Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland), who has once more shown his expert understanding and knowledge of this issue. I also compliment the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), who has again shown her utter determination to ensure that the right thing is done for those who have suffered so terribly from mesothelioma and for their families. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn), who has been a redoubtable campaigner on this issue for many years, on all the work he has done.

Every July on action mesothelioma day, in Lincoln square, Manchester, the Greater Manchester Asbestos Victims Support Group, ably co-ordinated for many years by Tony Whitston, brings together Members of Parliament, other community leaders and the families and loved ones of those who have died as a result of mesothelioma. It is a profoundly moving occasion, and I see in the House hon. Friends who have attended this event in previous years. Doves are released into the sky as a symbol of peace and reconciliation for those families who have faced so much difficulty, and the message goes out that there is still a need for justice for those who have suffered so much.

One of the most profoundly moving things is that many of the women there hold up photographs of their husbands and loved ones, who worked hard in heavy industry or as electricians or joiners, and who lost their lives to mesothelioma because an employer—an irresponsible, negligent employer—did not remove the risk, did not alert them to the risk they faced. I think of people such as Mr Fryers, a constituent of mine, whose voice is included in the excellent Asbestos Victims Support Group’s “Forum UK” briefing. He says:

“I never thought I would be exposed to asbestos diseases and suffer mesothelioma. During my apprenticeship from the age of fourteen as these diseases were never talked about you just did the job given to you. No tradesman knew much about asbestos due to the neglect of the employers who exposed them to it.”

At the event in Manchester—I am sure they take place throughout the United Kingdom—we have a particular focus on the 6,000 innocent mesothelioma sufferers who were unable to find a former employer or insurance company before they died: who were unable, in other words, to get any form of redress or compensation for the illness and eventual death they suffered. The Bill enables us to focus on that group and on those who still struggle to find an employer or an insurance company.

I welcome the Bill, which is a huge and important step forward. It will bring a measure of justice to those who have been unable to trace employers or insurance companies. However, my message to the Minister—one that is coming loud and clear from all parts of the House this evening—is that if we are going to enact this Bill, we should do it properly and gain the maximum possible justice for those who have been affected.

Let us remember that the insurance companies start well ahead on this issue. The estimated value of payments that ought to have been made but never were to those who have suffered and died is at least £800 million. We should also add to that the premiums the insurance companies have collected but have never had to pay out on. I encourage them to participate in the development of this scheme; but we should remember that they start ahead, not behind. Throughout the debate on the Bill through its various legislative stages, we should also remember that the voice and experience of those most affected—the loved ones, the families—must be heard. Over many, many years, they have felt ignored and betrayed, and we have to emerge at the end of this process with something that they feel offers them a measure of justice.

I want to make four brief points, the first of which concerns the level of compensation, which everybody has spoken about this evening. Seventy-five per cent. may be better than 70%, but it is not good enough, and we simply have to do better. Here, there are technical arguments, some of which have already been aired, but in this regard I rely for my view on the view of Parliament. That view was clearly demonstrated during the debate on what became the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which brought about changes to the conditional fee agreement. It was very clear in the debates in this House and the other place that to expect mesothelioma claimants to pay more than 25% of their compensation to lawyers was completely unacceptable. That argument was had here and in the Lords, which passed an amendment to prevent the new conditional fee agreements from applying to mesothelioma claims. Members may recall that we entered a period of ping-pong, and eventually there was a compromise and section 48 of the Act was inserted.

The will of Parliament was very clear on those occasions, and my argument is that if it was wrong to expect mesothelioma claimants to pay 25% of their fee to lawyers, why is it fair to expect them to pay 25% of the fee that they should have to the insurance companies? That is the practical effect of having a cap at 75%. My starting point is 100%. Other figures have been mentioned—90%, 80%—but the message to the Minister is that the figure has to be substantially higher than 75%. We do not want political game-playing here; there has to be a sensible, proper, grown-up discussion with the industry, Ministers and Members of this House to make sure that we get the best level of compensation that is available. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford was right to suggest that the level of compensation that is agreed on, whatever it might be, should be the level at which benefits are repaid. It would be grossly unfair to set a compensation level of less than 100% and then to expect claimants to repay 100% of their benefits. That would be quite wrong.

My second point relates to the start date from which people should be paid compensation. I make no criticism of Lord Freud. He made his statement to the House of Lords in July 2012, in the last days before the summer recess. If he had not cared about the issue, he could have left it until October when the House returned, but he wanted to make the statement in July because he does care. The start date should be set further back, however—at least to February 2010—and the reason for that is clear. When the Labour Government published the consultation document, it became clear to the industry that things were going to change and that a compensation scheme funded by the industry would be put in place. From that moment on, the industry has had every opportunity to make the necessary arrangements.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I agree with my right hon. Friend that the date needs to be put back. Does he agree with the point made by the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) and for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) that, because the date of knowledge is 1969 and most of the claimants are likely to be elderly, there is a reasonable case for putting the start date back at least to 1969 because the number of cases involved will be quite small?

