Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

The key thing is that councillors and all elected representatives should at all times seek to work hard for their constituents. I am not entirely persuaded that there is a magic number of councillors; it is essential that we provide more local accountability for more powers flowing down from Whitehall to our local authorities and communities.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Some 660,000 vulnerable people will be affected by the introduction of the bedroom tax. Two thirds of those people are disabled. A lot of them will be booted out of their homes as a result of the introduction of the tax. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm personally whether or not he supports this pernicious tax against those less well off in society?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It is entirely legitimate to have disagreements on the measure, but to claim that 660,000 will be booted out of their homes—that is simply not true—is outrageous Labour scaremongering. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a number of ways in which to address the additional £14 for those who encounter it—a £50 million discretionary fund is being made available to local authorities. Why should his constituents who receive housing benefit for use in the private rented sector have to cut their cloth to suit their means according to the amount of space they have available in their homes while those same rules do not apply to those who receive housing benefit in social housing?

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I reassure my hon. Friend that the national planning policy framework that we have put in place—it was 1,000 pages long, but is now just 50 pages long—is our planning policy and framework. We are giving local authorities greater power and greater ability—and also neighbourhood plans—so that these decisions can be made where they should be: more locally.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Q4. I have in my hand a genuine suicide note from a constituent of mine who, sadly, took his own life after he was informed that he was no longer entitled to employment and support allowance and disability benefits. Across the UK, more than 1,000 people have died only months after being told to find work. This is 2012—we are supposed to be a civilised society. We should be looking after disabled citizens in the UK. Will the Prime Minister listen to the 62,000 people who have signed Pat’s petition and please finally order an assessment of all changes hitting disabled people in this country?

[The Prime Minister]

I will look very carefully at the very tragic case that the hon. Gentleman has brought to the House. Everyone’s thoughts will go out to that person’s family because of what has happened to them.

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that the actual money that we are putting into disability benefits over the coming years is going up, not down. I think that everybody knows and accepts that we need to have a review of disability benefits. Some people have been stuck on these benefits and not been reviewed for year after year after year. That is the view of the disability charities and it is the view of the Government as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 7th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I am sure that the whole House wishes to join my hon. Friend in sending our sincerest heartfelt condolences to the victims’ families and friends and, as he said, in paying tribute to the police for moving very fast. It is incredibly important in heart-rending cases such as these that the public see that, where possible, justice is done and done as rapidly as possible.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Q9. Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House why the Liberal Democrats are fielding only 21 candidates out of 44 in the police and crime commissioner elections?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Because we are standing in those areas where Liberal Democrats wish to stand as candidates. [Laughter.] I know that the Labour party does not understand the meaning of the words “internal party democracy”, but it is something I am proud we have. The hon. Gentleman should try it some day.

Outsourcing (Government Departments)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) on securing the debate and on how he presented his case. I believe that he worked in the NHS before going into politics. I read his profile, which says that his political mission is to push Labour leftwards, so he must be delighted with the direction of travel. It is clear where he is coming from and I have a certain respect for that, even though I come from a different place politically.

Our constituencies may be different, but I suspect that all our constituents share a desire to see the Government deliver better value for the tax that they pay. This Government take that seriously.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

Perhaps I can just advance my argument a little.

This is not the place to have a great debate about the economic situation or the level of debt that the Government have inherited, but we are serious about trying to deliver better value for taxpayers’ money. I am a Minister in the Cabinet Office. The controls that we have put in place—that my boss, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has put in place—delivered some £3.75 billion in the first year of our Government and are on track to deliver £5 billion of savings this year. We are quite proud of that. Frankly, it was an exercise in delivering common sense. It is an appalling indictment of the attitude of the previous Administration to public money that such big savings could be found in such short order by doing some basic commonsensical things.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the Minister agree, in respect of looking for better value, that paying doctors, nurses and porters in his constituency more than those in my constituency is a good way of saving money?

[Mr Hurd]

I want doctors and nurses to be paid at fair value. I am also interested in the value that they offer to the taxpayer for the work that they do, which brings me on to my next point about public services and how they are commissioned.

The Government’s view is that, when expectations about public service standards are rising, we need to find more creative solutions. There is dissatisfaction and a challenge, because there is less money about and therefore greater pressure to get better outcomes with less money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) made an important point: the direction of travel here is not driven by ideology, although there is more ideology communicated from the Opposition than the Government. This is driven by a desire to deliver better outcomes on behalf of the taxpayer and the people we are trying to help in a way that is much more transparent than before.

