Ian Lavery

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The complete record

2,226 lines on record for Ian Lavery, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 2 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

1. “In November 2024, I said in this House: “The infected and contaminated blood scandal is just one of far too many injustices in the UK in recent decades, in which powerful people have treated institutional reputations, career prospects and, in a number of cases, profits as being more important than working-class lives. Hillsborough, Orgreave, the postal service Horizon scandal and Grenfell all share this shameful characteristic: each one sent out a message that ordinary working-class lives do not matter. The Minister can take this opportunity to show that this Labour Government think that the lives of ordinary people matter by ensuring that the victims of contaminated blood products receive just and meaningful compensation without any further unconscionable delay.” —[ Official Report , 19 November 2024; Vol. 757, c.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “Members already, regarding matters such as adequate compensation for all classes of relatives of deceased victims, for the suffering stemming from treatments and for the periods of financial losses experienced. There are still huge difficulties with this scheme. They are feeling like they might be let down by this Government. I share their frustrations, as hon. Members can hear from the tone of my contribution today. Again I thank the Paymaster General for the fact that the Labour Government allocated £11 billion to compensate the victims, but the reality is that that compensation needs to get to those who justly deserve it.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “I am saddened that the latest iteration of the Government’s infected blood compensation scheme still falls short of what the victims and their families have been expecting. We have to question why might that be—why is this the case? The Government have had the chairman of the inquiry into this scandal, Sir Brian Langstaff, intervene to provide guidance in November 2024 and they have had months of further consultations, but still the victims and their families feel that they and their representatives have not been listened to properly. They still find that they face unacceptable provisions in the scheme, as has been explained by a number of hon.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “The Minister has afforded as many meetings as have been required—he is totally dedicated to the scheme—but the reality is that it is failing the people who are still awaiting compensation. That is the reality, despite everybody’s best efforts and despite the fact that IBCA is doing a really good job, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. I have been to IBCA and had a look at how it operates. Regardless of all the Sirs, the chairman and the chief executive, it is the staff who are so dedicated and compassionate. As it is in my area, I am not too surprised that that is the case. I pay tribute to the victims, the families, the friends, the supporters and the campaigners because without their persistence and commitment I am not sure where we would be.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “We have got to boil this down very, very simply. This has been described as the biggest tragedy the NHS has ever seen. As a result, lots of people have sadly passed on, and people are still dying on a frequent basis at a time when there are still issues in paying their compensation. People are dying as a result of contaminated blood as we sit here—they are dying on a regular basis. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who I think has done a marvellous job. But I have made the point time and again, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford)—I think I have spoken in 10 debates in the Commons on this—about the issues with this scheme.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “Surely it cannot be right that if somebody wants to transfer their support payments, basically forget about the situation and move on, they are not allowed more than four years of support payments as a lump sum.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “Finally, will the Paymaster General clarify a point about regulation 12, regarding the switching of payments? Sean Cavens, a great campaigner who has suffered greatly as a result of this tragedy, thought it was possible to switch his payments. He is asking that if an individual is on yearly support payments, which were previously guaranteed for life, they can switch it to take a lump sum payment. To clarify, Sean believed there would be an appropriate lump sum payment. However, he is 45 years of age. If he commuted his support payments to a lump sum payment, it would represent only four years of support payments. When was that changed?”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “Many are being asked for historical records that no longer exist, and the administrative burden of finding evidence and responding to IBCA is falling on already-stretched NHS teams. There are cases where centre staff, whose primary focus should be on the treatment and care of people with bleeding disorders, are working every weekend to keep on top of compensation administration. It is important to note that haemophilia care is already facing challenges. The most recent peer review found major gaps, with 93% of haemophilia centres staffed below the target standard. Compensation claim admin should be properly resourced and funded through IBCA, rather than relying on haemophilia clinicians to pick up the slack. I hope that will be accepted by the Paymaster General.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “A lot of those cases should be relatively straightforward, for example with many estate claims where probate is already in place and interim payments have been made. There is strong argument for prioritising those so families can get closure sooner. There is also a growing concern that IBCA’s test-and-learn approach is not working and is not delivering speed or fairness. Would it not be in most people’s best interests to deal with these straightforward cases rapidly so that thousands of people get closure and can move on with their lives? The haemophilia centres do fantastic work, but ongoing operational problems in the regulations are causing avoidable delays and placing additional burdens on them. Clinicians and haemophilia centres are under real pressure as a result.”

