Employment Support

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Yes.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The heartless, callous decision announced today casts hundreds of hard-working disabled people on to the scrap heap, probably for a lifetime. The Minister continues to state that they will get jobs elsewhere, but in my constituency, 55.5 people are after every jobcentre vacancy. Can the Minister tell me where they will get employment?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman really should have been listening to what I was talking about. Under the Labour Administration, 28 factories were closed in very difficult circumstances. What we are doing differently is making sure that the proper support is put in place, which it probably was not in the case of factories closed under Labour. We want to make sure that disabled people who are affected by the plans today have that support, and I hope I can call on the hon. Gentleman’s support to make sure that his constituents are aware of it.

Welfare Reform Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

If anyone ever had any doubt about the same old Tories and the nasty party, they have just seen an absolutely fine example of it. I am not surprised by the views of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) either, bearing in mind that he said that disabled people should work for less than the minimum wage—well done!

[Philip Davies]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

On the issue at hand, one in three of us—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It is up to the hon. Gentleman whether he wishes to give way. Having three people shouting at once is not the way to get anyone to give way.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

One in three of us suffers from cancer at any one time. I am very unfortunate, as my parents and my wife’s parents all died at a relatively young age.

[Philip Davies]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Gentleman to make an accusation that five national newspapers apologised for making? Is it in order for him to make the same accusation and then not give way to allow me to correct him? Those five newspapers at least had the courtesy to acknowledge that they had made a mistake.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order for the Chair, but you have put the point on the record which I think is what you wished to do.

[Ian Lavery]

As I was saying, one in three of us—[Hon. Members: “Shame!”] I will start again. One in three of us, sadly, comes into contact with cancer during our lifetime. It is a very difficult situation. I lost both my parents, and my wife lost both of hers, so I understand how sufferers and their relatives and friends are affected. It is not just the disease that has an effect—there is also the mental and physical stress and traumatisation for people who suffer from diseases such as cancer and stroke.

Some of the people who suffer from cancer might not see two years—they might not have a vision of the next two years on this earth—but the Government propose to cut benefits from those people at that time in their lives. It is absolutely dreadful that in 2012 we have a Government who are even considering such heinous acts against the most vulnerable. When the Secretary of State, who has left the Chamber, discusses these issues on television and in the media he seems to relish the fact that benefits will be cut. He seems to have a sense of contentment or self-satisfaction—almost an arrogance beyond belief—when he states clearly that benefits will be cut. To say the very least, it is gut-wrenching.

We as politicians across the board should be looking to defend people whose voices are mostly unheard. They elected us into our positions, and they depend on us. The Government must consider an extension to ESA for two years, and we must exempt those receiving cancer treatments from any time limit whatever. It is breathtaking and incomprehensible that benefits are being cut from people at that critical point in their lives, when some see the possibility that they will not live much longer.

There are regional differences as well, regarding the availability of cancer treatments, for example. The north-east fares very poorly in that. We also have the highest incidence of newly diagnosed cancers, and I am certainly not happy with the cutting of benefits in any way, shape or form to people suffering from cancers, strokes and all those debilitating diseases.

In conclusion, we need to give such people a break—give them a chance and some understanding. You can nod your head all you wish.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is not concerned with the facts at all. Cancer does not respect political boundaries. Do you not think that colleagues on this side of the House have suffered in the same way that you have? Such a person as you have described would clearly be in the support group.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need Front Benchers to join in as well. We have enough with the Back Benchers.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am the sort of person who would not, in any event, agree to cuts for people on benefits who were suffering from debilitating or life-threatening diseases. That is the type of person I am. If you want to vote for that—my apologies. If it is your intention to vote for that, you do it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are going to go through the Chair and we cannot use “you”. We know better now. Okay, Mr Ian Lavery.

[Ian Lavery]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr McCann]

Will my hon. Friend give me some clarification to get the facts straight? If someone who has worked all their life and paid contributions to the system tragically contracts cancer, after one year will their ESA contributions-based benefit stop?

[Ian Lavery]

That is certainly the intention of the Government’s proposal, and it is absolutely outrageous.

To conclude, bearing in mind the time, I want to say that it is about time that we gave some dignity to the people we have mentioned—

[Chris Grayling]

It is important that the House understands the facts. Somebody who is diagnosed with cancer who goes through chemotherapy will spend an extended period in the support group, so they will not lose benefits after 12 months. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, today, there are more cancer patients receiving unconditional ongoing support in the support group than under the previous Government?