[Paul Goggins]

My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable about these issues and he makes an important point. I am saying that the date should be put back to at least February 2010, and there are arguments for going back further. I hope that we will have an opportunity to examine those arguments in Committee.

[Mike Penning]

On the point raised in the intervention by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the dependants of those who have been affected by this terrible illness will be comp—I nearly used the word “compensated”; we are not supposed to use it. Payments will go to them. It is not the case that no payment will be made just because someone has sadly died. The dependants will get payments as well, and that has to be taken into account. I understand what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but that has to be taken into consideration.

[Paul Goggins]

I am happy to be the conduit for a conversation between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. I hope that we will be able to have a sensible discussion about this in Committee. Whatever the start date is, it should predate July 2012.

My third point relates to section 48 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, to which I referred earlier. Last week, I received a copy of a letter sent by Lord McNally to Lord Alton of Liverpool. One or two other Members who took part in the debates during the passage of the LASPO Act also received a copy. Section 48 prevents sections 44 and 46 from coming into force in relation to mesothelioma claimants. That means that the new conditional fee agreements cannot operate in relation to mesothelioma claims.

Ministers keep making the point that the review that has to be carried out under the LASPO Act has somehow to be dovetailed with the arrangements in this Bill. In the letter, Lord McNally says:

“I can absolutely guarantee that we will work in a synchronised way with the DWP”.

However, there is no relationship between the review set out in the LASPO Act and the provisions of this Bill. As I have made clear, the provisions in the Act cover civil claims and the arrangements for conditional fee agreements. They will ensure that claimants have to pay back 25% of their success fee to the lawyer who represented them. There have been arguments about that, and the Government clearly have their point of view, but Parliament has expressed the view that that provision should not operate in relation to mesothelioma claimants.

The Bill, on the other hand, deals with a fund of last resort for people who cannot find their former employer or insurance company, and who have no one against whom to make a civil claim. The two issues are therefore completely separate, and I ask the Minister please to clarify that when he responds to the debate. If there is to be a decision in relation to section 48 of the Act, let us have that debate and make that decision, but let us not confuse that issue with the provisions of the Bill that we are debating today.

My final point relates to research, which the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford also mentioned. It is shameful that we spend so little on researching the causes and treatment of mesothelioma. It is a disease that will kill 2,400 people this year, and in the region of 60,000 people over the next 30 years, and we should be devoting much more to research. I applaud the initiative that a small number of insurance companies took to set up the research fund that is being managed by the British Lung Foundation. Some good, promising work has been done as a result of that, and Lord Alton and his colleagues in the House of Lords wanted to make that arrangement more sustainable, better funded and more reliable in the long term so that we could get some proper research done and some good outcomes. Indeed, Lord Alton pressed an amendment to that effect, but it was narrowly defeated. However, that does not remove the argument, or the need for Ministers to do much more in regard to the funding of research.

I was struck by Lord Freud’s comment in Committee in the other place, when he was asked about his own efforts to improve investment in research, from the Government and from other sources. He said:

“I have hit a brick wall at every turn” [Official Report, House of Lords, 5 June 2013; Vol. 475, c. GC250]

He is a Minister who was trying to get a better outcome for research but clearly found it difficult. Earl Howe also spoke on Report about how he was trying to improve the research programme, and I would be grateful if the Minister could update us on progress tonight, because the promises were made in July and it is now November. I hope that some progress has been made, but we cannot get away from the fact that the Bill should contain a provision for the long-term funding by the insurance industry of research into the causes and treatment of mesothelioma.

I welcome the Bill, but it could be and must be improved. The families of those who have suffered and died as a result of this dreadful disease must be better compensated, and we need a scheme that is affordable and in which those people can have confidence.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

I have given way already to the hon. Lady. I want to make some progress.

As I have made clear, the Department fundamentally disagrees with the Appeal Court’s verdict, which is why it has applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in respect of both grounds. We believe it is right that the regulations should allow for flexibility, so that we can respond rapidly to improve jobseekers' chances of finding work, such as trialling new approaches in Derbyshire and London to help young people get vital experience to bolster their CV. A more prescriptive approach—the one proposed by the Appeal Court—to the content of the regulations would create inflexibilities that would ultimately hinder the jobseeker's chance of finding work.

