Trade Union Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

I entirely agree. As I said earlier, does anybody want this Bill? Has anybody asked for it? Even some of the major Tory party donors have said it is purely union-bashing. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said, and he was absolutely right, that is what Tories do. [Interruption.]

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Blenkinsop]

The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) pointed out that that self-same witness had no idea what life and limb cover was, nor did she know that it has been in existence since at least the early ’80s, if not the late ’70s, as a TUC agreement with the emergency services to make sure that there was always cover in the event of an emergency. The fact that witnesses called by the Government had no idea about long-term existing legislation shows how poor this Bill is and how poor the Minister’s work on it has been.

[Ian Lavery]

This individual, who runs a private health organisation the length and breadth of the UK, was asked if she had read the Bill. She said, “Not really.” She was then asked, “Have you read most of the Bill?” “Not really.” “Do you understand what facility time is?” “Not really. What is facility time?” She did not even understand life and limb cover, which is integral to trade union law, whereby if there is a problem that is a life and limb issue, trade union representatives will break off industrial action to ensure that people are safe. And, let me say, she was the best witness we had.

NHS Funding (North-East and Teesside)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Yes, the police, and particularly the police and crime commissioner for Cleveland, have raised that with me in private meetings on first responder calls. They have funding worries about what will happen if such practices continually recur.

The NEAS letter shows that there will be more cuts, more private ambulances and possibly a less responsive service. It is not me saying that, but the chief operating officer of the North East Ambulance Service. The figures are stark. In 2008-09, 865 call-outs were attended by private ambulances in our region, costing £86,000. In 2009-10, some 1,816 call-outs were attended by private ambulances, costing £151,000. In 2010-11, however, 6,429 call-outs were attended by private ambulances, costing £477,000, which is a huge jump. In 2011-12, there were 9,000 call-outs attended by private ambulances, costing £639,000. In 2012-13, 13,524 call-outs were attended by private ambulances, costing £754,000. So since 2010, there has been a fivefold increase in private ambulance costs in the north-east, with the funds going to private contract firms. It is obvious that from 2010 onwards, there has been an explosion of private ambulance usage by the trust, costing a huge amount of taxpayers’ funds. The chief executive states:

“These arrangements do not allow us to enhance our own workforce plan because the money for the additional activity will not be available next year to fund the extra salaries, overheads and vehicles we need to meet the extra demand.”

A third issue of particular concern to my constituents is that both the NHS trusts that serve them—the South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and the Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust—have found themselves under investigation by Monitor in the past 12 months. Since May 2010, the South Tees trust has failed on seven occasions to meet its referral-to-treatment target, most recently between March and August. That has resulted in the Monitor investigation, because the trust has failed to ensure that 90% of patients commence treatment within 18 weeks of referral. Furthermore, there has been an increase in reported “never” events at the trust, and an increase in the incidence of clostridium difficile.

Despite the seriousness of those issues, Health Ministers have taken no action. My constituents would at the very least expect Ministers to have had conversations with Monitor and the trust on the issue, and on what support the Department of Health can provide, yet the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), confirmed to me in a written answer that

“No such discussions have taken place with Ministers.”—[Official Report, 22 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 83W.]

Will the Minister please assure me that he will closely monitor the situation and have discussions with both Monitor and the South Tees trust on how the Department can provide support, including additional funding if necessary?

My final point is on allocations to the north-east’s clinical commissioning groups.

A recent working paper issued by NHS England on allocation and indicative target allocation outlines proposals that will reduce per-capita funding for CCGs across the north-east. People in Sunderland will each face a £146 cut, people in south Tyneside a £124 cut, people in Gateshead a £104 cut, and people in my constituency a £60 cut.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is it not perverse that deprivation and health inequality indicators are not part of the overall calculation, as regards the funding allocation for the north-east? That will potentially result in the north-east losing up to £230 million of NHS funding per annum.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Yes, the cumulative effect of all the funding allocations in different areas is very worrying. If those allocations are all reduced, my genuine worry for my constituents, and for constituents across the north-east, is that all the hard work and financial effort in Teesside in the past 15 years to reduce cardiac risk, bad outcomes for cancer, and other problems will be undermined, and we will not build on the momentum gathered over the past 15 years.

Cleveland Fire Authority

Debate between Ian Lavery and Tom Blenkinsop

Monday 13th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop]

At the meeting mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), the main thrust of the chief fire officer’s argument for seeking a mutual model was to avoid corporation tax. If that is the sole purpose of pursuing the mutual model, one has to assume that the mutual is making a profit, but I want to go into that in more detail. Spending £198,000 from the Department of Health’s social enterprise investment fund, the brigade created an arm’s length company, the Cleveland Fire Brigade Risk Management Services community interest company, to bid for contracts from the private and public sector, with any profits to be given to the brigade. However, it operated at a loss of £38,000 in its first year and has already lost a major telecare contract that it had secured six months previously. I am no mathematician, and I do not know what the corporation tax yield would be for the Treasury on a community interest company running at minus £38,000, but with the CIC struggling to make a profit as it is, I fail to see how spinning out the brigade would generate any more contracts or revenue than the current arrangement.

