Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 20th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Lady well knows, this is a vexed subject. We have the Court ruling that, in its view, the blanket rule is not consistent with the law, and it set a deadline. The House has made its contrasting views very well known, and I know that the Secretary of State for Justice is to set out the next steps on the whole issue very shortly.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

T14. I know the Deputy Prime Minister is an avid reader of the ConservativeHome website, written as it is by his coalition partners. In a recent article about the Boundary Commission review, and with particular reference to his party, it said:“the next election is our best opportunity in a generation to significantly cut their numbers. While they are down…we shouldn’t show mercy. We must finish them off.”Given those views from his coalition partners, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House that his party’s Commons votes cannot be bought for some sort of short-term deal on state funding?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I do not know how many times I have clearly set out my position—

Regional Pay

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Given the perverse logic that Government Members put forward, will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that despite the disparity in public and private sector pay rates in the north-east of England, unemployment is going up? We might have thought that investment would be flooding in on the basis of cheap wages in the private sector.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point and look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

As well as the business people and other experts whom I have quoted, the key stakeholders have made their views clear. Not just the trade unions but employers and independent experts have expressed concerns. For example, NHS Employers notes that employers already have

“the option to pay recruitment and retention premia”—

that is related to the point made by the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer)—

“to address…specific labour market issues.”

It states that a move to local pay bargaining would

“raise issues of local capacity, increase administration costs and risk pay inflation as employers compete directly for staff on pay. Getting rewards wrong could have a significant impact on the quality of patient care and safety.”

The National Employers’ Organisation for School Teachers states that

“the existing four national zones, plus the flexibility to pay recruitment and retention supplements…provide an appropriate balance between national determination and local flexibility…the existing framework provides a reasonable level of autonomy to set pay”.

It reports that 84% of its members

“considered that the number of pay bands was appropriate to reflect local labour market conditions; only 7% thought this was not the case.”

The National Governors Association reports that it is

“not aware of any evidence that suggests making pay locally responsive would improve recruitment and retention.”

It points out:

“Low cost of living indices tend…to be associated with social deprivation; these areas may also…have difficulty attracting the best staff… As the Government is rightly concerned to narrow the attainment gap between those children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those who are not, bringing teachers’ salaries in line with local market conditions…would possibly be counterproductive and create recruitment difficulties that do not currently exist.”

The evidence is clear, and so are the views of the experts, but the Chancellor’s posturing has created real worries for public service workers around the country. Nurses, teachers and police officers are already suffering the effects of the pay freeze and being hit by the sharp hike in pension contributions, and like everyone else they are suffering the effects of the Government’s recession, unfair tax rises and cuts. Now, the Chancellor is threatening to impose policies that for many people in many parts of the country would mean real-terms cuts in their income, continuing year after year. That would force them to pay the price for the Government’s economic failures. The millions of workers who are keeping our public services going in difficult times, the majority of them women on modest wages, deserve better than that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I shall come to that point. Under the last Government, the GVA differential was considerably reduced over 10 years. I do not have much time, but if the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard report of the Westminster Hall debate, he will find all the information there.

In trying to justify his proposals, the Minister mentioned the evidence base, as did the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James). That worries me. Pay review bodies and police boards oversee a pay bill of about £95 billion, and any changes in the distribution of that money would have major consequences. The reverse multiplier and the taking of moneys from local economies are a huge issue, and the benefit changes have already had a terrible effect on the economy in the north-east.

I refer the Minister and the hon. Member for Stourbridge to the Government’s own evidence to the current review, which includes some key sets of figures that I found intriguing. According to that evidence, statistics from the Office for National Statistics on regional price levels relative to national price levels show that, if London is excluded, price levels throughout the United Kingdom vary by only 5.3%, from 97% in Yorkshire and the Humber to 102.3% in the south-east. In my region, the north-east, the price level is 98.2%. Those figures show the smallest variation in price increases throughout the United Kingdom. If the Government proceeded with their proposal to vary pay levels in the public sector, those in the poorest regions, such as the north-east, would be worse off while the wealthiest regions benefited to the tune of billions.