[Ian Lavery]

What I will not accept is that everyone suffering from cancer will be in the work group. That is not the case. They might be in for a short time or a prolonged period, but they are not guaranteed to be in there all the time. That means their benefits will be cut.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is rather strange that a Government who have been saying that disabled people should not be condemned to worklessness and should be encouraged to work seem to be turning on a pin to argue that everything will be all right because all those people will be in the support group?

[Ian Lavery]

If that was the case, there would not be a problem with the legislation. Everybody would get what they were due and there would not be the apparent cut.

For the third time, I shall try to conclude. We must give dignity to those people, who are in most need, and stop the war against those in need.

[Dr Whiteford]

I will try to keep my comments brief, given the time pressure on us.

The Lords has done us a big service by highlighting the impact and implications of these measures for sick and disabled people. The 12-month limit to contributory ESA is arbitrary. Regardless of the people in the support group, the measure will affect people who are adapting to radical and serious changes in their health, income and life. They might be suffering from life-limiting conditions, long-term disability or fluctuating conditions. They might be people who have been used to living on an average income, but will have to get used to living on a very low income. Those adaptations take time; getting better takes time. Some people will take less than 12 months, some considerably more. Macmillan thinks that 94% will need support in the work-related activity group for more than 12 months. In that respect, while I do not accept the principle of an arbitrary time limit, I suspect that two years would catch more of those people and see them getting the support they need.

Fundamentally, these measures will upset the contract that we all like to think we have when we pay our national insurance contributions—that there will be some limited safety net for us if we are unfortunate enough to become sick or disabled. That could happen to any one of us in this Chamber, at any time. We do not know when we are going to have an accident or develop a serious illness, so not only cancer is involved, although we know that people across society are affected by it. Other conditions are just as serious, and the same principles apply.

On insecurity, I should draw an analogy with what happened when banks tried to prey on people’s insecurities about the future by asking them to take on insurance for loans they had taken out. The banks have had to pay out seven-figure sums in compensation to people who were mis-sold insurance policies. I hope that that does not happen again as people think, “If I get a serious illness, there will not be support for me.” I am worried that there will be an opportunity for unscrupulous selling of insurance policies to vulnerable people at the most vulnerable times in their lives.

I am concerned about the knock-on impact of the proposals on carers too. In my constituency, I have seen families working longer hours, often in low-paid jobs, just to provide financially for family members who are no longer able to work, but who once were. There is particular concern around young people; that was mentioned earlier in the debate, but it has not been focused on so much. Parents of disabled young adults have often saved throughout their lives as they are concerned about what will happen when they are no longer able to look after their children. They have saved for their children to ensure that they have independent means and a bit of money behind them for when they are adult and their parents are no longer in a position to provide.

It would be unfortunate if the capital of those young people were eroded at a time when they still had some support from their parents. They might be prevented from having an independent old age and might be made more dependent on the state than they would otherwise be. That is about the dignity of young disabled people as much as anything.

I urge the Government to consider the fact that ESA needs to be assessed on the basis of medical need, not an arbitrary time limit. People should get the support they need according to their health, not some arbitrary category that they may or may not fit into.

Remploy

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on the debate. It is extremely important at this time. I place on record my congratulations and thanks to the trade union consortium that has done everything it can with the work force at Remploy to try to ensure that there will be employment in future, and hopefully at Remploy factories. Trade unions are often vilified in the House for many things, but that is a great example of fine trade unionism.

In his lengthy contribution, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) mentioned George Tomlinson, who was the Member of Parliament for Bolton and set up Remploy shortly after the second world war to look after people who had been disabled in the war. The hon. Gentleman was very selective in his quotations from Mr Tomlinson all those years ago, and I shall be equally selective. He wanted factories that would enable disabled people to live full and ordinary lives. He also wanted secure, open employment. I believe that his objectives all those years ago were the same as the objectives now. Nothing has changed. That is all that disabled people want. They are not asking for the world.

Under the Sayce report, 54 factories nationally are facing closure, and that is an issue for the Government. I hope that debates such as this will convince them that that it is not the right thing to do. Since 2008, there have been between 3,750 and 4,000 voluntary redundancies in Remploy factories. During the same period, there was a huge increase in senior management and a huge decrease—about 50%—in the number of disabled people who were allowed to have employment in Remploy.

