Ian Lavery MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 27 Oct 2025 · Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that kinship carers, people who adopt children and foster carers should be included in any review? We can give those people—the heroes of our communities—as much time off as we want, but they need some financial stability during that period, and the £4.99 that he mentioned before quite simply is not enough.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that it is absolutely essential that lawbreakers and bad employers are not allowed to price in any breaking of the law to the detriment of people in the workplace?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Trade Union Workplace Access · Hansard source

  More

  I hugely thank my hon. Friend for the work, effort and determination that he put into seeing the Employment Rights Bill through the Commons—absolutely outstanding work. On access to the workplace, does he agree that any individual who wants to speak to a trade union or union representative in the workplace, or perhaps even digitally, should have the opportunity to do so, and that it is only bad employers who have something to fear?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Public-private Partnerships · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State on his actions in trying to repair our cherished NHS following 14 years of Tory destruction? We must learn from past mistakes. The private finance initiative was a huge, expensive mistake—an absolute disaster—with £80 billion repaid for an investment of £13 billion. Will the Minister reassure the House that the lessons of PFI have been well learned, and that they are well and truly in the past and in the dustbin?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Public-private Partnerships · Hansard source

  More

  12. What steps he is taking to ensure that frontline NHS services are supported following the potential introduction of new public-private partnership contracts.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation · Hansard source

  More

  6. If she will have discussions with the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation on its role in supporting coalmining communities.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation · Hansard source

  More

  The Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation dates back to the 1920s. Its main function then and its main function now is to support the mining communities, but sadly many mining MPs are witnessing exactly the opposite. The chief executive officer’s rigid enforcement of decades-old covenants and dogged intransigence is working against our mining communities. In my patch of Blyth and Ashington, the eviction of the Bedlington Terriers from a ground they have played on for more than 50 years is a prime example. The trustees believe themselves to be untouchable and have tret the coalfield MPs with the utmost contempt. Will the Minister agree to meet me and the chair of the coalfield group to discuss how together we can reverse the current mindset of the CISWO trustees and reflect the real needs of the people in our mining communities?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is great news that QTS is investing £10 billion in a state-of-the-art data centre in Cambois in my constituency, because artificial intelligence will undoubtedly shape the economy, society and workplaces for decades to come. It is also very exciting that the Government have announced that my constituency will be part of an AI growth zone. I will be holding an AI national conference in Northumberland early next year to share our views and unite our voices, hoping to shape a fair future for all, and I have invited the Secretary of State to attend. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary to bring along businesses, involve trade unions and involve leaders of the community and residents themselves? With that in mind, will he agree to a debate in which we can discuss what AI actually means for the future of constituencies like Blyth and Ashington, and how working people will not be left behind?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  Some 122,000 people have signed the petition, many of them from my constituency of Blyth and Ashington. I have met the teachers, the educators, the authorities, the parents and the schools. The default position, rather than assisting and supporting the individuals involved and the families who are in most need, appears to be putting as many barriers in their way as practicably possible. Does my hon. Friend share those views? Is that something that she has recognised in her discussions?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  You haven’t understood my point.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I simply mean that if there is a threshold of 50% and it is not met, are those who did not participate in the ballot classed as “no” votes? Is that correct? It is pretty simple.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support of the trade unions. On the thresholds, does my hon. Friend agree that those who choose to abstain should be counted as “no” votes?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Duty of Candour for Public Authorities and Legal Representation for Bereaved Families · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) for his contribution. The issue here, really, is class. When we look at what happened at Hillsborough, what happened at Orgreave, what has happened with contaminated blood, what happened with the nuclear veterans, what happened with Windrush and what has happened at Grenfell, who suffered? Working-class people—that is the common denominator. As soon as people uncover it, and the establishment are questioned, they circle the wagons of injustice and discredit everybody other than themselves to try to protect the establishment. This cannot continue—I really mean that. The default position of the powerful—the establishment—is to attack the powerless. We had 72 people killed at Grenfell, we had 97 people killed at Hillsborough, people with contaminated blood are dying weekly, and we have other issues such as Orgreave. Still we have not sorted these issues out. It is an absolute disgrace from a Government that have promised so much—a Government that I am proud to be a Member of Parliament for. It is reputations versus truth and accountability—that is where we are at this moment in time. It cannot continue. We have to get to the truth. The Prime Minister this week said “delivery, delivery, delivery”. He needs to make sure that we deliver on a proper, full Hillsborough law, which was written a number of years ago and accepted by all. We cannot let down the people in Liverpool, or any of the other people I have mentioned. We cannot let people down. We have to get to the bottom of the truth. I have a question, by the way—in seven seconds. Why do we need a law for a duty of candour—for people to tell the truth? What on earth is this about?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Infected Blood Inquiry: Additional Report · Hansard source

