Subject: News

Bulletin from Aidan Burley MP #26 Date: Friday, 28 October 2011 09:45:43 United Kingdom Time From: To: Aidan Burley MP news@aidanburleymp.org

In this edition:
Aidan Burley MPs Diary Website of the Week: Newlife Annual Santa Dash Video news: Aidan leads the debate against taxpayer funded trade union officials Video news: EU Referendum Debate Photo news: Moorhill Primary School visit Jobs Fayre success continues Aidan answers call to help improve breast cancer survival to match the best in Europe Aidan backs Government plan to tackle human trafficking First Birthday for Newlife at Home Store Aidan in the papers: Week in Westminster Aidan in Parliament: Aidan leads the debate against taxpayer funded trade union officials Aidan in Parliament: EU Referendum Debate How to contact Aidan Burley MP

Issue 26 Friday 28th October 2011

Since the last edition, Aidan has:

Led a debate in the House of Commons against taxpayer funded trade union officials. Discussed A&E services at Stafford Hospital with Health Secretary Andrew Lansley with a small group of MPs, and pressed the need to keep services in Cannock Hospital such as outpatient surgery appointments. Aidan also raised a number of issues from local constituents such as the complaints procedure at the Trust. Questioned the Secretary of State for Defence on the provision of facilities for retired service personnel diagnosed with mental health disorders. Spoken in the House of Commons debate on a referendum on Britains membership of the European Union. Welcomed Conservative Party Chairman Baroness Sayeeda Warsi to Cannock Conservative Club, where she had lunch with local Councillors and Members and held a question and answer session with about 20 local people who asked her about local business, Europe and prison privatisation. Visited Moorhill Primary School who are taking steps to becoming an Academy in Cannock. Aidan had a tour of the school and held a Q&A session with some of the children who quizzed him on his role as MP for Cannock Chase. Whilst Aidan was there, he invited the older pupils to visit the House of Commons for a tour. Questioned the Foreign Secretary on child sacrifice and level of corruption in Uganda. Been interviewed on the BBC Newsnight programme and Radio 4s The World at One about the EU Referendum vote. Questioned the Chancellor of the Exchquer on extending the current relief from stamp duty for first-time buyers beyond March 2012. Been quoted in the Irish Times regarding the EU referendum debate. Visited local reuse charity Home Comforts with Baroness Warsi, to see the work they do in selling peoples unwanted goods and also giving second hand furniture to those in need.

Website of the Week:

Newlife Annual Santa Dash

Calling all budding Santas to put their best boot forward to help disabled children with Newlife Foundation at Cannock's annual Santa Dash. Starting from Cannock Leisure Centre and finishing at South Staffordshire College, come along and walk or jog the route in a very fetching Santa suit! Newlife will be providing refreshments at the end of the Dash to all those taking part and there will be a brass band to provide entertainment as the Dashers go past. A minimum of 30 sponsorship per adult is required and children are welcome to come along for free. Newlife will be providing a Santa hat to children on the day and should they wish to make a small donation towards the cost of the hat, this will be gratefully received. Click here for more information on how to take part.

Video news:

Aidan leads the debate against taxpayer funded trade union officials
Wednesday 26th October 2011

Click on the image above to watch Aidan's speech against taxpayer funded trade union officials. For the full text of Aidans speech see below (or click here).

Video news:

EU Referendum Debate
Monday 24th October 2011

Click on the image above to watch Aidan's speech in the debate on whether there should be a referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union. Aidan's speech begins at 3:16.57. For the full text of Aidans speech see below (or click here).

Photo news:

Moorhill Primary School visit

Aidan answering some of the childrens questions during his visit to Moorhill Primary School.

Aidan with some of the Year 6 pupils at Moorhill Primary School during his recent visit and tour of the school.

Jobs Fayre success continues

Aidan has welcomed the news that to date over 35 local people have been employed as a direct result of attending one of his Jobs Fayres. This figure does not include Amazon, who have also confirmed that a number of the 400 people they have recruited came through the Jobs Fayre route. The Fayres held last month had been organised and hosted by the local MP as part of his mission to get Cannock Chase working. These latest figures come after Aidan recently met with three new employees of Blue Bird Care all of whom were recruited at the events, with the company advising that a total of 8 positions have been filled from applications submitted as a direct result of the Fayres. Other companies who have recruited following include banking giant HSBC (4 jobs), local firms Chase Tyres (3 jobs) and Newlife Foundation (2 jobs). Commenting Aidan said: To see that over thirty five jobs have been created to date as a direct result of the Fayres is very pleasing indeed and I know that some employers, such as Tesco, are still going through applications and conducting interviews. However, I am also aware that any recovery we are seeing here is very fragile and we must not rest on our laurels. There is much still to be done and it is vital that we do everything to boost confidence in the economy and in Cannock Chase in particular.

