Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The impact assessments are in the Library and the Vote Office. Full assessments have been made.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. Earlier, he said he would protect the vulnerable. May I remind him that there are 1.4 million people in this country with a learning disability? Has he considered an exemption for the specialist disability housing providers, such as Mencap, from the 1% reduction, so that people with a learning disability have more opportunities to live in the community, especially after Winterbourne and all those terrible scandals?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that and to look at the issue he raises. I know that we have looked at it, but I am happy to look at it again with him.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

I have met stakeholder groups, and that message has been made very clear to me. In fact, 42% of disabled people looking for work say that the biggest barrier they face is the attitude of their employer. Through such campaigns as Disability Confident, we hope to inspire more businesses to take on more people with disabilities. We rejoice in the fact that, over the past 12 months, an extra 238,000 disabled people were in work.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

What support is the Minister offering to specialist and locally based employment organisations such as Northern Rights in my constituency and the East Durham Employability Trust? They have a proven track record of supporting disabled people and people with multiple barriers into work, but have frequently found it very difficult to access funding from the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Justin Tomlinson]

Again, having met with stakeholders, I can say that local initiatives are clearly key. Each of our individual constituencies has different challenges and opportunities. Part of the Disability Confident campaign is sharing best practice. I would be keen to hear more of the good work going on in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, I do. This Government—under the Conservative party—with our long-term economic plan, will stick to those plans, so we would continue to see unemployment fall. Spain has taken huge strides in trying to make changes, but they still have more to do, as they said to me, to deregulate the ways in which they work, but none the less they are at least making real efforts to do so, and they look to us for some examples. Our unemployment and employment rates are better, but I would like to think they are trying very hard to get there.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

May I remind the Secretary of State that the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, which was set up by Ministers, has pointed out that 40% of unemployed people in Britain are under 25? There are 550 unemployed young people in my constituency. Is not the Secretary of State missing an opportunity to rebalance the regional economy, to address the skills shortages and to target resources at those areas that need it the most?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Absolutely, but the point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that I would love for somebody on his side to get up and say, “The economy under Labour crashed with a 6% fall in GDP.” Does he honestly think that had no effect on his constituents? [Interruption.] Since then, we have got unemployment down below 2010 levels and got employment levels up, and we are doing our best to reskill people through work experience and so forth—[Interruption.]—and for all the shouting on the Opposition Benches, they blame everybody else for the crash but they do not give us the credit for the changes and improvements.

Oral Answers to Questions

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend, and, indeed, his predecessor have been doughty campaigners on behalf of the city of Cambridge. He will be aware that the rent levels are set across the whole Cambridge rental market area, not just in the city of Cambridge. As he said, in 2014-15 we allocated £45 million for targeted affordability funding. We will be allocating £95 million in 2015-16, and the rates will be announced at the end of this week.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

T8. What steps is the Minister taking to tackle long-term youth unemployment in areas of high deprivation such as Easington? What specific measures has he identified to help my constituents?

[Esther McVey]

We have taken significant measures to help young people who are long-term unemployed. We have established sector-based work academies, and have provided work experience and traineeships. Obviously the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that, according to figures from the International Labour Organisation, youth unemployment is down on the quarter, on the year and since the general election.

Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

Let me try to be as blunt as I possibly can, which is not unusual for me. The £7,000 is theirs. Even though the money is targeted at legal fees, how claimants spend it is entirely up to them. As I have said, we are trying to make the application as simple as possible. If they spend none of the money—remembering that we are talking about a fund of last resort for those who have been unable to find their employer or their employer’s insurer, and that, sadly, the money will often go to the dependants and loved ones of sufferers of this terrible disease—they will be able to keep all of it. Others, including hon. Members and trade unions, will assist them to ensure that they are not ripped off. The important point is that the £7,000 is an additional sum on top of the 80%.

I know that some colleagues are disappointed that we have not moved to 100%. Some colleagues may also be disappointed about the cut-off date, which we discussed extensively during deliberations on the Bill. As I have said—the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) will understand this as a former Minister—I did not want to delay compensation by breaking the existing deal. The regulations are in their current format to avoid delay and allow the scheme to start, we hope, in the first week in April. We want to help those who desperately need the funds quickly.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister and welcome his announcement that the level of compensation will be increased. We anticipate that there will be a rush of claims. If the fund is in surplus when that initial rush has been addressed and settled, will he give an assurance that the Government will look at using that money for other asbestos-related diseases or research?

[Mike Penning]

We expect there to be a surge, and that is why the scheme has received Government funding, which will be claimed back. It would be improper for me to make a commitment now about how any money that might be left in the fund will be used. However, we are working closely with the Department of Health and specialist research bodies. We are particularly focusing on the tissue bank, which is important in finding out why mesothelioma acts as it does so long after contact with asbestos; a gestation period of 40 or 50 years is not unusual.

If there is money in the fund when the review happens, whoever is the Minister at the time—I may still be in place; one never knows—will look at how best to use it. I am conscious that if I take any more praise from the Opposition, my reputation will be diminished enormously. With that in mind, I commend the regulations to the House.

Pensions Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Gregg McClymont]

I do not intend to detain the House too long on this group. On Lords amendment 2, I welcome the Government’s decision. The issue of individuals with protected status in pension schemes that were nationalised has been significant, both for the House and for the people concerned. Those with protected status are a group of approximately 60,000 individuals employed on the railways, including by Transport for London, and in the electricity, nuclear waste and decommissioning and coal industries. They are protected because they were given guarantees by the Government of the day when the industries were privatised. On Report, the official Opposition made clear their view, and tabled an amendment that aimed to remove these protected schemes from the scope of the provisions on the statutory override as it pertains to the new flat-rate state pension and the end of contracting out.

I welcome the Government’s decision on the continued protection of these schemes. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends, the trade unions, and others with whom Members have worked closely to make the case. It is a good example of how a case properly made, and a Government prepared to listen to the detail and the reality, can produce an outcome that we all welcome.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making excellent points, and I thank him for his efforts to prosecute the case. Does he agree that the principle of trustee consent is an important one that we should honour?

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his work on the issue. As he knows, we tabled an amendment to clause 24 in Committee on this issue. We welcome the decision to accept Lords amendment 2, a concessionary Government amendment moved on Report.

Let me say a little about Lords amendment 21, another concessionary Government amendment moved on Report, which will place a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow service spouses and civil partners who are due to reach state pension age from 6 April 2016 to apply for national insurance credits for periods during which they accompanied their spouse abroad. I agree with the Minister that the amendment will strengthen the armed forces covenant and remove some of the disadvantages that the armed forces community may face in comparison with other citizens. I add to the Minister’s tribute to Baroness Hollis for her work in ensuring that the provision was included in the Bill.

I look forward to the provisions in Lords amendment 3 being taken forward by the Government. I look forward also to the pricing of those provisions. It will be striking to see what take-up there is of the offer to procure more state pension for people who retire before the new flat-rate state pension is brought in. On that note of consensus, we welcome this group of amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I, too, will not detain the House for long, but there are a few points that I wish to place on record. I thank the Minister for meeting the trade unions on a number of occasions, and the Department for its active engagement in the consultation exercise.

I shall not rehearse the arguments about the importance of maintaining trustee consent, which were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) from the Front Bench. The workers concerned are those in former nationalised industries, including coal mining; electricity transmission workers; workers in Transport for London and the train operating companies; and workers in the nuclear waste and decommissioning industries. An important principle is at stake, and I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the Lords amendments. As was pointed out, it is important that we have ongoing discussions, and I hope that the Minister will commit to that. If he would engage with the trade unions, which have undisputed expertise in this area and could assist the Department in the drafting of the regulations, that would be much appreciated.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to both hon. Gentlemen who have spoken for their constructive responses. The amendments relating to protected persons have been welcomed, and I am grateful for that. I welcomed the opportunity recently to meet the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and his colleagues from the relevant trade unions. I am pleased to assure him that we will be happy to have that ongoing dialogue when it comes to drafting the regulations that will implement these changes. As he knows, we take the view that a statutory override is not a statutory override if trustees have the power to block it. We differ on this point—I understand that—but we are imposing a substantial cost on employers, and we believe that they need to be able to recoup that. We hope and believe that many will do so in a constructive and collaborative way, with engagement with trustees and others.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) mentioned what might loosely be called the army wives provisions. As he says, they are an attempt to do right by our armed forces personnel and their families, and again, the measure seems to have attracted wide support. I am grateful for the support from across the House for these amendments from their lordships, which we accept. I commend Lords amendment 2 to the House.

Lords amendment 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment 3 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Clause 37

Automatic Enrolment: powers to create general exceptions

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns]

I will not give way for the moment.

How else can we explain the fact that of the £63.4 billion of public expenditure cuts forecast by 2015, 29% of them fall on disabled people who make up only 8% of the population? Even worse, how else can we explain the fact that those with the most severe disabilities, who make up only 2% of the population, have to endure 15% of the cuts? In the face of that, can we continue to regard ourselves as a civilised society? What kind of civilised society seeks to finance its deficit recovery programme out of the suffering of the poorest and most vulnerable while managing to target tax cuts to the most privileged?

Thirty-one people died in the three years to October 2011 waiting for their appeals against the assessments which said that they were able to work. The BBC’s “Panorama” programme reported in July 2012 that, on average, 32 people died every week whom the Government had declared could be helped into work in the medium term.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent and powerful points. Does he agree that the work capability test is not fit for purpose and that taking a template from an American health care model on the descriptors is absolute nonsense?

[Ian Mearns]

I am about to discuss that, and I could not agree with my hon. Friend more.

Put bluntly, this Government, the Department for Work and Pensions and their agencies are telling us, repeatedly, that people who are dying are fit for work. Between January 2011 and November 2011, some 10,600 employment and support allowance claims ended and a date of death was recorded within six weeks of the claim end. This Government have repeatedly refused to release updated 2013 statistics on deaths within six weeks of the end of an ESA claim, calling such requests for information “vexatious”. Four people a day are dying within six weeks of being declared fit for work under the WCA—it is scandalous and an indictment of this place. Some might consider this bad taste, but I am told that there was a story doing the rounds that when the bones of Richard III were discovered in Leicester, Atos carried out an assessment and judged him fit for work. It would be funny if it was not so sad. It is a sad truth faced by 12,000-plus families who every year face their own personal tragedies of this nature—it is a reality.

As if not bad enough, workfare and welfare reforms are of course only part of the impact; cuts to local government expenditure also have the heaviest impact on the most vulnerable. The largest share of adult social care users—older people, people with physical disabilities and people with mental health problems—have to bear the brunt of reductions in social care. The recent joint inquiry by the all-party groups on local government and on disability showed that four in 10 disabled people are failing to have their basic social care needs met and that nearly half of disabled people say that services are not supporting them to get out and about in the community. Three quarters of the 4,500 respondents to “The Tipping Point” survey said that losing some of their disability living allowance income would mean they would require more social care support from their local council, at a time when the councils with the largest numbers of chronically sick and disabled people are suffering the largest cuts in grant funding from central Government.

In my youth I was actively involved in many Amnesty International campaigns, such as those on Chile and South Africa, and those against oppressive regimes in central and Latin America. I never would have imagined then that in 2014 the UK would be the subject of an Amnesty campaign, yet at its annual general meeting in 2013 Amnesty UK passed a resolution recognising that the human rights of sick and disabled people in the UK had been dreadfully compromised.

The convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which the UK ratified in 2009, makes provisions for access to support services, personal assistance access to social protection, and poverty reduction programmes for disabled people and their families. The Government’s cold and callous welfare changes are in direct contravention of all those stipulations. The time has come for a grown-up debate, to move beyond the smearing of poor, disabled and chronically sick people—demonising them should stop. We need to move to a debate on how we design a society where all UK citizens are supported and given opportunities to contribute. I utterly support today’s debate and I will vote in favour of the motion.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this very important subject, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).

As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I understand that the benefit system is an extraordinarily complex one. The system was born out of a desire to provide support to those who need it the most. However, years of mismanagement, and well-intentioned but ill-thought-out additions and changes, have left the system in a shocking mess. Listening to accounts of mismanagement, wrong payments and the relegation of people who are taught that there is no role for them in the workplace has shown me that reform is not only important but essential.

This Government’s reforms offer responsible protection for those who need it the most, while supporting those who can move back to work. First, let me say that this Government are committed to supporting those with disabilities. Here in the UK, we are committed to spending more than £40 billion a year, which is more than Italy, Germany or France spend, and is a fifth more than the European average.

We have taken the strategic view that it is not enough to think of disability as a singular issue. Instead, we have chosen to work across Departments to look at transport, employment and social involvement. The Opposition enjoy flashing big figures; they go for the headline and do not fill in the detail. Let me give them a few figures to consider while we look at the rationale. The amount of disability living allowance underpaid per year is £190 million; the amount of DLA lost through fraud and error between 1997 and 2010 was £10 billion; and the amount that welfare payment increases between 1997 and 2010 cost the average hard-working family per year is £3,000. These stark figures show that something has gone seriously wrong in our support system.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I note the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given, but does he recognise that in the UK in 2009 we spent 2.9% of our GDP on disability and sickness while nine of our OECD neighbours spent an average of 3.2% of their GDP? Far from spending more than our OECD partners, we spend less.

[Graham Evans]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I was talking about the current spending. I also point out to him that in 2009, 1 million more people were in relative poverty; 500,000 more children were in relative poverty; 200,000 more pensioners were in relative poverty; 150,000 more people were unemployed; 25,000 more young people were unemployed; and 1.3 million fewer people were in work. These figures show that the Government’s policies are working.

I will return to my original point. When 71% of claimants are given indefinite awards, with no need for reassessment, it is no surprise that changes in conditions are not picked up. In fact, a third of people with an impairment or a long-term health condition in one year report that they do not have it a year later, according to the Office for National Statistics. People’s conditions and needs change all the time. It is no surprise that people feel that they have been paid off and forgotten when no one takes the time to look at how their lives have changed; it is no surprise that those with deteriorating conditions do not receive the support that they are entitled to; and it is no surprise that those who have conditions that are improving are not helped out of a state of dependency and back into work.

The personal independence payment, which is being introduced gradually to ensure that there is a responsible change to protect disabled people, will involve regular assessments. This means that people will receive funding that is tailored to their individual changing needs. In actuality, this will result in the proportion of people receiving the highest rate for both components increasing to 20%, and the proportion of people receiving at least one component at the highest rate increasing to 56%.

The Government’s Work Choice programme has already helped 9,500 people to move into employment. The new enterprise allowance will support disabled people moving into self-employment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who is no longer in his place, gave us some good examples of that. The £15 million investment in the Access to Work scheme will ensure that small businesses do not have to bear the costs of additional aids or equipment when taking on disabled staff. This programme helps more than 30,000 disabled people to gain mainstream employment, and stay in employment, every year.

The steps taken by this Government bring back the core principles of the welfare system: to provide support where it is needed; and, just as importantly, to enable those who can go back to work to do so. I am proud to be a member of a Government who are taking logical steps to address the fact that each person is individual, that conditions change over time and that each person in Great Britain has a place in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I want to humanise the debate somewhat. I spoke to a number of disabled people this morning and what they had to say was amazing. Over the past couple of years or so, my surgeries, like those of most Members present, have been visited by lots and lots of disabled people who want to discuss the benefits system. The reality is that many disabled people have given up. A lady said to me this morning, “Mr Lavery, do you understand what it’s like to be treated like an animal?” That rocked me. Why are disabled people being made to feel as if they are being herded into a corner and treated like animals?

That is how they feel. They do not even feel that they are counted as a statistic in life anymore, other than as being an embarrassment to society. They feel as if they are personal rejects—total outcasts from society—because they are disabled and unwell. We should not be making people feel like that in one of the richest countries in the world.

The attack on the disabled and the vulnerable is relentless. Disabled people, the sick, people who have been sick for many years and those who might have just become sick or disabled in the past few years need a voice. We should not forget that it is fantastic being able-bodied and well in health, but some of us are just around the corner from being poorly, disabled, sick, unwell or perhaps terminally ill. We should not forget that when we make decisions in this place to hammer the disabled and the vulnerable, because we could be next.

We should put ourselves in some of these people’s shoes: they become ill or have been ill; they attend test after test; and they attend the Atos centres, which are like the scene in “Little Britain” where “Computer says no.” There is no flexibility and they have to try to explain their problems to somebody who is not even medically qualified.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I apologise for interrupting a very passionate speech, but is my hon. Friend aware that the Department for Work and Pensions is facing a court case because of its failure to provide proper information and support to blind and partially sighted people whom they are supposed to be helping to get into employment?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am very much aware of the fact that there are a number of cases proceeding through the courts, but as we have seen over the past couple of weeks the courts do not seem to be terribly in favour of the disabled or the disadvantaged.

I want us to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who face these tests. After they leave the test centre, they wait for weeks and weeks—in fact, they wait for months and months—for the envelope to drop through the door and tell them whether they have been accepted for benefits or not. Can Members imagine how these people, particularly those with mental health problems, feel every morning, waiting for that envelope?

People who are looking for employment and support allowance or jobseeker’s allowance are being sanctioned for different reasons. A constituent of mine was sanctioned by the DWP after he attended a hospital appointment because he has a severe heart condition. As a result of being sanctioned, he did not have any money to put food on the table for months. It has been suggested that people have been sanctioned when they are in a coma in a hospital bed in intensive care. Is that any way to treat ordinary human beings? The answer is, of course not.

Let us look at the other legislation that has been introduced. Just in the past few weeks, up to 50,000 people in this country had to pay the bedroom tax. A lady committed suicide because of the bedroom tax and then her family got a letter from this Government saying they were sorry, but she should not have had to pay because she was covered by the pre-1996 housing benefit regulations.

Universal credit is a failure. It has been rolled out in two or three places and is an absolute car crash, but it is not the DWP or Members of Parliament who are suffering; it is the disabled people who rely on these benefits who are anxious and suffering as a result of this Government’s absolute nonsense and chaotic organisation.

People who make ESA applications have to wait to learn whether they are in one group or the other. How many have appealed? I believe that 40% have appealed successfully, and others are waiting to appeal. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) mentioned how long they are waiting. People’s conditions change before their appeal is heard. It is utter nonsense. The way in which we are treating these people is an absolute disgrace.

A lot of facts and figures have been mentioned today. The 11.3 million disabled people—8% of the population—are bearing 29% of the cuts. Those with the severest disabilities—2% of the population—are bearing 15% of them. It is an absolute outrage.

To sum this up, people are dying as a result of the Welfare Reform Act 2012. Disabled people are being evicted from their homes and people are being forced into the arms of unscrupulous lenders. Is this really the sort of country we want to leave to the next generation? This is IDS UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate all right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for introducing it. I also thank the many groups and individuals who have taken the trouble to lobby their MPs and come to Parliament today and earlier this week. I give a special mention to Jason Roche from the Royal National Institute of Blind People in my constituency, who does such sterling work raising issues for the blind and partially sighted, to Simon Duffy from the Centre for Welfare Reform, and to Philip Connolly from Disability Rights UK. They have done a terrific job and we should acknowledge the efforts of disability activists and supporters in this campaign in collecting such a huge number of signatures to secure the debate.

The dedication shown by members of the public in getting this debate held in Parliament’s main Chamber indicates the strength of feeling and the widespread concern about the extent of the Government’s cuts. We are short of time, but there are issues such as housing, the bedroom tax, income cuts, policies such as changing RPI to CPI, the social care cuts highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), and the general cuts to public services that directly impact on people with disabilities. People with disabilities tend to rely more heavily on libraries and other public services, and it is ironic that in my constituency an organisation called EDPIP—the East Durham Positive Inclusion Partnership—which is a charity set up some years ago to support some of the most disadvantaged families, is closing today. That is another indicator of the pressure that disabled people, their families and carers are under.

This is a trust issue, and I hope the Minister will take note of that because the Prime Minister pledged that the cuts would be made fairly. He said that those with the broadest shoulders would bear the greatest burden, and that people who are sick, vulnerable and elderly would always be looked after. We must remember that the sick, the vulnerable and the disabled were not responsible for the economic crash, yet they seem to be bearing the brunt of the economic burden.

We have heard from other Members about the impact of the loss of income and services. Disabled people are suffering nine times more than those who are not disabled, and disabled people who require social care 19 times more. If the cuts had been made fairly, they would have fallen on the better off, and the changes contradict the promise made by the Prime Minister that those in greatest need of help would not suffer under austerity.

A measure of the civilisation of any nation is how well it treats the weakest members of society, and by that standard the Government are failing miserably. Rather than being protected in a time of hardship, sick and disabled people seem to have been targeted. The services they rely on are being attacked from all directions, resulting in greater inequalities, poorer health and a growing sense of anxiety, fear and trepidation over their future. The cuts have not been made fairly, and they are not spread evenly across public services or entitlements. The cuts have been targeted, with more than 50% falling in just two areas—benefits and local government—affecting sick and disabled people disproportionately.

[Ian Mearns]

Does my hon. Friend share my massive concern that the company that has been delivering the flawed—as we have heard many times today—work capability assessment, has now been given the job by the Government of harvesting the whole population’s health data from their GP practices?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I think that is cause for alarm. It certainly alarms me that Atos, which has been involved in the debacle of the work capability assessments, and which has raised concerns and asked to be released from its contract, is apparently being awarded the contract for the collection of highly sensitive care data from GPs, but that is another Minister’s responsibility.

Social care for children and adults makes up 60% of all spending over which local authorities have any control. The huge 40% reduction in local government funding spells disaster and will have a huge impact on adults and children who depend on vital public services. An interesting statistic is that by 2015 and the next general election, £8 billion will have been cut from social care in England—about 33% of the total. Last year, 320,000 fewer people received local authority brokered social care compared with 2005. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington said, one reason for that is the change in the eligibility thresholds that many local authorities have been forced to make. As well as being unjust and denying people adequate social care, that has unsustainable consequences. It is a false economy. By removing care in the community, we are putting pressure on other public services, for example accident and emergency.

At the same time, changes to benefits are having an appalling impact on those who rely on them. Other hon. Members have touched on the consequences of the abolition at the end of the year of the independent living fund, which currently supports more than 21,000 people with severe disabilities. Funding cuts already mean that in many areas services for sick and disabled people are reduced to a minimum.

With such large-scale and rapid change to the services that disabled people depend on, the Government owe it to those who have been affected to have an understanding of what the impact is. That is why I support the War on Welfare campaign’s call for the Government to commission an independent cumulative assessment of the impact of the changes in the welfare system on sick and disabled people and their families. We were not elected to this House to represent and fight for the interests of the powerful and privileged. Without a cumulative impact assessment, the Government will be failing in their responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that exactly the same is happening in my constituency. I am glad that he mentioned training and skills, because this Government are placing the future of residential training colleges in jeopardy. They closed 33 Remploy factories last year, and 12 months later two thirds of former Remploy employees were still out of work. Funds from the closures were promised to help those former workers into jobs, but they seem to have disappeared.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sorry to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech. She is presenting some excellent arguments. She mentioned specialist support. Northern Rights provides bespoke support in my constituency, but it cannot secure a contract from the DWP because of the prime contractors who are operating in the area.

[Kate Green]

It is so often the way that organisations which have a specialised knowledge and understanding of the labour market barriers that confront disabled people, and can identify with those people, are themselves shut out and deprived of the opportunity to set up post-Remploy work settings or provide support through the Work programme.

Damaging changes in the benefits system have also had a devastating effect. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), that applies both to cuts in benefits provided specifically for disabled people and to other cuts that affect them disproportionately. Employment and support allowance is in trouble—decisions are taking longer—and problems with the work capability assessment persist. About one in 10 decisions are appealed against successfully. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who is no longer in the Chamber, appeared to think that the fact that people could appeal was a sign of the success of the system, but surely it would be better to get the decisions right in the first place.

It is clear that Atos cannot cope. I know that the Minister will say that Labour made the contract, but four years and four independent reviews later—independent reviews which, I should tell the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), are required under Labour’s legislation—things are going from bad to worse.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The clawback provisions mean that victims will have to pay back 100% of previously paid benefits. Is there not an inconsistency in the fact that the state seems to have a greater demand of 100% clawback, whereas the victims will get only 75% of the compensation due to them?

[Jim Sheridan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Do we really aspire to live in the kind of society that does that to people? They needed those benefits for various reasons, but now 100% of them will be clawed back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. I have been through the Bill and I am puzzled by the fact that there is a threat—if we do not agree to something that is a lot less than what people deserve—the insurance companies will walk away. I always thought that if the Government pushed through a Bill that said 100%, it would be 100%. If that is what the Bill says, surely that is what it means and what the insurance companies will have to do. From what has been said throughout the stages of the Bill, it appears that the insurance companies are running this, not Parliament. That concerns me because there have been great discussions and great debates on all sides, but I am yet to hear any persuasive reason why the victims should not receive 100% of their compensation.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument. The very lifeblood of insurance companies is the assessment and measurement of risk, so would it not be reasonable to have expected them, from the start of the consultation in 2010, to set aside a contingency fund to meet the full liability of the victims’ claims?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

I again thank colleagues from all parties for the tone of the debate and the measured way in which it has been conducted. I thank in particular the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for her comments. I hope she will agree that we have been as helpful as possible to her, her team and other colleagues, not only through letters but through access to our team managers. I am slightly concerned about the technical questions she asked at the end of her speech, because I had hoped that they had been addressed. If I am not able to address them all now, I will make sure that my team contacts her to do so in the near future.

We have heard some excellent contributions. As has been said several times, morally I am probably in agreement with nearly everything that has been said. These people are not at fault. They mostly went to work in good faith and they have contracted an atrocious, abhorrent disease that is fatal. They and their loved ones need this fund’s support. There are no arguments whatsoever about that. Many of us are disappointed that we are still discussing this issue all these years after this terrible disease, its cause and its effects—it is fatal—were known about.

At the outset I thank the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) for his very kind comments. I praise the work he did when he was a Minister trying to introduce a similar Bill. I also praise not only the support groups, but the trade unions, because without their pressure over the years we probably would not be in this position.

Having said that my moral position is absolutely as one with that of colleagues, I have to be a pragmatist. The Bill has come from the Lords and I am the Minister with responsibility for taking it through the House.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) mentioned the figure of £17 million, but that is to get the fund going and to keep us below 3%. It is not being given to the insurance companies to do whatever they want with it. It is to get the fund running for four years. On the issue of 3%, the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East was spot on to say that, although he was thinking of a 10-year period, I was thinking of four years, and that after that four-year period there will be a review.

I am restricted by the maths and our agreements. Could the insurers afford this? I have no doubt whatsoever that they could, but that is not the deal that has been struck. As has been said, the House could decide to set the limit at 80%, but I want this Bill to receive Royal Assent and for compensation to be paid in July. That is not happening at the moment and it has not happened for years. Could it be better? Yes, it could. I said as much on Second Reading and I have said so extensively elsewhere.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree with much of what the Minister has said. Will he respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about the 3% levy? If the advice is correct that the money will not be spent in the first years of the scheme, perhaps it could be redirected into medical research on the causes of mesothelioma.

[Mike Penning]

What I have said in Committee and today is that there will be a review after four years. I have committed to the 3% figure beyond the four years, as is absolutely right. I will come back to the £80 million that has been touched on in a second. Actuaries have looked at this very carefully and the Health and Safety Executive, for which I am also responsible, has looked at the costings. We will consider the review at the end of the four years, but there is no way in which the figure will drop below 3%. As far as I am concerned, that will flow through until we get 100% compensation.

It is very important for hon. Members to understand that we are talking about 75% of the average, which means that some people will be worse off—I fully admit that—but that some people will get more than they would have done if they had been able to trace their insurer or employer and go through the scheme. That is an interesting parallel. The percentage is an average, and in working with an average some will be on one side of the line and some will be on the other side of the line. I know that it is really difficult for those on the wrong side of the line in theory, but there will be people on the other side of it.

Where should the arbitrary line be? Of course I could say, as I did in Committee, that the consultation issued by the Government before the last election included a proposal to do nothing. I accept that there is a proposal to do nothing in most consultations, but it was there. I do not, however, think that that is the biggest issue; the biggest issue is how we stay within the 3% over the period and within our financial obligations. That is the position that I am in.

I cannot, obviously, support the 100% figure. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her work on the cross-party group, including before she entered the House, but, sadly, I cannot accept 80%. We have discussed that, and I think that she understands why. I need to make sure that we stay within the realms of what we have agreed and get the Bill through the House and on to the statute book.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Friday 22nd March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Byrne]

indicated dissent.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Michael Ellis]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is very kind. The hon. Gentleman has given a list of organisations that support the Chancellor’s Budget. I wonder whether he recognises this quotation from the North East chamber of commerce. Although it was pleased to see certain measures that coincided with its priorities, it said that the Chancellor had

“fallen short of providing the raft of measures that businesses and investors need in order to kick-start growth.”

[Michael Ellis]

The chambers of commerce have accepted that this is an excellent Budget. Of course there are issues that need to be addressed, but we are dealing with a dramatic deficit. Not everything can be done overnight.

The measures that we have taken on fuel duty mean that it will be £7 per tank cheaper to fill an average car, such as a Vauxhall Astra, than it would have been under Labour’s fuel duty plans. Under Labour, fuel duty went up dramatically. It was costing more and more. The Chancellor’s fuel duty cuts will have a dramatic effect on the cost of filling up the average car.

Measures are being taken across the board in very difficult times to improve the economic position that we inherited. All that Labour can do is whinge, whine, moan and be judgmental.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I watched the Chancellor carefully during his speech and he looked to be a very worried man, as if his whole political life was flashing before him because it was not going to last much longer. He was particularly worried when he had to say that the Budget was “fiscally neutral”, when what we need is an expansion for growth and employment.

Labour Front Benchers kindly describe our current situation as the economy “flatlining”. Actually, we are in an ongoing recession. Some 2.5 million people are unemployed. I am considerably older than everybody else in the Chamber and remember the days of full employment. In my youth, unemployment of 2.5 million would have been seen as a catastrophe. At times, unemployment fell to a tenth of its present level. Let us not be too kind to the Government. The economy is not flatlining; we are in an ongoing recession.

We must focus on the continuing economic illiteracy of the Treasury. Its consistent mistakes over decades have put us in this situation. Two years ago, I made a speech in this Chamber in which I referred to the view of Paul Krugman, among others, that the Government were going in precisely the wrong direction. I agreed with him then and I keep repeating that because in politics, one has to repeat things to ensure that they register.

It is instructive to look at the history. There was a similar situation in the 1920s. After the first world war there was big government debt, and the Government introduced what became known as the Geddes axe—pubic expenditure cuts—which drove up unemployment and poverty, and resulted in low growth. At the end of the 1920s—surprise, surprise—deficits were bigger, not smaller. In the 1930s, we had a period, similar to now, when the Conservatives and their friends were in charge. In Prime Minister’s questions, I asked the Prime Minister whether he wanted to be remembered as the President Hoover of our times, whose draconian cuts drove the world, not just America, into the great depression. He made a sarcastic reply—I suppose that was understandable; I was being slightly humorous with him—that I understood later to be a reference to Benny Hill. I would rather refer to John Maynard Keynes and to Paul Krugman, but obviously the Prime Minister is more inspired by the wisdom of Benny Hill.

By contrast, in 1945, government debt was three times what we have now, but we had a sensible Labour Government who ran a full-employment economy. The debt at that time fell dramatically because we had full employment. I have to give credit to the Conservatives, because in the 1950s they carried on with the same sorts of policies. In the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s, we saw full employment most of the time. We had the occasional hiccup, but essentially it was a full-employment era. We saw living standards rise and poverty fall, and a much better world than we had ever had before. Indeed, the world was being run so well, I thought we should carry on like that. Instead, somebody reinvented the 19th century, and went back to the kind of neo-liberal policies that were pursued at that time.

Extraordinarily, at that time of full employment, Labour and Conservative Governments competed to build hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of council houses. That all seems to have disappeared now, but it was a very fine and productive competition.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Would my hon. Friend care to comment on the impact of a house building programme on growth and jobs?

[Kelvin Hopkins]

A house building programme is exactly what we need. We do not want to increase demand for houses, but supply. If we increase demand without supply, we get house price inflation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Dr Offord]

This will be a sensible contribution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am sure it will.

I am pleased to follow my hon. Friends, and the closing statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who linked the snow and the inclement weather to the Budget outlook. He asked where the spring was. Perhaps I should add that this

“is the winter of our discontent”.

This is the coalition Government’s fourth Budget since 2010, including the emergency Budget. We were told that we were out of the danger zone, and the Prime Minister promised that the good news would keep on coming. In reality, growth is down, borrowing is up, and families are paying the bills and picking up the pieces and consequences of the Government’s economic mess.

I want to concentrate on welfare issues, given the subject of today’s debate. At every opportunity, the Government appear to be undermining the economic foundations that are the route to recovery in the most deprived communities in our country. Constraints on family budgets, wage cuts, and decimated social security budgets have led to a loss of confidence, which in turn has pushed demand out of the local economy. The latest figures detailing the impact of Government cuts and benefit changes on those on the lowest incomes show that a single parent working full time on the minimum wage will lose £415 this year; taken with the previous two years, the total loss is nearly £1,000. Over the same period, a single person working full time on the minimum wage will lose £706, and a family with two children, and two parents working, one full time, one part time, will lose £1,197. Those examples do not take into account other cuts that have affected working families. Child tax credit for babies under one was cut from April 2011; and the child trust fund has been cut, as has the health in pregnancy grant and the education maintenance allowance. Housing benefit has been capped, and the bedroom tax will affect more than 1,600 households in my constituency, with an average loss of £728.

Cuts to social security have undermined economic recovery by driving demand out of the local economy in areas such as mine. It is estimated that the changes to social security will take £150 million a year out of the local economy in County Durham. It is my constituents in east Durham who are living with the consequences of the dark shadow cast by the age of austerity that grows longer and longer after every Budget. We need to restore demand, which has been sucked out of the economy by the past three years of austerity. That has had a monumental impact on unemployment in my constituency. Government Members have proclaimed that unemployment has fallen, but in my constituency the claimant count has risen by 900—yes, 900—since the Government came to power in May 2010, and it currently stands at 3,501. As things stand, there is little prospect of reducing the unemployment figures to the pre-recession levels of 2008, when 2,000 fewer people were looking for work in my constituency.

I have absolutely no doubt that austerity is failing, and that the cuts have made it increasingly difficult for people to meet everyday expenditure on life’s basics such as food, energy and housing. With less money in the local economy, it is no wonder that jobs and growth have stalled as a result of the Government strangling demand. The Budget seems to promise a further assault on the welfare state. The prospect of capping annually managed expenditure, a large part of which is spent on social security, is frightening for low-income families. A “super cap” limiting social security provision would mean that in times of greatest need benefits could be spread more thinly or restricted, breaking the link between social security provision and need.

I understand that Ministers are considering which areas will be subject to spending caps, but I was interested to read in The Daily Telegraph that housing benefit is a strong contender. As my hon. Friends the Members for Eltham (Clive Efford) and for Westminster North (Ms Buck) have said, the solution is to build more affordable homes for rent and to cap rents in the private sector.

It is a cruel irony that at a time when they are pressing ahead with the unfair and unjust bedroom tax, hitting 1,600 households in my constituency and taking away between £14 and £22 a week from the income of some of the poorest families, the Government propose to underwrite mortgages for properties worth up to £600,000. Ministers should realise the monumental consequences of taking away what they may consider to be relatively small sums, such as £14 a week with the bedroom tax, and the impact that that can have on families and individuals living off low and increasingly limited fixed incomes. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions demands that the unemployed “get on the bus” to look for work. But what do they do when the Government cut their income to such an extent that they can no longer afford the bus fare, or food to eat, or to heat their home?

It is strange that the Government will penalise my constituents when they are deemed to have a spare bedroom, but seem to be willing to introduce a second home subsidy. We need more social and affordable housing, not a scheme that will drive up house prices, forcing people to take on higher mortgage debt. A £600,000 property is out of reach of the vast majority of people in my constituency and the wider area. It seems a strange priority to underwrite huge mortgages when the Government are telling us that we must withhold welfare payments from those whom the courts found to have been illegally sanctioned.

We all know that the Work programme is not fit for purpose—the Public Accounts Committee told us so. It is clear that welfare under this Government is unfair and in chaos, and I do not think things will change until we have a general election in 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I can only say to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) that perhaps he would like to see some of the conditions that my constituents experience, and then he can conclude whether the previous Member of Parliament, or indeed some of the Labour councillors, did anything to assist them.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I did not want to intervene, but I really cannot let that pass. As someone who served on a local housing authority for almost 20 years and came into contact with many elected Labour councillors, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it was a top priority for us to try to ensure decent housing, and I am sure that that philosophy has also applied in Hendon.

[Dr Offord]

I can assure that hon. Gentleman that in my experience it certainly has not. I certainly would never wish to impugn his reputation, or indeed the work he has done over the past 20 years on the housing authority. I only wish that some of my Labour councillors had the credibility that he has.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Grahame Morris Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is not often that, when I rise to oppose a Government Bill, as I do again on this occasion—for the avoidance of doubt, I will be going through the No Lobby—I follow six hon. Members in succession with whom I agree. Perhaps that is an indication that no Government Back Bencher is prepared to stand on their convictions and argue the point. Therefore, this is quite a rare occasion.

I am proud to represent the Easington constituency. This is a matter of social justice for me and I have a number of concerns about the Bill. The issue of retrospection is an important and fundamental one. I suspect that the Government are opening a Pandora’s box here. In the debates on last year's Finance Bill, I heard the same Minister warning of the dangers of retrospective measures to deal with tax avoidance and loopholes, so using this route will have consequences. If he was so confident about the quality and strength of his argument, why did he not challenge the decision in the Supreme Court, rather than using primary legislation? Perhaps he might answer that question in his response.

It is not just an issue of retrospection—the Government's arguments are wrong. They are trying to justify this measure, but they have made the mistake. It is an issue of wording. Nevertheless, the Government have made the mistake and they are seeking to sell their argument to hon. Members on both sides of the House by saying that, if the funds are not recovered from those who were incorrectly sanctioned, they will have to be recovered from elsewhere in the welfare budget. That is outrageous blackmail; I am sorry if that is not parliamentary language, but I find that deeply offensive. It goes against every grain of fairness in Members on both sides of the House. The view I am expressing is the view that has been unanimously expressed to me. I have received numerous e-mails and messages from my constituents over the past 48 hours, all of them asking me to vote against this Bill as it is unfair and unjust.

The Government, and especially Government Back Benchers, have characterised jobseekers who have been sanctioned as workshy and feckless—the sentiment expressed was “Are you really suggesting these people shouldn’t be sanctioned?” Let us have a look at the Work programme, however. It has gone from chaos to farce. We talk about “workshy”, but what about wage-shy employers who exploit the unemployed, with the connivance, approval and funding of the Government?

Many commentators have severely criticised the Work programme as not representing value for money, and so, too, I believe, has the Public Accounts Committee—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong about that. Indeed, it has been suggested that the programme is worse than doing nothing, and I am certainly aware that major retailers have exploited free labour from the Work programme to meet seasonal demand, rather than, as would otherwise have happened, employing temporary staff or, even, giving existing employees additional hours. The programme has therefore had the perverse effect of blocking real jobs, and I agree with other Opposition Members who feel it should be subjected to a root-and-branch review.

What we have is a £3-million black hole, and it seems to me that the only people profiting from it are the privately contracted organisations—some of whom were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell—who have done well out of the programme. I am therefore surprised that one of the Government’s principal arguments here is about the protection of the national economy, when they are seeking to introduce primary legislation to rewrite history and withhold social security payments that were denied because of unlawful sanctions. We must not beat about the bush. The judgment is clear and specific; my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) read it out in her passionate and excellent speech. The Government are at fault here, in how they have implemented things.

I oppose the concept of two nations, as does my party, but what will the consequences of these measures be? The Government are creating two nations. They are seeking to penalise and punish the poor for the mistakes of the rich and powerful, in part of a continuing series of policies that are badged as “austerity”. Those policies are pushing the poorest in society further into poverty.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said, one of the most galling things is that Ministers have shown absolutely no contrition or understanding of the consequences of their actions. That might be because they do not understand the consequences, because they do not live in the real world where they would rub shoulders with some of the poorest people in society who are suffering hardship. People in my constituency in east Durham ask me, “Why are we suffering for the consequences of this crisis? Was it created in Horden, Shotton, Haswell, Blackhall or even Murton?” No, of course not; the crisis was caused by the mistakes of the banking sector and City speculators. I raise that point not only because I despise the casino bankers for the state they have reduced the economy to, but because there is another avenue that Ministers could pursue to recover the £130 million, which I will return to shortly. In fact, we touched on this issue last year in the Finance Bill Committee. Why on earth do the Government not legislate for a general principle of tax avoidance? Instead of robbing people who have been inappropriately sanctioned, the Government should consider the huge reservoir of unpaid tax that individuals could well afford to contribute to. To my mind, there was a failure by Governments.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and a very good point about where money could be found. He mentioned the tax gap, which, according to Richard Murphy and others, is some £120 billion a year. We are talking today about £130 million, which is roughly one thousandth of that amount.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend, who is very knowledgeable and has a background as an economist, has hit the nail on the head. The general public, my constituents and many Opposition Members do not understand why the Government do not address this problem. There is a relatively straightforward way to do so: by legislating for a general principle of tax avoidance. The Government are quite happy to use primary legislation retrospectively to deprive people who have been illegally sanctioned of £130 million, but they will not use the same route to recover moneys properly due to the Exchequer.

There is a contradiction here. Although the Government have been highly critical of what has happened, they continue to push the case for further deregulation. Just yesterday, in a Delegated Legislation Committee the statutory period of notice for compulsory redundancies for employers employing more than 100 people was reduced from 90 days to 45. This Government are still very much pursuing the Beecroft agenda.

[John McDonnell]

It is worth noting that, according to the Government’s impact assessment of that delegated legislation, employers will gain £290 million and employees will lose £250 million.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That just goes to show that we are all in this together—or rather, we are not.

I have seen the graphs and the charts showing that the poorest are being hardest hit. We should consider the effect of a 5% cut in their weekly income. Other Members have spoken about the sort of cuts that individuals are going to experience. I do not know whether the Minister, other Front Benchers or even Conservative Back Benchers know what it is like to exist on £71 a week, but it is a real struggle. Taking up to £25 a week from the poorest families, most of whom are in social housing, can mean a choice between eating or having proper heating. How can this be fair, when the Government’s priority is to make millionaires richer, to the tune of £2,000 a week? Such a tax cut is unimaginable for someone who would be sanctioned under the Work programme. In fact, the £2,000 a week tax cut for millionaires that we anticipate tomorrow equates to 28 weeks’ income for somebody on jobseeker’s allowance.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman just remind the House why Labour always had a lower rate of tax for rich people than this Government?

[Grahame M. Morris]

We need to look at the situation we are in now. This is the wrong thing to do: it is unjust and unfair to give millionaires a £2,000 a week tax cut, at the same time as the right hon. Gentleman’s Government propose to deprive some of the poorest people, who have been illegally sanctioned, of large chunks of their income. It is outrageous, and it is rank hypocrisy for anyone to talk about rights with the emphasis on responsibility when it comes to workfare. If they are willing to undermine the judiciary and the rule of law, and vote for retrospective legislation to cover up the mistakes and failings of the Minister, who is asking that we legislate to place him above the law, that is a dangerous precedent to establish.

I cannot, in all conscience, support this desperate Bill, put forward by a desperate Government who have broken their own laws and now wish to forgo their legal obligations and withhold social security payments of £130 million to some of the poorest people in the country. Why do we not apply that method across the board? If the national emergency is such that it is right to deny access to social security to those who are entitled to it in order to safeguard the national economy, why do we not chase the tax exiles—those powerful individuals who own newspapers and luxury hotels, who pay no corporation tax and who have laid siege to a small Channel Island? I understand that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has already paid out more than £200 million to two such individuals who are now seeking a £1 billion VAT windfall at the taxpayer’s expense. Government Members are silent about such things. As we know, there is one rule for the rich and one rule for the poor, including those who have been illegally sanctioned through the Work programme.

We are in the sorry situation of the Minister blackmailing hon. Members by threatening a collective punishment for all those in receipt of social security and welfare benefits if these changes do not go through, because the Department might have to find the money through further reductions elsewhere in its budget. I thought that it was the Secretary of State for Education and his advisers who were the bullies. It is now obvious that the Department for Work and Pensions has decided to sink to those standards by threatening Members of the House in this way, which is below what we would expect of a responsible Government and a responsible Minister.

I did not come into Parliament to penalise and punish the vulnerable and the poor for the mistakes of the Government. The Department for Work and Pensions seems to be in a state of chaos. It is trying to save money by issuing unlawful sanctions for a Work programme that is not fit for purpose. It is making arbitrary cuts to disability living allowance and employment and support allowance, and is seeking to reduce the case load by 20%. Through the bedroom tax, it is cutting the incomes of disabled people and families with children. The welfare state under this coalition Government in 2013 is failing at every turn.

What we are seeing today is an abuse of power. This is an appalling Bill. I urge the Minister to take responsibility for his actions, even at this late stage, to put a stop to the Bill and to pay those who were unlawfully sanctioned because of his failings. I will vote against the Bill and I urge other hon. Members to do the same.