  More

  The very fact that Sir Brian Langstaff reopened the scheme for the additional report bears testimony to the fact that there is something sadly wrong with the initial scheme. I am wondering whether the infected blood victims will be warmly welcoming my right hon. Friend’s statement, or whether they will be a bit apprehensive, frustrated or disappointed because the Government have said that they will accept, at this point, only seven of the nine recommendations. Only 460 victims have settled to date, but many others have sadly passed on. Can my right hon. Friend clarify what will happen to those waiting to start their claim? They are the Tuesday night lottery club—they have been waiting for months for a phone call to tell them that they will get an invitation to apply for compensation. Will new invites be put on hold while IBCA revisits the settled claims? Is it still a priority to start all living infected claims by the end of the year?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is my hon. Friend aware that 25% of those claiming the health element of universal credit used a food bank last year, or that a third of those who claim it could not afford to heat their homes last year?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am a great believer in a wealth tax, rather than taking money from disabled people—simple as, bottom line. What would a wealth tax look like, as far as the Green party is concerned?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend mentions that Conservative Minister, and Tory Members basically wrote the vast majority of this Bill, but then they decided to vote against it. I am confused about that, but could she explain to me why they think this is a socialist Bill and that football is being nationalised? I think it is absolutely ridiculous.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Neurodegenerative disease is a real concern of many people in the sport. I am not sure whether it should be part of the governance Bill, despite the fact that it is going to be the biggest socialist nationalised Bill there has ever been in our lifetime. [ Laughter. ] It is a very serious issue, though. Does my hon. Friend agree that it needs to be looked at, and can she assure me that the Government will do so separately to the Bill, because of the urgency and the fact that people up and down this country at different levels of football are suffering greatly, mainly as a result of heading the ball?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say that I am absolutely amazed at what has happened, even just this afternoon. Like many people in this place, I have been totally ignored when saying anything about this Bill. The Bill was published a few months ago and very little consultation, if any, has taken place. I have been here nearly 15 years and have never once seen a massive commitment given about a Bill like the one my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability has just made in an intervention. This is crazy, man! This is outrageous! The Bill is not fit for purpose. If we looked at the 16 pages that make up the Bill and I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister to rip out the ones that have changed, there would be only two pages left. Withdraw the Bill! With the commitments given from the Front Bench, we are really not that far from some sort of satisfactory Bill that everybody would get behind. If we had had another hour or two, we could have voted on something that we would all have agreed with, instead of this hotchpotch of a Bill that means nothing to nobody. I might seem terribly cross, and that is because I am. That is because we are discussing the lives of millions of disabled people who live in our constituencies. Not one of them voted for their representative, regardless of the party, to reduce the PIP payment or any payments received by disabled people. We also have to remember that this is not just about disabled people. It is about people who are sick, who are ill—people who one day were absolutely fine and the next day, possibly because of an industrial accident or some sort of illness, lost their capacity to earn any money. The Bill as it stood—the Bill as it still stands, I should say—means that there would be a two-tier system. It does not do any good to try to argue the cheat in this House that there would not be a two-tier system. Somebody with a condition is paid money and given support to a level on one day and then the next day, because of a date on a calendar, the support for someone else is less. I am happy to give way to anyone who can tell me how that is not a two-tier system and how that is not unfair. Come November next year, if the Bill continues as it is, people who might have paid their tax and national insurance for many years and who are currently not ill or poorly and who do not have a serious condition could fall into that bracket the day after the introduction of this legislation. That cannot be fair, man—it just is not fair. I am speaking here among good colleagues. I think everybody has had a rough time over the past few weeks and we want to see a resolution. We understand that there is huge expense involved and we understand the black hole that we found when we got into power, but people did not vote for the Labour party’s change to be a change for the worse. They really had some faith in the Labour party. I still have a little bit of faith left, but it is draining out of us and it is draining out of my constituents. We need to restore that faith and make sure that people really understand what change we mean and what we meant at the time of the election. I say to the Minister: we need to look after people. We need to look after not just the sick and the disabled, but everyone else in this country. That is what change means.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support from trade unions. This week we have heard extremely disturbing news that Northumbria police have destroyed all documents relating to the miners’ strike, including on Orgreave. That is absolutely alarming. The Labour Government have pledged an inquiry or investigation into the strikes, yet the wanton destruction of that vital, critical evidence has been allowed to happen. Is this a sinister attempt to obscure justice? I am not sure that anybody is prepared to answer that question. Who gave the police permission to destroy these documents, and what is behind it? Can we have an urgent debate into how the Government can instruct all police forces and all authorities—everyone that holds any detail on the miners’ strike and Orgreave—to retain that evidence for when the Labour Government maintain their pledge and hold an inquiry into the events of 1984? Justice cannot be served if evidence is systematically and deliberately destroyed.

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a former miner and a current member of the National Union of Mineworkers. Yesterday was the 41st anniversary of the Orgreave event. Page 73 of the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto pledged an inquiry or investigation into what actually happened at Orgreave 41 years ago. I praise the Home Secretary for the consultation that she has had with the NUM, the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, lawyers and the Bishop of Sheffield, among many others, but can we please have a debate in Government time to try to push on with that pledge? People are getting older, and some are suffering from bad health. Can we please have a debate to discuss this very important issue?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the Asbestos Victims Support Group’s case against Cape plc, the producer of asbestos, and the claim for £10 million for research and development. If so, does the Minister support the claim?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  Can my right hon. Friend say if there are any records of the children who were in the same working environment as a lot of the teachers who, sadly, have passed on? Is it the duty of the inspectorate or a responsibility of a Department to hold records of the children in that working environment who might wait 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years before a little tick of asbestos dust triggers mesothelioma?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings · Hansard source

  More

  I place on record my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the sterling work that he has done with regard to mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease in the past, but what has been mentioned is not working. We need the same as in other parts of this nation, where there has been a programme of statutory removal, but we are not doing that here in England. I wonder if my right hon. Friend can say why we are different from other nations of the UK.