Aidan answers call to help improve breast cancer survival to match the best in Europe

Aidan Burley MP with local constituent Charlotte Wright from Breakthrough Breast Cancers Campaigns & Advocacy Network (CAN). Aidan recently met with local constituent Charlotte Wright from Breakthrough Breast Cancer's Campaigns & Advocacy Network (CAN) at the 12th annual Westminster Fly-In event to discuss how to improve breast cancer survival rates. Nearly 48,000 women and 300 men are diagnosed with the disease each year, making it the most commonly diagnosed cancer in the UK. Even though more women are surviving breast cancer than ever before thanks to better awareness, screening and treatments, survival in England still lags behind some other European countries. If England was to achieve survival rates at the European best for breast cancer, an estimated 1,000 lives could be saved each year. In response to this challenge, Breakthrough Breast Cancer developed the Bridging the Gap in Breast Cancer Survival Charter and believes that the Government can tackle this issue by supporting its key principles; promoting breast awareness messages to help drive early diagnosis, providing access for all eligible women to gold standard NHS Breast Screening Programmes and maximising the potential of breast cancer research, to create personalised or targeted treatments. Commenting Aidan said: "We have the opportunity to make effective change that can save lives. It is clear that by following these principles, we give ourselves the best possible chance to match our European counterparts' breast cancer survival rates and make a real difference" Chris Askew, Chief Executive of Breakthrough Breast Cancer said: "Breast cancer knows no political, social or demographic boundaries it has the ability to affect everyone. That's why more needs to be done to bridge the gap in breast cancer survival rates. It's great that the MPs here today have signed up to support our Charter but the next step is for us to see real action and for MPs to really throw their weight behind it so we can end the fear of this disease for good." You can support Breakthrough Breast Cancer and find out more about the work it does at www.breakthrough.org.uk/gap.

Aidan backs Government plan to tackle human trafficking

Aidan has backed the Government's efforts to tackle human trafficking. A reception was recently held at Number 10 Downing Street to mark Anti-Slavery Day, and to encourage awareness of human trafficking and modern-day slavery. The day was established last year following the campaigning work of the Conservative former-MP, Anthony Steen. Human trafficking is a brutal form of organised crime where women, children and men are treated as commodities and exploited for criminal gain. In July the Government published a Human Trafficking Strategy to address the crime by supporting victims and fighting traffickers. The Strategy focuses on four core themes: improving identification and care of victims the aim is to ensure victims receive support tailored to their needs but also to prevent people becoming victims in the first place enhancing our ability to act early before harm reaches the UK the Government is working to deter and disrupt trafficking overseas smarter action at the border strengthening our border controls and policing will make it harder for traffickers to enter the UK more coordination of our law enforcement efforts the establishment of the National Crime Agency in 2013 will create a Border Police Command to improve immigration controls and crack down on trafficking.

Government has also protected 2 million of annual funding for two years for victims of trafficking. In addition, all UKBA front line staff have been given training to ensure they are aware of human trafficking and child protection issues. Commenting Aidan said: "Human trafficking is something that I know people across Cannock Chase would deplore and so I'm pleased to back this Government's work to tackle this terrible crime. "The UK must not be a safe haven for trafficking and those who traffic women, children or men must be pursued and brought to justice. "The Government's Human Trafficking Strategy and the new National Crime Agency's Border Police Command will help focus action on this issue."

