8/3/2019 News Bulletin from Aidan Burley MP #26

1/1

Subject: NewsBulletinfromAidanBurleyMP#26

Date: Friday,28October201109:45:43UnitedKingdomTime

From: AidanBurleyMP

To: news@aidanburleymp.org

In this edition:

Aidan Burley MPs DiaryWebsite of the Week:Newlife Annual Santa DashVideo news:Aidan leads the debateagainst taxpayer fundedtrade union officials

Video news:EU Referendum DebatePhoto news:Moorhill PrimarySchool visitJobs Fayre successcontinuesAidan answers call tohelp improve breast cancersurvival tomatch the best inEurope

Aidan backsGovernment plan totackle human traffickingFirst Birthday forNewlife at Home StoreAidan in the papers:Week in WestminsterAidan in Parliament:Aidan leads the debateagainst taxpayer fundedtrade union officials

Aidan in Parliament:EU Referendum DebateHow to contactAidan Burley MP

Issue 26 Friday 28th October 2011

Since the last edition, Aidan has:

Led a debate in the House of Commons against taxpayerfunded trade union officials.

Discussed A&E services at Stafford Hospital with HealthSecretary Andrew Lansley with a small group of MPs, andpressed the need to keep services in Cannock Hospital

such as outpatient surgery appointments. Aidan also raised anumber of issues from local constituents such as thecomplaints procedure at the Trust.

Questioned the Secretary of State for Defence on theprovision of facilities for retired service personneldiagnosed with mental health disorders.

Spoken in the House of Commons debate on a referendumon Britains membership of the European Union.

Welcomed Conservative Party Chairman BaronessSayeeda Warsi to Cannock Conservative Club, where shehad lunch with local Councillors and Members and held aquestion and answer session with about 20 local people who

asked her about local business, Europe and prisonprivatisation.

Visited Moorhill Primary School who are taking steps tobecoming an Academy in Cannock. Aidan had a tour of theschool and held a Q&A session with some of the children whoquizzed him on his role as MP for Cannock Chase. WhilstAidan was there, he invited the older pupils to visit the Houseof Commons for a tour.

Questioned the Foreign Secretary on child sacrifice and levelof corruption in Uganda.

Been interviewed on the BBC Newsnight programme andRadio 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 beyondMarch 2012.

Been quoted in the Irish Times regarding the EUreferendum debate.

Visited local reuse charity Home Comforts with BaronessWarsi, to see the work they do in selling peoples unwantedgoods 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 helpdisabled children with Newlife Foundation at Cannock's annual

Santa Dash. Starting from Cannock Leisure Centre and finishingat South Staffordshire College, come along and walk or jog the

route in a very fetching Santa suit! Newlife will be providingrefreshments at the end of the Dash to all those taking part and

there will be a brass band to provide entertainment as theDashers 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 andshould 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 officialsWednesday 26th October 2011

Click on the image above to watch Aidan's speech againsttaxpayer funded trade union officials.

For the full text of Aidans speech see below (orclick here).

Video news:EU Referendum Debate

Monday 24th October 2011

Click on the image above to watch Aidan's speech inthe 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 (orclick here).

Photo news:Moorhill Primary School visit

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

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

Jobs Fayre success continuesAidan has welcomed the news that to date over 35 local people havebeen employed as a direct result of attending one of his Jobs Fayres.

This figure does not include Amazon, who have also confirmed that anumber of the 400 people they have recruited came through the JobsFayre route.The Fayres held last month had been organised and hosted by thelocal MP as part of his mission to get Cannock Chase working.These latest figures come after Aidan recently met with three newemployees of Blue Bird Care all of whom were recruited at the events,with the company advising that a total of 8 positions have been filledfrom applications submitted as a direct result of the Fayres.

