Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Lansley]

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

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

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

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

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

[Mr Lansley]

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

[Michael Connarty]

I was not called.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is not complaining, but I simply mention in passing that he was a relatively late entrant to the Chamber. No offence was committed, but there were other Members who had been here longer whom I thought were more deserving at the time.

[Michael Connarty]

I was not complaining; I was making a joke.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. He is a good-humoured fellow.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

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

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

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

[Mr Lansley]

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

Standards and Privileges

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

It is with some regret that I raise, on behalf of my constituents who have raised it with me—this is not to mitigate anything in respect of the report and the actions of Denis MacShane—the question of why there seem to be double standards. The Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), was clearly guilty of falsely claiming £60,000 of House expenses and has been returned to the Cabinet, yet other Members have been recommended for expulsion from the House.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has concluded his remarks, but they were outside the terms of the motion. Of course, if he wanted to pursue the matter, it would require a substantive motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am sure the whole House hopes that Zac makes a good recovery from the operation that took place yesterday, and I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. As my hon. Friend knows, we have made more resources available to the NHS year on year, and responsibility for funding the costs of transport from this country to Germany would normally lie with the local primary care trust. However, I will try to establish whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can play a role in ensuring that the parents can maintain suitable contact with their son.

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

I wish to ask the Leader of the House a question about his own remit. When Labour was in power and I was chairing the European Scrutiny Committee, he seemed to support the idea of reinstating permanent membership of the General Committees that debate EU issues sent to them by the European Scrutiny Committee. I have asked him several times—and the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has supported my request through the Committee—for the matter to be brought before the House. He has had plenty of time to arrange it, and there is plenty of room in the timetable. When will permanent membership be reinstated, so that people can learn properly about European business in General Committees?

[Sir George Young]

I commend the hon. Gentleman’s work on that issue. I would like to pursue the discussion through the usual channels, and then come back to him.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

We are all in this together. The figures that I saw, which I believe were published yesterday, showed that two thirds of the increase in the UK’s population was due to immigration, with the rest being due to increased longevity. On immigration, my hon. Friend will know the steps being taken by the Home Secretary to reduce net migration down to tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands. The steps we have taken regarding students, spouses and workers will all have a downward impact on the future UK population, which I hope he will welcome.

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

I wonder if the Leader of the House will encourage the Government to have an investigation and make a statement or create a debate on the operation of the 2002 commercial debts Act? I have found, through the wonderful scheme of being a business buddy for the federation of private business, that small businesses find that many bigger companies still write into their contracts a 90-day payment period, even though the Act states 30 days, and even SELECT, the electrical engineering group, says the same. The big businesses are bullying small businesses out of their rights under the Act, and I want to know what the Government are going to do to enforce that Act.

[Sir George Young]

We have just had Department for Business, Innovation and Skills questions; I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to raise this issue then. I shall draw the matter to the attention of the Business Secretary to see whether there is abuse of that piece of legislation and, if so, what action we can take to stop it.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I think that my hon. Friend has rehearsed a speech that he might make on Monday if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr Speaker.

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

The Leader of the House will have heard some of the questions on the collapse of the carbon capture and storage scheme at Longannet on the River Forth. Will he arrange for a debate in the Chamber or a statement on carbon capture and storage? The scheme moved from the River Don, where it was decided not to place it, to the River Forth. I have visited the scheme, and it is technologically workable. The pipeline will always be there, but using the North sea makes it necessary to put a pipeline in, and that will cost money. Surely the Government must explain what they are doing about carbon capture and storage and what the involvement of the Scottish Government is.

[Sir George Young]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I have just re-read the speech that my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary made yesterday, which contained a big chunk on precisely this issue. He confirmed that the £1 billion was still available, and a number of other schemes are eligible. We have therefore debated this recently, and we have just had Energy and Climate Change questions.

Business of the House

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 15th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. It is worth reminding the House that the reductions in public expenditure this year are only £2 billion more than what was planned by the outgoing Labour Government.

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

May I ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices to encourage the relevant Minister in the Department responsible for social inclusion to have a debate on the human rights of the deaf community in the UK, instead of leaving it to the Minister responsible for culture and communications when deaf people are denied access to video relay and use of British sign language?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern, I will raise it with the appropriate Minister and ask that the hon. Gentleman be sent a written reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

The Arts Council has clear proposals to continue to support cultural education in schools, and we have also asked Darren Henley, the managing director of Classic FM, to build on his successful report on music in schools by now looking at the whole of cultural education in schools.

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

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Over the next few weeks, I will have much progress to report on all our five priority areas, including broadband allocations for local authorities, next steps for the awarding of local TV licences, inaugural pilots of the school games, a 2012 tourism marketing strategy and a policy to promote financial resilience for the arts.

The House will want to congratulate Andy Murray on his success at Queen’s on Monday, and wish him success for another tournament about to start a few stops further down the District line.

