Social Security and Pensions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

No, I will make some progress. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will chunter later, and I will look forward to that.

Since the start of the pandemic, the Government have assisted the country, its people and its businesses with more than £400 billion in support. Since 2011, the Secretary of State has used the consumer prices index for the year to September as the measure for price inflation in her annual statutory review of benefit rates. The Bank of England forecasts that CPI will reach 7% in spring, before falling to 5.2% in quarter 1 next year and returning to a more historically normal level of 2.1% by the beginning of 2024. CPI will be the measure used in the Secretary of State’s application of the triple lock, which will mean that the new and basic state pensions increase by the highest of earnings growth in the year to May and July 2022, CPI in the year to September 2022 or 2.5%.

Using the same period for CPI each year—I think this is the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) was making, and I am keen to get to his point—means that the peaks and troughs are evened out over time. Around half the time, CPI in the year to April is lower than it is in the year to the preceding September, and around half the time it is higher, so there is a smoothing effect. I understand the point that he makes.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

The Minister is making an interesting point. He talks about peaks and troughs and smoothing, but inflation is going in only one direction. At the end of this process, will people who are dependent on benefits be worse off or better off? It looks to me as though they are going to have a tough time on top of an already tough time.

[David Rutley]

We recognise that these are challenging times, and that is why, as I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Chancellor set out last week what we are doing to support vulnerable people with the rising costs of energy. We are taking steps to recognise and lean into the peaks in the inflationary pressures that we are seeing not just in the UK, but globally. We recognise the impact that global increases in energy prices are having on household finances. As the Chancellor announced recently, from 1 April the energy price cap will rise from £1,277 to £1,971—an increase of almost £700 in energy bills for the average household. We are introducing crucial and timely measures to help with the increased costs, as part of a comprehensive package of support worth £9.1 billion in 2022-23.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) who, unlike most of his colleagues, makes quite a thoughtful contribution that is perhaps just slightly more in touch with what is happening on the ground in our constituencies.

Not to diverge from that moment of conciliation, I too pay tribute to our work coaches, as the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck)—and the Minister did. I am looking forward to yet another visit to Shettleston jobcentre in my constituency—I actually used to have more jobcentres in my constituency, but the UK Government in their infinite wisdom decided to shut three out of four jobcentres in Glasgow a few years ago. Although I have massive ideological differences with the Department for Work and Pensions, I have nothing but respect for the work coaches at the jobcentres, who do a phenomenal job, albeit implementing policy from Whitehall with which I profoundly disagree.

If a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, it is fair to say that our social security safety net is our society’s weakest link. We are debating the annual uprating orders against the unique backdrop of an ever-worsening cost of living crisis, with the very poorest in our constituencies consistently left behind by a Tory Government who are not focused on doing their day job. The cost of living crisis comes on the back of universal credit being slashed by £20 a week, which was the single biggest cut to social security since the formation of the modern welfare state. Those of us who do not sit in Caxton House’s ivory towers can see that millions of our fellow citizens are facing real hardship right now. The British Government must urgently reverse their universal credit cut and instead introduce an emergency package to support families and boost incomes.

Our economy has not recovered to where it was pre pandemic, yet we have soaring inflation on a scale not seen for decades, which shows no sign of going away any time soon. Consumer prices were 5.4% higher in December 2021 than they were a year before—the highest inflation rate in almost 30 years. In mid-December the Bank of England forecast that the CPI inflation rate would remain at around 5% over winter, before rising to 6% in April 2022. However, based on last week’s forecasts from the Bank of England, we can now safely expect inflation to rise to over 7% in just a couple of months. The rise in CPI inflation coincides with the perfect storm of a significant rise in energy bills, by 54%, to an average of £1,971 from April. Then we have to add to the mix the Tories’ regressive and deeply unpopular national insurance hike, which will clobber the very youngest and the lowest earners in the country.

It is not just the Opposition, and indeed the SNP, that are raising the alarm about the cost of living crisis. New analysis from Citizens Advice Scotland found that an estimated 640,000 people—around one and seven—are finding their household energy bills unaffordable due to low incomes, with the figure set to increase due to the energy price hike. Yes, I acknowledge that the autumn Budget made some modest adjustments to the taper rate for universal credit, but only for those who are in work. For context, that actually impacts only four in every 10 universal credit claimants.

Analysis from the House of Commons Library shows that over 340,000 households in Scotland are directly affected by the £20 a week cut to universal credit, with incomes slashed by £1,040 per year. To help the Minister understand, that is £1,040 a year less for people to spend in our communities on gas, electricity and the weekly food shop. I can tell the Minister that my low-income constituents in Parkhead, as I suspect is also the case for his in Macclesfield, will not be finding that extra £1,000 in their savings, because many of our constituents live month to month and hand to mouth. Instead, the Minister’s constituents, like mine, will be going without food or heat just to try to keep their heads above water this winter. That is why charities such as the respected Trussell Trust, whose food banks are in increased demand, want the Government to reinstate that £20 cut from universal credit. They want to stop families “spiralling into destitution” with steeply rising costs for heating and food.

Besides reversing cuts to universal credit, the British Government must urgently deliver a financial package to help families by delivering a low-income energy payment, matching the Scottish child payment UK-wide, introducing a real living wage and increasing statutory sick pay in line with a real living wage.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent contribution. Universal credit was uplifted in response to the covid crisis. The situation for the poorest in our society has not improved over this period, and in fact, going into this cost of living crisis, it is getting worse and worse. Does he therefore agree that it is a completely unsustainable position to remove that £20 uplift in universal credit, and that the correct response, among the many responses, should be to restore that with immediate effect?

[David Linden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think we all welcomed the increase to universal credit at the beginning of the pandemic, but it was a clear admission by the UK Government that social security was inadequate in its current form. A lot of people were plunged into using universal credit, perhaps for the first time, and it was their only interaction with the social security system. Lo and behold, many of those people using the social security system for the first time ever realised that a lot of the stereotypes and nonsense that comes out of Whitehall about a life on benefits somehow being luxurious and about lying around watching “The Jeremy Kyle Show” were not actually the case, and that the social security system was so poor. It is only a suspicion of mine, but I think that is why Ministers at the time decided to put that £20 in place. I say to the hon. Gentleman and the Minister that if the Government could concede in March 2020 that universal credit was inadequate, surely they have to understand that it is inadequate now.

