Antisocial Behaviour in Town Centres

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I wish I had prepared my contribution as a response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), because some of the outrageous statements he made were frankly unbelievable. Anyone would think that the Conservative party had not been in office for 13 years. Is it just me, or would anyone think there is an election around the corner? He hit back at the democratic processes in his constituency about who is elected. It is the people who elect their representatives. The MP does not select councillors—it is the people who do that. Criticism of the people in his own constituency might not go down well.

However, I seriously thank the hon. Member for bringing this timely debate on a massive subject, though it is shame he used it simply to try to attack the Labour party. That is extraordinary, to be honest. His closing remarks were along the lines of, “Thank you, Minister, for the wonderful robust approach that the Government have taken to antisocial behaviour on the high street.” If they are doing a great job, what is there to debate? There is either a problem that needs to be dealt with, or everything is okay. He cannot have it both ways, I am afraid.

The common denominator to the huge issues that I describe as high street anarchy is that the Conservative party in 2010 reduced the police by 20,000 officers.

[Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. I was in Northfield Primary School in South Kirkby on Monday, where there is a serious antisocial problem. The policing is lacking because of the cuts that he just referred to. I do not think we should be demonising a whole generation of young people. The Tories cut £1 billion or more of funding for youth services, so there is no youth provision in the villages I represent—there are no youth clubs—and all sorts of other facilities simply closed down as a result of those cuts. Does he agree that the backdrop to this problem of antisocial behaviour is, first, inadequate policing because of poor funding and, secondly, cuts to services upon which so many people depend?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is so true. Are these young people bored? Perhaps it is boredom, but the hon. Member for Keighley should recognise that it is because of the reduction in youth provision and the withdrawal of funding to local authorities, charities and lots of other organisations that used to fund youth networks right the way through our communities. They are gone. That does not mean to say that, because people are bored, they can create havoc on the high streets, because that is not acceptable at all.

If we look at Northumbria police, I have to place on record that the police in my constituency do a marvellous job—every one of them—and they know that they are really under-resourced. That is the real issue on the high street: the police are under-resourced, and they have to assess and deal with crimes as they happen in real time. Do the police go to where the assaults are happening, or do they go to where somebody is pulling plants out of flowerbeds on the high street? I do not want to trivialise what is happening on the high street, because it is very, very important. There is theft taking place in the shops. There is vandalism. There is antisocial behaviour, and there is unruly behaviour. We have also noticed in my constituency an increase in racist abuse.

I put a survey out to retailers in Ashington, Newbiggin, Morpeth and Bedlington asking them about antisocial behaviour, and I got a fantastic response. They all have huge criticisms, and they all have different issues. We then had a meeting with the police on Friday night, and the sad fact of the matter was that very few people turned up, because there is absolutely no confidence at all in the criminal justice system. There is a recognition that the police do what they can, but there is a bigger recognition that they are not doing anything that is addressing the huge issue of antisocial behaviour on the high street.

Let me give a few examples of what is happening in my patch. We have people going into the bigger stores on the high street—into Boots and Co-op—and stealing stuff, and they are basically stealing, first, items to sell on, and secondly, items to keep themselves healthy and clean. People never used to go pinching to keep themselves clean and keep their babies’ clothes well washed, but that is one of the things that is happening now. There are people walking into some of the bigger stores on a daily basis and just picking up what they want and walking out. The people there are instructed by the management, and rightly so, that they cannot stop people stealing, because it is not their role—and if they do, goodness knows what the consequences might be.

We had a situation in my constituency where someone was stabbed trying to prevent somebody else from stealing from the shop. We have security guards in the bigger stores, but then we have the smaller retailers. We had a chap who mentioned that somebody just walked in last week, picked 24 cans of beer up and just walked out. They rang the police, and they got a response four days later. The response was: “Well, can you explain which direction the gentleman went in?” That was infuriating. The police might have had good reason to ask such a question, possibly for CCTV, but if someone just walks into a shop—into someone’s else business on the high street, which they depend on for themselves and their family—pick something up and walk out, the owner will want some action, for heaven’s sake. They want the police to come, not to ring four days later.

