Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and John McDonnell

Committee stage
Monday 30th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I rise to speak to amendments 78, 95 and 96 in my name, which focus on the instruction of people to work that is encompassed in a work notice. Amendment 78 refers to the removal of the protection for those refusing to work on strike days, and amendments 95 and 96 would ensure that people receive a copy of the work notice and other related details.

I will focus on the legislation. This is a sackers charter that is about destroying the very fabric of the trade union movement. People say that the devil is in the detail, and it certainly is when we read this Bill. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box, I ask him to confirm, for everybody concerned, whether an individual who is instructed by a work notice that they must go to work on a strike day, but then refuses, will not be sacked. I have a lot of time for the Minister—in fact, I am nearly calling him an hon. Friend—

[John McDonnell]

Steady!

[Ian Lavery]

I hear my right hon. Friend say, “Steady!”, but I want the Minister to confirm that, because that simple question has been asked by many hon. Members tonight and he shook his head on every occasion. Simply, for the sake of individuals who are instructed by a work notice to cross the picket line, will they not be sacked? Never mind the situation whereby their protection under the unfair dismissal regulations will be withdrawn—what does that mean? If that is withdrawn, it means that they will be sacked. That is exactly what it means—we do not need to be employment lawyers to recognise that.

The Bill is also about attacking individual members in the workplace, particularly trade union representatives. If there is going to be a strike in a workplace, perhaps about health and safety, and the trade union representative is advocating strike action because that is what they are elected to do, but the boss—the gaffer—gives them a work notice and says, “You’re the person who’s got to cross the picket line,” how does that work? In the main, we have fair bosses and bad bosses, and bad bosses will pick out people they can get rid of as quickly as possible. A trade union rep advocating action on a health and safety issue could be dismissed, because the protection is gone for someone who refuses to cross the picket line and go into work. Even Conservative Members understand that that is not fair in any way, shape or form. How can it be? Individuals have the right, regardless of work notices, to withdraw their labour. It is a basic human right. Here we have legislation that not many people—even in this place—want; it is a knee-jerk reaction. It is what happens when the Conservative party is cornered and is 25 points behind in the polls. What can unify them? I will tell you what unifies the Tory party: attacking the trade unions. That gets them speaking. That is the true red meat of unifying Tory politics. But tonight there have not been many speakers from the Conservative Benches.

An accusation has been made that trade union members are not ordinary people, but they could not be more ordinary if they tried. They are the fire and rescue service people who run towards fires and towards those in desperate need of being rescued; as we have seen, sadly, a member of the Scottish Fire & Rescue Service has just lost their life. These are ordinary people. Nurses are ordinary people saving lives on a daily basis. Transport workers kept the country running before the pandemic, during the pandemic and after it.

The work notice is a bosses’ charter. I have spoken about the duty of care of an employer to an employee. What happens if someone, despite campaigning for action, is told by their employer that they must go to work? What will be the impact on that individual’s wellbeing? What impact will it have on mental health in the workplace when people are compelled to work? It is not short of a form of industrial slavery to compel people to go to work against their wishes.

It is not the same in Italy. It is not the same in Germany. It is not the same in France. It is different. Stop arguing the cheat, because it is completely different, and that has been highlighted by speaker after speaker, particularly with regard to the difference in collective bargaining and sectoral collective bargaining. There has not been an impact assessment or any consultation with the trade unions or those who will be involved. This is simply Government diktat. It is draconian, authoritarian legislation that is unfit for purpose. It is unfair, undemocratic, unworkable and unsafe. It is unfit for purpose. I am proud to be voting against it tonight.

Prison Officers (Work-related Stress)

Debate between Ian Lavery and John McDonnell

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I know that the Minister cares about this issue, and I alerted him in advance of this debate that that is one of the requests that we would make. The survey is shocking. Even the in-house survey carried out by the National Offender Management Service has some shocking results in comparison with other areas of the public service. I will come on to my request for a meeting on how we might take this issue forward.

In the survey, the prison officers scored considerably worse than any other sector on all the seven hazard indicators. There were large gaps—the well-being gap—on issues such as demands of the job; the control that people feel they have of their work; management support, which is extremely disappointing; and relationships and change. The gap was less on peer support, so prison officers appear to get better support from their colleagues than they do from management.

The survey was compared with the London prisons survey of 2010. The levels of well-being for peer support were similar, but the scores for management support, control, the roles that people play and relationships were considerably poorer. The management of change was rated considerably poorer than in the earlier survey.