I want to mention the Ashington factory in my constituency, but in view of what you said, Mr Havard, I will be as brief as I can. Many people have rightly mentioned their own constituencies, sticking up for their constituents. The Ashington factory makes commercial and garden furniture. As has been mentioned, initiatives are being driven by the workers, who do the printing, produce their own catalogues and deliver leaflets where they can, while senior management at regional level—not local level—are doing absolutely nothing to ensure that people in the Remploy factories are at full production. So credit where credit is due to those individuals. All they want to do is work in the factory, but they see senior managers preventing them from doing so. It is a deliberate ploy. We are seeing it in other industries where people are basically strangulated and starved of work, which makes them look inefficient. It is not inefficiency; it is bad management.

The local team was fantastic. I also visited Newcastle Remploy in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon). I met every worker and spoke to each individual, and everyone was fantastic. I had a great time. I got a great letter from them—I will not read it out. It was inspiring to be in the Remploy factory speaking to the individuals. Many of them have given a lifetime’s service: 20, 25 or 30 years are not uncommon. They feel as though Remploy is in their blood. They feel they have given a lifetime to Remploy, so they do not want to be kicked in the teeth by the closure of the factory. Remploy has given them self-esteem and, of course, the independence that everybody wants.

I learned that the Ashington factory was bringing in young people from Cleaswell Hill special school in my constituency. They have severe learning disabilities, but it was agreed that for the first time in their lives, those young people could experience employment at Remploy in Ashington. It was a fantastic idea to bring those kids in. I spoke to them on a different occasion; many of them would not even respond when I first spoke to them. They had a tremendous experience. It was the first time that they had had the opportunity of any employment at all, albeit on a trial basis. I hope that Remploy will consider such schemes on a national basis so that we can look after the people who need that sort of work. We want to see such schemes extended. That is what Remploy is for: to look after people who have problems and who might not get work in mainstream employment.

The Sayce report will mean the closure of 54 factories. Up to 3,000 more disabled people will be on the dole, lacking opportunities. In Ashington, 33 or 34 people are applying for every single job. Where will that leave disabled people if they are made unemployed? They will have no chance of any employment whatever. We need to make sure that we look at that. The Remploy trade union consortium’s survey shows that there is very little chance of work. If we look at the survey from 2008 to the present, how many people have been re-employed? It is absolutely alarming. There are 2.65 million unemployed people at present. What will happen in future?

We must listen to the voice of carers and parents of the sons and daughters who have had opportunities in Remploy factories. They are pleading with the Government to keep the Remploy factories open. That will give individuals income, independence, self-respect and self-esteem. It also means that they are not benefit-reliant and are not classed as scroungers.

Evidence shows that unemployment leads to severe depression in many cases. I could go on, but I see Mr Havard is shaking his head, so I will finish by simply saying that there is a case of serious mismanagement in Remploy. The answer is to ensure that management are accountable. They should stop paying themselves average bonuses of £4,600 every year. They should stop taking money from individual factories to pay for grand offices up and down the country. They should invest the money in the work force at Remploy. Many things can be done to ensure that we continue to look after the people at Remploy. It is often said that a society can be judged by the way it looks after its most vulnerable people. We must look after the most vulnerable and keep the plants open.

Unemployment

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I rise to support the motion in the name of my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. We are aware of the national figures, so in the limited time that I have I will concentrate on the picture as it affects Easington and the north-east region.

As Opposition Members are aware, the north-east has suffered more than perhaps any other region. Unemployment currently stands at 11.7%. In both the public and private sectors, unemployment is rising unabated as a direct consequence of the Government’s policies.

As we already know, the public sector is losing jobs more than 13 times faster than the private sector can create them. We were promised a private sector-led recovery. We were told that the public sector jobs that have been lost in the north-east—we have lost more than 32,000 so far—would be replaced by a growing private sector. That clearly has not happened over the past 12 months.