[Michael Connarty]

I am sure the Secretary of State supports the idea of there eventually being independent licences for all four parts of the United Kingdom, but at present how can he possibly justify the fact that STV is not recognised as an independent producer, and is therefore denied access to 25% of the production available through the system, as it is treated like other small independents? Surely this must be taken on, and STV must become a qualified independent producer?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very well aware of the case STV is making. The only point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that the outstanding success of our broadcasting industry has been based on the division between broadcasters and producers and that has benefits for Scotland, as it does for the whole of the United Kingdom. Under our local TV programme, we hope to award many more licences for much smaller areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

I understand the argument for amending draft orders. The difficulty is that, if the two Houses of Parliament amend matters differently, we will then need a reconciliation process, and, instead of an order-making process, we will effectively have a small Bill going through the procedures of Parliament. There are some difficulties with the hon. Lady’s proposal, but I will of course pass on her concerns to the Minister for Europe.

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

During the final two years of the previous Parliament, the then Opposition railed against the fact that the structure of the European Standing Committees collapsed into basically random Committees. There used to 39 Members on three Committees who debated regularly the issues coming from Europe, and it was promised that they would be reinstated. The level of ignorance about European business in this House has gone through the roof, however, and it is time that the Government put people back on those Committees in order that they learn the business of Europe before they stand up and open their mouths.

[Mr Heath]

I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman’s final observations, but he is right to say that we need to ensure that the House is able to scrutinise European business appropriately and fully. That is why I am sure the Minister for Europe is very much engaged in talking to him and his colleagues to make sure that we get the parliamentary structures right—and as soon as possible.

Members’ Salaries

Michael Connarty Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

Like the last speaker, I have never spoken in a pay and conditions debate in this place, and I do not think that I have voted in any of them either, on the basis that I did not think that it was ever correct that Parliament should set its own wages.

The problem I have is this. It may be a criticism of the Leader of the House—[Interruption]—who may be more interested in talking to the Whip—but I want to say how disappointed I am that this proposal is what he and his deputy have come up with. If this proposal is the best that these two intelligent men—both of whom I respect—have come up with, they must have been wasting their time doing other things of lesser importance. It is an embarrassment, because it is taking away independence—my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) is quite correct. The raison d’être is that the Senior Salaries Review Body was compelled to take into account a formula that led to this decision, when what was required was a motion to remove that condition on the Senior Salaries Review Body and then let it do its independent job without the constraints of that formula. That would still have resulted in an independent decision, but what all this has turned into is, sadly, an embarrassing decision.

I respect what was said on behalf of those who have taken a pay freeze, particularly those in the armed forces, who deserve to be paid much more, but really, this issue is about showing that a political decision has been taken to have a pay freeze, thereby garnering what I might assume would be some public applause, along with condemnation of those who might have wanted to take a pay rise. That is what this issue has turned into—a political decision—when it should have been about removing any constraints on an independent body to set the correct level. If that level was in line with a pay freeze for the public sector above £21,000, that would have been correct, but it would also have been independent.

However, to do what is proposed is to demean the House. If that means that the proposals have been drawn up in a short time scale, then what have the Leader of the House’s office and his deputy been doing all this time, if they knew that it would come to this? It is an embarrassment; therefore, I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House and his deputy have been found at fault. If they had any sense, they would withdraw the motion and bring forward a correct motion before the end of the financial year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but I think that the House has been given the opportunity to decide whether it wants that 1% pay increase, and it must make that decision.

[Michael Connarty]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is approaching a response to the point that I made. Has it not come to everyone’s notice recently that there might be a problem with public sector expenditure? It has been parroted in every speech in the House since the election. Why did the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House not introduce something to free the SSRB from the formula in which it was trapped, enabling it to make an independent recommendation on our salaries and on which we would not have to vote? Where has the hon. Gentleman been sleeping?

[Mr Heath]

There are two answers to that. First, I am not a member of the SSRB, so I did not know what recommendation it was going to make. If we tried to adjust the so-called independent formula, would we not be having precisely the same debate about the Executive interfering with the will of the House, which had decided to give to that independent body the right to set our pay? It would be said that we were coming in with a formula of our own. I can just imagine the speeches that would be made, and they would be very similar to the ones that have been made this evening.

The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster talked about animal intelligence. It occurs to me that if there were a lemmings review body that independently came to the view that a headlong dash into a freezing fjord would be for the best, lemmings ought at least to have an opinion on the matter. What we are providing this evening is an opportunity for Members to consider the consequences before complying with the decision.

In this case, the review body has made it plain that it would not have made the recommendation that it did unless it was constrained to do so. It would have independently come to a view that there should be no increase in our pay this year. I find it difficult to believe that any Member of the House thinks we should be treated differently and significantly better than others working in the public sector.