Paid Directorships and Consultancies (MPs)

David Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

This is turning into a navel-gazing debate, but it should not be, because it is not about us but about what the people who elect us think about us. It is about real engagement and representation in the world, so I want to provide some examples of what is happening in the real world of work.

A young lady in my part of the world told me today that she has got two jobs—or she has almost got two jobs. After 30 years as a machinist, she was made redundant, so every day she sits at home at 7.20 in the morning waiting to see whether she will get a phone call inviting her to get in her car and go to work at 8 o’clock. If she does not get that phone call, she rings the local newsagents to ask whether they have any work for her in the shop. She does not get any pay for either of those things. That is how she is living.

Her partner is on a zero-hours contract at a big factory in a town called Peterlee. He was told three weeks ago, “We want you to come to work on Sunday morning at 7 o’clock.” He and 11 colleagues went to work that Sunday morning, but when they got there, they were told, “Sorry. We don’t need you. You can go home.” No money.

I welcome the fact that unemployment rates have gone down today, but in my part of the world they have gone up again. We in the north-east now have people who have been in long-term unemployment longer than for any time since 1996. An average of £1,350 a year has been lost in the north-east since 2010. In fact, living standards are back to where they were in 2000.

Back in the unreal world, we have George Entwistle getting £450,000 for 54 days work—something like £8,500 a day. About 2,500 bankers, we were told this week, are paid more than £1 million a year; and all the millionaires in this country have had a £100,000 tax handout from the rest of us. That is estimated to apply to at least 8,000 people. Here is a number for this place: if that tax had not been handed out, 70,000 people could have been employed on the national minimum wage.

And then there is us, stuck in the middle. We get £67,000 a year—three times the average salary, which is much more than the average salary in my part of the world. More than a quarter of Conservative MPs do not think £67,000 is enough, so have outside earnings; only 6% of Labour MPs do not think it is enough and have outside earnings. No doubt it is the same for some Members across the parties. There are multi-millions of pounds between the lot of us, because we are unhappy with £67,000 a year.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman, but does he share my concern that the motion does not cover a Scottish MP, for instance, who has spoken in three debates, voted in only 30% of votes, yet earns £100,000 or £200,000 from outside interests? Why is that not covered?

[Mr Anderson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; I do not think the motion is wide enough. The motion says, “You’re a full-time MP and you’re nothing else.” Whether or not someone votes 30% of the time or 100% of the time, they should not be paid any more than the basic salary of an MP. That is what the people of this country want us to be: full-time Members of Parliament. They are sitting out there asking, “Why on earth do these people need to do more than they are doing already? Why should they be so different from us?” For at least the past five years, they have been asking, “Are these people on the same planet as us? Do they go to the same shops? Do they live in the same world?” They think that the answer to those questions is no, and unless we can convince them that we understand how they feel, they will not be interested in democracy. That is a long-term worry for the House. If we continue to be so unlike those people, they will become less and less likely to get off their backsides and vote for any of us, let alone those we are discussing today.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

The miners at Daw Mill lost their jobs recently. I wonder what they think about Members of Parliament having two jobs.

[Mr Anderson]

On Saturday I spoke to miners from Maltby colliery, which has closed in the last three months because of geological problems, and they were disgusted by the fact that Members of Parliament were making multi-millions of pounds. We are told that a Member once earned three quarters of a million pounds, and those miners are 35-year-old guys who face having no more work for the rest of their lives. They have dedicated themselves to an industry and worked hard for that industry, and now they find themselves ruined. What is happening to them is absolutely disastrous.

How can our constituents be confident that we are committed to them—to their issues, their problems and their concerns—when we are focusing on outside work? Is being an MP not an honour and privilege, and is an MP not worthy of respect? If not, why not? Should that not be the case? How can we expect people to believe that we care for them, that we understand them, that we feel for them, if at the same time we are checking our diaries to see whether we are late for our next board meeting or court appearance?

[Robert Flello]

My hon. Friend is making an extremely good speech. Another issue is conflict. How would it be if we said to the police, for example, “You can take any other job you want?”

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We tell members of the police force and people in local government, “You cannot do certain things in life because of the nature of your job.” But we say that we in the House of Commons should have carte blanche. Should I be able to go back down the pit on Saturday mornings—not that I can do that, because the pits have been shut—or do a job as a car worker? My constituents expect me to represent their interests. This job means total commitment in return for the utmost respect.

