Industrial Action Update
David Winnick Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Maude
My right hon. Friend asks a very pertinent question. The answer is that we do not know. There has been no suggestion of any increase, but we note that when Mr Len McCluskey recently promised to fund the Labour party campaign from Unite’s political fund, he said that he expected a union representative to sit at the Cabinet table. I think we know what the answer to that one will be.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the Minister aware that, despite all the Tory smears and slurs today, those taking industrial action are fighting for justice and fairness, and that they have absolutely nothing to be ashamed about? As for trade union money coming to Labour, what about the vast sums that the richest people in the country have been giving to the Tories in recent weeks, and rightly so, because the Tory Government are out, as they always have been, to defend the interests of the richest people in this country?
Mr Maude
The truth is that the coalition Government inherited the biggest budget deficit in the world—bigger than in Greece, Spain, Portugal or Ireland—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher) says, cheerfully, that we should have cleared it by now. Yes, if we had inherited a country in a better state than that in which he left it, the deficit might have been cleared by now. The truth is that we now have the strongest growing economy in the developed world, and part of that is undoubtedly due to the difficult decisions made in the long-term interests of the country, with precious little support from Opposition Front Benchers.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Winnick Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman’s party did not win a majority last time; let us see whether it succeeds this time. I think that coalition Governments are likely to recur in future, just because of the volatility of British politics, and I remain enormously proud of what we have achieved in this Government.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those who do not particularly favour the coalition Government are taking industrial action on Thursday, including a large number of people on low wages who have been forced into acute hardship? Do I take it that the Deputy Prime Minister will condemn those people exercising their democratic rights, as his Tory colleagues will?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is, as ever, livid in the delivery of his question, that the reason we have to make savings is the disastrous mismanagement of the economy by the Labour party. There is nothing fair or progressive about simply shrugging your shoulders, saying that no difficult decisions need to be taken on public sector pay and handing on this generation’s debts to the next generation. Government Members remain united, if not on all issues, on clearing up the unholy mess bequeathed to us by the people on the Labour Benches.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that what happened at Amritsar 30 years ago led to a tragic loss of life. It remains a deep source of pain to Sikhs everywhere and a stain on the post-independence history of India. We cannot interfere in the Indian justice system, nor should we. The most important thing we can do in this country is celebrate the immense contribution that British Sikhs make to our country, to our armed forces, to our culture and to our business life and celebrate what they do for this country.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister is so keen on boasting, is he proud of the fact that many elderly people in need are no longer able to get essential assistance because of the policies being pursued by this Government? Why is it that a Cabinet made up of so many multi-millionaires is so indifferent to the needs of the most vulnerable in our society?
The Prime Minister
I remember sitting on that side of the House when Labour gave pensioners a 75p increase. Do not think that we have forgotten about that. Do not think that we have forgotten about the abolition of the 10p income tax, either. This Government have taken 3 million of the poorest people out of tax and pensions have gone up by £15 a week. We are putting money into the social care system, because we have protected the national health service. That record compares very favourably with that of the Opposition.
European Council
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. Here in the UK, we are not reliant to any significant degree on Russian supplies of gas, but some countries in Europe receive 60% or 70% more of their gas from them. As a European Union we need to think about how to make ourselves more resilient as a group of countries, and part of that will be by completing the European energy single market, which will make a difference to those countries. This is clearly a good moment to press that concern in Europe and get more done.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I happen to believe that there should be a legal and responsible referendum as far as Crimea is concerned—one that is under international control and not the sort of effort the Russians are organising. Whatever views we hold about Crimea, should we not totally condemn what Russia has done? Outright thuggery against part of a neighbouring and sovereign state should certainly be condemned.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and we should not only condemn the Russian action, but set out the consequences that will follow. On the referendum, a number of Members of this House have taken part in election campaigns and referendum campaigns, and it is worth thinking about how practical it is to hold a referendum between now and Sunday when there is no register, no campaign, and Ukrainian politicians cannot travel round their country. It is not only illegal but literally farcical to think of that going ahead and in any way being respected, responded to, or legitimised by the Russians or anybody else.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor-General
This was an horrendous case, and, like my right hon. Friend, I pay tribute to Tom Perry for his courage. She is absolutely right about information sharing and, as I said in response to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), it is important to have these local protocols in place so that information is shared expeditiously from the very beginning. We believe that that will happen; certainly, very good progress is being made. We will look at the results of the survey and at that point we will be able to see where we stand.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
On child abuse, is any progress being made on prosecutions for female genital mutilation? Is the Solicitor-General aware of the disappointment felt by so many people all round the country that so far it seems that this issue is not being taken seriously enough? Can we expect prosecutions in the near future?