Party Funding

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Can the Minister advise the pensioners in my constituency on how best to secure premier access to the Prime Minister to discuss the implications of last week’s Budget? Does somebody make an offer—his place or mine, depending on the price?

[Mr Maude]

I feel in fairness obliged to point out to the hon. Gentleman that one of his colleagues has already read out the same planted question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I always enjoy my visits to Llandudno, and perhaps I will be able to schedule one before long. I would like to put on the record my thanks for the tireless and highly professional way in which the charity assists service personnel who have tragically lost their sight. My hon. Friend pays it a great compliment and does his duty by explaining the change in its name, so that people know what it is and can give it money. As a country and a Government, we have a huge debt to pay to former service personnel. They have done extraordinary things on behalf of their country, and we need to look after them through their lives. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will make some announcements about that in his Budget.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Q6. The Prime Minister said last year that under his Government unemployment would fall year on year, but here we are with unemployment at a 17-year high. In my constituency, 55.4 people are chasing every job vacancy. The regional growth fund has supported only four businesses. Why should the 515 workers in Rio Tinto Alcan, the disabled workers at Remploy and many others set to lose their jobs believe a single word that he or the Chancellor say?

[The Prime Minister]

First, on the specific case of the Rio Tinto plant, I know how important that is. We are working with Northumbria county council and the company to do what we can to help get those people work, although I understand that Rio Tinto is still in negotiations with a potential purchaser of that plant. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman about employment and unemployment is this. Clearly we need more jobs in our economy, but since the election we have had more than 600,000 new jobs in the private sector. The level of employment in the country is up by around 250,000 and there are fewer people on out-of-work benefits now than there were at the time of the election. In terms of what is happening in the north-east, we should also celebrate the good news—the fact that Nissan is creating 2,000 jobs; the fact that Hitachi is building a new plant in County Durham; the fact that Newcastle airport is expanding; the fact that Greggs is putting more money into the north-east. We should be talking up the north-east instead of talking it down.

Trade Union Funding

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Fiona Bruce]

I shall continue, if I may, because I have hardly embarked on my speech and I know that many other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate.

I have acknowledged the good work that trade unions do. My concerns about union funding and financial support stem from my time as a councillor in Warrington. In 2006, when Labour lost control of the council and a joint Conservative and Liberal administration took over, I was allocated a portfolio with the title “Value for Money”, later augmented to the finance portfolio as a whole. One action that I undertook was to review all the property assets of the council to see where efficiency savings could be made and where, at a time of increasing pressure on our services, better value for money could be delivered for our council tax payers. I am talking about money being allocated to front-line services. We analysed every building and piece of land that the council owned—that had never been done before—and drew up plans to ensure that their use and value was in the best interests of residents. The use of some buildings was increased. For some buildings, joint use was the way forward. Rents were reviewed where appropriate. Some properties were repaired. Others were released for sale, so that the funds on disposal could be utilised more effectively for the benefit of residents.

To my surprise, I discovered that one of the authority’s most prestigious properties, part of a wing of the town hall itself—undoubtedly the most prestigious listed building in the town, in the prime commercial letting area—was occupied rent free, and with services free, by local union representatives, at considerable cost to local council tax payers.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Fiona Bruce]

No, I shall continue with my speech, if I may. In the interests of transparency, which I mentioned earlier, I would have liked to obtain the definitive figures for that cost, but I was never able to do so. I did, on a number of occasions, ask that use of the asset be reviewed, but I could never get council officers even to consider reviewing the use of that asset in the same way as the use of every other property asset in the town was being reviewed, while all the time local community groups, charities, small business owners and others were seeing their charges for and use of property reviewed. The fact that property used by trade union representatives was exempt from that process struck me as simply unjust.

The value of the use of that asset—prime commercial property—when multiplied over many years, must have amounted to thousands of pounds. That money could have been used to keep down the costs of renting local community halls by youth groups, guides and scouts and mum and tots, and for other front-line services in a town where many residents are by no means affluent. I am sure that few, if any, council tax payers in Warrington knew that their money was being spent in that way, and that had they known and had they realised the amounts involved, they would have been as surprised as I was. It is interesting to note that if I, as Member of Parliament for Congleton, wanted to hold my surgery in the town hall, I would be required to pay a charge.