   House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “The other top priority now must be for compensation to be delivered faster. We need to focus on delivery and accountability. Too many people are still waiting, and the system is not moving fast enough. Many people are wondering how long it will take for their cases to be considered if this pace remains the same. The scheme made some initial progress, but it now feels as if it has slighted stalled. Most of the progress IBCA has made is among the most straightforward category of claims—living infected people who are already on a support scheme. We also need to see faster progress across all remaining categories of claims, including infected people who were never previously compensated, affected people and estate claims.”

    House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “This is especially stark for children and young people who took on caring responsibilities that went far beyond what would normally be expected, often at real cost to their education, wellbeing and future prospects. The supplementary compensation route should be amended to recognise both the financial and personal losses of carers, as well as recognising the additional impact caring duties have placed on children. To his credit, the Paymaster General has engaged with the community, parliamentarians and advocates. I know he will listen closely today, and I hope that there may be further changes before the next regulations are introduced. I hope that the latest proposals are not the last word and that we will ultimately have a scheme that is free from the clear inequities that I have already described.”

    House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “I am sure that hon. Members from across the House would agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiments. On the estate claims, what has just been explained cannot be right, as the right hon. Member—sorry, I am promoting the hon. Gentleman— [ Interruption. ] Sorry! The right hon. Member for New Forest East set that out. Will the Minister be able to announce a change of approach for the families who have already suffered so much, so that they are not penalised because of the date when their relative died? Carer’s contributions still are not properly recognised in the way they should be. Many family members provided unpaid care for many years, putting their lives and careers on hold, as has already been mentioned.”

    House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “They say the devil is in the detail. While we await the full details of the US-Iran agreement, does the Secretary of State agree that, had we followed the calls from Opposition Members to rush into war, it would only have prolonged the conflict and caused more financial misery to our constituents? Despite the noise and bluster, is it not the case that the only boats Opposition Members have stopped, through their cheerleading of the US aggression, are those left anchored between Iran and the Gulf states carrying oil bound for Britain?”

    House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “I have had the absolute privilege of consulting the young people in my constituency in every secondary school in Bedlington, Ashington and Blyth. There was not one who believed an outright was the appropriate action to take. They all had negative issues with social media, but they all said that the social media and tech companies should take more responsibility and be more accountable for what is being seen on their platforms. Will my right hon. Friend say what avenues there have been for young people to feed into the consultation? Can she give me a guarantee, so I can tell those young people who I have discussed this with, that their voices—they are the ones being impacted—are being listened to?”