Other companies who have recruited following include banking giantHSBC (4 jobs), local firms Chase Tyres (3 jobs) and NewlifeFoundation (2 jobs).Commenting Aidan said: To see that over thirty five jobs have beencreated to date as a direct result of the Fayres is very pleasing indeedand I know that some employers, such as Tesco, are still goingthrough applications and conducting interviews. However, I am alsoaware that any recovery we are seeing here is very fragile and wemust not rest on our laurels. There is much still to be done and it isvital that we do everything to boost confidence in the economy and inCannock Chase in particular.

Aidan answers call to help improvebreast cancer survival to match thebest in Europe

Aidan Burley MP with local constituent Charlotte Wrightfrom Breakthrough Breast Cancers Campaigns & AdvocacyNetwork (CAN).

Aidan recently met with local constituent Charlotte Wright fromBreakthrough Breast Cancer's Campaigns & Advocacy Network

(CAN) at the 12th annual Westminster Fly-In event to discuss how toimprove breast cancer survival rates.Nearly 48,000 women and 300 men are diagnosed with the diseaseeach 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, survivalin England still lags behind some other European countries. IfEngland was to achieve survival rates at the European best for breastcancer, an estimated 1,000 lives could be saved each year.In response to this challenge, Breakthrough Breast Cancer developedthe Bridging the Gap in Breast Cancer Survival Charter and believesthat the Government can tackle this issue by supporting its keyprinciples; promoting breast awareness messages to help drive earlydiagnosis, providing access for all eligible women to gold standardNHS Breast Screening Programmes and maximising the potential ofbreast cancer research, to create personalised or targeted treatments.

Commenting Aidan said: "We have the opportunity to make effectivechange that can save lives. It is clear that by following these

principles, we give ourselves the best possible chance to match ourEuropean counterparts' breast cancer survival rates and make a realdifference"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 doneto bridge the gap in breast cancer survival rates. It's great that theMPs here today have signed up to support our Charter but the nextstep 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 aboutthe work it does at www.breakthrough.org.uk/gap.

Aidan backs Government plan to tacklehuman traffickingAidan has backed the Government's efforts to tackle humantrafficking.

A reception was recently held at Number 10 Downing Street to markAnti-Slavery Day, and to encourage awareness of human traffickingand modern-day slavery. The day was established last year followingthe 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 forcriminal gain. In July the Government published a Human TraffickingStrategy to address the crime by supporting victims and fightingtraffickers. The Strategy focuses on four core themes:

improving identification and care of victims the aim is toensure victims receive support tailored to their needs but alsoto 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 traffickingoverseas

smarter action at the border strengthening our bordercontrols and policing will make it harder for traffickers to enterthe UK

more coordination of our law enforcement efforts theestablishment of the National Crime Agency in 2013 willcreate a Border Police Command to improve immigrationcontrols and crack down on trafficking.

Government has also protected 2 million of annual funding for twoyears for victims of trafficking. In addition, all UKBA front line staffhave been given training to ensure they are aware of humantrafficking 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 toback 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 NationalCrime Agency's Border Police Command will help focus action on thisissue."

First Birthday forNewlife at Home Store

Newlife at Home celebrated its first birthday on Sunday, 23rd October2011.Newlife, in Hemlock Way, Cannock, opened its dedicated homewareoutlet on the former Maymies nightclub site to ring up record sales inits first week of trading and has continued to develop.New stock for home and garden is released every single day andincludes 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 andterminally-ill children through Newlife Foundation for Disabled

Children which works nationally to ensure children get the essentialequipment they need.Local MP Aidan Burley and his fiance TV fashion expert Helen Boyleopened the store last year. Aidan said: It was an honour and a

privilege to open the store in such challenging economic times. WhatNewlife does is fantastic on so many levels providing employmentlocally, helping get the long term and disabled back into work, raisehuge amounts of money for disabled children and of course providegreat deals for local shoppers.Were delighted it has been a successful first year. Helen and I havebenefited from many bargains there as we had just set up home when

it was opened we are thinking of adding it to our forthcomingwedding 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 formore details.