I would imagine that, at the very same time, there were other crimes assessed by the police to be a priority compared with what is happening on the high street. We have all sorts of issues on the high street. They have mentioned racism. I live in a constituency that I think is roughly 99.1% white, and racism has never, ever been an issue, but it is becoming an issue. The people themselves are asking the police to deal with the racial abuse—and again, it is not a priority. I mentioned the 20,000 police being taken off the streets in 2010, and we should never forget that. It really galls me, by the way, when we hear the Conservatives, time after time, saying, “We are putting police back on the street.” They should not have taken the police off the street in the first place. Since 2010, Northumbria police has lost 1,000 police officers. Because of the inflationary crisis, next year it will have to find a further £12 million, which will cause extra pressures.

People do not just want their crimes to be recorded and for somebody to perhaps ring up and say, “We will look at this,” or, “We’ll look at that”; they want to see the police on the high street. I have seen videos—Al Vaziri, who has been a businessman in Ashington in my constituency for decades and a pillar of society, showed us CCTV videos only last month of young people throwing a brick at his window. Everybody knows who the individual was; it is on CCTV. We need convictions. Mr Vaziri took the decision to retire, because he cannot put up with it any more—racial abuse was also a contributing factor. He has decided that he and his wife will retire, away from what they see happening on the high street.

We must realise that the system is entirely broken. On one side, we have the retailers, the hard-working people and the businesspeople, on high streets in different towns and villages in the community, who are suffering as a consequence of this unruly anarchy from young people who think they can do whatever they want—because they can do whatever they want, because they are not being challenged at any stage. Then we have the many retailers who are being forced out of business. This fella told me, “They come in, Mr Lavery, pinch these things and walk out. It’s robbery—they’re robbing me and robbing my family.” It is just not acceptable.

Retailers and people on the high streets are suffering greatly from abuse, bad behaviour, unruly behaviour, theft and robbery, and it is the police’s job to remedy the situation and tackle these issues. I give full praise to the police in my constituency for the fantastic work they do, but they simply do not have the resources. They have not said this to me, but I feel that they understand that they are having to undertake a tick-box exercise. They realise how broken the system is, because they say that they have to prioritise other issues. A startling fact that the inspector told me on Friday night is that just above 50% of the call-outs in my constituency are connected to mental health issues. The police are not social workers; they are there to tackle the issues I have raised, which will surely also be mentioned in other contributions to the debate.

Is it too much to ensure that the police are properly resourced to walk through communities, so that people see them? We very rarely see police officers on the beat. Again, I am not criticising the force; the police have had to face under-resourcing from the Government. It isn’t any wonder that if we take 20,000 police officers off the streets, there will be an increase in crime—that is logical. It is not really difficult to come to terms with or understand. The system is completely and utterly broken. This is about how we put that right.

To conclude, I simply praise police officers. We have to think about how we can address the huge issues affecting small and bigger businesses on the high street, because they are facing a ridiculous situation. This is going to be very difficult, but we need more police, we need more youth provision, and we need people to be held to account for what is happening on our high streets. Only when that happens will we begin to see a reduction in antisocial behaviour.

Illegal Migration Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I wonder what our international partners across the globe are thinking about this Bill and this discussion, and about the fact that we are acting like a bunch of Poundshop Ukippers. Whatever happens with the Bill, I feel totally ashamed. I am ashamed as a Member of Parliament to be thinking that in the mother of all Parliaments. We are all elected; we all represent constituents with differing views, and we are talking about the best way to deny people—some of the most deprived and desperate people in the world—the right to come to this country.

It is an absolute outrage. This Bill should not, under any circumstances, see the light of day. It really shouldn’t. It pains me to say this, but there have been some decent contributions from Conservative Members, who I have lots of respect for. But my goodness there has been some rhetoric. And I will not take any lectures on rhetoric, because what has been said tonight is that every hotel—nearly every hotel—in the UK is now full of refugees. What a load of nonsense coming from the Conservative Benches.

