Transport for London Bill [Lords]: Revival

Debate between Ian Lavery and Ian Mearns

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

That is interesting. It shows that Labour Members are open to the potential development of land, as long as assurances are given by Transport for London that guarantee the split of the asset. I am not sure whether I would accept such guarantees, but it is important that people recognise that if guarantees were given, there would be room at the table for much more consultation and discussion.

[Ian Mearns]

A question has to be posed if there is no guarantee from Transport for London. There is no doubt that London has a housing crisis, particularly in the affordable housing sector. If not Transport for London with its property portfolio, who will provide the land for the much needed affordable housing that must be provided for the workers of London?

[Ian Lavery]

That raises a whole new question that has not been discussed by anyone on either side of the House. It is a valid question that needs answers.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Ian Mearns

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the Bill’s provisions on opting in to, rather than out of, the political fund. There has for many years been a gentlemen’s agreement that political funding should be decided on a cross-party basis. Many Conservative Members would agree that this is not the type of Bill into which they should insert a clause which would so greatly restrict the finances of an opposing party that it would struggle to fight a general election. As well as tackling the issue of dissent, the Bill is an attempt to ensure that the Opposition do not even have the finances to fight. It is about the Conservatives believing that they have the right to rule—not govern, but rule, and that is quite different.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. I cannot help reflecting on the comments of the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who said that legislation should be appropriate to the time. We are in a time when industrial action in this country is at an all-time low. What problem to do with industrial action is the Bill trying to sort out?

[Ian Lavery]

We are in a time when more than a million people, most of them in work, are claiming family tax credits, and more than a million people who are in work and have families need to use food banks. I mentioned gagging and eradicating dissent. The Bill is about keeping people quiet.

Zero Hours Contracts Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Ian Mearns

Friday 21st November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

As a matter of fact, I have. I would ask colleagues engaged in public service provision up and down the country to think very deeply about their employment practices. I do not condone it, but I know that for some workers zero-hours contracts are a handy way of gaining part-time employment, but only part-time employment. Many find it very difficult to sustain an ordinary family life on a zero-hours contract.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Is not the fact of the matter that the Bill, if we manage to pass it, would prevent anyone, whether a Labour council, a Tory council or even a Tory MP, from employing people on zero-hours contracts? They would be abolished entirely.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. The Bill seeks to curtail the use of zero-hours contracts severely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

With regard to people working in the adult social care sector, it is right that we want the very best quality of care for the most vulnerable people in society—the elderly, the frail, the disabled and so on—who rely on these social care contracts, yet we expect people who are being paid next to nothing to conduct that high-quality care. I find that bizarre.

[Ian Lavery]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the situation at HMP Northumberland, where Sodexo, a French catering company, has privatised the prison and sacked or made redundant more than a third of the work force? It does not have enough people to make the prison safe, but it is bringing in people on banked-hours and zero-hours contracts. That is an outrage.

[Ian Mearns]

I could not agree more.

I was talking about the hospitality sector. Whether we allow this exploitation and abuse to continue is a question not just of whether these contracts are fair on the employee but of what type of society we want to live in and what type of economy we want to work in. Do we really expect our sick and elderly to get the care they deserve when those we trust to care for them live in fear and trepidation, not knowing whether they will earn enough to keep the heating on or buy the weekly shop? Do we really think that we will reduce the benefits bill—the frequently stated intention of the Government—when only state subsidies for employers paying poverty wages are keeping our work force’s heads above water?

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Ian Lavery and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Of course it is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

What qualifications will the assurers—classed as independent under these provisions—need? What will make them qualified? Will it be that they are thoroughly decent people who dislike certain things or like other things? We should remember that it will be incumbent on the trade union to do this under its rulebook.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is asking about the requirements of the job specification and person specification for an assurer. It seems to me that they must include the spite and vindictiveness reflected in the Government’s attitude to trade unions as seen in the Bill.

[Ian Lavery]

Although I fully agree with my hon. Friend, there are probably better ways of doing it. I fear that again I am repeating myself, but everything the assurer is supposed to do is carried out under the TULR regulations.

Blacklisting

Debate between Ian Lavery and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The debate has been well received, apart from the contribution by the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who made some disparaging remarks about a whole number of people which were totally and utterly outrageous. It is good to see that he is completely isolated. Hopefully, that will remain the case. I, for one, will not be rising to the bait. I am very proud to be a member of a number of trade unions, and to represent trade unions both in Parliament and in my constituency.

