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.

Job Insecurity

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

This is a timely Opposition motion. The most startling statistic we have heard this afternoon is that, regardless of what we say about jobs, everyone in this country is, on average, £1,600 worse off than they were in 2010. It does not matter what we say: that is the figure.

I want to focus on the lives of real people in communities across the political divide and throughout the length and breadth of this country. It is a shame that the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has left his seat, because he explained from the Dispatch Box on two or three occasions that he understood that the north-east is suffering really badly compared with some other parts of the country. If that is the case, why did the Government decide to appoint a Minister for Portsmouth to sort out its problems, but refuse the request to appoint a Minister to sort out the problems in the north-east?

I fear for young people in the north-east, because 23% of 18 to 24-year-olds are unemployed. They do not have anything to do. I am concerned because they feel ignored, isolated and worthless. They have no self-esteem. They lack hope, ambition and aspiration. There is a poignant joke about a young woman working in Poundstretcher, where everything is worth a pound—apart from her. It is hurtful in many ways, but I think it accentuates the real problem in today’s society.

The north-east has the highest level of young unemployed people in the country: 20,315 people aged between 18 and 24 are out of work, which is double the figure in the south-east and double that in the south-west.

I have a real problem with the mental health of a lot of these young people. This is an extremely important issue and it has not really been touched on. A survey by the Prince’s Trust only last year found that 40% of jobless young people suffer from some form of mental illness. They suffer from suicidal thoughts, feelings of self-loathing and panic attacks. As I have said, some regions are faring better than others and I have great concerns about the north-east.

The north-east has some brilliant, innovative businesses. We have Nissan, which everyone agrees is a fantastic company providing lots of jobs, and AkzoNobel. We also have an excellent small factory called Ashington Embroidery Services, which I visited the other day. The people there previously worked at Remploy and they have made a real job of things. All credit to them—I am not criticising these good companies—but they cannot employ everyone.

Had I had the time, I would have focused on three issues: zero-hours contracts, the national minimum wage and job insecurity. Obviously, I will not have much time to deal with any of them at great length.

I was interested to speak to my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) today about zero-hours contracts. He explained that his granddaughter was on one of these fantastic zero-hours contracts with McDonald’s. She, like a pool of others, had to sit and wait with their telephones for a text giving the option: “There’s two hours if you need it”. That went to 20, 30, 40 or 50 people, and the first one in got the work. It is absolutely outrageous that we live in such a society. Contrary to many people’s beliefs, zero-hours contracts are absolutely outdated. I do not want them to be just amended and changed, but abolished, because they are not fit for purpose.

We really need to recognise that life is difficult for many people in many ways. Telling people that they are better off is cruel, unfair and unjust. I fully support the Labour motion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a number of points, and I am not too sure which one to answer. The health survey for England made it quite clear that there is no correlation between deprivation and the clustering of betting shops on high streets.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Will the Minister comment on the recent document published by William Hill, which for the first time recognises the social problems involved with the clustering of betting shops? It quite clearly says that this could be tackled by amendments and changes to the Gambling Act 2005.

[Mrs Grant]

I repeat what I have just said, which is that local authorities already have powers to control clustering and to control concerns on their high streets that need to be dealt with. Article 4 directions have been very recently used by Southwark and by Barking and Dagenham, while Newham has used licensing conditions very recently.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk]

I accept the Minister’s intervention and I am not trying to be overly party political about the issue. As I said earlier, I accept that progress has been made, which I welcome, but I am pushing for more intervention from the Government, and for a better compensation scheme for my constituents and those across the country who deserve more from this Bill. I hope we can achieve that today.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It has been a decent debate this afternoon. I am not sure whether we are here to discuss how perfect the Bill could be, or who would be the best recipient of the measures in it, but I think we are here for fairness and justice for individuals who have suffered greatly as a result of mesothelioma. There may be a difference of opinion about who we should be looking after—should we be looking after the insurance companies, or should we look after those who are suffering greatly as a result of mesothelioma?