They also referred to a number of other issues. Don’t not talk to me about compassion. It is only a matter of months since the previous Home Secretary wanted to have wave machines to blast these people back on to the shores of France. We have a situation in a Brighton hotel where 137 kids are missing. Don’t talk to me about compassion. We are talking about real people here. It is absolutely essential that we do not get into a number crunching game about the nitty gritty of looking after people. Be proud. Of course we are proud to be British. Be proud and stand firm on behalf of these people. Put these people before politics. Recover some semblance of humanity. Scrap this ghastly toxic Bill and support some of the most desperate people in the world.

Fire Services: North-east England

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for bringing forward this important debate. I declare an interest as a member of the FBU parliamentary group. I want to place on record my sincere thanks, and those of my constituents in Wansbeck and the people of Northumberland, to the fantastic men and women of the fire and rescue service. They do an absolutely brilliant job. We need to recognise that, and I will focus most of my limited contribution on the pay increase.

Morale in the fire and rescue service is undoubtedly at an all-time low. There have been cuts of up to 30% since 2010, stations have closed, there are more fire engines off the streets, and 11,500 frontline firefighters have been sacked. In real terms, wages are around £4,000 lower than they were more than a decade ago. Is it any wonder that morale is as poor as it is?

When we look at what the fire and rescue service has done in Northumberland, we see that it was fantastic during covid and brilliant during Storm Arwen not so many months ago. It assisted in setting up the vaccine centres and getting personal protective equipment out to the relevant places. That is what the fire and rescue service does as well as putting out huge fires and saving lives. The service has been fantastic in getting humanitarian aid to Ukraine, and it has been really active in saving lives in rural Northumberland, with the wildfires and of course the floods. I remember the floods in Morpeth in 2008, when the fire and rescue service was unbelievable, I have to say.

Offering the fire and rescue service 5% is absolutely insulting—it really is. Inflation is 11.1% and here we are offering these key workers, who we clapped incessantly on a Thursday night, 5%. It is absolutely insulting. It is intolerable. It is not right. We have to remunerate fire and rescue service workers correctly to save our lives, our families’ lives, and the lives of other people in our community, including schoolkids. We have to treat these people with the respect they deserve.

I worry that the dead hand of government is coming across the pay talks with public sector workers—the posties, the rail workers, the teachers—and I worry that the firefighters are going to be brought into some sort of big culture war that is being brewed up, and that they will not be recognised for the great work they do on behalf of our communities.

What a brilliant job the firefighters do. They do a fantastic job. I fully support every single man and woman involved in the fire and rescue service, and I think that we, as UK parliamentarians, need to get behind them and pay them right.

Miners Strike 1984-85: UK-wide Inquiry

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) on securing this extremely important debate.

I have to declare an interest. I was one of those 11,000 miners arrested during the strike. I make no apologies for that. I am probably the only Member of Parliament now sitting who was part of the miners strike. I was on strike for the full year, for which I am again extremely proud.

Those were extremely difficult times. Miners are generally very hard-working, conscientious people. Very few miners had ever been in trouble with the police before. In communities up and down the UK, they were hard-working, hard-playing individuals who were the backbone of the nation. I will never forget what I experienced as a young lad. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said it shaped her character; it definitely shaped mine, for better or worse. Some might say it is for worse, and some that it is for better.

My father, brothers, family and community were all out on strike to save the British coalmining industry. What we experienced was an absolute disgrace. There is an appetite for a public inquiry into what went on, whether we want to talk about the actions of the police, which have already been well documented by the previous two speakers, or about the actions of the courts, the magistrates and the Crown courts, or about the way miners suffered abuse, really, by the legal system through plea bargains—“Accept this and you’ll not go to prison,” or, “Accept this charge and you’ll not get a longer sentence,” when many of those people had not committed anything at all. They deserve justice, because those were hard-working, honest individuals, who, as has already been explained, were basically attacked by the police state, as it were, at the time.

I could recite a number of occurrences I was personally involved in, but I will not bore people to death with that, though they were significant. I had never been involved in anything with the police all my life till the miners strike, and I have never been involved with the police since. I am proud of my record; my record with the police is industrial and was to save communities. We could talk about a number of things, such as police infiltration and whether we had armed forces in the strike. We could talk about how an individual might have been picked off the picket line for no reason whatsoever, and might have lost their job and pension, and been blacklisted, never to get a job again. Some even ended up in prison. There needs to be an inquiry to sort that out.