[Ian Mearns]

All of us in north-east England are calling for an economic stimulus to create demand and grow the economy. This measure would apply an economic sedative to regions such as ours.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis.

The other likely negative impact of the Government’s policy is a brain drain from the regions with lower pay to those with higher pay. In my opinion, the Tory party has never understood the values and principles of our public services, which were founded on fairness and equity. What is truly outrageous is that Ministers waste their time targeting low-paid public servants when the real crisis is in the private sector. I believe that those are diversionary tactics, and that, if implemented, they would take more money out of the northern regions, which are already suffering from a lack of demand throughout our economies.

The United Kingdom is crying out for a serious new industrial policy that would reduce regional inequalities and close the north-south divide. A regional pay policy of the sort that the Government propose would only make the position worse, and it lacks an evidence base. Any comparison between public and private sector pay is a very crude measure. There are far more highly qualified workers in the public sector, there is a smaller gap between the top and bottom levels of pay, and there is a smaller gender pay gap. The majority of low-paid work in catering or cleaning, for example, is in the private sector. Similar roles in the public sector are often outsourced, which skews the figures still further.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) asked about figures relating to growth rates and relative performance. Under the last Labour Government, the rate of growth in my region, the north-east, went from being the lowest in any region during the 1990s to being the second highest during the last decade. Between the mid-1990s and the global economic downturn of 2008, employment growth increased by 11.2% in the north-east and by 9.2% nationally. Between 2002 and 2008, private sector employment in the north-east rose by 9.2% while public sector employment grew by 4.1%, a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson). Between 1999 and 2007, the number of businesses in the north-east rose by 18.7%, which compares favourably with London’s business growth of 19.6% during the same period.

Outsourcing (Government Departments)

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 25th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but there is a danger of fragmentation, even with some of the models that she mentions—for example, in the national health service and social care. If we are trying to promote integrated services, a plethora of private sector and even voluntary sector providers works against that ethos. That is a risk.

My argument is that public sector workers and service users know the difference between private profiteering and public services. Let us not forget that the key difference is that the first duty of a business is to its shareholders and the pursuit of profit.

The coalition Government are trying to do two things in developing their own brand of public service reform, which is quite distinct from what the Labour party did when in office. First, they are trying to tie down companies with more stringent contracts in the belief that setting targets will guarantee performance—ironically, the Government argued against targets in the national health service and wanted them to be ditched by public sector providers. Secondly, they believe that with stricter conditions for private sector providers, there should be no limits on where those providers should be allowed to tread within the public sector.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is developing a pertinent point. If we outsource public services—a public commodity—to the private sector, in some way, shape or form the private sector has to make a profit to give to its shareholders. That seems to be the logic from the Government’s perspective, but it will be impossible for public services to become more efficient or reinvest savings back into the development of the service.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is an excellent point, and we should be guided by the evidence. If the Minister can demonstrate that that is not the case, I will be interested to hear his response. Certainly, in relation to the national health service, the detailed impact assessment published with the Health and Social Care Bill proved that in-house services were considerably cheaper than those offered by the private sector, as well as being more responsive, accountable and fitting in with the wish for better integration.

A little earlier, different models of provision were mentioned. The coalition Government are promoting different models for outsourcing different services within different Departments—for example, academies and education, the utilities model and the NHS, or payment by result for welfare and benefits. However, although those are different models, the driver is the same. Emergency 999 call centres have been privatised and outsourced together with the administration of the benefit system. The roads on which we drive are the latest to go, as the pace of outsourcing to the private sector speeds up.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister belabours the point about making additional efficiencies within government since the coalition came to power. Of course, one of the biggest elements of public expenditure is local government. Conservative control in local government has been at a high watermark for eight or nine years now. Would he criticise Conservative councils in that respect?

