent supporter of Israel. Before he was a Member of Parliament, during the 1967 war, I remember his eagerness that Israel should survive. His great fear, shared by many others who became critics, was that if it was otherwise, the Jewish population could be forced into the sea, as in the threats that were made at the time.

But later Gerald became a harsh critic of Israel, not because he ceased to be concerned about Jews—a false accusation that was made against him from time to time—but because he believed that the Israelis were showing a total lack of consideration for Palestinians, thought that they were treating Palestinians, in many instances, with contempt, and felt a strong urge to speak out in the way he did. In doing so, he antagonised a number of people in the Jewish community, but Gerald was not the sort of person who would feel intimidated because people did not like what he said. I happen to believe that he was right. One would expect me to say that, because I too have very strong feelings about the way in which Palestinians have been treated: the contempt for human rights and the fact that, as far as I can see, the Israeli authorities—the leading people—show no desire to bring about a sovereign, independent Palestine alongside Israel.

Gerald was not the easiest of people to get on with. I had my own rows with him occasionally, and then we made up and spoke about films. He was difficult in many instances, but how many people with such courage, determination and single-mindedness do we not find difficult when we assess their lives? He did good; he wanted to do good. He was dedicated to the Labour party and the Labour movement, and to this country. We shall miss him a great deal.

[Mr Lidington]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Thursday 26th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I cannot promise that all colleagues will have followed the Government’s various statements on our approach to EU exit with the assiduousness that my right hon. Friend has undoubtedly shown. The Prime Minister has been very clear that, while we wish to provide clear statements about our objectives, it would not be in the national interest to set out our negotiating position in detail. That would be the most foolish step for any Government to take.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Arising from what has been said, should it not be made clear not only that the UK does not sanction torture, as stated yesterday, but that it will condemn its use by the United States if waterboarding is brought back? Would it not be absolutely wrong if this Government became an apologist for a totally bigoted and wrong-headed US President?

[Mr Lidington]

There is absolutely no question of this country endorsing or supporting torture. The rejection of torture is written into various international agreements to which we are party and has been integral to numerous statements on the subject by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and many other members of the Government.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I can understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I know that he is always a formidable and active champion of his constituents’ interests. The consultation run by the Department for Education is live now—it does not end until 22 March—so I urge him to ensure that he, on behalf of his constituents, and his constituents individually make strong representations to the consultation.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

I am always willing to offer birthday congratulations to young people, Mr Speaker, be it to you or your chaplain.

Why is there constant delay and evasion in the Government bringing a motion before the House on the renewal of the parliamentary building? I know about the debate in Westminster Hall next Wednesday, but why is there the delay? Is it not essential for a decision to be reached so that, if a general election is to take place in 2020, those elected will know that they will not be sitting in this building and that the work will be carried out without Members or staff being present, which, hopefully, will mean that it will be completed in a much shorter time than if evacuation does not take place?

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be in his place on his birthday, which, if memory serves, is 26 June. We look forward to that and to his undertaking his usual interrogation at that time.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I read the newspaper reports of the event in question, and I confess that I was genuinely horrified by the speech that was reported. I do not want to treat every newspaper article as gospel, but I think we should all be very concerned about what happened. Since this event appears to have been organised by a leading member of the Liberal Democrats, I hope that the leader of the party launches an immediate and thorough investigation, so that we can get to the truth and any appropriate disciplinary action can be taken.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

Does the Leader of the House recognise that the acute financial crisis in Walsall, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), cries out for ministerial action? This crisis has arisen because, for the past six years, the amount of central Government money going to the borough has been reduced by over 60%. Libraries, essential services and the New Art Gallery, which was opened by the Queen at the beginning of the century, are now all in danger of being closed or slashed to the bone. It is totally unacceptable. What are the Government going to do to save the situation, given that the crisis now occurring is entirely due to the way in which they have treated this borough during the past six years?

[Mr Lidington]

I will certainly draw the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about his borough to the attention of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, but I must put it to him that very difficult decisions about spending have to be addressed by both central and local government as a consequence of the irresponsible borrowing policies pursued by the Government whom he supported for 13 wasted years.