Who was pulling the strings at the time? Recent documents show that it was the Thatcher Cabinet, if not Margaret Thatcher herself, that made a series of interventions. We want to know what happened. We need to understand and try to draw a line under what happened, which smashed our communities to smithereens.

The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign ran a marvellous campaign over many years, seeking an inquiry into what happened at Orgreave. That campaign was all well and good, and well deserved, and I congratulate everyone involved on their tenacity. But mining communities in south Wales, Scotland, the north-east, Northumberland, Durham and Yorkshire all suffered as a consequence of the miners strike, through some form of intervention by the police. This goes beyond Orgreave, but Orgreave was the worst of the worst. It is nearly 40 years, but we can look back and think, “Did that really happen in this country?” The BBC reversed the coverage to say that the miners attacked the police. How bizarre that that could be allowed to happen in the UK.

I am absolutely delighted that Scottish Parliament has decided to pardon the miners in the Scottish areas. Compensation is something that we need to discuss and debate, as has already been highlighted. However, there is an overwhelming appetite for a public inquiry. If the Scottish Parliament can unanimously agree to pardons, perhaps the Minister can explain why that cannot be achieved for the rest of the UK.

I could speak for hours on this subject but will wind up my contribution. The miners deserve to be able to be draw a line under this. Many miners went to the grave with criminal charges for fighting for their communities—picked off a picket line by police from 300 miles away, in order to serve a cause that we were terribly opposed to. I ask the Minister to not simply discount the idea of potentially having an inquiry—not just into the policing, but into the miners strike in its entirety—but instead take a lesson from the Shrewsbury 24 campaign. That campaign began in the 1970s, with a strike of building workers. They fought and fought and fought for justice, and they only just got recognised last year, through papers that had to be disclosed to the public by the Government, which outlined all the wrongdoings of the police. We will keep campaigning for this inquiry, because the miners, their families and their communities are still very raw about this, even though it was 40 years ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate my good friend and comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), on securing this debate. I say that not just because he is the Chief Whip of our group, but because he and I regularly found ourselves on the front pages of some of the more right-wing newspapers in Scotland, which condemned us for having the temerity to ask for a miners inquiry in Scotland. For many years, my hon. Friend, along with a number of others, has asked for a Scottish inquiry. It would be only right and fair to praise the efforts of a friend of mine, former Member of the Scottish Parliament Neil Findlay, who was one of the lead campaigners in ensuring a miners inquiry in Scotland. Neil is sadly missed in the Scottish Parliament, but I know he is continuing to do great work with trade unions in Scotland.

I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken. I say to my friend, the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), that he has nothing to apologise for at all. Events have maybe been for the better; they have certainly made him a very good Member of Parliament.

The Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill is an important and historic step towards reconciliation. It is going to help to heal some of the wounds in Scotland’s mining communities. It is groundbreaking legislation, which will restore dignity to those convicted, provide comfort to their families and, I hope, start to bring some closure on the sense of injustice that members of mining communities may continue to feel. We very much sympathise with the miners who lost out in redundancy payments and pension rights as a result of being sacked by the National Coal Board after being arrested or convicted for actions while participating in the strike.

I hope the legislation will end some of the demonisation of trade unions who take industrial action on behalf of their members. The demonisation we saw during the miners strike was very much in evidence last week towards the rail workers. I take the view that those who take industrial action are exercising their human rights; they have a human right to withdraw their labour from any employer.

Professor Jim Murdoch of the School of Law at the University of Glasgow, who worked with John Scott QC on the independent review, said:

“As members of the independent review, our task was primarily to listen: to show that those affected by the miners’ strike had a voice more than a third of a century later.

At each of the meetings we held, it was clear that the pain felt by former miners and their families was still raw.

The response to the miners’ strike at the time left a deep scar on too many communities. Their stories showed without doubt that the criminal justice system all too often reacted in an arbitrary and disproportionate manner.

Our task was to seek to promote a sense of reconciliation, and we are pleased that our report and its recommendation have received clear support today in the Scottish Parliament.”

