DWP Estate: Office Closures

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman makes, and he says it with authority as the Chair of the Select Committee, but I think he also understands that we are making a major investment in the front end—the customer-facing side—of our Department. As I said, over the past two years we have been increasing the number of jobcentres to 194. That will enable us to do exactly what he wants—to provide support for individuals across all ages through the plan for jobs.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I was a bit concerned about the response that the Minister gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) about the proposals for the site at Longbenton. We already know that the Inland Revenue is relocating from that site to central Newcastle upon Tyne, but what is proposed directly for the staff employed by the Department for Work and Pensions? This affects many MPs in the area who have hundreds of constituents employed at that very large site.

[David Rutley]

As I indicated to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown), I will gladly meet both him and the hon. Gentleman after this to discuss those concerns further. The Minister for employment will actively engage with affected colleagues, and we are engaging with the staff as we speak.

Underpayment of Benefits: Compensation

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

I am relatively new in post—I have been here about three or four months—and all I can say is that I take a very active interest in the correspondence from MPs across the House. I hope people are aware of that. I will gladly separately follow up either in writing or in a meeting about the particular points that the hon. Member makes. We need to learn lessons. Our postbags are invaluable sources of information that sometimes are not really seen by officials or civil servants in the same light. It is an invaluable source of information to help me do my job. I will gladly follow up.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The problems highlighted by the ombudsman’s report were not only predictable, but in some respects were predicted. Welfare rights workers are brilliant at what they do on behalf of our constituents, but they are often swamped by the demand, but would they be necessary at all if the Department was doing its work properly, efficiently, in a timely fashion and getting its determinations right for our constituents in the first place? Can the Minister outline how many people in my constituency of Gateshead were affected by this ministerial and departmental maladministration? If he cannot do so now, will he do so in writing in short order?

[David Rutley]

I would like to, but unfortunately we do not have that data at that individual level. [Interruption.] As I was about to go on to say, let me see what is available, and I can follow up. What I will say is that an error has been made here—I accept that—but we all know that many, many people who work in the Department for Work and Pensions do a fantastic job and are committed to serving people who are very vulnerable. Through this error, I would not want to cast a view across all DWP civil servants; they do a remarkable job. I accept that we made an error in this situation, and I will follow up on the points the hon. Member makes.

Invisible Disabilities and Accessibility Challenges

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders). I thank the hon. Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield) for securing this really important debate and for giving us the opportunity to discuss the issues that are faced by and raised by our constituents, who have disabilities both visible and invisible, which can be a barrier to their independence.

One barrier to independence should not be travel. The disability charity, Scope, in its report, “Independent. Confident. Connected.” found that 40% of disabled people often experience issues or difficulties when travelling by train in the UK, but there has been progress in transport accessibility in recent years, driven in no small part by the Equality Act 2010. However, I would like to touch on a number of issues that disabled or impaired residents of Cheadle still face. These issues remain a real concern and I would like to see them addressed.

We are all keen to encourage people out of cars and on to public transport. It is really important that public transport recognises invisible and visible disabilities and makes the accommodations that need to be made for people to travel. Cheadle Hulme in my constituency is an important station on the rail corridor from Stoke-on-Trent and Crewe to Manchester Piccadilly, and it is well used by commuters travelling to and from my constituency for work or leisure. The construction and completion of lifts and a footbridge with funding from the Access for All programme is very much welcome, but several wheelchair users have encountered issues with the station’s disabled access and particularly the lift, which is active only until quarter to 9 in the evening, even though trains continue beyond that time. That is an important issue for people who have disabilities. Because of it, one constituent had to get off at Stockport station and get a taxi to Cheadle Hulme, which is a journey of four miles. Another—this was a really terrible experience for him—had to carry his disabled daughter and luggage down the station stairs because the lift cannot be in use 24 hours a day, as it relies on the station being manned.