The most important reason I, along with my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South, for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), object to the proposals is the scope for privatisation that they permit. I cannot confess to being an expert on the technicalities of European public procurement law, but if the brigade were to be spun out, it would seem almost inevitable that once the initial contract has expired, the authority, as a commissioner, would be obliged to open the process up to competitive tendering, with social value legislation offering little protection. The authority’s senior officers have refused to provide my office with information about the procurement routes it is considering, but none of the “no market”, “joint venture”, “in-house incubation” or “competitive tender” options discussed on the Cabinet Office’s mutuals taskforce website offer protection from competitive tendering in the medium or long term.

There does not appear to be an appetite from senior officers in anywhere but Cleveland for spinning out the brigade, but the necessary changes to the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004, which the Minister attempted to push through the Regulatory Reform Committee in a legislative reform order, would, in his own words,

“enable fire and rescue authorities in England to contract out their full range of services to a suitable provider”.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend correctly highlights the fact that the issue was placed in letter form before the Regulatory Reform Committee, of which I am a member. Can he give any explanation for why that was the case?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

That is precisely why we are here tonight. My hon. Friend makes the valid point about letters on separate issues appearing before the Regulatory Reform Committee with no prior warning. That suggests something going on behind closed doors that we have still not been able to get the documents on in any proper manner.

I presume these providers could be in the private sector as well as the third sector, which could obviously have effects throughout England. The Minister confirmed that view to the FBU’s parliamentary group only recently. The Labour party supports mutuals, as do I, but the Co-operative party and I feel that this is a wholly inappropriate application of the model. The application does not appear to be the end in itself, but merely a stepping stone to further change. I am sure the Minister can see the difference between mutualising a bailed-out, formerly privately owned bank and mutualising a life-or-death public good such as a fire service.

I am sure the Minister has a series of quotes ready to fire at me accusing me of scaremongering, but before he does that, I would be grateful if he can clarify one simple point in his response. Specifically, will he absolutely guarantee that if the brigade were to be spun out, a few years down the line, it would not be subject to competitive tender? That would be despite the fact that Cleveland’s own chief fire officer stated that any contract would be subject to competition after the initial contract awarded to any mutual expired. If the Minister can confirm this, will he please inform the House which procurement route would permit this?

Asbestos in Schools

Debate between Ian Lavery and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 7th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Lady makes a number of very important points, which I hope to clarify in my speech.

The current system is difficult to remedy and, as such, Government policy is to manage the asbestos in schools and try to reduce the exposure incidence. So long as the asbestos is in good condition and is unlikely to be disturbed, it is thought that managing the asbestos in a prescribed manner is preferential to its removal.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Laurence Jackson school in Guisborough in my constituency, built at the time of the Macmillan Government, has about six or seven boilers whose piping is lagged with asbestos. Due to the antiquated boiler system, constant work is needed, meaning that the pipes are constantly being interfered with, increasing the likelihood of asbestos contamination. The school has a plan, but its capital requirement for dealing with the ongoing situation is only about £25,000. The likelihood of asbestos contamination increases every time the system is tampered with. Would he not say that even schools that have a plan can get into tricky situations like that?

[Ian Lavery]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is one reason we can no longer agree to leave asbestos in schools virtually until they are knocked down. We need a strategy in place for the immediate phased removal of asbestos. Yes, it will take time, but we need a strategy.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Tom Blenkinsop

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment, and I entirely agree with him. The industries are in it to make money, and it is obvious to anyone who knows them that they need to reduce the amount of energy that they expend to make their products.

British manufacturing output as a whole has been growing for decades, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics. Why is that? Output in the chemicals industry has increased, unlike in other sectors. During the 2008-09 downturn, the industry suffered the second smallest decline in production. The development of the chemical industry over the last decade under Labour has been largely unreported. Only now is it being seen as a sexy subject. However, in places such as Middlesbrough, Redcar and Billingham, we have always referred to ourselves as proud smoggies, in the knowledge that our manufacturing endeavours have far more worth than the machinations of the City.

According to DECC statistics on greenhouse gas reduction, the disappearance of the chemicals sector would directly save an average 10.79 million metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent, out of the total UK generation of 627.85 million metric tonnes of CO₂ equivalent. Across industry, the chemicals sector is responsible for only 3.9% of energy-related emissions. The growth reviews in November and December last year gave good signals to manufacturing. However, the rhetoric contained in those reviews assumed that a low-carbon economy could emerge only by pricing energy-intensive users out of the market. The flaw in that logic is the assumption that the full substitution of fossil fuels will miraculously come about if intensive energy users are strangled. A further flaw is that the technology that will develop green industries actually flows from the existing energy-intensive industries, their research and development, and their skilled work forces, but they will obviously no longer exist in the UK if we force them abroad.