The Miners’ Strike (Pardons) (Scotland) Bill pardons the offences of breach of the peace, obstructing a police officer, breach of bail and theft that occurred during the 1984-85 dispute. The legislation has been welcomed by the National Union of Mineworkers in Scotland.

That brings us on to why the UK Government should now launch a UK-wide inquiry. The Cabinet Secretary for Justice in Scotland, Keith Brown, put it rather well when he said:

“It is now right that the UK Government recognises the passing of this historic legislation and gives further consideration to a UK-wide public inquiry and the payment of compensation to former miners. I have written to the Home Secretary this week urging her to reconsider her position given the strong support for this landmark Bill.”

Will the Minister tell us if the Home Secretary has received that letter and when the Scottish Government will see a response?

Many of us who support an inquiry were surprised when the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, said in October 2016 that the UK Government were ruling out an inquiry into the events at Orgreave in South Yorkshire, probably one of the most notorious flashpoints in the miners strike. I have also received an excellent briefing from the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign. It is correct to ask the UK Government to reconsider, because of new evidence that has come to light since October 2016, including the disclosure of documents that are embargoed until 2066—I do not think we should wait until then—as well as the existence of documents in the South Yorkshire archives. New evidence is also coming to light as a result of the ongoing undercover police inquiry, in which the National Union of Mineworkers is a core participant.

There is also—this is of most concern to me—the recent Daily Mirror article that exposed a conversation with Amber Rudd about the reasons not to hold an Orgreave inquiry, which were given as because it would “slur the memory of Thatcher” and upset party members. Protecting someone’s legacy is not a reason not to have the inquiry. That raises alarm bells with me, as I am sure it does with other Members.

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with the hon. Member in regard to Neil Findlay; he has run a tremendous campaign. Would the hon. Member like to comment on the fact that during the miners strike Scotland represented 10% of the National Coal Board workforce, but 30% of all those arrested were Scottish, with many being sacked? That was terribly unequal. Would he like to comment on why that might have been?

[Chris Stephens]

The independent review makes it very clear: it is because of the disproportionate actions of the police and the justice system at that point. I was also alarmed by those figures when they were brought to my attention. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Labour party report, prepared by Gordon Brown and Merlyn Rees—a future Prime Minister and a former Home Secretary—which also raised and highlighted the concerns in 1985 about the strike. It recommended that there should be a royal commission into the circumstances leading up to the strike and the conduct of the strike, as well as looking at the wider constitutional aspects of the development of policing—including accountability. Even then, in 1985, the demands from that report talk about some of the issues that the hon. Member for Wansbeck raised.

I hope the Minister will respond positively. He should take serious note of what myself and other Members have said about the current vilification of trade union activity. We saw that vilification during the miners strike of 1984-85, and we are seeing some of it today. Perhaps, he could encourage some of his colleagues to engage in a better discourse when discussing such issues.

Draft Passport (Fees) Regulations 2022

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Passport (Fees) Regulations 2022.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Cummins, as always.

Before I move on to the draft regulations themselves, I will touch briefly on the issue of passport applications to put the regulations into context. I hope that colleagues understand that I will not get into specific or individual cases in a public forum, but I remind Members that they may use the dedicated MPs’ hotline and, for the most urgent cases, the passport surgeries at Portcullis House, to which staff of Her Majesty’s Passport Office have been deployed to answer passport-related inquiries.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am sure that every Member present has dozens and dozens of cases outstanding with HM Passport Office. I thank the staff—they are at home and doing a fantastic job—but it still is not working. Hundreds of people are without their passports. This draft delegated legislation is about premium and fast track, but none of it is working at this moment in time.

[Kevin Foster]

Perhaps I should go on to point out what HMPO staff are doing. At the moment, they are working hard to process approximately 250,000 applications per week, and have been doing so since the beginning of March this year. That is a large increase in the number of applications and in output since January, when latent demand started to return. They are focused on maintaining a high level of service and on ensuring that people receive their passports in good time for the summer holidays.

In the vast majority of cases, applications are being processed within the advertised 10 weeks. Nearly 2 million passport applications were dealt with in March and April alone. For the benefit of the Committee, HMPO usually deals with 7 million in a year—that is the scale of the numbers. Our advice, however, remains to allow up to 10 weeks when applying and, if planning travel this summer, to apply now if a new passport is needed.