The latest job figures show that the north-east has lost a larger proportion of jobs than anywhere else in the country. We have 6,000 fewer jobs in the construction sector compared with the same period last year. Clearly, Government policy has had a direct impact on the private sector. Cutting infrastructure projects and the Building Schools for the Future programme has hit construction jobs. The figures produced by the northern TUC show that the public sector is losing 2,000 jobs a month.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) mentioned, the Conservative Government of the 1980s and early 1990s bear a heavy responsibility for the worklessness that exists in areas such as mine. When the traditional industries were still operating—in my case it was coal mining—the numbers of people who were employed were high and the numbers on benefit were relatively low. It was not until the pits closed that we saw significant increases in unemployment and incapacity claims. As hon. Members have already said, there is a human cost to unemployment. After closing the pits in Easington and in the north-east, the Conservatives left villages, towns and entire communities without work.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the unemployment statistics in Easington are very similar to those in Wansbeck? In my constituency, there is in excess of 30 people applying for each job vacancy and that is intolerable. The Prime Minister has kept one of his promises: before the election, he said that the north-east would be hit the first and hit the hardest.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Indeed. I share my hon. Friend’s concerns, and that has certainly been the case. We are facing a worsening of the north-south divide. It is also the case that the north-east has faced some of the worst increases in unemployment across the UK. The hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said that there were 1,000 people out of work in his constituency. There is more than three times that number in my constituency. The number of 18 to 24-year-olds out of work in Easington has increased by 65%. For the over-50s, the figure is up 58%, which is just as concerning. The situation for those out of work in the north-east is much bleaker than in many other regions.

Unemployment and worklessness are not evenly spread across the country. Indeed, they are concentrated in particular pockets, largely the older industrial areas of the north-east, Merseyside, Scotland and Wales, and that makes unemployment far harder to deal with. I should like to commend the excellent work carried out by Professor Steve Fothergill and his colleagues at Sheffield Hallam university in identifying some possible solutions. I know that time is short, so I will bring my speech to a close.

There are real concerns about the Government’s intentions in relation to workfare. If jobs exist, why are they not being offered as real jobs with real wages? We need a plan from the Government for jobs and growth. Our Front-Bench team has a five-point plan to kick-start the economy, but the Government could go further. There are some helpful suggestions from the Institute for Public Policy Research for supporting employment, and I raised them with the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), in a recent Adjournment debate. I would point out, however, that the Government’s promises on jobs and growth are as hollow as a chocolate Father Christmas.

Youth Unemployment

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

May I say at the outset that I am disappointed that we have had only two hours to discuss youth unemployment and jobs, which is one of the most important issues in this country at the moment? I will use my four minutes to try to expose the myth that we are all in this together. Before the election, the now Prime Minister said that the north-east would be hit hardest and first, and that the public sector there was too big. What an absolute disgrace! It was an insult to everyone in the region, and what is more, only this week a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research North think-tank stated that 32,000 public sector jobs have been lost in the north-east so far this Parliament, yet 24,000 public sector jobs are being created in the south-east of England and 8,000 in London. Where is the fairness in all this? How are we in this together? It is not right. Why is the north-east continually hammered by this coalition Government?

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Lavery]

Excuse me, but the hon. Gentleman has just come in. There are people who have been in here for ages.

In my constituency, 20.7% of young people are not in education, employment or training. It was once a thriving mining community, but we now have unemployment levels of 7.7%. Over the past five years, there has been a 67% increase in the number of jobseeker’s allowance applications, and over the past 12 months, a 19.8% increase. The number of applications from those aged 24 and under has increased by 34% in 12 months. It is an absolute disgrace.

The most horrendous statistic is that for every job vacancy in Wansbeck, there are 9.6 applicants. The jobs are not there for people. It is unacceptable, and we cannot continue to treat people like this. It has been said on numerous occasions, “Is this a price worth paying?” Do people believe that youth unemployment is a price worth paying? It is not. The lack of jobs and opportunities will see this country decline in the future. Young people should be seen as our future doctors, business men and women, nurses, firefighters, teachers, soldiers, sailors and council workers. We should treat them with a little decorum.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is right to point out what our young people should be able to expect from the future, but is not the reality that because of what is happening, there is so much despair and fear among young people—fear that they will never get a real job—that it is essential that we get action now to provide jobs, and that we do not just rely on promises and schemes? That is what will give them hope. Otherwise, they will find their fears and despair justified.

[Ian Lavery]

I agree wholeheartedly. The 9.6 people going for every job in my constituency are now being threatened and told that if they do not secure employment, their benefits will be withdrawn. That is hardly a carrot-and-stick approach; it is basically a baseball-bat-over-the-head approach. Instead of encouraging people into employment, we are seeing quite the opposite.

The Labour party has proposed a five-point plan for growth and jobs, and the Government parties would be well advised to scrutinise it. What the Minister said absolutely appalled me: he said that they should not listen to the Labour party. Well, let me give him a message. I am here to represent hundreds and thousands of people unable to attract employment. The employment that is available is low paid. On youth unemployment and jobs, the Government should be listening to everyone from across the parties. People are asking me, and are entitled to ask, whether this is a cynical, political attempt to attack the north-east region and them as individuals, because of a fundamental lack of support for the Government parties.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The problems that my hon. Friend is describing do not just affect the north-east. Does he agree that Government Members seem to be in denial about the scale of the problem and the fact that it will get a lot worse if they do not change course?

