Job Insecurity
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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(11 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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—
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill
Ian Lavery Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
In the Reilly and Wilson v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions court case on 12 February 2013, the applicants challenged the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 on four grounds. The first was that the scheme named in the 2011 regulations was beyond the powers of section 17A of the Jobseekers Act 1995. In other words, the regulations did not comply with the requirements of the Act. Secondly, the regulations could not be enforced in the absence of a published policy. Thirdly, notices to individuals mandated to take part in such schemes were inadequate. The fourth part, which was set aside, was the suggestion that the regulations conflict with article 4(2) of the European convention on human rights, which provides, subject to exceptions, that
“no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.”
Many organisations totally oppose this Bill for a wide and varied range of reasons, and it is unfair to claimants to legalise retroactively penalties that the Court has judged unlawful. Contrary to Government claims, it is not obvious that the DWP would have to repay sanctioned benefits to all claimants, so the stated £130 million potential loss is inaccurate. The Government already have anti-test case law rules that would prevent them from having to repay anything for sanctions served prior to 6 August 2012, and more information on that point would be extremely helpful when the Minister responds to the debate.
It is of constitutional concern if the DWP undermines the judiciary and the rule of law by using retroactive legislation to avoid accountability for its own errors, and to negate any further appeal judgment by the Supreme Court that upholds the Court of Appeal judgment. Legal representatives who were in court for the Reilly and Wilson case stated categorically their belief that:
“The emergency Bill is a repugnant attempt by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to avoid his legal obligation to repay the thousands of jobseekers who…have been unlawfully and unfairly stripped of their subsistence benefits…The use of retrospective legislation, which is being fast-tracked through Parliament, smacks of desperation.”
I believe that is polite in the extreme. They went on:
“It undermines the rule of law and means that Iain Duncan Smith is once again seeking to avoid proper parliamentary scrutiny of his actions…It is time for his Department to admit that maladministration and injustice costs.”
Other civil liberty groups and human rights campaigners have today explained to the press—it has just been released on the BBC—that they believe this type of retrospective legislation is a typical component of oppressive regimes. They could not have put it any stronger than that. The measure has been described by some organisations as “almost unbelievably disgusting”, and they said that the DWP
“broke the law, now they want to retroactively change the law so that they didn’t break the law in order to keep £130m out of the pockets of some of the poorest people in the country…The High Court found workfare unlawful precisely because people had no way of knowing the rules that applied. It shows an incredible level of arrogance and disregard for the poorest to now attempt to backdate laws to challenge this ruling.”
It has been correctly argued that the Bill would set a dangerous legal precedent if passed, and send a message that when citizens defeat the Government in court, the Government can overturn the Court ruling retrospectively with primary legislation—effectively making the Government, and the DWP, above the law. Who is in charge?
If this Bill is enacted, it is not clear what would happen in the cases of those who have successfully appealed against decisions to impose sanctions. It appears that there have already been successful appeals against sanction decisions at first-tier tribunals, following the Court of Appeal judgment. The Government’s argument is that the Bill will protect taxpayers by saving them a bill of £130 million. May I dare to suggest that that is denying those claimants their legal entitlement? Taxpayers will be better served if back-to-work schemes are properly scrutinised to ensure efficacy and that taxpayers are receiving value for money. That is a separate argument and has been stated well from both sides of the House this afternoon.
We can see from the poor performance of the Work programme so far, with only 3.5% of people referred to the programme finding a long-term job, that people are more likely to get a job without that scheme than with it. Is there a £130 million liability that would have to be repaid? The Government argue that legislation is necessary to protect the public purse from having to repay £130 million of sanctions that have been imposed. As I said earlier, however, significant anti-test case provisions already within the social security system mean it is highly unlikely that the Government would be required to repay all the sanctions. Section 27 of the Social Security Act 1998 allows the DWP not to change decisions that were only shown to be wrong by a decision of a court. It means that the DWP could probably resist repayment in all cases where the sanction was imposed and served before the High Court decision of 6 August 2012, as well as decisions after that date where no appeal is sought.
When researching for my contribution to this debate I looked at the explanatory notes and the impact assessment published with the Bill, and a number of issues really stuck out. Paragraph 9 states:
“The Bill has been introduced to avoid the need to repay claimants who have been sanctioned for failure to comply with requirements under the ESE Regulations and to be able to impose sanctions where decisions have been put on hold since the decision of the High Court or Court of Appeal. If this were to happen, the cost to the taxpayer is estimated to be up to £130 million.”
