Police and Fire Shared Services
Debate between Jim Cunningham and Ian Lavery(8 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ian Lavery
It is not as easy as that. I wish it was. To multitask between being a crime officer and being a fireman or woman in the fire and rescue service is difficult. To be a paramedic takes a three-year university course. It is not as simple as transferring basic skills; the individual needs to be properly skilled, with a university degree. Unlike in other parts of the blue-light services—in the NHS, for example—there are no bursaries for people to train to be paramedics; they have to pay their own way. The issue might seem simple, but it is not as simple as many people believe.
Mr Jim Cunningham
No matter which way the argument is put by Government Members, the fact remains that there will be rationalisation, which means saving money that will not be ploughed back into the service. As I said earlier, West Midlands police has lost about 2,500 policemen. In Kent, the private sector is being employed to do the police’s job. It is surely all leading to privatisation.
Ian Lavery
There is obviously a whiff of privatisation in the air in relation to all the blue-light services. The people involved in the services fear that themselves. It is not just me or my hon. Friend as Members of Parliament who are suggesting that; people working in the services are worried. That is why we have to consult with people and listen to those who are delivering the services.
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill
Debate between Jim Cunningham and Ian Lavery(11 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery
People have received sanctions for a range of reasons. The Government should not overrule a Court of Appeal ruling and introduce retrospective legislation against people just because they have received sanctions. I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that people who have, for whatever reason, received a sanction, should under no circumstances claim some sort of subsistence, even if the courts have agreed in a ruling that they should receive it.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has come across such cases, but I have come across a number of people who have gone for a number of jobs, and been told, when they go back to claim JSA, that they are not trying hard enough. What an attitude in the 21st century!
Ian Lavery
I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point. As I have said to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), every MP has received many representations with regard to the wide and various workfare schemes.
The impact assessment states:
“If the Department cannot make these retrospective changes, then further reductions in benefits might be required in order to find the money to repay the sanctions.”
That is blackmail of the highest order—I make no apology for the strength of my feeling on that. If people are due finances, they should get them, particularly following a court ruling, but the Government are saying, “If we pay these people, we might have to cut benefits for other people as a result because that is where we have to find the money.” That is emotional blackmail. It is totally and utterly bang out of order. They are trying to set people who are looking for work and on benefits against each other. That is absolutely unacceptable.
To conclude, I have some questions for the Minister to answer in his winding-up speech. Is it right that claimants face financial penalties for failing to participate in schemes when the possibility of those penalties had not been properly explained to them? Is it right that the Government can flout the will of Parliament, which had clearly expressed its wish to have some oversight of the schemes, especially given that the schemes that were designed and imposed on claimants without an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny do not appear to be working?
Is it true that the DWP continued to issue letters to claimants that did not explain things properly even after the High Court had stated that the letters were inadequate?