[Mr Hurd]

I resist any invitation to criticise Conservative councils, particularly at this moment. My point is about attitudes to taxpayers’ money. The previous Administration were cavalier with taxpayers’ money and this Administration are trying to deliver better

Party Funding

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Maude]

I have nothing to add to what I have said many times before. The hon. Lady talks about buying influence and buying policy. It was not the Conservative party that sat in Warwick and formed the Warwick agreement with the trade union movement; it was her party, year after year. It was not the Justice Secretary who said that he could not decide his policy until he had phoned up the trade union to receive instructions; it is the shadow Justice Secretary who was found out doing that. The hon. Lady should think about taking the beam out of her own party’s eye before she starts looking for motes in others’.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Given this weekend’s revelations and the way in which they have been received in the country, does the Minister really think it is credible that the people out there will think it acceptable for the Conservative party to investigate itself?

[Mr Maude]

The investigation will be conducted by a very distinguished senior lawyer who will—[Interruption.] I have to say again in response to the synthetic indignation from the Opposition Front Bench, particularly from the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher), who was the spokesman for the previous Prime Minister who presided over some of the worst scandals this country has ever seen, that we are not taking any lessons from him. He was in the Labour party in No. 10 when the leader of the Labour party appointed a former general secretary of the Labour party to conduct a so-called independent investigation into its donor scandal.

Freedom of Information Act

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Nandy]

Absolutely. Evidence has emerged in the press that that is exactly what has happened in this instance, which is why I am seeking to clear up the matter today.

There is another thing that does not, so far, stand up to scrutiny. The Department for Education’s initial response to the press reports was to say that only political e-mails were sent through private accounts. The Secretary of State subsequently repeated that claim to the Education Committee. If the Department genuinely believed the e-mails were not governmental, why did it ever seek advice on the applicability of the law to private e-mail accounts? Can the Minister shed any light on that? Did he or his officials have any conversations with the Department, the Secretary of State or his advisers about it? That is why it matters so much to so many of us in the Opposition. Not only do the e-mails relate to decisions of crucial public importance to young people and their families—not least about Building Schools for the Future—but they have created a situation that looks distinctly murky. That affects and discredits us all, and must be clarified urgently.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

As a member of the Education Committee, I attended the hearing. Has my hon. Friend reflected on the fact that in attempting to answer, or not answer, her questions at that Committee hearing, and by evading a real answer to her questions, the Secretary of State, I am sorry to say, seemed to find some amusement in the whole matter? That is a very sad thing, given the time and effort that my hon. Friend has put just into trying to uncover the truth.

[Lisa Nandy]

Indeed; and also because of the significance to the people that we represent throughout the country of decisions that were made and discussed using private e-mail accounts.

I have been seeking answers for seven months and have not been able to get any. In that time, it has been alleged that Ministers repeatedly destroyed official Government correspondence and deliberately used private e-mail accounts to avoid the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. They may still be doing so. The failure to answer questions about this matter makes a mockery of Parliament, the Freedom of Information Act and the commitment to open government.

I realise that Governments are reluctant to share information, sometimes for understandable reasons, but I share the Government’s view that transparency is crucial. In the words of the coalition agreement, they should

“throw open the doors of public bodies, to enable the public to hold politicians and public bodies to account. We also recognise that this will help to deliver better value for money in public spending.”

If that commitment is to have any meaning, frankly, Ministers must up their game. I should be grateful if the Minister would give a commitment today that the original guidance will be published, that in light of the Information Commissioner’s ruling, clear renewed guidance will be issued urgently across the Government regarding the application of the FOI Act to private e-mails, and that if he cannot answer all my questions, he makes a decent attempt to answer those he can, writes to me about the rest and no longer seeks to hide behind the much overused phrase, “long-standing convention.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am getting to the meat of the debate, which raises important issues about freedom of information requests and private e-mails. That is a complex new matter.

[Ian Mearns]

Waffle.

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman says it is waffle, but I am proud, because in less than two years we have achieved all that I mentioned—which is more than his party did in 13 years in power—in giving people information about what the state is doing in their name. I do not describe it as waffle; it is hard information that is in the public domain now.

This debate is about the use of private e-mails and their relation to the Freedom of Information Act. We have to recognise that this complex issue has been the subject, as the hon. Lady says, of a recent decision by the Information Commissioner, published on 2 March. In his decision notice, the Information Commissioner makes it clear that at the time the Department for Education received the FOI request, there was no guidance in existence. This was a new area that had, perhaps, not been anticipated. The commissioner acknowledges that the full implications of the FOI Act in relation to this issue may not have been well understood at the time. He states in his decision notice that he

“would say first of all that he acknowledges that this is a novel issue and one which may not have been anticipated when the Freedom of information Act was passed…Given the unique role played by special advisers it is not always easy to draw a clear line between official information held by a public authority and party political information.”