Therefore, when I heard about the Trade Union Reform Campaign, which was founded to reform the laws and funding arrangements relating to trade unions and so to create a more level playing field, I was pleased to support it and become a council member, together with many other hon. Members who are here today and will speak after me to raise concerns in addition to the one that I have highlighted—the use of council facilities. In supporting the campaign, I am pleased to note that we are in good company. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister himself is backing the campaign and wrote in November—[Interruption.] He wrote in November to its chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), to whom I pay tribute for standing up and spearheading this campaign. The Prime Minister wrote:

“I am pleased that you have decided to establish the Trade Union Reform Campaign…as I strongly believe the current level of public subsidy to the trade unions cannot be sustained, either morally or economically…at a time when across the private and public sectors people are having to take very difficult decisions in order to save money, it is difficult to justify some people in the public sector being paid not to do the job they are employed for, but instead to undertake full time trade union activities—much of which should be funded by the unions themselves. We need to question why the public is paying for so much, and whether this is sustainable going forward.”

That is what we are doing today. Hard-working taxpayers, particularly in these challenging economic times, deserve to see Government, at local and national level, stewarding people’s money responsibly and doing all that they can to maximise its use, so that as much as possible can go to the front line, for those most in need. I am talking about stewarding people’s money responsibly and ensuring transparency, accountability and fairness.

I do not want to pre-empt what others will say, but I do want to draw attention to the excellent contribution my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made in his Adjournment debate on 26 October 2011, when he gave many clear examples and staggering figures. He drew the attention of the House to the issue and to the need for reform based on the principle that the activities that people undertake on behalf of trade unions should be funded by those trade unions and not by the taxpayer. Why should taxpayers pay for that work?

People pay council tax to have their bins emptied and their streets cleaned. Councils across the country are making every effort to keep council tax frozen, and the Government are making every effort to pay off Labour’s deficit. At this time, more than ever, it is right that we ask the questions I have posed.

I applaud Swindon council, which has recently taken steps to review the issue. It has removed the shared job of two union representatives as part of a £15 million reduction. Councillors who met to finalise the council’s budget said they should not have to pay their staff to do union work in the current economic climate.

Colleagues who follow me will have many questions for the Minister, but I would be grateful if he would give us guidance on how town halls up and down the country can challenge union representatives’ use of facilities that would be better utilised for the benefit of the community. In the light of the excellent contribution my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase made in his earlier debate, will the Minister also update us on the progress of Government action to deal with the concerns my hon. Friend raised? I had intended to repeat them, but I will not, because so many other Members want to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

In the brief time that I have, I want to say that I believe that this is a callous attempt to attack the trade unions and trade union members in the workplace. Many of them are ordinary men and women simply seeking to do a valuable job. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) —my very good friend and former mining colleague—said that he is not sure that anyone here has ulterior political motives: I am sorry to disagree, but I believe that that is the case.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

I will not give way. It has been mentioned before that we want more transparency. Since the Tory Government took office, they have introduced a certification officer. We now have more legislation than any other democracy in the western world, and our trade unions are more restricted than anywhere else. My view is quite simple—there is a concerted attack on ordinary men and women. However, we should not be surprised. When any Government Member gets up and says, “My auntie used to work here, and my father was a miner”, we know that something is coming in the following sentence: kick the trade unions.

I disagree with several things that have been said. On 30 November, the day of the public sector strikes, the Prime Minister clearly stated in the House that he would review the facility time for trade unions. That was his reaction—to kick the trade unions for daring to have the audacity to speak up for their membership. However, it had been mentioned beforehand.

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

I will not give way. It had been mentioned at the Tory party conference by officials and Ministers who were proud to be trade union bashers and trade union kickers. That is why a lot of the new Tory MPs are thinking that this is the way to get a job in the party. They think, “Let’s start kicking the trade unions. That’s what we should be doing.”

I have been a trade union representative since the age of 16 or 17. I have been involved in both the private and public sector. By the way, the private sector represents about 40% of facility time, so it is not only public sector representatives who are paid for by taxpayers for facility time.

About the money that has been suggested is being paid by the taxpayer, in my experience, if I had any time off for facility time, I would have just received the wages that I would have received had I been at work. That is not even a saving. No one was put in my place, so there was no saving. It is misleading to suggest that there can be a huge saving in facility time, because, in the main, people are not replaced when they are doing facility time, and that is important.

I represented people in the mining industry. My facility time was about health and safety. What is more important than health and safety in the workplace? I visited people who had lost their husbands underground. They did not want to see the colliery manager or anyone from the management. They would ring up and say, “Mr Lavery, can you go and speak”—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Thank you very much Mr Owen. We have seen in the past couple of minutes where my frustration has lain, with people saying, “Unions do this” or “Union bashing”. That is not what the debate is about; it is about funding and how public sector money is used. Politics is about perception, and if there is a perception that public money given to the unions is then given to the Labour party, the best way to solve that problem is to tinker with the rules and have an opt-in, so that people can say where they want the money to go. Then the unions can say, “We have this many people opted in and this pot of cash, and we have decided to give it to the Labour party.” No one would argue with that. We cannot argue with that.