[Ian Lavery]

That is exactly right, and the economy shows clearly that borrowing is up by £46 billion, that CPI inflation is up to 5.2% and that RPI inflation is up to 5.6%. We have the highest level of unemployment for 17 years, the highest level of unemployment among women since records began in 1988 and almost 1 million unemployed young people.

We have to change course. Whether it is plan B, plan C, plan D, plan A plus or whatever, I say to the Government, please listen to what people are saying on the ground. Instead of saying, “We are not prepared to listen,” please listen to these people, who are desperate out there—the people who have been marching the streets of London, the disabled and the women, who I have already mentioned. Listen to what they have to say, please change course and let us see what can be delivered for the people who are most in need in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will get a grip the moment the right hon. Gentleman’s team decide whether they are in favour of the Bill or against it. I gather that the Leader of the Opposition has today moved like a wriggly worm and decided that he is both for and against it, which is really not surprising. The point of bringing forward our proposals is that the right hon. Gentleman and everybody else will have a chance to look at them and decide whether they agree with them. After the consultation, we will make it clear what our final proposals are. I think that that is fair. Last time, he complained that we did not consult him—he ought to make his mind up.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

4. What estimate the Health and Safety Executive has made of the annual cost to the economy of inadequate workplace health and safety.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

The Health and Safety Executive estimates that the annual cost to Great Britain of workplace injuries and work-related ill health is currently in the order of £20 billion.

[Ian Lavery]

Last year, there were 152 fatalities and 26,000 major injuries in the workplace and more than 800,000 people suffered a work-related illness. As a consequence of the cuts, the HSE has withdrawn a large number of workplace inspections. How will the Government ensure that those figures do not increase year on year?

[Chris Grayling]

As a former union official, the hon. Gentleman will know that the biggest challenge we face is employers who cut corners and break the rules. I would have thought that he would welcome a change in policy that focuses health and safety inspections not on low-risk, good employer sites, which have taken up so much resource in the past, but on employers who are not playing by the book and who endanger their employees and the public. That is where I want our regulatory effort to focus.

Amendment of the Law

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Many of the people affected by last week’s Budget were in attendance in Hyde park on Saturday. Some 500,000, I believe, were there, marching against the Government’s cuts. It was a privilege and an honour to stand shoulder to shoulder, along with many Labour colleagues, with so many people in the UK—nurses, doctors, teachers, policemen, prison officers, council workers and trade unionists, among many others, including many people representing local charities, community groups or professional organisations. It was an absolute credit to the TUC and Brendan Barber that they organised such an historic event. Those 500,000 people gave a clear message to the Con-Dems about last week’s Budget and the cuts agenda, which is going too far, too fast. The Budget again hit the less well-off, not the more affluent people in this country—not the millionaires on the Government Benches.

I want to focus on two issues. The first is the Chancellor’s announcement last week about the carbon tax—or the carbon floor price. It could have a devastating impact on Rio Tinto Alcan, which is the biggest private sector employer in my constituency; in fact, it is the largest in Northumberland, employing 600 people and probably serving more than 1,000 people indirectly in the community. Alcan has put £100 million into the local economy, which is something that we greatly need. However, last week’s introduction of the carbon floor price, in addition to the EU’s emissions trading scheme, means that nearly a third of Alcan’s running costs are due to legislation. It simply cannot sustain that. I am concerned that if we do not look at that, Alcan—a huge employer—might consider closing the plant. The Budget announcement certainly threatens the progress of what has been a tremendous employer. I would ask the Government to rethink their policy on the carbon floor price; and if possible, I would like to discuss that with the Ministers concerned.

Last week’s forecast showed that growth figures had been cut, with inflation up, borrowing up, unemployment up and youth unemployment up to record levels. Again, that is extremely concerning. They say that the devil is in the detail. I would refer to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has established a record in betraying the young people of our country. Perhaps he should have read the Red Book, as probably we all did. If he does, he will realise that the coalition Government did not announce from the Dispatch Box last week that they were reducing winter fuel payments to pensioners. It is an absolute disgrace that no one had the guts to stand at that Dispatch Box to tell the House and explain to the country that the Government were reducing winter fuel payments to people aged between 70 and 80. That is another broken pledge—another broken promise—from a broken man who is completely out of his depth.

[Steve Webb]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

No.

Quite frankly, the Deputy Prime Minister is controlled like a sycophant—a political Buzz Lightyear—by the very hands of the Prime Minister himself.

The other issue is the significant changes to the Health and Safety Executive and the Lord Young review—which was implemented last week in the detail of the Budget—which will cause huge problems for workplace inspections across the country. That is a great concern, because many people are still being killed in the UK or contracting illnesses or diseases as a result of working in industry. Again, I would like that reviewed. We should be proud of our health and safety culture—Opposition Members certainly are, but I am not so sure about Government Members.

Last week’s Budget did nothing for the hard-working people of this country—some people describe them as the squeezed middle. There has been an attack on pensions, pay and conditions, rights in the workplace and health and safety. No wonder 500,000 marched so proudly against the cuts and the Budget on Saturday. The coalition Government would do well to listen to those people, rather than the inane ramblings of Batty Boris, the Mayor of London.

Health and Safety (Construction Industry)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend is right. It is obvious that the cuts will result in increased fatalities. I am sure that the Minister will respond to this, but it is important to remember that even though we are trying to reduce the deficit—if, indeed, it is reduced—such people will not get their lives back, and they will not get their limbs back. It is important that we try to keep focused on health and safety.

We warmly welcomed the publication in July 2009 of Rita Donaghy’s report on construction fatalities. The then Government commissioned that independent report following strong lobbying by a number of trade unions and other agencies. It was the most significant and far-reaching report into construction safety for well over a decade. The 96-page report was entitled “One Death is too Many: Inquiry into the Underlying Causes of Construction Fatal Accidents”. It made a number of major recommendations, two of which were the extension of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to cover the construction industry, and the introduction of statutory directors’ duties. The extension of the 2004 Act was recommended in recognition of the fact that

“The further down the subcontracting chain one goes the less secure the worker and the less satisfied with the management of health and safety on site. Society should accept that there needs to be a standard below which no construction worker should have to work.”

We have long campaigned for the introduction of statutory directors’ duties. It is virtually impossible to hold individual directors to account if a worker is killed at work. The report states:

“As with most advances in society, e.g. seat belts in cars, drink driving, there comes a time when good practice has to become a legal requirement.”

Rita Donaghy explicitly said:

“I recommend that there should be positive duties on directors to ensure good health and safety management through a framework of planning, delivering, monitoring and reviewing.”

The introduction of directors’ duties would mean that if a worker is killed and it is discovered that a company disregarded health and safety legislation, there is the possibility of an individual director receiving a custodial sentence.

The construction skills certification scheme was set up in 1995 by the construction industry to maintain a record of construction site workers who achieve, or can demonstrate that they have already attained, an agreed level of competence. The CSCS card issued to successful applicants offers a vital means by which cardholders can record and provide proof of their skills and occupational competence. Cardholders are also required to take a health and safety test relevant to their occupation. The aim of the scheme is to help the construction industry reduce accidents and improve competency and safety for individual site workers.

There are currently more than 1.6 million cardholders, and the CSCS works with 10 affiliated organisations to cover more than 350 construction-related occupations. The scheme is now widely used on the majority of construction sites, and all major contractors and homebuilders—

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he not agree that there is a need to enshrine the CSCS in legislation? Such a move would surely have a huge impact on the safety and health of people working in the construction and building industries. If legislation were passed and the scheme were rolled out—it has been rolled out for 1.6 million people at this point in time—throughout the industry, does he not think that that would have a huge impact on health and safety?

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I understand it, there will not be any major financial impact if this card is introduced. Perhaps the Minister can give us an insight into his thinking on the CSCS when he makes his reply.

All the major contractors and homebuilders insist on those cards, as the cards demonstrate their commitment to safe and efficient working for construction workers and clients. CSCS cards provide additional security and peace of mind, as a fully carded work force is safer and better trained. Government should lead by example and require the use of CSCS on all public sector sites. Indeed, they already require the use of these cards or their equivalent on public sector sites as set out in the Office of Government Commerce common minimum standards for the procurement of built environments in the public sector.

The CMS recommendations state:

“Clients are to include a contract clause requiring that all members of their supply teams who are workers on or regular visitors to a construction site are registered on the Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) or are able to prove competency in some other appropriate way.”

The CSCS welcomed these recommendations, which were accepted by the previous Administration in their response to the report. The CSCS would welcome clarification from the Government on which of the Donaghy recommendations they intend to take forward.

In a parliamentary written answer, published in December 2010, the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said that the Government will

“therefore progress those of the Donaghy recommendations accepted by the previous Administration which we consider are supported by the available evidence.”—[Official Report, 1 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 867W.]

In his reply, will the Minister commit to raise awareness of the need to specify CSCS in all public sector contracts? Will he say what progress has been made on the review of the OGC common minimum standards and whether the requirement to specify the use of CSCS will be retained and promoted? Which recommendations in the Donaghy report do the Government intend to take forward, and what action do they intend to take to monitor the eligibility of migrant workers to work, and their qualifications and training?

Let me touch now on the issue of blacklisting in the construction industry, which also has a major health and safety perspective. Safety representatives have been targeted by their employers, and many have had to leave the industry as they were unable to find work. Despite being the most dangerous industry in Britain, construction has the lowest number of independent safety representatives, and all the major contractors have been involved in blacklisting.

In recent years, there has been a huge increase in employment agencies and gangmasters operating in the construction industry. That has further casualised and fragmented the construction industry, which has implications for safety in a number of ways. Often there is little effective screening of workers, and inexperienced workers are placed on construction sites without the appropriate training. The workers are highly vulnerable, so they are unlikely to complain about dangerous practices. Agencies are increasingly forcing workers to pay for their own personal protective equipment, which is illegal.

Agencies often flout the working time limit of 48 hours a week. With workers undertaking excessive hours, accidents are more likely to occur.

[Ian Lavery]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a huge problem in the construction industry with regard to safety wear? In a meeting last week with the Health and Safety Executive, I heard about the huge problems with fake safety wear—helmets, boots and protective clothing. If that continues, we will see more problems within the industry. Does he agree that the Government should do everything in their power to uncover the source of this crooked gear and get rid of it to ensure that people in the industry are safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) on securing the debate, on all the work that he does as chair of the all party parliamentary group and on the well-informed and measured way in which he has raised these issues. As he rightly said, one death is too many, which is the title of the Donaghy report. There were 42 fatalities in 2009-10 and that is not something to be proud of. I should just say that the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who takes the lead on these matters, is on the Front Bench in the Commons responding to the Welfare Reform Bill and so I am standing in for him today. I know that he welcomes the fact that over the past decade there has been a significant improvement in the number of fatalities in the construction sector.

Let me give a feel of the progress that has been made. The reason I mention this is that if we can see that progress has been made over a decade—although that until we get to zero deaths we should not rest, and even then we should not rest—the challenge for us is to see what delivered the progress and whether we can continue doing more of those things or whether fresh duties, fresh structures and fresh obligations are the best way forward. I want, therefore, to give some figures for the record. Ten years ago, in 2000-01, there were 105 fatalities, compared with 42 last year. There are also figures relative to the scale of the industry, which obviously fluctuates. Measured relative to every 1,000 workers, in every year except one of the last 10, the rate of fatalities has fallen. The Health and Safety Executive, the trade unions and the industry deserve some credit for the improvements that have been made.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North quite properly asked, “But what of the future?” He speculated that fatalities would rise. I know that the HSE will be working very hard, in partnership with industry, the trade unions and the Government, to ensure that that does not happen. However, although he rightly says that there have been construction industry inspectors at the HSE on temporary contracts, they were always intended to be on temporary contracts. This Government have not decided to make them temporary. They were always fixed-term appointments that were due to end this summer. Nevertheless, even if we exclude those inspectors, as at January 2011 we have more HSE construction division inspectors in post than ever before.

I just want to give some idea of the sorts of people that I am talking about. Currently, 150 operational inspectors visit sites on a day-to-day basis—up by nearly 25 from three years ago. There are 24 line managers who also conduct inspections. In addition, there are 16 inspectors in construction sector and policy; 20 specialist inspectors who provide expert input on the causes of accidents and advice on technical issues; and 27 visiting officers in the construction sector. As things stand, therefore, there is a very significant commitment by the HSE to the construction sector.

As with all aspects of Government, budget cuts have been required of the HSE, but I stress that the HSE will inevitably continue to concentrate its work on the highest-risk sectors—

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue for a moment. As I was saying, the HSE will continue to concentrate its work on the highest-risk sectors, such as construction.