The Solicitor-General
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, because this is a very important issue. Ministers met non-governmental organisations last week to discuss how to make progress. A number of things are happening. He will know that the Crown Prosecution Service is currently reviewing 10 cases, and it is very much hoped that it will be possible to ground a prosecution. However, the key thing is that one does need evidence, so it is very important that the information gathering for the sort of evidence that is needed for a successful prosecution is found and pursued. Every effort is being made, and I have recently visited all the units concerned.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
No, I will not do that because there is a sincerely held difference of view. I believe that if we are to complete the job of further fiscal consolidation we need to do what pretty well every mainstream economist in the world advocates, which is a mix of, yes, public spending restraint, welfare savings and fair taxes on those with the broadest shoulders. If the Conservative party chooses to do it all through further sacrifices by the working-age poor who are dependent on welfare, that is its choice. It is not a choice that my party has signed up to.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Given that this Government have been waging war on the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, how much more is the Deputy Prime Minister willing to put up with? Is it what he came into politics for?
The Deputy Prime Minister
For an hon. Member who has been here so long, the hon. Gentleman’s questions are truly infantile. The most regressive thing to do is to shrug one’s shoulders, like the Labour party does, and say, “We can’t be bothered to fill the black hole we have left in the public finances. We’ll let our children and grandchildren do it.” There is nothing more infantile than doing what the Labour party is doing—going around pointing at things that are expensive, but never actually spelling out how much its own policies would cost.
Tributes to Nelson Mandela
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
I certainly agree with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) that Nelson Mandela would have had a loathing of anti-Semitism while at the same time supporting the Palestinian cause. He would have recognised that the Palestinian cause is another injustice that must be righted at some stage—and the earlier the better.
In paying tribute to this outstanding personality today, we should remember, as he would always wish us to, all those who dedicated themselves to the liberation movement in South Africa and worked tirelessly when they were forced into exile. It should not be forgotten that when Mandela faced a possible death sentence in 1964, seven others were in the dock with him. They included Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, whose son was to be the second President of South Africa after apartheid, and Denis Goldberg. They were all sentenced to prison for life and they all knew before the sentence was passed the sharp possibility that they would be executed.
Others should not be forgotten either, such as Steve Biko, who was not of the ANC but had his own black consciousness movement. He was arrested on a number of occasions and the last time he was in police custody he was murdered. He was beaten to death in November 1977. Others were murdered outside South Africa, of course, including, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, Ruth First, the wife of Joe Slovo. As Members will know, Joe Slovo was one of the leading senior military commanders in the ANC. Like Ruth First, he dedicated his life to a free South Africa. Slovo survived all and became a Minister in Mandela’s Government.
If I may stray just a little from the consensus today—only a little—I think that we should be asking ourselves in paying tribute to Nelson Mandela how it was possible for the apartheid regime to last more than 40 years. My knowledge of South Africa at 15 was very limited. I knew about the war involving Britain that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) mentioned, obviously, and I knew that Africans in that country were not having a good time of it, to say the least. But when I read in 1948 that the National party had won the election, I knew immediately, like so many people in this country and despite my young years, that far worse was to come for the black majority.
Three years after the decisive defeat of European fascism, with Nazi Germany defeated at long last, why, when a regime came into being with a Government elected by whites that was determined to bring about the strictest form of segregation based on colour and to remove the few rights that Africans had, did western powers show such indifference? Later, it was not indifference alone. We know, as was widely reported, how every form of humiliation was put on the majority of people living in South Africa, such as the notorious pass laws, which made their lives difficult from day to day. We know the repression and the manner in which people such as Nelson Mandela and the rest were forced, against their wishes in the main, to take up armed struggle. The ANC, which was established in 1911, was anxious to avoid violence until 1960, but after Sharpeville that was not possible. Ironically, Sharpeville was not organised as a demonstration by the ANC. I remember the reaction of the Labour movement when Sharpeville occurred on 21 March 1960. It was an early Easter, and the London Labour party, for instance, cancelled its weekend meetings and joined a massive demonstration in Trafalgar square. Far from opposing the regime, there was indifference when the apartheid Government were elected. Britain, the United States and most democracies were quite willing over those 40 years, to sell all kinds of military equipment to South Africa and to train its military personnel.