    House of Commons15 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “They were grafters. They did not want anything other than fairness and dignity in their lives—decent wages and terms and conditions. Many of their families still live in south-east Northumberland. I want to ask the Minister tonight to commit to a posthumous pardon for these men who were so badly treated more than 100 years ago. They were William Gordon Stephenson, Robert Harbottle, Joseph Wallace, Oliver Sanderson, William Muckle, James Ellison, Arthur Wilson and Thomas Roberts. They all lived in the Cramlington area and ranged from age 21 to 29. Remember, colleagues, that they did not demand the world. These were humble individuals who only wanted dignity—”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “The Mineworkers’ Federation of Great Britain was very much unaware of this, and the eight mineworkers who were arrested were put on trial without any defence at all, while the Government had professional prosecutors. The witnesses admitted to lying to police at first, calling into question their reliability. In fact, one defendant was partially deaf and could not even hear what was going on in the courtroom. Despite that, the eight defendants were sentenced to up to eight years in a first offenders prison. They were separated and sent to Maidstone Prison, more than 300 miles away from their homes. There was an instant campaign for their release, which was partially successful. However, innocent men were jailed. Even now, a hundred years later, no apology has been given whatsoever. These people were Labour men. They were hard workers.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “The miners themselves decided that they would sabotage this blackleg truck of coal. They took a few rails from the line, and the train skewed off it. There is a great play, by the way, called “The Cramlington Train Wreckers”, produced by a chap called Ed Waugh, who is from the north-east. If anybody gets the opportunity to see the play, they should do so. The situation was untenable. There were desperate consequences. The Government, looking for answers, launched an investigation that swiftly escalated into what can only be described as a witch hunt. On the night of 5 June 1926, miners were unceremoniously dragged out of their beds and homes and arrested.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “I represented the people who derailed the Flying Scotsman because they were part of my union, the Mineworkers’ Federation of Great Britain. I was proud to be the general secretary of the Northumberland area of the National Union of Mineworkers, and I was proud to be the president of that union. These are my people. We have to remember these people. I will mention their names shortly. On 10 May 1926, the miners at Cramlington accidentally derailed the Flying Scotsman, a coal train that they believed was being powered by blackleg labour. The crash resulted in only one minor injury, some spilt milk churns and a goods van was damaged, but it became national news. Warnings, including the waving of a red handkerchief, were given, but the inexperienced crew were unable to respond. The train was actually able to slow down.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “What is interesting is that King George V said: “Try living on their wages before you judge them.” I am not a monarchist—the House knows that I am not—but it is very interesting that the King was actually supporting the miners at that point in time. While the great strike itself lasted just over a week, miners stayed out for months. In the north-east, Chopwell miners in Gateshead were famously locked out for 17 months. In rural Northumberland, in the forgotten community of Plashetts—now below the Kielder reservoir —the miners lasted for months and months longer. I want to refer to a key moment in my area, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth (Emma Foody) has also mentioned. It was in her constituency; I can see it from my bedroom window.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “What did the Government do in 1926? They prepared. They set up an organisation for the maintenance of supplies, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield. They recruited hundreds, if not thousands, of special constables, and ensured that there were months of coal reserves available. The Government were ready to take on the miners. What the press and the Government said—which was what the TUC and the Labour party were frightened of—was that they were revolutionary miners, but those miners were fighting not even for decent wages, but to maintain what they had and to ensure that the coal owners paid people correctly.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “That might have been partially true, but the real reason for the 1926 dispute was that miners, working seven days a week, had money taken off them—up to 50%—and there was a further attempt to reduce their wages by 13.5%. The rich coal owners used global issues to sustain their profits on the backs of the hard-working miners. It was not for lack of negotiations; plenty of negotiations went on at national level with the TUC and the Government, but they failed. The Government had prepared well. It was similar in many ways to the dispute of 1984-85, of which I am apparently a veteran, because I was on strike for the whole duration of the dispute, as were my family and friends. When you get classed as a veteran, you really understand how old you are getting. It is not just the grey hair; it is the sore knees and the bad fingers—all of it.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “That is the crux of the 1926 dispute. We have to think about and remember the conditions of the miners. The conditions were atrocious and poverty was rife. We then had, after the first world war, the mine owners reducing the wages of the miners by almost 50% because of what was happening globally with coal trading. The owners wanted to maintain their huge profits, and the only way they could do that was by taking it off the miners, who could not actually feed their kids. That was what the strike was about. People say the strike was about the Labour party—the party I have been a member of for more than 40 years —but history shows that it was really about the Government worrying about the miners; that they were revolutionaries who wanted to change the Government.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “I declare an interest, as I spent most of my life—31 years—in the coal industry before I became a Member of Parliament. I believe I am the only coalminer in the Commons who worked under the North sea. In this place, we had 70 to 80 miners representing the Labour party at one time—it is strange how things change. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) on securing this debate and the eloquent way he presented a fantastic contribution. It is important that in this place we recognise that it has been 100 years since the famous general strike of 1926. People have different views on what it was about—they really have—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) said, the issue can be summed up in one sentence: “Not a penny off the day, not a minute on the day”.”

