Business of the House

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We are trying to get a fairer balance between the public sector employees and the taxpayer, who pays a very large percentage of the pension contributions. My hon. Friend raises a good point. I detect public sympathy ebbing away from those who are planning to strike and they would do well to reflect on that before they go ahead with their action on Wednesday.

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

Would it not be useful to have a debate in the very near future on the obsessive hatred—there is no other way to describe it—that the Tory party has and always has had for the trade union movement? Trade unionists need no lectures about public service and patriotism from the Conservative party.

[Sir George Young]

That is a travesty of my party’s view about trade unions. I was a member of a trade union until I was expelled and described as a “pin-striped bovver boy” by ASTMS, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, back in the 1970s. The trade unions have a legitimate role to play in this country but we think that the very strong links between the trade unions and one political party are unhealthy for that party.

Cabinet Secretary Report (Government Response)

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

On the first point, to say that the Prime Minister refused to look at the evidence is simply absurd as he looked at it, published it and has acted on it. As for the issues concerning the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the matter has been resolved. The person concerned is an adviser to the Department and not to a Minister.

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

Is the Leader of the House aware that some good has come out of all this, as it has shown up the whole murky world of various shady and dubious lobbyists and various individuals who have contributed heavily to the Tory party? One thing is absolutely clear: the Tory party has not changed from last time it was in office.

[Sir George Young]

It would be easier to take the hon. Gentleman seriously on this had he not voted against a specific amendment to promote transparency in lobbying.

Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund

David Winnick Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

Yes; I believe that to be so. There has been no representation on the issue the hon. Lady raises. There are some changes in the composition of the trustees to reflect IPSA’s responsibility, as part of the 2010 Act.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

I propose to conclude.

Independence is a crucial part of the process of restoring trust in Parliament. Any decision to defer the transfer to independence would result in MPs continuing to determine their own remuneration, which the House has firmly rejected. It is not incompatible—this goes back to some of our discussions during the debate—to argue that responsibility for our pensions should be made independent and, by agreeing to the motion today, to send a strong signal about the direction we feel the scheme should take in the light of the application of the Hutton recommendations to other public service schemes.

Subject to today’s debate, I will move as quickly as possible to commence the relevant sections of the CRAG Act, transferring all responsibility for MPs’ pensions to IPSA. Once responsibility for MPs’ pensions has been handed to IPSA, the House will have finally relinquished the power to set the terms of its own remuneration. I hope that that will represent a significant further step in drawing a line under the problems of the past and in helping to rebuild public confidence. I commend the motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

We all have our IPSA stories, and we could probably dine out on them—with each other, and we would not claim it back. We all have stories about some of the absurdities of the scheme, especially at the beginning, when it was bedding in. There has been considerable progress, and I would like further progress to be made. There are ongoing ways in which we in this House can bring to light any remaining absurdities, and I hope that we can continue to iron them out. The principle of independent determination is right. IPSA seems as good a body as any—not withstanding the chaos at its beginning—to undertake all that responsibility. Clearly, we will have to wait and see whether my confidence will be rewarded, but I am willing to give IPSA a try. I know that the hon. Gentleman is somewhat more sceptical about the authority than I am.

[Mr Winnick]

When the Leader of the House spoke, he was justifying, on behalf of the Government, what is happening to public servants across the country, including many of our constituents who are on relatively low pay, and justifying the attack on their pensions. I certainly do not agree with what is happening, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) does not.

[Ms Eagle]

I will come on to make a few short, in-order remarks about that aspect of our debate, but I think that most Members of the House would agree that we cannot expect to be treated differently from other public sector workers; that is a principle that most of us would share.

I was talking about appropriate Member representation on the trustee board, and the fact that IPSA, under the primary legislation and the order, will have to obtain the trustees’ consent before making changes to the administration of the scheme or the management of the scheme’s assets. Again—this is an important principle—it is entirely in keeping with the usual practice of other funded schemes. It is important that we maintain that parallel.

The order will change the legal structure of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. It will become an IPSA scheme and the power to amend it will be vested in IPSA rather than in the Government via regulations tabled by the Leader of the House, so the Leader of the House is giving away powers in the order. He seems to be quite happy about that. IPSA will acquire the duty to do all this, rather than the current Leader of the House.

