Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are extremely grateful to the Secretary of State. Extreme pithiness is now required.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State share my grave concerns at the recently published report by the chief inspector of prisons on HMP Northumberland? Does he agree that if the Government do not do something, one of these serious incidents will turn into a tragedy that we all regret?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Thursday 4th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Michael Connarty, not here.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

T10. Following the Smith commission last week, I have a great fear that my constituency, which is lodged between the last city in England and the Scottish borders, will fast become a political no man’s land. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State ensure that the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line is reintroduced without further delay? Will he agree to meet me and other interested parties further to discuss the issue?

Points of Order

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have received no such indication from either Department. My advice to the right hon. Gentleman is to think forward to Tuesday 21 January, when there will be oral questions to the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and his team. The right hon. Gentleman might think that a suitable opportunity to raise the matters of concern to him. Who knows? He might be successful either on the Order Paper or in seeking to raise a supplementary question.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week, the Cabinet Office released confidential documents to the National Archives relating to the then Government’s covert intervention in the 1984-85 miners’ strike. The documents confirmed what the National Union of Mineworkers and the Labour movement fully suspected at the time, but many people in the mining communities and the UK as a whole were alarmed to learn that senior Ministers and, indeed, the Prime Minister deliberately misled the people of this country. Have you been approached, Mr Speaker, by the present Government wishing to apologise and to put the record straight regarding the then Government’s real intentions back in 1984-85, which were to close 75 pits, not 20 pits, as they insisted? If not, will you advise the House how this injustice can be rectified by the House?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is no; I have received no such approach. It is, of course, open to the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate, in which he could set out his thoughts more fully and elicit a response. I have a sense that that is a course that the hon. Gentleman will in all likelihood follow.

Housing Benefit

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

That is what this is about: moving people from their houses. It is outrageous, but at the end of the day, I would like to think that the Government will—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

Changes to the Budget

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Monday 11th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry if I did not explain the position sufficiently clearly—although I must say I thought I did. Some Members are making speculative bids for extending the U-turns. They may wish to do so, but the terms of the urgent question relate specifically to the announced changes. I am sure that understanding that point will not be beyond the ingenuity of the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery).

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On the announced changes—the U-turns—on everything from buzzards and skips to caravans and pasties, when will the Government reconsider a U-turn on the granny tax and the cut in the tax on the rich people in society?

[Mr Speaker]

I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. He started out as such a good boy, and it is a pity that he spoiled that thereafter. I know that a similar sin will not be committed by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), because he is a good listener and a quick learner.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Thursday 24th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before we continue these exchanges, let me say that ordinarily when the Secretary of State is absent, the fact of the absence is explained at the start of Question Time. I can hear Members inquiring about it. I know that the Secretary of State is absent because I have received a letter from him, but let me say for the record that it would be desirable to be told at the outset, and, in general terms, that it is of course highly undesirable for the Secretary of State to be absent on these occasions. It must not become a regular practice.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the Minister believe that a person who has made a donation of more than £500,000 to the Conservative party and made more than £100 million from equity deals is a fit and proper person to determine Government policy and workers’ rights?

Southern Cross Healthcare

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Thursday 16th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues, but may I remind them of the merits of brevity?

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Residents in the six Southern Cross care homes in my constituency will be horrified by the Minister’s opening remarks. He said that this is a commercial problem to be dealt with by the commercial sector, which is absolutely outrageous and will frighten the wits out of each of those 31,000 residents. This is a society problem, and it should be dealt with by the Government. What small crumbs or words of comfort can he give to people in my constituency? When will we stop abusing elderly people and using them as marketplace commodities?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On the rail network and fare increases, is the Minister aware that the proposed formula increase outlined in the CSR—that is, RPI plus three—will mean a cumulative increase of approximately 33.5% by 2015? That means, on the Newcastle to London line, an increase up to £500 for first class and £350 for second class—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I remind Members, both Back Benchers and Front Benchers, because I think they have forgotten, that topical questions and answers are supposed to be shorter? I think the Minister has got the thrust of the question, although the hon. Gentleman is certainly not the only offender, by any means.

Finance Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and John Bercow

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to participate in this debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.

One thing that is certain is that all parties agree that the deficit exists; we disagree only about how we would seek to reduce it, and how quickly or otherwise. Having now seen the detail of the Budget, and having like other Members been drip-fed even more bad news on a daily basis, I feel that the Budget and the subsequent cuts represent a most draconian, vicious and bitter attack on the hard-working people of the UK.

This has been described as the worst Budget in living memory, and I must say that I agree with that sentiment. This unprecedented attack by the coalition—the Tories and the Liberal Democrats—seems to be relished by many on their Benches. There appears to be something of a perverse glee among many of them when they see this attack on the people of this country. Only the wealthy and the well-off seem to have escaped the far-reaching measures forced upon the nation by the slash-and-burn, patched-up coalition Government.