The other point that I am sure the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) would have made is that the uplift was not extended to those on legacy benefits. People in receipt of legacy benefits had increased costs as a result of the pandemic and having a disability. Some 2.5 million people in these islands were denied that £20 uplift by the Government. That is subject to action in the High Court, and the Government would have done well to realise that they should not have had to be taken to a legal court on that, and that the policy was morally wrong in the court of public opinion.

The orders before the House do not do any of the things I have suggested need to be done in reforming social security, and it cannot always be left to the devolved Governments of these islands to try to alleviate bad social security policy from a heartless and callous Westminster Government for which Scotland did not vote. Indeed, we have not voted for a Conservative Government since the 1950s. While the SNP is doubling the Scottish child payment in April, the Tories at Westminster have cut £20 a week in universal credit from some of the very same families, knowingly pushing thousands of families into poverty.

Scotland’s SNP Government are already spending £71 million to mitigate in full the bedroom tax and an additional £10.9 million to mitigate other welfare cuts, including the benefit cap and changes to local housing allowance rates. As the former UN special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Philip Alston, pointed out,

“mitigation comes at a price and is not sustainable.”

I guess the question I would pose not just to the Government, but to all parties in the House, is this: is the sum total of their ambition for devolution simply to be a sticking plaster for Westminster’s ever-weakening social security net?

Far too many households have been left behind and will not benefit from this uprating, because the Tories are refusing to fix known policy failures. It is not just universal credit that needs fixing. When it comes to the benefit cap, thousands of households have seen their incomes hit hard because the Government have refused to extend the grace period that gives claimants nine months’ exemption from the benefit cap. As the Poverty Alliance points out, how the benefit cap is designed means that those who require the highest level of support from the benefit system are the most likely to be affected. That is simply unjust and it is having a brutal and real impact on low-income families.

Based on the DWP’s latest figures, 180,000 households have had their benefits capped, including more than 6,400 households in Scotland. The benefit cap disproportionately impacts lone-parent families—the majority of whom are women—as well as larger families and black and minority ethnic families.

While we are at it, we need to address the two-child limit and the associated rape clause. Quite simply, thousands of families with children are being pushed into poverty because the British Government refuse to scrap the two-child limit on child tax credit and universal credit. I do not know how the two-child limit and the associated rape clause ever got past the Government’s family test, but I am sure the Minister will reflect on that in his winding-up speech.

Research by the Child Poverty Action Group shows that the majority of those affected by the two-child limit are families with three children and, indeed, the majority are working families. In April last year, 1.1 million children were affected by the two-child limit—237,000 more than the previous year. That number will continue to grow, as nearly all low-income families with three or more children eventually become subject to the limit.

The five-week wait for the first payment is also needlessly pushing people into hardship. That could be easily fixed by implementing our proposal to turn advance payment loans into non-repayable grants after the claimant is deemed eligible.

I will turn to sanctions, because far too many households face destitution because DWP rules push them into debt through sanctions and deductions. The Minister will recall that last week I tagged him in a tweet about the fact that it took his Department 151 days to reply to my letter about a constituency case. If the DWP can sanction my constituents for failure to attend a jobcentre or for turning up late, I wonder whether we would do well to sanction the Minister for not keeping up with his correspondence pile or for failing to reply to Members of this House. I am reminded of the old saying that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

The SNP has long called for the UK Government to fix these utterly fundamental flaws in the UK’s social security system. We need to deliver a system that actively tackles poverty and inequality, and that empowers people. Put bluntly, Scotland’s Government, though they wish to, cannot change these policies, as 85% of welfare expenditure and income replacement benefits remain reserved to this place and to UK Ministers. That includes universal credit, which is a reserved benefit.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) will touch on the pensions aspects of the orders, so I will draw my remarks to a close with what is becoming an annual comment from me on uprating. The Westminster austerity agenda continues to punish and to make life a misery for some of the most vulnerable people in all our constituencies. I know that the orders we are debating tonight are an annual formality for the House, but so long as Scotland remains bound to Westminster, I and my party will always speak up for the most vulnerable and make the case for a decent, robust and generous social security system. There is no escaping the fact that, until Scotland is independent, we are forced to accept the majority of social security policy from a Westminster Government we did not vote for and whose support can, at best, be described as meagre.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Mills]

No, I think the Chancellor could do that at any point and, as I said, he can make changes to the biggest benefit system quite quickly if he sees the need to.

The case that I am trying to make to the Minister is that, at times, the Government can act much faster. I accept that huge investment in IT for legacy benefits that we are phasing out may not be effective, but I would have thought that, in the modern world, with the more modern systems, we could move on from basing the April rise on the inflation position six months earlier. I hope that the Government can find a way to base the rise at least on the December measure, so it is only three months out of date. I accept that for most years that would not make much difference, and for some years it could actually mean a slightly lower rise than using the September figure, but at least that would give us the best possible protection against this awful situation. Inflation is already much higher than it was at the reference point, and it will be even higher still by the time these amounts are paid.

I fear that the position is even worse than that at which I started—that of believing that benefits are in the right place and therefore an inflationary rise is needed. I genuinely fear that many of the benefits we have are now lower than people need, so a lower than inflation rise for benefits that are already too low leaves people in an impossible position. That is why I supported retaining the £20 uplift in universal credit.

I have told the Government many times that, if they believe that all these benefits are sufficient for the standard of living that we want people to have, they should do and publish an assessment of the basket of things that people have to buy and prove they can afford to buy them all. I would then happily support them. If such an assessment showed that benefits were too high, we could have a debate, but it is incredibly unlikely that it would show that. It is overwhelmingly likely that it would show that the measures that were necessary over the last 10 years have ended up going too far and that we are not giving people enough for the decent standard of living they ought to have. If that is so, we need to fix them. I challenge the Government to publish that assessment over the next year and prove their case that benefits are okay. Let us then get the inflationary increase done right. We cannot keep having this same debate in which many of us think that benefits are not in the right place and yet we cannot prove it because that is for the Government to do and, for some reason, they do not want to.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Member is making an excellent point about the assessment that would be needed. Does he think that, in an assessment of adequacy, it would be relevant to factor in the consequences of underpayment in terms of monetising demand on other services that people go to? There is a cost to poverty and usually it is extraordinarily expensive not just for the person suffering from it but in regard to the demand on other governmental services.