Business of the House

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Thursday 21st July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

The Government remain committed to new legislation that will lift the 15-year bar, which was introduced by Mr Blair’s Government. It is a complex matter because we would have to not just extend the franchise but establish a new system of voter registration, which is not straightforward given that voter registers no longer exist for periods that go back longer than 15 years. We have to find some way of allocating those individuals to constituencies and verifying a previous place of residence, but my hon. Friends at the Cabinet Office are at work on these matters already.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of what the Leader of the House said earlier, may I remind him that it was a Labour Government who introduced the national minimum wage against strenuous Tory opposition? I remember it well because I voted for the change.

In view of the further situation in Turkey—the state of emergency, the thousands more teachers, academics, judges, journalists who are now being suspended from work, as well as the travel ban and all the other measures, apart from those who have been arrested—may we have a statement today on the situation, bearing in mind that the House will not be meeting again until 5 September? Will the British Government make it clear to the Turkish authorities that what is happening is causing deep concern in this country? It does not seem to be the most effective way of dealing with those who plotted the coup last week.

[Mr Lidington]

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it was a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage, and the Conservative-led coalition and the Conservative Government who have taken very large numbers of the lowest paid people in our society out of tax altogether. It was also a Conservative Government who led us to a situation in which there are 2.5 million more people in work than there were when the Labour party left office.

On Turkey, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. None of us would have wished to see a military coup succeed in that country. Equally, the political wellbeing of Turkey will be strengthened if it sticks by the principles of a plural society, multi-party democracy and respect for human rights. Those are principles to which the Turkish Government have committed themselves, not least through Turkey’s membership of the Council of Europe and its participation in the EU accession process. That will be the approach we take in our partnership with Turkey.

EU-Turkey Agreement

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

We certainly continue to regard adherence to the principles of human rights, freedom of expression and belief and so on as things that should be at the heart of the reform work of any country seeking to join the EU. I put it to my right hon. and learned Friend, however, that the evidence from other accession negotiations is that we can secure much swifter and more significant progress towards the reforms we all want to see when we sit down and start working on the detailed benchmarks and progress measurements in those chapters of an EU accession that deal specifically with rule of law matters.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

The amount of money the EU gives to Turkey is fully justified—I hope that more will come—for the reasons the Minister has explained, but will he accept, following on from previous questions, that the President of Turkey has done his best to undermine democratic rights in that country? We have seen the outright intimidation of critics; last week, a newspaper was taken over by his henchmen and turned into a mouthpiece for the regime; and more recently, the same thing happened to a news agency. Does he realise that there can be no question of Turkey becoming in any way associated with the EU while this intimidation of critics continues and so long as the President does a good impression of trying to follow Putin?

[Mr Lidington]

As I have said before, we continue to talk frequently to Turkish officials and Ministers at all levels about the importance we ascribe to human rights, the rule of law and freedom of expression, and that will remain a core element of our dialogue with Turkey.

Falkland Islands Referendum

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Wednesday 13th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. It is indeed important that observers are present from various different countries.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

As someone who has always argued for self-determination, like many of my Labour colleagues—not incidentally, a unanimous view in years gone by—may I ask whether the Minister accepts that if one believes in self-determination one should respect the view of those people in the Falklands, which is probably unanimous, who want to retain their links with Britain? That view, which no doubt will be reflected in the referendum, should be respected not just by us but by the international community at large.

[Mr Lidington]

I am glad to say that I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman’s remarks.

Russia (Exclusion of Journalist)

Debate between David Lidington and David Winnick

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I agree completely with that last point. We will certainly continue to raise with the Russians the individual cases and general issues that the hon. Lady cited, as we did during the human rights dialogue that took place last month in London. We will also continue to give support to a number of both Russian and international non-governmental organisations that seek to monitor alleged human rights abuses and uphold basic freedoms, especially in the north Caucasus.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In November 1992, I heard the then Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, tell the assembled Commons and Lords that there would be no return to the old ways in his country. Is it not unfortunate that, increasingly, Russia is returning to autocratic ways? It would be a great blow not only to the Russian people but to the international community if the worst aspects of tsarism and communism were to return to that country.

[Mr Lidington]

When I look at Russian history what strikes me is how much the Russian people have suffered over the past century. I would dearly love to see Russia playing its full part as a member of the community of nations, including by showing respect for human rights and freedoms. The Government have always welcomed the statements, particularly from President Medvedev, arguing that Russia is moving towards greater acceptance of the rule of law and he is seeking to demonstrate greater respect for liberties in his country. It is important that the Russian authorities realise that we cannot make a judgment on the basis of words alone and that we look at their actions in judging whether those welcome expressions of intent are translated into practical action.