Right through the Bill, from First Reading until now, the costs of the insurance companies have dominated the debate, yet we rarely discuss the individuals who have suffered and who have died. We rarely discuss the victims or those who are perhaps sitting on the sofa at home watching this debate now. As I am sure everyone is aware, once someone has been diagnosed with mesothelioma, they have a very short time to live. I just want people to be fair; I am not asking for the world, but I think that as politicians we have the right to be fair to ordinary people. Is anything wrong with being fair? Sometime we short-change people, which is not just or fair.

My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) spoke in a previous debate of someone who went to see him and said, “This is horrendous; it is like a tree growing inside, and it eventually chokes you. It eventually kills you.” That is what we should be thinking about and discussing in lots more detail, not the fact that insurance companies have come forward with a potential 3% levy. What about those who are dying? What about the people who are suffering? Once they have been to the doctor, their life has ended. Let us start discussing those people.

[Mr Anderson]

My hon. Friend is being his normal forthright self. Does he feel—as I do—that he is in the middle of a negotiation, when, like me, he expected to be making the law of the land? We are basically saying that we make the law of the land if the insurance companies will agree to it. It is unbelievable.

[Ian Lavery]

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

[Grahame M. Morris]

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

[Ian Lavery]

That possibly should have been considered, but we must remember that these insurance companies do not lack finance. They have had the money already, so why should we accept that those victims and sufferers—and their families and carers—should have anything less than 100% compensation? The claimants under the scheme have to meet the same standards of evidence and burden of proof as those who make successful civil claims. The only difference is that those who make a successful civil claim get 100% of the compensation.

The benevolence of insurers has been raised. Should we clap our hands or embrace the insurance companies because they have done a marvellous job with regard to the people we represent? Should we class them at this time of year as industrial Santa Clauses with presents for people who might not be here next year? Should we applaud the companies’ efforts? I think not. The insurers collected premiums in full and invested them for decades.

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Member is making a passionate speech, as he did on Second Reading, and he is rightly standing up for his constituents. I have to tell him that the insurers did not come happily to the table to have this discussion. When the discussions with Lord Freud started, they were told to come, and the negotiations were based on what we could get agreement on without putting a further burden on business—in other words, the 3% levy does not go on to new business. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) said, and we will take a close look at that. We have to look at the context. Nothing had been done for so long, but now something is being done and the insurance companies are not happy about it.

[Ian Lavery]

Every hon. Member who has spoken today understands that the insurance companies had to be dragged to the table, because contribution after contribution has cited examples where the first thing an insurance company does after an individual has been diagnosed with mesothelioma is run away and deny it for as long as possible in the hope that the problem goes away. In Committee, I applauded the work done by successive Governments in getting the Bill to this stage. We are just a little too far away from this Bill being absolutely fantastic for mesothelioma sufferers. Three or four points mean that it is nowhere as good as it could be, and some great arguments have been made today on how to bridge the gap.

I return to the point that the insurance companies are not companies that are just surviving. They have made profits over generations—10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. They took the premiums and invested the money. Never mind contingency funds, the funds should be there—unless, of course, the money has been paid out in dividends or in other ways. That means that the money that should have been there for mesothelioma sufferers is not there any more because it has been given to shareholders. That is simply a point. The insurers paid out nothing on the untraced policies that they lost or destroyed. Again, that is not the fault of the people who are suffering—it is not their difficulty. Remember, the only thing wrong that they have done is to attend the workplace. For goodness’ sake, we cannot forget that that is the main point.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in terms of events in the workplace we are talking about identical events with a different period of maturity into full-blown mesothelioma? Some people with identical circumstances will not qualify, while others will. Will he speculate on the issues that that may cause? Someone may have been through the same process as the person sitting next to them in the workplace—in the case of Southampton, handling blue asbestos in the docks, bailing it up and throwing it on to the dockside—with the disease appearing many years later over different periods for different people—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need shorter interventions—there are quite a lot of other speakers to get in. Interventions are important, but they must be shorter.