[Nigel Mills]

I absolutely agree that asking people to live without enough money to heat their houses and to eat creates all manner of knock-on consequences that will inevitably end up costing the taxpayer money in the long run. It should not be a big challenge or a contentious point of debate to want to ensure that the benefits we are giving the poorest in society are enough for them to live on, so I cannot see why we would not publish periodic analysis just to check that everything is in working order.

We should remember that many millions of people cannot go and get a different job or work a few extra hours to make up the difference. They cannot work, they are retired or they are not in work—they have no chance to earn an income, so what we give them is what they get, and we need to make sure that it is sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I resent the premise of this debate. I resent the Government bringing forward an unamendable order on such a significant issue, because that leads to the conclusion, as the hon. Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) said, that if we reject the order there will be no increase whatsoever. We should not allow Parliament to be blackmailed in that way. The response is fairly straightforward: on the issue of poverty in this country, there has to come a time when this House rises up. We have heard example after example. We can all give examples from our own constituencies—the heartbreaking stories of how people are suffering at the moment. So we should not accept the Government bringing forward an unamendable order and expecting us either to go through the Lobby like sheep and vote for it, or to abstain.

[Andy McDonald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this country is facing a crisis that is being visited on the poor, and that to put this House in the position of simply having to accept it is absolutely reprehensible? We should be demanding that this order be taken away and that we get a proper settlement and a proper increase for the people most in need. Surely that is the duty of this Parliament.

[John McDonnell]

I completely concur. I understand those who say that if we vote against this tonight we will be accused of voting against an increase, but far from it—if we vote against it we will be instructing the Government to come back immediately with an alternative that meets the cost of living challenge that working people now face.

It is no good relying on statistics from seven months ago when we know the crisis that people are facing. I find it interesting that the Government can arrive at flexibility when they are saving money but not when they want to assist our constituents. I say that because I was here for the debate on the triple lock. At that time, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has pointed out, we were facing the prospect of an increase of 8% based on the triple lock linked to earnings. Actually, that was pretty damn accurate as to what people would be facing. The Government were fleet of foot. They scrapped the triple lock altogether, suspended its operation and then came forward with this.

Every Member who has spoken so far, on both sides of the House, has said that this will mean a cut in people’s living standards when faced with the prospect of a 7% rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) eloquently set out the rationale for why the Government needed to do more, but I say to him that the Government will not do more unless this House is firm in its view and rejects this order tonight. They will not come back with an emergency package unless we start kicking up a fuss on both sides of the House. That is why they have come to the House with an unamendable order. They were worried that if there was an amendable order, we could have had a majority in this House for doing something better on behalf of our constituents. I find it outrageous that they have tried to put us in this position.

The hon. Member for Amber Valley, who is no longer here, made an extremely interesting speech, as he always does. I do not usually agree with him on much, but he always presents an argument we can understand—or a rationale, anyway. His argument to the Government was that if they are trying to tell us that their social security system is meeting the needs of our people, they should publish the basket of goods, the costings and so on. Well, the Government do not do that, but others do.

Frequent reference has been made tonight to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis of poverty and of what the Government’s measures will do. The figures are startling. Over 8 million working households are in poverty, as are 2.1 million pensioners and 4.3 million of our children. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter) made the point that, in the fifth richest country in the world, we have over 4 million children living in poverty. The figure for disabled people is now 3.8 million, which has increased dramatically over the last four or five years as a result of benefit cuts.

I am not willing to sit here tonight and be blackmailed into either voting for this motion or abstaining. I want the opportunity to vote against it and to give an instruction to the Government to go away and do better: to come back with a real proposal that will increase benefits, at least so that they match inflation. After 11 years of austerity, I would expect the Government to be coming up with proposals to start making up some of the ground that has been lost over that time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said.

I will make one final point. Every time we have one of these debates, we get a Government Minister telling us how wonderful they are because they have created all these new jobs that people can go into. I met a group of unpaid carers this morning, and I said that it looked as though their allowance was going to go from 67% to 69%. Given the hours they work as unpaid carers, even if they are doing 35 hours per week—most of them do triple that at times—they will be paid something like £2 an hour for what they do. Unpaid carers save this country about £130 billion in costs that would otherwise fall on the state. They cannot get other jobs because they are looking after their relatives. They are desperately underfunded and most of them, as a result, are living in poverty. This order will do nothing for them whatsoever.

My commitment to that group of carers I met this morning means that I will not vote for this. I will vote against it, and I will demand better action from this Government. I will demand that Ministers go away and come back tomorrow with a realistic proposal that will tackle poverty in this country and lift at least some of those carers out of the hardship and suffering that they are unfortunately experiencing at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

As we explained during oral questions earlier today, we are providing a package of £58 billion in support for the disabled, and we are working incredibly hard to ensure that more of them who are able to do so can get into work. A huge package is available. We have talked about the three-part plan that the Chancellor set out last week, involving £9 billion of support to tackle the energy challenges facing people across the country, in addition to the normal support that we provide.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[David Rutley]

I will make some more progress.

The aim over the two years of the pandemic has been to give fairness to pensioners by protecting the value of the state pension in 2021-22, despite the decline in earnings, and to taxpayers in 2022-23 by suspending the earnings limb of the triple lock because of a statistical anomaly, distorted by the cumulative effects of the economic impacts of coronavirus. Although inflation rose by 0.5% last year, pensions rose by 2.5%, and this year they rose by 3.1%. Over two years, pensions have risen by 5.6%.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) made an important point about pension credit take-up. I have been speaking to my colleague the Pensions Minister, who says that take-up increased from 71% in 2017-18 to 77% in 2018-19. However, more work is clearly needed, and we are working very hard to increase awareness.

