Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Michael Connarty

Thursday 1st May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am not aware of the plans to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I cannot promise a debate, but I will check to see whether there is any way in which we can provide him with the reassurance he seeks.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House ask the Home Secretary to report to the House when she will be taking the next step in delivering a modern slavery Bill? She asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) to set up a cross-party Joint Committee and it has just reported after 10 weeks of work. We need to build a consensus for a modern slavery Bill, which we promised on the 200th anniversary of Wilberforce’s Bill.

[Mr Lansley]

We are very grateful to the Joint Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I am not in a position at this stage to anticipate the contents of the Queen’s Speech.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Michael Connarty

Thursday 20th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I applaud my hon. Friend and Crawley borough council for the way they are commemorating the first world war. I can remember talking with my grandfather about the great war, so in a way I can conjure up a sense of what it must have been like. Younger generations should also have an opportunity to understand the nature of what happened, the character of those who went from this country to fight and what they achieved. I think that is well worth commemorating. The House had an important and constructive debate on the first world war at the end of last year, and I hope that we will have another opportunity between now and August to debate how to commemorate it.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On that issue, the European Scrutiny Committee has asked for a debate that would have freed up the Europe for Citizens programme, which is now frozen for the whole of Europe because we are the last country that has not had that debate and lifted the scrutiny. The House has passed a Bill to allow the programme to go ahead, and it has been granted Royal Assent, but it appears that since November neither the Leader of the House nor the Department has been able to find time for a debate to allow the programme to go ahead across Europe.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that, contrary to some impressions, we have had difficulty scheduling a number of debates on the Floor of the House. I hope that the issue he raises can be considered in one of the European Committees very shortly.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Michael Connarty

Thursday 11th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend knows that the Government are deeply disappointed by this week’s judgment. We believe that whole-life tariffs are appropriate for exceptionally serious murders. The judgment does not mean, of course, that any offender who has received a whole-life tariff will be released immediately or that they will ever necessarily be released. The Court found a breach because there was no review point in the sentence. The Government will consider the detail of the judgment to determine what action might be necessary or possible, and we will make a further statement in response to the concerns expressed by him and others soon.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I have in my hand a letter from the Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary in which they commit themselves

“to ensuring enhanced Parliamentary scrutiny of EU justice and home affairs matters, including the 2014 decision.”

It came with a list of 136 opt-ins for justice and home affairs matters in the EU. Why, therefore, are the Government pressing ahead with a motion on Monday that lists for consultation only the 35 issues in the Command Paper? What happened to the promise that consultation would take place on all these items? Is it not time to abandon this divisive motion?

[Mr Lansley]

Perhaps I should reiterate what I said to the shadow Leader of the House. It is very straightforward: the Home Secretary has published in the Command Paper the Government’s conclusions on the opt-out—last October, she made it clear that the Government’s policy was to opt out and then decide whether, and to what extent, to opt back in—and policy conclusions. Monday’s debate will enable the House to respond to that and to vote in support of the opt-out, but to note that we are entering negotiations that will lead to a vote in 2014 on the extent of the opt-in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that, the week before last, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published a consultation relating to access to NHS services for those coming from abroad. That consultation will enable us to introduce the legislation described in the Queen’s Speech later this year. On my hon. Friend’s point about his constituent, any NHS services provided to older and retired people from other European Union member states can be charged back to the member state, and that is what we do.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Michael Connarty

Thursday 16th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a point on behalf of his constituents. There are many issues in respect of which we want to make sure that we have the right procedures in place to deal with misconduct. In this particular instance, I will, if I may, take advice from my hon. Friends and provide a response. There are a number of routes by which directors responsible for misconduct can be tackled through the companies legislation or, indeed, insolvency practitioners through their professional bodies. I will look at the issue in greater detail and ensure that we respond to my hon. Friend.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I would like to draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the issue of modern-day slavery, which is mentioned in early-day motions 40 and 54.