It is clear that the Information Commissioner’s decision notice raises important issues that the Government are taking seriously and considering.

For reasons that I am sure hon. Members will appreciate, a time period is set out in the FOI legislation within which the Government will consider whether to appeal or release the information. I cannot answer the hon. Lady’s question about whether any decision has been taken. The Government have 28 days from the date of the decision notice to decide whether to appeal. If there is no appeal, the Government have a further seven days to release the information or assert a relevant exemption. Therefore, I am sure that hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the decision while such consideration is under way.

The hon. Lady has asked me to make public the advice given by the Cabinet Office to the Department for Education on FOI and private e-mails. She asserted at the start of her speech that she had not received any answers on this, but in fact she has, although it is not necessarily the answer that she wants. In a written answer from the Minister for the Cabinet Office, she was informed that the Department will not publish any guidance on private e-mails and the Freedom of Information Act given to the Department for Education, because

“Information relating to internal discussion and advice is not normally disclosed.”—[Official Report, 6 February 2012; Vol. 540, c. 63W.]

That has been so for a long time and we will stick to that line, because the Government do not disclose what is effectively internal advice. Doing so would prejudice the conditions under which such advice was given. That is a long-standing convention, and it is entirely respectable for the Government to stand by it. Today’s debate has not changed my view and, I am sure, will not change the view of the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General. We both believe, as Ministers before us have believed, that advice between officials and Ministers should remain confidential.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

I fear that I will test your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, if I make a further reference to he who shall not be named, but clearly my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. My point, Mr Deputy Prime Minister—I mean Mr Deputy Speaker; that was a Freudian slip, and he shall be named after all. My point, Mr Deputy Speaker, is that many Labour Members are favourably inclined towards electoral reform, but others are not. Many of us would have looked forward to the opportunity—it was in our manifesto—of putting the question to the British people and allowing them to decide in a clean, clear referendum for which that was the sole focus of the discussion. That could easily have happened, and that is exactly what should have happened.

As that did not happen, many of us who are favourably inclined towards electoral reform are severely demotivated in terms of putting our weight behind what seems to be a venture with no respect for those of us who might support that agenda. That may suit many hon. Members on both sides of the House who do not agree with electoral reform, but I think it is a terrible shame, because we will all devote our energy to the important national elections in the devolved Administrations, and the referendum will be ignored during those elections. I shall vote in favour of the alternative vote in the referendum, but I fear that it will be lost. Boy, won’t that be awkward for he who must not be named!

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I want to speak about the complexity, confusion and unfairness that have so often been referred to in this debate, and that comes from the perspective of having suffered the ignominy of a proposition for regional government for the north-east of England, which I vehemently supported, being lost in a referendum, almost six years ago to the day. Part of the reason for that, although not the only one by any stretch of the imagination, was the fact that the question of regional government for the north-east of England was combined on the same ballot paper with a question about what form of unitary local government was wanted.

Although 70% of electors in the north-east of England were not subject to any change in local authority, the then Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sent out a six-page supplement to every voter in the region, four pages of which were about local government reorganisation. Many of my constituents rang me asking whether the proposal would mean the end of Gateshead council. It had no impact on Gateshead council, other councils in Tyne and Wear, or councils in Teesside, but the six-page document had four pages about local government reform, and of course the whole concept of regional government for England was lost at that stage.

When addressing the issue of complexity, confusion and fairness, we must look at the coalition Government’s stance. They have repeatedly told us that their actions in passing legislation and making ministerial judgments must pass the acid test of fairness. So is the proposed measure fair or is it not? In fact, the junior coalition partners have almost made it their mantra that they will support their senior coalition partners as long as measures are seen to be fair. The Bill clearly fails that test in many ways, yet the “fairness party”, as the Liberal Democrats see themselves, is still voting in the Lobby to support it—with a handful of notable exceptions on some clauses and amendments. Citizens’ capacity to vote in a referendum is vital, and part of the unfairness to which I refer is the fact that the arbitrary nature of the Government’s proposal disregards the geography and natural togetherness of local communities. I envisage that virtually every constituency in the country will be subject to change—with the exception, of course, of the two constituencies exempted because of their peripheral geography, and because they encompass so many islands.