Those are the arguments that we will make before the Supreme Court, if we are granted permission. Those arguments will not be affected by the Bill. We are hopeful that we will obtain permission and that we will win our appeal. There is, however, no guarantee that we will be granted permission to appeal, or that we would win the appeal. Were that to happen, claimants who have been subject to a sanction for failing to take part in the schemes would be entitled to a refund of that sanction. It would also mean that we had no power to impose sanctions in relation to failures under the ESE regulations, in cases where no sanction decision has yet been taken—the so-called stockpiled cases. If that were to happen, the cost to the taxpayer would be up to £130 million.

It is vital that, in the present economic climate, the public purse be protected from such claims. The Bill will ensure that the taxpayer does not have to repay benefits lost by claimants who have failed to participate in employment programmes, and can properly impose sanctions for such failures. It would be unacceptable for claimants who have failed to take all reasonable steps to increase their chances of finding work to receive an undeserved windfall payment. The Bill will prevent that by providing that any decision to reduce jobseeker's allowance under the ESE regulations cannot be challenged on the grounds that the ESE regulations were invalid or the notices given under them inadequate. It makes similar provision in relation to the mandatory work activity regulations in respect of notices given under those regulations.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Following on from the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who pressed the Minister on whether the judgment was about a technicality or not, may I draw the Minister’s attention to the comments of Lord Justice Pill? He said:

“Claimants must be made aware of their obligations and of the circumstances in which, and the manner in which, sanctions will be applied.”

I do not think that he regarded it as a technicality, but if it is, next time the Department makes a mess, will the Minister come and seek a further retrospective Bill, in the way he has done today?

[Mr Hoban]

The High Court upheld the steps that we took in setting out the detail in the regulations. As I said earlier, the letter that we sent to claimants who were required to participate in the schemes set out the fact that they could be subject to sanctions of up to 26 weeks’ worth of benefits. That is not the only communication we have with jobseekers. The jobseekers who come into Jobcentre Plus will have discussed the requirements with their personal adviser, so there is a range of ways in which we will communicate to jobseekers their obligations under the schemes. That is vital. It is important that people are aware of those obligations. We believe that the notices and regulations provide sufficient detail, and that will be backed up by the conversations and other communication that jobseekers have with personal advisers.

Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Commons Chamber

I say to my right hon. Friend, however, that we should not look for a quick piece of work. The 10 points that I set out, which I hope the independent reviewer will address, include some substantial pieces of work—including research—to be carried out among those on the receiving end of sanctions. In many ways I would welcome a proposal for such work to continue beyond the 12-month period envisaged in the new clause. We are dealing with the culture in jobcentres, and such work will not be done and finished and that will be the end of it: we need continued scrutiny of the sanctions contained in the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and I caution my right hon. Friend about seeking too speedy a piece of work. He is right to suggest that having some findings from the independent reviewer within six months would be helpful to the House—and probably to Ministers as well—but it is likely that the full work required will take at least 12 months, as envisaged in the new clause.

[Paul Goggins]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and I say to him and other right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that if new clause 1 has emerged from their discussions with DWP Ministers, the Bill has provided at least one bit of good news. I commend them for their efforts.

In listing 10 questions, my right hon. Friend has done the Committee a great service because one thing missing from new clause 1 is any mention of terms of reference—if I had been a bit quicker this afternoon, I might have included that in the amendments standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends. My right hon. Friend’s questions give the work of the independent reviewer a good starting point, and I say to my Front-Bench colleagues and the Minister that I know time is pressing, but if it were possible—perhaps even before deliberations in the other place—to draw up draft terms of reference based on my right hon. Friend’s 10 questions for the other place to consult on when debating the Bill, that would be helpful.

I will not go through each of my right hon. Friend’s 10 points because he spoke eloquently about them, but, of course, the numbers and quality of decisions are important. His question—I think this was point No. 7—about how people are surviving when they have been sanctioned and have no income is relevant and an issue on which Members of Parliament from all sides of the House will increasingly have to focus in the weeks and months ahead.

Let me say at the outset of my short contribution that I am in favour of, and not opposed to, sanctions. If we offer something to young people and others who are out of work, we need effective sanctions to back that up. Unfortunately, however, at the moment we do not have a proper offer for young people and others who are out of work, and that is part of the problem. It is important for sanctions to be fair and lawful, yet we heard in earlier debates this afternoon that the Court found the regulations and notice to be unlawful, which is why the Government have introduced this Bill.

My right hon. Friend mentioned the large numbers of people who are being sanctioned. All hon. Members know from their work in their constituencies of the increasing number of sanctions cases. We take a view on how fair or unfair those sanctions are, but I increasingly question the quality of decisions. A number of my hon. Friends have referred specifically to representations they have made to the Department for Work and Pensions on looking at decisions again because they were plainly unfair. In many cases, the decision is overturned, because any common-sense look at them would tell us that the decision was wrong. There are serious questions to be asked about both the quantity and the quality of sanctions. It is important that the review takes place—it is a welcome concession in the discussions between those on the Front Benches.

