Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 1 month 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(11 years, 2 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(11 years, 3 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(11 years, 4 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.
Remploy
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey
When we were deciding whether to proceed with stage 2, many factors had to be taken into account. With the factories that were seen as potentially viable, such as those in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I was told that, were I to delay, they would become more vulnerable as contracts came to an end and that it was therefore imperative that we pursued stage 2 as soon as possible, because only that would ensure that the staff had a more certain future.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
In the Ashington factory in my constituency, they bolted the doors, boarded the windows, ripped down the Remploy signs and cast the disabled people on to the dole queue. The promises made from the Dispatch Box for support for individuals have never materialised. Why?
Esther McVey
That support is in place and is increasing daily. If the hon. Gentleman has found that that has not been the case in his constituency, again, I ask him to meet me and the trade unions. I have met many other Members, and he is no different; as we all have the same intention, which is to get those people into work, I think that it would be best if we met up, so I make that offer to him here and now.
Jobs and Social Security
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I will obviously be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker—I have no choice now.
Yesterday’s report on the Work programme was very revealing, and my constituents are absolutely horrified by the statistics on Wansbeck. The coalition’s flagship Work programme has created fewer jobs than would have been created had no programme been in place at all. Members across the House have scorned that finding, but it is an absolute reality. Only two people in every 100 who have been referred to the programme have actually gained employment. That is absolutely astonishing—astounding, in fact.
Yet the Secretary of State said yesterday and today that the results are excellent and that the scheme is on track. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr Hoban), said yesterday that we should not worry because the information used in the report gave only a snapshot and that it is against the backdrop of growth that was much weaker than expected. Well, whose fault is that? It is the Government’s fault. We need a plan B, or C or D, whatever we want to call it.
In Northumberland, one of the biggest counties in the country, only 80 of the 4,570 people in the Work programme have found a job. That is 1.75%. And the Government say we are on track. Goodness me, what would happen if we were not on track? Perhaps the Minister will answer that simple question. In Wansbeck we have very few job opportunities, a lack of new business start-ups and increased levels of bankruptcy. In fact, the constituency has the highest rate of bankruptcies in the country. Many businesses are doing what they can and working very hard indeed, and I say well done to them, but we have huge problems. We are still reeling from the job losses at Rio Tinto Alcan and seeing 26 jobseekers apply for every job at the jobcentre. That means that 25 are absolutely disappointed because the jobs are not there.
My heart goes out to the unemployed, those who are searching for jobs; searching for dignity. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have talked time and again about “alarm clock Britain”. There are those in alarm clock Britain who peek from behind their curtains every morning to watch their neighbours getting into their cars and going to work, wishing that they had the same employment opportunities. The problem is that there are no jobs in the region. There are not many jobs for young people either, with 15.9% of 18 to 24-year-olds in Wansbeck unemployed.
I do not have much time left but I want to say something about social security, which is also mentioned in the motion. A huge problem up and down the country is the way the Government are casting disabled people aside and on to the scrap heap through their vicious work capability assessment. It is absolutely outdated and needs to be cast aside. We need to look at the situation and look after the elderly and disabled people who are suffering so much as a result of the Government’s attacks on benefits. Nothing short of getting rid of the WCA will do.
We need to look at enterprise zones and be more imaginative and creative on job creations. Why not invest the £435 million that has already been spent on the Work programme and the £725 million for the next five years on people who have a stake in their communities and who want to create employment for the right reasons, not for mass profit?
Universal Credit and Welfare Reform
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
There have been some thoughtful contributions this afternoon, but I must wholeheartedly disagree with the comments about cross-party agreement and how this is not about cuts.
Hon. Members can call me a party pooper, if they wish, but I want to consider the reality facing many people in my constituency and constituencies up and down the country. Let us face it, we are in a double-dip recession made in Downing street. In order to recover our finances, we need a suitable plan for growth and jobs in the economy. Twenty one people in my constituency apply for each job vacancy, and the only way out is with a plan B. It is no good denying that. It will not do anybody any good to deny that we are in times of extreme austerity.