It is difficult to fathom a scenario in which, in order to meet the twin criteria of ending up with exactly 600 constituencies that must all comprise exactly 76,000 electors, plus or minus 5%, there will be knock-on effects across county boundaries and even regional boundaries—

[Mr Harper]

You’re in the wrong part of the Bill.

[Ian Mearns]

I’m getting there.

It is no wonder that—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am also a little concerned that the hon. Gentleman is going wide of the subject of the combination of polls. Perhaps he could stick to the confusion that he spoke about earlier. This sounds a bit like a speech for a Third Reading debate.

[Ian Mearns]

Mr Deputy Speaker, the unfairness to which I want to address my remarks mainly relates to town and city dwellers. I am not for one moment implying that the people whom I speak of do not exist in the countryside; they do, of course, but not in anywhere near the same kind of numbers as in our towns and cities. The calculations that the Government have made in drawing up their criteria totally disregard the 3.5 million people who are not registered to vote or to take part in the referendum—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Yet again, I think that the hon. Gentleman has not really paid due attention to the amendments before him. He is entering into a much wider debate. I ask him to look again at the subject of the combination of polls, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

Not only will those people be unable to vote in the elections; they will also be unable to vote in the referendum on our voting system. There are many reasons why people will be unable to enfranchise themselves, and it is important to have regard for such people. Some might be in debt and trying to escape from their creditors. Others might be trying to avoid violent loan sharks. They will not be enfranchised to take part in a referendum because they are trying to escape from the people who are pursuing them. Some might be victims of domestic violence hiding from violent former partners—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can help me a little. Which amendment is he speaking to?

[Ian Mearns]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I am happy to return to this matter on Third Reading, but there are some important points about the Bill that need to be made.

[Mr Harper]

I did not detect any focus on the amendments in the last few speeches, so I shall not address the points that were made in them. I shall focus instead on those Members who troubled themselves to speak to the amendments and raised sensible points, as did the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). He and others mentioned that the orders relate to the elections and not to the referendum. The conduct of the elections is not devolved, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) said. The hon. Gentleman will know that, under the Calman proposals, we propose to move the administration of those elections to the Scottish Parliament.

The orders that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are not amendable, and I hope that the House will support them. If it does not, I have already said that we will revert to the original provisions in the Bill, which have been debated and voted on by the House. Either way, the House of Commons will have had the opportunity to consider both scenarios—without the new orders and with them—and to pronounce on them. I am therefore confident that the House and the other place will have taken those decisions, whatever they might be.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

I imagine that the hon. Gentleman’s views would be particularly unpopular with the new leader of the Labour party, who secured his position only because of the block and duplicate votes of trade union members.

I hope that, in the coming weeks and months, we will not pitch the country into confrontation between the Government and the trade unions. I believe that—this, incidentally, has applied to local authorities up and down the country under the control of different political parties—there is a means by which we can work co-operatively with trade unions to make the savings that we need to make as a nation, and reduce to the bare minimum the number of job losses that might be incurred in the process.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

T4. The Deputy Prime Minister need not be concerned that I am going to ask him for a meeting at the end of this question, as I am still waiting for a meeting that he agreed to hold with me during an answer at Prime Minister’s questions on 21 July—and, frankly, I am not holding my breath.In my constituency of Gateshead one of the greatest factors in continuing health inequalities and shorter life expectancy among some of the poorest communities is the prevalence of smoking. Does the Deputy Prime Minister at all regret promoting smoking by saying it would be his greatest single luxury if he were stranded on a desert island?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

First, let me apologise if the hon. Gentleman had been waiting for a meeting; I am keen to ensure that one is fixed as soon as possible.

I was not in any way seeking to promote smoking. It is a very bad habit, and I would never advocate it to anybody else.

Political and Constitutional Reform

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

In the Bill that we will publish before the end of the year, we will also propose the electoral system by which Members of the other place would be elected.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The Deputy Prime Minister has repeatedly suggested that the electoral register was inherited from the last Labour Government, but he also agreed with his colleague, the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), that it is within the domain of local authorities to compile the electoral register. Which one is it?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Clearly, the system is one that we have inherited from the previous Government, but equally it is right that local authorities have a statutory responsibility to take steps to make sure the electoral register is up to date. I do not think those two things are mutually exclusive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

Yes, I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Good work is being done by the CPS, in conjunction with the police, to try to ensure that crime of that nature is reduced without necessarily going through the courts. Equally, it is right to say—the CPS understands this very well—that the use of conditional cautions must not serve as a device to avoid proper convictions being recorded in court against people who ought to be brought before the courts.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

3. If he will take steps to increase the rate of prosecution in cases of domestic violence.

[The Solicitor-General (Mr Edward Garnier)]

May I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his election?

The Government take domestic violence very seriously. The Law Officers support the work that the Crown Prosecution Service is undertaking to increase the rate of prosecution in such cases. The increase in the provision of specialist domestic violence courts, the training of all CPS prosecutors in domestic violence cases and improvements in support and safety for victims have all led to an increase in the rate of prosecutions leading to a conviction. The CPS works with other agencies to ensure that, where possible, the evidence is available to prosecute such cases effectively.

[Ian Mearns]

Has any additional consideration been given to making special provisions for children where cases of domestic violence occur in settings where children are present or where children are victims or witnesses to acts of violence in their own homes?

[The Solicitor-General]

It is estimated that about 750,000 children witness domestic violence during any given year. Clearly, a great deal needs to be done to ensure not only that those children are protected, but that, if appropriate, they can give evidence in courts in such a way that does not frighten them and that leads to proper convictions being arrived at. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that will certainly be considered further.

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North referred to new MPs setting up their offices from scratch. Some new colleagues have told me that they cannot afford the offices used by their predecessors. The rent will last for a number of weeks and then they will be pushed out of those offices.

On the same day that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr Timms) was stabbed at a constituency surgery, I challenged a person whom I thought was breaking into a property neighbouring my constituency office. The police advised me that challenging would-be burglars is not a good idea and that I should desist from doing so in future. My current constituency office is a place in which I feel that my staff and I are safe—it is not a shop, it is not on the ground floor and we have good security protection in the building—but I am very aware of the possibility of crime in the area and the other security threats posed to MPs and their staff.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I am an MP for a new constituency following a boundary change. It would plainly have been the wrong decision for me to try to inherit the premises occupied by my former colleague, David Clelland, which are on the outskirts of the new constituency. In Gateshead town centre, there is a significant transport hub that feeds virtually every part of my constituency, so it would be right for me to establish a new constituency office there. However, the IPSA recommendations on rents do not take account of town centre locations, where rents are necessarily higher because of market conditions. That precludes my establishing a constituency office that is handy for my constituents to access, unless I subsidise it out of my own salary.

[Barbara Keeley]

That is a well made point.

I am short of time, so I want to end my remarks on that aspect by saying that I cannot get another office that I believe would be safe for my staff at the rent that IPSA has used to calculate office costs. IPSA is considering my case, and presumably that of other Members in my situation. I hope that it will be true to its word and not force me and other MPs out of our constituency offices. If it forces us into cheap premises in unsuitable areas, what does that say about security and safety considerations? Following on from my hon. Friend’s intervention, I am now thinking about finding ways to subsidise my office costs. That is the position we have been pushed into.

In summary, why has IPSA changed the terms laid down in the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009? Why does it describe our offices and staffing costs and other essential elements of MPs’ costs as “expenses”, given that the word has such a particular resonance with the public? Why has it caused a great deal of doubt, uncertainty and problems to MPs by reducing the office costs budget and splitting an allowance that worked well into elements with caps that are too low to work properly for a number of MPs and that, by forcing MPs into cheaper office premises, could have very serious implications for the safety and security of MPs and their staff?