Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Boris Johnson

Wednesday 6th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend very much. He has campaigned on this issue for some time, and I will ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the development in Goring-by-Sea.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

4. On 21 January, the Government committed £100 million from the automotive transformation fund to BritishVolt for a gigafactory at Cambois in my constituency. As of today, not a penny—not a single ha’penny—has been received by the company. This jeopardises up to 8,000 much-needed jobs. The tensions between the Prime Minister and the former Chancellor have sadly now been much exposed, and I am telling you, Prime Minister, that the betrayal of my constituents cannot be another broken promise by this Government. Prime Minister, give him a nudge. Please instruct your new bestie to make sure a cheque is in the post this afternoon, because who knows who will be in that seat this afternoon, never mind this time next week.

[The Prime Minister]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the passion with which he advocates for investment in BritishVolt. I share his enthusiasm, and I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) as well. He is a heroic campaigner on this issue. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the letter was sent last night with an in-principle offer of support for that project. How about that! Hang on in there. That is what I am going to do.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Ian Lavery and Boris Johnson

Wednesday 19th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Really, that is a complete travesty. If we look at the numbers, as I think even the Opposition Front-Bench team have accepted, we can see that they are going down in all age groups across the country. What is interesting is that hospitalisations have not only stabilised but started to come down, which has always been the most important thing for me. That is why this is a sensible and proportionate step to take, but I have to remind him and everybody that it is still important to be cautious, and I am sure he will be.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Before the Prime Minister becomes overly euphoric about covid, he might do well to remember that 150,000-plus people have died in this country as a result of covid, with 438 people having died yesterday. On 9 December, when he introduced plan B, the rate of cases per 100,000 in my constituency was 412.6, whereas today, when he has withdrawn the restrictions, the rate is 1,517.5—it is astronomical. What reassurance can he give my constituents that his withdrawals are safe and they have not been made in the best interests of the political issues that face him at the moment?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Boris Johnson

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments about Southend, but also what he says about those who have been affected by forced adoption. The practices that led to forced adoption cannot now occur because the law protects birth parents. He asks for an apology; I can tell him that the agencies involved in forced adoption in the past have apologised for their role—and quite right too.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]]

As eloquently highlighted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition, recent reports have revealed that during the pandemic the loss in learning has been absolutely catastrophic. The north-east is once again, sadly, trailing the field, with the loss in some subjects more than double that of other regions. The attainment gap, which has been mentioned, between the most and least affluent areas is potentially set to grow by between 10% and 24%. That is desperate, ye knaa—really desperate. The Government’s catch-up funding is quite simply derisory, too small, too narrow, too slow—comments articulated by the former education recovery chief before his unfortunate resignation. Prime Minister, the parents in Wansbeck in my constituency are listening. You have a wonderfully privileged educational background. Can you use it to explain how 20p per day helps kids in my patch catch up?

[The Prime Minister]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, again, I am afraid what he is saying is completely wrong. The sums that we are already investing in education are huge and we have announced a £3 billion additional package of catch-up, investing not just in teacher training—another £400 million to help teachers improve their qualifications as they go up the ladder—but in the biggest tuition programme in the history of this country: the biggest anywhere in the world. That will make a huge difference to young people in Wansbeck and across the country. Many kids are getting private tuition at the moment, but loads are not. We want to level up.

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Ian Lavery and Boris Johnson

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and we must get people to take up their appointments and take up the vaccines when they are offered. Some groups are proving tough to reach, and I look forward to all hon. Members on both sides of the House working together to encourage people of the advantages of a vaccine. It is a wonderful thing. Go and get it, if you get a message to do so.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab) [V]]

Healthy life expectancy for men at birth in the Hirst ward of my Wansbeck constituency is 52 years, whereas in Ickenham in the Prime Minister’s constituency it is 71 years, and that trend looks only to be getting wider. Can the Prime Minister explain to the people of my constituency why his Government are so eager to avoid a vaccine postcode lottery by diverting our supply from the north-east southwards to more prosperous regions of the country, simply because the NHS in our area has done an absolutely fantastic job, while at the same time the Government have done nothing to tackle the postcode lottery of healthy life expectancy, which varies so widely across this country? Can I urge him to consider whether the same actions would have been taken if the shoe had been on the other foot?

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Boris Johnson

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Boris Johnson (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

You are very kind, Mr Speaker. What the Bill in fact offers, contrary to what we have heard from Opposition Members, is a set of protections for two sets of working people: those who utterly depend on public services for their everyday lives and those who work in public services and find that they are often engaged in pointless, costly strike action because of the actions of a politically motivated minority.

I agree with everything in the Bill as proposed. It cannot be right that it is still possible to have a strike on the basis of a ballot that took place many months or, indeed, years ago. It is still technically possible to have a strike without a fresh ballot upon the removal of guards from the underground, a piece of modernisation that took place in the 1990s. It is utterly wrong that public workers should be subject to intimidation— sometimes reduced to tears—on the picket line or elsewhere. It is high time that that code of practice was put into law. Clauses 2 and 3 take us furthest and offer the greatest hope.

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Boris Johnson]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way.

Some kind of disruptive industrial action, bad enough to wreck one’s day, can take place on the basis of a tiny number of the workforce. To take a by no means untypical example, a strike was recently mooted upon the dismissal of an employee who had consistently failed to turn up for work, and a ballot was held by the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Fifty-four people were balloted. Of those, only 14 could be bothered to vote. Five voted for a strike and nine for action short of a strike. Yet, as a result of the vote—26% of the relevant electorate—people’s lives were disrupted during that day. People did not turn up to work. The London economy suffered. There was disruption.