Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The House wishes to hear the Minister’s mellifluous tones, so if he could face the House, that would be excellent.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

6. What plans his Department has to help develop public services in developing countries.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 24th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman were to conduct himself in that manner in a breakfast club, he would be in danger of permanent exclusion. It would be a very unseemly state of affairs, and I would not wish it on him or, indeed, on his fellow attendees.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done. I think that we will put that down as a win.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Crisis and the all-party group on ending homelessness recently appealed to Ministers to prioritise for housing survivors of domestic abuse, but is not it the truth that it is difficult to prioritise anyone because of the social housing crisis—a crisis acknowledged just a few minutes ago by the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry)? Housing associations and local councils in particular have insufficient stock and limited capacity to build new ones to meet demand, and there are more than 1 million households on council waiting lists. Last year, just 6,500 social rented homes were built. That means that it will take 172 years for everyone on the current waiting lists to get a social rented home. Will the Minister please spell out exactly how she plans to sort out this crisis and offer our people some hope that they can also have a home of their own?

Points of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will indeed make a statement or an announcement to the House on that matter in a timely way. Of course, it is for the House to agree—or not, as the case may be—to a business motion. However, in so far as the right hon. Gentleman is perturbed by the prospect of secret—and thereafter to remain secret—votes, I think I can put his mind at rest. There is no such plan. I hope that reassures the right hon. Gentleman. He has a sunny countenance in the circumstances, and we should be grateful for that.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 20 February at Prime Minister’s questions, I highlighted the decision by the Tees Valley Mayor to spend £90 million of taxpayers’ money on buying the loss-making Durham Tees Valley airport when local people in most parts of the area cannot get a bus home after 6.30 pm. I asked whether the Prime Minister could help them out. She answered by claiming that the bus service had been considerably expanded across the midlands and the north, but according to a letter from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, outlining the statistics, that is most certainly not the case. The Prime Minister may therefore have inadvertently misled the House. Is there anything you can do to encourage a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to correct the record and acknowledge that the vast increase in bus services that the Prime Minister suggested simply has not materialised?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of that point of order. Responsibility for the veracity of what is said in the Chamber is that of each individual Member, including members of the Executive branch, up to the highest level. If a Minister reckons to have made a mistake, it is their responsibility to correct the record. I am not aware of any imminent intention on the part of the Prime Minister to correct the record, but knowing the hon. Gentleman’s perspicacity and tendency to focus his beady eye on the activities of Government, I feel sure that he will be looking out for what he thinks is the required correction. Whether he will look out to his advantage or whether he will be disappointed remains to be seen.

NHS Outsourcing and Privatisation

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

For now, NHS trusts remain the sole shareholder in their wholly owned subsidiary companies—yes, just for now—but those subsidiary companies will be easier to sell in future. The trusts have established those subsidiaries with long contracts under the misguided impression that such contracts protect the trust and the employees. What the trusts do not acknowledge is that the current Government, or a future Government, could order them to sell off a subsidiary company, contracts and all, and, if necessary, could change the law to make it happen.

We have already seen how these new subsidiary companies make their margins off the backs of now former NHS staff who face the prospect of less favourable contracts with no access to the NHS pension scheme, yet some trust executives claim they are transferring employees to protect them. That is absolute rubbish. We all know that when staff are transferred by TUPE, the receiving employer can have a reorganisation. It can create new roles and axe old ones, and it can require people to apply again for what looks like their old job with some subtle changes, with the terms and conditions varied, putting an end to the protections they once enjoyed. This creates the two-tier workforce many others have spoken about today. It means that some people are being treated better than others, with more rights, better pay and better working conditions.

I have even heard that some of these executives believe the changes could be in the best interest of the workforce. None of these executives faces the prospect of being reorganised out of their job or out of their final salary pension scheme with a 15% employer contribution. The executives will continue to get that pension, yet the people they have shifted into new organisations will get a 3% employer contribution to their pension.

In a few years’ time, it will be interesting to see just how many of the original staff are still in these organisations and how many of them are on the same terms and conditions enjoyed by NHS staff who are still employed directly.

I am proud that, just a week ago, one of the teams at the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust in my Stockton North constituency was shortlisted for the NHS 70th awards, but a few months ago even this trust succumbed to temptation and set up one of these wholly owned subsidiary companies, despite the accounts for an existing subsidiary company showing it needed a bail-out from the trust to survive.

Wholly owned subsidiary companies are not working. They are a mechanism to rid employees of their NHS pension and of collective bargaining. The companies are damaging to employees, and they are damaging to the service in the longer run. What they are really doing is severely damaging the morale of our staff.

[Mr Speaker]

For a maximum of two minutes, I call Hugh Gaffney.

Points of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has certainly been patient. Sometimes, raising a point of order in the Chamber and reminding those on the Treasury Bench of a promised meeting that has not yet been delivered can be a remarkably effective way of bringing about said meeting. The other device that I recommend to the hon. Lady, who is a new Member of the House, is the tabling of a written question. If she is interested in exploring historic copies of the Official Report, she will know that the former Member for Manchester, Gorton, our late and dear friend Sir Gerald Kaufman, was fond of highlighting unanswered correspondence to which he demanded a reply, unanswered questions to which he demanded a reply, or undelivered meetings that he had been promised and on which he still insisted by tabling written questions to remind Ministers of those matters and inquire when the promised reply or meeting would take place. In my experience, Sir Gerald was remarkably effective at obtaining such responses, as indeed was the former Member for Walsall North, Mr David Winnick. The hon. Lady may usefully learn from their and many other examples.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In January, the Government announced plans to incentivise local communities to agree to explore the possibility of storing radioactive nuclear waste near their homes—an initiative that was widely reported in the media. I was anxious that it could revive proposals to store nuclear waste in the anhydrite mine under thousands of homes in Billingham in my constituency. I raised the issue at Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January. Sadly, the Prime Minister’s substitute that day, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, despite the publicity and it being Government policy, knew nothing about that initiative by his Government. However, he promised to investigate the matter and write to me. That was five weeks ago. Will you advise me whether it is unreasonable of me to have expected an answer by now?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me notice of it. It is not unreasonable for an hon. Member to expect a response from Ministers within five weeks. Ministerial correspondence is of course, as colleagues will know, the responsibility of the Minister concerned. The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), who happens to be my constituency neighbour, is normally most courteous. I am sure that his colleagues on the Treasury Bench, including the representatives of the Patronage Secretary, will swiftly alert the right hon. Gentleman to this outstanding action. The hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) certainly should have had a reply and he should now get one, sooner rather than later. Meanwhile, he has placed his concern on the record.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must now bring proceedings to a close.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There are urgent questions that come first. If there is a point of order, it will come after that, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be in his seat, eagerly expectant.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T5. When he was Foreign Secretary, William Hague described the UN Human Rights Council’s universal periodic review as“a valuable mechanism for holding countries accountable for their human rights record.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 15WS.] Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the UN periodic review meeting on 23 January provides an opportunity to hold Israel to account for its treatment of Palestinian children held in Israeli military custody, and will he use the meeting to do so?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not wish to be unkind to the hon. Gentleman—he is a most perspicacious Member of the House—but questions are simply too long at topical questions; topical questions are supposed to be briefer. If we can have brief questions and brief answers, far more colleagues will get in.

Point of Order

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The deadline for members of the British Steel pension scheme to decide whether to join their new employers’ scheme, to have their pension paid through the Pensions Protection Fund or to make personal arrangements is all but upon them. The House will share my concerns over rogue advisers who are cold calling scheme members and attempting to part them from their hard-earned pension pots with a series of elaborate get-rich-quick schemes. One that I have heard of costs 5% of the pension pot immediately and is littered with high costs, with a further 5% fee if the person cancels their arrangement. The Financial Conduct Authority has been in steel areas trying to alert scheme members to the dangers, but more needs to be done. Mr Speaker, are you aware of any plans by Ministers to make a statement and outline to the House what the Government are doing to ensure that British Steel pension scheme members are properly protected?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice that he wished to raise this matter. I am bound to say that I have not received any indication that a Minister intends to make a statement on this matter in the Chamber. That said, I appreciate that it is a matter of considerable concern to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. My understanding of that fact is enhanced by the examples that the hon. Gentleman has just furnished to the House. Moreover, it may well be a matter of considerable concern to other Members, too. The hon. Gentleman has succeeded in putting his concern on the record and I trust that it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench. The hon. Gentleman is a person of considerable ingenuity and no little experience in the House, and I rather sense that he will lose no opportunity to air his concerns again in the coming days.

Prisons Policy/HMP Long Lartin

Debate between Alex Cunningham and John Bercow

Thursday 12th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is of course no procedural barrier to repeat questions, which many people regard as an example of dogged and insistent campaigning.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

That was a really interesting answer, because the heroin dealer Ian Paul Manuel beat up prison officer Adam Jackson at Kirklevington prison in Stockton, and the courts gave him a conditional discharge and ordered him to pay £20 compensation to the officer. Does the Minister agree that such a slap on the wrist is totally inadequate, that it offers no deterrent at all to the thugs who turn on prison officers and that it is time the courts were given clear advice that they, too, have a responsibility to protect prison officers?