This is a timely debate, because although millions of people were in London yesterday celebrating the fantastic, first-class Olympics and Paralympics—the best ever seen—the picture out there for tens of thousands of disabled, vulnerable, sick and unemployed people is quite different. Many people fear for their future, and rightly so, particularly given how welfare reform has developed over the past two years and what will happen with the universal credit. Lots of people will lose out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) mentioned disabled children. We have got disabled claimants. Carers are set to lose out, as, too, are joint claimants with limited capabilities, young lone parent and large families. We have not got any facts or figures on how much the universal credit will be per individual and how much the additional payments will be. The only figure we are sure of is the size of the benefit cuts—£20 billion. Some Members might say, as they regularly do in the Chamber, “This is not about impacting on the less well-off in society but about simplifying the benefit system and making it easier”, but I look at it differently: if we take £18 billion to £20 billion away from welfare in the name of welfare reform, somebody will lose out, and to stand up in the House and suggest otherwise is disingenuous. We must be careful not to start universal credit the same way we started welfare reform two years ago. We cannot have people worrying about losing their benefits—about appealing for benefits but being cast aside. If universal credit is introduced in the same way as Atos operates the work capability assessment, more people will become unemployed—booted on to the dole, some may say.
The universal credit will be introduced next year, and constituents of mine have received lots of letters and e-mails about its implementation and underlying principle. The Government hope for 80% take-up online, so people who prefer face-to-face interaction will have to use the internet, yet the 2009 digital report stated that 15 million still did not use the internet. I accept that it might be dated, being three years old, but I emphasise that many people still prefer not to use the internet.
Monthly payments, sanctions, the IT failure, joint payments and the transitional project have all been mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon, and I hope that the Secretary of State and his ministerial team will look at them all. We have to treat poor people with dignity. They are not asking for the earth and have never looked for luxury. They just want to live a life as near as possible to what we do. They do not want merely to exist.
Specialist Disability Employment
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Maria Miller
Of course, I echo the comments that my hon. Friend has made. With regard to the timing of the next stage of this process, it is very important that we use the time that we have available. To confirm and clarify the timing of the bids process, it will have been some five and a half months for those going through to the second stage of the bid round. We will take the time that is needed to make sure that bidders get the information that they need and the access to the support that is there for them to make sure that as many of the bids as possible are as successful as they can be.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Thousands of disabled people will be heading home tonight certain of one thing, and that is a lifetime of unemployment. What advice would the Minister give to those individuals and their families with regard to employment in future? Is she not absolutely ashamed that this despicable, cruel act has happened on her watch?
Maria Miller
I can absolutely understand that hon. Members are speaking with a great deal of passion, because this is a very important issue that affects some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. However, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that if we are truly going to be people who stick up for disability equality and for disabled people in this country, who number some 6.9 million, then these are the changes that we need to make and that disabled people and disabled people’s organisations have called for. The previous Government were fully aware of that. The modernisation plan has not done what was required, and we are now taking that money and making it work harder for disabled people.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
I am absolutely clear that we have to get the Commission to change. It is, after all, part of a collection of member states, all of which believe that the current direction of travel is wrong. We have to win battles in the Commission, the Parliament and the European Court. I will not hesitate to take legal action in the European Court wherever we have grounds for arguing that the Commission is acting against the terms of the Lisbon treaty and its predecessors.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
8. What progress has been made in transferring Remploy factories to social enterprises.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
16. What progress has been made in transferring Remploy factories to social enterprises.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)
Within the commercial process Remploy has encouraged any proposals for the businesses, including bids that are social enterprise models. I, and DWP officials, have met social enterprise organisations, and I have also announced that funding of up to £10,000 is available to support employee-led proposals, including social enterprises. That money can be used for expert advice and support, including legal and accountancy support.
Ian Lavery
Many social enterprises feel as though they have been totally excluded from the consultation at Remploy. The consultation period has been an utter shambles; it has been chaos and confusion from day one. As a result, will the Minister consider restarting the consultation period in the best interests of the disabled people at Remploy?
Maria Miller
The hon. Gentleman and I have a shared objective of wanting to make sure that we work together with people affected by these announcements, and I do not think he would want to create any situation where we had to continue with this period of uncertainty for any longer than we already have. He is wrong to say that we should rerun this consultation; it is going forward in the way that it should. We have received 65 expressions of interest for Remploy businesses, and I am looking forward to working with those individuals and those organisations to see how many of those bids we can take forward.
Disability Benefits and Social Care
Ian Lavery Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Duncan Hames
I have read speeches in Hansard from before I was elected when colleagues of mine pleaded with the previous Government to make changes to the work capability assessment that they were introducing. On the timing of those changes, they should have been made even before the present Government came to office.
I turn to the matter of Remploy. [Interruption.] Changes are being made now. It is worth noting—
Duncan Hames
I have already given way and I have moved on to the subject of Remploy. It is worth noting that of the 6.9 million disabled people in the UK, fewer than 2,500 are supported by Remploy’s enterprise businesses. As we heard from the Minister, changes to Remploy are not cuts. Every penny of the £320 million budget that we are discussing will be reinvested in getting disabled people into work and supporting them while they are there, and rightly so. [Interruption.] I heard that clearly, and I am sure we will hear more about it later.
