Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings

Debate between Ian Lavery and Emma Lewell

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Emma Lewell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think my right hon. Friend the Minister would also agree, because in his 2022 Work and Pensions Committee report, he asked for a central asbestos register and a deadline for the removal of asbestos from non-domestic buildings. The previous Government rejected that recommendation. Even now, people are still shocked when they discover that, despite the 1999 ban, there is no national database or register and, as a result, the Government do not have a comprehensive picture of where asbestos is. Consequently, there is no strategic plan to have it safely removed.

I thank the Minister for his engagement with me on the issue to date, and for his consideration of a census, whereby it will be mandatory for the owners of non-domestic buildings to advise if their buildings have asbestos or, if the building was built before 1999, they believe it to be there. He has promised to meet me and the Health and Safety Executive as it works towards timelines and a delivery plan, but I hope he can offer some updates today. As we continue to push for net zero and retrofitting, it makes sense that we start to remove asbestos as soon as possible.

I again make the plea that we start the census and the removal of asbestos in South Shields, and that the Minister helps me to discuss with our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care a specialist clinical hub for South Shields, to improve diagnosis, care and support.

These are all familiar asks to the Minister, not just from me but from long-time campaigners such as the TUC, Asbestos Information CIC, Mesothelioma UK and so many more who have seen the pain that asbestos causes and are living with it daily. I pay tribute to the work that they have done and continue to do and, in particular, to the kindness that Liz Darlison from Mesothelioma UK and Steve Boggan showed me after I spoke about my lovely grandad at Prime Minister’s questions.

My grandad, John Henry Richardson, was a sheet-metal worker. He worked in shipyards all over the north-east, and then went on to work in the Elsy Gibbons factory, making water tanks. While he was there, they introduced an annual health check scheme, and they found a shadow on his lungs. He retired at 62 through ill health.

Grandad always had a terrible cough and had struggled with his breathing for years, but because he worked in heavy industry, no one thought it was serious. In our area in the ’80s and ’90s, most men who worked in heavy industry had persistent coughs. As my mam said, everyone thought that was just part of the job. Grandad ended up with three inhalers and could not walk anywhere, even to the local shops. It would take him half an hour just to walk down the small flight of stairs in his house because he had to stop on every single one to catch his breath.

My grandad spent the first five years of his forced retirement travelling all over the country for medical tests, and at constant hospital appointments. He kept saying that the Government were hoping he would die before they had to pay out his compensation. When he was 69 years old, he was admitted to hospital with a heart attack because his heart could no longer take the pressure. After nearly a week in hospital, he suffered another heart attack. He was surrounded by my family, listening to the slow, dying breaths of this smart, kind, gentle, hard-working family man as his heart broke away. A little piece of ours broke away with him too. He died in a hospital that most likely had asbestos in it, and those caring for him have probably also gone on to suffer from this awful disease, which will continue to haunt the north-east and elsewhere for generations to come.

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

My hon. Friend is making a really powerful, personal speech, which is extremely important. Does she agree that it is not just the likes of her grandad and all those who worked in heavy industry, manufacturing, the pits and shipbuilding who are suffering from the likes of mesothelioma? As she said, it is now about where the asbestos currently lies—in Parliament, schools, police stations, town halls and NHS buildings. Asbestos-related diseases, particularly mesothelioma, have a latency period of up to 40 years, so the problem has not gone away. In this country, 5,000 people die of mesothelioma every year—more than in road traffic accidents—so we have got to get a grip on it.

[Emma Lewell]

I thank my hon. Friend, my colleague from the north-east, for that powerful intervention. He is absolutely right: in my grandad’s time, we did not know about the risk from those devastating fibres, but we now do, so we absolutely cannot let this happen to anybody else.

The last time the House debated this issue was under a Conservative Government. We now have a Labour Government, and it is in our party’s DNA to do right by workers and the people we represent. The memories of those we lost mean that the sufferers of this silent killer, and I, will certainly not be silent until the Minister gives us what we are asking for, and what he asked for previously before he was elevated to his current esteemed position.

Tyne and Wear Metro

Debate between Ian Lavery and Emma Lewell

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I could not agree more. Investment is needed so that we can roll out the Metro, because that would help our economy, although we need to fix the faults first. It is not right that a large part of our area is not accessible by the Metro.

I suspect that the Minister will try to sidestep my constituents’ complaints by saying that the running of the Metro is a devolved matter. It is right that regions and cities should have control over transport, and Opposition Members have been pushing for even greater devolution. Nexus and the North East combined authority have been holding DB Regio Tyne and Wear to account by imposing penalties where appropriate, but it would be wrong to say that all the issues we are seeing can be attributed to the operator. Even the best management cannot compensate for trains that have come to the end of their lifespan and can no longer be relied on. There is a clear need for investment.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution. Although the Tyne and Wear Metro does not extend to Northumberland, I am sure the Minister will give a cast-iron guarantee that that is only a matter of time. Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Tyne and Wear Metro has a fantastic workforce, from the drivers to the cleaners, the one problem it has is that workforce numbers have dropped from 315 to 281? Eighteen drivers have left over the past year, which is nearly double the average over the past three years. Does she agree if the Metro does not have the workforce or the staff, it is highly likely that its productivity will be reduced?