[That this House sends its condolences to the families of the more than 600 people killed and to the many more injured in the collapse of the garment factory near Dhaka, Bangladesh; notes that this factory supplies clothes to some of the big name companies on Britain’s high streets; further notes that the factory managers and owners are alleged to have ignored signs of cracking in the building reported days before the collapse in a building that had had five more storeys added than it should have; further notes that factories in developing countries like Bangladesh are under enormous pressure to minimise costs from the western multinational companies buying from them; believes that western multinationals buying from developing countries have a responsibility to ensure that the factories producing these goods provide a safe environment for their workers to work in and for workers’ rights to be fully recognised and respected; further believes that the western multinationals that bought clothes from this factory should provide compensation to the bereaved families and the injured survivors; calls on the Government to work with the Bangladeshi government to secure safe working conditions for Bangladeshi workers supplying British markets; and further calls on the Government to enact laws that will provide for sanctions if western multinationals selling goods in this country fail to fulfil their responsibilities to ensure safe and decent working conditions for those working in their supply chain.]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is as shocked as I am to see the death toll in the New Wave Style factory near Dhaka, which now stands at more than 1,200. This means that the garments sold by Monsoon, Gap, Bonmarché, Primark, Walmart, Matalan and Kik are contaminated by modern-day slavery. May I ask that the promised regulation on narrative reporting of quoted companies be brought by the Business Secretary to the Floor of the House for debate, so that we can extend it to ensure that the “human rights reporting” that is talked about will include the eradication of modern-day slavery from company supply chains?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I am aware of that issue. As mentioned at business questions previously, I thought it very important to have the exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall, which drew the attention of Members to the issue in this country. We also need to be aware, however, of the extent of the impact of corruption on other countries. The Minister of State, Department for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr Duncan) takes the issue very seriously. I will raise the matter of company reporting with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, as the hon. Gentleman requested, and try to secure a reply for him.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Michael Connarty

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting and important point. I will, if I may, make clear to the Home Secretary his interest in this matter. Of course, were he to be here for Home Office questions on Monday he might find that he attracts Mr Speaker’s eye.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Early-day motion 1177 refers to concerns about the contracts of parliamentary House staff.

[That this House draws attention to the discrepancies in proposed salary increases amongst staff working on the Parliamentary estate, ranging from one per cent for lower paid staff to an average of five per cent for senior level staff; expresses concern at these double standards; notes that lower paid staff appear to be paying the price for austerity measures, while senior level staff are not facing the same cutbacks; and calls for the House authorities to examine these pay rises in detail and ensure all levels are forced to bear the same levels of cuts.]

Having discussed this matter with some of the people involved, it seems that our hard-working Hansard staff and our messengers appear to be threatened with a substantial loss in their earnings. Is it not time that we had a debate in here about the principles of how we employ our staff, who have certainly served us well in the 21 years that I have been here, and seem to be under the threat of a cut to their earnings?

[Mr Lansley]

I have read the early-day motion. As the hon. Gentleman will understand, these are matters for the House of Commons Commission. In that respect, there are opportunities to ask questions of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who answers on behalf of the Commission. In this particular instance, I would say two things. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I know that it has always sought to pursue the principle that the House should be an exceptionally good employer, and we set out to do that. That does not mean, however, that arrangements for pay should not reflect the issues that govern public service generally, and, indeed, it should not inhibit us from being prepared to modernise pay systems in this House.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Michael Connarty

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes important points relating to his constituency and local authority. If he catches your eye, Mr Speaker, in the debate on the local authority finance report, he will have the opportunity to raise the issue of securing value for money in his constituency and others.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

Is the Leader of the House aware—he will not be, but I will ask him anyway—that at 9.30 this morning, the Post Office announced that it will be seeking franchisees for 50 Crown offices across all the constituencies in the UK? I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills about that as he was leaving the House this morning, and it appears the Post Office did not tell him about the announcement. Can we have a statement from the Secretary of State on what the Post Office is up to, where the Crown offices in question are, what will happen if a franchisee cannot be found, and the impact this will have on the Government’s promise to seek a mutual arrangement for the future of the Post Office?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman correctly understands that he could have raised these matters during BIS questions—

[Michael Connarty]

I was not called.

Business of the House

Debate between Lord Lansley and Michael Connarty

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. In that context, EDF’s announcement earlier this week about life extensions for Hinkley Point B and Hunterston B will be helpful. The point he makes is important, and the Energy Bill, which has now been introduced to the House, gives that sense of progress and security. I remember several years ago the then Trade and Industry Select Committee constantly being told by the last Government that they were keeping the door open to nuclear power, but it was not true: simply because they were not doing anything about it, the door was closing. We are now recognising that nuclear power, as a base load capacity, is an essential part of our energy security.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

On 4 December 1971, McGurk’s bar was blown up by an Ulster Volunteer Force bomb, killing my uncle, Philip Garry, plus 14 other people, including two children. On the 41st anniversary, a book was published by Ciarán MacAirt, whose grandmother, Kathleen Irvine, was also killed by the bomb. After all the years of investigation, there are still closed files and letters not available, and there was collusion. Clearly, the British Government, possibly up to the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, colluded and not only co-operated, but instructed that the false story be spread that this was a bomb carried by the people into that bar and that it was an IRA bomb in transit. Is it not now time for a proper investigation by the British Government into the facts of the case, with all the files being open and the Prime Minister coming here to apologise to the families and community for how they were maligned and, for six years, blamed for a bomb that was clearly a vicious act against them?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that the House will appreciate the strength of feeling that the hon. Gentleman has on this matter. He will forgive me, but I am not privy to any of the details, although I will, of course, ask my right hon. Friends to look into the matter and respond to him.