Disability Benefits Assessments

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2022 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on securing this debate.

I will raise two cases of my constituents’ Kafkaesque experiences of disability benefits assessment. Susan had a work-related accident in 2019. She had an initial operation that left her severely disabled, virtually housebound and in a great deal of pain, unable to walk or to use a wheelchair. After claiming the new-style employment and support allowance in January 2020, she had a telephone assessment in July, followed by a recommendation that she had a further face-to-face medical examination—but medicals were suspended at the time, due to the coronavirus pandemic. By the time she was called for a face-to-face medical, the 365 days of the new-style ESA had expired.

Now, after months and months of waiting to obtain a decision relating to her work capability assessment, no decision has been made—or, it seems, will ever be made —about Susan’s eligibility for the ESA support group. A great deal of medical evidence has been handed to the DWP, providing detail as to the extent of her disability, on which they could have and could still make a decision. The DWP could also use as evidence its own face-to-face medical of late 2019 for her PIP, the outcome of which was the award of the higher rate of the mobility component, as well as an award for care needs.

I have made representations to the DWP and, following my letter of May ’21 to the complaints team, I understand that the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments was asked to reassess its position, but it has still failed to provide recommendations on Susan’s eligibility. There remains no report on which the DWP could make a decision and, without a decision, she has been left in the iniquitous position of being denied the right of appeal. Ironically, she would have had the right if the support group had initially been refused. Based on the evidence, she would have been in a very good position to succeed in an appeal. I implore the Minister to intervene to resolve Susan’s claim.

The other case is that of Aaron Merharban, a 21-year-old young man who suffered from deafness, anxiety and epilepsy, from which he died on 15 June 2019. His family firmly believe that that was brought on by his earlier experiences of the inhumane assessment process, just two days before he was due to attend a medical for a personal independence payment.

Aaron had been receiving DLA for some time. He had qualified for that without any issues, but he was made to apply for PIP. His claim for PIP was refused, as was his subsequent appeal. His mother recounted to me that the treatment Aaron endured through that process—at the initial medical, and in particular at the subsequent tribunal of February 2019—traumatised him to the extent that he was absolutely terrified of going to the next medical he was called to. Understandably, his mother is convinced that that was a major factor in bringing on the seizure that caused his death. Devastatingly, Aaron died alone at his home. Had he been awarded PIP to help pay for the care that he needed, that situation might well have been avoided.

Heartbreaking cases such as those leave me utterly despairing about the way in which this Government treat our fellow citizens. The way in which a society looks after the most in need says all we need to know about it. If anything is clear about the system of disability benefits assessments, it is that it is an outright damning indictment of Tory Britain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

Understanding the needs of every community is key—[Interruption.] I hear the Secretary of State mention Suffolk Coastal. The success of our jobcentres in understanding the local economy and getting local people back into work is key. Our JCPs change lives every day. One recent success story in Clacton was a customer who recently started a kickstart job in wildlife conservation—I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is joining him there at the moment—as a result of the five-week pre-employment course at the DWP.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Disabled people require support to get back into work. Disability is defined in the Equality Act 2010 as

“a physical or mental impairment”

that

“has a substantial and long-term adverse effect”

on their

“ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.”

Of the 2 million in the UK with long covid, three in 10 have experienced symptoms lasting longer than a year, including fatigue, difficulty concentrating and shortness of breath. This is resulting in widespread disadvantage and discrimination, and is erecting barriers to employment. Will the Minister commit to recognising long covid as a disability from the point of diagnosis to ensure that workers have support and protection against discrimination in the workplace?

[Mims Davies]

We always tailor personalised support to individual circumstances. I am proud of what we have done throughout the pandemic, particularly at our JCPs, to keep them open and keep people feeling safe, and to support businesses and workers to feel safe. I recently joined a spot check at the Bootle HQ with the CEO of the Health and Safety Executive. We have done over a quarter of a million checks to make sure that people feel safe at work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Some 35% of appellants succeed in overturning erroneously imposed JSA sanctions, yet the Minister denies setting sanction targets or expectations. If that is true, how does she explain such appalling performance statistics—a 35% failure rate that masks untold misery and grinding poverty for thousands of our fellow citizens?

[Esther McVey]

I have repeatedly made it clear that there are no limits, no levels and no targets for sanctions. That is the case. We ensure that quality is correct so that people get this right. There will be quality assurance targets and measures that are put in place. The figures that the hon. Gentleman quotes are not correct. Somebody might be told that they have a doubt raised against them, and from that doubt, though they have not been sanctioned, 50% will end up never having a sanction, less than 10% will go on to reconsiderations, and much less than that will go to appeal.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) on securing the debate. I am delighted that we are joined by parliamentary colleagues from all parties who have long been doughty campaigners on this issue. I join colleagues in paying tribute to the asbestos victim support groups, which have kept us so well informed about the issues in relation to this matter. I also join colleagues in remembering the late Paul Goggins, my good friend and former parliamentary next-door neighbour. We miss Paul very much, but I think he would have been pleased to see that there has been further progress in the light of yesterday’s written ministerial statement.

It is just over a year since the Mesothelioma Act 2014 completed its parliamentary passage, and I warmly welcome the opportunity to debate what has happened since then. Although everyone recognises that it is early days still to assess the effectiveness of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme, even in its short life so far there have been a number of developments, some of which were welcome and some less so. I know that hon. Members who take a close interest in the matter appreciate the opportunity to raise issues of concern with the Minister today.

The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme is an important and welcome development in offering a measure of justice to sufferers of that terrible disease. It serves to ensure that those who contracted the illness as a result of exposure to asbestos at work, but who cannot now trace an employer or an employer’s liability insurer, can receive payment in recognition of their suffering. Initially, as we have heard, the Government set the proposed payment at 70% of average civil damages, but an increase was made to 80% when regulations to implement the scheme were introduced last year, as a result of savings that had been found in legal and administrative costs. Yesterday, we learned from the written ministerial statement that payouts are to be increased to 100% of average compensation. Of course, that is very welcome, although I echo my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton and for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) in asking the Minister why the increase cannot be backdated to those who have already received 80% payouts under the scheme or who have already been diagnosed. The Department’s press release painted a rather rosy picture of the impact of the increase, suggesting that victims would receive an additional £54,000. In fact, that amount would be paid only to those aged under 40, and so far no victims as young as that have been compensated under the scheme. The average increase will be more like £21,000, which is welcome but not quite as good.