The quotes from the individual members surveyed can be more revealing than the figures. One of the questions was about time and other pressures of work. I could cite numerous quotes from the report—I have provided the Minister with a copy—but I shall give just a few:

“The pressure is on from the time you walk in to the time you walk out. It is full on all the time. You try to get a moment to yourself but something always crops up and you are off again.”

Another officer says:

“Currently, with the staffing shortfalls and the new regime they’ve got in place, it is constant crisis-management every day of the week. There is no let up.”

On every question, the individual responses are stark and revealing. On management support, one officer said:

“No support or care. No compassion. More time spent defending ourselves against management than against inmates.”

Another said:

“Previously, every person I had to line manage I knew as an individual. I knew their strengths and their weaknesses. Now I’m lucky if I see the staff I report on once every couple of months.”

Prison officers work in a very specific environment, dealing with challenging individuals, so there is always a risk of violence and intimidation, but I did not realise the scale of that until I read the survey.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prison Service is not only in crisis, but is a powder keg? Somebody must be held accountable because someone, somewhere will be seriously hurt in the Prison Service. Nine members of staff are assaulted daily, which means 3,400 a year, up 9.4%. More dramatically, serious assaults on staff have increased by 36% since 2010. What does that say about the Prison Service at this time?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend refers to the crisis in our prisons, which is a consistent theme coming out not just from this survey but from all the discussions that have taken place, including the representations we have received from both prison officers and former governors.

A total of 49% of prison officers said that they receive intimidation and threats from prisoners often and regularly, and 30% had been assaulted with more than half of those having to take time off as a result. On the level of management support, 70% said there was little support from management. There is one quote from a prison officer that I found particularly startling:

“I have seen active service whilst in the army, but I have never felt as vulnerable and threatened as I do in my current role.”

On stress, one third reported that their doctor had diagnosed them with stress-related illness—a clinical diagnosis of stress—since working for their current employer. It was also felt that there was a stigma attached to disclosing stress, and that it could make a prison officer subject to discrimination. That is extremely worrying.

The survey included a general health questionnaire that is used to assess aspects of psychological health and somatic symptoms, such as feeling run down or suffering from headaches, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction—not being able to enjoy everyday life, or not being able to make decisions—and depression, where people felt that life was hopeless. I was shocked by the figures. Six out of 10 reported that they were under strain. The worst figure was that one in 10 reported that sometimes life was just not worth living. The researchers who undertook the survey are experts in this field. They said that there were unusually high levels of psychological distress and that a high proportion required some degree of intervention to improve their well-being.

Another issue considered was emotional exhaustion— the concept of burn-out. This was extremely high, with 74% saying that they felt emotionally drained at work at least once a week. Some of that related to physical health, with 18% reporting chronic health problems. Hypertension is the most common problem. The survey also included questions about work-life balance, which is one of the psychosocial issues that comes up when assessing one’s enjoyment of work and career. Eight out of 10 responded that their time at work stopped them participating in family life, and six out of 10 frequently felt too emotionally drained to participate in family life. They were asked a question that is fairly common in such surveys: whether they dwelt on work problems outside of work. Some 70% said they could not switch off, while 50% were troubled by work-related issues when not at work. On job satisfaction, six out of 10 had considered leaving the Prison Service in the near future, and seven out of 10 said that if they could choose again they would choose a different job.

What conclusions can be drawn from this? First, it is blindingly obvious from the survey that psychosocial working conditions are far from satisfactory. None of the Health and Safety Executive’s objective benchmarks has been met. The researchers said that the psychological stress levels for this group of workers were far higher than in other emotionally demanding occupations, including police and social workers, with reports of anxiety, sleep disruption, cognitive failure including memory loss and, most worryingly, the one in 10 who felt that life was not worth living. The researchers said that there is an urgent need for employment bodies to take steps to protect the psychological well-being of their staff.

Some of these issues have to be addressed urgently. Like other Members, I have talked to POA members, front-line staff and representatives, and the same story comes up time and again. Staffing cuts have placed the service in crisis, and the staff and the prisoners they look after are suffering. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) mentioned the number of assaults. Nine members of staff are assaulted every day—up 9.4% recently—which is 3,400 a year, while the number of serious assaults is up 36%. Last year, we published a report on prison violence. It was circulated to hon. Members, but I will place it again in the Library. It was a shocking report, and I make no apologies for insisting that pictures of assault victims be published as well, because they are absolutely horrendous. Nobody should have to experience or risk that on a daily basis in their working lives.

As we know, the number of prison suicides has increased by 69%. It is a tragedy for the prisoner and their families, but it also has an impact on other prisoners and the staff who have to handle and deal with the suicide. All the evidence suggests that it can be devastating for the members of staff, and there is evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder among staff who have to deal with suicides.