[Ian Lavery]

This issue has been explained. This is not just a shipyard, mining or other heavy industry problem; this disease can be contracted in the classroom. We really need to look at the position with asbestos in schools. I fear that not enough data have been kept on children over the years. People never believe, 30 or 40 years later, that they have mesothelioma. They think back to what type of employment could have caused it, but it could have started in school. I accept my hon. Friend’s point.

Lloyd’s made £2.7 billion between January and June 2012. Royal and Sun Alliance made £233 million last year. Aviva, between January and June 2013, made £605 million. That is just three companies. They are awash with finance. Believe me, Mr Deputy Speaker, they intend to continue to be awash with finance.

The regulatory impact assessment estimated that approximately 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers lost about £800 million in compensation due to untraced insurance. If we add that to the cost to the victims of other asbestos diseases, and the deal cooked up between the Government and their friends in the insurance industry, that represents a saving to insurers of about £1 billion. That is absolutely scandalous.

[Mr Anderson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in 2007, as a result of the decision on pleural plaques, the insurance companies were handed a windfall of £1.4 billion that they were not expecting?

[Ian Lavery]

That is absolutely true, and that strengthens the argument put forward with regard to the apparent finances and wealth of the people who are threatening to walk away if they are asked to pay the right amount of compensation, or even more than 75% of it.

There are other examples where compensation has been paid at 100% or at 90%. The pneumoconiosis scheme in the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 pays 100% compensation and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme paid 90% to asbestos sufferers, so there are examples.

On the cut-off date, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) mentioned, why on earth is 25 July 2012 being suggested? Why not February 2010? In other case law, compensation has been paid from the guilty date of knowledge. In this case, that would mean paying compensation right back to the 1960s, but the cut-off date is 25 July 2012, and that causes huge problems. I understand that with a cut-off date there will always be losers—that is a matter of fact—but the 25 July cut-off date was when the written statement was made on the Bill, whereas the consultation started way back in February 2010. That would seem to be the most appropriate cut-off date.

[Mike Penning]

May I politely correct the hon. Gentleman? The date in 2010 was when the previous Administration issued the consultation document, not when the Bill started.

[Ian Lavery]

Yes, the consultation document was issued in 2010, but the cut-off date in the Bill will be 25 July 2012. I cannot see any rationale for that. I cannot understand the reason for it. Eligibility should at least commence with the publication of the consultation document in February 2010, but, as I say, there are strong arguments for going back even further.

It comes down to whose side we are on. As politicians, we face tough choices every day of the week. Are we on the side of the victim who will sadly pass on within months, or are we on the side of the insurance companies, which, as the Minister said, had to be dragged to the table to pay any compensation at all? The insurance companies are getting £17 million from the Government just to start the scheme, and it has been agreed they will get a further £30 million from them through some sort of borrowing arrangement.

In conclusion, when someone with mesothelioma who is soon to pass on comes to one of our surgeries and we explain that the insurance companies have only to pay 75% compensation, I wonder what their reaction will be. It is not fair, it is not just, and it is not acceptable. Wherever there is 100% liability, there should be 100% payment.

[Sammy Wilson]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery). He has brought the human side of this debate into the Chamber, which is important, because while we can throw around the percentages that insurance companies will have to pay, cut-off dates and so on, we need to remember that we are dealing with people who have suffered greatly as a result of their employers’ negligence, not their own, and whose suffering will inevitably result in death.

At the outset, I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who is fondly remembered in Northern Ireland, where he served as a Minister. Since he left office, he has always taken a great interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. I also pay tribute to the Minister. Although I am critical of much of the Bill, I fully understand the pressures he came under when introducing it.

The insurance companies are not easy to deal with and when it comes to paying out, they are bullies. I had a similar experience in Northern Ireland when we were taking through legislation to overturn the House of Lords decision on pleural plaques. Officials advised that we should not do it as we would have a hard time. The insurance companies jumped up and down, threatening all kinds of legal action. They threatened to challenge the legislation in Northern Ireland; the argument was that we would be raising expectations and that the measure would be delayed for years. But at the end of the day, when it was seen that there was a determination to push it through—and it did go through—it was, ironically, the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland who challenged it in the courts, and lost. [Hon. Members: “Your friend?”] My friend, yes.