I recognise that all transport companies, such as Northern, seek to address these issues and provide help for those who need assistance, but that help is often not well known about by passengers or the service is not consistent enough to adapt to the needs of disabled people. I am pleased, however, that Northern is actively looking at how to address this issue and is undertaking a pilot at another station using technology so that lifts can be monitored remotely. It is important to know that there are ways to address all these issues. Whether a person has a visible or invisible impairment or need, these issues can be addressed.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady’s point is entirely valid, because Northern has proposed to remove guards from trains. That makes the accessibility problem even more difficult, particularly given the number of unstaffed stations on the Northern network.

[Mary Robinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree that we need to make sure that we have the right safety measures in place on all our trains, but my point is about the accessibility when people arrive at stations and the issues that they may have if a lift is not working. Clearly, we would not want a person to have to carry their disabled child up and down stairs.

Seven thousand people in the UK rely on an assistance dog to help with practical tasks and to go about their daily lives. For many people, the first and only visible sign of their invisible illness is their dog. I recently discussed this issue with Lynne from my constituency and I was distressed to hear the effect it has had on her. She was refused access to a taxi because the driver did not want the dog in her car. She suffers from regular epileptic seizures. She looks no different from any other person, but she is accompanied by her assistance dog, who can detect when she is about to have a seizure. I was amazed to hear that humans emit a specific odour that some dogs can recognise, which means they can warn their owner of an oncoming seizure, sometimes a significant period in advance, to allow them to find a safe place and get the assistance they need. My constituent was left waiting in the pouring rain for 30 minutes for another taxi after being refused passage. The taxi would not accept her assistance dog as a passenger. She reports that sometimes taxis arrive, see her dog and move on or refuse to pick her up.

Businesses such as private hire taxi firms are a vital transport service for people suffering with physical or mental conditions—they enable them to get about—and they need to be made aware of the legislation protecting people with assistance dogs. It is a concern that not enough licensing authorities require drivers to complete disability awareness and equality training, and this should include people who have disabilities that are visible and those that are not.

I am encouraged that in response to the task and finish group report, which investigated the issue, Ministers have stated that they intend to include new guidance for licensing authorities. Under the Equality Act 2010, taxi and minicab drivers cannot refuse a booking on the grounds that someone has an assistance dog accompanying them. I appreciate that in some circumstances they may not be able to have dogs as passengers in their cars—for example, if they are allergic—but that is why the legislation allows for drivers to carry certificates of exemption.

Customers must be aware of this, however, when booking a taxi so that they are not left literally out in the cold. I would like all taxi drivers to complete disability awareness and equality training so that they know they should report discrimination. We also need to take action against drivers who discriminate against disabled passengers so that experiences such as those of my constituent do not continue. This is not about forcing new regulations on business; it is about reinforcing current legislation to protect disabled people.

Like epilepsy, bowel disease is also an invisible illness. While someone may appear to look okay on the outside, they might suffer from an invisible illness such as Crohn’s or colitis and might urgently need to use a toilet when out and about.

Department for Education

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and it is of course the local authorities that get the blame for not delivering the goods, even though we have not been giving them the money to do so in certain cases. There are also huge differentials in the way in which those local authorities use their money.

On children’s social care, I would like to hear more about sufficiency funding, which the Chair of the Education Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), mentioned, and also about a 10-year plan. Children’s most important years are the ones before they go to school—those years will shape their careers in school and beyond more than anything else—so, for goodness’ sake, if we cannot have a 10-year plan for the social care needs of our children as they grow up, what can we have one for?

I am not going to have time to talk about schools today—I shall have to reserve those comments for the debate on Monday—but I just want to make the point that all the ongoing cost pressures on schools are going to be compounded by the recent directive from the Department for Education that was sent to schools on 6 February recommending a 2% pay rise for teachers this year. That is fine, but the Department’s report stated that

“a pay increase for teachers of 2%, in line with forecast inflation, is affordable within the overall funding available to schools for 2019 to 2020, without placing further pressure on school budgets.”