We raised the issue on many occasions in the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, before Nelson Mandela and his colleagues were released, and before the ban on the ANC was lifted, and every time we did so in the House of Commons the response from the Government of the day—certainly from Conservative Governments—was “We oppose apartheid”. I do not question that—I do not believe for one moment that Mrs Thatcher was in favour of apartheid. In fact, she would have realised that that was counter-productive. The accusation is not that those politicians were in favour of apartheid—some may have been, but the majority were not—but that they refused to take any action to undermine and isolate the system and see it destroyed. That is the accusation that I think historians will make against those in power. That does not apply only to Britain—the United States carried far more responsibility for keeping the regime in office.
I hope that the lesson has been learned: when tyranny occurs, we should take a somewhat different attitude. I hope that there is no repeat of what occurred when apartheid was able to exist for such a long time. I also have to ask why so many Members of Parliament, and future Members of Parliament, were willing to go on so-called fact-finding trips, with all expenses paid by the South African Government? It was argued that they wanted to see the position for themselves, but I noticed when they came back that they did not condemn the regime, which is an indictment of parliamentarians of the past that I hope will also not be repeated.
Nelson Mandela was one of the great people of our times. He was an outstanding personality, he gave inspired leadership to his people and in his own way—27 years’ imprisonment, apart from anything else—dedicated his whole adult life to freedom in South Africa. I wish only that we could say that Britain played a decisive part in helping to remove the apartheid regime, and in paying tribute to Mandela we should recognise our own faults and limitations.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
I strongly agree that the more we can do to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds very early on in their lives, before they even go to primary school, the more dramatic the difference—all the evidence shows this—to their subsequent ability to do well at school and go to college, university or elsewhere and get a good job. That is one of the reasons why we have increased the overall funds for early intervention from £2.3 billion to £2.5 billion, and why we have provided a new entitlement—it has never existed before—of 15 hours’ pre-school support for two-year-olds from the poorest 20% of families in the country. We will double that next year. We will also, of course, provide tax-free child care to all working families as of 2015.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Does the Deputy Prime Minister consider the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself to be good examples of social mobility?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I do not think that the whole political class is a particularly good example of social mobility. We also need to make sure that doors are opened in many other sectors, whether the media or the law, in order to give opportunities to young people who otherwise would not have them. That is why I am delighted that 150 businesses from a range of sectors have signed up to a new business compact which I have thrashed out with them and which will ensure that young people will be able to have meritocratic access to internships in all those businesses that were not available to them before.
Oral Answers to Questions
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I call Mr David Winnick—[Interruption.] Order. Can we have a bit of hush and a bit of courtesy? The hon. Gentleman happened not to hear me call him, which is perfectly understandable.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Q14. One of the domestic objectives of the second world war was to bring about a fairer society in Britain. Is the Prime Minister aware how wrong it is for him and the Chancellor, who have never had any form of financial insecurity, to pursue policies that hit the most hard-pressed and most vulnerable—the millions of people in our society, many of whom are on low pay, who find it difficult to feed and clothe their children? What is happening is totally unacceptable, and I find it contemptible.
The Prime Minister
What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we have taken 2.4 million of the poorest people in our country out of income tax altogether. The figures simply do not fit with the story he is trying to tell. Inequality is at its lowest level since 1986—fact. The pupil premium is directing more money to the poorest children in our schools—fact. Applications from disadvantaged children to universities have gone up, not down—fact. There are fewer workless households—[Interruption.] I am keen to answer the question, and it is a very direct answer. Workless households down by 425,000, payday lending regulated properly for the first time and, yes, a proper consultation on zero-hours contracts—those are the actions that we are taking to build a fairer country and instead of complaining about them, the hon. Gentleman should be backing them.
EU Council
David Winnick Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
That issue was not discussed, because we were focused on trade and the single market, and additional issues of migration and the eastern partnership. Observers can play a role, however, and I am sure my friends in the Foreign Office who are sitting next to me will respond to my hon. Friend on how Britain and the EU can help with those elections.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
Given the orchestrated campaign and witch hunt against The Guardian, is this an appropriate time to congratulate it on publishing details of how the mobile phone of the German Chancellor has been monitored? Does the Prime Minister consider that that sort of information should be in the public domain?
The Prime Minister
I certainly would not congratulate The Guardian newspaper, because I can see what has been done. Information has been published about the work of our security and intelligence services that will, quite frankly, make this country less safe. We live in a free country, so newspapers are free to publish what they want. We have not been heavy-handed and come in with injunctions and all the rest, but we appeal to newspapers to use judgment, common sense and responsibility when they make such decisions.