I return to the conclusion that many have reached, which is that much of this is related to staffing cuts. I have asked for the figures provided by the Prison Service to the Prison Service Pay Review Body, because I thought that they would be the most accurate. There has been a cut in staff numbers from 51,212 to 37,218 in the past four years—a cut of 27.3%. In the prison officer grades, there has been a cut from 25,553 to 18,934 members of staff—a 25.9% cut. I know that various figures are bandied about—the Minister and others have presented us with various figures—but whatever the exact figures, the scale of the cuts has been acknowledged overall.

As I said in the Justice Committee, I think the Government miscalculated the prison population and cut too many staff, and I am told that they are now recruiting up to 1,700 officers—almost in a panic measure—and trying to recruit the 800 staff laid off in the last year into a reserve army to be used almost on an agency basis. As a result of the staff cuts, as the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) said, there has been a significant increase in the staff to prisoner ratio from 1:2.9 in 2010 to 1:3.8. Overall, that means we have fewer members of staff looking after more offenders.

Staffing numbers are an issue, but staffing support also matters. The Minister has a responsibility—well, we all have a responsibility—to build sufficient staff resource into the system to address the stress and psychological well-being issues identified in the report. I have heard reports of what is available to staff now, but there seems to be a significant lack of confidence in the facilities available and in the management support given to staff.

The POA and prison officers generally have also raised the issue of the retirement age. Prison officers now face having to work until they are 68. When he reported on public sector pensions provision, Lord Hutton recommended that exceptions be made to the overall increase in pension age for uniformed services, where

“the Normal Pension Age should be set to reflect the unique characteristics of the work involved. The Government should consider setting a…Normal Pension Age of 60 across the uniformed…services…and keep this under…review.”

Unfortunately, the only uniformed services identified were the police, armed forces and firefighters. For some reason I have yet to discover, prison officers were not included, even though they are a uniformed service and even though, as we see from the research, they are suffering from greater stress and psychological problems arising from their work load—more than the police or social workers.

[Ian Lavery]

Is it right that in 2014, we as a nation should be asking 68-year-old men and women to tackle some of the most dangerous people in the country?

[John McDonnell]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. A question was put to prison officers in a survey, and 75% indicated that working after 60 would very much or significantly impair their job performance. The prison officers do not think that they can do their job effectively after the age of 60. I have to say that sometimes we just have to listen to the people who do the job.

I had some discussions with prison officers and a number of them agreed with the view that they were being asked to do an impossible job. They said that they were being put under unacceptable further pressure and that the Government needed to look again at the issue of pension age and at why this uniformed service was discriminated against in comparison with the others.

Let me suggest a way forward. We received research commissioned by the POA but undertaken independently by the university of Bedfordshire, and there is also the Prison Service’s own survey. Particularly concerning are the differences between the scores highlighted for members of the Prison Service in comparison with others in the civil service. There were large discrepancies between how people felt about their job and how they were being treated. Let me cite an example. When it came to recommending Her Majesty’s Prison Service as a great place to work, only 21% were positive. In the area on “my work” there was a score of minus 15% in comparison with the civil service survey and from high performers the score was minus 18%. On “my manager”, it was minus 24%; and on “resources and workload” it was minus 19%—and so it goes on. When it came to discrimination, bullying and harassment, 19% said that they had experienced discrimination at work over the past 12 months, while 18% had experienced the bullying or harassment themselves. Even in the National Offender Management Service survey, some of the figures are somewhat worrying.

The overall evidence from the university of Bedfordshire and even from the Government’s own survey shows clearly that we need another way forward. First, we need an urgent meeting between the justice unions parliamentary group and the Minister to discuss the research and to establish how to develop support for staff and tackle some of the identified issues of work-related stress.

Secondly, in light of this research, I urge the Government to look again at the pension age of prison officers. If necessary, they should commission further research if the current research is not satisfactory. If we need a more detailed examination of forcing prison officers to work until they are 68, I would welcome the opportunity at least to engage in a further review of that decision, backed up by further research.

The third issue is about staffing. I know that the Minister will report that new staff are being recruited. I hope that that happens as quickly as possible and that we can get them trained and into our prisons. We have, however, lost a lot of experienced trained staff as a result of the cuts. As a consequence, I believe that our prisons are now not only less safe, but are not fulfilling the role of rehabilitation that we want them to fulfil. Thus, for now and the future, lessons need to be learned from the staffing cuts that we have seen. I am convinced that we will have a constructive response from the Minister to the idea of having a meeting and working on these issues together to resolve what I find to be an extremely worrying situation.