I am afraid that that is just not the case. School budgets are under huge pressure, certainly in my constituency and elsewhere in West Sussex, where we have been at the bottom of the pile for funding for many years. The cumulative effect of that underfunding means that there is no fat left to cut. All the savings have been made, so even a 2% increase in teachers’ pay, if it is to be paid for by the schools, will have enormous impacts on those school budgets’ ability to provide all the other services, which I will go into in detail in the debate on Monday.

On children’s services, a report commissioned by Action for Children, the National Children’s Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s has come out today, and it confirms what we all know about the huge shortfall in funding for children’s social care. That shortfall was also identified in the work that the all-party parliamentary group on children did in the report “Storing Up Trouble” that we produced last year. It is estimated that there will be a £3 billion funding gap by 2025. One of the alarming observations in today’s report is that spending on early intervention services for children and young people fell from £3.7 billion to £1.9 billion between 2010-11 and 2017-18. That is a 49% decrease in spending on early intervention. At the same time, local authority spending on late intervention services for children and young people has risen from £5.9 billion to £6.7 billion—a 12% increase.

This is not rocket science. If we do not spend early to prevent the problems from happening to these children, we will pay for it later. We will pay for it socially—most importantly—and also financially. It is such a false economy not to do more in those early years around perinatal mental health, around child neglect and around making children ready for school, for growing up and for society generally. Some of the biggest falls in spending have been in some of the most deprived authorities in the country, where the impact can be greater because the other support services, including family support services, are not available to help those children.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I have been in this House for eight and a half years. When I retired as deputy leader of Gateshead Council, it had an annual revenue account of £310 million, but now, eight and a half years later, it is down to £200 million despite the huge growth needs built into the system in Gateshead.

[Tim Loughton]

Well, I have been here for 22 years, and I have also seen a thing or two.

When I was a Minister at the Department for Education, we came up with the early intervention budget because it was the right thing to do on so many fronts. It alarms me that early intervention is seen as a luxury add-on rather than an essential part of everything that we should be doing for our children, and we should be planning for it over the long term. That is why, for all the reasons I have set out, I am pleased to see—I know that the Minister for Children supports this work—the inter-ministerial working party led by the Leader of the House trying to co-ordinate early years activities across Government.

Turning to schools, the big figures that we talk about in these reports—the big percentage increases—are meaningless until we translate them into their impact on the frontline. I have spent the past couple of years getting all the heads from all the schools in my constituency and all the chairs of governors together to ask them about the impact of funding challenges on their schools. I asked not what might happen, but what is happening now. I wrote a seven-page letter to the Secretary of State for Education with the findings from all those schools, which included impacts as a result of not replacing staff or replacing them with less expensive and therefore less qualified staff, of having to remove things from the curriculum, and of doing away with out-of-school visits. Alarmingly, counselling services have also been reduced—almost to zero in some cases—at a time when we all know the effect of mental health stresses on the younger generation. The Government have recognised that, and work is ongoing, but if people are not on hand in schools to help with the stresses and strains that lead to mental health problems, that will just store up expensive problems, both financially and socially, for children in those schools.

We have been generous and have planned for the long term in the national health service, and it is essential not to neglect early long-term planning in a preventive way for our babies, toddlers, children and young people. It is a complete false economy not to be doing that. While I appreciate the additional money that the Government have been putting in, I am afraid that the estimates that we are looking at today, when they are factored down to the impact that they will have in authorities such as mine in West Sussex, which has had severe underfunding for so many years, will have a detrimental effect on the life chances of our children. Frankly, we have to do better, or we will be picking up a much more expensive and complicated bill further down the line.

Employment and Support Allowance Underpayments

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is an honour and a privilege to have this job, and I am absolutely determined that we will do everything we can to make sure that people get the back payments they rightly deserve. He makes a very good point about the absolute devastation that tax credits caused to so many people’s lives, and he is quite right to remind us of that. I want to point out that when people were transferred from IB to ESA, nobody had a loss of income. What we are talking about is money to which they might have been eligible at the time but did not get at the time, but everybody transferred across on the benefit they had.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I say to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) that I am sorry, but two wrongs do not make a right, and his party has been in government for eight years—I repeat, eight years—now.

This involves hundreds of thousands of the most vulnerable people in our society, which I am afraid to say makes me angry and very sad. Given the time that has elapsed since this came to light, some if not many of the individuals who are known to be terminally ill will, sadly, have died. Their loved ones will have lost a loved and treasured family member in the knowledge that they had to endure increased hardship due to wrongly withheld benefits. What are Ministers doing to console those families and to compensate them for their loss?

[Sarah Newton]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are some of the most vulnerable people in society. That is why we have put in place everything that we can to reach out to them and make sure that they get the benefits they absolutely deserve to have, and where people, tragically, have passed away, that their families receive those benefits. I have apologised, the Secretary of State has apologised and the permanent secretary has apologised. This mistake should not have happened, and we are absolutely determined to sort it out as swiftly as we possibly can.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

What we have released is analytically robust. It enables us to compare with a matched sample, which becomes harder to do as there are fewer single people on jobseeker’s allowance. The reality is that the evidence points to universal credit getting people back into work quicker and ensuring that people are more likely to progress in work.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

We have had a number of debates about the roll-out of universal credit throughout the autumn. Government Ministers, including the Secretary of State, said from the outset and subsequently that the system was working fine and going very well indeed, but they recently made a number of concessions. If everything was working so well, why did they make any concessions at all?

[Mr Gauke]

Before any of the policies we announced at the Budget, universal credit was a better system than the legacy system. I am delighted that we are going even further to ensure that universal credit becomes a better system, and we will continue to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 13th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. If he will make an assessment of the effect of the length of waiting time to receive universal credit on levels of rent arrears.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

19. What assessment he has made of the effect of the length of waiting time to receive universal credit on levels of rent arrears.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Caroline Dinenage)]

The Department for Work and Pensions is currently undertaking work to investigate the reality of rent arrears in universal credit. It aims to understand the true level of rent arrears for tenants, what is causing them, and any impacts universal credit may be having.

[Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Lady is right to ask the question, but alternative payment arrangements are available. We have listened carefully to housing providers and we are seeing improvements all the time.

[Ian Mearns]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer, and I wonder whether it would be of any surprise to her that the chief executive of a large housing authority in the north-west of England recently told me that the authority had arrears of more than £2 million from universal credit alone. Claimants in one authority in Yorkshire and Humber have average arrears of more than £1,100 each. Why is that happening and what is she going to do about it?

[Caroline Dinenage]

We have to be careful not to scaremonger on this issue. A National Federation of Arm’s Length Management Organisations report says that three quarters of tenants who started to claim universal credit were already in arrears, and research shows that after four months the number of claimants in arrears has fallen by a third.

Employment and Support Allowance and Universal Credit

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Thursday 17th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on a matter that affects a large number of my constituents.

The latest employment figures show that unemployment in my constituency is twice the national average, but as we know, this forms only a small part of the problem. Both this Government and their predecessor have systematically targeted the most vulnerable in our society. Our welfare state has become a game of numbers and a debate about the bottom line, and once again Members of this House find themselves debating cuts to the incomes of those who can least afford it.

It is clear that for the vast majority of the 693 of my constituents claiming it, universal credit has been nothing short of a punitive disaster. As we sit here today, we all know of constituents across the country who struggle to choose between heating and eating, and where actually living takes second preference to just surviving. This Government’s answer to that is to take another £30 from those who most need it, many of whom suffer from often debilitating disabilities. If only Conservative Members had the same levels of compassion for those living on the breadline as they do for those whose wealth knows no bounds and for whom they strive to gain tax cuts.

Gateshead has rising unemployment and rising under-employment. A lot of my constituents who are lucky enough to be in work are often working many fewer hours than they would like to, with little or no job security. We all have constituents who are living in the most terrible circumstances. My office deals daily with individuals who are suffering at the hands of a Victorian regime of sanctions and bureaucracy, dreadful administration and, I am afraid, Kafkaesque hoops through which they are expected to jump in order to claim their entitlements.

I would like to focus on one individual who really highlights the extent to which the safety net of social security has become a trap. Simon Westlake is a young lad who, because of family issues, moved to Gateshead from London, not very far from this place. He had a job working at a local supermarket, paying his way, renting a flat in Gateshead and contributing to the local community. Unfortunately, he was made redundant in February 2016.

Universal credit has been operating in Gateshead for about 18 months, so Simon reported to the local jobcentre—which has since been closed by the DWP despite an increase in those needing to use its services—to apply for universal credit. In total, Simon made nearly 10 applications, week after week, on the computers in the jobcentre, each time hoping that he would receive enough money to enable him to feed himself.

Seven weeks passed and still nothing, so Simon returned to the jobcentre, where an adviser watched him go through the online application and saw that nothing happened: no error message, no refusal, but more importantly, no claim lodged with the DWP. This lady kindly wrote a supporting letter for Simon, stating what she had witnessed, and lodged his claim over the phone—something that is very rare for the ordinary constituent.

Simon began receiving universal credit in June 2016, nearly four months after his initial application. In the meantime he had been evicted from his flat, threatened with violence by the landlord due to unpaid rent, and pursued by various utility companies and the local authority for unpaid bills. Simon was living in temporary accommodation in Gateshead, and I am afraid to say that, for a period, he was sleeping wrapped in a curtain and only able to feed himself by warming tins of soup with a tealight.

We in this House are often accused of being out of touch and living in a political bubble, but Conservative Members often do not seem interested. There are constituents in the same predicament as Simon in all our constituencies, and they need help urgently.

Simon contacted my office because the DWP had refused to backdate his universal credit to the date in February when he first applied. Despite my personal intervention, the DWP required evidence from Simon that he was in the jobcentre making online claims when he claimed to have done so. The only problem was that that jobcentre had been closed. He did not know where the staff were. He could not prove to the DWP, and the DWP could not explain to him how he was meant to prove, that he had been there in a now closed jobcentre. This would be an absolute scandal in itself, but Simon is not alone.

My question is this: how can Conservative Members vote for further cuts to a system that is already leaving our constituents living in absolute poverty, utterly destitute? Welfare recipients and would-be recipients in this country are already shouldering a very great burden—much greater than many of them can handle. They are citizens but now dismissed as claimants representing a financial cost to a Government who regard them as numbers. The media continue, in a mythological way, to purport that they are all fraudulent claimants, while we leave people who have had a tough break in life, or are suffering from terrible illness, in crisis. This is not right. These further cuts are nothing more than a penalty for becoming ill or losing one’s job.

We live in 2016. We are paid well to serve our constituents. I do not know how Conservative Members can put their constituents through the torment of further cuts in the name of unnecessary levels of austerity. I am sure that all Opposition Members can relate to Simon. For the sake of his story alone, these cuts must be opposed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are awash with predictions from experts, as we have been since the middle of the referendum campaign. So-called experts predicted that inflation would spike this week, but we saw it fall. We will see what happens. Good Governments keep a close eye on these things and act accordingly.

We are still some way away from the full roll-out of universal credit, but our aspiration and the difference that this will make for people are significant, because through universal credit people will have a named work coach. The hon. Members for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) highlighted some examples of people’s experiences, and we have all encountered difficult cases in which the system has failed. One key advantage of the full roll-out of universal credit is that every claimant will have a personal, named coach who will stay with them. The job of the coach is not only to help people to get into work, but to navigate all the challenges they face when dealing with complex benefits. If the system does not support claimants in the way it should, the coach will help them to address that. People will not have to rely on going to their Member of Parliament, councillors or local citizens advice bureau, and that will make a significant difference.

[Ian Mearns]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, but my constituent was unable to get any backdating and was left destitute. The Department’s behaviour was outrageous, and I am sorry to say that all I can see is a cost-cutting exercise.

[Justin Tomlinson]

I do not recognise this as a cost-cutting exercise, but without knowing all the details, it is difficult to comment. I hope that the ministerial team will look at this, meet the hon. Gentleman and find out whether there are lessons to be learned.