    House of Commons3 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “I ask the Minister for a co-ordinated, multi-pillar national strategy, which would include the consideration of a ban on high-silica engineered stone, strengthened enforcement of existing regulations, improved surveillance and mandatory reporting, national education initiatives, and long-term support and compensation pathways for affected workers. As the hon. Member for Eastleigh said, there is also a need for cross-party and cross-Government leadership on this issue. In concluding, I associate myself with The i Paper “Killer Kitchens” campaign, led by journalist Joe Duggan, and I urge everyone to join that campaign. It is extremely important in highlighting the dangers of dry cutting quartz kitchen worktops. Minister, we cannot have people dying so that people can have nice worktops. I will conclude with that.”

    House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “The current legislation—the control of substances hazardous to health regulations—is not being enforced effectively, leaving workers exposed. Engineered stone that has extremely high silica content, sometimes of more than 90%, has been identified as the primary driver of new cases. Surveillance and reporting systems are fragmented, leading to underdiagnosis and under-reporting. I think the hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned the recommendation of a national strategy including stronger enforcement, improved surveillance, mandatory training, and potentially the prohibition of high-silica engineered stone. What action is needed?”

    House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “The highest-risk groups include engineered stone fabricators and installers, construction and demolition workers, those involved in quarrying, mining and tunnelling, and foundry workers. Younger workers are disproportionately represented in new cases. Migrant workers and workers in precarious employment also face heightened risk due to poor protections. Silicosis is preventable, but only if we actually act. Engineered stone is the new asbestos, and we are repeating the same mistakes. Young workers are being exposed to lethal dust for the sake of kitchen worktops. If we wait, we will be paying for this, in people’s lives and in compensation, for decades. We have to ask: should anybody lose their life for kitchen worktops? That is the basics of it. Silicosis cases are rising, especially among workers cutting engineered stone.”

    House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this timely debate on a really serious issue, and on making a very strong speech. This debate is on silica dust in the workplace, which causes the deadly disease silicosis. What is silicosis? It is a progressive, incurable lung disease caused by inhaling respirable crystalline silica. It leads to scarring, reduced lung capacity, respiratory failure and increased risk of infection. Accelerated silicosis develops after only a few years of high exposure, and is increasingly common among individuals using engineered stone. Silicosis carries significant social and economic consequences for all affected workers and, of course, their families. Who is affected by silicosis?”

    House of Commons2 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “I thank my right hon. Friend for the sterling work he has done on this scandal. As mentioned by those on the Opposition Benches, there are still real issues that need to be worked on. The infected blood community have huge concerns about the stringent evidence required for severe psychological harm compensation. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that IBCA is permissive, flexible and compassionate when setting the special category mechanism criteria for psychological harm and, at the same time, when assessing the claims?”

    House of Commons23 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “Changes to Northumberland county council’s council tax support scheme have left some low-income residents in my constituency facing unaffordable increases, some of nearly £100 per month. Those impacted are the most vulnerable in our communities. Can the Leader of the House imagine what it is like, when they are already struggling to survive through the cost of living crisis, to be lumped with paying an extra £100 per month? That is pressure, Mr Speaker. Can we have a debate on the impact that local authorities can have, both positively and negatively, on the financial wellbeing of our constituents and their constituents?”