The draft regulations will set the fees payable for products and services offered by HMPO, as well as providing for fee waivers in a number of circumstances. The regulations revoke and replace the Passport (Fees) Regulations 2018, making minor changes to the fees schedule and specifying priority services fees, including a booking fee, which will not be refunded in certain circumstances. At the outset, I want to make it clear that no fee levels are being changed. The cost of applying for a passport is not increasing under the draft regulations.

For customers requiring a passport more quickly than can be provided under the standard service, HMPO has for many years offered optional priority services that are available for an additional fee: the fast track service and the premium service. For background, given the intervention of the hon. Member for Wansbeck, between 6 February and 8 May 2022, on average, 9,000 fast track applications were submitted in person per week, and 4,000 digital premium appointments were booked online per week.

Frustratingly, given the demand for the services, over the past year about 5% of customers have not attended their priority service appointment. When a customer simply does not attend their appointment and fails to notify HMPO, the slot cannot be reused. That has a knock-on effect for others seeking to use the priority services, especially when there is high demand for slots. For that reason, the priority service fees will now include a booking fee, which will not be refunded where a customer cancels their appointment with less than 48 hours’ notice—that is, too late for us to be able to readvertise the appointment to those seeking to book one.

The booking fee will be £30, which reflects the costs incurred by HMPO up to the point of the appointment and as a result of not being able to reuse the appointment. As I said, that will not result in an increase in the total fee; it forms part of the existing priority service fee and will not lead to customers being charged more for their appointment, provided that they keep it and use the service.

If a customer misses their appointment and fails to notify HMPO altogether, HMPO will retain the whole fee. That incentivises customers to ensure that they notify HMPO when they are not able to attend, and helps to provide a service that is more cost-effective for the taxpayer while ensuring much wanted slots are not wasted. To clarify, if the customer does not attend their appointment but meets the compassionate criteria—for example, there is a medical or family emergency that means they cannot attend their appointment—HMPO will refund the full fee.

We are also making minor drafting changes to the descriptions of our priority services. The changes will not impact on the services provided to customers, nor the cost to them. We have also made several amendments to the regulations to make them simpler, more concise and transparent for customers. The regulations set out clearly what actions are taken as part of the administration of an application, when an application is deemed to have been made, and when a fee will be retained by the Passport Office.

The schedule of fees has been reduced in length, and we have made the cost of priority services clearer by setting the fees separately. Previously, the fees set in the regulations included the cost of administering a passport and a priority service. Again, we now want to make it much clearer what people are paying for when they pay for the priority service that they book through that system. I hope the Committee will accept the regulations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

First, let me acknowledge the points that the hon. Lady has made. She is absolutely right about hate crimes, misogyny and crimes against women in particular, and some of the most appalling and corrosive attitudes against women that we have seen across our society for too long. On the Law Commission report, we are waiting for its findings. I can give her and the House every assurance that we will work with the Law Commission. Alongside that important point, we will be publishing very soon—in the next few weeks, in fact—our strategy on violence against women and girls. I want to go on the record to emphasise that any form of violence, oppression, sexism or hatred against women and girls is thoroughly unacceptable and this Government are absolutely adamant in dealing with it.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

If she will make it her policy to maintain collective bargaining in fire and rescue service negotiations on pay and conditions.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

Fire and rescue professionals work tirelessly to protect their communities. Currently, the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services is responsible for negotiating the pay and conditions of fire and rescue authority employees, and central Government have no direct role in this process. The Home Office will be launching a consultative White Paper on fire reform later this year.

[Ian Lavery [V]]

This Government should salute the courageous men and women of the fire and rescue service, who are the envy of the world, not constantly attack them. It is universally recognised that trade union membership and collective bargaining rights for workers are among the most effective ways to reduce inequality. “Brexit will not be used to reduce labour standards” was the constant cry from Government Ministers. Prove it, Home Secretary. Commitment after commitment has been given to protect and promote collective bargaining. Deliver it, Home Secretary. Stand by your word and confirm that the collective bargaining rights of firefighters within their chosen trade union will not be diminished in any way.