I welcome the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Business Secretary. I share his desire to end the obscene scandal of blacklisting. At Prime Minister’s questions, an issue was raised about the secrecy of the secret services and the police being involved in trade unions, blacklisting and other things. I was in a meeting this morning with representatives of the Shrewsbury pickets, who were on strike in 1972. Some were jailed and some died as a consequence, and they are still looking for justice. They have just received a letter from a Minister saying that even though it happened nearly 40 years ago, the papers relating to the case will not be released because it is a matter of national security. The individual concerned was Jim Royle—Mr Tomlinson—whose reaction to that was, “My arse!” That is a quotation from him, not from me—it is the way he is.

I merely highlight the point that there are interventions and happenings by the security services and the police with ordinary working people every day of the year. For the Secretary of State to suggest that we do not have any evidence, or that it might not be happening at this point in time, is pure poppycock. Of course it is happening. The reason why people are not rushing forward with evidence is that the evidence is not at hand. There might be people here who have been, and still are, on a blacklist, but they are not sure, so how can they come forward? The difference now is that recently, in the Scottish Affairs inquiry, a whole number of people have given evidence agreeing that not only have they been involved in blacklisting, but they have been operating blacklisting for a cost, to the detriment of thousands and thousands of people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) said that blacklisting goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. A little bit of research showed that, according to the “Henry Holt Encyclopaedia of Word and Phrase Origins”, the word “blacklist” originated with a list that England’s King Charles II made of 58 judges and court officers who sentenced his father to death. When Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, some 13 of those executioners were put to death and 25 sentenced to life imprisonment. The others escaped. Times have changed, of course, which is not to say that some Government Members, perhaps the hon. Member for Keighley, agree that people on blacklists might be beheaded in the future. I am not suggesting that that is the case, however, and I will move on.

Some 400 years have passed since we had the 17th-century monarch taking away individuals lives; now we have 21st-century employers destroying people’s lives by denying them the opportunity to earn a living.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend have any thoughts about what the punishment should be for individual directors who, through their companies, fund the organisation of blacklists? Would he suggest that they be struck off as directors and barred from holding such office?

[Ian Lavery]

That is a very important question indeed, which I will come on to, if I get that far in my speech.

The blacklisting of trade unionists is an unfair and insidious practice that involves the systematic compilation of information about individual trade unionists by their employers and recruiters in order to discriminate against them, although not just because they are members of trade unions. There are people on blacklists who are not members of trade unions, but who have merely been to their employer and exercised their rights under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said. If there is something wrong in the workplace, there is a duty under that Act to report it. As far as we are aware, people have suffered the consequences of doing that.

We are all very much aware of the information being discussed by the Scottish Affairs Committee. To be honest, I think it has been invaluable, because it has brought the issue to the forefront. For many years it has been hidden, but for the first time we now have real evidence. I believe that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham said, information will come forward after this debate for the Secretary of State to make some decisions on an inquiry. Some 3,600 files were seized by the Information Commissioner’s Office—files on politicians, academics, journalists, trade unionists and people who might just say, “Boo!” to their employers, who might not like it. There are many, many files. The Consulting Association’s blacklist, however, contained around 3,213 individuals and was used by more than 40 contractors, including most major UK construction firms, which vet individuals for employment.

A mass of information was left behind because it was not covered by any warrant. The information seized revealed that 40 of the biggest construction companies in Britain were drawn to paying money to find out who they should not employ. They included household names such as Taylor Woodrow, McAlpine, Balfour Beatty, Skandia and Carillion. To pick up the point my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) made, on its own admission, Carillion has had £2.5 billion per annum from public contracts, at the same time as placing ordinary citizens on blacklists and stopping them working. It cannot be allowed and it must be stopped as soon as practicably possible. From July to September 2008, McAlpine spent £12,839 making 5,836 blacklist checks—a total of 63 a day. That corresponded with McAlpine’s building of the Olympic stadium. How disgraceful can you get? A major company such as McAlpine penalising people for whatever, at the same time as having multi-million-pound Government contracts, is, as many people have said, absolutely insidious.

I believe we should perhaps go a little further than we have discussed today. I am obviously willing for more debate and discussion; indeed, if the Secretary of State is furnished with enough information, we should have a public inquiry into blacklisting on a par with Leveson. We need to call for those guilty of blacklisting not to be given any more public contracts until they apologise and compensate people and their families for blacklisting them. We definitely need a change in the law to make blacklisting a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and unlimited fines. That would be a deterrent for blacklisting—that is something that we should be looking at and it should be in legislation. Carillion has been named. It is important that other organisations come clean, come to the fore, step up to the plate, erase the past, look to the future and stop blacklisting people, causing mayhem and financial distress to many, many people.