    House of Commons23 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “If, on paper, somebody hired to work can choose somebody else to do that work for them, the so-called substitution clause means that that individual will legally be given self-employed status and have no employment rights whatsoever. It is often hard to prove the false nature of the written clause, but in reality, it is well known that no one in the firm would dare to rely on these clauses for, say, an extra day off.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “We understand the problems that brings: they have no job security and can be dismissed without notice, they are not entitled to redundancy pay, and some employers employ a pool of workers who work besides those with employee status, so that there can be mass redundancies and avoid statutory consultations and legal obligations to discuss alternative employment with those affected—they can freely choose those with worker status. Workers can be wrongly classified as being self-employed—the well-known bogus self-employed—a tactic used to avoid national insurance contributions, stakeholder pension contributions and so on. It is sometimes hard to spot because of legal complexities.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “Cheap labour has been a major cause of a lack of investment in capital and in research and development, resulting in poor productivity growth. It is hard for workers to achieve union recognition as they are without unfair dismissal protection, leading to even weaker union density in key industries—again, a key goal of the Conservatives throughout their history. I would like to share some of the difficulties suffered by individuals employed as workers. Many have been on zero-hours contracts and do not know what money they will earn each month.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “Under those Acts, a worker is said to have a more casual, less structured work pattern—for example, zero-hours contracts. They are usually required to do the work themselves, and cannot ask somebody else to cover for them. They technically do not have to make themselves available to work, but in reality the fear of no further hours being offered if they turn down a request that they work has made this a legal fiction in many cases. Look at the economic effects of the widespread employment of those legally characterised as workers. It is blatantly obvious that good, long-term jobs have been replaced by low-paid, minimum wage jobs. Many of those who have been forced to work in the large casual work sector require benefits to survive. Employers’ profits are being subsidised by everybody in this room—by the taxpayer.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “That is worth recognising at the outset. They reckon that Thatcher’s greatest achievement was not Tony Blair, as she once declared; her most profound legacy was the gig economy. The widespread acceptance of insecure, casual employment is one of the cornerstones of the UK economy. What an absolute disaster. The gig economy was given legal underpinning by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, which defined the two levels of employment status: the employee, with full legal and contractual rights, and the worker, who enjoyed only minimal legal protections. The exploitative use of casual labour was basically given legal legitimacy. That was a crime against ordinary working people.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Mr Efford. I refer to my declaration of interests on my trade union membership and trade union support in the general election. The Conservative ethos of unhindered market determination meant that historical antagonism to the trade unions, which are seen as an unholy impediment to the favoured goal of a flexible labour market, intensified as the Tories continued to try to curtail their power. It became the common theme of Governments here and elsewhere—up until, of course, the election of the Labour Government in 2024. The market had to be what determined the wages and conditions of ordinary working individuals, not collective bargaining or negotiations with unions. Management would be totally free to pay what the individual worker is worth.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “Under Lord Hendy’s Bill, a person would be deemed to be self-employed only if there was clear evidence that he or she was genuinely operating a business on his or her own account. Evidence such as business accounts, advertising and the number of clients or customers would be needed to prove true engagement for services by a self-employed person. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for bringing this timely debate to the House. I also thank the Minister for her sterling work on the employment Bill. It was an excellent Bill. It could be a lot better; it could be a lot stronger—to be honest, we need an employment Bill 2.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “There must be a renewed push for the full implementation of Labour’s manifesto commitment to merge the employed and worker tiers into one single legal category of employee with full legal employment rights. We need an end to the bogus self-employment tactics that unscrupulous employers deploy. The law should not recognise the legitimacy of any substitution clause. The best means of achieving a clear distinction between a new employee with single status and those who are actually self-employed is to use the formula proposed in Lord Hendy’s single status Bill of 2023-24, which was introduced in the Lords. That would not only merge employees and workers into a single status of employee; legal employment rights would also end the bogus self-employment tactics that employers use to deny people the higher employee status.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “I fully agree with the sentiments outlined by my hon. Friend. I will move on to a summary of the legal rights denied to people classified as workers under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996: protection against unfair dismissal after six months; the right to guaranteed hours; the right to maternity pay; the right to paternity leave; protection against unfair redundancy selection; the right to redundancy pay; access to statutory union recognition procedures; and the ability to request family-friendly flexible hours. Those are the rights that are being denied to workers at this moment in time. What are we really asking for?”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “I am sure the Minister will respond to that question. I want to say a huge thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) for the sterling work that he has done. A lot more work needs to be done, but working people in this country are a lot better off now since the election of the Labour Government in 2024 than they ever were before. The Employment Rights Act transforms the lives of ordinary working people, but we must work at it and it must go a lot further. This debate is about the differences between an employee and a worker, and we must change that as rapidly as possible.”