Food Banks

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Roger Williams]

I agree that getting into work is the best way out of poverty, but work is not always available for people. I am sure that hon. Members know of such experiences.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

But does the hon. Gentleman not agree that a lot of people who are claiming food parcels from food banks are actually in work?

[Roger Williams]

I am sure that is the case. I am trying to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). I believe that the current benefits system is not fit for purpose and that this Government are making progress to make it better, but there is still a huge amount of work to be done. The conditionality of so many benefits leads to difficulties. In my constituency, Jobcentre Plus seems to be using different criteria in different towns to impose sanctions on people. Obviously, when sanctions are imposed, people are left in great difficulty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

Thirty-three food banks operate in Wales and there are two in my constituency: one in Caernarfon and one in Bangor. In 2011, 11,000 Welsh people were dependent on food banks for limited help. The figure is now 60,000.

People often go to food banks because their benefits have not been paid, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) said. There are mistakes, benefits are paid late and people are sanctioned, sometimes wrongly. A man came to see me on Monday who had been sanctioned and had no money. He had been called for an interview, but was not able to go because he had to take his seriously ill wife to hospital for cancer treatment. He could not be 30 miles away at the same time.

[Ian Lavery]

A gentleman in my constituency faced the same circumstances. He was sanctioned when he was in hospital for a heart condition. He lived for a further three days on field mushrooms and borrowed eggs. Is that what we want to see in the UK in 2013-14?

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point about the harshness of the current system.

Significantly, about 20% of the people who go to food banks are the working poor. They are not the scroungers and shirkers who are cited so enthusiastically by some hon. Members and by the popular newspapers.

The growth of food banks in Wales is a symptom of a much more fundamental problem: growing inequality and the failure of wages and incomes to match the increasing costs of living, particularly food inflation. That is a particularly acute problem in Wales, where gross value added in some areas is about 60% of the UK average.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that there should be a phased, managed removal of all asbestos from schools, rather than relying on management plans, as prevention is always better than cure?

[Dr Wollaston]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I think we should be starting with the schools with the highest risk. Since the original decisions were made, when air sampling tests for asbestos were technically difficult, could detail only a single pinpoint in time and were immensely expensive, the technology has moved on significantly. I call on the Minister to examine the new technology that is emerging in air sampling for asbestos, which gives real-time data on exposure and could be widely rolled out in schools—prototypes are available. I ask the Minister to review during the passage of the Bill whether we could bring such new technology into the scope of the Bill.

I know that the property data survey was designed to be light touch, but it is extraordinary that not only the most expensive aspect of future building programmes in schools—asbestos removal—but the most dangerous aspect have been completely omitted. At the moment, parents have little knowledge of where their children are at risk. I wrote to all the schools in my constituency to ask about their asbestos policies, and one school replied that it had had an asbestos survey carried out a few years ago and that

“There is very little asbestos in the school, just in a few floor tiles and in the artex”.

I am sorry, but asbestos in the floor tiles and in the artex is exactly the kind of thing I am most concerned about, because it is raining down on children in our classrooms. As I say, technology is now available that allows us to look in real time for any dangers, rather than spot-check after building work. What happens when 30 children charge round over floor tiles containing asbestos? I urge the Minister to take an opportunity during the passage of the Bill to examine that matter. Without acting to protect children from asbestos now, we will not see a long-term falling off in the incidence of mesothelioma and this terrible disease will affect those children in decades to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who spoke so passionately about the situation in the north-east. Mesothelioma is a tragedy. It is a global tragedy, but in the UK alone it cuts short the lives of some 2,500 people annually. The disease has a devastating impact on all it touches, both the victims and their loved ones. It is a fatal disease, with life expectancy of between nine and 15 months following diagnosis. It is a horrendous disease, described earlier as being like a tree growing inside the sufferer, with branches reaching out. We cannot begin to understand what that must mean for them. The people of the north-east suffer greatly from the disease, as a result of the region’s history of heavy industry, including shipbuilding, coal mining and steel manufacturing.