It is worth remembering, although the shadow Secretary of State found it difficult to do so, that Labour closed 29 Remploy factories as a result of a decision in 2008. Perhaps it was because the answer was “not more than 30” that the shadow Secretary of State was not able to bring that answer to us earlier. [Interruption.] Indeed. The figure was 29. Clearly, the Labour Front-Bench team did know the answer to the question.
The consultation referred to in the motion is still in progress, and it is not appropriate for us to deliver a verdict on it before it is completed. Proposals for commercially viable factories are still being considered, which may mean that redundancies will not be as extensive as has been reported. To call for a re-run of an ongoing consultation is premature and unwarranted.
There are some key areas on which I hope the Minister will be able to shed some light. What discussions has she had with unions and Remploy managers to ensure that those disabled people who are made redundant are made aware of, and are able to utilise, the support packages—almost £8 million, I believe—that are being made available? Will the Minister ensure that details of the bids to continue and sustain Remploy factories via other means are made public as soon as is reasonably possible in order to give some reassurance to those Remploy workers who will benefit? What discussions has the Minister had with the Remploy board and with voluntary and community groups about how to facilitate organisations wishing to continue Remploy factories as social enterprises? We have heard a great deal of sound and fury in this debate, but Members in all parts of the House need to support disabled people.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
The Opposition motion highlights the many problems with disability benefits and social care. There is undoubtedly an attack on benefits for disabled people. Disabled people face many acute problems, many of which have been mentioned this afternoon. The changes to disability living allowance will impact on nearly 500,000 people. The problems associated with employment and support allowance will impact on nearly 280,000 people. We have not seen how universal credit or the personal independence payment will work, but I fear that there will be chaos in the benefits system when they are introduced.
I concur with what Members on both sides of the House have said about Atos. It is wholly inefficient and cannot operate the work capability assessment. Some might say that it is wholly incapable. The problem is not the work capability assessment, but the way in which it is carried out, including the way in which people have to tick boxes and the fact that people are being assessed by people who are probably not qualified to carry out such assessments. If I called for nothing else in this debate, I would call on the Government to look again at the way in which Atos is delivering the system on their behalf.
Like many other speakers, I want to focus on Remploy, which is very dear to my heart. The discussions and consultations between the trade unions, individuals, employers and the Government have been nothing but a shambles. I will ask a few questions of the Government about what will happen to Remploy. Each factory is being tret completely differently. They are all being given different advice on what is happening and about whether they are or are not in the consultation period.
I was outraged by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) that Remploy was a form of disabled apartheid. That is outrageous. Remploy was established just after the second world war to look after disabled people, and we should be looking after disabled people now. Nothing has changed. For someone to suggest that it is disabled apartheid is outrageous.
The Remploy ethos was developed by George Tomlinson, who was an MP for a Bolton seat. He wanted there to be secure and open employment for disabled people. Remploy factories have given their employees an income, independence, self-respect and self-esteem. It is often said that society can be judged by how it looks after its most vulnerable people.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
I am the Member of Parliament for Bolton South East and it was a Bolton MP many years ago who was involved in setting up the Remploy factories. I have visited the factory in my constituency on a number of occasions and the people there have told me that they take great pleasure in coming to work every day and getting a decent wage packet. They do not want handouts or disability benefits; they want the opportunity to work and to increase their self-respect. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Ian Lavery
I have met every member of the Remploy work force in my constituency and in Newcastle, and I wholeheartedly concur with my hon. Friend.
I will ask a number of questions in the short time that I have left. What is happening with the Remploy pension fund? Is it being closed or kept open? That is important to the people who work there. What is happening to the five-year modernisation plan that was put in place by Labour? Why is it being cut short? What about the huge management structure of people who are not disabled, who have been looking after the Remploy factories but have not implemented the modernisation plan? What is happening to the burdensome costs of that management structure?
Last year, there were 2,500 trainees in Remploy, and it is important that we get an answer to what will happen to them if, as we all believe, the Remploy sites are eventually closed. It is clear that the vast majority of the factories will close, if not all of them, which will mean the end of a working life for many people. Their health will decline. The Minister mentioned the problem of unemployed people who have mental health problems, and said that they should be taken off benefits and given a job. I cannot understand that. If someone who is unemployed has mental health problems and we take them off unemployment benefit and try to get them a job when there are no jobs available, that will be disastrous for them.
If people are taken out of work at Remploy, there will be a cost impact for the Government from what will happen to their health. The Government’s estimate is that benefits given to individuals in that situation could range from £10,200 to £27,000 a year. It is easy and cheaper to keep people in employment than to give them up to £27,000 a year of housing and other benefits. We should give them self-esteem and self-respect by allowing them to go to work, as every one of us enjoys doing.
I appeal to the Government to restart in full the consultation period, which started a few months ago. Things have changed rapidly since the beginning of the process, which makes it wholly unfair. We should restore dignity and self-esteem to people in Remploy and keep them in employment as far as we possibly can.
Mrs McGuire
That is the real statistic. We in this House bandy figures around, but the reality is that we are talking about people who are finding themselves—day after day, week after week, month after month—being unable to get a job. That is the reality: 2.5 million unemployed.
Ian Lavery
In my constituency, and in the north-east region, unemployment has increased again, yet the Minister with responsibility for employment did not even turn up to a Westminster Hall debate today to respond to the comments of MPs from the north-east whose constituencies face serious problems. That is a total disgrace.
Mrs McGuire
And that is the issue this Government need to attend to. We have a crisis in social care. The directors of adult social care services have identified in excess of £1 billion of cuts to social care budgets.
What in this motion do the Government disagree with? It recognises there should be reform of DLA. It raises concerns about the WCA. It recognises the role of carers. It promotes independence, choice and control for disabled people. It asks the Department to restore, in writing, its commitment to equality for disabled people. It calls for a full cumulative impact assessment of the effect of what is happening on the lives of disabled people. It asks for reform of the WCA descriptors.
I always think it is faintly amusing that when we talk about disabled people in this House, Cabinet Ministers often find more time to talk among themselves—as some of them are doing now on the Treasury Bench—than to listen to the debate. I hope the Minister replying to this debate will recognise that this is a sensible motion that is looking for consensus, and that he will respond in keeping with that spirit of consensus.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Paul Burstow)
First, I want to say on behalf of my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has responsibility for disabled people, that she has had to attend a Westminster Hall debate to respond to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). She would have liked to attend the conclusion of our debate, however.
Last week, the House debated mental health on a Backbench Business Committee motion, and it made a powerful statement about the need to challenge stigma in mental health—a topic we have also touched on today. That earlier debate was made all the more powerful by a number of personal stories told by Members on both sides of the House. It was a debate that will be long-remembered by those who participated, and I know from the many e-mails and letters I have received that it reached well beyond the usual suspects who avidly follow our proceedings. That is also the case in respect of some of the issues raised in today’s debate.
Let me begin by referring to an issue raised in the opening speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne). It is an issue very dear to my heart as Minister with responsibility for mental health, and in respect of which the Government will shortly be coming forward with a suicide prevention strategy. I am talking about the issue of concerns that some constituents bring to our surgeries. I cannot talk about the individual case, but I will make sure that a ministerial colleague writes back to him once the details are known. What I can assure him and other hon. Members is that all staff are trained in dealing with vulnerable groups, including those with potential for self-harm. Occurrences of self-harm are rare, as are suicides. It is also worth saying that Atos has appointed mental health and cognitive intellectual champions to provide advice on handling any aspect of these cases, including dealing with cases of potential self-harm and suicide. I wanted to put that on the record because talk about suicide can itself be damaging, and I want to ensure that we address these issues correctly.
Paul Burstow
I have so little time—I have minus 10 minutes, in theory—that I would like to ensure that I respond to the points that have already been made.
Disability living allowance has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. It is worth saying that Labour left the assessment process as a piece of unfinished business; it did not properly take into account all those with sensory, mental health and cognitive impairments. The move that this Government are making to the personal independence payment gives us the opportunity to ensure that we do take proper account of the impact of mental health needs and fluctuating conditions. The right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) said in her summing up that the Labour Government dealt with the issue of life awards in 2000. Yes they did—they changed the name to “indefinite awards”. Some 70% of those are still on the case load and they have just been given a different name. The reality is still the same.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) talked about PIP assessments, and I want to tell her that the Government are still considering the findings of the consultation on the assessment process. The consultation closed on 30 April and we will be publishing the response to it, along with the current consultation that we are doing on the detailed design, in the autumn, before this House properly debates those matters as part of the regulations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames) talked about Labour’s legacy of subcontracting out to Atos the decision-making process, and fettering, in a way, the way in which decision makers could act. He is absolutely right about that, which is why we have given back flexibility to decision makers. Indeed, we have moved away from the hard, harsh and tough approach taken on work capability assessments by the previous Government. We have taken the recommendations of Professor Harrington’s independent reviews seriously and implemented all of them. We are building on his recommendations, following his engagements with charities, on how we make sure that the assessment process is more accurate and does properly reflect fluctuating conditions and takes into account those with mental health conditions. Again, that point was raised by my hon. Friend.