The Bill is being introduced to save the taxpayer up to £130 million, yet it deprives the most vulnerable people who have been on workfare and are looking to better themselves in employment. It has been introduced to deny £130 million compensation to 300,000 people who would like decent employment with decent wages, terms and conditions. The Government have introduced emergency legislation to prevent those people from getting only what the Court of Appeal says they deserve. That is an absolute outrage.
The explanatory notes state:
“The effect of the Bill will be that any decision to sanction a claimant for failures to comply with the ESE Regulations cannot be challenged on the grounds that the ESE Regulations were invalid or the notices given under them inadequate, notwithstanding the Court of Appeal’s judgment. This is to ensure that the Government is not faced with the situation whereby jobseekers previously sanctioned (or to be sanctioned) for non-compliance under the ESE Regulations can receive an unfair advantage over compliant claimants.”
Again, that is an outrageous statement. The notes continue:
“The Bill also addresses the risk that previous notifications to claimants made under the MWA Regulations—”
mandatory work activity regulations—
“which contain the same notification provisions as the ESE Regulations, may also be open to challenge on the basis of the Court of Appeal’s judgement.”
The explanatory notes state:
“The impact upon individuals is that JSA claimants who have not complied with requirements under the ESE Regulations will not be repaid sanctioned benefits as they might expect following the judgment or may have a sanction imposed. The Bill effectively restores the status quo to a situation before the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments. Once the Bill is enacted, claimants who might have appealed against previous sanction decisions on the grounds upheld by the Judicial Review will be unable to do so. Sanctions imposed under the…legislation can continue and sanctions decisions currently stayed can be made in accordance with the original intent of the legislation. This is to ensure that the Government is not faced with the situation whereby jobseekers who failed to comply with their requirements and were sanctioned under the quashed ESE Regulations can receive an advantage over claimants who have complied with their requirements and is necessary to safeguard the economic interests of the state.”
I wonder whether denying ordinary and mainly poor people what they have been granted in a Court of Appeal hearing is in the best interests of the country and the economy.
Ian Lavery
I am certain that the 300,000 people the Court says have a claim because of the illegal actions of the Minister’s Department should receive it—there is no doubt about it. The Bill is being introduced by the DWP and the Government to deprive many hard-working people, and many people who want to be hard-working, of any finance whatever. Is that in the best interests of the economy? It is an absolute disgrace. Those people will spend money in the economy. They might get £50, £100 or £72 a week, but they will spend it, because it is the only money they have. The Minister should not seek to deprive those people and leave them with no finances whatever.
Ian Lavery
I have not disagreed with anyone up until now other than the Government, because they wish to deny ordinary, hard-working people—people who wish to get on in life—what the Court of Appeal says they should have.
Dr Julian Lewis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and am sincerely impressed with the passion with which he makes his case. However, if I were in his shoes, I would be determined to vote against the Bill. Perhaps I have misunderstood something. My understanding is that Opposition Front Benchers are proposing not to vote against the Bill. If so, why not?
Ian Lavery
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation, but perhaps when the vote takes place, he will be much better informed.
The Bill turns my stomach. The impact assessment states:
“A retrospective transfer of public money to this group of claimants would represent poor value to the taxpayer”.
What a disgrace to say such a thing in Government documents with reference to the people I have mentioned 10, 15 or 20 times previously. That will not give them self-esteem. They are doing their very best.
Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)
Jobless households trebled under Labour and increasingly became the norm for the next generation. Surely we owe it to those children to assist their parents to get their first foot in the door of a job. Specifically, I recently spoke to one parent who said that her children were full of pride when she got an opportunity. Why deny that to others?
Ian Lavery
Members of Parliament discuss with constituents, and often people away from the constituency, the merits and otherwise of policies. I often meet people with a very different view from the people the hon. Gentleman has met. That is not to say that that has not been said, but the people I meet want decent jobs. They want the opportunity to get up in the morning and go to work for a decent wage. They would accept the minimum wage even though, at this point in time, it is not high enough. Where I live, 25 people are after every single job in the jobcentre. That means that 24 are not getting employment for every single opportunity. People want to work for the best intentions and the right reasons. They want self-esteem and finances. People where I live want to work—I am sure that extends throughout the country.