If I may, I wish to introduce a more human side to the debate on the Finance Bill and the Budget. Tonight we have heard a million and one different figures, and I am sure that most of them are accurate, but we have not heard too much about the human side and the impact that the figures in the Bill will have on ordinary working people. In my constituency, 53% of the people work in the public sector—the highest proportion in the country. We should not treat those people as social outcasts, yet that appears to be happening. We have people in integral employment in the public sector—doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen, paramedics, prison officers, teachers, lecturers, classroom assistants, council workers, refuse collectors, street cleaners, chief executives and administrators among many more. Those are all valued occupations—essential jobs for the economy, including that in my constituency.

Let us consider the police. Today, they have been on the front line, chasing an armed murderer only 10 miles from where I live. We should be proud of those police officers and not look to cut their numbers. Today, they are protecting the public; tomorrow, they could face unemployment because of the cuts. Let us consider the firemen. They are the only ones running towards an explosion, or towards a fire in which people are trapped, while the general public run away. We should be proud of them. They are on the front line today, but they face unemployment tomorrow.

We must stop treating people as mere statistics. They are real people, with real lives. They have real families and real mortgages and, like many of us, they have aims and ambitions. Most of them chose a career path when they left school of serving their communities in the public sector. Should they be punished for that through the Bill and the Budget? They should not. They never expected to be unreasonably attacked through Government policy.

Why on earth the Government have attempted to divide public and private sector workers, driving a wedge between them as if they are different sorts of people, in different classes, and creating some second-class citizens is beyond me, unless it is a case of divide and rule. They have not only imposed a two-year pay freeze, but attacked pensions. “Pay more while you work, get less when you retire” seems to be the policy.

Let us consider the figures from my constituency. An average public sector worker in the NHS in Wansbeck can expect a pension of some £6,000 per annum. A local authority worker can expect a pension of £4,000 per annum. That is frankly disgraceful and unacceptable. It is also unashamed vindictiveness towards hard-working people.

The attack on the hard-working people of the public and private sectors through an attempt to dilute safety and health legislation is also worrying. Some on the other side of the House claim that it is burdensome, yet we have some of the best safety and health legislation in the world. When Lord Young of Graffham is being asked to reform safety and health laws and clearly states—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House with great force and eloquence. A few moments ago, I was waiting for a specific reference to the Bill and he made it, for which the House was indebted to him. However, he is now talking about health and safety and wider reviews, and there is the difficulty that those matters do not appertain to the Bill, to which I know he will now revert with his customary force and eloquence.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you very much for that, Mr Speaker —I understand. Whether or not health and safety and other such issues are part of the Bill or the Budget, they are integral to the people whom we represent.

To top it all off, those hard-working people are expected to accept the reduction in their pensions and pay cuts without any voice. It is reported that the Government are looking to tighten what are already the worst anti-trade union laws in the western world, to prevent people from having the democratic right to oppose the cuts in the Bill and the Budget. With pay cuts, pension cuts, benefit cuts, employment rights eroded, and health and safety laws diluted, their futures are in tatters. Who says that we are in this together? I invite the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to visit my constituency, to explain to the people of Wansbeck, including the 53% who may lose their jobs, how on earth we are in this together. What about the young and the future jobs fund and university places? What about the lack of job opportunities and the abolition of the regional development agencies? With the cutting of benefits, what future do the young people have as a result of the Bill?

Disabled people will be affected. What about the tax on disabled benefits? In my constituency, benefits for disablement and incapacity, including disability living allowance, are extremely important, because Wansbeck is a heavily industrialised area. The child trust funds are to be abolished—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am genuinely trying to be helpful to individual Members and to the House. It is open to the hon. Gentleman, and to other hon. Members who speak, to say something about corporation tax, capital gains tax, value added tax, insurance premium tax, income tax, etc.

[Ian Lavery]

Thanks for that, Mr Speaker. Every Member who has sat in the Chamber for as long as I have today is probably as fed up as I am about VAT and everything else. I accept everything you say, Mr Speaker, but I must say that I am just trying to change things, because we are talking about the cuts and the impact they will have on ordinary people. That is the only thing I am trying to get across. I understand quite clearly that I am probably stretching the limits of the debate—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman and I know he is doing his best to heed my advice—not altogether successfully—but from his last sentence, I suggest that he could delete the word “probably”. He was not following my advice, but I know that he will now do so. There are other matters to address if he wishes to do so.

[Ian Lavery]

Once again, Mr Speaker, thank you very much for your indulgence. I conclude not by mentioning VAT or anything of that nature, but by suggesting once again that it is not fair to say that we are in this together, because we certainly are not.