UK Poverty

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) for calling the debate and for the passion with which she delivered her speech. Interestingly, in the 45 minutes she took to do so, she did not give us a single indication of what a future Labour Government might do to address some of the concerns she raised. She did not even look at how she might solve the challenges we face.

It seems fairly straightforward to me that the best way to solve an individual’s financial difficulties is to get them into work—to give them a job and let them earn their own money, so that they can provide for their family. That gives them not only the cash to improve their lives, but the self-esteem and quality of life they deserve. We should do that as a Government. If we do, we get a double whammy. If we take an individual out of the welfare system and they succeed in the workplace, more of the pie is left for those who are genuinely in difficulty and who need the support of the welfare state.

Let us look at what the Government have done over the past four and a half years. Some 1.7 million more people are in work. We have tried to get people out of the welfare system and into the workplace, so that they can improve their own lives.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is all well and good saying another 1.7 million people are in work, but what type of employment is it? Some of the statistics that have been published show that up to 1.4 million people are on zero-hours contracts, which, in effect, provide less than benefits.

[Mr Spencer]

Zero-hours contracts are not something that happened under this Government; they existed before we came to power. The Labour Government did nothing about them when they were in power.

I have met individuals in my constituency who have been offered a zero-hours contract. They took it up, went to work and became very successful. They were then offered a full-time career; they progressed through the management structure; and they are now earning a substantial salary. Zero-hours contracts can therefore sometimes be a gateway to a career.

The Government have to find a way to create such gateways, so that individuals can aspire to make their way through the system. One way of doing that is to create apprenticeships, and 2 million have been created under this Government. That is a way to give the next generation the skills they require to take up a career in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Thank you for your extreme flexibility, Mr Crausby.

We live in a different world here in Westminster. People in the rest of the country live in a broken society. Children are suffering because of poverty. Disabled people are suffering because of poverty and the introduction of the bedroom tax. Mentally ill people are suffering greatly because of the situation in this country. Single parents are being singled out because of the situation that the Government have imposed on them. Old people are suffering because of poverty; many of them are huddling together because they cannot even afford to put money in the electricity meter or food on the table.

We live in a broken society. Poverty is preventable. Poverty is a political choice. It brings shame on the Government and on politicians to allow poverty to continue as we are experiencing it here in food bank Britain. People in work cannot afford to put food on the table—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order.

Benefit Claimants (North-east)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for such an important debate, Mrs Riordan. I hope that you and all Members present enjoyed the festive period. As we return to Westminster, it is important to recognise that not everyone will have been able to enjoy it. We have seen unprecedented demand at north-east food banks over Christmas, and it is not hard to see why. On my website, I publish pie charts of the issues raised with me by constituents. If Members visit www.chionwurahmp.com —I recommend that everyone does regularly—they will see that benefits is consistently among the top two or three issues. For example, my office dealt with 28 benefits cases in November, 36 in October and 32 in September.

MPs all over the north-east are aware that a particular challenge of benefit cases is that they almost always involve someone vulnerable. Those claiming benefits are by definition going through a tough time. They may have lost a job, have an illness or disability, or be in low-paid or part-time work, or they may be caring for young children or relatives, making it harder for them to work. They need our support. They need our care, a helping hand to get their lives back together, and concern for and understanding of the challenges they face. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has said:

“Jobcentres, and the HMRC offices that currently administer tax credits, are vital public services that British citizens pay for with their taxes. People who use them have as much right to expect fair and respectful treatment as patients in an NHS hospital, parents dealing with their child’s school, or victims reporting a crime at a police station.”

It has become increasingly clear to me that that is not the experience of my constituents.

I have dealt with cases in which the only explanation for the cruel and inhumane way people were treated is that the employees of the Department and its agencies—public servants—have forgotten, or been told to forget, that benefit claimants are people: human beings with lives, loved ones and feelings. That is why I want the Minister to answer for the treatment of benefits claimants in the north-east and the culture in the Department for Work and Pensions that results in that treatment. I am going to raise a number of cases from my constituency to illustrate my point. I know that the issue extends beyond the north-east, but I want to focus on my region. I know from speaking to colleagues that they have many similar cases, and we can see how well represented the region is by the Members present.

The first case concerns a constituent whom I will not name for reasons that will become evident. Each constituent I do name has given me their express permission to do so. In January last year, my constituent was found hanged in his home by a neighbour. He was well known to Newcastle Welfare Rights, from which he had received considerable support in his dealings with the DWP. He had been in receipt of employment and support allowance, and previously incapacity benefit, and he was engaging well with NWR until November 2013, when he underwent a work capability assessment. The social worker who accompanied him had to spend two hours with him afterwards.

After he scored zero points and was found fit to work, NWR sought evidence from psychological services, and wrote to the Department, stating:

“The recent news that Mr…is not entitled to ESA support has had a significant impact on his mental health…he was acutely distressed; he struggled to talk, he was having thoughts of suicide, he had also started drinking alcohol to cope and had struggled to leave the house…His main emotion was one of fear and unfortunately this has reawakened traumatic memories of abuse in the past”.

The letter went into a lot more detail, but was disregarded by the DWP. The decision remained unchanged.

Over Christmas 2013, my constituent attempted to take his life using prescribed medication and attempted hanging. He had daily input from the local mental health trust crisis assessment and treatment team, and regular input from NWR. In January 2014, NWR submitted another letter from his psychologist that said that his

“distress and subsequent suicide attempt are directly related to the ATOS/benefits decision recently made”.

The letter went on to state that the psychologist was aware that my constituent was “highly anxious” prior to the assessment

“and required a significant amount of support following the interview.”

The psychologist’s professional opinion was that if he

“was found to be ‘fit for work’ this could directly lead to further suicide attempts and subsequently result in him successfully killing himself.”

That was a warning, and, tragically, that is exactly what happened.

As one can imagine, his suicide had a serious impact on the NWR team, especially those who were working to support him. They told me they were numbed and deeply saddened that their efforts were not enough to prevent his suicide. The neighbour who found him was also deeply affected and continues to require psychological support.

The second case that I want to highlight concerns another of my constituents, Mr Roy Hails, an IT specialist who was recently made redundant. He was determined to find work and applied for every suitable job while claiming jobseeker’s allowance, but was sanctioned by the jobcentre when his work search record was judged inadequate—in the week that his father died. Think about that for a moment. I happened to know Mr Hails’ father and the long and complex illnesses that he suffered from. I also know what a close family they were, and what a loss to his family and the community Mr Hails senior was. Regardless of that, is there anyone in this Chamber—or, indeed, in this country—who does not believe that a son should be given the opportunity to grieve for and bury his father, whether or not he is claiming benefits? The culture that this Government have put in place is such that people are not being given that opportunity.

Members are no doubt familiar with the play “Antigone” by Sophocles, in which the heroine defies a brutal Government to bury and mourn for her brother. It is a sad indictment of the Conservative party when an ancient Greek playwright, dead for more than 2,000 years, is more in touch with the needs and values of this country than the Government.

After I wrote to the director general for operations, the Department did find an exception by which a bereaved claimant can be excused from signing on or job search requirements for up to two weeks. However, the officials who dealt with Mr Hails were unaware of it; they thought that that the Government they work for would prevent a man from grieving for his father. What does that say about the culture the Government are promoting? Mr Hails told the Jobcentre Plus in Newcastle that his father had died and that was why he had not been searching for jobs, but they still thought it appropriate to sanction him.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing such an important debate. Does she share my deep concern about the rumours that there are league tables in DWP offices, and that people who are working very hard are being brought to task for not sanctioning people enough? They are told that they are underperforming. If that is the case, we will face these issues for ever and a day, as long as a Conservative Government are in charge.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will not call what I too have heard rumours, because it is clear that jobcentres are measured on the number of sanctions they issue. There may not be official targets, but the numbers are measured and published, so of course they are compared. I know from speaking to former and current DWP employees that they are under pressure to sanction people, almost regardless of how hard they are trying to find a job.

My third and final example concerns another constituent, Adam Ross Williams. What happened to him occurred just before Christmas. In November, the jobcentre wrote to Adam to say that because he had failed to complete and return a JSA2 claim review form, which he had never received, all payments to him were going to be suspended. He immediately called to ask why the form had not been sent to him by recorded delivery or handed to him at the jobcentre, which he has to attend. He also asked if he could complete the form by phone. He was told that that was impossible and that he would have to wait for another form to be posted to him.

The form finally arrived just before Christmas, almost one month after he had requested it, during which time he had no income, going without and relying on handouts from friends and family, “when I was lucky”. Of course, many other claimants in similar situations are forced into debt, and in particular to use payday loans.

Adam’s circumstances had not changed and the form he was sent was exactly the same as the one he had first filled out. He filled out the second form, took it to his local jobcentre and asked them to fax it straight over to the DWP. However, he immediately got a phone call from the DWP saying that they had not received his form and asked if he would be willing to complete the form over the phone, which is what he had wanted to do in the first place. We must remember that all this happened just before Christmas, which is a really stressful time for everybody, particularly those on a low income or, as in this case, no income.

Adam asked for an emergency payment and he was assured that he would get a phone call confirming that he would be paid. No phone call came, so he checked with the benefit inquiry line and was told that no emergency payment had been requested, so nothing could reach him until after Christmas. And yet all that had been needed was to ask him to confirm that his circumstances had not changed. When I hear stories such as this, I wonder whether the system is designed to hound people such as Adam, who are seeking work.

I could go on for hours—I could give 300 examples, not just three—but I know that many Members from the region wish to speak, and I also want to say a little about the broader context. There are people on benefits who are abusing the system; there are what are known as “scroungers”, who take what they can get and consider benefits both a lifestyle and a right. However, they are a very small proportion of those on benefits. It is estimated that 0.7% of welfare spending is lost to fraud, in comparison with the 1.3% lost to overpayment because of mistakes.

It is of course important to tackle fraud and error, but does the Minister think it necessary to place adverts on buses in my constituency saying:

“Think you know a Newcastle upon Tyne Benefits Cheat? Report them anonymously”?

Stunts such as that fuel misconceptions about benefits and fraud. Is it any surprise that people estimate that 34 times more benefit money is claimed fraudulently than is actually the case? Perhaps the Minister can tell us how much that campaign cost and how the Department plans to measure how much money has been saved by it. I have yet to see adverts encouraging people to turn in tax evaders, despite the Treasury itself estimating the “tax gap” at £34 billion and tax campaigners suggesting that the true figure could be much, much higher. Or is this process more about, as one person complained to me, fostering a culture of suspicion and bitterness towards claimants? That is the outcome, and certainly that is how many of my constituents have come to feel.

I will quote from what Adam said to me:

“In summary, I am absolutely disgusted at how I have been treated. I feel entirely let down by my government, and like a second class citizen. What have I done to deserve this?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

To highlight one of the difficulties with the staff, who generally do a fantastic job, the press reported on the assessment of a lady who is blind and has a guide dog. The person doing the assessment held three fingers up and asked the blind lady, “How many fingers am I holding up?” The lady said, “I am blind.” The person said, “That has nothing at all to do with it. I have to ask you the questions.” That is the way disabled people—in this case, a blind person—are being treated by some of the staff in jobcentres.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I have noticed that compassion and understanding are being completely removed from the jobcentre. There are no grey areas anymore; it is black or white. When I went to my local jobcentre to discuss some of my constituents’ complaints, I was shocked by how dismissive the local management team were. They explained that they refused to offer a private room because they did not want to set a precedent. In other cases, they simply said that they did not believe what I and my constituents were telling them. The whole attitude was completely negative and showed the confrontational way in which jobcentres now deal with claimants. In fact, the attitude shown to me was so appalling that I complained to the regional manager. It was not that I was particularly fussed by how they spoke to me; my concern was that if they speak to a Member of Parliament in that way, how on earth are they treating our constituents?

Jobcentre staff are ultimately there to provide a service, and to help people find work. If someone has special requirements, staff should be allowed to accommodate them. The Government’s hard-line approach and the pressure on staff to meet targets mean that the focus has changed and the majority of hard-working staff, who I genuinely believe want to do their jobs properly, feel hindered and frustrated about being unable to do so. When I was looking for work, advisers were there to guide jobseekers into work or training that was right for them. It was a process that treated people like human beings. That is important when people are already feeling low or marginalised because of their unemployment. That is not how the system works today. Now the role of the jobcentre is to police the unemployed and punish them for making even the smallest of mistakes. If they are five minutes late for an appointment, there is no mercy or discussion—their benefits are simply cut off. Where once staff were there to advise, they are now told to check up on claimants, to police them and to catch them out.

As far as I am concerned, our jobcentres are no longer providing a good enough service. Staff are under pressure to get people off benefits by any means necessary, and there are perverse incentives to push people on to make-work courses. Constituents have complained that they have been ordered to take the same CV writing courses over and over again as a substitute for genuine support. That is a complete waste of time and does not get them into work. What it does, however, is remove them from the unemployment figures. Like those on the Work programme, they are not employed in any meaningful sense, but they do not show up in the figures. I make it crystal clear to the Minister that being on the Work programme or stuck on make-work training courses does not constitute employment, no matter how much her Government would like us to think so. The only purpose of the schemes is to help a jobcentre meet its targets, because it can use the courses as evidence that it has provided training or work-related activity, or use non-attendance as a reason to sanction benefit claimants.

In any organisation, the attitude of those at the top filters down. That is why the culture change at the DWP fits right in with the ugly attitude that the Government have taken towards people on benefits. They have encouraged and continue to encourage the public to think of claimants as spongers or skivers, so that working people struggling to get by will blame the unemployed man or woman next door, claiming their £70 a week, instead of the tax-dodging companies that cost our economy billions every year. The way claimants are treated is nothing to do with getting people into work; it is about scapegoating the poor and making them a target for the anger and frustration the public feel during a time of serious hardship. It is downright nasty politics, and the Government should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

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

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

“seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ian Lavery]

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

[Andy McDonald]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Esther McVey]

No, they were specific quotes used by Members about what advisers had said. Those people in the past year alone have helped record numbers of people into work, and work consistently hard every day, to the best of their abilities, so I want to speak on their behalf.

I will also say that nobody, whoever they are, should be treated shoddily, badly or rudely—I think those were the words used—or as a lesser person in some way because they are on benefits. That is not allowed and should not happen. If it is proved that anybody has done that, they are answerable to me. I will not have people doing that anonymously.

[Ian Lavery]

Is the Minister saying that she is unaware of the fact that people are being treated shoddily and poorly in jobcentres? By the way, nobody here has had a go at anybody other than the people in jobcentres who were treating people like that.

[Esther McVey]

I am trying to follow the logic. Apparently we were not talking about the staff, but there are people who are treating people shoddily, badly and so on; the hon. Gentleman therefore is talking about people who work in jobcentres—[Interruption.] I would like to finish my sentence.

Benefit Sanctioning

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on bringing to the House such an important issue, which concerns me greatly and can have a devastating impact on many people’s lives and on communities up and down the country, including my constituency.

I wonder why “sanction” is used, because the word means “approved”, and people are in fact being disapproved—that is just something to ponder. That sanction may be imposed if a claimant is deemed not to have complied with a condition for receiving the benefit in question. Since October 2012, according to House of Commons Library figures, 1.4 million people have been sanctioned. Sanctions give people a huge problem, as they have four weeks at the very least without any finance—four weeks without the means to live, to put bread on the table or to feed the kids. That is what sanctioning means, and it is unacceptable.

This morning, I had a look on the internet and I found a site that gives some incredible examples of how and why people are sanctioned, and it is worth noting one or two, if not more. The first is the case of an Army veteran who volunteered to sell poppies for the Royal British Legion at a local supermarket in memory of his fallen comrades. He had applied for lots of jobs, including one at the supermarket where he was selling the poppies, but without any success. He was sanctioned for four weeks.

Another fellow got a job interview that was at the same time as his jobcentre appointment, so he had to reschedule that appointment. He tried to do so, but the people at the jobcentre said he did not have a good enough reason for not being there, so he was sanctioned for four weeks. That is four weeks with no food and little electricity, suffering greatly—in 2014, in the sixth richest economy in the world.

In another example, somebody’s relative died during the night, and their partner rang the jobcentre the next day to ask whether they could come in on the following day. Their partner was told that yes, of course they could, but after they went in, they were written to. They replied, explaining the situation in writing, but were sanctioned for six weeks for not replying.

There is a fellow in my constituency who I have seen three times now; I have also mentioned his case in the House. He is 62 years old. He suffers greatly because of a heart condition and has to go to hospital regularly. He has been sanctioned again. The last time he came to see me he had been living on blackberries, apples and mushrooms from the local field. Is that what we want from sanctioning?

There are two ways to look at this issue. We could suggest that the Government did not mean those sorts of things to happen with sanctioning, and that those cases are one-offs. In that case, we might think they would put them right, but I am not sure they are inclined to do that. They see them as consequences, but I see those people as human beings—not as consequences or as collateral damage, but as human beings, like me and like everyone else in this Chamber. The other view is that the Government are aware of the consequences of sanctioning and are prepared to put up with them.

[Steve Baker]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. He has given some extremely good reasons why people ought not to have been sanctioned. Under the system, if people give a good reason they should be exempt from sanctions, so has he considered why that system has broken down in those cases?

[Ian Lavery]

I have given lots of consideration and thought to sanctions. My view, which is not perhaps the view of the party that I am proud to represent, is that sanctions are inappropriate in this day and age, in any way, shape or form. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) that there has to be something in place for the odd person who, as we all know, swings the lead. That does happen, but those people are then put at the top of the agenda, as if everybody was swinging the lead when they are not.

People do not want to be on benefits. People on benefits are not the wealthiest in this world—they are not living a life of luxury but are merely existing. As I have said before, that is not good enough—it really is not. That is not just because of Government policy, but because of a whole array of things. As politicians we have a duty to make sure that we look after the residents of this country.

I have given a few real examples. I have another one: there is a man in my constituency who was sanctioned only two weeks ago. He had got a job, but he was not going to start it for a fortnight; he did not look for any employment after he got it, because he had a job. He was sanctioned because he had not put enough work into finding a job, when he had already found one. That is absolute nonsense. If anyone thinks any different I would be incredibly surprised.

If we look at the class of people who are being impacted by the sanctions, it is the vulnerable and those who are desperate. They are not scroungers, as many people try to portray them—a lot of them are extremely desperate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central mentioned, a lot of people who are being sanctioned do not have anything to eat, so they are referred to the local food bank. Although the next point depends on the figures we have read and want to accept, there are in the region of 500,000 people attending food banks because they do not have enough food. These are families and single parents—people with kids—who have not got a scrap or a morsel on the table to feed themselves. No one here wants that to happen, so why is it happening?

We hear Ministers suggest that food banks are a great thing—we are all in this together and there is great community spirit in seeing people giving food to people who do not have anything. There is a factory in my constituency where, instead of paying proper wages, they are setting up a food bank. I am getting slightly off the issue now, Mr Howarth, but it is all connected to sanctioning and to the fact that the people at the very bottom are desperate and are looking merely to exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central said that the majority of people using food banks are there because of sanctions or delays to their benefits in one form or another. That needs to be looked at.

It is generally accepted that thousands of disabled people are being sanctioned. The group that really concerns me is the mentally ill—there are people who are mentally ill who are being sanctioned through no fault of their own. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) mentioned two prime examples. One was the 44-year-old man living in the Prime Minister’s constituency who starved to death because he had been sanctioned and did not know what the process was. That was in the Prime Minister’s backyard. There was also the case of the individual with type 1 diabetes. Those are just a couple of cases. I say to the Minister that we really need to have a proper look at who is being sanctioned and the consequences of sanctioning them.

I have been involved with the DWP work force for quite some time. Regardless of what might be said today, pressure is being put on people who work in DWP offices and deal with applications to ensure that their targets are as good as those of other offices. Basically, if their individual targets are not good enough, they are brought in to see the manager and are coerced into ensuring that their performances increase in line with those of other people in their section and other sections in other DWP and jobcentre offices. There are unofficial league tables. That will be denied, but I can prove that it is the case.

In concluding, I place on the record my thanks to the CAB in Wansbeck, which does a fantastic job. It is bursting at the seams with people with nowhere to go, no food to eat and no electricity when they get home. The people at the CAB do a fantastic job, although again they are being hit greatly by the cuts. Without them, a lot of people would suffer even more. I have one simple question for the Minister: is there ever any reason here in the UK for depriving people of a means to live?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Employment (Esther McVey)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Howarth, to serve under your chairmanship. I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) for bringing this important debate to the Chamber. It is important for us to keep a spotlight on the sanctions regime.

Sanctions have always been part of the benefits system. As Oakley stated, benefits sanctions provide a vital backdrop in the social security system for jobseekers. They are a key element of mutual obligation underpinning both the effectiveness and fairness of the social security system. Sanctions help to ensure that claimants meet requirements designed to help to them to move into work. They are only a last resort as part of a wider agenda to help people to get a job and to move closer to the labour market.

Our approach is not to be tougher for its own sake, but to provide a clearer, more consistent and effective incentive to comply. Where sanctions are, how they are set up within the system and how they work are important. Before dealing with hon. Members’ questions individually and responding to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, I will provide some context.

When the debate was arranged, I thought we should look at what was happening pre-2010. A system is always subject to changes, which must reflect what is happening, to make it better and support more people into work. When looking back—this probably answers the question from the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—we must consider how sanctions were issued.

There was widespread inconsistency in decision making, with similar cases being treated differently even within jobcentres. We had to ensure that that did not happen so we focused on how to achieve greater consistency and efficiency throughout the introduction of our quality assurance framework. No targets were set and there are still no targets, but when we see variation, whether higher or lower, in the same jobcentre, we seek to ensure that a certain standard is maintained. We would check what various advisers are doing and whether the person concerned needs extra help and support to provide equality. It cannot be right that one jobseeker is treated differently from a friend, colleague or other jobseeker. That is why we made changes.

I also looked at what was happening in 2010 and there were some startling differences. Between 2004 and 2009—this raises a different question, but it is all part of the sanctions system and the extra help given—only four out of 10 British nationals got jobs, but six out of 10 foreign nationals did. We changed that round because it is key that, as well as sanctions, we provide a system that gives the right training, the right support and the right employability skills. In addition, discipline is necessary to maintain a job. All that must be provided. Since we have done that and fundamentally changed the system, nearly seven out of 10 British nationals are getting jobs. That must be seen in the context of the changes since 2010.

I look at the jobs market and what has happened, and at the various quotes. Since 2010, there has been an increase of nearly 2 million jobs. The Opposition said they thought there would be 1 million fewer jobs, but that is not the case. There are nearly 2 million more jobs and at the same time there are an extra 200,000 vacancies, so there are about 670,000 vacancies at any one time.

We must ask whether we have the right incentives in place to get people into work, and whether we are providing the right training, discipline and employability skills for people to get a job. We must look at the issue in the round. There have been significant changes.

[Ian Lavery]

On the millions of jobs that the Government claim they have created, the Office for National Statistics says that 1.4 million of them involve zero-hours contracts. Does the Minister believe that the Government are encouraging people into long-term employment by offering them contracts under which they might not make even £1 a week?

[Esther McVey]

The Labour party has already been brought to task by the UK Statistics Authority for talking about a significant increase in zero-hours contracts that did not happen. The contracts began in 2000 as the minimum wage was brought in. We know the number of people on them, and for the vast majority they work. When they do not work, we have not allowed exclusive contracts. We are doing something that the previous Government did not do. We want to ensure that people have a good job—not just any old job, but a job they want so that they have a career and progress. We know that three quarters of the jobs created since 2010 are full-time. I hope that answers the question.

The other key issue—for me, probably the most important thing the Government have done—is that fewer children are now growing up in workless households.

Gleision Mine

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Chope, to serve under your chairmanship.

On Thursday 15 September 2011, seven men left their homes and commuted to work at the Gleision pit in my constituency. Having drunk their morning tea, they moved underground just after 9 o’clock to labour on the number two Rhondda seam. Wearing high-visibility jackets and safety gear, they expected to work until 5 o’clock and then return to their families. Instead, at 9.45 am, a small explosion that they detonated led to the release in a matter of seconds of 3,000 tonnes of water into a shaft hardly 4 feet high. The exact sequence of events is unknown, but the mine manager, Malcolm Fyfield, was close to the inrush. Astonishingly, he was able to survive the torrent of water and climb through the breach hole, finally to emerge bloodied, having struggled out of another entrance to the mine.

Further from the breach, David Wyatt heard the roar from the coming torrent and ran until he was able to jump on a conveyor belt, which carried him to the main mine entrance, the water chasing him through the passage. There, he alerted his colleague, Nigel Evans, and the emergency services were called. Daniel Powell, another collier in the mine, was also lucky to escape after running from the inrush. Those three were the only men to survive. Charles Breslin, Philip Hill, Garry Jenkins and David Powell were crushed by the terrifying raging force of the flood. With nearly a century of mining experience between them, those colliers had laboured in mines across the Swansea, Neath and Dulais valleys all their working lives. Charles Breslin had returned from retirement for a stint down Gleision to earn extra money to complete the family home he was building.

In the hours immediately after the explosion, teams from across Britain came to the fore as emergency services from Dinas, Cwmgwrach, Glynneath and even Yorkshire rushed to help in a frantic rescue operation and the subsequent investigation. Down the mountain in Rhos community centre, the families of the trapped men gathered with community leaders in a 36-hour vigil until the miners’ bodies were eventually recovered and gradually identified, and everyone began to come to terms with the trauma, and the families with their stunned grief. Today, over three years on, we are no closer to being told by any of the key agencies or the justice system why Charles, David, Philip and Garry died.

This is not an exercise in finding someone to blame. There was a trial and the manager and mine owners were acquitted of manslaughter and corporate manslaughter respectively. Mining is inherently dangerous, but neither I nor the families who were present during the long hours of that sad vigil in Rhos community centre have been given answers as to why the accident occurred by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Health and Safety Executive or indeed the trial at Swansea county court earlier this year. I am therefore left to make my own judgment after careful assessment of the trial evidence and other inquiries.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. Can he say what happened at the inquest? Unfortunately, I have been involved with deaths in the mining industry all my life, and normally there is some indication from an inquest of how an individual died.

[Mr Hain]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority as a former leader of the National Union of Mineworkers. The coroner’s inquest was convened and then adjourned, and has never been completed, which has left unanswered questions.

The Gleision tragedy was a chilling reminder of a death-strewn mining era long thought consigned to history, and of the fact that short-cut attitudes to health and safety can be fatal. It also revealed how erosion of the Mines Rescue Service could create greater tragedies in the future if we fail to address the formidable budget challenges that that key agency faces if it is to maintain its long and dedicated record on mining.

The first lesson is that employers must be responsible for their employees in a way that was obviously not the case at Gleision. Throughout its recent life, it seems there was illegal mining at Gleision, certainly in the decade prior to 2011. At the trial, Mr Justice Wyn Williams said that successive managers had read into health and safety regulations what suited their needs, failing to co-operate sufficiently with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of mines. Despite this, the mines inspectors confirmed that the mine plan from which the manager and the four men were working, even as they detonated that fatal blast, was accurate. The inspectors checked during the official investigation after the tragedy and found that, although Gleision had not been inspected in the 16 months prior to the accident—an attempt to do so had been foiled by bad weather—the survey conducted two months before in July 2011 by mines surveyor John Brosnan was up to date and sufficiently accurate.

Of course, the Management and Administration of Safety and Health at Mines Regulations 1993 made it incumbent on the mine manager or owner to inform the mines inspectorate of any major changes in working plans underground. The inspectorate relies on the mutual co-operation of the mine manager and mine owner to alert to changes in the faces that they seam, and it is more than likely that multiple Gleision managers before Malcolm Fyfield had failed to do that adequately and properly.

The entire legal framework of health and safety at work in Britain is sensibly based on a self-policing model, relying on companies and their executives to comply with and guarantee safety standards by keeping risk as low as reasonably practicable. It is clear to me that in the events leading up to the tragedy the regulations were not complied with. However, the most frustrating question, and the one that haunts us all, is: why were the four miners there facing death in the first place?

The day after the tragedy, having been escorted from Rhos community centre up the mountain to stand at the mine entrance amid rescue workers and police, the mines inspector showed me the same mine plan from which Fyfield and the men were working. It showed clearly that they were mining directly towards an area in the old mine workings marked “Old Central Workings and Underground Water”. I have the mine plan here. The mines inspector expressed his surprise at this, and there is still no explanation for why the decision to take that risk was made.

The exact source of the water—whether it was in the area marked on the plan I saw, only a few metres from where the men fatefully detonated their explosion, or somewhere else nearby—was hotly disputed during the trial. The fact remains that the water was indeed there, exactly as marked on the mine plan, and that it killed them. Mines inspectors investigating the accident afterwards confirmed that its presence coincided with markings on the plan I saw. Indeed, they were able to see the high tide mark previously reached by the water that subsequently raged torrentially through the breach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

What the inspectors will be able to do is set out the evidence they got from the site investigation. They cannot revisit questions that were dealt with at the trial.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Let me just reply to the right hon. Gentleman, because it is his debate, and then of course I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. The inspectors cannot rerun the trial and, in effect, re-answer the question that was dealt with at the trial and come up with either the same or a different answer. That is not possible. I listened to what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am sure the inspectors will endeavour to ensure that they go as far as they can in setting out the evidence—the facts that they found on the ground—but they may not be able to speculate about things they simply cannot know. They have to stick to what the evidence says.

[Ian Lavery]

There is a big difference between the individuals being charged with corporate manslaughter and being found guilty of an offence, and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) is referring to, which is basically the causation of the accident. The causation of the accident is something that can be investigated completely differently, but using the same evidence that has been used in court for a criminal investigation. It is common sense that that would be the case.

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

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

I have known Lord Freud for a number of years and I agree that, personally, he is courteous and caring. However, his remark touched a deep nerve for disabled people and we have to understand why. It is because it came in the context of the Government’s policies and the effects that disabled people are experiencing.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Lord Freud is an intelligent and articulate individual. He knew what he was saying and he meant what he was saying. Does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers, of whatever political persuasion, who make such offensive remarks about disabled people should be kicked out of office immediately, never to return?

[Kate Green]

I do think that it is difficult for someone who expresses such views to remain in government and in that role.

Let us examine the policy record of the Government. Let us start with the bedroom tax—Lord Freud’s brainchild. Everyone knows that it is a disaster for disabled people. Many disabled people have lived in their homes for years. They have invested in adaptations, as have their families and local councils. Some people need an extra room for equipment or so that an overnight carer can stay. Some people have a condition that means that they cannot share a room with their partner. Many people are settled in their community, with care and concerned family and neighbours close to hand so that they can call for help when they need it. Now they are being forced to move, to cut back on other expenditure to pay the rent or to go into debt.

We all know of cases in our constituencies, such as that of a disabled grandfather, Paul Rutherford, who cares for his severely disabled grandchild, Warren. Extra space is needed in the family home to cope with all of Warren’s equipment. Paul has to rely on discretionary housing payment to pay the rent. Why should he have to go through the anxiety and indignity of pleading for the support that he and his family need? Have we lost all compassion? Have we lost all sense of people’s dignity?

Not only is the bedroom tax exceptionally cruel; it is failing to meet its objectives. Only about 7% of those who have been hit by the tax have been able to move to a smaller home. It is not saving the money that the Government said it would, either. Is it not time that Ministers admitted that this Freud tax is not working and got rid of it, as Labour has pledged to do?

--- Later in debate ---

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I have worked closely with Lord Freud, particularly on the jam jar bank accounts that will probably have to be introduced because of universal credit and the fact that some people are less adequate than others at coping with money, bills and so on. He has such an insightful mind and his only focus is on finding ways to assist people who do not have all their faculties to cope as best they can in society. It is the most disgraceful situation when a gentleman such as that is traduced and he cannot speak for himself because the Opposition have brought this debate to this Chamber and not the other place. I find that astonishing and cheap. The Opposition should look themselves in the mirror—

[Ian Lavery]

Does the hon. Lady also find astonishing the remarks that Lord Freud made initially?

[Heather Wheeler]

The difficulty we all have is this is a garbled piece of tape; we are listening to an answer to a question from a father who was asking Lord Freud whether he would allow something to happen for his child. That is where this synthetic anger and the appalling political football that this has turned into—

[Ian Lavery]

Did the hon. Lady say “garbled message”? Is she saying that Lord Freud did not say what the press are claiming he said?

[Heather Wheeler]

The tape is very difficult to hear. The father who asked the question has clarified the situation. Lord Freud felt that he needed to apologise, and people should accept that apology. He was answering a question from the father who was asking for that to happen. Which bit of that do the Opposition not get?

Affordable Homes Bill

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend goes to the nub of the matter. That may well be what is happening today, and the fact is that those who want to stop the people of this country having a say on Europe think that the best way to do so is by getting a slimmed-down version of the draft Bill into Committee.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am slightly confused about why the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Bill is a Trojan horse because it might be amended in Committee. Is that different from any other Bill? How many amendments did the Government table to the Care Bill, for example? Hundreds and hundreds, but has anyone ever described that as a Trojan horse?

[Mr Nuttall]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me a chance to expand and clarify that point, because there is a fundamental difference: when the Government or anyone else table amendments, they do so in response to comments made as the Bill goes through the legislative procedure. In my experience, it is very unusual for the Member introducing a Bill to openly admit and declare at the outset, on Second Reading, that the Bill is not actually what they want.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question and for the work that she is doing. I am pleased to be able to congratulate Pluss. I think that I am right in remembering that I visited it when I shadowed this brief in opposition. The work that it does and the success of the event are testimony to its efforts to get more disabled people into work.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The outcomes for people on the Work programme who are unemployed on health grounds are simply abysmal. What will the Minister do about that?

[Mr Harper]

The important thing is to see whether people who have health conditions are able to work. If we put people through a work capability assessment and they are clearly not able to work at all, we want to ensure that they get the appropriate help, but if people can work, we want to ensure that they do. That is why we have the Work programme and other schemes that give people proper support to get them into work.

DWP: Performance

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am wondering where to start, with only five minutes to speak. I wonder whether anybody was surprised by the Secretary of State’s opening remarks. He said that the Labour party was the cynical party—what a laugh that is. He said that the debate was just pandering to the paymasters in the trade unions, which has also been said by a number of Government Members. He went on to mention that they have had a good look at the Department in that they use taxis now and some Ministers use the tube. That is great. People in the constituencies will be absolutely delighted that such cuts have been made. Do the Secretary of State and the Ministers not realise that the people we are discussing tonight can barely afford to use taxis and that some disabled people cannot use the tube?

The Secretary of State said that the debate was nonsense and that Opposition Members were scaremongering. That could be described as arrogance in abundance from the Secretary of State. Only an out-of-touch raving lunatic would dare suggest that everything in the Department for Work and Pensions is on track and under control. It is in utter chaos. I would not suggest for one minute that the Ministers or the Secretary of State were stark raving lunatics—quite the opposite. These people know exactly what they are doing to disabled people, vulnerable people and poor people. They are some of the brightest people in Parliament, if not in the country. They know the consequences of their actions when it comes to cuts to the welfare state. They know exactly what is happening.

I would dare to suggest that this is the unbridled brutality of the nasty party coming to the fore—[Interruption.] Of course, they say, “Good grief, how can the hon. Gentleman suggest that?” That is the reality and that is how that party is portrayed in constituencies up and down the country. This is an ideological attack on poor people and on people on benefits, as has been said before. It is an absolute disgrace.

If we look at the universal credit, the work capability assessment, PIP or the bedroom tax, how on earth can anybody even suggest that they have been a success? They are in absolute turmoil. All the analysis and all the experts are saying exactly the same. How can PIP be successful if 700,000 people are waiting to be assessed? We are talking about 700,000 people, yet the Minister and the Secretary of State get up and say that there is nothing to worry about and that things are fine.

Let me end by saying that I will not accept what the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) said about the Labour party having a go at people in the DWP. The people who work in jobcentres up and down the country are working their socks off. People are being laid up because of mental stress caused by the backlogs, the hassle and the way in which they are working. They get support from the Labour party, not from the Conservative party.

In relation to the so-called trade union paymasters, the trade unions have done more for vulnerable, poor and disabled people than the paymasters in the City have ever done or are likely to do, so I resent comments from the Government Benches that the subject for today’s debate was chosen to placate the trade union movement. The trade union movement has done more than they will ever do to support those people, who do not have a voice in Parliament.

Independent Living Fund Recipients

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Westminster Hall

[Nic Dakin]

Thank you, Mr Robertson, but it is important to recognise the number of Members present wanting to take part. I very much welcome that.

The Minister is a good Minister, and I am sure that he is not naive enough to believe that passing responsibility to local authorities absolves him of the responsibility for the decision. I am afraid that he will not get away with devolving responsibility and blame for the consequences of the decision to others.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Does he agree that the dignity, the independence and the human rights of disabled people who need that high level of support can only be met by the continuation of the ILF?

[Nic Dakin]

I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why I am asking the Minister for guarantees that people’s independence will not be compromised under any future arrangements.

Disabled People Against Cuts calculates the existing annual cost of support at around £288 million, and yet the Government have only identified £262 million to transfer to local authorities. That discrepancy is not a good start. The Government are giving no reassurance that that money will be ring-fenced to spend only on support for disabled people to live independently, rather than be absorbed into broader council budgets.

Jobs and Work

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Having sat here for the best part of six and a half hours listening to the discussion of various issues to do with the Gracious Speech, I have to say I am not surprised that many people outside the Westminster bubble feel disenchanted with politics. We have seen from the Government Benches that the fine and dandy politics shines through—Government Members have explained to the people who will be listening to this and who perhaps read reports that life in the UK is fine and that everybody is doing marvellously, but that simply is not the case.

People are right to sit back and be offended by politicians who continually ram that down their throats, suggesting that their life is fine and their families are fine and they should not complain and they should know their place. We live in food bank Britain, yet the fine and dandy politics of the coalition suggests that that is a good thing—it shows community spirit; it is not because people need to eat food to live. The fact that there are more working people at food banks than there are people who are not working is apparently the big society, and it is to be celebrated. Try telling that to people who actually attend the food banks.

We discussed zero hours for a lot of hours today. Different people have different views. The fine and dandy politics of the coalition simply says, “Well, we’ll look at zero-hours contracts, but listen: people should be happy that they’ve got zero-hours contracts. It’s a job. They’re not unemployed, and it doesn’t matter that they’re not making a halfpenny in a week. It doesn’t matter that you haven’t got any protection in the workplace. Be happy because you’ve got a job and you’re not unemployed.” That is rubbish. Try telling it to the young man or woman or the family who are on zero-hours contracts and cannot control their lives. Try telling the agency workers who are being exploited. Try having a look at the situation they are in. Instead of telling everybody that life is brilliant, we should be looking at trying to restore some justice to ordinary people in this country.

I am terribly upset by what went off today, because Members have simply been suggesting that we live in utopia, and saying, “This is happening and that is happening and it’s fantastic, and that’s what we’ve delivered, and you’re scared to talk about it”, while at the same time we have got people suffering greatly in our constituencies. We have child poverty, pensioner poverty, fuel poverty and food poverty, and people relying on handouts—not benefits but handouts—to make a living, put bread on the table and clothe their kids. That is what we should have been addressing in the next few months, in the road to the next general election. People are saying that this is a zombie Parliament. Of course it is, but it is not as if we have not got things to talk about and people to deliver for.

The Bills in the Queen’s Speech, which we will be dealing with for the next six, seven, eight months, contain nothing that will deliver for many of the people in our communities who are desperate and do not live with rose-tinted spectacles on. They are desperate for some help from politicians from all sides. That is what we are here for— we are here to represent the people in our communities—and it is about time that people in this place realised that the Westminster bubble is completely different from other parts of the United Kingdom. My view is simply that we need at all times to remember where we come from, where we want to be and who we represent.