My heart gans out to them people who might be listening to this debate and thinking, “I’ve not had a job for many years; I wonder if I’m on the list,” and they cannot find out whether they are. Let us deliver a real result from this debate for those people, hopefully, as has been suggested—the Secretary of State says he has an open door—with the information we can bring forward. Let us hope that this is the first of many important debates to ensure that justice is seen to be done for those on blacklists and to prevent blacklisting in the future.

Rising Cost of Transport

Debate between Ian Lavery and Ian Mearns

Wednesday 9th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate, which is extremely timely, given the news in today’s newspapers that once again the north-east is to lose out on vital rail infrastructure investment. I want to draw some important links between fares paid, the turnover of rail operating companies, the profits they make and levels of investment.

This morning, The Journal in Newcastle announced that Network Rail’s £37 billion five-year improvement programme looked set to snub a wish list of north-east track upgrades. The Secretary of State just trumpeted that 850 miles of line were to be electrified—well, not in the north-east of England, I am afraid. He also mentioned that £240 million was to be invested in the east coast main line. On the basis of current profits and the amount of money going back to the Department for Transport from the east coast main line, that is about one and a quarter years’ operating profit—so not much to be thankful for there. Rail passenger groups have warned that, although some east coast main line work will speed up connections, almost none of Network Rail’s refurbishment money will go to north-east England. Incidentally, the east coast main line is operated by Directly Operated Railways, which is owned, in turn, by the Secretary of State and the Department, so he has significant influence over the company—or certainly should have.

Lines in the region calling out for electrification, new passenger services or full-scale reopening have had their case turned down, as money has gone instead to improving services via Manchester and Leeds, as well as improving links to London. Of the £37.5 billion budget, only a pittance is earmarked for track enhancements in the north-east—mainly for the easing of the so-called pinch points between Northallerton and Ferryhill. From a north-east perspective, projects would help to boost mobility and connectivity in our region and enhance our prospects for economic growth.

This snubbing, yet again, of the north-east is particularly galling given the range of fare deals being offered to north-east customers, compared with our Scottish counterparts, by the east coast main line. We sometimes have to pay £100 more for a journey that is an hour and a half and a 100 miles less. I have no quarrel with my Scottish colleagues and their constituents getting good deals from east coast main line, but on behalf of my constituents, I have a duty to demand the same kind of deals and discounts for the travelling public in the north-east as those from which colleagues north of the border benefit.

The east coast main line is working at a significant profit and contributing those profits to the national pot.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I had a look at the fares on the internet just before we came into the Chamber. A return fare from Newcastle to King’s Cross was £301. With the minimum wage at £6.19, that means that people have to pay 48.62 hours of work at the minimum wage for one journey from Newcastle to London return. Is that fair?

[Ian Mearns]

There is an awful lot about current fare structures that is desperately unfair, particularly for people on low wages and those trying to get jobs, and particularly in a region such as the north-east, where many have to travel to get work.

As the independent report stated in September, a railway company that was temporarily renationalised by the Government three years ago reported increased profits and an improvement in passenger satisfaction. DOR, which took over the running of the east coast line from National Express, said that its operating profit increased by 7% in the year to March to £7.1 million. Turnover for the year amounted to £665.8 million—an increase of £20 million—leaving a profit before tax and service payments to the Department of £195.7 million. That was an increase of £13 million. Putting that against the £240 million proposed investment in the east coast main line makes the amount look extremely modest indeed.

I have a great deal of respect for east coast main line as a franchise. I sympathise with its staff, who often work in difficult circumstances, dealing with the failures of creaking infrastructure and worn out rolling stock and equipment, yet an awful lot of what the travelling public have to put up with on the east coast main line could be avoided through some relatively modest investment, which would be entirely affordable given its profits.

East Coast Main Line Call Centre

Debate between Ian Lavery and Ian Mearns

Thursday 19th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

It is timely that on the day Sir Roy McNulty’s report on why Britain’s railways cost more than other European railways is published, and on the day he recommends yet further fragmentation of our rail network and fails to consider seriously the benefits of reintegrating the railways under public ownership or why billions of pounds are drained from the industry in profits to the train operating companies, we have this opportunity to consider East Coast’s decision to threaten the future of 180 jobs on Tyneside by transferring an important customer service part of its operation to Mumbai in India.

As Members will be aware, the east coast main line service is wholly owned by Directly Operated Railways Ltd, trading under the name East Coast. DOR Ltd is, in turn, wholly owned by Her Majesty’s Government in the guise of the Secretary of State for Transport. I know the Minister will argue that it is not appropriate for the Government to seek to intervene in operational matters of this type that are properly for East Coast to address, but I am a little incredulous about that.

The Minister will probably argue that as the east coast main line service is owned by DOR Ltd and not the Government, the Government have no right to intervene. However, I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s statement today, during which he said: “The Government want Britain’s railways to continue to prosper and have demonstrated by their actions their commitment to them. Despite the difficult fiscal climate, we have allocated funding to complete Crossrail and Thameslink, and to support the upgrade of the London underground. We have announced electrification on the great western main line and in north-west England. We have resumed the intercity express programme to improve reliability, comfort and journey times on the east coast and Great Western main lines.” The Secretary of State therefore plainly takes credit for investment in the railways that, we hope, will improve the service, but he will probably in due course deny any responsibility for, influence over, or right to interfere in the affairs of, East Coast and its decision to close a call centre in Tyneside. The use of the term “we” in the statement followed by a list of all the actions taken proves that the Government can intervene. That leads me to raise the issue of Ministers taking the practice of using smoke and mirrors to evade responsibility to new heights.

The purpose of this debate is absolutely clear. I want to ensure that the Secretary for State cannot evade responsibility on this issue. I want to defend 180 local jobs in Tyneside, where unemployment is already well above national averages. I want to highlight the ridiculous scenario whereby a state-owned company—supported by millions of pounds of taxpayer subsidy—is pursuing a policy of exporting jobs to exploit cheaper labour market conditions abroad and throwing local people on to the dole in an unemployment black spot. I want to highlight the false economy savings for both the railway and the United Kingdom Exchequer. I want to highlight that this is simply the latest train franchise cut, in order to make it more attractive to potential bidders when it is put up for re-privatisation. Finally, I want to highlight the context of Sir Roy McNulty’s report and the east coast main line’s place in the chaotic structure of the public and privatised railways.

East Coast intends, via a re-tendering process, to move the work currently undertaken at the customer contact centre in Baron house in Newcastle upon Tyne away from the north-east to Mumbai in India, Plymouth and Wolverhampton—but mostly to Mumbai in India. The following jobs are currently performed at Baron house: customer contact centre and associated services; inquiry and booking services for telesales, group travel, assisted travel and business travel; ticket fulfilment; web support; and customer relations activities. This action will culminate in the loss of 180 jobs on Tyneside, which will be a bitter blow for the people in a region that is already reeling from the impact of this Government’s economic policy, where between 28% and 32% of the work force depend on the public sector for employment, and which is already braced for the disproportionate impact of the Government cuts, especially in local authority expenditure. The work will now be undertaken outside the north-east of England and a high proportion of it will be undertaken outside the UK, in Mumbai.

The following operations will now take place in the following locations: group and assisted travel and ticket fulfilment will go to Plymouth; public telesales will go to Mumbai; web support and ticket fulfilment will go to Wolverhampton; business travel services will cease as a telephone service and will be online only, supported in Wolverhampton; East Coast customer relations will go to Intelenet in Plymouth; delay repay, processing only, will go to Intelenet in Mumbai; and lost property will go to Plymouth.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend remember the Prime Minister suggesting, before the election, that the north-east would be hit hardest and first? Does my hon. Friend agree that this is just another case—a shining example—of an attack on decent hard-working people in the north-east and that that should not be tolerated any more?

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. Members from the north-east of England have mentioned on numerous occasions how the cuts imposed by the Department for Communities and Local Government in particular have disproportionately hit the north-east of England. Councils in our region have lost four times the measure of public finance from the central Government grant than those in the south-east outside London. The impact is disproportionate on an area that is already struggling in this economic climate.

Staff have been advised that they will lose the benefits that would normally accrue to people working in the rail industry and that their rail travel facilities will be retained only until 31 December. The transfer of work is being phased and will begin on American Independence day, 4 July, with the last shift work to be done on 23 July. Over those three weeks, the work will gradually be moved from Baron house in Newcastle.

Surely it is totally unacceptable for a state-owned company such as East Coast, supported by taxpayers’ money, to export jobs abroad.