First Birthday for Newlife at Home Store

Newlife at Home celebrated its first birthday on Sunday, 23rd October 2011. Newlife, in Hemlock Way, Cannock, opened its dedicated homeware outlet on the former Maymies nightclub site to ring up record sales in its first week of trading and has continued to develop. New stock for home and garden is released every single day and includes soft furnishings, rugs, linen, mirrors, kitchen goods, furniture, designer items, luggage, small electrical items and much more. Profits from the at home store are used to help disabled and terminally-ill children through Newlife Foundation for Disabled Children which works nationally to ensure children get the essential equipment they need. Local MP Aidan Burley and his fiance TV fashion expert Helen Boyle opened the store last year. Aidan said: It was an honour and a privilege to open the store in such challenging economic times. What Newlife does is fantastic on so many levels providing employment locally, helping get the long term and disabled back into work, raise huge amounts of money for disabled children and of course provide great deals for local shoppers. Were delighted it has been a successful first year. Helen and I have benefited from many bargains there as we had just set up home when it was opened we are thinking of adding it to our forthcoming wedding list now! The store is open Monday to Fridays from 11am 7pm, Saturday, Sunday and Bank Holidays 11am 5pm. Call 01543 462888 for details or see www.newlifetrading.co.uk for more details.

Aidan in the papers:

Aidan Burley MP, Chase Post Thursday 20th October 2011

Week in Westminster

Last week we saw Parliament drag itself into the 21st Century when MPs rejected an amendment that would have banned us from accessing email, the internet and social media sites such as Twitter on our mobile devices in the Chamber. Parliament also used the opportunity to formally adopt a motion to allow the use of some silent electronic devices in the chamber which had previously only been tolerated informally (e.g. iPads). For many people, their mobile devices are invaluable, enabling them to communicate instantly with friends and family. The same is true for MPs. Our Blackberrys and iPhones enable us to deal with constituency correspondence and respond to the people we represent in a timely and professional fashion. Some colleagues had argued that by allowing the use of hand held electronic devices in the Chamber, we would somehow be bringing it into "disrepute". Whilst I fully recognise and appreciate the traditions of the House of Commons, I do not believe that banning the use of such devices is realistic in this digital age. Indeed, up until last week, the UK was one of only two countries in Europe who had banned MPs from tweeting during proceedings. At present, MPs can use their phones in the Chamber, to text and check email. But technology moves on a pace and how could the Sergeant at Arms discern whether an MP was checking an email or BBC News or Facebook, whilst a debate was in progress? When does a larger iPhone become and iPad? Is a HTC Evo or a Palm Pilot a phone or a PC? Given the pace of technological change, far better that we adapt and adopt whilst at all times respecting the Chamber for what it is, the debating cockpit of the nation. So whilst MPs can use their new devices, they cannot do it in a "disruptive" way, or use them to read speeches from. For me, this struck a sensible compromise between tradition and modernity.

Aidan in Parliament:

Aidan leads the debate against taxpayer funded trade union officials
Wednesday 26th October 2011 Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): The general public could be forgiven for thinking that the funding of trade unions in this country was a relatively simple affair whereby employees who wish to join a union pay their subs and receive the benefits of their membership, and then out of those subs, the unions fund their activities, their offices and their costs, including the cost of the salaries of those fulltime officials who spend all day on union activity rather than working on their normal job. Not so, however. Over the 13 years of the last Labour Governmenta Labour Government funded to the tune of 10 million a year by the unions an insipid, backhanded and frankly dodgy system emerged which ensures that millions of pounds a year of taxpayers money is now being used to fund political union activity. In simple terms, the taxpayer is directly funding those organising strikes and chaos, and also indirectly funding the Labour party; and I think that is wrong. Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab): Could the hon. Gentleman describe to the House his interpretation of a trade union official, because that is fundamentally different from what he is stating? There is a difference between a trade union official and a trade union representative. Mr Burley: If the hon. Gentleman had given me more than a minute to get going, I would have come to that point. To answer his question directly, my contention is very simple: any activities that people undertake on behalf of trade unions should be funded by the trade unions and not by the taxpayer. Some excellent research by the widely respected TaxPayers Alliance in September last year revealed some absolutely startling results. The TPA submitted freedom of information requests to 1,253 public sector organisations, including councils, Government Departments, primary care trusts, foundation trusts, ambulance services, fire services, and all quangos with more than 50 staff. It found the following to be the case. In 2010, trade unions received 85.8 million in total from public sector organisations. That 85 million is made up of 18.3 million in direct payments from public sector organisationsmainly the union modernisation and union learning fundsand an estimated 67.5 million in paid staff time: the subject of this debate. That total is up by 14% from 2008-09, when trade unions received just 76.1 million from public sector organisations. In 2009-10, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills alone gave unions 15 million in direct subs. In 2009-10, total public funding for the trade unions was 20% more than the combined contributions to the Labour party and the Conservative party. Finally, in 2009-10, 2,493 full-time equivalent public sector employees worked for trade unions at taxpayers expense. Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): It may interest Members to know that in Leeds city council a white paper was brought forward by Councillor Alan Lamb, a local small business entrepreneur, who said that it was outrageous that the council was spending 400,000 a year of taxpayers money on union officials. Does my hon. Friend believe it was right that that was voted down by Labour councillors who received money to get elected to Leeds city council in the first place? Is that not a personal and prejudicial interest? Mr Burley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I find it astonishing that, in this place and elsewhere, anybody with an interest is required to declare it, unless it is that they are a member of a union that funds them and their local constituency party. Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): I should declare an interest: I am a proud trade unionist. I am a member of Prospect. Margaret Thatcher and Norman Tebbit were also proud trade unionists. Although I agree with my hon. Friends sentiment, does he not agree that despite the abuse, there are many moderate trade unions around the country that do a great job in representing peoples interests? A third of trade union members vote Conservative and Conservatives should do all that they can to build bridges with moderate trade unions. Mr Burley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Few would take issue with unions working on behalf of their members in Departments or other public bodies in their own time and with union funding. My question to him and to the House is: why are taxpayers funding that work? I want to focus on the fact that 2,493 full-time equivalent public sector employees worked for trade unions at the taxpayers expense in 2009-10. The TaxPayers Alliance has even broken down those employees by sector: 813 worked in local authorities, 630 in quangos, 611 in Departments, 130 in foundation and acute trusts, 96 in primary care trusts, 43 in NHS mental health trusts and 41 in fire services. My problem with those astonishing figures is simple: why should we spend hard-earned taxpayers money on a huge subsidy to the unions? Full-time trade union officials should be paid for by union members, not by the taxpayer. Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab): I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets the opportunity to make this speech in front of the steel workers whom I have the privilege to represent, because the regulations also apply to the private sector. The Government, who are trying to provoke public sector strikes, should be more fearful of small and medium-sized enterprises in the private sector that are not unionised, where the incidents of wild-cat strikes are increasing. The Government need unions on side to deal with the vast amounts of people and to keep the costs of human resources down. Adjournment debates such as this provoke poor industrial relations. Mr Burley: I think that the hon. Gentleman will come to regret that questionI am not even sure what his question was. I simply point out that what goes on in the private sector does not bother me because it involves private money. It is public money that I am talking about. Trade unions are an important part of society and of Britains big society. However, the support that they get from the taxpayer has got way out of hand. Few would take issue with unions working on behalf of their members, but they must do it in their own time and with union funding. Why are the public paying for it? Several hon. Members rose Mr Burley: I will make a little progress. In the six months to March, the unions had enough money to give almost 5 million of donations to the Labour party, while paying their leaders up to 145,000 a year, which is what the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers boss, Bob Crow, receives. In fact, 38 trade union general secretaries and chief executives receive remuneration of more than 100,000. To name but one, the former joint general secretary of Unite, Derek Simpson, received more than 500,000, including severance pay of 310,000. That is in addition to the fact that the trade unions get 18.3 million [Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. Although Members on both sides of the House clearly have strong views on this subject, I remind them that this Adjournment debate is being televised. The behaviour of Members does not always reflect well on them. The hon. Member who has secured this Adjournment debate is entitled to be heard. Mr Burley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that all Members will agree that I am trying to be quite generous in taking interventions, but I have only 15 minutes in which to speak. In addition to what I mentioned earlier, the trade unions currently get 18.3 million in direct payments from the taxpayer every year through the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund, so they have nearly 20 million in their bank accounts before we factor in any time off at the taxpayers expense. Surely they can cover their costs with a 20 million annual grant plus all their subs. Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I, too, wish to stress that I support the unions, and I met my union representative today for an hour in relation to certain matters. However, what does my hon. Friend feel the moneythe 85 millioncould be spent on? Mr Burley: The very simple answer to that is front-line services, not full-time union officials. The legal background to the matter is that under section 168 in part III of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, a union representative is permitted paid time off for union duties. According to ACAS, those duties relate to anything including the terms and conditions of employment, the physical conditions of workers and matters of trade union membership or non-membership. However, under the same Act, any employee who is a union representative or a member of a recognised trade union is also entitled to unpaid time off to undertake what are called union activities, as distinct from duties. As defined by ACAS, union activities can include voting in a union election or attending a meeting regarding union business, but there is no statutory requirement to pay union representatives or members for time spent on union activities. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear what he is saying. Union duties and union activities both fall under the remit of a union representative. Some union representatives are therefore currently being paid for undertaking both activities and duties, and I think that is wrong. Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) rose Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab) rose Mr Burley: I will give way in a minute. In addition, union learning representatives are entitled to paid time off for duties including analysing learning or training needs, providing information about learning and training matters, arranging learning or training or promoting the values of learning and training. I ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, who is chuntering, is not all that the job of the human resources department? In 2004[Interruption.] Just be quiet. In 2004, the Labour Government made a commitment to boost the number of union learning representatives in the work force to 20,000, a threefold increase. The upshot is that a significant number of union representativesnearly 2,500 full-time equivalentsare fully paid for by public funds. That means that the trade unions themselves do not bear their own representation costs. Phil Wilson: Speaking as somebody who in the early 1980s was a member of the Civil and Public Services Association and received facility time to work as a trade union representative, may I say that where I worked was 90%-plus union organised, and we did not have any strikes? We had a great working relationship in the building, because we could sit down and talk through problems with the management, who enjoyed it. If we started where the hon. Gentleman wants, we would end up where part of my union ended up. In 1984, the CPSA was banned from GCHQ James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Should Opposition Members declare their interest if they have received union funding in their capacity as Members of this House, or for political campaigns, before making interventions? I would be grateful if you could clarify the rules on that matter. Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Mr Wharton, I am sure that everybody is aware of what interests they should be declaring when they participate in any debate. That applies to an Adjournment debate, which is normally the property of the Member who has secured it. Mr Burley: I have forgotten part of the point that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) made, but I simply say that the unions are entitled to do what they like, and I am sure a lot of what he did was very good work. My point is that they should do it on their own time and it should be paid for by themselves, not by the taxpayer. Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con): Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Burley: I will in just one minute. The upshot of all the extra money provided to the unions is that a huge amount of money is freed up, whether from the direct grants or the union fees, that the unions can use on political campaigns. If their other costs are paid at the taxpayers expense, the unions can use the rest of their income for political activities. Ian Murray rose Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab) rose Mr Burley: I will not give way. I would be grateful if the Minister could address the distinction between paid time off for union duties and unpaid time off for union activities. What are the Government doing about union officials who play the system and use their paid time off for political activities? Further, are the Government planning to mandate public bodies to record more accurately what time is taken off for political activities, which should not be funded by the taxpayer? We know from a written answer from the Department for Communities and Local Government that public bodies do not even bother recording union time accurately. Anna Soubry: Will my hon. Friend give way? Mr Burley: I will just read this out and then give way. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) asked the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will issue guidance to local authorities on the use of (a) facilities, (b) resources and (c) staffing time for trade union duties and activities. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), replied: The TUC have estimated that there are 200,000 union representatives in workplaces across the United Kingdom. Information on the amounts spent on paid time On the provision of facilities for trade union officials in the public sector is not widely recorded or transparentEstimates have suggested thatfacility time is more prevalent in the civil service than the rest of the public sector and the private sector, with civil service departments spending, on average, 0.2% of annual payon facility time, compared to 0.14% in the whole public sector and just 0.04% in the private sector...We would actively encourage local authorities to reduce the amount of facility time to the norm of private sector levels.