HMRC Inquiry Centre Closures

Debate between Ian Lavery and John McDonnell

Tuesday 4th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

The Minister nods positively. I am pleased: perhaps he can assure me that support will be given to staff who are uncertain about their future and that compulsory redundancies will not be made.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

We are all grateful that the Minister met the union, but let us be clear: he met the union only after this debate was announced. There has not been full transparency in the sharing of information with the union by management about the various options going forward. The Government introduce changes, but it is best to do so in a negotiated way rather than by imposing them, as this management seems to have done.

[Ian Lavery]

Again, I thank my hon. Friend for a positive intervention.

The pilot scheme has been rolled out not just in my constituency, but in my region—the north-east area. In June last year, 13 offices in the north-east of England were closed, including Royal Sovereign house in my constituency, in Morpeth. They were closed as part of a pilot of the new needs-enhanced support service model. If the closures of all 281 offices throughout the UK go as planned in June, I hope that HMRC does a better job of letting the public know than it did in our region last year.

I have heard examples of people travelling miles, only to find their local office no longer open to the public. In one prime example, an 85-year-old man used two buses to get to Scarborough, only to find the inquiry centre closed. Staff were actively prevented from assisting him: I repeat that they were actively prevented from assisting an 85-year-old gentleman. Another member of the public was trapped inside Gilbridge house in Sunderland, while trying to look for the inquiry centre, which had been closed. Many taxpayers decided to travel outside the region to inquiry centres that were still open, just so they could get face-to-face advice.

A recently widowed elderly woman turned up at Gilbridge house office for assistance with a tax form she needed to complete on behalf of her late husband. She told a member of HMRC staff that she simply did not feel that she could discuss her affairs over the phone, that she was afraid of completing it herself, just in case she did anything wrong, and that she could not grieve properly while she had this worry on her mind. I use this specific example, because staff are particularly concerned about the prospect of mainly older customers getting the support they need to complete the R27 form over the telephone, as these appointments need time. They not only need time; they need empathy, understanding and a common touch. It is common for staff, so they tell me, to keep a box of tissues handy on their desk for such occasions. It is hard to see how this kind of personal service can be replaced over the phone or on the internet. What assurances can the Minister give that such people, who will be in a particularly vulnerable state, will not be disadvantaged by the new service?

There are also problems involving equality issues. It is clear that the pilot scheme could not possibly identify the equality impacts on customers and staff, due to the demographics of our north-east region. For example, migrant workers make up 25% of all inquiry centre customers. However, the percentage of these customers is much lower in the north-east of England than it would be in other regions, such as London, which is a prime example. The consultation carried out by HMRC last year did not present equality data about customers. The document was not produced in different languages, which is of particular concern considering the high number of migrant workers who use the service. Only 11% of staff work part time in the north-east, compared with a national average of 36%. For example, 45% of workers in Wales and Scotland work part time. Only 7% of staff declared a disability in the north-east, compared with 27% based in Wales. Some 30% of inquiry centre staff in London and south-east are black, Asian and minority ethnic, compared with just 2% in the pilot area. How can the pilot area possibly identify the equality impact these closures will have on the country as a whole?

It is also worth mentioning, while considering the equality implications of this decision, that in October 2013 three appellants supported by the Low Incomes tax Reform Group won their appeal against the HMRC’s requirement that they must file their VAT returns online. A tax tribunal found that HMRC’s regulations that required online filing of VAT returns without providing exemptions for older people or disabled people, many of whom live in parts of the country that are too remote for broadband access, breached the appellants’ human rights and were unlawful in EU law.

If we consider the intervention of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), it is important that ordinary people can access those services. It does not matter whether those people live in London or in rural areas where access is extremely difficult. It was identified early in the pilot that a significant number of customers will not be able to call contact centres or interact with the website owing to the cost and low mobile or internet access in many parts of the UK. The taxpayers who are most likely to be prevented from accessing the proposed new service owing to the cost are the most vulnerable members of society. They are not able to afford a landline or a mobile telephone, and even if they own a mobile telephone it is often on a pay-as-you-go facility with a minimum amount of credit reserved for emergency calls only. Those taxpayers include the unemployed, people on low incomes, migrant workers, pensioners, people on child benefit and child tax credit claimants. Those taxpayers rely heavily on the free service that is currently provided by our inquiry centre network because their tax queries are often complex.

Low earners, for example, often work in multiple jobs to provide for their family, which means that the tax code is often incorrect. They visit the HMRC inquiry centres to use the free phones and free internet facilities or to receive face-to-face support and advice. HMRC agreed that an alternative access solution needed to be found if the new model was to be rolled out nationally. It is therefore concerning that the decision to move to the new service model and to close the inquiry centres has been made despite HMRC not having found those solutions.

