Trade Union Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and David Rutley

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. If the Government start to decide how much, or how little, facility time individuals should have, there will be a breakdown in communication between the trade unions, the workforce and, indeed, the employers. In local government and the NHS, facility time is much valued and to the benefit of the general public.

If we applied the 40% and 50% thresholds to members of the coalition Cabinet prior to the election, not one of them would have been elected. We have to be fair and consistent with regard to thresholds. The average turnout for the police and crime commissioner elections was 17%, but nobody is saying that we should not listen to anything they have to say. The Government themselves were elected by only 24% of the electorate, but not many people are saying—although a lot of people are wishing it—that they should not have the right to govern. Fairness should prevail.

There have been many discussions about how e-balloting would provide for a much bigger turnout. That is what the Conservative Government want, and I agree: we want more people to participate in the ballot, hence the threshold issue. It is terribly unfair to suggest that e-balloting is not a secure way to ballot individuals, because it is.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has been talking about the time we are in. It is pretty clear, as I understand it from what Labour Front Benchers are saying, that we are in a time of increased militant union activism. The shadow Chancellor has said:

“We will support all demonstrations in Parliament or on the picket line. We will be with you at every stage.”

Can the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) not see that what we are trying to do is to protect the public through increased accountability and transparency?

[Ian Lavery]

I do not recognise the words of the hon. Gentleman, who usually addresses issues in a much more productive way.

Zero-hours Contracts

Debate between Ian Lavery and David Rutley

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The statistics put forward by Government Members on the use of zero-hours contracts are amazing. It would appear that zero-hours contracts are absolutely fine, with just a few abuses that need to be ironed out—absolute nonsense. Zero-hours contracts are an outrageous abuse for tens of thousands, even up to 1 million people. One or two people think that they are okay and that it suits them. This is the difference between the two sides of the House. Opposition Members believe there is a lot of abuse; coalition Members believe the opposite. They believe that zero-hours contracts are fine, as long as they iron out one or two abuses—absolute rubbish. That is not the case. I must live on a different planet.

We have heard this afternoon about fantastic employment figures, so many private sector jobs being created and the demise of the public sector, which is apparently great news. That has not happened where I live. What we have seen in my area is a reduction in unemployment, but with more people on zero-hours and part-time contracts and a huge increase in people who cannot make ends meet. Looking at employment figures on their own is therefore unacceptable.

Flexible working is employers’ utopia: back to the bad old days of queuing up at the factory gates, the shipyard or the pit and asking to be employed for the day. As has been explained, even that does not happen anymore. Instead, people receive a text or a phone call to find out whether they will have employment. That is a little different from what the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) said about being a barrister waiting to see where his next £10,000 an hour will come from. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition: the barrister can make £10,000 a day or an hour, but the people we are representing are not even making the minimum wage.

I wanted to refer to a number of things, but obviously I have not got time, so I will briefly consider how people actually manage on these zero-hours contracts. I am talking about people living in the real world, struggling, perhaps not earning the minimum wage, getting up in the morning wanting the best for their families—don’t we all want the best for our families, to put food on the table and to give our kids the up-to-date clothing, like everyone else in the school yard? Let us put ourselves in the position of somebody on a zero-hours contract. Perhaps both parents are on such contracts. How on earth can they plan a month ahead, two months ahead, a year ahead? Forget that if they were in full employment with a proper contract, they would have employment protection—forget that just for a moment and look at the social side; they are running out of money on a weekly or monthly basis because they do not have the hours; they are getting into debt, borrowing money from friends or Wonga or taking out a payday loan, because that is the only way they can make ends meet.

That is what is happening with people on zero-hours contracts. They are looking for alternative sources of income, for extra employment, but many firms that employ people on zero-hours contracts state that the person must be available 24/7, so they cannot get alternative employment; they are stuck with it, even if it means an hour a week. If someone cannot make ends meet, wants to work, is not unemployed, being on a zero-hours contract, and is trying to do the best they can for their family, surely that is a cause of much anxiety. Imagine being in that situation. It causes health problems and then more problems along the line. Some on zero-hours contracts have no access to other forms of finance, not having contingency funds like other, more wealthy people further up the social ladder, so they find it very difficult. And because they have no guarantee of employment, they find it difficult to access legalised credit. This causes all sorts of social mayhem.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes his case with passion, but does he not agree that in sections of society zero-hours contracts are making an important contribution to the lives of people who value the flexibility they provide? I am keenly interested in this subject. From recent radio interviews and vox pop interviews, it seems to me that young people, in particular, really benefit from them. I understand that there are genuine concerns about instances of abuse, but for many people they provide a flexible way for them to pursue their career aspirations.

[Ian Lavery]

Of course, I understand that, but in reality, there are now more than 1 million people—probably a lot more—on zero-hours contracts, and the vast majority of them are being abused. It is not the other way around, as the Government seem to be suggesting. I have not met a single person—I kid you not—who wants a contract for no hours. People who want a contract want to work. That is the reality of it. Like any MP, I have met many people, listened to their complaints and had the discussion in my surgeries, and I have not met anybody who wants a contract for zero hours. Why would anyone want such a contract? It is implausible. I cannot understand it.

Obviously, zero-hours contracts suit some people on the basis that they will get employment for a week a month, but that is the few; the vast majority of people in the workplace on zero-hours contracts suffer greatly socially. These are people at the very bottom of the ladder and extremely desperate for employment. At times in my constituency, 28 people have been applying for each job. Those people would be delighted to have a zero-hours contract, if they thought they would get some employment, but zero-hours contracts take them off the unemployment register and basically massage the employment figures. There is an argument for outlawing, outright, zero-hours contracts. Government Members have said that there are some abuses, but I say we should get rid of the mass abuse and deal with the problem entirely.