Aidan in the papers:

Week in WestminsterAidan Burley MP, Chase Post

Thursday 20th October 2011

Last week we saw Parliament dragitself into the 21st Century whenMPs rejected an amendment thatwould have banned us from accessing email, the internet and socialmedia 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 whichhad previously only been tolerated informally (e.g. iPads).For many people, their mobile devices are invaluable, enabling themto communicate instantly with friends and family. The same is true forMPs. Our Blackberrys and iPhones enable us to deal withconstituency correspondence and respond to the people we representin a timely and professional fashion.Some colleagues had argued that by allowing the use of hand heldelectronic devices in the Chamber, we would somehow be bringing itinto "disrepute". Whilst I fully recognise and appreciate the traditionsof 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 MPsfrom tweeting during proceedings.At present, MPs can use their phones in the Chamber, to text andcheck email. But technology moves on a pace and how could theSergeant at Arms discern whether an MP was checking an email orBBC News or Facebook, whilst a debate was in progress? When doesa larger iPhone become and iPad? Is a HTC Evo or a Palm Pilot aphone or a PC?Given the pace of technological change, far better that we adapt andadopt whilst at all times respecting the Chamber for what it is, thedebating cockpit of the nation. So whilst MPs can use their newdevices, they cannot do it in a "disruptive" way, or use them to readspeeches from. For me, this struck a sensible compromise betweentradition and modernity.

Aidan in Parliament:Aidan leads the debate againsttaxpayer funded trade union officials

Wednesday 26th October 2011

Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con): The general public couldbe forgiven for thinking that the funding of trade unions in this countrywas a relatively simple affair whereby employees who wish to join aunion pay their subs and receive the benefits of their membership,and then out of those subs, the unions fund their activities, theiroffices and their costs, including the cost of the salaries of those full-time officials who spend all day on union activity rather than workingon their normal job. Not so, however.Over the 13 years of the last Labour Governmenta LabourGovernment funded to the tune of 10 million a year by the unionsan insipid, backhanded and frankly dodgy system emerged whichensures that millions of pounds a year of taxpayers money is nowbeing used to fund political union activity. In simple terms, thetaxpayer is directly funding those organising strikes and chaos, andalso 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 unionofficial, because that is fundamentally different from what he isstating? There is a difference between a trade union official and atrade union representative.

Mr Burley: If the hon. Gentleman had given me more than a minuteto get going, I would have come to that point. To answer his questiondirectly, my contention is very simple: any activities that peopleundertake on behalf of trade unions should be funded by the tradeunions and not by the taxpayer.Some excellent research by the widely respected TaxPayers Alliancein September last year revealed some absolutely startling results. TheTPA submitted freedom of information requests to 1,253 public sectororganisations, including councils, Government Departments, primarycare trusts, foundation trusts, ambulance services, fire services, andall 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 publicsector organisations. That 85 million is made up of 18.3 million indirect payments from public sector organisationsmainly the unionmodernisation and union learning fundsand an estimated 67.5million in paid staff time: the subject of this debate. That total is up by14% from 2008-09, when trade unions received just 76.1 million frompublic sector organisations. In 2009-10, the Department for Business,Innovation and Skills alone gave unions 15 million in direct subs. In2009-10, total public funding for the trade unions was 20% more thanthe combined contributions to the Labour party and the Conservativeparty. Finally, in 2009-10, 2,493 full-time equivalent public sectoremployees worked for trade unions at taxpayers expense.

Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): It may interestMembers to know that in Leeds city council a white paper was broughtforward by Councillor Alan Lamb, a local small business entrepreneur,who said that it was outrageous that the council was spending400,000 a year of taxpayers money on union officials. Does my hon.Friend believe it was right that that was voted down by Labourcouncillors who received money to get elected to Leeds city council inthe first place? Is that not a personal and prejudicial interest?Mr Burley: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I find itastonishing that, in this place and elsewhere, anybody with an interestis 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 aproud trade unionist. I am a member of Prospect. Margaret Thatcherand Norman Tebbit were also proud trade unionists. Although I agreewith my hon. Friends sentiment, does he not agree that despite theabuse, there are many moderate trade unions around the country thatdo a great job in representing peoples interests? A third of tradeunion members vote Conservative and Conservatives should do allthat they can to build bridges with moderate trade unions.Mr Burley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Few would take issuewith unions working on behalf of their members in Departments orother public bodies in their own time and with union funding. Myquestion to him and to the House is: why are taxpayers funding thatwork?I want to focus on the fact that 2,493 full-time equivalent public sectoremployees worked for trade unions at the taxpayers expense in2009-10. The TaxPayers Alliance has even broken down thoseemployees by sector: 813 worked in local authorities, 630 in quangos,611 in Departments, 130 in foundation and acute trusts, 96 in primarycare trusts, 43 in NHS mental health trusts and 41 in fire services. Myproblem with those astonishing figures is simple: why should wespend hard-earned taxpayers money on a huge subsidy to the

unions? Full-time trade union officials should be paid for by unionmembers, not by the taxpayer.Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland)(Lab): I hope that the hon. Gentleman gets the opportunity to makethis speech in front of the steel workers whom I have the privilege torepresent, 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 theprivate sector that are not unionised, where the incidents of wild-catstrikes are increasing. The Government need unions on side to dealwith the vast amounts of people and to keep the costs of humanresources down. Adjournment debates such as this provoke poorindustrial relations.Mr Burley: I think that the hon. Gentleman will come to regret thatquestionI am not even sure what his question was. I simply pointout that what goes on in the private sector does not bother mebecause it involves private money. It is public money that I am talkingabout.Trade unions are an important part of society and of Britains bigsociety. However, the support that they get from the taxpayer has gotway out of hand. Few would take issue with unions working on behalfof 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 givealmost 5 million of donations to the Labour party, while paying theirleaders up to 145,000 a year, which is what the National Union ofRail, Maritime and Transport Workers boss, Bob Crow, receives. Infact, 38 trade union general secretaries and chief executives receiveremuneration 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 tothe fact that the trade unions get 18.3 million [Interruption.]Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. AlthoughMembers on both sides of the House clearly have strong views on thissubject, I remind them that this Adjournment debate is beingtelevised. The behaviour of Members does not always reflect well onthem. The hon. Member who has secured this Adjournment debate isentitled to be heard.Mr Burley: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that allMembers 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 get18.3 million in direct payments from the taxpayer every year throughthe union modernisation fund and the union learning fund, so theyhave nearly 20 million in their bank accounts before we factor in anytime off at the taxpayers expense. Surely they can cover their costswith a 20 million annual grant plus all their subs.Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): I, too, wish to stress that I supportthe unions, and I met my union representative today for an hour inrelation to certain matters. However, what does my hon. Friend feelthe moneythe 85 millioncould be spent on?

Mr Burley: The very simple answer to that is front-line services, notfull-time union officials.The legal background to the matter is that under section 168 in part IIIof the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, aunion representative is permitted paid time off for union duties.According to ACAS, those duties relate to anything including theterms and conditions of employment, the physical conditions ofworkers and matters of trade union membership or non-membership.However, under the same Act, any employee who is a unionrepresentative or a member of a recognised trade union is alsoentitled to unpaid time off to undertake what are called unionactivities, as distinct from duties. As defined by ACAS, unionactivities can include voting in a union election or attending a meetingregarding union business, but there is no statutory requirement to payunion representatives or members for time spent on union activities.[Interruption.]The hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (TomBlenkinsop) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I cannot hearwhat he is saying.Union duties and union activities both fall under the remit of a union

representative. Some union representatives are therefore currentlybeing paid for undertaking both activities and duties, and I think that iswrong.Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab) rosePhil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab) roseMr Burley: I will give way in a minute.In addition, union learning representatives are entitled to paid time offfor duties including analysing learning or training needs, providinginformation 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 ischuntering, is not all that the job of the human resources department?In 2004[Interruption.] Just be quiet. In 2004, the LabourGovernment made a commitment to boost the number of unionlearning representatives in the work force to 20,000, a threefoldincrease. The upshot is that a significant number of unionrepresentativesnearly 2,500 full-time equivalentsare fully paid forby public funds. That means that the trade unions themselves do notbear their own representation costs.