Saying that paying claimants the money that the Court says they should be paid—the result of the ruling means that the £130 million can be paid—does not represent good value for the taxpayer is an absolute disgrace. It is not the type of language we would expect from any Government. It is not right to talk about people as, “This group of claimants.” They are ordinary people with feelings, and many of them want to get on in life.
Ian Lavery
People have received sanctions for a range of reasons. The Government should not overrule a Court of Appeal ruling and introduce retrospective legislation against people just because they have received sanctions. I am sure the Minister is not suggesting that people who have, for whatever reason, received a sanction, should under no circumstances claim some sort of subsistence, even if the courts have agreed in a ruling that they should receive it.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I do not know whether my hon. Friend has come across such cases, but I have come across a number of people who have gone for a number of jobs, and been told, when they go back to claim JSA, that they are not trying hard enough. What an attitude in the 21st century!
Ian Lavery
I fully understand my hon. Friend’s point. As I have said to the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), every MP has received many representations with regard to the wide and various workfare schemes.
The impact assessment states:
“If the Department cannot make these retrospective changes, then further reductions in benefits might be required in order to find the money to repay the sanctions.”
That is blackmail of the highest order—I make no apology for the strength of my feeling on that. If people are due finances, they should get them, particularly following a court ruling, but the Government are saying, “If we pay these people, we might have to cut benefits for other people as a result because that is where we have to find the money.” That is emotional blackmail. It is totally and utterly bang out of order. They are trying to set people who are looking for work and on benefits against each other. That is absolutely unacceptable.
To conclude, I have some questions for the Minister to answer in his winding-up speech. Is it right that claimants face financial penalties for failing to participate in schemes when the possibility of those penalties had not been properly explained to them? Is it right that the Government can flout the will of Parliament, which had clearly expressed its wish to have some oversight of the schemes, especially given that the schemes that were designed and imposed on claimants without an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny do not appear to be working?
Is it true that the DWP continued to issue letters to claimants that did not explain things properly even after the High Court had stated that the letters were inadequate?
Ian Lavery
From a sedentary position, the Minister says that that is not true, but I hope he will clarify that.
Ian Lavery
That is debatable.
Finally, what is the Department’s understanding on whether section 27 of the 1998 Act protects people from having to repay some of these sanctions? Some 300,000 people will be denied their legal rights if the Bill is passed. This is just another ideological attack on the unemployed and the less well-off, despite a High Court judgment. Why does the Minister not just accept the court of law? Give these people what they are entitled to. It is the Minister’s mess. Why should they suffer?
Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)
Ian Lavery Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Mulholland
The hon. Gentleman pre-empts what I was about to say, because the next thing on my list is foster carers who are in between children to be cared for. Much of the criticism of the Government has been unfair and party political, which is in the nature of democratic politics, but the principle behind this measure, as I have said, is reasonable. We need to try to address the issue because of the housing crisis we face and to enable families living in seriously overcrowded accommodation to find appropriate housing. However, it is important that the Government do not undermine other key objectives, and clearly one of those is placing more children with foster families and encouraging more people to foster. I am afraid that that is what the measure, without the exemption, threatens to do.
The other category that I believe should be exempted is families who have sadly split up because the parents have separated, which is always difficult for every member of the family. In the majority of cases, the father is the non-resident parent and the parent without care. Whether they have their child for three days a week or two days a month, for example, is in many cases not determined by them; it is often imposed and has to be accepted even though the non-resident parent would like their child to stay with them more often. The parent wants to ensure that when their child stays they feel that it is also their home.
We talk about broken homes, but in reality we are talking about a family with two homes, or in many cases we are talking about two families. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for the non-resident parent to maintain a bedroom and keep it for their child, with their things in it, so that when they come to stay they know they are staying with their other parent, at their other home and in their other bedroom. I think that is very important. Of course, child benefit is paid to the parent with care, so there can be serious financial pressures on the non-resident parent, who still has to feed the child, possibly for up to three nights a week, and indeed they also want to be able to contribute by buying things for them.
My message to my hon. Friend the Minister is please to look at these things again. He is absolutely right that there must be room for discretion, and some of that should rightly be exercised locally.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman think that the outrageous advice given by DWP Ministers to vulnerable and disabled people that they should take in lodgers—people off the streets—simply to remain in their own properties is a good and sound idea that will not cause massive problems?
Greg Mulholland
In certain cases people have the choice of taking in a lodger in order to enable someone else from their family to live there. However, my point is that there should be clear exemptions based on a clear medical need for a separate room, and if people have those exemptions, that discussion is no longer necessary.
If the exemptions that should be in place are there, the question of where local discretion should be used becomes discretionary rather than a set of difficult choices. Discretion should be used, for example, in the case of properties that have been adapted on the basis of a certain need.
Jane Ellison
It is right to put on record that many councils are responding sensibly and imaginatively to the many challenges that have been handed to them by the inevitable decisions that the Government have had to take.
Another group of people who often come to see me in my surgeries, and for whom there is no solution in social housing, are young single people, in particular young single men. I always feel my heart sink when they come to talk to me about the possibility of getting any sort of subsidised housing, because, as we all know, they attract absolutely no points. If some people affected by the removal of the subsidy choose to rent out a room, I would welcome that because the group likely to benefit would be those young single people in areas such as mine. They do starter jobs that are much-needed in a 24 hour city such as London. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) from a sedentary position is questioning whether anyone would do that—people used to do it all the time. To return to the point about exaggeration, earlier in the debate someone implied that the inevitable consequence of deciding to take in a lodger would be some sort of abuse or crime. People used to do this all the time. Raising people’s fears and exaggerating them is not helpful at all.
Jane Ellison
Let me finish this point. I have checked with my council and it is the case that council tenants, as long as they do not either overcrowd or sub-let the lease, are able to take in a lodger if they so choose. For some people that might be a sensible solution. That might help the young single people who come and see me, and to whom I can give no suggestions about where they might find socially subsidised housing. If they are the winners of this process, that is a good thing, because they are currently the losers.
I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will just draw attention to some of the practical measures being done by councils. There is an extra £30 million of discretionary housing allowance, and my council has certainly seen a significant rise in its discretionary amount. It has already put together a co-ordinated action plan between the finance and housing departments. It has contacted all potentially affected recipients and customers, and is beginning to confirm their benefit details. It has set up a helpline to discuss options to downsize. It is in direct contact with some of those households. It is also in direct contact with some of the social landlords to look at where there might be work that they could do. We heard an interesting example earlier about how social landlords in Liverpool had come together to try and pool their resources. There are quite a lot of sensible things that local councils that are planning ahead can do, and, of course, some people will choose to take other options.
I make this plea to Opposition Members. I would like to think that when they are approached by people with specific difficulties, especially associated with disability and so on, their first thought is not, “This would be an ideal case to read out in Prime Minister’s Question Time”—we have heard this in respect of many other welfare changes, particularly from the Labour party—but to say, “You might well be covered by the discretionary payment, and I’m going to make inquiries about that and exercise my influence to say that you should be.”
Atos Work Capability Assessments
Ian Lavery Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Rogerson
That is also a common problem in respect of visiting district general hospitals. I have repeatedly asked hospitals to make sure that people travelling long distances are seen in the middle of the day, rather than early in the morning. Sensible decisions like that would help.
A constituent who would rather I did not reveal her name also raised the issues of delays and recordings, and others have mentioned the lack of expertise. If Atos has practitioners with different areas of expertise—some in physical disability, others in mental health issues, for instance—it should arrange assessments in such a way as to utilise that.
The language that is used and how people are treated are also important issues—some Members of this House could probably moderate the language they use in discussing this subject.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
We are, in effect, trying to put a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. Atos and the WCA are not fit for purpose. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should bin them both, and start again with the idea of looking after disabled people, rather than the opposite?
Dan Rogerson
The problem with that suggestion is that all the people who have been through the process and have won appeals will have to go back to square one. I am therefore in favour of improving the current system. Every time we renew a system, we go back to square one. Those who have been through an assessment and an appeal and have finally got the right result should not be sent back to square one. The hon. Gentleman articulates the anger that is felt, and there are clearly problems with the process, but I do not think scrapping it and going back to square one is the best way to proceed. Professor Harrington has not suggested that course of action, either. What he has said is that there are problems that need to be resolved.
Ian Lavery
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. We have a situation where the likes of physiotherapists are assessing people with acute mental health problems. Does he agree that that is wholly unacceptable?
Bob Blackman
I agree. One reform we could quite reasonably ask the Minister and Atos to introduce would involve ensuring that the assessor was qualified to assess the type of problem from which the individual suffers. That could take the form of a referral by the Atos assessor to a proper medical professional in a given field where there was expertise. That would save the individuals from the trauma of the appeals process and would save money as it would mean that the medical professionals could properly undertake an appropriate assessment. I urge the Minister to consider that as a way of improving the system.