[Official Report, 25 October 2011; Vol. 534, c. 126W-27W.] Anna Soubry: I hope that as a shop steward I represented my members with integrity, vigour and some success. I never took a single penny piece from the public purse. Does my hon. Friend, who has so commendably introduced this Adjournment debate, agree that unions would advance their cause if they stopped taking public money? If they did that, more people might join them because they would not be seen as extensions of the Labour party. Mr Burley: My hon. Friend is entirely right. That is the point that I was trying to make. My direct question to the Government is this: are they willing to go further and change the 1992 Act, so that trade unions should fund all their activities from their subs? There should be no taxpayer subsidy for those who take time off to spend on union activity. Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab) rose Ian Murray rose Mr Burley: I will not give way. That would be many peoples preference. By way of an example, the excellent, independent and non-taxpayer funded campaigning website order-order, or the Guido Fawkes blog, has been highlighting the practice of paying union officials out of the taxpayer purse. Following its campaign, full-time taxpayer-funded trade union officials have become known as Pilgrims in the media, after Paul Staines exposed one such full-time union rep named Jane Pilgrim as a full-time trade union organiser working in the NHS for Unison. She came to public attention in 2011 after criticising the Governments health policies. Despite being billed as a nurse, she was found to be a full-time trade union official, being paid 40,000 by the hospital. She is now under investigation by both St Georges hospital and Unison for running a private health consultancycalled The Pilgrim Wayon the side, creating a conflict of interests. As the website states: There is no justification for the taxpayer paying a lobbying organisation to fight for an unsustainable mess in the interests of a vocal minority group. We dont pay the arms dealers and the tobacco lobbyists staffing bills. Let us consider this classic example, which was flagged up by none other than the Black Countrys Express and Star: Judy Fosteris employed as an administration officer by the fire serviceBut for the past seven years the Labour councillor has been devoting all her working time to Unison, representing 280 fire workersThe fire service has now insisted that Councillor Fosterspends half hertimeon fire service duties and half with the unionBut Unison has appealed against the offer and says her union work should be full time and funded entirely by the taxpayer. My question is why and on what grounds? Jim Sheridan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. As a proud member of Unite the Union and the chair of the Unite parliamentary group, I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to come along to our group and tell us where we are going wrong. One of the main factors in a trade union officials job is identifying and preventing health and safety problems in the workplacenot the office, the workplace. Has he factored in any of the figures from the TaxPayers Alliance? Mr Burley: My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is to ask what he thinks the human resources department or the Health and Safety Executive are for. Public sector organisations have those people, so there is total duplication. Ian Murray rose Jim Sheridan rose Mr Burley: The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) just asked what has gone wrong, and I will tell him. The Express and Star continued: Councillor Foster, who was elected in 1998, already picks up 9,300 in allowances from Dudley Council along with 14,475 as vice chairman of the West Midlands Police Authority. With her 28,000 job, it brings her combined taxpayer-funded salary and allowances to more than 51,000. It is no wonder that a YouGov poll in conjunction with the TaxPayers Alliance shows more than half the country would like to see an end to the controversial practice of public sector-funded trade union officials. Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I, too, declare an interest as I am the former father of the National Union of Journalists chapel at ITV Yorkshire in Leeds. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) attended the TUC last month in London. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) find it surprising that while representing the union members at ITV Yorkshire in Leeds, the fat cat boss at ITV, who was slashing jobs while taking millions in pay, shares and perks, has now been tasked by the Leader of the Opposition with reforming the Labour party? Mr Burley: I would love to say that I was surprised, but after revising for this debate, I am not surprised by anything anymore. It is my simple contention that trade unions should pay for representation within public sector organisations through subscriptions. It is unfair that taxpayers should have to shoulder that burden. Unions raise substantial sums through membership subscriptions. For example, subs in the Home Office alone came to more than 2 million in 2009-10. Programmes that give taxpayers money to trade unions under the guise of work force improvement should also be scrapped. This includes the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund. Will the Minister explain what plans the Government have to end fulltime trade union work in the public sector? Will he pledge to end fulltime representatives who spend 100% of their time on trade union work while being paid their salary by the taxpayer? Will he mandate all public bodies to record accurately time spent on both union duties and activities? Will the Government go one step further? Employment legislation currently requires employers to make available a reasonable amount of time for trade union representatives to carry out their duties. Will he change that so that all time taken off for trade union activities is billed back to the union so that the taxpayer is no longer funding their work? Finally, given that the unions start the financial year with a 20 million grant from the taxpayer, are the Government looking at reviewing, paring down or abolishing the union modernisation fund and the union learning fund? The taxpayers of this country are currently bankrolling the unions. The equivalent of 2,500 full-time officials are being paid for by the taxpayer, not to do the job of representation but to undertake full-time campaigning activities that should be funded by the unions. This is at a cost of 86 million a year to the taxpayer, with 170,000 days off for union activities and 23 million of perks such as photocopying and phone calls. In an age of austerity, that 86 million is the equivalent of the expenditure of the Office of Fair Trading. Taxpayers expect their money to be spent on public services, not union services. We can no longer afford this Spanish practice, and I call on the Minister to end it. You can read the Ministers reply here.