Phil Wilson: Speaking as somebody who in the early 1980s was amember of the Civil and Public Services Association and receivedfacility time to work as a trade union representative, may I say thatwhere I worked was 90%-plus union organised, and we did not haveany strikes? We had a great working relationship in the building,because we could sit down and talk through problems with themanagement, who enjoyed it. If we started where the hon. Gentlemanwants, we would end up where part of my union ended up. In 1984,the CPSA was banned from GCHQJames Wharton (Stockton South) (Con): On a point of order,Madam Deputy Speaker. Should Opposition Members declare theirinterest if they have received union funding in their capacity as

Members of this House, or for political campaigns, before makinginterventions? I would be grateful if you could clarify the rules on thatmatter.Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Mr Wharton, I am surethat everybody is aware of what interests they should be declaringwhen they participate in any debate. That applies to an Adjournmentdebate, which is normally the property of the Member who hassecured it.Mr Burley: I have forgotten part of the point that the hon. Member forSedgefield (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 wasvery good work. My point is that they should do it on their own timeand 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 ahuge amount of money is freed up, whether from the direct grants orthe union fees, that the unions can use on political campaigns. If theirother costs are paid at the taxpayers expense, the unions can use therest 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 distinctionbetween paid time off for union duties and unpaid time off for unionactivities. What are the Government doing about union officials whoplay the system and use their paid time off for political activities?Further, are the Government planning to mandate public bodies torecord more accurately what time is taken off for political activities,which should not be funded by the taxpayer? We know from a writtenanswer from the Department for Communities and Local Governmentthat 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 theSecretary 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 unionduties and activities.

The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and LocalGovernment, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst(Robert Neill), replied:

The TUC have estimated that there are 200,000 unionrepresentatives 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 publicsector is not widely recorded or transparentEstimates havesuggested thatfacility time is more prevalent in the civilservice than the rest of the public sector and the privatesector, with civil service departments spending, on average,0.2% of annual payon facility time, compared to 0.14% inthe

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 thenorm of private sector levels.[Official Report, 25 October2011; Vol. 534, c. 126W-27W.]

Anna Soubry: I hope that as a shop steward I represented mymembers with integrity, vigour and some success. I never took asingle penny piece from the public purse. Does my hon. Friend, whohas so commendably introduced this Adjournment debate, agree thatunions would advance their cause if they stopped taking publicmoney? If they did that, more people might join them because theywould 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 theywilling to go further and change the 1992 Act, so that trade unionsshould fund all their activities from their subs? There should be notaxpayer subsidy for those who take time off to spend on unionactivity.Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab) roseIan Murray roseMr Burley: I will not give way.That would be many peoples preference. By way of an example, theexcellent, independent and non-taxpayer funded campaigning websiteorder-order, or the Guido Fawkes blog, has been highlighting thepractice of paying union officials out of the taxpayer purse. Followingits campaign, full-time taxpayer-funded trade union officials havebecome known as Pilgrims in the media, after Paul Staines exposedone such full-time union rep named Jane Pilgrim as a full-time tradeunion organiser working in the NHS for Unison. She came to publicattention in 2011 after criticising the Governments health policies.Despite being billed as a nurse, she was found to be a full-time tradeunion official, being paid 40,000 by the hospital. She is now underinvestigation by both St Georges hospital and Unison for running aprivate 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 lobbyingorganisation to fight for an unsustainable mess in theinterests of a vocal minority group. We dont pay the armsdealers and the tobacco lobbyists staffing bills.