These coaches will also signpost where training is available to enhance people’s hopes of getting into work or progressing in work. Obviously, the traditional job-searching work will be done and, for the first time, these coaches will also provide support for people as they go into work. A lot of people coming off benefits will go into relatively or very low-paid work and will not necessarily have the confidence or skills to push themselves forward to get roles with higher wages. For the first time, these coaches will keep in touch with those people and say, for example, “You have turned up for work for three months; why don’t you now try to go for a supervisor role or increase your hours?”

Crucially, for people with fluctuating health conditions the benefit is in real time, so if people can work fewer hours one week than another, they will have a minimum income. The process goes from there, so if they do more hours, the income increases. This system removes the 16-hour cliff edge that was preventing people from benefiting.

Today’s debate is predominantly about ESA WRAG. Before I comment about that, I pay tribute, as I did yesterday, to the fantastic work of the staff in jobcentres, support groups such the Shaw Trust and Pluss, and the many local charities and national charities that provide support. They do a huge amount of brilliant work and often go unrecognised. ESA has had so many reviews and changes, yet still only 1% of people come off the benefit every month. That cannot be described as doing anything other than failing the people who are on it. A number of speakers highlighted the fact that people are typically on ESA for two years, whereas someone on JSA would expect to get into work much sooner. Bizarrely, people on JSA, who are closer to the jobs market, would get 710 minutes of professional support, whereas those on ESA, who are recognised as further away from the jobs market, would get only 105 minutes of that support. Some of the changes that are being introduced will equalise the position. It is crucial that we identify what people can do, not what they cannot do.

We are all different, and we all have challenges in our lives. Some people have more challenges than others, but most have an opportunity with the right support. The Green Paper is welcome, because it highlights the significance of that “can do” approach. We have to offer personalised and tailored support to give everybody an opportunity. Crucially, the major charities, including Scope, Leonard Cheshire Disability, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, the National Autistic Society and Mencap, as well as many other charities, right down to the smaller ones, will be contributing to the development and delivery of this policy. They will make a big difference.

Affordable Homes Bill

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to put that point on the record.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I rise only to put the hon. Gentleman’s mind at rest. I have had an inordinate amount of correspondence from my constituents asking me to come and support this private Member’s Bill. I have not had a single item of correspondence asking me to come and stifle a European referendum bill. I am here for the bedroom tax Bill.

[Mr Nuttall]

I am not trying to suggest that every Member in the House today has ulterior motives and is not here entirely because of the content of the Bill. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s motives are entirely honourable and that he is purely concerned about the content of the Bill before us.

Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Ian Mearns Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

We looked at that extensively in Committee, but those figures are all based on assessments. When the four-year review comes up, we will look carefully to see what is in the pot, but it would be irresponsible of me or any Minister to stand before the House and commit to emptying the pot completely by going even further. By moving to 80% I have moved as far as I can, and a lot further than many wanted me to move. I promised to increase payment levels if I could, and I have done so.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The measure is not perfect, but we are greatly relieved that at last something is happening on behalf of sufferers all over the country. Has the Minister made any special provision for legal costs in the scheme?

[Mike Penning]

The hon. Gentleman must have been reading my notes, because I was just about to come to that. During the passage of the Bill, we made provision for payment of £7,000 for legal costs to all successful claimants, which will be made on top of the 80% payment. I was adamant that that £7,000 would go to the claimant or their families as the fund of last resort, and not directly to any lawyer. It is up to the individual to decide whom they appoint and how much they pay them.

We are looking carefully at the operation of the scheme and the website, and we think that many people will be able to make claims without the need for legal advice. If they can do so and they spend none of the £7,000, they will keep the money. If they spend part of it on legal fees, they will keep the remainder. It is important the moneys do not simply go off to lawyers as they have done in other, not dissimilar, schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), and to find myself broadly on the same side of the argument as her. I particularly thank her for her kind words about Paul Goggins, who had many friends in all parts of the House, and who made a really significant contribution to our debates on the Bill and on the issue more generally. He is still sadly missed.