It appears to me that there is a tick-box mentality among the Atos assessors. I could refer to a stream of cases in which people have conditions that come and go and have good days and bad days. When Atos assessors make the assessments, those people can often be having a good day and the tick boxes do not allow the right decision to be made.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Someone said that what we are debating is a party political issue. Let me be clear: I opposed the system when it was introduced by the last Government and I oppose it now—for the same reason. I see it as a brutal attack on the weakest and most vulnerable individuals in our society and an exercise by private companies to profiteer at those individuals’ expense.
I started raising the issue in Parliament early on. My first constituency involvement was like that of many other hon. Members: it involved someone who was mentally ill, went for the assessment and had a nervous breakdown. That had an impact on the whole family—the mother, in particular.
I was then contacted by a range of organisations, which came together and produced the Spartacus report. I urge Members to read it. In the last debate on this issue, in Westminster Hall, we read some of its case studies into the record. They are horrendous examples of human suffering and what can only be described as abuse by the system itself.
I also refer Members to Calum’s List, which has a website. It is a list of people who have died, including by suicide, as a result of, or where there has been a contribution from, the loss of benefits. The first example on the list was that of Paul Reekie. Some Members may have known Paul, an award-winning writer and poet in Leith, Scotland. He did not leave a suicide note, just two letters on the table beside him. One was about his loss of housing benefit and the other was about his loss of incapacity benefit. He died.
The other example is that of Mark and Helen Mullins from Bedworth. They could not access their benefits. They were walking 10 miles a day to a Salvation Army soup kitchen. They committed suicide together because they could not access their benefits. Read Calum’s List, which has example after example of the brutal effect of the system.
This is at least the sixth debate that we have had on the issue. The concern expressed by Members about an issue of public administration in all those is unprecedented in recent decades. There is example after example of human suffering on a scale unacceptable in a civilised society. That is why 117 Members of Parliament have so far signed our early-day motion calling for the scrapping of the system.
I have read Mind’s briefing for today’s debate and I urge other Members to do the same. It has put forward what is wrong with the system. Yes, it has recommended improvements, but one of the key factors coming out of its survey of people facing the work capability assessment process was that 51% of them said it made them have suicidal thoughts. Any system involving that level of risk is irretrievable and unreformable. That is why I believe it should be scrapped and why the British Medical Association has said it should be scrapped.
I say the following, and I do not say it lightly: we now know that the system does not work. We know the human suffering that is occurring. The responsibility is now on us to do something about it. We will be to blame for every injury, harm, suicide and other death as a result of the system if we do not scrap it now and bring in something that is fair and based on proper medical knowledge—assessment by a person’s own GP, reinforced by expertise. We need something that gives advice and emotional support for people when they go through the system, not something that leaves them at risk.
John McDonnell
If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall not give way as other hon. Members want to speak.
I conclude by saying that we all have a responsibility to say, “Let’s end the system now, start again and make something fair.” We will be to blame for all the injury and harm if we do not.
Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill
Ian Lavery Excerpts(12 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman mentions rising food inflation, but let us not forget that we have just knocked 10p off the price of a litre of fuel. That 10p was in the Opposition’s plans and would have created extra inflation.
This debate has been polarised, but a divide has been in existence for more than a decade and it is coming to the fore. As soon as we try to address it, we are described as nasty and heartless and told we are not dealing with people fairly. The fact is that too many people in this country have the wrong idea about benefits, which is not a dirty word.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The divide has not been in existence for just the past decade—Lady Thatcher and Geoffrey Howe hatched a plan to dismantle the welfare state more than 30 years ago. Is this Bill just another phase in bringing the welfare state to a conclusion?
Alec Shelbrooke
In the past 10 years, people have said time and again, “Why should I do this when someone on out-of-work benefits gets double the pay rise I get?” That is a fact. Wherever we may want to lay the blame and whichever way we may want to look at the issue, the fact is that people do not believe in the welfare state in this country any more. That is not just a tragedy; it is deeply worrying for this country.
The measures being taken by the Secretary of State, which we will vote through, will bring back some fairness to society. They are part of a big package of measures. However, we have a problem. We all want to give as much money to people—of course we do—but we cannot afford it.