Let us consider this classic example, which was flagged up by noneother than the Black Countrys Express and Star:

Judy Fosteris employed as an administration officer by the

fire service

But for the past seven years the Labourcouncillor has been devoting all her working time to Unison,representing 280 fire workersThe fire service has nowinsisted that Councillor Fosterspends half hertimeonfire service duties and half with the unionBut Unison hasappealed against the offer and says her union work should befull 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 proudmember of Unite the Union and the chair of the Unite parliamentary

group, I am inviting the hon. Gentleman to come along to our groupand tell us where we are going wrong. One of the main factors in atrade union officials job is identifying and preventing health and safetyproblems in the workplacenot the office, the workplace. Has hefactored in any of the figures from the TaxPayers Alliance?Mr Burley: My direct answer to the hon. Gentleman is to ask what hethinks the human resources department or the Health and SafetyExecutive are for. Public sector organisations have those people, sothere is total duplication.Ian Murray rose

Jim Sheridan rose Mr Burley: The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (JimSheridan) just asked what has gone wrong, and I will tell him. TheExpress and Star continued:

Councillor Foster, who was elected in 1998, already picks up9,300 in allowances from Dudley Council along with 14,475as vice chairman of the West Midlands Police Authority. Withher 28,000 job, it brings her combined taxpayer-fundedsalary and allowances to more than 51,000.

It is no wonder that a YouGov poll in conjunction with the TaxPayersAlliance shows more than half the country would like to see an end tothe controversial practice of public sector-funded trade union officials.Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): I, too, declare an interest asI am the former father of the National Union of Journalists chapel atITV Yorkshire in Leeds. I and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow(Robert Halfon) attended the TUC last month in London. Does myhon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) find itsurprising that while representing the union members at ITV Yorkshirein Leeds, the fat cat boss at ITV, who was slashing jobs while takingmillions in pay, shares and perks, has now been tasked by the Leaderof the Opposition with reforming the Labour party?

Mr Burley: I would love to say that I was surprised, but after revisingfor this debate, I am not surprised by anything anymore.It is my simple contention that trade unions should pay forrepresentation within public sector organisations throughsubscriptions. It is unfair that taxpayers should have to shoulder thatburden. Unions raise substantial sums through membershipsubscriptions. For example, subs in the Home Office alone came tomore than 2 million in 2009-10. Programmes that give taxpayersmoney to trade unions under the guise of work force improvementshould also be scrapped. This includes the union modernisation fundand the union learning fund.Will the Minister explain what plans the Government have to end full-time trade union work in the public sector? Will he pledge to end full-time representatives who spend 100% of their time on trade unionwork while being paid their salary by the taxpayer? Will he mandateall public bodies to record accurately time spent on both union dutiesand activities? Will the Government go one step further? Employmentlegislation currently requires employers to make available areasonable amount of time for trade union representatives to carry outtheir duties. Will he change that so that all time taken off for tradeunion activities is billed back to the union so that the taxpayer is nolonger funding their work?

Finally, given that the unions start the financial year with a 20 milliongrant from the taxpayer, are the Government looking at reviewing,paring down or abolishing the union modernisation fund and the unionlearning fund? The taxpayers of this country are currently bankrollingthe unions. The equivalent of 2,500 full-time officials are being paid forby the taxpayer, not to do the job of representation but to undertakefull-time campaigning activities that should be funded by the unions.This is at a cost of 86 million a year to the taxpayer, with 170,000days off for union activities and 23 million of perks such asphotocopying and phone calls. In an age of austerity, that 86 millionis 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 Icall on the Minister to end it.You can read the Ministers reply here.