I also want to respond to the specific point made by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) in his intervention. He suggested that there might be an end to unannounced inspections in the construction sector. I am happy to confirm on the record that there is no intention to stop unannounced inspections in construction and indeed the HSE will be paying greater attention to smaller sites, where we fully recognise that there are still poorer standards. Indeed, it is on those sites that the majority of fatal accidents happen.

Youth Unemployment

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I would like to focus on the young people who have lost their jobs. They are real people, and I welcome this opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House of Commons the betrayal of those young people. They represent the nation’s future, but they have been bruised, battered and neglected. They are not needed and not worthy—that is the message the Government are pushing to those people.

We have a serious problem, in that those young people are in danger of becoming the lost generation. Employment is a major social ingredient in anyone’s life, and in modern, civilised society. It gives self-esteem and confidence. It breeds purpose in individuals. It is a rung on life’s ladder, which can often be quite cruel. As we debate this issue today, we see an increase of 66,000 young people who are unemployed.

The constituency statistics in the information from the House of Commons Library show that, in the 100 worst-affected constituencies, there are 10 applicants for every job vacancy. On average, across all constituencies, there are five applicants for every job. In my constituency, however, 14.3 people apply for every vacancy. Is it any wonder that our young people, our future generations, feel so let down and demoralised? They feel utterly betrayed by the actions of this Government. Is it any wonder that they are taking to the streets and demonstrating in their tens of thousands in every city against the Government’s attack on young people? They are organising and giving voice to their views. As politicians, we should listen to their call for opportunities, for a chance in life, for dignity, for decency and for equality. That should be readily recognised by the Government.

[Sajid Javid]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Lavery]

No! [Laughter.] Go on, then. I apologise for that.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for so graciously giving way. There is a lot that hon. Members on different sides of the House can disagree on, but will he acknowledge, perhaps in a bipartisan spirit, that some of the Government’s welfare reforms—for example, the introduction of the universal credit, the increase in apprenticeships, and the move to ensure that people are better off in work than out of work—are a step in the right direction?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I believe that we should wait to see the details of the universal credit. The devil is often in the detail.

The future jobs fund was abolished within days of the election by the Tories. At this stage, I must offer my personal view that I do not accept that this is a coalition Government. It is a full-blooded, blue-blooded Tory Government, propped up by a few desperate Liberal Democrats who are prostituting every principle that they have ever stood for, and abandoning every young person in this country.

The future jobs fund offered a golden opportunity to 200,000 people, but those full-time jobs will be wasted. They were much needed in communities such as mine. The future jobs fund was sowing the seeds of success, and it was proving successful to those young people. It was giving young people who had never had a job before a much-needed break in life. They need and deserve an explanation from the Government. They need to know why, immediately after taking office, the Government abolished a great opportunity, perhaps one of the last opportunities that they will be given for a long time.

I am aware of the eight-minute limit on speeches, Mr Deputy Speaker, but at this point a triple whammy comes to mind: the attack on education maintenance allowance, the increase in tuition fees, and the cancellation of the future jobs fund. People will not forget, and they are asking now why the attack on young people continues and where it will end. The number of unemployed young people has risen by 66,000, and the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts huge further increases in the not-too-distant future. Everything in the garden is not rosy for our young people or for our future. Every 100,000 people who are out of work cost the Treasury £500 million. We cannot, in any circumstances, return to the days of the 1980s, when 26% of people were unemployed.

In my constituency, there are 14.3 applicants for every job vacancy. Unemployment in the region stands at 9.6%, and 46% of working women in the northern region are employed in the public sector. In my constituency, the public sector employs 11,000 women—68% of working women—and more than 50% of men. How dare any Member say in the House that public sector workers deserve redundancy before anyone else? We are talking about teachers, firemen, policemen, council workers and cleaners. How dare anyone suggest that their jobs are meaningless because the private sector should rule?

The attack on public services in my constituency will be unbelievably harsh. The creation of 200,000 jobs through the future jobs fund would have been immensely valuable. Moreover, 10,000 jobs would have been created in the north-east in the renewable energy, environmental and emerging low-carbon technology sectors, and 15,000 would have been created in social enterprises. That is much-needed employment. The Government’s action in abolishing the future jobs fund is an absolute disgrace: it was politically motivated and ideologically driven.

I will not forget 20 October 2010, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the loss of 490,000 jobs. I shall not forget the triumphant, jubilant cheers from the Government Benches. That made me sick to the pit of my stomach. The people will not forget, and I will not forget. I am pleased to have been able to take part in the debate, and I support the motion wholeheartedly.