I am also concerned that the reason for increased payments is because the take-up of the scheme has been lower than expected. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton was right to express some scepticism about the assumptions that were made when the scheme was first proposed. Take-up has been substantially below expectation. It was originally envisaged, if memory serves me correctly, that in the first year of the scheme there would be some 900 applications, but I understand that the expectation now is that there will be only 300 claims in the first year. What analysis has the Minister made of the much lower than expected take-up and the reasons for it? What discussions has he had with the oversight committee on the matter? Is he confident that the application process is working smoothly and speedily for applicants? Is he confident that the scheme has been adequately promoted? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that potential claimants are made aware of it? What evaluation of the application process is he undertaking, and, in particular, what measures is he taking to ensure that he obtains feedback from the asbestos victim support groups?

Have any claimants yet resorted to arbitration when they have been unhappy with the outcome of their claim? Is the Minister confident that the much lower figure for expected claims represents a true picture of those who could make a claim under the scheme? What profile, over time, and what volume of future claims does the Department now expect? As has been mentioned, yesterday’s written statement referred to administrative changes being made as a result of discussions with the insurance industry to ensure that the scheme remains one of last resort. Will the Minister tell us exactly what those administrative changes are, and what impact they will have on victims and their ability to access the scheme?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton has explained, the scheme is funded by a levy on current employers’ liability insurers. When the legislation proceeded through Parliament, we were told that the levy would be set at 3% of gross written premiums, because the industry could accommodate a levy at that level without having to pass the cost on to its customers via increased premiums. In addition, because it was expected that claims would peak in the first few years of the scheme, which would mean that the cost of meeting payouts could exceed the levy, we were told that the Government would make a £30 million loan and £17 million gift to the industry to smooth the cost of the scheme in the early years. Although the expectation was that 3% would prove insufficient fully to meet claims in the early years of the scheme, there were always fears that the industry might try to get away with a lower payment. That is why I tabled amendments to the legislation, in Committee and on Report, to enshrine the 3% levy rate in law. The then Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), gave assurances to the Public Bill Committee on 12 December 2013 that there was no need for such amendments, because:

“Three per cent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it”.––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013; c. 117.]

In a written statement on 28 November 2014, however, the Government announced that in the first year the levy would raise £32 million, so it was in fact set at 2.2%.

Following yesterday’s written ministerial statement, the position on the levy is somewhat opaque. I hope the Minister will clarify the situation today. First, can he confirm whether the uplift in payments to 100% is met from a levy of 2.2%, a levy of 3% or some other figure? How much is the levy now raising in cash terms? Is it still £32 million, or is it another amount? How much in cash terms are the additional and total costs of meeting payments at 100%? In a briefing to MPs in December, the Asbestos Victims Support Groups Forum UK estimated that increasing payments to 100% would cost an additional £5.5 million and that increasing the levy from 2.2% to 3% would raise an additional £11 million. With lower than expected payouts, there would be plenty of surplus cash if the levy were set at 3%, even with payments at 100%.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, at whatever level the levy is set, it is perfectly clear that there is more than enough funding available to do the right thing by those victims and families who received under-settlements at 80%? We could do the right thing by those victims and give them the full compensation at 100%.

[Kate Green]

Absolutely. Given the relatively small number of claims and the relatively small amounts involved, it is a matter of justice, and I hope the Minister will address the mood of the House this morning by giving us some assurances.

Even if 100% payouts could be afforded from a lower levy, the 3% figure is important because, in addition to funding more generous payouts, surplus cash could be put to other uses, as we have heard. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton and the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all asked about funding for research. Mesothelioma is always fatal. It is a truly terrible disease that is massively cruel to sufferers and their loved ones, who have to watch them die in the most horrific manner. There is a crying need for research into treatment of the disease, yet today research is woefully underfunded. Although the recently announced voluntary contribution to the British Lung Foundation by the insurers Aviva and Zurich over the next two years is welcome, the abundance of good research proposals, as evidenced by the written answer I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), on 7 January 2015, suggests that mesothelioma research could benefit from more funding, which would benefit the insurance industry, the public purse and, of course, victims. What steps are the Government taking to place research funding on a sustainable footing?

With claims lower than expected, and with a 3% levy, another possibility is to backdate payments under the scheme to an earlier date. Under the legislation, the cut-off date for claims is for those diagnosed after 25 July 2012 but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck pointed out, we have known about the lethal effects of asbestos for many years—indeed, since the early decades of the last century—and for many years, the industry did all it could to evade its responsibilities to victims. There will now be very few, if any, survivors who received a diagnosis before 2012, given the speed and ferocity of the disease after diagnosis. The usual prognosis is less than 12 months, and personal representatives cannot make a claim where the sufferer died before the commencement of the scheme. None the less, in a few cases there may be an opportunity for greater generosity in relation to the cut-off date, or the Government might like to rethink their position on personal representatives. Has the Minister considered the scope for earlier eligibility? What will happen if claims increase over the next few years to the extent that the levy is insufficient to meet them after all? Will payments remain at 100%?

Can the Minister confirm that the cost to the industry will never fall below 3% in any given year? Or is it his intention that the levy will not average less than 3% over the whole life of the scheme? What is happening to the Government’s £30 million loan and £17 million payment to the industry to help it meet the costs of the scheme? Given the lower than expected number of claims, will that generous Government support now be reduced or removed? We know that the industry expected the scheme to run for 30 to 40 years because of the long latency of the disease. What discussions have the Minister or his colleague, Lord Freud, who has been leading discussions with industry representatives, had about the industry’s forecasts of future costs?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck said, we would like the Minister to say something about the figure for benefits recovered by the compensation recovery unit. Under the legislation, social security benefits that have been paid to sufferers are clawed back if the sufferer makes a successful claim under the scheme. My understanding is that recoveries amounted to £8 million in the scheme’s first seven months. Does the Minister think that clawing back benefits at 100% is fair to sufferers who received less than 100% of average damages? Will he consider reducing recoveries from their benefits, at the very least, in line with the proportion of average damages that they actually received?

On other matters, what progress has there been on addressing the difficulty we ran into with the approach of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to releasing employment records, which are essential to making a claim under the scheme or, indeed, to pursuing a claim in the courts? I am pleased that a Government amendment to the Deregulation Bill has ensured that, in future, HMRC will be able to release those records without fear of breaching data protection law, but the Bill has not yet completed its parliamentary passage. Is the Minister aware of any cases in the meantime in which HMRC has been asked for records? What approach is HMRC currently taking? There has, of course, been a recent helpful legal judgment in a case brought by my own union, Unite, but I understand that the limitations of the judgment mean that the matter will not be fully resolved in all cases until the Bill becomes law.

Finally, and especially given the lower than expected take-up, has the Minister taken the opportunity to consider how the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme might be widened to non-employment cases, to cases of collateral contamination—for example, where a family member contracts the illness as a result of exposure to the clothes or equipment of a relative who has worked with asbestos—to the self-employed or to Government employees, including veterans of the armed forces, who are not covered by the scheme? What steps are the Government taking to provide relief for sufferers of other asbestos-related diseases?

The legislation passed by Parliament last year and yesterday’s announcement have at last offered some justice to some victims but, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out, this country has the shameful record of having one of the highest incidences of asbestos-related illness in the world. We can, and we must, do much better for those who have suffered. I hope the Minister will indicate his willingness, indeed his determination, to look for ways to do so.

Benefit Claimants (North-east)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing this debate. She spoke with great passion, authority and personal conviction, and we should listen to her.

At the start of the day in the Main Chamber, the Speaker’s Chaplain leads the main prayer in which we undertake to

“seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.

That sentiment is hardly likely to chime with my constituents who have had recourse to the benefits system or who have suffered sanctions.

The creation of the welfare state by the great post-war Labour Government ranks among our nation’s greatest achievements. It was created with the conviction that in a wealthy nation such as ours, nobody should fall into the depths of deprivation and extreme poverty. British citizens fund vital public services with their taxes, with the understanding that when people lose their jobs or fall on hard times there will be a safety net and a network of support to assist them and help them back to employment. We expect anybody who uses those services to be treated with dignity and respect.

There is a consensus among the public that the existence of such a system is right and civilised. However, under the Government, we have witnessed policies that seek to redefine the role of the welfare state and the status of those who depend upon it. Our society includes those who, through luck, hard work or talent, are unlikely to ever need to depend upon the state. Those people are often entrepreneurs or committed and hard-working individuals who work in businesses and create wealth and jobs. It includes those who have the potential to make great contributions to our society, but require support to achieve what they are capable of, and it includes a small minority who need more than just a gentle nudge to engage with employment and contribute towards society. It also includes vulnerable people who live at the margins of our society, and who have not been as fortunate as others and are in need of our support, compassion and love. The Government, however, have lumped together all those who have to use benefits. The notion that has permeated this Government’s welfare reforms has been that joblessness is the personal and moral failure of the unemployed to which there is an “all stick and no carrot” solution, plunging them into destitution. It is almost a case of, “If we make people’s lives more difficult and more unbearable, somehow there will be a positive outcome.”

Since the existing regime was introduced, 1.4 million jobseeker’s allowance sanctions have been imposed. My constituents are sanctioned more than any others in the north-east, with more than 1,000 sanctions applied against JSA claimants in Middlesbrough between April and June last year, 300 more than in any other constituency. Ministers would have us believe that each of those sanctions was a just act that punished workshy people for failing to demonstrate that they were looking for employment. Every hon. Member present knows, however, that that is often not the case. We are inundated with stories from our constituents who describe a punitive regime that punishes benefit claimants for things beyond their control. The human cost is unacceptable.

One case is that of a single mum who works part-time as a lunch-time supervisor at a primary school while undertaking training to become a classroom assistant. She is in receipt of in-work benefits. Despite her asking for the interviews to be arranged outside her working hours, they were constantly arranged during them, meaning that she faced sanctions. She failed to attend one interview that was due to take place on the day that her father died. In the distress of the moment, she forgot the appointment, but when she rang the jobcentre the next day to apologise and explain that her dad had died, it was not accepted as a valid reason for missing her appointment. She was sanctioned for a month.

Another case is that of a 19-year-old homeless boy with no family, a baby and no support network, who has little in the way of formal education and limitations in his ability to communicate. He failed to complete a particular form correctly, which was beyond his capacity. He was duly sanctioned and left destitute. He then stole food from a supermarket in the hope and desire that he would be sent to prison, so that he would have something to eat and somewhere to sleep.

The number of such cases is shaming and a damning indictment of the Government and their policies. The Government refuse to explain the increase, but numerous sources have reported that it is being driven by unofficial targets imposed on jobcentres by the DWP. That is unacceptable. Introducing targets or expectations for jobcentres on sanctioning benefit claimants is a perversion of the values of the welfare state. People’s benefit entitlements ought to be decided on the basis of need, not on an arbitrary target set in Whitehall.

[Ian Lavery]

One important issue that has not been discussed in the debate is the coalition decision to withdraw the independent living fund, which hundreds if not thousands of disabled people in our area, the north-east, depend on. Does my hon. Friend agree that that decision should be reviewed? The independent living fund is there to help disabled people. If it is withdrawn, disabled people will end up in abject poverty.

[Andy McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point. That the circumstances of people dependent on such a vital source of income should be reduced—we saw on the television last night the people protesting outside this place—is an absolute horror and brings shame upon us all.

In conclusion, with the vulnerable being penalised along with hard-working people who do all that we expect of them, either the Government must concede that, on their watch, the safety net that marks us as a civilised society has become no longer fit for purpose, or they must admit to their audacious abandonment of the principles of the welfare state.

Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Reform (Disabled People)

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

I begin by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) on her maiden speech. We all welcome her first contribution to debates in this Chamber. She spoke with warmth about Jim Dobbin, whom we remember with affection, and she obviously knew him well. She took us on a guided tour of her constituency. She spoke with confidence, humour and insight, and she clearly has a contribution to make, specifically on health matters. I would have visited her constituency during the by-election, but I was otherwise detained in Clacton. We look forward to hearing many future contributions from the hon. Lady.

I believe that this motion is opportunistic and misguided. I do not think that it furthers the interests of those with a disability or the organisations that care for them. The reaction of the audience at “Question Time” the week before last showed a distaste for the political opportunism that we have seen this afternoon. I am genuinely surprised that the Opposition did not learn the lesson from that reaction before they chose the subject of this debate and launched their highly personalised attack on a man who, as we have just heard, has done so much to advance the cause of those who have a disability. If I were charitable, I would say on listening to the mover of the motion, that I do not believe her heart was in it.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

As the father of two disabled children, I found the remarks grossly offensive, as did every member of my family and my community.

Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I wonder whether it is a sign of the times that more Members sat in the Chamber to debate badgers than are present to debate the poor and the vulnerable.

I will begin by placing on the record my belief that personal responsibility and compliance are extremely important for individuals seeking employment. However, the current regime seeks to penalise those who offer responsibility but are, for various reasons, disproportionately sanctioned. In many cases, that means abject poverty not just for them, but for the people around them. I am totally convinced that this period in our history will be looked at by generations to come with horror. It is possible that people will think that MPs acted in a barbaric fashion. We are living through an era in which being disabled, poor or disfranchised basically attracts state punishment rather than help. That is a sad indictment of these times.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Is it not incumbent on Members to look on those who are vulnerable and on the margins with respect and to offer them support rather than condemnation and punishment?

[Ian Lavery]

Absolutely. This year is the 180th anniversary of the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. The Poor Law contained some incredibly harsh ideas, but they seem to have found fertile ground and taken seed among a new generation of coalition MPs. The Act was based on a royal commission that was largely the work of Nassau Senior and Edwin Chadwick and that took some extreme yet strikingly familiar views. One was that poverty was essentially caused by the individual, rather than by the economic and social conditions. It was therefore claimed that the pauper claimed relief regardless of his merits; that large families got the most, which encouraged irresponsible marriages; that women claimed relief for illegitimate children, which encouraged immorality; and that labourers had no incentive to work. It was recommended that workhouse conditions should be less desirable than those of an independent labourer of the lowest class. It was a fight to the bottom. There was no attempt 180 years ago to improve the working conditions of the lowest class. They wanted people to work in a worse position, below even that of the lowest of the working class. That attitude pervades today. Mark Twain once said:

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.”

Have we really regressed almost 200 years socially?

Undoubtedly, welfare reform is causing misery for people up and down the country. It is an ideological crusade to shrink the state, led by people who I believe simply do not care about what happens to the individuals or the consequences for communities as a whole. The approach of the Department for Work and Pensions to sanctions has been characterised by the chaotic approach to universal credit and the personal independence payment. Statistics showing that nearly 60% of decisions on sanctions have been overturned have now been removed from the DWP website. This is a regime that is targeting the most vulnerable people in our society—the very people, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) correctly says, we should be helping.

Even in the worst cases of non-compliance with the DWP rules, who actually suffers when sanctions are applied? When crimes under the law are committed, it is the perpetrator who is punished, but when DWP rules are broken, the people around that person are also punished. No thought is given to the family, the partner or anybody else associated with the individual being sanctioned. It may well be that it is one person who is sanctioned, but it results in a broad swipe at everyone in a household, family or circle of friends who have the obligation of the state transferred to them. The situation has been described as torture by hunger. Should this be happening in a civilised society? Should we be engaging in sanctioning people and forcing them to go to food banks? These are people who generally need assistance in life. The reality is that for every person sanctioned for the things the right-wing press prints on its front pages, there are thousands more who are forced into degradation as the victims of circumstance, officious advisers and cruel policy.

Let me describe one or two cases. A man in my constituency visited my offices in desperate need. He had been sanctioned after missing an appointment with a work training provider. He had a problem with his heart and he had had to visit hospital—he was sanctioned for being in hospital. The sanction was later overturned, but not before he was driven almost to starvation and the local food bank after visiting my office in a desperate state. All he had eaten for three days was field mushrooms and eggs borrowed from a neighbour. I am not sure that anyone in this House wants to see that sort of thing happen. As politicians, that is not what we are here to do.

The benefits of a man from the south-east who had been blind since birth were stopped because he was not replying to letters. The DWP was failing to send him letters in Braille or any other accessible format. He did not reply because he did not even know he had them. This man had worked for most of his life, but because of the DWP’s error he was forced to turn to a payday loan to survive. The chaotic system forced him into hunger and poverty.

So out of control is the situation that a website now documents the cruel, arbitrary and ridiculous reasons why people have had their benefits stopped. I urge hon. Members to look at it, but I have some examples:

“You get a job interview. It’s at the same time as your job centre appointment, so you reschedule the job centre. You attend your rearranged appointment and then get a letter saying your benefits will be stopped because going to a job interview isn’t a good enough reason to miss an appointment.”

Another example is:

“You get a job that starts in two weeks time. You don’t look for work while you are waiting for the job to start. You’re sanctioned.”

How ridiculous and how absurd is this system?

“You apply for three jobs one week and three jobs the following Sunday and Monday. Because the job centre week starts on a Tuesday it treats this as applying for six jobs in one week and none the following week. You are sanctioned for 13 weeks for failing to apply for three jobs each week.”

It is an outrageous situation.

There is of course a clear link between benefit delays or changes and people turning to food banks. As many hon. Members have mentioned, more than 650,000 people now use food banks, and there is a strong link between that and benefit sanctioning. Serious questions need to be asked about whether people are being deliberately sanctioned to massage the employment figures, because at any one time 100,000 people may be in the churn of those sanctioned. At such a time, they are not figures in the unemployment statistics; they are cases in a fiddling of the unemployment statistics. The Minister may wish to target that point.

In my last minute, I want to mention the pressure on staff in DWP offices. The failure to impose enough sanctions means that many of them receive performance improvement plans or notices to improve, which might ultimately result in their losing their employment.

In conclusion, as a society, we will be judged harshly by history for punishing the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable, as well as for not doing enough to stop the determined drive of Government Members to drag us back to the Poor Law of 1834, the shameful establishing of IDS UK—in dire straits.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the Members who supported him on securing this debate. This has been a worthwhile discussion and a number of important issues have been raised to which I will try to respond in the brief time available to me.

I think that there might be more common ground between the Government and the Opposition than has been apparent. It is also the Government’s position, as a number of right hon. and hon. Members said, that we want a sanctions system that works and that is effective, proportionate and well communicated to claimants. We are united on that. I was struck during the debate by the overwhelming view—although not the unanimous view, because there was at least one exception—that sanctions have a part to play in the system. Those who sign on and claim benefit take on responsibilities. If those responsibilities are to mean anything, there have to be consequences for not adhering to them.

At the outset, it might be worth my setting out the claimant commitment, which is now central to the benefit system and to the process of rights and responsibilities. People who sign on for jobseeker’s allowance now go through the claimant commitment. When they have a first interview with a work coach, the coach reviews their circumstances and capabilities—that relates to the point that was made by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—and completes the “My Jobseekers Profile” to capture key information. Reflecting on that, the coach sets out the requirements that the claimant must meet to be entitled to JSA, ensuring that those are right for the individual. That is how the system is intended to work. The work coach must take account of any health conditions, disabilities or caring responsibilities. Those requirements are recorded in the claimant commitment, together with a clear explanation of the consequences of any failure to comply. The commitment must be agreed by the claimant.

The coach then works with the individual to help them construct a detailed plan that sets out what they will do each week to meet their requirements. The process is designed to ensure that our expectations and requirements are reasonable, and that the claimant understands them. It is intended to provide claimants with the support that they need to establish an effective plan of action that, if followed, will ensure that they comply and that they never face a sanction. That is what the Government are trying to achieve. We do not want to sanction anybody. Clearly, there are times when people do not fulfil their requirements. When sanctions are imposed, there are mechanisms in place for challenging them. They can be overturned when people have a good reason why they should be.

I want to clarify some of the points that were raised in the debate. First, Members asked whether 60% of JSA sanctions were overturned. As has been said, the figures appeared, but there was an error in them and they were withdrawn. Revised figures are being prepared, in line with the code of practice for official statistics. Those will be presented as soon as possible. To give the House an order of magnitude, the latest official statistics, which have been published separately by the Ministry of Justice, which deals with the appeals, show that in the third quarter of 2012-13 not 60% but 17% of JSA disputes heard by the tribunal service resulted in a decision in favour of the claimant. That provides a slightly different perspective.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Webb]

I will not, if the hon. Lady will forgive me, because I want to respond to the points already made.

There was some discussion of targets—this is a bit of a chestnut—and to be categorical, there are no targets for sanctions; that is not the way it works. The point was made that statistics are gathered at jobcentre level and among advisers on their use of the sanctions system, and again the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan—I am wrecking her credibility here—made exactly the right point. We want consistency, and we cannot know that we have that if we do not gather data on what individual advisers are doing. If people go to a jobcentre and talk to adviser A or adviser B, and adviser A sanctions everyone who walks through the door and adviser B never sanctions anyone, the system is not working.

[Andy McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Steve Webb]

No, I will not.

It is not that individual advisers are expected to hit a target or number; we are monitoring because we expect both distribution and consistency. That is what we are trying to do. It should not be interpreted as a target; it is simply about us monitoring what is going on.

A couple of hon. Members suggested that sanctions are about trying to massage the unemployment numbers, which is complete nonsense. Somebody who is looking for work is still counted in the unemployment figures. The figures published every month and headlined on the BBC are the labour force survey numbers, and if people are looking for work, they count as unemployed.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The docks are another area where mesothelioma was a constant threat and problem, particularly in places such as Leith, which is a big dock area.

On compensation, as I have said, I think the numbers are still to peak. There is a mesothelioma problem in schools and I think the problem will only get worse. It will be interesting to hear what the insurance companies have to say about teachers and others in schools who will suffer from this horrible disease.

On the levels of payment, it is totally unjust and unfair that victims of mesothelioma whose documents were either lost or destroyed will receive less than 100% of the average compensation. In an earlier debate we argued that the level should be set at 90% of the average. A precedent has already been set in the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which covers the liabilities of insolvent insurers in circumstances involving compulsory insurance.

We support the cross-party amendment 1, which would set a lower level of 80%, although it is not ideal. I think that amendment 4, which would set the level at 100%, is the fairest solution and perhaps that is what we would seek in a different and better political environment. I think that the insurance companies, as opposed to the victims, could agree to set the level at 80%. The 90% level was already affordable, as it was still within the 3% levy on gross written premiums with which not only the Government, but the industry, are happy. If we set the level at 80%, I am sure the insurance industry would not only be happy, but feel as though it had got a good deal. At least it would put an extra £6,200 in the pockets of victims. Morally, 80% is the absolute bare minimum the Government should be aiming for.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about the moral limit, but does he agree that the whole concept of contributory negligence and the apportionment of damages suggests that the victim is in some way responsible for the damage caused? That is anathema in these circumstances: these people are totally and utterly innocent, but they will walk away with less than what they truly deserve.

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We now live in a society in which some of this country’s most vulnerable people are being asked to pay the price with regard to not only mesothelioma, but other areas relating to quality of life.

Universal Credit

Andy McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend will see from the published accounts that the National Audit Office agrees that the proposed roll-out, which will go ahead, will in every single year save money, ultimately to the Exchequer. The point that is being made is that the net value of the asset of £152 million that we have will deliver huge benefits to the public and huge savings to the Government.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Did the Secretary of State or any of his Ministers try to apply pressure to any member of the Public Accounts Committee in the formulation of its report on the implementation of universal credit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No.