Aidan in Parliament:EU Referendum Debate

Monday 24th October 2011

Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): I support theprinciple of having an EU referendum, yet I will not support themotion. Let me explain why those two positions are not contradictory.I am on record as saying that our membership of the EU should beput to the British people. I am 32, and I find it incredible that the lastreferendum took place four years before I was even born. One has tobe 55 to have voted in it. It is therefore understandable that people ofmy generation do not feel that they have had their say on Europe.They see the EU interfering in our everyday lives, from how fruit andvegetables are packaged, to the number of announcements on trains

and, most insidious of all, how long we are allowed to work in our jobsfor just 48 hours a week. [Interruption.] It is clear to me that whatwas put to the people in 1975[Interruption.]John Bercow (Speaker): Order. The House must come to order. Thehon. Gentleman has been waiting courteously; he deserves a properhearing, and that is what he must get.Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): Thank you, MrSpeaker.It is clear that what was put to the people in 1975we shouldremember that they voted yeswas the Common Market, but the

European Union that exists today would be unrecognisable to thosewho voted then. When Britain joined the Common Market, it signed upto a free trade agreement. Since then, the power of Europeaninstitutions has changed beyond all recognition. I am delighted thatthe Government have enshrined in law that a referendum must beheld before any further powers are ceded to Brussels. This is a majorstepone that I have supported with enthusiasm.Frankly, given the EUs propensities for creating new treaties, Isuspect it will not be long before the people get the vote that theydesire and deserve. That vote will be important. If the public vote infavour of a future treaty, it will rule out for another generation anythought of us ever leaving the EU. If the public vote to reject it, Ibelieve it would be difficult, if not impossible, for there not to be asubsequent vote on our withdrawal. Given that the referendum that Iwant is inevitable, as a result of the laws passed by theConservatives, I must think carefully about the current motion and itsimpact 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 thematter, but the problem with his argument is that it does not give usthe 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 neverbeen asked that before, and it is about time that we were.

Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): I think that ourgeneration will be given that choice.I must consider the impact that passing this motion would have on myconstituents. That is the key point. Business men have told me thatthere are signs that give cause for optimism, but that the recovery isfragile.Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire, Conservative): Willmy hon. Friend give way?Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): No, I will not.Those business mens fear, and mine, is that the announcement of areferendum, involving the campaign extending to 2013 for which themotion calls, could have a devastating effect on business confidenceand investment. This morning I spoke to a business man from myconstituency who had come here to be given a tour of the House ofCommons. He works for an international company in the privatesector which has invested heavily in the United Kingdom and employsseveral hundred people in my constituency, and he has already beentold by the members of his executive board in America that thepotential further instability caused by a referendum could cause themto question future investment not just in Cannock Chase, but in the

United Kingdom and the whole of Europe.Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire, Conservative): Willmy hon. Friend give way?Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase, Conservative): I will not.At a time when business is crying out for stability, a referendum wouldmove it in totally the opposite direction, creating yet more instabilitywhen what we need is foreign investment. While that business manwould not oppose a referendum in principle, now is simply not thetime for one.

I think that the referendum that we all want is coming, and will be aresult of the policies that have already been backed by theGovernment and by the EU itself. However, I think that to hold thatreferendum now, regardless of the result, would create a significantrisk for our economy and for Cannock Chase in particular.I say to every Member who supports the motion, Ask yourself onequestion: 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 aboutjobs and about their livelihoods. I do not want to do anything that putsmy constituents livelihoods at risk. The time will come for people tovote on whether we stay in the EU, but, in my opinion, that time is nottoday. This is a debate for another day. Voting for the motion wouldbe an indulgence, and I hope Members will vote accordingly.[Interruption.]

5 ways to contact Aidan Burley MP:

By Phone: 01543 502 447By email: aidan.burley.mp@parliament.uk

By post: Aidan Burley MP6 High Green Court,Newhall StreetCannock, WS11 1GR

In person: Click here for details of how tobook an appointment at AidanBurley MPs regular help andadvice surgeries.

www.aidanburleymp.orgMore news from Aidan Burley MP, coming soonPlease forward this email on to anyone you think may be interested. Ifyou have had this email forwarded to you and would like to be addedto the mailing list, please send an email to: news@aidanburleymp.orgwith JOIN in the subject heading.To unsubscribe from this list, please return an e-mail tonews@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