There may need to be some reform. The balance needs to be redrawn for some of the public sector workers working full-time purely on union business, but that is a different debate. Please do not make this an argument about union bashing. That is offensive to many Conservative Members who believe in the work of trade unions. I am not here to speak for everybody on the Government Benches, but I know that a great many of my hon. Friends very much believe in the work of the trade unions. A great number of us have been members of trade unions and have worked in places where we have seen their work, but that does not mean that the situation is completely okay; there are aspects that need reform, but debate is the best way to examine that.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I will, but I only have about 10 seconds.

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman is being very conciliatory in his contribution. The political levy is covered in the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. Union members must be balloted, whether or not they pay a political contribution.

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Gareth Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for recognising that my friend and colleague, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), lives in the real world. Some have doubted that in the past, so it was very helpful of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North to confirm that truth. However, he was entirely wrong to not congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. I do so, and congratulate her also on how she presented her concerns. She always speaks with a great deal of personal conviction that is often rooted in real experience, and she did so again today.

I was disappointed that so many Labour MPs appeared to come here to frame the debate as the Tories bashing the unions. That is not the language I heard at all. Hon. Member after hon. Member stood up to recognise the valuable role of the unions, as I do too. No one in the Chamber needs a lecture about the value of good industrial relations, or the cost of bad industrial relations, and various Opposition Members spoke powerfully about that. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Government are not proposing any change in statutory entitlement to paid time off to carry out union duties. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) for pointing out that that goes with the grain of Lady Thatcher’s position.

In the context of the public sector, there is legitimate concern about the level of contribution from the taxpayer, about the issue of balance, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton, and—critically—the issue of transparency, on which my hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) and for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) spoke strongly. That is what we are debating this morning.

I start with the law. We recognise clearly that the Government have a role in facilitating the conditions for a positive relationship, including balancing the needs of the employer with those of the employee. That is achieved largely through the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. As the title indicates, the Act brought together a variety of legislation that had been introduced and amended during the previous 20 years—a much more turbulent industrial relations climate. The Act covers a wide variety of issues, including recognition of unions in the workplace, the responsibilities of the employer and union representatives and, of course, industrial action. The extent to which the Act addresses trade union funding is in the context of union keeping of financial records, use of membership subscriptions for political purposes and, in the context of this debate, paid time off to carry out essential duties.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I will make more progress before taking interventions.

Aside from one or two specific instances, the Act does not distinguish between the public and private sector. The statutory framework recognises that there will be essential business that underpins the union’s formal role and helps to facilitate good industrial relations in the work force. The Act therefore provides for time off to carry out that business. In doing so—this is important to the debate—it distinguishes between duties and activities. Duties are the essential tasks that union reps must carry out. They could include collective bargaining negotiations, formal engagement in statutory consultation on collective redundancies, accompanying an individual to a disciplinary hearing, and can also include health and safety responsibilities. Activities include attending union annual general meetings, executive committees and workplace meetings to discuss the outcome of negotiations.

There is a statutory entitlement to paid time off to carry out union duties, but there is no such entitlement for union activities. However, some employers, including in the public sector, extend paid time off to activities as well. There is no right to time off for trade union activities that consist of industrial action. The amount and frequency of time off, whether paid or unpaid, is for negotiation between the employer and the union and depends on what is reasonable, taking account of all the circumstances. There is no statutory minimum or maximum. That ensures the necessary flexibility to accommodate the wide variety of different work forces and different day-to-day circumstances within those work forces. By that I mean that what is reasonable today may not be reasonable tomorrow if the circumstances have changed.

An ACAS code of conduct underpins the legislation. The code is comprehensive and, among other things, emphasises the importance of clear procedures and record keeping, as well as general considerations in determining what is reasonable. They include the size of the organisation and number of workers, the need to maintain a service to the public, and the need to ensure effective representation and communication with workers with a range of needs.

As I said earlier, at the heart of the framework is the importance of good industrial relations in maintaining an effective organisation. A reasonable amount of paid time off offers value for money for customers of an organisation and users of their services. For example, it can minimise working time lost due to disputes and accidents at work.

Some hon. Members mentioned the union modernisation fund. The latest round of projects is currently winding up and will be completed by early 2012. No further rounds of the UMF are planned, and no further funds will be committed to it. It is important, however, for Government to ensure that public sector employers manage the paid time off they grant their union representatives effectively to deliver the benefits I have mentioned.

I was asked about the proposed consultation in relation to the civil service, which was announced at our party conference. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), we have already announced that we will be consulting with the civil service trade unions on the following areas: reduction in overall facility time across the civil service; ending or limiting the practice of 100% of civil service employees’ time being spent on trade union duties and activities; ending paid time off for trade union activities, as opposed to duties; and reporting, developing a common system for reporting and monitoring across the civil service. That is the framework of the consultation, which I am assured will start imminently.

We will seek to review and rebalance the amount of paid time off provided to undertake trade union duties. The current level of facilities time offered to trade unions across Departments is very generous, and is certainly significantly more than that allowed in the private sector, or indeed in the wider public sector. While recognising the importance of effective representation in the workplace, we firmly believe that trade union facility time arrangements in the civil service are in urgent need of modernisation to reflect modern working practices. The consultation is focused on the civil service, where my responsibility as a Minister in the Cabinet Office lies, however other colleagues who have responsibility for these matters in the wider public sector have been asked by the Prime Minister to review the position in their sectors.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. [Hon. Members: “No he doesn’t!”] It is interesting that whenever someone raises a point about union funding they get shouted down by the Labour party, because Labour Members do not want any examination of what trade unions do, or how much money they give to the Labour party. [Interruption.] I think that they protest a little too much.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am absolutely delighted to be supported by the trade union movement. May I ask the Prime Minister why he has not sacked his NHS adviser, Mark Britnell, who said that the NHS would be shown “no mercy”, and that the reforms would be a “big opportunity” for private profit and would transform the NHS into an

“insurance provider, not a state deliverer"?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clear this up. When I read about Mr Britnell being my adviser, I was slightly puzzled, because I have never heard of this person in my life, and he is not my adviser. However, I did a little research, and it turned out that he was an adviser to the previous Government. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Oh, don’t worry, there is plenty more. He helped to develop Labour’s NHS plan in 2000, which increased the role of the private sector, he was appointed by Labour as chief executive of one of the 10 strategic health authorities set up by Labour, and when the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, Mark Britnell was director general for NHS commissioning. Although I do not know him, therefore, I suspect that Labour Members know him rather well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Commons Chamber

The Attorney-General was asked—

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

1. What plans the Crown Prosecution Service has to increase the effectiveness of prosecution policy in respect of domestic violence.

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Crown Prosecution Service has an effective domestic violence prosecution policy, with a 29% increase in the number of prosecutions over the past four years and successful outcomes rising from 65% to 72%. In saying that, I recognise the work put in by my predecessors in this office in trying to raise the profile of that appalling crime. The CPS keeps its policy under review and in September 2010 it published guidance on prosecuting stalking and harassment. In January 2011 the CPS will introduce a new local assurance system to support the conduct of domestic violence prosecutions.

[Ian Lavery]

Given the 24% reduction in the Law Officers’ Department’s expenditure, will the Attorney-General confirm that he believes that the CPS has the resources that it requires to deliver effectively the violence against women strategy developed by the Labour Government?

[The Attorney-General]

Yes, I can. There is no intention of diminishing that strategy in any way and it will remain a major priority of the CPS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wants to bring forward those proposals—he will be the first Prime Minister who has given away the power to seek a Dissolution of this House at his choosing—and to give that power to this House, which is a promise that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) made but never delivered on.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

3. What recent representations he has received from hon. Members on Government policy on the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority.

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

A number of hon. Members have submitted a number of written questions, which I have answered, and I was also pleased to listen to their representations in the very full Westminster Hall debate last Wednesday.

[Ian Lavery]

Is the Minister aware that, as a result of the policy created by IPSA, many loyal and dedicated members of staff face the prospect of redundancy or, at the very least, of savage cuts in their wages, terms and conditions. Will the Minister tell us what plans he has to ensure that hon. Members’ staff are protected and not unfairly punished as a result of the expenses scandal?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He will know that Ministers have policy responsibility for IPSA, but are not responsible for its internal workings. He will also know that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has been making sure that, where the IPSA rules make it difficult for Members of Parliament to carry out their duties, information on those rules is made available. He will also know that, next week, the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA will have its first meeting. A motion on today’s Order Paper provides for the appointment of five Members to that Committee. At that meeting, they will consider how there can be accountability to this House.