Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue again. I do not think there is an argument with the moral position, but the legal position is something completely different. When someone gets benefits—the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East is nodding because he was dealing with exactly the same schemes—and then gets compensation, those benefits are reclaimed to the taxpayer. That is what happens across the board. I said all along that I would love to have paid 100%—my heart tells me that—but it has not been possible. I would like to have touched on a lot of the things that the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East discussed in his speech such as groups of people outside the scheme. I would like to have dealt with those outside employee liability and with public liability. We talked earlier about young children in schools today who might inhale a tiny fraction of asbestos into their lungs and, 40 or 50 years from today, might get a preventable disease. It would be in their lungs and there is a possibility that they would get mesothelioma, which is terminal, and die within four to nine months.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I apologise for my ignorance, but once a person has been diagnosed with this dreadful disease should they not go straight to a civil servant and say, “I have been diagnosed with this, what should I do? Can you please help me?” Is that the system that operates at the moment? If it is not, it should be.

[Ian Lavery]

I will second that.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Some things are out of my hands, and such is the legal situation in relation to clawback. I cannot change that through the Bill. It just happens: if someone gets compensation, there is clawback on it at 100% because taxpayers’ money is used to pay the compensation.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

From what the Minister is saying and the feeling of the House, it may well be that the Bill is just a work in progress. Are we collectively agreed—the Minister, in particular—that we may well have to revisit the Bill properly after, say, three years and try again to give decent compensation to everyone?

[Mike Penning]

That is exactly what we are doing because there is a four-year review. It was announced in the other place, and I talked about it on Second Reading and in Committee. We are committed to the four-year review, which I know we will work on.

All the amendments would affect the speed at which the Bill goes through, because if we amend it today, it has to go back to the other House and there will be ping-pong. That would delay the compensation, which should be remembered by hon. Members who really want their constituents to get compensation. Along with the restraints on me within the agreement, that is why I will oppose the amendments. I hope that hon. Members will not press their amendments, so that we can make progress and get on to the next group.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Buckland]

I was coming to that point. Although for the purposes of liability knowledge of the dangers is defined as having started in 1969, we know that the debate had been going on for many years before that. It is a tragedy that the decision was not made for a generation. Thousands of workers, many of whom are no longer with us, were working in dangerous conditions.

I represent Swindon, a railway town which had the Great Western Railway at its heart, and had a railway works until 1986, and I have heard stories from many former railway workers who worked in and around asbestos every day of their working lives. Asbestos was being transported along the railway system, but it was also being used to line the boilers and pipes, and to insulate the heat generators which are an integral part of a locomotive. More than that, however, asbestos was being used to line all the carriages built at the Swindon works, and asbestos was used in sprays that were applied to surfaces within and without those carriages. It was very much part of the essence of working life in Swindon. For very many people whom I know exposure to asbestos has been a reality, and that means that many people are still carrying a latent disease—a latent disease that can manifest itself as late as 40 or even 50 years after exposure.

I am going to single out one person, not because he would have regarded himself as an exceptional man, but because he rose to become the mayor of our town and because he died this year from mesothelioma. Rex Barnett worked for British Rail from 1953 to 1961. It was while he was there that he was exposed to asbestos and went on to develop what was for many years a latent disease. He was diagnosed with pleural plaques back in the mid ’90s and then was one of the unfortunate people who went on to develop mesothelioma right at the end of his mayoral year in 2011. Rex battled on. He was an indefatigable character who in his mayoral year raised over £60,000 for local charities, an exceptional feat in itself. He battled on for another two years, but finally, sadly and tragically, succumbed this year. In his memory and the memory of thousands of other people who worked alongside him, this measure is a welcome one.

I pause now for a moment to think about the memorial garden we have in Queen’s park in Swindon to the victims of mesothelioma, which is marked by a very simple memorial, and which gives members of my community an opportunity to contemplate and consider the sacrifice— the unwitting sacrifice—that was made by those who were exposed for all that time to lethal amounts of asbestos.

In my early legal career I was trained in personal injury work, which included industrial compensation, and therefore have some, albeit limited, experience of dealing with claims relating to conditions such as mesothelioma. I think that perhaps we are in danger of oversimplifying the position when talking, perfectly naturally, about the need for a swift resolution to the claims made by victims of this disease and their families. There is a danger that seeking to resolve claims before death could lead to a significant under-settlement of claims, which would deprive dependants of the victims of a substantial proportion of the damages they could recover in a posthumous claim.

I think it is right to talk very briefly in this Second Reading debate about the wider position and principles, while recognising the fact that this Bill will deal with a relatively small cohort of people for whom traceability of employer or insurer has not been possible. The following important point has been raised with me by claimants’ solicitors, some of whom have years of experience in practice in Swindon. The regime that applies to posthumous claims for damages is still dramatically different in England and Wales from that which applies to those made during the lifetime of the claimant. For example, bereavement damages are not payable during the lifetime of claimants, claimants cannot recover for future funeral expenses during their lifetime, and living claimants cannot recover damages for services provided to dependants after death; that is recoverable only as a services dependency under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. It is clear that under that Act income dependency claims will usually be significantly more for dependants than a lost years claim made under common law for a living claimant. It is clear that claims that are brought by widows after death will be about 20%—a fifth—more valuable than equivalent claims made during life. So the dilemma for mesothelioma sufferers going through all the pain and struggle they have to endure is: do they resolve their claims during their lifetime for what will be a lesser sum, or do they die with a claim unresolved?

It is interesting to note that the Scots have legislated to bring the rights of relatives before and after death into some alignment. That is one of way of dealing with this, but there are alternatives that could, and do, deliver a practical solution.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I probably am thick, but will my hon. Friend explain why there is a difference between claiming before death and after death, because I have not quite understood that?

[Mr Buckland]

I am certainly not going to insult my hon. Friend, but what I will say is that payments after death are governed by the 1976 Act and payments before death fall under common law, so different rules and regimes apply. As I have said, in Scotland there has been some move to try to align certain aspects—but not by any means all aspects—of the rights of dependants, relating to mesothelioma in particular.

There are practical alternatives, and in her excellent speech my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) made a point that deserves re-emphasis. The work of the senior master of the Queen’s bench division, Master Whitaker, should be singled out for particular praise because he and his colleagues have developed specialist lists that, in effect, create a fast-track procedure for the efficient resolution of liability issues. The fast-track procedure allows for summary judgment to be passed where sufficient evidence has been demonstrated by claimants about exposure to asbestos in breach of duty and where defendants then have to show cause—reversing the burden, as it were—on evidence why that liability should not be proved. With the resolution of liability, interim payments can be made to claimants and their families to meet the claimants’ needs during life, but that interim payment does not bring resolution or quantum to a close. That can be achieved by a stay of the claim until after death, to allow the full quantum—the final value—of that claim to be properly assessed.

It is important that we make these points because if we are truly to address the needs of victims and their families, we have to understand what they need, rather than just make glib assumptions about brevity and the need to tie things up before the tragic event of the death of a victim.

We know that over the next 30 years mesothelioma will claim about 60,000 lives, and that means about 2,500 people will be dying every year from this aggressive cancer. This particular scheme deals with last-resort claims where there is no other alternative. Already we have seen welcome changes by the Government in the other place, by conceding the 70% levy and raising it to 75%, on figures that at the time in question still represented under 3% of the gross written premium for employer liability insurance. I know that these figures have been updated, but when this Bill reaches Committee more particularity must be given as to the basis for those updated figures, because it is crucial if we are to have a meaningful continuing negotiation with the insurance industry—which I think we should—that we know precisely what we are dealing with.

I know my hon. Friend the Minister cannot commit himself and the Government to particular figures today, but I urge him—and I know he will listen—to keep those figures open and to look to see if we can get a greater proportion, and whether we can achieve 80% as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggested. The more we get, the more justice we will deliver for the victims and their families.

Remploy

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Roughly what percentage of Remploy employees are disabled ex-service personnel?

[Esther McVey]

I will have to get back to my hon. Friend on that. I do not know who were ex-service personnel, because now all types of disabled people, from all different backgrounds, are working there. However, I know that our key aim is to help all disabled people into mainstream work.

Jobs and Business

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Friday 10th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I shall move on.

I shall structure my remarks around the national insurance contributions Bill and what more we can do to support business, but first I shall mention two issues that are of great importance to my constituents. Along with the economy, one of the issues that we struggle with is what we should do about immigration, and how we should handle that quite sensitive issue. We have to get the balance right. Undoubtedly, as a nation we have benefited from immigration. We are a global trading nation; we have sat at the heart of world economic development for very many years, and people come to this country to add to our economic vibrancy. But I share with my constituents a concern about how we handle that fairly—how we achieve a balance. Some of the announcements made in the Gracious Speech will be very welcome. It strikes a sensible balance between my constituents’ rights and those of migrants or immigrants who then commit a criminal offence. It seems to strike people that the pendulum often swings too far in support of the perpetrator rather than the victim.

We are a fundamentally fair nation. We are respectful, we are tolerant, and we believe in fair play, but we do not believe that a person who abuses that tolerance has a right to remain here. I am therefore very pleased with some of the announcements in the Gracious Speech, and I hope the Bill will demonstrate to my constituents that we are tackling a serious problem. They really do not understand how people who break the law here are able to continue to benefit from our good standards of respect for them. Those people should return to their own country when they break the rules here; they forfeit the right to stay.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On that point, I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that if people advocate breaking the law—by making death threats, for example, against people of this country—they should be put on the list to leave as soon as possible.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention; I could not agree with him more. If appropriate measures do not exist, we should put them in place, and if they are there, we should remind our judiciary to exercise them.

My constituents will be pleased to hear that we are taking action on antisocial behaviour. When I came into office in 2010, I pledged to my constituents that I would look at tackling antisocial behaviour with them. In my constituency I organised an antisocial behaviour conference, which was attended by a Minister and at which we brought together councillors, the council and local residents to talk about their experience of antisocial behaviour. It is the scourge of many of our estates and town centres, and the description often belies its seriousness. It can make people’s lives a living hell. I am very pleased to see that we are recognising that and taking greater action to streamline the process for tackling it.

I do not want to demonise young people, who often get put in the frame for being responsible for most antisocial behaviour. Just because they are young and meet their friends in the street does not mean that they are committing antisocial behaviour; we should remind people of that. However, when such gatherings turn into antisocial behaviour we need to tackle it, and fast; and we need to give councils or the police the necessary power to do so. The most difficult issue that I am presented with at my surgery is that of neighbours creating problems for each other. I hope the Bill will make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour caused by neighbours.

Thirdly, I want to discuss our economy and business. At this point I should declare my interests. I am a shareholder in a small business and worked in a small business throughout my career. Consequently, everything that I say about small business will probably benefit not only the business that I was involved in but many businesses across the country.

For too long we have focused on the public sector, and we have focused too much of the private sector into one area—banking, on which we have relied too much. I am pleased that there has been a push towards rebalancing our economy. I am also pleased that there has been significant growth in private sector businesses over the past three years—up 250,000. In south Essex, where I represent Basildon and Thurrock, the number of new businesses is up nearly 9% on last year—three times the regional average. There is a lot going on down in my patch. We are doing well in terms of job creation. DP World—Dubai Ports—is creating the London Gateway container port, which will generate 12,000 new jobs, but there is much more to be done. Many small businesses throughout my constituency are still trying hard to make ends meet. They will particularly welcome the measures announced for the national insurance contributions Bill. Anything that cuts the cost of doing business must be welcomed.

I will be honest: small businesses are struggling out there. It is tough. Rising costs, changing trends, changes on the high street, the rise of the internet, and ever-changing technology mean that small and medium-sized enterprises face ever-increasing challenges, yet they persevere in trying to make ends meet. I make a plea to the Government on their behalf: please keep listening to them; keep your ears open, and please, please remember that many small businesses act as a social service to their employees. They recognise that their employees are one of their greatest assets and do all they can to nurture and support them. They do not abuse them; they recognise that their future prosperity lies with their employees. I hope that, as a result of the changes announced for the national insurance contributions Bill, those small businesses will be encouraged to take on even more employees in the coming months.

There is still a significant challenge out there. If small businesses, the lifeblood of our economy, are to prosper they need access to easy, cheap finance. The Government have moved a significant distance. They have brought forward many initiatives to address the issue, but there is still a significant problem. Many of the initiatives address issues of access—some are those of cost—but I do not think that any yet address both. Banks are taking too risk averse an approach to lending and we must intervene to change that. Too many banks find ways of demonstrating lending while supporting those who do not necessarily need it. While we can show that lending is up, I am not convinced that it is getting to the right destination.

I would encourage the Government to consider using their borrowing powers—the trumpeted 2%, depending on the length of the bond—to borrow and lend directly to businesses. The announcement of the business bank is very welcome, but I fear that with an arrival date of late 2014 and only £1 billion available, it may be too little, too late. I am 100% behind the Government’s debt and deficit reduction plans and 100% behind the approach that they are taking, but we must put all our energy into finding ways to make access to finance easier, whether through lending at the rate at which we borrow or even subsidising it and lending at 0%. Lending a business £100,000 at 0% over a couple of years would cost a sum similar to the employment support allowance of £2,000 and it may well deliver significant economic growth and job creation. This is not unheard of. The Government already operate similar schemes. The Insolvency Service operates a scheme that supports businesses when they need to make difficult decisions to keep them in business. I would like the Government to explore how they might make access to finance easier.

The one thing that I am sure of is that only this Government and only those on the Government Benches have the drive, the energy, the commitment and the understanding to do what is right for this country, whether for small businesses, our own constituents, large businesses or the wider society. I am confident that only we will be able to sort out the toxic inheritance that we acquired and do the right thing. I hope that when the next election comes, we will be able to reap the benefits of that for the whole country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gordon Birtwistle]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I was pleased to visit the Rolls-Royce training facility in Derby only a couple of weeks ago, and I was delighted to see the millions of pounds of investment being put into it. Rolls-Royce has picked up the story and is getting on with it.

There has been a lack of apprenticeships and training, certainly in engineering, in which I have been involved all my life, for the past 20 years. We cannot have someone who is an apprentice today assembling aeroplane engines tomorrow. It is a long process. The Government have started that process with the apprenticeships scheme, and over the next few years we will be able to deliver on this. It is very difficult to train apprentices to become skilled people who can deliver what is needed for $9 trillion-worth of aeroplanes over the next 20 years, but we must get on with it. Thankfully, we have made a start, although we are not moving fast enough.

We quickly need to resolve the situation with the national aerospace supply chain centre, which has been agreed by the Government but for some reason is stuck in the Whitehall mandarins division. Having been here for three years, my view of what goes on behind the scenes with the mandarins is that it seems like “Yes, Prime Minister”. I watched that series on television and thought, “No, it can’t be like that”, but actually it is. We come here and listen to all the statements about what we are doing, and then it is still being done 12 months down the line. Setting up the national aerospace supply chain centre must be a priority, and I hope that it is located at the Samlesbury site of BAE Systems. I hope that the proposed national skills centre will be set up at the same site. That centre will train 600 apprentices a year for the aerospace industry, for United Utilities, and for the shale gas industry—another industry coming through in the north-west that will need skilled people.

[Bob Stewart]

Many people who learn trades in the armed forces have a problem translating their qualifications into civilian life. We could do more to equate armed forces qualifications from places such as Cosford with those that are required in the aerospace industry, because there are people who could easily move into that industry.

[Gordon Birtwistle]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was about to move on to the oil industry, to which former members of the armed forces make a substantial contribution. I was on an oil rig in the North sea about 12 months ago and quite a number of ex-military personnel were working there. The medical officer was an ex-Army officer and some of the cooks in the restaurants were ex-Army personnel. It is good to see that they are making such a contribution.

The oil industry, which is more or less a forgotten industry, contributes billions of pounds to economy. One national oil company is about to invest $11 billion in the North sea. The site is about 100 km off the coast of Scotland, but every bit of kit is being provided from overseas. That is an outrageous scandal. That kit should be produced in the UK. Unfortunately, we do not have the companies to do that any more because we have let them disappear over the past 20 years. The previous Government let them disappear without batting an eyelid because they thought that the financial sector could bail us out of anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Hendrick]

I would go along with that, but we are not comparing like with like. I am saying that an apprenticeship over four years that leads to a highly skilled job with well respected qualifications is very different from what is on offer. In the past, those positions have not traditionally been called apprenticeships.

[Bob Stewart]

I and I was born in Preston and I understand and agree that that area of Lancashire has huge potential for apprenticeships. I am sure the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) agree that we should put apprenticeships at the same level as the requirement for university education. We should have a huge drive on apprenticeships to get our young people into a qualification so that we can take advantage of the future economy of the world.

[Mark Hendrick]

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Taking people out of income tax is great, and we want to take people out of income tax, but how many people have lost tax credits? Many people who have been taken out of income tax will find, particularly if they have children, that they are not better off.

In the past few weeks, we have seen the Government prepared to dabble with the welfare and jobs of 3 million people by putting at risk our membership of the European Union. The Conservatives have promised to hold a referendum on renegotiating the terms of British membership. Let me be blunt: many Government Members do not want renegotiation, or the sort of renegotiation that the Prime Minister is likely to achieve—they want out. We will not know the terms of our trading relationship with the EU if we leave. We will have the same lack of benefits as Norway and Switzerland: they have no involvement or control over EU laws and directives, but are obliged to adopt them if they wish to continue to trade with the EU. We will have a referendum on the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without knowing precisely the trading or economic consequences of withdrawal. If we do leave, it will cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

Beyond that Trussell Trust statement, people running food banks say that sanctions are a big driver. They say that people often have no idea why they are being sanctioned; all they know is that their money has stopped and, as they have none to buy food with, they have to go along to the food bank to get some help. According to the impact assessment for the Bill, the number of sanctions is up to 260,000, and the number of people affected is up to 160,000. Meanwhile, the number of people going to food banks is up from 30,000 three years ago to 300,000 now. The order of magnitude is comparable. The people running food banks often report that the increase in sanctions has been a very big driver in the growing recourse to food banks around the country over the last three years, and that certainly appears to me to be the case.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am slightly confused. The right hon. Gentleman said that when people get sanctioned, they have no idea why, but I would have thought the first thing they would do, if they did not get a letter or a warning about this, would be to go straight to Jobcentre Plus and ask, “Why is this happening to me?” Why does that not happen?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and telling point. Why, indeed, do people not go to jobcentres to get an explanation? The reason is that it is very difficult for them to get through on the telephone, and if they do go and speak to somebody, they probably do not get a clear explanation.

The Minister said in one of our recent statutory instrument Committees that Jobcentre Plus will now inform people in writing of the reason for their sanction. When the Minister responds, he will, perhaps, give us a little more information. I am not sure whether that has already started or whether it is still due to happen, but it will certainly be a welcome step. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will be very familiar with the experience that I have often come across, however, which is that people do receive a letter from Jobcentre Plus, but, frankly, making sense of it is very difficult. I hope that the written explanations people receive will make more sense than some of the other communications they bring to our surgeries, sent to them by jobcentres and the Department.

I want to set out 10 questions that I think the independent review should answer. Other Members may have other questions, of course, but I consider these 10 to be important, and putting them on the record will serve to give some terms of reference from the House for the independent reviewer.

First, we need to know the precise figures. It is not good enough for us to be told that the Department has issued between 221,000 and 259,000 sanctions. We need to know precisely how many have been imposed. We also need to know what exactly they are for. Is it that people are failing to turn up to appointments, or that they are failing to do the work-related activity they are required to do? We need to be given some clear categories of the grounds for sanction, and then to be told how many of the sanctions imposed fall into each of those categories. How tough are those sanctions? How many maximum three-year sanctions for the basic element of jobseeker’s allowance have been imposed so far? In the recent debate on JSA regulations, a colleague rightly reaffirmed our opposition to the three-year sanction introduced by the Government. It would be useful to know how many people have so far been denied benefit for a full three years, which the Government’s legislative change now makes possible.

Secondly, we need to know how many people on whom the sanctions are imposed request reconsiderations —the kind of people who, as the hon. Member for Beckenham suggests, might go along to the jobcentre and ask what the sanction arises from. How many people have asked for reconsideration, and when it has been refused, how many subsequently appealed? What are the outcomes when reconsiderations are requested and appeals made?

Thirdly, we need the independent reviewer’s opinion on whether the reconsideration and appeal process is working correctly and properly. When people have a sanction imposed on them, do they know that they can apply for reconsideration and, if they are not happy with the outcome, submit an appeal? Is that whole process working correctly?

Fourthly, how many of those being sanctioned are on employment and support allowance—and perhaps other benefits as well—rather than JSA? Ministers have given commitments during debates in this House and the other place that they will not normally issue sanctions to somebody on ESA—somebody who is out of work on health grounds, for example—other than after a face-to-face discussion with the applicant and, if necessary, a home visit. We need to know from the independent reviewer whether those assurances are being honoured in practice. It does not require much imagination on the part of Members to realise that it may well be wholly inappropriate to impose a sanction on someone who is on ESA as a result of a serious mental health problem or a fluctuating health problem of the kind we have often debated in the past couple of years, thereby removing their benefit for the potentially very long periods that are now permissible, unless they have had a proper face-to-face discussion with an appropriate Jobcentre Plus official. It would be helpful if the independent reviewer answered that question.

Fifthly, it would be useful to know how many of the large number of sanctions being imposed are being initiated by a Work programme provider rather than Jobcentre Plus. As I understand it, the initial step can be taken by either, or by another kind of provider on one of the other schemes. It would be useful to know what the split is.

I appreciate that it is not going to be easy for the independent reviewer to find the answer to my sixth question—it relates to the point the hon. Member for Beckenham made a few minutes ago—but we need to know it. To what extent do people understand the reasons for the sanctions being imposed on them? As I mentioned earlier, food banks are reporting that people who turn up, having been sanctioned—who therefore do not have any money and cannot buy food for themselves and their families—commonly do not know why the sanction has been imposed. I hope that the independent reviewer can establish how widespread a problem that is. If it is widespread, as anecdotal evidence suggests it may well be, that is a serious difficulty with the system.

The seventh question concerns the extent to which managers are promoting sanctions. In answering an intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill on Second Reading, the Minister gave a very clear assurance that there are no targets for sanctions and that Ministers and managers do not require specific targets to be fulfilled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I have dealt with lots of soldiers in my life, some of whom are not very literate. One thing that always frightened them was letters. I have a feeling that people get sanctioned because they ignore the letter that comes through their letterbox and are frightened to open it because of the consequences of doing so. In one or two cases even in my constituency, which is relatively wealthy, people have ignored letters, and are therefore sanctioned because they are fearful of opening the envelope. When they have nothing, they need to try to get money. Sadly, people might try to get money by turning to crime.

[Paul Goggins]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman, for all his seniority in his earlier career, demonstrates great sensitivity to his constituents and others and he has done so before in debates in which I have been involved. I put it to him that people will increasingly have to apply for their benefits online, which could involve them utilising skills with which they are unfamiliar. There are difficulties with that. The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently.

In pre-empting some of my remarks, the Minister was correct that I should like to inject some urgency—I reassure my right hon. Friend that I seek not a slapdash, hasty report, but urgency. I will listen carefully to the Minister when he responds to the debate in deciding whether to press the amendments to a Division. I want urgency from him—he gave one or two encouraging signs but I should like him to go further.

Amendment (a) calls for “six months” rather than “a year”. The Minister pointed out that the number of cases in six months might be limited, but there would be a number of cases of public interest, and they ought to be evaluated. My right hon. Friend suggested an interim report after six months, which might be a reasonable compromise—there would be a full report in a year but an interim report after six months, so that Parliament and the public can see how the inquiry is going, the kind of evidence that comes out and the quality of decisions. The report could then be completed within a year. I am thinking about that, because if we have a compromise, the measure would be urgent but allow sufficient time for the quality of investigation required.

I have a difficulty with new clause 1, which I am seeking to correct in amendment (b). New clause 1 states that the report should be sent

“to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable”.

All hon. Members have experience both in Parliament and elsewhere of how soon “reasonably practicable” is. With the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), I am trying to put a time limit on “reasonably practicable”. I am not saying that the time limit must be three months, but suggesting that it ought to be “within three months”. This is an urgent matter, because decisions are being made that are questionable in many cases and unlawful in others. The Minister has to indicate clearly what

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

means. We have to have a clear end point to this process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I want to begin by commenting on the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), whom I have known for 20 years, since he returned from Bosnia with the Cheshire Regiment. People whom he and I know personally are among those described today. The soldiers damaged by the dreadful events that he recorded in his well-known book are real people, and some of them live in my constituency. They are the kinds of people on whom we should try to focus our humanity.

We must admit that there is an enormous lack of clarity in the regulations governing the system. That is the fault of successive Governments and has built up over many years, as things have got more and more complex. Faced with that complexity, someone with a learning difficulty or who is mentally scarred might respond illogically—I think, for example, of the person who leaves the envelope behind the clock in the hope that it will go away. We have to deal with this matter seriously, therefore, and separate those people from the people the Minister is rightly targeting—there is no dispute between the parties on that.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, who has been a friend of mine for a long time, for giving way. One problem is that people who are hurt, mentally scarred or not as bright as they might be need a friend to go with them to Jobcentre Plus. They need a neutral umpire to help them. I just wish we could get that a bit better.

[Andrew Miller]

If we developed this too far, Mr Hood, I would be outwith the scope of the amendment, but the hon. Gentleman is very perceptive and makes the point about people not understanding the documents or conversations they have had.

To move this forward we need to inject a degree of urgency. I understand the points about the time frame, but I nevertheless think we ought to look at this matter carefully.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has outlined the framework for a set of terms of reference, and I hope we can agree on that and invite the Department to start gathering the necessary statistics and information to respond to some of the basic questions, so that the independent reviewer can be well equipped with solid information when he or she starts the job. That could provide a practical way of producing a review sooner than after the envisaged 12 months.

Having recognised that that might be difficult to achieve, however, we ought to consider a fallback position that gives the framework of the terms of reference an extra dimension, to enable the reviewer to start reporting on the information as and when it becomes clear. If we approach the matter in that way, we will inject some urgency into the situation and get people to realise that there is acceptance across the House that we are trying to separate the genuine cases from those that are less solidly based. Let us ensure that we target the benefits on the people who ought to get them.

I urge the Minister, in considering the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins)—to which I have belatedly put my name—to think about the arguments that have been presented and to agree to an early set of terms of reference before coming forward with a sensible time frame that will enable us to achieve the goals that Members on both sides of the House want to achieve.

Universal Credit

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

I am delighted to take part in this debate, although I feel like something of an interloper. As a member of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions in the previous Parliament, I hope that the Chair, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and her colleagues will be happy that I am contributing.

Let me start by paying tribute to the Committee and the Chair for the hugely important work they continue to do. It is quite right, because of the hugely significant nature of these reforms—we can all absolutely agree on that—that they should have the full and continual expert scrutiny of the Work and Pensions Committee, involving both the MPs and the staff. I am sure that that will continue to be the case, and that is quite right.

One of the big, thorny issues that we discussed on a number of occasions in the Committee in the previous Parliament was the over-complexity of the benefits system, which we said needed to be addressed. The report that we published in July 2007 said that

“our current benefits system is stunningly complicated…simplification should be a key priority for the DWP…We believe there are opportunities for merging some benefits, aligning the rules of eligibility and, where means-tests are necessary, the information required from claimants.”

Therefore, while praising the Committee for its scrutiny, the issues it has rightly raised and the points on which it has rightly challenged the Government, we can be in no doubt that, when scrutinising the Government in the past the Committee was clear that there had to be reform. Indeed, Ministers including the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) told us during that Parliament that they agreed that there had to be some simplification and that the issue had to be addressed. I think that we all can, or should, agree on the principle. Of course, the devil is always in the detail and it is right that any reform—not just one as significant as this—is fully and properly scrutinised. That is why I welcome the information that the Government have provided in response to the Committee and the fact that we are having this debate and that the Committee will continue to push until its concerns are satisfied.

We have to remind ourselves that the reform is designed primarily to simplify the benefits system, which has to be done. The other big issue that we continually raised in the Committee during the previous Parliament is that we need to do more to incentivise people to work and to make work pay. There was cross-party agreement and, indeed, ministerial agreement from the previous Government that it was essential to ensure that benefits were sensibly targeted.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember our trip to the university of York, where we sat through a number of interesting and detailed presentations. We looked at mind-bogglingly complicated graphs of the current benefits system and the tapering. We were told by academics who were more expert on this than we could ever be that, without significant change and proper tapering, the cliff edge would continue and too many people who want to work hard would find that it did not make sense for them to do so when they could earn similar amounts from benefits, which is a choice that they do not want to have to make. That is the thrust of what the Government are addressing.

It is also important to say that this is not a cost-cutting measure. As the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) has said, it will not save money for the Department for Work and Pensions, but it is not designed to do so. The Government estimate that it will cost £2 billion more to ensure not only that universal credit supports the people who need support—which is, of course, the primary purpose of any benefits system—but that it has smooth and transparent incentives to work. It will, however, lead to longer-term savings for the taxpayer, because it will make work more financially beneficial. That will also benefit the Treasury, because those people will then pay their taxes and be part of society by contributing in the way that they would wish.

The Committee has been right to challenge the Government on the issue of those who will gain more and those who will receive less as a result of universal credit. Ministers have made it clear that they believe that 3 million families will be better off and that 350,000 children and 500,000 working-age adults will be taken out of poverty, while acknowledging that 1.4 million people would see a drop in income were it not for the transitional protection, which is why that protection is so important. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also estimates that 2.5 million people will be unaffected.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that there will always be a system for looking after those people who actually need help with this benefit?

[Greg Mulholland]

Absolutely. During the previous Parliament, there was consensus on the Committee, in the House and, indeed, among Members on both Front Benches that we need to do more to ensure that the benefits system is targeted on those who need it most and that it makes financial sense for those who can and want to work—whether that be full or part time, as appropriate to their other commitments—to do so. No one is suggesting that that is an easy challenge—it certainly is not, as the Committee fully acknowledged during the previous Parliament—but it has to be taken on and I am delighted that the Government have chosen to do so. It is also crucial to ensure that lessons are learned from the pathfinders. I remember looking at some of the pilots in the previous Parliament. It is essential that, during the implementation stage, the Department always takes full heed of the lessons and then makes changes as appropriate.

I want to comment briefly on a few of the issues that the Committee has rightly focused on. We can all agree that it is essential that universal credit works for everybody—for all claimants, not just the majority. It would not be a success if a group of people were significantly disadvantaged by its introduction, which is clearly not the Government’s intention.

On the move to a single monthly payment, I do not think anyone would disagree with the principle that it makes sense for people to have a sense of the money that they are given, to enable them to pay their rent and buy food, and that it is helpful for them to budget, as that will equip them to do so when they find work, as we all hope they will if they are able to do so. The Committee was right, however, to raise its concern that the switch to a monthly payment presents a significant challenge for people and families on a low income, and the Government have rightly responded to those concerns.

The biggest concern, which also involves landlords, relates to direct payments. That is not to say that the arrangements will be a terrible thing in all circumstances. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South will remember that we had exactly the same conversations when the local housing allowance was introduced. We must accept that, although the arrangements will work for some people, there must be a swift acknowledgement in cases where they are not working, before huge arrears can build up. Will the Minister clarify that such a safeguard will be put into the system, so that if things start going wrong, alternative arrangements can be made as swiftly as possible? Those could involve direct payments to the landlord, fortnightly payments or the splitting of payments. I will be interested to hear a reinforcement of the Government’s response to the Committee on that matter.

On the digital question, I believe that it is perfectly sensible to move to an online benefits system. That is happening throughout the welfare system and throughout many parts of the public sector, and it will result in a welcome reduction in costs, as long as we get the IT right. I am now a member of the Public Administration Committee, and this is a matter that the Committee will be looking at, following the publication of its critical report on the disaster of the NHS IT system.

People have rightly expressed concern, however, about those who do not have access to the internet. Many of those on low incomes might not be able to afford the necessary technology—a PC or a smartphone, for example—and older working people who are approaching pension age might never have had any experience of that technology. The Committee has therefore rightly pushed Ministers on this point, and alternative provision has been made, including contact by phone or in writing, or through a home visit. It is right that that should be spelled out so that we can be clear what will happen to those people who cannot reasonably access the internet. I urge the Minister to keep that matter under review, particularly when the pathfinders begin.

My final point relates to information. Any change in the benefit system will lead to anxiety for people even, ironically, when the changes could have a positive effect on them. It is therefore essential that they should be provided with clear, simple and adequate information, and signposted to where they can get advice. That also applies to MPs, because we have all had people asking us for advice on the effect that the measures will have, and we should have at our fingertips all the knowledge we need to advise them as the changes come in.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who is also a member of the Select Committee. He regrets being unable to be here today for family reasons, but he is very much here in spirit. He was keen to take part in the debate. He also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on Citizens Advice. The citizens advice bureaux clearly have a role to play in this context, and he and the group have called on the Department for Work and Pensions to work with Citizens Advice to produce an information leaflet on universal credit. It is the ideal organisation to do that. I understand that, having written to the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend has now been told that the DWP will indeed pursue the matter with Citizens Advice. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is the case, because that would be a positive development.

In conclusion, this is a huge challenge, but one that would have to be confronted whichever Government were in power. This is a principle on which we can, I think, all agree, without necessarily having to agree on all the detail. I welcome it, but it is crucial to get it right between now and October. I urge the Government to keep the matter under review and then to be flexible if the pathfinders show that further changes are necessary to make it work in the way that, in the end, we all want—to support people who need it and to encourage people to get back into work when they are able to do so.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I am sympathetic to what my hon. Friend says, but I think that people need to be able to take responsibility for themselves and to make choices for themselves. The choice they have is either to maintain the benefit they need for the housing they need, or to stay in housing where they have an extra room and adjust their behaviour accordingly. It is not for the state, putting its expenditure on the backs of hard-pressed taxpayers, to fund indefinitely people’s lifestyle choices, and it is a choice if people decide to have an extra room that they are not actually using; they can choose whether to move to a smaller property or, under this new policy, to find a way of getting the extra income they need.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

If someone living in social housing wishes to downsize and move to a smaller house, I take it—I ask my hon. Friend or the Minister to confirm this—that they would not have to find the costs in their own budget and that they would be helped to move.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Owing to pressure on the availability of larger properties, many social landlords provide significant incentives for people to move.

It is important to remember that the housing market is dynamic. It is not a static market, with people staying in the same house their whole lives, and they should not expect that to be the case. I understand that people move house, on average, every seven years. It is perfectly reasonable that that happens, and that it should continue to happen, because it frees up the properties people need. I intervened on the hon. Member for Dundee East to make that important point.

When a three or four-bedroom property in the social rented sector is freed up, it might well be filled by someone who had been living in the private rented sector, which is more expensive, so they will be moving into the cheaper social rented sector. The person who had been living in the three or four-bedroom property might move back into the private rented sector, which has a higher cost, but there would be a bigger saving because the other person had moved into the social rented sector. That is important, because some of the debate has focused on the inflexibility of the housing market. It has been said, for example, that there are not enough one-bedroom properties in the social rented sector for people to move down to, but there are plenty of properties across the country as a whole. People will move more freely between the private and public rented sectors and will continue to have their rents paid for them unless they choose, as they will be free to do, to earn more money by working a few more hours a week or by taking in a lodger and so on in order to get the extra income.

Atos Work Capability Assessments

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 17th January 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Last week I held a meeting in my constituency for a number of disabled constituents, their carers and family members, and the organisations that support them. I want to highlight to the Minister two or three messages that build on some of the things that have been said this afternoon.

First, and most importantly, the Minister needs to understand how totally discredited this whole system has become. My constituents told me categorically last week that they believe that the whole system was deliberately designed and operated to trick them—to make them incriminate themselves and to catch them out. They firmly believe that the system is deliberately designed, not to assess and then help them into work if they are fit for it, but simply to stop paying benefits wherever possible. I regret that they continue to believe—I know that this is not the case—that Atos is paid to bring that about.

Whether or not the system is deliberately designed to trick them, it is clear that there are far too many instances of trickery and misleading people and of distorting what they have done, said and reported and drawing conclusions from that. That is happening far too often. It is an absolute disgrace that we should run a public assessment process in such a discredited way.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Green]

I will not, because others wish to make speeches.

The Minister has to either sort out the process or address the fundamental scepticism and mistrust of the system. Many Members have already said that we do not believe that that is possible unless the system is scrapped and we start all over again.

I say to the Minister—because I think I know what he will say in his response to the debate—that I understand that this is an occupational assessment, not a medical assessment. I understand why it is not just doctors, but other occupational health professionals who can carry out the test, but it is disgraceful when those professionals have no understanding of the underlying medical condition and can arrive at such distorted judgments on a person’s fitness for work.

I also want to report to the Minister that, of the couple of dozen constituents I met last week, about half of them had no idea that they could take a companion to the assessment process. They said that they had not been told. Of those who did know that they could take a companion and who had sometimes done so, that companion was not made to feel welcome and was not able to assist them. Someone who suffers from autism is likely to behave in a particular way when responding to the questions asked—by trying to please and to give the answer that they think is wanted, rather than accurate—so I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that a companion who can support them and, if necessary, intervene is very important indeed. This bit of the system is not working and the Minister needs to look at it very carefully.

When the work capability assessment was introduced, we knew that it would be difficult and that we were trying something new. We built in the review process that led to the appointment of Professor Malcolm Harrington and some of the early improvements, which I think we all welcomed. Today, however, we have to face up to the fact that it is no longer possible to make the kinds of improvements that would make the system viable.

I get the impression—perhaps the Minister will correct this—that the Government have moved from trying to improve the system to either defending it or, to be frank, washing their hands of it. I honestly do not believe that that is a good enough response. If the Minister intends to say that there is not a problem, that improvements can continue and that these are simply still early days teething troubles, I say to him that the extent of the reports from throughout the House and the country of repeated, systemic problems means that it is time to look again.

I am sure that the Minister and many Members will remember—I most certainly do—the last time we had such a failure, whatever the intentions, of public policy implementation: the Child Support Agency. It took us 20 years to realise that the design that had been put in place simply could not work. Please let us not wait 20 years to realise that this system cannot work and must be started again.

State Pension Reform

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

We do indeed believe that, as with a year of paid work paying national insurance, a year bringing up a young child or looking after an elderly or disabled person is an equally valuable contribution to society and should be recognised as such going forward.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I understand it, 750,000 women will be £9 a week better off under these pension reforms. Will a widow who married early, spent the vast majority of her life looking after the home and children and whose husband then died be better off under these reforms?

[Steve Webb]

As I said in reply to a question a moment ago, where someone has already become a widow and acquired prospective pension rights because someone has died, we will not take those away from them. In future, we want to make sure that every man and every woman builds up a pension in their own right, rather than depending on the contributions of a spouse. But where people have already got those entitlements, they will retain them.