The primary legislation ensures that there is a requirement, though, for IPSA to consult interested parties prior to determining benefits or contributions in future. In the primary legislation interested parties include the Speaker, the trustees of the scheme, the Senior Salaries Review Body, the Government, and in many ways the most important organisation in all pension deliberations—the Government Actuary’s Department. This is all entirely sensible, and I look forward to IPSA undertaking this work in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Eagle]

I agree. I certainly hope that the Government want to negotiate in good faith with public sector unions, and I understand that sector-specific talks have been going on. In education there were meetings last Wednesday, in health there are meetings tomorrow, and the civil service has had a few meetings, because on public sector pensions it is hard to generalise. The schemes are quite different, and the local government scheme is funded completely differently.

I understand also that a meeting is due a week today between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Cabinet Office Minister with responsibility for the central talks, and I certainly hope that all sides show flexibility so that there can be a negotiated settlement.

[Mr Winnick]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, after a lifetime working in public service, and with the expectation of a pension somewhere in the region of £5,000, many of our constituents will not accept a reduction because the House has today decided that its pension scheme is going to be different? They would be daft to be so persuaded, and they will not be.

[Ms Eagle]

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

Business of the House

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand where my right hon. Friend, who is Chair of the Defence Select Committee, is coming from, but under the Wright Committee proposals the four days per Session that were allocated for defence have been put into the pot, which is now owned by the Backbench Business Committee. It is therefore up to the Backbench Business Committee to decide how to allocate those days, and I think that his comments were addressed as much to the Committee as they were to me.

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

On parliamentary accountability, or the lack of it, why did the Secretary of State for Defence table a written statement today on the cost of the military operation in Libya, rather than making an oral statement at the Dispatch Box? Is it not unfortunate that we get our information either from the media or from written statements, and that the Minister responsible does not come here to explain and justify his actions and to answer questions accordingly?

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government have not made a statement, but he is holding in his hand the Government’s statement. As I said a few moments ago, the record of this Government on making statements is better than the record of the Government whom he supported.

Business of the House

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s anxiety, and I remind the House that this Government established the Backbench Business Committee. We are committed to allocating 35 days in a normal Session, which is roughly one day a week. We will adhere to that commitment, and given that this Session will be slightly longer than normal, we will extend those 35 days by an appropriate proportion. I understand that no such day is allocated for the next two weeks, but we will of course catch up between now and the end of the Session.

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

May we have an urgent statement on the situation faced in my constituency by an 84-year-old widow with a limited income and hardly any savings? She looks after her 60-year-old disabled son, as she has done all his life, but because community care services are being provided on a limited scale, Walsall council has asked my constituent to pay £4,789 this year, starting with an instalment of some £400. That is quite disgraceful. Why are the most vulnerable in our society, such as the constituent whom I have cited—I have heard about other cases in the past few days—being targeted by this Tory Government and Tory councils?

[Sir George Young]

I reject the hon. Gentleman’s assertion that we have targeted the most vulnerable. On the contrary, we have allocated an extra £2 billion for social care through the NHS and local government that is aimed precisely at the sorts of cases to which he refers.

Business of the House

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I was pleased to hear of the initiative of the MPs for Coventry and Warwickshire. I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the written ministerial statement issued today on local enterprise partnerships—he may have already seen it—that announces a new £5 million start-up fund for LEPs. That would be a valuable topic for the House to discuss in Westminster Hall.

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

Although we always have our constituency duties during recesses, why on earth are we breaking up for two weeks? This House did not meet for three weeks over Easter. How many places up and down the country break up for two weeks for what is described as Whitsun?

Business of the House

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He will know that the Syrian ambassador’s invitation to the royal wedding has been withdrawn.

My hon. Friend will have an opportunity on Tuesday to ask my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the issue, but he will have seen reports in the press of the discussions that we are having with our allies about the possibility of sanctions against Syria.

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

I acknowledge that the Foreign Secretary will be asked parliamentary questions when we return on Tuesday, but does the Leader of the House not recognise the need for another debate on the Libyan situation, bearing in mind the general unease about the fact that mission creep and regime change seem to be taking place despite denials by Ministers?

If I heard rightly that the invitation to the Syrian ambassador—the ambassador of that blood-stained regime—has been withdrawn, I very much welcome that.

[Sir George Young]

That invitation has indeed been withdrawn. A statement was made by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office at 11 o’clock.

The Government are prepared to find time, where appropriate, for debates on the middle east and north Africa. Indeed, we have already found time for such debates. We want to keep the House informed and to give it opportunities to make its views known, so I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we will be prepared to find time for a further debate if necessary.

Business of the House

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I welcome what my hon. Friend says about the work club in his constituency. He will know that, in the Budget the week before last, the Chancellor included additional funding for work clubs—for precisely the reason that my hon. Friend gives. They are effective ways of helping those who are out of work to find work; they give support to them in making contacts, finding opportunities and helping with CVs; and we very much want to continue our support for those worthwhile organisations.

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

Given the situation in Libya, it seems unlikely that the House will not be recalled during the three-week recess, and I hope that the Leader of the House will reaffirm what he said a few moments ago. Can the House be informed, however, about the position of Libya’s former Foreign Minister, who undoubtedly had a great deal of involvement with terrorism? Should not the House be told as much information as possible about Lockerbie? As the person who effected it first and foremost, he would have the maximum amount of information, which I hope he would be willing to reveal to the British authorities.

Business of the House

David Winnick Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I understand my hon. Friend’s strong feelings on the matter. The Public Bodies Bill is currently in another place, and I hope it will reach this House once the Lords have sorted themselves out. There will be an opportunity then for him to speak on that specific issue, but as I have just announced, there will also be an Opposition day debate on it next Wednesday. I hope that he has read the written ministerial statement and seen that we are ensuring that public benefit is written into the change. The Government have no plans for a widespread disposal of assets in order to raise money. We want community trusts and local organisations to take ownership of some of our valuable woods.

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

Instead of farcical exchanges about stewards and barons in relation to resigning from the House, would it not be better, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) has suggested, and as I did yesterday, if a simple letter of resignation were sufficient? Why should we keep a procedure simply because it has been in existence for the number of years that the Leader of the House mentioned?

[Sir George Young]

For the last 13 years we had a Modernisation Committee and, to my knowledge, not once did it consider the procedure for resignation, so it clearly did not think that it was a priority. The procedure has worked perfectly well for 260 years, and given all the pressures on the House’s time, I wonder whether we should really give priority to this matter.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

David Winnick Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young)]

I beg to move,

That the following appointments be made to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in pursuance of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended—

(1) Hilary Benn in place of Ms Rosie Winterton, until the end of the present Parliament, in accordance with paragraph 1(d) of the Schedule; and

(2) as lay members of the Committee, in accordance with paragraph 1(e) of the Schedule—

(a) Dame Janet Gaymer DBE QC (Hon.), for a period of five years;

(b) Elizabeth McMeikan, for a period of four years; and

(c) Sir Anthony Holland, for a period of three years.

I hope that we can now move into calmer waters, Mr Speaker, though as the motion affects the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, that might be a forlorn hope. It seeks the appointment of members to the Speaker’s Committee for IPSA. I move this motion to facilitate the decision of the House.

The Speaker’s Committee for IPSA is a statutory Committee, set up under the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, and its role and membership are determined by that statute. It has two key responsibilities: to consider the candidates proposed by the Speaker, following fair and open competition for the posts of Chair and members of IPSA, and to approve IPSA’s annual estimate of resources.

The current membership of the Speaker’s Committee includes Mr Speaker, the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee and myself—by virtue of our offices. It currently has five other members who were appointed by the House in June 2010. To this membership, we must now add three lay members. I will deal substantively with the issue of the addition of lay members in a moment, but let me first briefly outline paragraph (1) of the motion. This was added, at the request of the Opposition, to remove the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton) and add the shadow Leader of the House in her place. This is a matter for the Labour party, and I am happy to facilitate it.

As a member of SCIPSA, I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central for her work on the Committee, helping us through some challenging meetings at the beginning, and I look forward to welcoming the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), should the House agree this motion. I know that he, too, will add great value to our proceedings.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended the addition of lay members to the Speaker’s Committee in its report of November 2009, and this was enshrined in statute through the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. As a former Chairman of the Members Estimate Audit Committee, I can speak first hand on how useful I have found it to have external members on Committees that focus on the workings of the House. The House will also remember that it has only recently approved the addition of lay members to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.

The Committee on Standards in Public Life set out its reasoning behind the addition of lay members, specifically reflecting the growing practice in self-regulatory bodies such as the General Medical Council and the General Council of the Bar, which have accepted lay membership as a way not only of mitigating charges of being “parti pris”, but of widening their horizon, increasing their experience base and strengthening their legitimacy with the public. There is no reason why similar principles should not apply to the Speaker’s Committee.

These appointments are made by resolution of the House. The statute requires that the motion is tabled with the agreement of the Speaker; I can confirm that Mr Speaker has signified his consent.

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

My question is no reflection on the three distinguished people involved. Fortunately, after many years, we have managed to reach a position where hon. Members have to declare all their outside interests—something for which I have fought for many years. Once appointed, will members of the Speaker’s Committee also have to declare their outside interests—or, rather, their total income? Again, I emphasise that this is no reflection on the people involved.

[Sir George Young]

I think the answer is yes and no—yes to the outside interests, but no to the declaration of income.

As recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, these lay members will have full voting rights on the Committee. The competition required by the statute was conducted at the Speaker’s request by a board chaired by the Clerk Assistant, Robert Rogers. Following a tender exercise in July last year, a specialist recruitment agency with experience in the successful management of high-level public appointments, Saxton Bampfylde, was employed to support the process.

Members will wish to know that there was a very high level of interest in these posts. A total of 166 applications were received; a longlist of well-qualified candidates was considered by the board. Seventeen candidates who were selected by the board from the longlist received a preliminary interview by Saxton Bampfylde. Following report of these conversations, eight candidates were selected for interview by the board. After these final interviews, the Speaker met four candidates recommended by the board, from whom he selected the three individuals whose names appear on the Order Paper.

Dame Janet Gaymer has recently retired from service as the Commissioner for Public Appointments in England and Wales, and as a civil service commissioner. She was previously senior partner at the law firm, Simmons & Simmons. Elizabeth McMeikan has also served as a civil service commissioner, and is a member of the State Honours Committee. Before taking on these roles, she was the human resources and change management director on the stores board of Tesco Stores plc. Finally, Sir Anthony Holland, a former chairman of the Law Society has held a number of public appointments, including as chair of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission and chair of the Standards Board for England. He currently holds an appointment in the office of the complaints commissioner of the Financial Services Authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

SCIPSA contains a large number of Members of Parliament, including myself and, if the House approves the motion, the shadow Leader of the House and four or five other colleagues. Input from Members of Parliament already exists on the board, and we would not expect it to come from the lay members.

Although the Act provides for a maximum appointment length of five years, the motion provides for each lay member to be appointed for a different duration, reflecting the placing of the candidates in the final report of the board to the Speaker. Thus Dame Janet Gaymer will be appointed for five years, Elizabeth McMeikan for four years, and Sir Anthony Holland for three years. All three of those excellent candidates could quite reasonably be appointed for the maximum period, but if we did that, the Committee would probably lose the expertise and experience of all three simultaneously.

[Mr Winnick]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene again. May I expand on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and, to a certain extent, by me in an earlier intervention? Is it not important for us to have some knowledge of the incomes of people who make judgments about the incomes of Members of Parliament, and their remunerations as a whole? It is not a question of trying to interfere in their lives. They have volunteered to be part of the IPSA establishment and to be in the public domain, and I cannot for the life of me see why there should be any secrecy about their own total incomes.

[Sir George Young]

The hon. Gentleman is seeking to introduce a wholly new principle to people’s appointments to bodies that have some involvement with the House of Commons, or indeed some outside bodies. It was not one of the terms and conditions of these people’s appointments that they should declare their outside interests, and I think it would be quite wrong to require them to do that. It would be an unnecessary intrusion on their privacy.