Aidan in Parliament:
Monday 24th October 2011

EU Referendum Debate

Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): I support the principle of having an EU referendum, yet I will not support the motion. Let me explain why those two positions are not contradictory. I am on record as saying that our membership of the EU should be put to the British people. I am 32, and I find it incredible that the last referendum took place four years before I was even born. One has to be 55 to have voted in it. It is therefore understandable that people of my generation do not feel that they have had their say on Europe. They see the EU interfering in our everyday lives, from how fruit and vegetables are packaged, to the number of announcements on trains and, most insidious of all, how long we are allowed to work in our jobs for just 48 hours a week. [Interruption.] It is clear to me that what was put to the people in 1975[Interruption.] John Bercow (Speaker): Order. The House must come to order. The hon. Gentleman has been waiting courteously; he deserves a proper hearing, and that is what he must get. Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is clear that what was put to the people in 1975we should remember that they voted yeswas the Common Market, but the European Union that exists today would be unrecognisable to those who voted then. When Britain joined the Common Market, it signed up to a free trade agreement. Since then, the power of European institutions has changed beyond all recognition. I am delighted that the Government have enshrined in law that a referendum must be held before any further powers are ceded to Brussels. This is a major stepone that I have supported with enthusiasm. Frankly, given the EUs propensities for creating new treaties, I suspect it will not be long before the people get the vote that they desire and deserve. That vote will be important. If the public vote in favour of a future treaty, it will rule out for another generation any thought of us ever leaving the EU. If the public vote to reject it, I believe it would be difficult, if not impossible, for there not to be a subsequent vote on our withdrawal. Given that the referendum that I want is inevitable, as a result of the laws passed by the Conservatives, I must think carefully about the current motion and its impact on the people of Cannock Chase. Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole, Conservative): I respect my hon. Friends views. Like him, I was born after the last referendum on the matter, but the problem with his argument is that it does not give us the opportunity to have a say on whether we want to be in the EU. That is what my and his generation want to have. We have never been asked that before, and it is about time that we were. Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): I think that our generation will be given that choice. I must consider the impact that passing this motion would have on my constituents. That is the key point. Business men have told me that there are signs that give cause for optimism, but that the recovery is fragile. Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire, Conservative): Will my hon. Friend give way? Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): No, I will not. Those business mens fear, and mine, is that the announcement of a referendum, involving the campaign extending to 2013 for which the motion calls, could have a devastating effect on business confidence and investment. This morning I spoke to a business man from my constituency who had come here to be given a tour of the House of Commons. He works for an international company in the private sector which has invested heavily in the United Kingdom and employs several hundred people in my constituency, and he has already been told by the members of his executive board in America that the potential further instability caused by a referendum could cause them to question future investment not just in Cannock Chase, but in the United Kingdom and the whole of Europe. Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire, Conservative): Will my hon. Friend give way? Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): I will not. At a time when business is crying out for stability, a referendum would move it in totally the opposite direction, creating yet more instability when what we need is foreign investment. While that business man would not oppose a referendum in principle, now is simply not the time for one. I think that the referendum that we all want is coming, and will be a result of the policies that have already been backed by the Government and by the EU itself. However, I think that to hold that referendum now, regardless of the result, would create a significant risk for our economy and for Cannock Chase in particular. I say to every Member who supports the motion, Ask yourself one question: are you willing to jeopardise the recovery? [Interruption.] British people are worried[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, British people are worried about bread-and-butter issues. They are worried about jobs and about their livelihoods. I do not want to do anything that puts my constituents livelihoods at risk. The time will come for people to vote on whether we stay in the EU, but, in my opinion, that time is not today. This is a debate for another day. Voting for the motion would be an indulgence, and I hope Members will vote accordingly. [Interruption.]

5 ways to contact Aidan Burley MP:

By Phone: 01543 502 447 By email: aidan.burley.mp@parliament.uk By post: Aidan Burley MP 6 High Green Court, Newhall Street Cannock, WS11 1GR In person: Click here for details of how to book an appointment at Aidan Burley MPs regular help and advice surgeries.

www.aidanburleymp.org
More news from Aidan Burley MP, coming soon Please forward this email on to anyone you think may be interested. If you have had this email forwarded to you and would like to be added to the mailing list, please send an email to: news@aidanburleymp.org with JOIN in the subject heading. To unsubscribe from this list, please return an e-mail to news@aidanburleymp.org with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject heading.

Aidan Burley MP Putting Cannock Chase First!

Published & Promoted by Aidan Burley MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA