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.

Sanctioning of Benefit Recipients

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

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

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

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

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

[Ian Lavery]

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

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

Have we really regressed almost 200 years socially?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another example is:

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

How ridiculous and how absurd is this system?

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

It is an outrageous situation.

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

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

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

Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. I was going to say that, even though the regulations are being debated today, all those eligible for the scheme will get 80%. It is important that people do not get one or another of the figures. It will be 80% across the board.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am pleased with the increase from 75% to 80%. Will there be an opportunity in the near future to review the legislation to increase it from 80% to 100%?

[Mike Penning]

No, because I have to stay within the agreed 3% of the levy. The important thing, as we said throughout the deliberations on the Mesothelioma Bill, is to ensure that the cost is not passed on to new business. I have come under huge pressure not to raise payments to 80%, because of the risk to the levy. However, because we managed to let the contract to a reputable organisation, we have been able to raise payments to 80% without putting the fund at risk.

Although we will review the legislation, we will not raise payments to 100%. If nothing else, the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in pushing for 100%, and I fully understand why. I promised throughout the deliberations on the Bill that I would listen and that nothing was fixed in stone, but raising the level to 100% would push me, or whoever happened to be Minister at the time of such a review, too far.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brown]

I agree with the Minister that in the public sector it should be easier to trace a responsible insurer, and indeed a responsible employer, but there is a rich history of subcontracting, even in the public sector, and not all these people have insurers who maintain liability. It is the missing insurer, as well as the missing contracting or subcontracting company, who generates the cases with which this last-resort scheme is intended to deal.

The Minister is right to anticipate more public sector cases in the future. I have asked the Department of Health how many mesothelioma cases were being dealt with in England by the Department, and that number of cases, as you of all people will well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is a precursor to the number of compensation claims that there will be—if, that is, the injury was inflicted through work. The House will be distressed to learn that the number is still rising. The number identified by the Department is now over 7,000 a year, and that is not a very easy fit with the projection of the number of fatalities coming from the Department via the Health and Safety Executive.

[Ian Lavery]

With regard to public sector workers, 10,000 teachers died because of mesothelioma. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have to look seriously at the impact on children in schools where asbestos is present? If an adult—a teacher or a caretaker—can get mesothelioma from being at school, what has happened to the kids?

[Mr Brown]

Like my hon. Friend, I stand up for every single individual who has been exposed to asbestos. This is an entirely preventable condition. Although I understand why in law we draw the distinctions we do, morally this is not right. We should set out to save each and every one of the citizens we represent from being exposed to this awful condition. That applies to young children, too. My hon. Friend will recall me referring to the young children who found a pile of asbestos just lying in a yard in Leeds, and who threw it at each other as if it were snowballs. Of course, the inevitable happened, and 40 years later they are coming down with mesothelioma, but whom do they sue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

Although some of this evening’s discussions were similar to those we have had previously, it was right and proper that many colleagues reiterated some of their concerns about the scheme and how it is going to work, particularly in respect of the regulations.

As we discussed at length during the passage of the Mesothelioma Bill, which is now an Act, there are different callings on the money in the pot—let us bring it down to basics. There were calls for us to go further back with the scheme, not only to when the previous Administration made the announcement, but even further; to move the compensation percentage from 75 to 80; to include others in the scheme, perhaps the wife, spouse or loved one of someone working in this industry who had contracted mesothelioma as a result of cleaning her husband’s overalls—I am not being sexist, but that was the environment at the time; and to be generous in other ways.

The right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) was kind enough to allude to the fact that I inherited the Bill. Lord Freud had done a fantastic job. When the Bill entered the Lords the compensation figure was 70% and he is the one who got the insurers around the table to come up with any scheme whatsoever—herding cats is probably a good way of describing it. I am sure that the Association of British Insurers will not like me saying that, but it is one of the reasons why, even when previous Administrations tried to do this—the right hon. Gentleman tried and so did Paul Goggins—it has taken so long. In the end we did a deal—let us be honest, we did a deal at 3% which would not be passed on to new business. We then started to frame where the money could go in the scheme of last resort.

Assumptions were made and some are still being made today, even though we have appointed a scheme administrator, which has cost us less—that was what the shadow Minister was asking about earlier. Assumptions were made about case legal fees—I am no lawyer, but my brief says that. Legal fees were highlighted by the shadow Minister and there are case legal fees that we now know we do not need, so we have saved money. I could have gone to 81% today, but that would have stretched the credibility of my honesty to the House and to the sufferers in terms of making sure the scheme is safe. A myriad different questions have been asked during our consideration of the regulations, but the crux of the matter is: how far could we go without putting the scheme at risk. That is why I have resisted some suggestions throughout our consideration, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) rightly pushed me very hard. As the Minister, I had to stand firm until I knew how much money was in the pot—how much the scheme was going to cost us. So we are where we are.

[Ian Lavery]

Will the Minister assure the House that he will examine an anomaly outside the 3%: the situation of the people who receive 80% compensation but will have 100% of their benefits taken? Is it not right that anybody who gets 80% of what they should get should have to pay only 80% of the benefits back, too?

[Mike Penning]

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

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

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

[Ian Lavery]

I will second that.

[Mike Penning]

The motion is not carried. I appreciate that my hon. and gallant Friend has not been with us for all the debates on this, but I am afraid that that is not the case. This is a scheme of last resort. In most cases, people who get this abhorrent, horrible and preventable disease will be able to claim from their employer and thus their employer’s insurance. Employer’s liability insurance is compulsory. The stakeholder groups and the trade unions have been excellent over the years. I pay tribute not only to them but to Members across the House for representing people with mesothelioma, because it is a horrible and terminal disease. The employers who put those people into this position should be liable. This has to be a scheme of last resort.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct, and we are still working with HMRC to ensure that that happens. If necessary, we will introduce legislation. However, at the moment, the Data Protection Act prevents us from doing that. I explained that in Committee. I am sure that that was never the intention, but it is one of the restrictions that the Treasury lawyers have had to look at.

I want to deal with a couple of issues quickly because I do not want to delay the House. Should beneficiaries of someone who qualifies under the scheme—not dependants or loved ones—get a payment? The answer is that they will not, because the scheme is designed specifically for the sufferers of this terrible disease, their loved ones and their dependants to allow them to get on with their lives.

On the £7,000 payment, we will look enormously closely with the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, our own lawyers and the Ministry of Justice to ensure that no rip-offs take place.

[Ian Lavery]

rose—

[Mike Penning]

Bear with me for a second, because I need to make a tiny bit of progress on this.

The scheme is as simple as we can possibly make it. There is a huge amount of skill out there among the stakeholders who know this disease and the compensation scheme back to front. I think that quite a bit of the £7,000, if not most of it, will stay with the people who are claiming.

[Ian Lavery]

Does the right hon. Gentleman share my fears that once the £7,000 becomes common knowledge there will be claims farmers advertising in every paper up and down the country? Can the Minister say whether claims farmers will be able to claim part of that £7,000, or is it strictly for the legal profession?

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

I apologise as I had to pop out of the Chamber for a second—nature called—but I came straight back and I think I caught most of the speech of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

[Ian Lavery]

It’s down to age.

[Mike Penning]

Yes, it’s an age thing; the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—and that is no doubt the voice of experience.

I welcome the debate and congratulate the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on securing it from the Backbench Business Committee. This is the sort of debate that should take place. I also agree that it should be a non-whipped debate; that is right and proper. We may not all agree about what has been discussed, but it is, frankly, in my opinion something the Whips should stay out of, and we should have proper debates. I will probably get shot when I leave the Chamber for saying that.

There are also some parts of this very long motion with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and there are parts of it with which I do not agree, as Members on both sides of the House will realise, but perhaps we can try to work on what I do agree on and what we can do together to make the benefits regime better for the people we are trying to represent and the lobby that is here today.

Some 24 Members including myself have now taken part in the debate and it is a shame that it was time-restricted, but I understand fully why that was the case. We could have spoken for a great deal longer and have had longer contributions, however. Many Members on both sides of the House have raised specific constituency cases and my officials are in the Box and will have taken note of them. I will write to the Members concerned directly after this debate and see how we can progress those matters forward. I will also take a personal interest in certain cases, and in particular the case raised by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). On that case, as the Minister responsible, I apologise unreservedly to the family. It falls back on me, and it is about time politicians stood up and apologised when things have gone wrong. In that case, things clearly have gone wrong and the family have every right to be aggrieved, and I hope the hon. Gentleman’s constituent makes a full recovery.

On the call for a cumulative assessment, I am not going to say to the shadow Minister that previous Administrations did not do that—although they did not—but there was a reason why and it is very complex, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has also said that that could not be done properly and accurately enough. I hope the shadow Minister and others will understand why, although the Treasury carries out independent reviews of different parts of Government policy, it does not do that. I respect the work done in other reports, but they are not cumulative in the way we would like.

Housing Benefit

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Hemming]

I got another one today. They may not be on that website, but they do exist—[Interruption.] They do exist; I have them in my casework files. I have three people living in a council bedsit, and quite a few cases of four people living in a one-bedroom flat. I have written about those cases to the council. I accept that they may not be on a website—I do not deny that—but they do exist. People really do have problems. They have shown me photographs of how they live in overcrowded situations.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

There is not enough smaller, one-bedroom accommodation for people to move into—that is a fact. The bedroom tax will increase housing benefit—that is a fact. Why does the hon. Gentleman not just admit that this is a merciless attack on the vulnerable, the disabled and those least able to speak up for themselves?

[John Hemming]

Because none of those things is a fact. Lots of people are living in overcrowded situations. I see them at my Saturday advice bureau, and two people wrote to me today. Those people are looking for accommodation.

The Opposition have said that they want to cap the structural welfare budget, but if they are going to spend more money on providing free rooms for people who do not need them, where will they get the money from? Will they cut disability benefits? Today, the Opposition propose to give a special exemption to people who have been on housing benefit since 1996. If they proposed a special exemption, with valid rules, for people with disabilities who needed a spare room and to transfer that money out of the DHP, that would be worth looking at. They are picking the wrong analysis for this.

I have always managed to succeed for my constituents who needed DHP because they have disabilities and need a spare room. I have never had a problem getting DHP. As of last week, having got extra money from the Government, Birmingham’s DHP budget still contained just over £600,000. Birmingham is managing to spend that money, look after people and protect those with disabilities, and not to exhaust the budget.