Business of the House

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to embarrass Members, but I will just say that if you were late in, please do not stand. Let us take somebody who was in very early: Ian Lavery.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Responsibility for Woodhorn Museum on the former Woodhorn colliery site in my constituency—the home of the fantastic world-renowned pitmen painters—has this week been transferred to Tyne and Wear Archives and Museums by the Tory-led Northumberland county council, which has sold off the family silverware. There has been no consultation whatsoever with residents. Can the Leader of the House please make time in the parliamentary schedule for us to discuss how local people and communities can have a say on how to protect cultural assets in their region?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 1st February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like your advice on the scheduling of business today. A number of people—

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry, but that is not relevant to the questions we have just had. The only way the hon. Gentleman can raise that as a point of order is by doing it after we have done all the questions. We now have questions to the Attorney General.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

7. If she will take steps with Cabinet colleagues to ratify ILO convention 190 on violence and harassment in the world of work.

Rail Investment and Integrated Rail Plan

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

This has been an interesting discussion. Not once has any Government Front Bencher mentioned Northumberland. It is a wonderful county and I wonder whether Ministers or indeed the Secretary of State have ever visited it. The Government’s integrated rail plan proposals are an absolute disaster for the north-east. Once again the Government have overpromised and under-delivered. Once again the north-east has been betrayed; once again the saying “the great north rail betrayal” rings true throughout the communities of the north-east.

The scrapping of the eastern leg of HS2 is extremely disappointing, if not surprising in the least, and the Government announced on more than 60 occasions that they would not scrap it. But in the north-east the plans were never really going to benefit the communities in the first place. The eastern leg of HS2 basically only went as far as Leeds and NPR only went as far north as Newcastle, with those in Downing Street missing out the wonderful county of Northumberland. I wish people would visit our wonderful county.

The plans to reintroduce passenger rail on the Ashington, Blyth and Tyne line are essential. I and my predecessors have been campaigning for that for generations, and I want to place on record my thanks to the South East Northumberland Rail User Group for its outstanding campaigning efforts. I want the Minister to please give a firm commitment in the winding-up speech that that line will go ahead. I say that simply because of the broken promises of this Government with regard to many things—we cannot trust a word they say.

On the east coast main line, the proposals to change the services schedule in order to shave seconds off the time from Edinburgh to London were an outrage, and that was only changed because of public annoyance. I ask the Government to please look at that again. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said only a few seconds ago in his contribution, public ownership is the answer to the issues facing the disastrous transport system on our rail networks.

Debate interrupted.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now going to call the Leader of the House to move a motion without notice regarding the time allocated for the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

After the power cut, I think we have Ian Lavery back.

[Ian Lavery [V]]

This Government have a real strange way of levelling up, and education is no different. Since its creation in 1998 by the Labour Government, the Unionlearn fund has enjoyed cross-party support and the backing of dozens of businesses. It is a flagship policy that costs the Government £12 million and returns £1.4 billion to the economy. It currently supports 200,000 individuals per annum to access learning; it is absolutely huge. Minister, put your cards on the table—this is an out and out attack against the trade union movement and its members. What is it about this hugely successful programme, which helps low-paid working people, that so antagonises the modern Conservative party?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Answers are far too long, folks—we are going to have to move on.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

How much of the funding the UK in response to the covid-19 pandemic has (a) been allocated to and (b) reached the global south.

Overseas Voters Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Friday 26th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) on promoting this Bill. I for one appreciate his determination, having promoted a similar Bill last year. Like that Bill, this one has three main provisions. First, it would require the Electoral Commission to register overseas voters; secondly, it would remove the limit on how long British people can live overseas before they lose the right to vote; thirdly, it would allow internet voting for overseas voters.

It is good that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are so eager to make progress on internet voting, but the Trade Union Bill, which is currently passing through the Lords, shows that the Government are wholly opposed to any suggestion of internet voting for the trade union movement. I say that merely as a point of clarification.

I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s interest in extending the franchise and in modernising the electoral system. However, given the Conservative party’s record on excluding voters through the rushed implementation of individual electoral registration and, indeed, its opposition to votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, I am somewhat perplexed that he has not done more to challenge his party on those particular issues.

Labour consistently warned the Government of the dangers of removing the last Labour Government’s safeguards for the introduction of IER. We also warned of the dangers of bringing forward the date of the point of transition—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. As I said earlier, unfortunately this is about overseas voters. I can understand that we want to go over different ways of voting, but we have to remain on the issue of overseas voting. That is what the Bill is about.

[Ian Lavery]

That is absolutely first-class advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the parliamentary process and attempts to get individuals to vote, the latest Office for National Statistics figures and Electoral Commission data, which were published only this week and are really important, show that more than 1.4 million people have fallen off the electoral register since the introduction of IER.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I am trying to be as helpful as I can. If the hon. Gentleman could combine that point with the number of overseas voters who have not been registered—that is the issue—and compare the two, that would be a way forward.

[Ian Lavery]

As ever, I accept your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish I did have the figures for those living abroad, but, as has been said, it is very difficult to ascertain them. The only figures we have are those for individual voters in the UK, but I fully accept and understand what you have said.

Elections in May will include those to the devolved institutions in Belfast, Cardiff and Edinburgh, the London mayoral election, and the police and crime commissioner elections in England and Wales. Then—just in case somebody has missed this—at the end of June we will have a rather serious referendum to decide whether this country will continue to be a member of the European Union. The Electoral Commission will play an important role overseeing all those elections. Personally, I do not think it would be wise for this House to say that, in addition, the commission should make the registration of overseas voters a priority. I hope and expect that the commission will continue its grand efforts of previous years in encouraging British people living overseas to register to vote, which is so important, but if there is to be a priority, surely it must be to ensure that all prospective voters who live in the UK are on the list.

The figures I have cited are alarming, but I will not mention them again, for fear of being pulled up by you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important, however, to recognise the changes taking place in our democracy. We have to understand that the voting process is a central plank of our democratic process, both at home and abroad.

Clause 2 proposes abolishing the current 15-year limit on an overseas voter’s ability to participate in UK elections. We have no objection to reviewing the time limits on eligibility. There is nothing sacred about the 15-year limit. It has not always been 15 years: it has been 20 years and five years in the past, but now it has settled at 15 years. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there are different rules in different countries. However, if we are to consider changing the limit, or even removing it completely, as has been argued, I do not believe that that should be done in isolation. It should happen as part of a wider review of how we can increase participation in elections in general.

The Conservative party made a manifesto commitment to abolishing the 15-year rule, and we are still waiting for the votes for life Bill to be introduced. Although we have no objection to that in principle, if we want to extend the franchise the Government should look again at giving the right to vote to 16 and 17-year-olds in this country. We should learn the lesson of what happened in Scotland, which enthused people and brought them into the parliamentary process. They felt that they were valued. We should take a leaf out of the Scottish book.

Clause 3 would give overseas voters a chance to vote online. We need to do more to make sure that our electoral process better reflects the busy lives that people lead. That could and should include trialling electronic and online voting. However, I am not wholly convinced by the hon. Gentleman’s arguments about why overseas voters should be the first to try out such a system.

We are unable to support the Bill, for the reasons I have given. I am sceptical of some of the clauses and the priority given to overseas voters, because of all our other concerns about electoral matters.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The Minister just said that the Tories voted for it at the last election. You did not declare that as a policy prior to the last election. You also did not declare the NHS Act or the changes to the tax credits. If you are so proud of this planned legislation, why did you not declare it before the general election?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. First of all, I am not responsible. I want to clear that up. [Interruption.] No, “you” refers to me. Mr Blenkinsop, you were wrong: it is not me. It may be those on the Government Benches, but you said “you”. Secondly, we need to speak about the amendment. I have allowed some latitude, Mr Lavery, because you have been tempted away, and I know that you want to get back to where you were.

[Ian Lavery]

That is absolutely correct, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think the reason my hon. Friend spoke in the way he did is that Government Front Benchers were having a separate conversation and not listening to a single word he was saying. That is not unusual.

This Bill is simply here to do three things: to restrict the right to organise, to restrict the right to collective bargaining, and to restrict the right to strike action. I did not serve on the Bill Committee, but I listened to many of the arguments in the evidence sessions, which were quite enlightening. I think the Minister himself would say that the Government found it extremely difficult to get anybody who had a clue what the Bill was about to speak for them at the evidence sessions. One of their witnesses, the chief executive of 2020Health, spoke about facility time. Facility time is a huge issue in this Bill, as the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) said. He asked my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene to dictate on facility time in Scotland and Wales. I would ask whether it is right that Government Ministers can intervene in facility time in any workplace anywhere in the UK. The answer, quite simply, is that it is not right: they should keep out of the workplace with regard to the likes of facility time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Has the hon. Gentleman given way or finished? We need to get this right.

[James Cartlidge]

I am happy to take this point.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in terms of events in the workplace we are talking about identical events with a different period of maturity into full-blown mesothelioma? Some people with identical circumstances will not qualify, while others will. Will he speculate on the issues that that may cause? Someone may have been through the same process as the person sitting next to them in the workplace—in the case of Southampton, handling blue asbestos in the docks, bailing it up and throwing it on to the dockside—with the disease appearing many years later over different periods for different people—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need shorter interventions—there are quite a lot of other speakers to get in. Interventions are important, but they must be shorter.

[Ian Lavery]

This issue has been explained. This is not just a shipyard, mining or other heavy industry problem; this disease can be contracted in the classroom. We really need to look at the position with asbestos in schools. I fear that not enough data have been kept on children over the years. People never believe, 30 or 40 years later, that they have mesothelioma. They think back to what type of employment could have caused it, but it could have started in school. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.

Lloyd’s made £2.7 billion between January and June 2012. Royal and Sun Alliance made £233 million last year. Aviva, between January and June 2013, made £605 million. That is just three companies. They are awash with finance. Believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, they intend to continue to be awash with finance.

The regulatory impact assessment estimated that approximately 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers lost about £800 million in compensation due to untraced insurance. If we add that to the cost to the victims of other asbestos diseases, and the deal cooked up between the Government and their friends in the insurance industry, that represents a saving to insurers of about £1 billion. That is absolutely scandalous.

High-cost Credit

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there should be a cooling-off period? The problem seems to be that many people who are desperate for finance can get hold of £500 on the internet before they have even put down their laptops and arrived at the hole in the wall. If there were a cooling-off period of, say—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be short. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the debate on the north-east will follow this one, and his intervention has eaten into the time for it by giving the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) an extra minute.

Finance Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 2nd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Is it not a fact that 4.4 million pensioners will lose roughly £83 a year from next year, and that people who turn 65 next year could lose up to £322 a year? That implies that it is disingenuous to suggest that people are not losing out—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. “Disingenuous” is not a word that we should use. I know that it is meant to be an appropriate term, but it is not the sort of parliamentary language that we accept. I am sure that we will not be using it again.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 1st February 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.