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I agree with my hon. Friend. For the Metro to work, it needs to have the staff and structure. I have already spoken to Nexus about staffing and the lack of staff available on the platform to advise passengers when there have been problems. There is clearly a need for investment. The Metro will not serve our area without that investment. I hope the Minister will recognise that today and tell us more about what the Government can do to bring that investment forward.

Benefit Claimants (North-east)

Debate between Ian Lavery and Emma Lewell

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

To highlight one of the difficulties with the staff, who generally do a fantastic job, the press reported on the assessment of a lady who is blind and has a guide dog. The person doing the assessment held three fingers up and asked the blind lady, “How many fingers am I holding up?” The lady said, “I am blind.” The person said, “That has nothing at all to do with it. I have to ask you the questions.” That is the way disabled people—in this case, a blind person—are being treated by some of the staff in jobcentres.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I have noticed that compassion and understanding are being completely removed from the jobcentre. There are no grey areas anymore; it is black or white. When I went to my local jobcentre to discuss some of my constituents’ complaints, I was shocked by how dismissive the local management team were. They explained that they refused to offer a private room because they did not want to set a precedent. In other cases, they simply said that they did not believe what I and my constituents were telling them. The whole attitude was completely negative and showed the confrontational way in which jobcentres now deal with claimants. In fact, the attitude shown to me was so appalling that I complained to the regional manager. It was not that I was particularly fussed by how they spoke to me; my concern was that if they speak to a Member of Parliament in that way, how on earth are they treating our constituents?

Jobcentre staff are ultimately there to provide a service, and to help people find work. If someone has special requirements, staff should be allowed to accommodate them. The Government’s hard-line approach and the pressure on staff to meet targets mean that the focus has changed and the majority of hard-working staff, who I genuinely believe want to do their jobs properly, feel hindered and frustrated about being unable to do so. When I was looking for work, advisers were there to guide jobseekers into work or training that was right for them. It was a process that treated people like human beings. That is important when people are already feeling low or marginalised because of their unemployment. That is not how the system works today. Now the role of the jobcentre is to police the unemployed and punish them for making even the smallest of mistakes. If they are five minutes late for an appointment, there is no mercy or discussion—their benefits are simply cut off. Where once staff were there to advise, they are now told to check up on claimants, to police them and to catch them out.

As far as I am concerned, our jobcentres are no longer providing a good enough service. Staff are under pressure to get people off benefits by any means necessary, and there are perverse incentives to push people on to make-work courses. Constituents have complained that they have been ordered to take the same CV writing courses over and over again as a substitute for genuine support. That is a complete waste of time and does not get them into work. What it does, however, is remove them from the unemployment figures. Like those on the Work programme, they are not employed in any meaningful sense, but they do not show up in the figures. I make it crystal clear to the Minister that being on the Work programme or stuck on make-work training courses does not constitute employment, no matter how much her Government would like us to think so. The only purpose of the schemes is to help a jobcentre meet its targets, because it can use the courses as evidence that it has provided training or work-related activity, or use non-attendance as a reason to sanction benefit claimants.

In any organisation, the attitude of those at the top filters down. That is why the culture change at the DWP fits right in with the ugly attitude that the Government have taken towards people on benefits. They have encouraged and continue to encourage the public to think of claimants as spongers or skivers, so that working people struggling to get by will blame the unemployed man or woman next door, claiming their £70 a week, instead of the tax-dodging companies that cost our economy billions every year. The way claimants are treated is nothing to do with getting people into work; it is about scapegoating the poor and making them a target for the anger and frustration the public feel during a time of serious hardship. It is downright nasty politics, and the Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Under-Occupancy Penalty

Debate between Ian Lavery and Emma Lewell

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I could not agree more.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a fantastic speech on this important issue. The Government admitted last week that they had wildly exaggerated the cost savings involved in the bedroom tax. Does that not show us what is really behind the policy? It is not about saving money; it is about a vicious attack on vulnerable people—400,000 out of 600,000 of them are disabled—who cannot speak up for themselves.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who has stolen some of my closing comments.

I was interested to hear that the Department for Work and Pensions has commissioned an independent review of the bedroom tax to analyse the impact on vulnerable individuals, foster carers and those caring for disabled children. However, why was the impact assessment not completed before the introduction of the tax? That is yet another example of ideology affecting policy and of this Government’s “let’s do away with facts and research” approach.

I also question why the policy’s impact on the housing market was not foreseen. The National Audit Office reported that the Government’s headline savings figure did not take into account the full range of impacts that the bedroom tax would have. Now that we have had time to assess the policy’s impact on rent arrears, we know that the NAO was correct. I hope that the Minister will say what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Work and Pensions about the effect of the policy on housing supply and why he believes the impact assessment falls so far short of reality.

Whatever the Government’s excuses, for my constituents in South Shields and thousands of others across the country, they will be scant consolation. Although an average of £12 a week may not seem like much to this Government, it is a lot of money to the rest of us who are paying the price. My constituents need a Government who listen to their concerns and who commit to overturning this cruel tax and addressing our housing shortage. What they need is a Labour Government.