This horrendous disease, as a number of Members have explained today, is a form of cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. It is a long-tail disease, meaning that people exposed to asbestos decades ago are only now discovering the consequence of their employers’ negligence. One of the huge problems with mesothelioma is the latency period. Someone can work in industry, perhaps for many different employers, and be in contact with asbestos either unknowingly, as was generally the case, or knowingly, as was the case in the tales recited by hon. Members on both sides of the House about young workers throwing snow balls of asbestos. Whether someone was throwing snow balls of asbestos as a young man or woman or whether they were unaware that they were coming into contact with it, the result is the same: mesothelioma 30, 40 or 50 years later.

There are individuals who feel absolutely fine and have worked all their lives—this disease mainly hits hard-working people—but then 30 years later they begin to get that feeling, like a tree growing inside them, and start to wonder where it is coming from and what has caused it. They think about their occupation and what could have created the problem, because many people were in and out of different occupations. When someone realises they have a condition, they don’t think, “This must just be mesothelioma,” but when the doctor explains that they are suffering from that disease, that really is the end of their days.

Mesothelioma is not like many other types of cancer that the NHS has proved tremendously successful in treating. The NHS can identify many different cancers at early stages and survival rates are much higher, but that does not happen with mesothelioma. When the doctor tells someone that they have the disease, they are basically saying in round about terms that their life expectancy has been cut drastically. Several Members mentioned different life expectancy rates, from between nine and 15 months to two years. Let us just say that the maximum is two years, and that is for working hard in industry and being subjected to asbestos unknowingly or knowingly.

The payments scheme will be funded by the industry through a levy on currently active insurers in the UK employers’ liability market. The scheme is intended as a fund of last resort. Claimants who are unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer can apply to the fund. Successful applicants will receive 75% of the average compensation. That is important to note, and I will touch on that in a few moments.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend touches on the very important issue of the 75% payment. Does he understand the thinking behind saying that someone is going to receive only 75% of the damages they are entitled to, with a 75% loss of their earnings but 100% being recouped by the Department for Work and Pensions? Where is the equity in that proposal?

[Ian Lavery]

There is no equity; 75% of average compensation is totally unacceptable for the individuals concerned. Huge amounts of finance will be involved, by the way—we are not talking about pennies.

The Labour party has a history of fighting for those with mesothelioma. I could spend all day and night putting on record my thanks to Members of Parliament, members of the public and organisations such as the GMB and Unite unions that have worked tirelessly to get compensation for those with asbestos-related prescribed diseases. The Labour party’s history in this area is fantastic. In February 2010, we launched the original consultation; in 2008, we introduced the mesothelioma payment scheme; and in 1979 we introduced the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which has been tremendously successful for many people suffering from, in the main, coal dust-related incidents in the north-east and across the coalfields of the UK.

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend mentions the part that the Labour movement has played, but there is also the part played by the insurance industry, which has abrogated responsibility from day one and kicked back at every single push that the unions and the Labour movement have made. Does he see any parallels between large industries such as the insurance industry and construction industry that have failed to take responsibility for things they have done such as blacklisting and, much worse, possibly killing people through their irresponsible behaviour?

[Ian Lavery]

I have been involved for many years in trying to claim compensation for people in work, whether from insurance companies or employers, and it has always been a difficult challenge because they try to abrogate their responsibility at every opportunity. They try to run away from it and to put as many obstacles in the way of any form of compensation as they possibly can. Unfortunately, that is how they operate.

Thank goodness we have trade unions that stand up for individuals who are hurt and who suffer from prescribed diseases such as mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, industry-related diseases and injuries at work. Thank goodness that ordinary people have behind them the security of trade unions, which have the finance at least to try to get the compensation that lots of families should have had.

I welcome the scheme as a massive move forward, but I hope that we can come together in Committee and iron out a few major problems. I will mention four items of concern, but that is not to say that there are not others: first, the level of the percentage payment; secondly, the exclusion of other asbestos-related diseases; thirdly, the cut-off date of 25 July 2012; and, lastly, the claw-back of 100% of DWP benefits when the Bill provides for payment at only 75%—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald).

On the level of payment, why should anybody who will have two years to live, max, be happy with 75% of any compensation? These people are dying.

[Mr Anderson]

They are being killed.

[Ian Lavery]

Yes, they are being killed.

Why should 75% be acceptable? Someone has said that 80% would be a better figure; of course it would, but it is absolutely vital to have 100% compensation for somebody who has very little lifetime left. Claimants to the scheme have to meet the same standards of evidence and burden of proof that apply in a court action, but those with a successful civil claim will get paid 100%. Why should there be a difference?

Employers’ liability insurance is one of two compulsory insurances in the UK; the other is motor insurance. Insurers collected premiums in full and invested them for decades. The insurance companies used these finances for generations. They put the money in the bank and paid themselves dividends. People made themselves rich while at the same time stashing away the policies—hiding them, burning them, and getting rid of them. The only people who will suffer as a result are those who are set to die 30 or 40 years later due to the latency period and the activities of the insurance companies, which had the money but decided not to keep it for future generations in case something like this occurred. They paid out nothing on the untraced policies that they lost or destroyed. This could have saved the insurance companies billions of pounds, yet we are debating whether to pay these people and their families three quarters of what they are due.

Somebody said that the Minister is an honourable man who looked after honest, hard-working people, and I really do not doubt that. I appeal to him by saying that we cannot give people three quarters of what they are due and think we are being fair—that does not square the circle.

[Andy McDonald]

I think my hon. Friend shares my puzzlement that we are talking about 75% being awarded to people under this scheme, welcome though it is, because it is better that we compensate people in full. Yet when this Government go to the European Union they go into bat for an 100% uplift in bankers’ bonuses. For goodness’ sake, does that not tell us everything we need to know about the values that are at play?

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend. I will cover that during the next 30 minutes of my speech.

The regulatory impact assessment estimates that approximately 6,000 mesothelioma sufferers lost about £800 million in compensation due to untraced insurance. If we add the cost to victims of other asbestos-related diseases, the deal cooked up between the Government and their friends in the insurance industry represents a saving to insurers of some £1 billion. On average, the 75% figure means that individuals will lose up to £43,000 in each claim and that victims are absorbing 25% of the ongoing costs due to insurers losing or destroying their policy records.

Secondly, there is the exclusion of other diseases. Why is this about mesothelioma only? The employers’ liability insurance for which the employers paid premiums covered them for claims arising from all “bodily injury or disease”, not just asbestos-related disease, and certainly not just mesothelioma. By limiting the scheme to mesothelioma, the Bill excludes 50% of all victims. Those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening have been cast aside. Among other industrial prescribed diseases that might be considered—I pick this one out of the air—is baker’s asthma, a disease that is crippling for people who work in the baking industry, whereby they suffer the same conditions although it does not have such drastic problems with regard to latency and shortened life expectancy. There are all sorts of different diseases, including baker’s asthma and other asbestos-related diseases, that should be covered by the Bill. It is a decent Bill, but we do not want a decent Bill: we want a good Bill.

If the Bill included 50% of asbestos victims, that would represent just 20% of the total cost. It is not acceptable that the scheme is limited to just mesothelioma. The Government’s justification for excluding other diseases is to say that proving causation is simpler for mesothelioma, because asbestos is its only known cause. However, there is already a successful precedent, namely the Turner and Newall Asbestos Trust, which administers payments of claims for not just mesothelioma, but other asbestos-related diseases. The Bill should be extended to cover all long-tail latent industrial diseases prescribed under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979.

The third issue is the cut-off date, which has been mentioned by many Members. The cut-off date of 25 July 2012 is unbelievable, especially given that the consultation began in February 2010. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that the cut-off date should be 1969, which was the date of guilty knowledge.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I have checked the date and I think the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was wrong. I think that the actual date was 1965.