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman has a long association with the trade union movement, which I know he has found rewarding in every sense of the word. As I said, we are not, as a Government, involved in pay bargaining for the fire service. There is a national joint council, where the Fire Brigades Union is represented 50:50 with employers. As I am sure he will know, the FBU has accepted a pay offer for the coming year that will be payable from the 1st of this month. There will be a White Paper looking at reform in the future and we will see what comes out of that consultative process.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is a doughty and, I have to say, given recent announcements, successful advocate for investment and funding for his part of the world, and I would of course be more than happy to meet him. He is right that Cleveland missed out on violence reduction unit funding last time, falling just outside the funding formula, but I would be happy to talk to him about what more we can do to help the police and crime commissioner—who hopefully will be a Conservative after the May elections—and the chief constable to tackle some of the violent crime that plagues parts of Cleveland, and bring peace and light into the future.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

What steps she is taking to resolve her Department's industrial dispute with Border Force staff at Heathrow Airport.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

The strike at Heathrow is over temporary arrangements that are designed to keep staff safe during coronavirus. There has been a large number of discussions between Border Force and the union, but I am frankly astonished that the trade union is striking over measures designed to protect the health and safety of its own members.

[Ian Lavery [V]]

I am not surprised that the Minister is astonished, but as we all remember, Border Force staff have been on the frontline during the pandemic, and have played a pivotal role in keeping the country covid-secure. The imposition of a new roster at Heathrow airport is creating chaos. It is making staff feel less safe, as there are unavoidable covid-19 breaches; and as the Minister mentioned, there has been a 96% positive ballot result. The staff are set to walk out next week, at a time when the airport’s own workers are striking over the shameful fire and rehire abuses. Will the Home Secretary intervene to pause these counterproductive changes and allow proper negotiations to take place with the PCS union before Heathrow airport grinds to a halt over the Easter holidays?

[Chris Philp]

These measures have been introduced on a temporary basis, for just a few months, to protect the health of the Border Force workers, and it is frankly astonishing that the union has decided to go on strike. These measures will cease to apply in July and over 90% of the affected Border Force staff now have rosters that they agree with, so I call on the PCS union to withdraw any proposal to indulge in this completely unnecessary, counterproductive strike against—absurdly—measures that are designed to protect its own members.

Orgreave: Public Inquiry into Policing

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his view, but I repeat that it would be wrong for me to just, as he puts it, “get on with it”. I want to look at the evidence; the process must be driven by evidence. The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign spent six months pulling together a substantial package and body of evidence. I will not ignore its work; I will take a careful look at all of it.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am really concerned at the language already being used by the right hon. Lady about the Orgreave incident. She just classified the incident at the Dispatch Box as a “miners’ clash”. Would she like to clarify those words to the House?

[Amber Rudd]

I am happy to refer to it as an incident—the word that the hon. Gentleman uses—but it is more important to ensure that we look carefully at all the evidence. Once I have had a look at all the evidence and have reached a conclusion, I will be able to come back and describe it as what it really was.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

My hon. Friend raises the very important issue of the child abuse image database, which was introduced by the Government and is leading the world in tackling online indecent images of children. We now have all 43 forces connected to the image database and are starting to see real results in protecting children.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Where police and fire and rescue services decide to amalgamate regionally, will the Secretary of State give a guarantee that she will not in any way, shape or form allow the services they provide to be mutualised or privatised?

[Mrs May]

The reason for enabling police and crime commissioners to bring together policing and fire and rescue services is to be able to offer enhanced services. In looking at a decision to be taken at a local level, a business case will have to be made for bringing them together.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I certainly can give that absolute assurance. The Government will examine all relevant research and evidence on these machines. We need to develop a proper understanding before taking action—if we decide to take action—to ensure consumer protection.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Has the Minister read the Association of British Bookmakers’ code for responsible gambling and player protection in licensed betting offices, which has been released recently? If so, does she think it goes any way to allaying the fears of many Members?

[Mrs Grant]

I have to be honest with the hon. Gentleman: given that I have been in the job for only about three weeks, I have not read that document page by page, but I am happy to look at it and come back to him on those issues.