During the last few weeks, in the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and during our consideration of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, we have committed ourselves to doing away with double-jobbing. Members of Parliament used to go to Holyrood, Stormont and Brussels as well as coming to the House of Commons. It is right that we put a stop to that, and we should stop all the other kinds of double- jobbing as well, because the people of this country will not understand it if we are anything other than full-time MPs, dedicated to working in the House of Commons and in our constituencies on their behalf.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that eloquently put intervention.

Every time this House has a knee-jerk reaction to a few headlines we always get it wrong. We are better when we allow the public to make the judgments in this respect. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that those judgments should come through the ballot box, not through focus groups and rules.

[Mr Anderson]

The hon. Gentleman said that Members are paid by trade unions. Will he withdraw that or put the list of those Members in the Library, because Members are not paid by trade unions?

[David Morris]

That is a matter for another debate.

Business of the House

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) and I wish him a happy birthday too.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

This morning we have seen yet again the contempt that the Secretary of State for Health has for professional people working in the health service, as shown by his comments that opposition to NHS reforms is just about spite regarding the pension agenda. May we have a debate in the House about who really supports NHS reform and who does not? May we also, in that debate, discuss why the Secretary of State has so much contempt for nurses and midwives and other professionals in this country?

[Sir George Young]

That is a travesty of the views of my right hon. Friend, who has on many occasions paid tribute to the work that nurses and doctors do within the NHS.

On the issue of pensions, our view is that a generous offer has been made to doctors and consultants. The average consultant retiring at the age of 60 will get a pension of £48,000 and a lump sum of £143,000, worth about £1.7 million in a pot. We think that is unsustainable, and we want a system that links pensions to lifetime earnings rather than final salary—a reform that I hope the hon. Gentleman would welcome.

On the issue of NHS reform, the hon. Gentleman knows that there will be an opportunity for a further debate when the other place has finished its consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill. We believe that that reform is essential and that it is in doctors’ and nurses’ interests, because they are put at the centre of clinical commissioning.

Cabinet Secretary Report (Government Response)

David Anderson Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement, but what a condemnation it was of the way in which government is being run in this country. It is a matter of deep regret that the Prime Minister has chosen not to deal with this statement himself. It is the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the House who is the guardian of the ministerial code, and who has the final say on who is fit to be in his Government. Today, he has ducked those responsibilities.

When news of the potential wrongdoing at the Ministry of Defence first surfaced, the former Secretary of State for Defence announced an inquiry into himself, but only after he had called the allegations “baseless”. As the revelations mounted daily, the Prime Minister belatedly announced this limited inquiry by the Cabinet Secretary. By then, it was apparent to everyone that the ministerial code had been breached. The Secretary of State admitted as much. Why then did the Prime Minister not refer this case to the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Philip Mawer?

What we have today is a far cry from such a full, independent, external inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary has been forced to rely on the word of Adam Werritty and the former Defence Secretary, whose explanations have repeatedly unravelled at the first hint of scrutiny. This report merely scratches the surface of potential misconduct in government. Consequently, it raises more questions than it answers.

Even in its narrow and limited form, the Cabinet Secretary’s report is damning. It finds the former Defence Secretary’s conduct

“not appropriate and not acceptable”.

It reveals, in stark detail, multiple breaches of the ministerial code. The former Defence Secretary has knowingly circumvented the long-established rules that are in place to prevent conflicts of interest from arising. The report shows that wealthy individuals funded Adam Werritty. He was, in effect, a privately funded special adviser. The former Secretary of State’s shadow political operation routinely undermined our civil service structures and their accountability. The report fails to expose the full facts about the money trail. There is no investigation into the benefits that Adam Werritty received. There is no full disclosure of his funders and the purpose behind the donations. Given the Prime Minister’s failure to answer this question earlier today, can the Leader of the House give the House a categorical assurance that no similar practices are taking place anywhere else in this Government?

I turn now to the details of the report. We need answers on the following issues. The role of the Sri Lanka Development Trust is not considered in the report. Mr Werritty’s presence in Iran, Washington and Israel remains unexplained. We do not know whether Mr Werritty profited from his association with the former Defence Secretary, although we do know about the five-star nature of his taste in flights and hotels. We do not know what those secretive donors, who were in effect Mr Werritty’s paymasters, were promised for their money, nor indeed if they got it. We do not know whether the former Defence Secretary commissioned any work from the MOD as a result of the offline and irregular meetings brokered by Mr Werritty. We do not know which other Ministers and senior staff have met Mr Werritty, because the Prime Minister has refused to publish a full list. That is totally unacceptable. A full list must be published. In order to deal with all those issues, will the Leader of the House agree that further investigation is both essential and urgent?

Will the Leader of the House also tell the House whether he has initiated an inquiry into the use by the former Defence Secretary of his parliamentary office to run Atlantic Bridge as a charity, and whether he is satisfied that that was proper under parliamentary rules? Some of the key funders of Atlantic Bridge were the key funders of Adam Werritty. They are also the key funders of the Conservative party. The links are complex, but they are deep and well-established.

We learned yesterday of the meeting between Adam Werritty and two members of the existing Defence team. They must give the House a full explanation of the details of those meetings and their connections to Adam Werritty.

We also learned in the report that the risks of the former Defence Secretary’s association with Mr Werritty were raised with him by his private office, the permanent secretary, a former permanent secretary and a former Chief of the Defence Staff. He chose to ignore those warnings. Why was he allowed to make that choice? What did the permanent secretary at the MOD then do? Were any of those concerns raised with the Cabinet Secretary and, if so, did the Cabinet Secretary raise them with the Prime Minister? Why was this situation allowed to continue for so long? Why was the former Defence Secretary allowed to treat the ministerial code as if it was an optional extra?

The report recommends that senior civil servants have greater oversight of ministerial behaviour. Yet the fact remains that it is Ministers who are responsible for their own conduct and the Prime Minister who is the guardian of the ministerial code. He is expected to enforce it, not allow it to be broken multiple times.

Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised to end the

“cosy relationship between politics, government, business and money”.

That promise has now been broken. This scandal has only damaged public confidence in the Government further. Meetings without civil servants; money off the books; luxury social visits in between visits to our brave servicemen and women; and today, the Prime Minister’s contempt on the matter was revealed. Simply saying that the Defence Secretary has resigned is not good enough. The Government need to take responsibility for this self-inflicted crisis. The House needs answers to the unanswered questions, or people will only conclude that this Government have something to hide.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We do not take points of order in the middle of statements, or at any time in statements, only afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have commissioned a report, we have found out what went wrong, we have made recommendations to put it right and we have learned the lessons. I agree that we should now move on.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Both in questions to the Prime Minister and during this statement today, the question of whether other Ministers have behaved in a similar manner has been raised. The Leader of the House has made it clear that anyone who wants to make allegations should do so. I do not think that people are making allegations—they are raising the general worry that the rest of the population of this country feels. If someone as experienced as the former Secretary of State allowed this to go on, thinking that it was reasonable, surely it is possible that other Ministers, equally unwittingly, might be doing the same thing. Would it not benefit us all if the Cabinet Secretary were to look into all these things to ensure that there is not any other concern?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but in the last Parliament a number of Ministers from his party had to resign. We never made any suggestion that because one Minister had broken the code, all Ministers had broken the code, and it is important that similar accusations should not be made in this Parliament.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

David Anderson Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

My hon. Friend’s amendment would delete the following words:

“and accordingly invites IPSA to increase contribution rates for hon. Members from 1 April 2012 in line with changes in pension contribution rates for other public service schemes.”

It is perfectly legitimate to say that one can deduce that he does not want Members’ pension schemes to reflect other public service schemes.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

Let me make a bit more progress and then I will give way.

The motion also states that

“IPSA should introduce…a new pension scheme for hon. Members which is informed by the Commission’s findings”

by 2015. That is a similar timetable to that for the rest of the public service. However, as with other public service pension reform, changes should neither be retrospectively made nor have an impact on past benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I think I had better give way first to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson).

[Mr Anderson]

I was pleased to sign amendment (a), but I want to make it clear that my case is very different from what the Leader of the House described. I believe that we are in exactly the same boat as every other public sector worker in the country and that we should be treated the same. We should be allowed, with our trustees, to negotiate with IPSA as local government pension schemes are being negotiated with their trustees and their employers. It should not be the Government who set the standard for the pensions—it should be the pension schemes.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman will know that paragraph 15 of schedule 6 to the CRAG Act states:

“Before making a scheme under paragraph 12 the IPSA must consult…the trustees of the Fund,”

so there is that opportunity for dialogue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

I do not think that I was making that argument, and I hope that the negotiations will be meaningful and successful.