[Ian Lavery]

I wondered why 1969 was mentioned; I think that 1965 would be more appropriate.

The cut-off date will have a huge impact on lots of people. Geoffrey Leonard Bradshaw was from Pegswood in my constituency. He died of mesothelioma aged 66. He did everything necessary to try to find out which employer and insurance companies were to blame. He approached the Association of British Insurers and sent letters to employers. Mr Bradshaw did everything, but sadly he died before the cut-off date with minimal compensation from the pneumoconiosis compensation scheme. The civil-claim value of his case was in excess of £350,000, but he got less than £25,000. The cut-off date is really important and we need to look at it. It is not fair. I think that 1965 is probably the right date.

The fourth issue is the clawback of 100% DWP benefits when the Bill pays out only 75% in compensation. Why claw back a greater percentage than what is being paid? I want someone from the Government Front Bench to explain that. Why should we accept that under the premise of fairness? It is not and cannot be fair. Why should the state have a greater right of financial recovery than the victim? Why should the state get 100% back and the victim only 75%? I would be glad to listen to any explanation and perhaps even accept it if there is a valid argument behind it. To depart from a principle of like-for-like offset is both illogical and grossly unjust.

I want to place on record my thanks to the Mick Knighton Mesothelioma Research Fund, which was set up by the wife of Mick Knighton, who died of mesothelioma at a very young age. It operates from Wallsend in north Tyneside and has raised more than £1 million for mesothelioma research. It does a fantastic job and continues to help everyone who suffers from this horrible, horrendous disease.

Ideally, the Bill will be enacted before the end of the year. It is broadly welcomed, but it needs to be strengthened for the sake of people who have suffered for so long and those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice, such as Mr Bradshaw in my constituency and the thousands of hard-working people who, through no fault of their own, contracted this deadly disease. Let us hope that, in the name of fairness, decency and justice, this House can bridge the gaps.

Housing Benefit

Ian Lavery Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The debate this afternoon has alarmed me. I listened to the huge divide between the two sides here in the Palace of Westminster. I am amazed at some of the contributions. As a Labour representative and as a member of the public, I resent Members of Parliament saying that I am foolish and my colleagues are foolish because we disagree with them, when all we are doing is looking to support the most vulnerable people in society.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was outrageous in his comments. He attacked people in council houses because, he said, they lack ambition. That is so untrue. It is unbelievable. Some of the people in my constituency who live in council houses have lived there all their lives and for generations, and they have been working all their lives as well. So to think that people in council houses do not count, and that the council or anybody else can just come and move them on when they think there is a crisis, is outrageous.

This pernicious tax impacts on 600,000 people, of whom 400,000 are disabled. Some 375,000 children will suffer as a consequence of the tax. This is not about under-occupancy. It is not even about saving money, because the Government have admitted that they will not save as much as they had hoped. This is solely about Conservative ideology. It is about dogma. It is about throwing red meat to Back Benchers. It is about flexing powerful financial muscles. It is a class issue between those who have and those who have not. It is about people letting other people know where they are in the pecking order. That is what we have seen today.

[David T. C. Davies]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene. I have never heard such outrageous comments as we heard in his contribution today in my three and half years in the House.

The bedroom tax will mean more child poverty and more people looking to pay off payday loans. There will be spiralling debt and people made homeless because of the bedroom tax. This is not simply about the bedroom tax. That is just a single part of the wider welfare reform, which the Government have seen falling down around their ears. The personal independence payment has huge problems. Universal credit has hit the buffers. There are problems with employment and support allowance, and hon. Members should look at the situation that Atos is causing, with, in the main, the same sort of people.

The people we are talking about today live in homes where they have lived all their lives in many cases. It is about time that people understood that. These are homes where people and children were brought up, where families lost their loved ones and where tears of joy and sadness have been shed.

[David T. C. Davies]

Crocodile tears.

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw!

[Ian Lavery]

That is what this is about: moving people from their houses. It is outrageous, but at the end of the day, I would like to think that the Government will—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.