The December growth review stated that high energy prices were a barrier to advanced manufacturing growth, yet the Secretary of State for Environment and Climate Change said at the same time that recovery does not come from old industries “bouncing back”, and that the low-carbon industries would be an important part of our growth story over the next 10 years. That was in his speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research on 1 December last year.

For every tonne of CO₂ emitted in producing insulation, 233 tonnes of CO₂ are saved, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) said, for every tonne of CO₂ emitted in producing a wind turbine blade, 123 tonnes of CO₂ are saved. For every tonne of CO₂ emitted in the production of energy-saving tyres, 51 tonnes of CO₂ are saved—and so on, and so on. In the case of insulation, one year’s CO₂ emissions created producing insulation saves 2.4 billion tonnes of CO₂.

At the heart of the issue is the lack of understanding in the Treasury and DECC that these chemical companies cluster, as they always have done, and as they previously did within the large-scale set-ups of ICI. As NEPIC—the North East of England Process Industry Cluster—has proven in my region, locally produced products often feed on-site sister businesses or other company-owned plants. That integration produces better economies of scale, efficiency, profitability and technological development. It is regional clustering, as exemplified by NEPIC in north-east England, which was set up by One North East, that exemplifies industrially-led industrial activism. The Government’s carbon floor pricing policy, on the other hand, fragments industrial integrative clustering.

Unfortunately, the Government assume that secondary industries will not leave the UK, even if the primary chemical industries do. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has said that

“quite a few of the high energy users have forms of natural protection like high transport costs so the impact is rather less than you might expect.”

Unfortunately, empirical evidence wholly contradicts the Government’s stance. As Jeremy Nicholson, director of the energy intensive users group has said:

“The idea that downstream industries are likely to remain here indefinitely if primary production goes might have a theoretical case but I’d say just look at the empirical evidence: downstream manufacturing thrives on co-location with primary industry and why would you expect that to cease in the future?”

Real life examples clearly show just how fragile downstream companies are. Let us consider Wilton, the former ICI site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). The plants were balanced with the ICI ethylene cracker at the top of the production pyramid; as foreign ethylene became cheaper and producers produced offshore, the requirement for the cracker was reduced, leading to other plants downstream such as the Dow plant also being affected.

When Dow closed, 55 direct jobs were lost. That is not as big a media story as the events that unfolded at the mothballing of the Redcar blast furnace at the then Teesside Cast Products Corus plant, but the repercussions of Dow were just as profound. An estimated 2,500 jobs were lost downstream as a result of the closure of Dow’s ethylene oxide production plant—the only ethylene oxide plant in the UK. NEPIC has bounced back, bringing in other investments to Teesside, but it is acutely aware of the loss of primary chemical production and of lost opportunities for technological developments that could be made on Teesside, securing new green markets in turn.

More than this, however, the Secretary of State’s comments condone the loss of primary chemical production as a result of the carbon floor pricing while actually actively pursuing it. The question I must ask is: if industry flees within two years, as feared, how on earth will this carbon floor pricing levy taxation apply when the energy-intensive industry is no longer here? An industry cannot be taxed if it will not hang around to be taxed, which leaves Britain with neither the tax nor the industry.

As many primary raw chemicals are very expensive to transport and in some cases are banned from transportation, the Secretary of State’s relaxed approach appears uninformed. Many secondary production companies are small and medium-sized enterprises, often with fewer than 10 employees, and economies of scale for the transportation of such vast quantities of chemicals are just not viable, making the whole operation futile and highly costly for such small operations.

Amendment 12 would ensure that the Government look at the immediate impact of the provisions in the schedule on energy-using manufacturing industries and on employment in those industries; and at how the moneys raised by those measures will be used to mitigate the immediate impact of the schedule on consumers and on manufacturing industries and to encourage green investment. At the very least the Government must monitor and review their own policy and its consequences, which I fear will be devastating for energy-intensive industry and for my area of Teesside. A review will allow the Government to take stock.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the double whammy of the European trading scheme and the carbon floor price, which will have a devastating effect not just on Scunthorpe and Teesside but on Lynemouth in my constituency? Rio Tinto Alcan is the company there and it makes a current profit of £50 million a year, which will be totally wiped out as a consequence of this double whammy, putting 600 quality jobs at risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that special measures must be put in place to overcome these unjust taxes?

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Yes, I certainly do. To finish, let me say that a review will allow the Government to take stock of the policy and to make quick changes to it, as I fear they might have to before it is too late.