[Mr Anderson]

It is quite clear from my discussions with people in the negotiations that the Government are not negotiating seriously: they have made the point that they want a 3% reduction no matter what. All they are talking about is how they should do it, not whether they should do it, and no evidence has come forward—there are no actuarial reports and there is no cognisance—of the impact that the number of people dropping out, which could be in the hundreds of thousands, will have not just on those schemes, but on the investment potential of those schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Donohoe]

I have to disagree with the hon. Lady, and I will tell her why. If we put things out to independent arbiters such as the Senior Salaries Review Body, and they make recommendations after consultation with all sorts of bodies, I would argue that the Government should not intervene. In that case in particular, we should not have overturned that decision. This is where we have gone wrong so many times in the past. In the great number of years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have seen this happen time and again, and my research leads me to believe that every Prime Minister since 1945 with the exception of John Major has interfered in the conditions of service of Members of Parliament to the detriment of those conditions.

I feel strongly about this—so strongly that, as the arch-enemy of IPSA, I argue on the basis of what I have seen that it is far better for it to have that independence, which is clearly documented in legislation, than to have this constant interference in the conditions of service of Members of Parliament. There has not been a great understanding by the Government of some of the elements of the arguments with IPSA.

Given that pay and pensions are linked, it is only sensible for IPSA to take stock not only of all elements of conditions of service, but of the whole question of pensions, which I have always believed to be deferred income for any individual in employment who has a pension fund.

Other considerations relating to IPSA in consultation with trustees include the fact that it has to wait for a valuation. Here, as I say, the Government have not fully understood the position on Members’ pensions or the calculations of where they should go in respect of any increase in contributions, any increase in the age of retirement or any other element affecting those pensions. Clearly, the results of the 2011 valuation of the scheme will shortly be finalised, which I take as a very strong argument for leaving the decision about increases in contributions, if there are to be increases, to IPSA itself. As far as we are concerned, we are in a cost-sharing scheme, as a result of which we must see what the actuary says about any changes to contribution rates before taking a decision that puts us in line with anybody else. As Members will know, there have been increases to pension contributions over a relatively recent period, which I do not think any other members of the public sector have had to face. I suggest that it is important to take that into account, as we are told it will be by IPSA.

I suggest that trustees would also recommend giving further thought to other cost-saving measures in the scheme to make it simpler and to make the benefits clear in a way that everybody understands. From the discussions I have had with Members of Parliament over the last few weeks, I believe that there has been a misunderstanding of many aspects of the scheme. That needs to be taken into account. We also need to consider, if possible, as a means of getting away from increases in contributions, the whole question of increasing the pension or retirement age. It could be part of the answer to some of the problems we face.

Another misunderstanding is the view that this scheme is expensively funded in itself. Schemes like this should be treated differently from unfunded or notionally funded schemes, as assessing changes to member contribution rates should take into account any excess returns generated by funded schemes from the investment strategy. I understand that the London Pension Fund Authority scheme, which is a funded scheme, might not be subject to the general contribution increase that the Government hope to implement. If there are exceptions there, they can be made anywhere else. I am convinced that an awful lot of negotiations are still to take place, and these will bring to the fore some of the elements of the pension fund that are not best understood.

[Mr Anderson]

Is there not a big problem with this whole debate in that we talk about these things as if they are a matter of negotiation, but in fact what we are really talking about is the fact that the Government are imposing a stealth tax on all public sector workers? They are not having negotiations about that, and they are not taking actuarial advice or the effect of the schemes into account. All they are saying is, “There will be an increase on public sector workers’ pensions” as a matter of fact—without allowing negotiations about any scheme to be taken into account.

[Mr Donohoe]

I am not in a position to answer that, as it is for the Leader of the House to do so, although I certainly have some sympathy with what my hon. Friend says.

Some of the closest comparators to Members are senior civil servants. Members of the civil service pension scheme and other schemes such as the scheme for staff of the House of Commons and the House of Lords pay either 3.5% or 1.5% contributions, depending on when they joined the civil service. For that contribution, they either build up a pension at the rate of one sixtieth, or one eightieth plus tax-free cash sum—which equates to one sixty-fourth—with a retirement age of 60, or they build up a pension at the rate of one forty-third with a retirement age of 65. That must be taken into account along with everything else in which we will be involved between now and 2015. It is clear from the discussions that have taken place that consideration must be given to all elements of Members’ contributions.

People may think that I only represent the House in this regard, but I have constituents who are aggrieved by what is happening to their pension funds, and I have every sympathy with them. However, I am here almost as a shop steward—I am not sure that that expression is much liked on the Government Benches—to represent Members in the context of their conditions of service. People describe this as a gold-plated scheme, but although it is a good scheme—indeed, I would argue that it is a brilliant scheme—what is not understood is that only a few Members of Parliament retire from this place with a full pension. Of the 650 serving Members of Parliament, only 35 would leave with one today. Another thing that is not understood is that most Members pay for the rate of one fortieth, which means paying 11.9%. So the scheme cannot really be described as gold-plated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

It would be hard to argue with what the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob Russell) has just said if we had not already agreed to do this. We are halfway down the line, and we have been since before the last general election when we said we would give IPSA this responsibility. The debate should have stopped then. We should have said, “Right, we agree today that we’re going to do something we should have been doing over the last 16 months. We’re going to tell IPSA to get on with it by sitting down with our trustees and negotiating a settlement based on the way pension schemes across the world operate.”

Why are we having this debate tonight on a lengthy motion that pulls in public sector pensions? I take the Leader of the House at his word of course, but I am convinced that other people will use this debate as a stick to beat public sector workers over the head with. They will say, “MPs have agreed to have their pensions changed, so why don’t you?” That is the wrong way to deal with something as integral to someone’s terms and conditions as their pension. The terms and conditions of public sector workers, or of any other worker in this country, should be based on a genuine debate between the employer representative for the pension scheme—IPSA in our case—and the trustees. They should come together to weigh up the evidence about what the scheme does, what it is there for, whether it is sustainable and whether there is evidence to back changes.

This country faces a situation in which the Treasury is telling us that a levy must be imposed on those in the public sector, which in some cases will be 3% and for us could well be 5%, without any account having been taken of whether it is legitimate, whether it makes schemes affordable or whether, as has been said, it makes them less sustainable. A survey carried out by YouGov for the Fire Brigades Union suggested that 27% of its members could opt out and 12% would be very likely to opt out of their scheme if these changes go through. Unison has suggested that 350,000 people could opt out of these schemes. These schemes are good for the people in them. They are not gold-plated, but they are probably as good as most people in work can get. If people opt out, that will affect not just those individuals but will have a huge effect on the investment potential of this country, because those pension schemes invest heavily in the stock market.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Gentleman is putting his point fairly. I might well agree with the Government’s approach to pension reforms, but I am surprised that the motion states that “this House” supports it. This is the wrong debate in which to make that statement.

[Mr Anderson]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. This debate should be about the processes of this House—House business is about that, not the politics of this House. It should be about whether we agree that this is the right way for Members of this House, and whoever comes after us, to be treated. This should not be about whether this suits someone’s political agenda and allows them to go outside and say, “Look, MPs think it’s legitimate to have a 5% or 3% levy. Why won’t you do the same?”, but my worry is that that is what this is about.

Let us not forget that we had a debate that concluded three years ago about public sector pensions, including our own. That resulted in big changes to public sector pensions. As has been suggested by our trustee colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), a cut-off was introduced: people would retain the benefits if they joined before a certain date, but for those who joined after and for new members the pension contributions would be more and their benefits would be less. Public sector workers agreed to that three years ago on the basis that it would make their pensions sustainable for the future. Nothing has changed since then, except for the fact that the Government want to impose a levy on public sector workers to try to dig themselves out of the hole created by the collapse of the global financial system. That approach is clearly wrong. Public sector workers should not have to carry the can for the failure of the banks, and that is clearly the message being given throughout the world.

My worry is that if we tell people that they should start paying 50% more for their pensions at a time when they face pay freezes, freezes of increments, a tax on shift payments, potential redundancies and so on, they will walk away from these pension schemes, as I said earlier. That will be to the detriment of the schemes, investment and the welfare system, because as people reach retirement age there will be a bigger drain on the welfare state than there would have been had they been able to provide for themselves.

This approach is a con trick. It is not about pensions’ stabilisation; it is about taking money out of the pockets of nurses, firefighters, street cleaners, social workers and home care workers to pay for the failures of capitalism. The truth is that we should stand together with those workers, as public sector workers, in a debate that is about our terms and conditions. They have a similar debate about their terms and conditions and we should say, “We stand in solidarity with you. It’s wrong that the Government are robbing you for your pension and taking money out of your pockets.”

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and I should declare an interest as the chairman of the all-party group on occupational pensions. I am puzzled by where the hon. Gentleman is going on this, because the motion is surely all about the parliamentary pension fund rather than about those of trade union members in general.

[Mr Anderson]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here from the start of the debate, he would realise that it has expanded into a discussion about public sector pensions because they are included in the motion, in which the Leader of the House has clearly linked this scheme with other applicable schemes. Some of us who signed the amendment want to remove that link so that we can have a debate about when and whether we will give IPSA the right that it should have had since last May. If we had had that debate, we would not be sitting here now and we could have talked about the issue that most people in the House today want to talk about.

Ultimately, we are showing support for other public sector workers and we are not saying that we are a special case. We are saying that the Government should not make any public sector worker a special case by making them pay a levy to subsidise the failure of the banking system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I trust IPSA to carry out its statutory functions and give an independent assessment, but I think that there is no harm whatsoever in inviting the House to agree that we should not claim an exception for MPs. We claim no such thing and therefore expect IPSA to have regard to Lord Hutton’s review and the policy consequences that flow from it.

[Mr Anderson]

Will the Minister make it very clear for the House, the public and, in particular, Len McCluskey that no Member has argued that MPs should be a special case? Everyone has argued that all public sector workers should be treated equally—that they should also be treated properly.

[Mr Heath]

I hope that no hon. Member believes that they are a special case and that, if the House divides this evening, they will bear that in mind when casting their votes. I am simply talking about the perceptions that those outside the Chamber might have. I am very clear about what the perceptions would be if Members supported the amendment, which is why I hope it will not be pressed to a Division. That would only divide the House on something on which we ought to be united.

Business of the House

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Ministers are quite clear that they should report matters to the House before they report them to the media. The hon. Gentleman should hear about anything that affects his constituency before the media are told about it, and I shall certainly raise that with the relevant Ministers. The transport grant announcement was issued by way of a written ministerial statement, in which case everybody should have received it at the same time.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Last week, I was approached by my constituent, Sharon Martin, who informed me that she had that day sent out a fleece and winter clothing to her son, who is serving in Kabul. He had been advised by the Ministry of Defence that winter clothing would not be available in Afghanistan until February 2011. For the past week, I have tried to get the MOD to respond to this and I was told, “Will you put it in writing? We will respond within 15 working days.” That is clearly not acceptable. Will the Leader of the House therefore try to get a statement made before the Christmas recess, so that we can all have a merry Christmas, including those men and women who are abroad fighting for us?

[Sir George Young]

I applaud what the hon. Gentleman said about our fighting forces. He will get a letter from an MOD Minister before the House rises for the Christmas recess.

Business of the House

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I should have known that that had been announced, but I have to say to my right hon. Friend that I was not aware of it. I will raise his point with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and ask him to take the matter up in the appropriate place.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

Can the Leader of the House explain why we are rushing through the Academies Bill when no consultation has taken place with parents, with governor groups or, in particular, with staff? The consultation period will apparently be during the school holidays when people either will not be in the country or will not be getting paid. Surely there is no need to rush this through, so why is that happening?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Academies Bill.

[Mr Anderson]

Yes, that’s what I said.

[Sir George Young]

I believe we have offered the House adequate time to deal with the Bill. It will be taken on the Floor of the House and additional time is being made available for Members to discuss it. It has also been through the other place, so there have been opportunities for the public to comment on it since its introduction there.

Business of the House

David Anderson Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

There will be an opportunity to debate the Government’s proposals on housing and planning, because they will be in a Bill that will be introduced in this Session. That will be the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to make his points.

[Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)]

I welcome the suggestion by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for a debate about saying sorry, so that those of us on the Labour Benches can say that we are not sorry that we prevented the global recession from turning into a global depression; we are not sorry that we kept half a million people in work who otherwise would not be in work; we are not sorry that we kept businesses going that would have closed; and we are not sorry that we will never ever say that unemployment is a price worth paying.

[Sir George Young]

Again, there was absolutely no recognition at all from the hon. Gentleman of the problems that this country now faces because of the irresponsible way in which the outgoing Government borrowed £3 billion a week, with no plans for rebalancing the country’s books.