    House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

40. “The infected blood inquiry recommended action to protect the safety of haemophilia care, but there is mounting concern among clinicians and patients alike that recommendation 9 is not being implemented. Will the Minister meet me and members of the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood to discuss these real concerns?”

    House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

41. “Last week, I met the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which informed me of increased levels of violence, abuse and intimidation in shops and the retail industry. That includes violence and spitting in people’s faces—horrible crimes. Will my hon. Friend say what measures the Government are taking to protect those mainly lower-paid workers in the workplace?”

    House of Commons23 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

42. “T4. Northumbria police have announced that they had to close the custody suite in Bedlington in my constituency. That means that anybody arrested in south-east Northumberland will have to travel to the city of Newcastle for a custody suite. That will ultimately reduce frontline policing in the already stretched community of Blyth and Ashington. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this unacceptable situation?”

    House of Commons23 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “Please, Minister, investigate that allegation, because if it is true, it needs to be dealt with. We have lots of issues in my constituency, including to do with the democratic process. We had an election in which 73 votes came after the close of poll. We have disabled people suffering and potentially being evicted from their properties. We have people with speeding fines who normally would get their wrist slapped facing court judgments. We have medical appointments being cancelled. We have a whole array of difficulties. This is deliberate sabotage by Royal Mail—that is my view. The answer is to ensure that the Government renationalise Royal Mail. It is a treasured service in this country.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “I want to put on the record my sincere thanks to the posties in my patch. The Blyth and Ashington sorting offices have been absolutely brilliant. This issue has been raised before, and we are raising it again today. The people at the pick point—the people on the factory floor and the people in the sorting offices—have a different story to tell from the directors of Royal Mail, and it is up to us to decide who is telling the truth here. We have seen horrendous issues, certainly in my constituency. If the Minister takes one thing away from this debate, I plead with him to have a look at the allegations by people in the sorting offices about management receiving bonuses to ensure that the universal service obligation is not adhered to and to prioritise parcels over letters.”

    House of Commons18 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “Silicosis is a particularly nasty, debilitating respiratory disease. Alarmingly, it is on the increase in the UK, predominantly in young people between the ages of 20 and 30, so we really need to look at it. It is a preventable disease. The reason it is escalating is the increase in dry cutting of engineered stone. May we have a debate in Government time on how the Government can intervene to prevent this debilitating disease from becoming the next national tragedy like asbestos?”

    House of Commons12 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “The Government can and must take steps to maintain this critical national service.”

    House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “(Urgent Question): To ask what assessment the Minister has made of the impact of Royal Mail’s failure to meet its universal service obligation on service users’ wellbeing and on the company’s recent decision making, which has contributed to this situation.”

    House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “Royal Mail’s recent letter to the Business and Trade Committee denies operating a parcels-first policy, contradicting repeated internal testimony. It flies in the face of local evidence from the workforce. The letter also reiterates calls for USO reform, reflecting a long-running corporate direction. Over the past few years postal workers—key public servants, who were heroes during covid—have seen their terms and conditions eroded to the point that some can no longer buy additional holiday because doing so would take their pay below the minimum wage. The Government need to take serious action against Royal Mail. Is it not an option to bring Royal Mail back under public control? This is approaching a situation where one of our constituents will lose their home, their health or their life through these persistent failures.”

    House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but this goes beyond the delay of a few inconsequential letters. It is not simply a case of receiving post; it is about that being timely and about sending post as well. In my constituency, these failures have led to people missing medical appointments and having financial issues, and to the hindering of democratic participation. One of my constituents missed urgent medical correspondence, turning a routine appointment into a potentially life-threatening emergency. It is not acceptable. This is happening up and down the country in every single constituency. Allegations from within Royal Mail suggest that these failures may be intentional, designed to pressure the Government into weakening or removing the USO requirements.”

    House of Commons11 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “The general public need to be on board with this or it will be a complete and utter failure. When it comes to the most deprived and those who lack the technological abilities to access these systems, what is my right hon. Friend going to do to make sure he can bring people onside, so that this scheme can be a success?”

    House of Commons10 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →