1-20 of 24 results for subject:Subscriptions
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.211 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.003 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Subscriptions
- We searched for
- subject_t:Subscriptions OR subject_ses:93148
Type
House
Session
Year
Department
Member
Primary member
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
Subject
Publisher
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
This is matter that is delegated to individual Departments in the Civil Service.
This information is a matter for departments.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many (a) organisations in total and (b) trade unions receive income by means of a government check-off facility.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, how many (a) organisations in total and (b) trade unions receive income by means of a government check-off facility.
This is matter that is delegated to individual Departments in the Civil Service.
This information is a matter for departments.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, what his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
This is a matter that is delegated to individual Departments.
What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
The policy is delegated to individual Departments.
The policy is delegated to individual Departments.
The policy is delegated to individual Departments.
What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
I can do no better than quote a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union—she is just identified as June—who said that direct debit is
“the easiest way of paying my union subs. You know then that it’s going to get paid because you’re not dependent on your employer taking it from your wages. I think it’s better.”
I agree with June.
I can do no better than quote a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union—she is just identified as June—who said that direct debit is
“the easiest way of paying my union subs. You know then that it’s going to get paid because you’re not dependent on your employer taking it from your wages. I think it’s better.”
I agree with June.
I am interested in the Minister’s response because I understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been writing e-mails and letters to other Secretaries of State, asking them not to write off. Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct, and will he make clear all correspondence between him and other Liberal Democrat Ministers concerning their opposition to this Tory attack plan on worker representation?
As the PCS said in the document from which I quoted, check-off is an archaic way of operating that pre-dates the existence of bank accounts and direct debits. Most civil service unions use direct debits, not check-off, because they think that is the modern, direct way for an organisation to have a relationship with its members.
As the PCS said in the document from which I quoted, check-off is an archaic way of operating that pre-dates the existence of bank accounts and direct debits. Most civil service unions use direct debits, not check-off, because they think that is the modern, direct way for an organisation to have a relationship with its members.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between trade unions and their members ought to be direct and not intermediated by the civil service?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point and she is completely correct to say that an official produced the figure of £1 million. However, when asked for the workings and calculations that underpinned that number they were unable to produce
them, and it turned out to be a completely fictional number. The correct calculation of the cost is more likely to be a negative number and a saving to the taxpayer, as well as being a measure that enables PCS to do what its members now prefer and have a direct relationship with them.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point and she is completely correct to say that an official produced the figure of £1 million. However, when asked for the workings and calculations that underpinned that number they were unable to produce
them, and it turned out to be a completely fictional number. The correct calculation of the cost is more likely to be a negative number and a saving to the taxpayer, as well as being a measure that enables PCS to do what its members now prefer and have a direct relationship with them.
The Department for Work and Pensions estimated that the cost of ending check-off across Departments was £1 million. The Minister denies that, so will he tell the House exactly how much it will cost to implement what is a political attack by the Conservative party, rather than a policy worthy of Government?
It is always reassuring to find that the old truths turn out to be enduring and that Labour speaks for its paymasters, the trade unions.
It is always reassuring to find that the old truths turn out to be enduring and that Labour speaks for its paymasters, the trade unions.
The Paymaster General has reiterated his support for getting rid of check-off, even though the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has written to Departments saying that there could be legal costs associated with that. A leaked HMRC memo talks about marginalising the unions, which could lead to industrial action among civil service unions. Does that show that Ministers are playing irresponsible party politics with the trade unions, and that the right hon. Gentleman should abandon his plans to get rid of check-off?
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will retract his request to government departments to end check-off payroll deductions for trades union subscriptions.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will retract his request to government departments to end check-off payroll deductions for trades union subscriptions.
Departments are required to recover the cost of check off.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave during Cabinet Office Orals on 25 June 2014, Official Report, column 302W, to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown).
Which departments have responded to his cross-departmental review of check-off deductions of union subscriptions.
Which departments have responded to his cross-departmental review of check-off deductions of union subscriptions.
We have asked Departments to review their own arrangements. The civil service management code requires Departments to recover the cost of the provision of this service, but most do not do so. These reviews, therefore, are very timely.
We have asked Departments to review their own arrangements. The civil service management code requires Departments to recover the cost of the provision of this service, but most do not do so. These reviews, therefore, are very timely.
We have asked Departments to review their own arrangements. The civil service management code requires Departments to recover the cost of the provision of this service, but most do not do so. These reviews, therefore, are very timely.
Which departments have responded to his cross-departmental review of check-off deductions of union subscriptions.
This is in no sense an attack on membership of trade unions. [Hon. Members: “Yes, it is.”] We can see who speaks for the trade unions and for their paymasters. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know better, from his experience. Why is it that many trade unions do not rely on check-off at all but use the modern means of connection with their members of direct debit, which is available to all?
This is in no sense an attack on membership of trade unions. [Hon. Members: “Yes, it is.”] We can see who speaks for the trade unions and for their paymasters. The right hon. Gentleman ought to know better, from his experience. Why is it that many trade unions do not rely on check-off at all but use the modern means of connection with their members of direct debit, which is available to all?
A number of Secretaries of State have already rejected the idea. The only one to take it forward ended up in court. They lost and had costs found against the Government. There is no public interest or cost saving in what the right hon. Gentleman is doing, so why does he persist in attacking the Government’s own employees for trying to act in combination by joining a trade union?
The deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll through check-off is a matter delegated to Departments in the civil service.
The deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll through check-off is a matter delegated to Departments in the civil service.
What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
As I say, it is a matter for Departments to decide for themselves. A number of trade unions take the view that it is much better to have a direct relationship with their members than have it intermediated through the employer—it is a rather more modern way to run things.
As I say, it is a matter for Departments to decide for themselves. A number of trade unions take the view that it is much better to have a direct relationship with their members than have it intermediated through the employer—it is a rather more modern way to run things.
The civil service has used check-off for the last 30 years. Indeed, large companies such as BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce use it as a very efficient way to deduct trade union subscriptions from salary. Is this not just another ideological attack? Removing check-off from the civil service payroll will cost many times more than running the current system for hundreds of years.
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the use of facility time to be much better regulated. We inherited from Labour a position in which very large amounts of public money were being spent on subsidising 250 full-time officials in the civil service alone, let alone in the wider public sector. I am happy to tell her that we have got that under control.
My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for the use of facility time to be much better regulated. We inherited from Labour a position in which very large amounts of public money were being spent on subsidising 250 full-time officials in the civil service alone, let alone in the wider public sector. I am happy to tell her that we have got that under control.
Does my right hon. Friend think that it is fair on hard-working British taxpayers that their money is used to subsidise the administration of trade unions, rather than that cash going to front-line services?
I am happy to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date. The DWP has subsequently said that that was a speculative and inaccurate figure—
I am happy to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date. The DWP has subsequently said that that was a speculative and inaccurate figure—
The Minister says that this is a matter for individual Departments, but the private secretary in his Department has written round to every Department in Whitehall asking them to review check-off. We know that the Government, for political reasons, want to scrap check-off, and I have seen a copy of an official letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which was subsequently withheld by Ministers, that states:
“The department has concluded that the figure for the financial implications of ending check-off should be disclosed…The information held states: ‘We estimate that implementation costs could exceed one million pounds’.”
In the light of that revelation, will he agree, in the interests of transparency, to publish the full financial implications of this misguided policy?
Well, with respect, I have seen more recent correspondence than the hon. Gentleman has seen. The truth is that Ministers—as he will recall from his time in government—are sometimes given figures for the cost of making a change that turn out not to be true. This is such a case.
Well, with respect, I have seen more recent correspondence than the hon. Gentleman has seen. The truth is that Ministers—as he will recall from his time in government—are sometimes given figures for the cost of making a change that turn out not to be true. This is such a case.
The Minister says that this is a matter for individual Departments, but the private secretary in his Department has written round to every Department in Whitehall asking them to review check-off. We know that the Government, for political reasons, want to scrap check-off, and I have seen a copy of an official letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which was subsequently withheld by Ministers, that states:
“The department has concluded that the figure for the financial implications of ending check-off should be disclosed…The information held states: ‘We estimate that implementation costs could exceed one million pounds’.”
In the light of that revelation, will he agree, in the interests of transparency, to publish the full financial implications of this misguided policy?
What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the Civil Service.
The deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll through check-off is a matter delegated to Departments in the civil service.
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much No. 10 Downing Street spent on newspapers and periodicals in 2011-12.
[154882]
To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how much No. 10 Downing Street spent on newspapers and periodicals in 2011-12.
[154882]
[holding answer 14 May 2013]: The Prime Minister's Office is an integral part of the Cabinet Office.
We do not hold total costs centrally on overall spend across my Department on periodicals and newspapers.
However, further to my answer of 6 November 2012, Official Report, column 575W, which detailed payments through my Department’s central contract to our primary newspaper supplier, my Department spent a total of £8,000 in 2011-12 on payments through our central contract and a further £52,000 over the same period with our main supplier via other channels.