The Minister has stuck to the departmental briefing that was agreed with the Treasury, and to his original agreement with the insurance industry on the parameters of the scheme, so no one could reasonably criticise him for the way in which he has carried out his responsibilities; I hope that the Government Whips and the Leader of the House, who are listening, will find that satisfactory. Having spelled that out, I must add that the Minister has done everything that he could to help the victims of this terrible condition. I pay tribute to him for that work, and to Lord Freud for his work in the other place.

Above all, I pay tribute to the Minister for sticking with this issue, because not every Minister would have done so; it is not a popular issue in Whitehall. It may be appropriate for me to conclude the thanks that are due by thanking the civil servants in the Minister’s Department who have helped us to reach this point. Once the administrator of the scheme was established, some issues must have become clearer. It must have been easier to see whether an agreement could be reached on the vexed issue of whether the compensation level should be the 75% at which it stood at the end of the Bill’s Committee stage, the 70% at which it stood when it started life, or the 100% that I wanted, which always seemed out of reach in view of the parameters of the scheme. As I have said, the Minister stuck with this, and has brought us to 80%. I must say to him, “Well done.”

The Minister has also preserved the “3% or less” parameter on which the industry would no doubt have insisted. That is an industry figure, and there is some scepticism about it on the Opposition Benches. In the letter that he courteously sent to those who were members of the Committee, he said that he felt that it would be possible to keep the cost to less than 3%. I wonder whether he is able to tell us today how much less, and whether this scheme of last resort involves a trade-off between that and a yet higher compensation level for victims. It is early days, and I do not criticise the Minister. I have no reason to doubt his good faith in these matters; indeed, far from it. He has stuck his neck out for our side as far as one would expect any Minister to do. However, having seen the calculations produced by his Department, I should like to hear something about the period over which the costs will be spread. Perhaps he could tell us whether there is any prospect of taking the compensation rate in this scheme of last resort closer to the 100% that many of us think is justified.

We have had to sacrifice our wishes for an earlier start date for eligibility. Opposition Members still think that eligibility should start from the date on which the last Labour Government consulted on the introduction of a scheme of this kind. We believe that the consultation exercise, during which the Government made it clear that they were minded to legislate, raised legitimate expectations in the minds of potential applicants. I wonder whether there is room for a little more generosity within the scheme’s parameters. The cost of picking up the several hundred cases that I understand to be involved would be a one-off; continuing costs would not be incurred, because eligibility would have to fall between the start date advocated by the Opposition and the date on which the Government settled.

The Minister said that he wanted a clear-cut scheme that would be easy to access and would not put undue pressure on applicants. I welcome that, but applicants still have to demonstrate that they are eligible. It is up to them to show that there is not still an employer whom they can sue, or an insurer who has an obligation to pay compensation. That is a big responsibility to put on the shoulders of an applicant. I welcomed what the Minister said about the £7,000 and the legal costs, but someone who puts £7,000 in front of a claims farmer or a lawyer will be presented with a bill of about £7,000.

[Ian Mearns]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that proving that one has been susceptible to exposure to asbestos during a long and sometimes diverse career can be very tough. I know that a number of people who have succumbed to mesothelioma have not worked in heavy industry but have, for instance, taught in schools in which asbestos has been present. It is very difficult to prove exposure, because asbestos fibres often lie dormant in the lungs for decades.

[Mr Brown]

My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour is absolutely right. The effects of this horrible condition can be with a victim for decades, but once full-blown mesothelioma has been diagnosed, life expectancy is extremely short. It is no accident that the north-east of England is disproportionately represented on the Opposition Benches today, because we represent people who are in the older tranche of victims. I know that I do not need to explain this to the Minister. I am talking about people who worked in heavy engineering, shipbuilding and ship repair, people who sprayed carriages with asbestos, and thermal insulation laggers. Members of that generation were the victims of those industries. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) pointed out, the new victims will be teachers who have been scraping on asbestos-based boards, school caretakers and janitors who have breathed in asbestos from insulation that is flaking because it has not been properly lagged, and builders who have carried out occasional repairs without being properly protected against the asbestos that they were drilling into, and have generated dust.