Can the Minister reassure me that solutions have been found? If not, why has a decision been made without the Department having been able to resolve those important issues? Even in areas that have decent mobile phone coverage, taxpayers need to be reassured that contact centres will be sufficiently staffed to handle their calls. If the closures go ahead, people will no longer be able to walk into their local inquiry centre and receive face-to-face assistance on tax issues that are often complex. Instead, they will have to call a contact centre. A member of staff will then vet them and determine whether to refer them to another adviser. Only if that two-tier adviser deems it appropriate will a taxpayer classed as needing enhanced support be given access to face-to-face advice. Call handling levels have consistently been criticised by the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. There are figures that prove conclusively that people will find it extremely difficult to contact the centres.

The fact that we are removing HMRC offices from local communities is one of the most important issues. HMRC is effectively moving its presence away from people who are supposed to pay, which will make closing the tax gap even harder. It will make tax compliance more difficult, both for those who want to comply but cannot get access to the information they need and for those who intentionally want to slip under the radar because they are disengaged with the tax authority at a local level. Those concerns have been raised by a large number of stakeholders in the public consultation exercise, including by the Association of Taxation Technicians, Citizens Advice, Gingerbread, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Lancaster city council, Milton Keynes council, TaxAid and a number of individual taxpayers. What work has HMRC done to estimate the amount of money that could be lost in uncollected tax owing to large numbers of taxpayers being prevented from engaging with the Department?

I conclude simply by asking the Minister to reconsider the decision to close the offices. There is a real danger that if the plans go ahead, some of the most vulnerable people in society will lose their access to HMRC’s services. Hundreds of quality jobs will be lost, and the Government’s attempts to tackle the tax gap will be seriously set back. It would surely benefit society and the economy if the Government would concentrate on closing the tax gap, not tax offices.

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Debate between Ian Lavery and John McDonnell

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Someone said that what we are debating is a party political issue. Let me be clear: I opposed the system when it was introduced by the last Government and I oppose it now—for the same reason. I see it as a brutal attack on the weakest and most vulnerable individuals in our society and an exercise by private companies to profiteer at those individuals’ expense.

I started raising the issue in Parliament early on. My first constituency involvement was like that of many other hon. Members: it involved someone who was mentally ill, went for the assessment and had a nervous breakdown. That had an impact on the whole family—the mother, in particular.

I was then contacted by a range of organisations, which came together and produced the Spartacus report. I urge Members to read it. In the last debate on this issue, in Westminster Hall, we read some of its case studies into the record. They are horrendous examples of human suffering and what can only be described as abuse by the system itself.

I also refer Members to Calum’s List, which has a website. It is a list of people who have died, including by suicide, as a result of, or where there has been a contribution from, the loss of benefits. The first example on the list was that of Paul Reekie. Some Members may have known Paul, an award-winning writer and poet in Leith, Scotland. He did not leave a suicide note, just two letters on the table beside him. One was about his loss of housing benefit and the other was about his loss of incapacity benefit. He died.

The other example is that of Mark and Helen Mullins from Bedworth. They could not access their benefits. They were walking 10 miles a day to a Salvation Army soup kitchen. They committed suicide together because they could not access their benefits. Read Calum’s List, which has example after example of the brutal effect of the system.

This is at least the sixth debate that we have had on the issue. The concern expressed by Members about an issue of public administration in all those is unprecedented in recent decades. There is example after example of human suffering on a scale unacceptable in a civilised society. That is why 117 Members of Parliament have so far signed our early-day motion calling for the scrapping of the system.

I have read Mind’s briefing for today’s debate and I urge other Members to do the same. It has put forward what is wrong with the system. Yes, it has recommended improvements, but one of the key factors coming out of its survey of people facing the work capability assessment process was that 51% of them said it made them have suicidal thoughts. Any system involving that level of risk is irretrievable and unreformable. That is why I believe it should be scrapped and why the British Medical Association has said it should be scrapped.

I say the following, and I do not say it lightly: we now know that the system does not work. We know the human suffering that is occurring. The responsibility is now on us to do something about it. We will be to blame for every injury, harm, suicide and other death as a result of the system if we do not scrap it now and bring in something that is fair and based on proper medical knowledge—assessment by a person’s own GP, reinforced by expertise. We need something that gives advice and emotional support for people when they go through the system, not something that leaves them at risk.

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[John McDonnell]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall not give way as other hon. Members want to speak.

I conclude by saying that we all have a responsibility to say, “Let’s end the system now, start again and make something fair.” We will be to blame for all the injury and harm if we do not.