[Bob Stewart]

I have dealt with lots of soldiers in my life, some of whom are not very literate. One thing that always frightened them was letters. I have a feeling that people get sanctioned because they ignore the letter that comes through their letterbox and are frightened to open it because of the consequences of doing so. In one or two cases even in my constituency, which is relatively wealthy, people have ignored letters, and are therefore sanctioned because they are fearful of opening the envelope. When they have nothing, they need to try to get money. Sadly, people might try to get money by turning to crime.

[Paul Goggins]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman, for all his seniority in his earlier career, demonstrates great sensitivity to his constituents and others and he has done so before in debates in which I have been involved. I put it to him that people will increasingly have to apply for their benefits online, which could involve them utilising skills with which they are unfamiliar. There are difficulties with that. The hon. Gentleman speaks eloquently.

In pre-empting some of my remarks, the Minister was correct that I should like to inject some urgency—I reassure my right hon. Friend that I seek not a slapdash, hasty report, but urgency. I will listen carefully to the Minister when he responds to the debate in deciding whether to press the amendments to a Division. I want urgency from him—he gave one or two encouraging signs but I should like him to go further.

Amendment (a) calls for “six months” rather than “a year”. The Minister pointed out that the number of cases in six months might be limited, but there would be a number of cases of public interest, and they ought to be evaluated. My right hon. Friend suggested an interim report after six months, which might be a reasonable compromise—there would be a full report in a year but an interim report after six months, so that Parliament and the public can see how the inquiry is going, the kind of evidence that comes out and the quality of decisions. The report could then be completed within a year. I am thinking about that, because if we have a compromise, the measure would be urgent but allow sufficient time for the quality of investigation required.

I have a difficulty with new clause 1, which I am seeking to correct in amendment (b). New clause 1 states that the report should be sent

“to the Secretary of State as soon as reasonably practicable”.

All hon. Members have experience both in Parliament and elsewhere of how soon “reasonably practicable” is. With the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), I am trying to put a time limit on “reasonably practicable”. I am not saying that the time limit must be three months, but suggesting that it ought to be “within three months”. This is an urgent matter, because decisions are being made that are questionable in many cases and unlawful in others. The Minister has to indicate clearly what

“as soon as reasonably practicable”

means. We have to have a clear end point to this process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

We have had a helpful debate on the review. I note the comments of the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms)—I think he actually asked 11 questions, but I will allow him an extra one. The scope of the review is set out in the new clause. I take the point about the terms of reference, but we have set out the area that the review will cover.

My memory is not bad, and I recollect that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins) was a Minister in the previous Government so he should know what “reasonably practicable” might mean; I am sure he has probably used the phrase.

[Paul Goggins]

rose—

[Mr Hoban]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is a sinner who has repented. I happily give way.

[Paul Goggins]

It was precisely some of the experience I was reflecting on that caused me to make the comment.

[Mr Hoban]

The sinner has repented on this occasion.

Let me be clear. I want the review to proceed as quickly as possible. It is in all our interests for it to do so. I am keen that we improve the quality of decision making on sanctions and that we ensure that they are applied consistently. The right hon. Member for East Ham was right to highlight the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that there should be no targets, and that if there was evidence of targets being used at any jobcentre, we would stamp them out. We do not want targets; we want good quality decisions made consistently from jobcentre to jobcentre. I do not think targets have a role to play in that regime. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) laughs. Is he saying we should have targets? I suspect not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Well, actually it is not about leaflets. It is about signposting people to food banks. The right hon. Gentleman and his Opposition colleagues forget the way in which they tried to airbrush food banks out of history when they were in government, and to use them now as political pawns is beneath them.

I hope that the Committee will accept new clause 1. As I said in response to amendments (a) and (b) tabled by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and his colleagues, we want to ensure that the Bill proceeds as quickly as possible; I do not think there is any interest in spinning it out. But we do need to ensure, as the right hon. Member for East Ham said, that it is properly and thoroughly considered. As a consequence of a measure introduced by the previous Government, we have an independent reviewer of work capability assessments. That is a very thorough process and no corners are cut, neither would we want them to be. It is helpful that there is clarity.

[Paul Goggins]

I know from other dealings with the Minister that if he says he wants something to happen urgently, he will get on with it—I accept his word in good faith. However, one matter he has not dealt with is the clear commitment to get on with it as a matter of urgency. My amendment proposes six months and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Mr Timms) suggested an interim report. There seems to be a coalition of ideas, and I press the Minister to indicate that he is prepared at least to consider that seriously.

[Mr Hoban]

I do not want to end up getting stuck in a laborious process of issuing interim reports when I would much rather let the reviewer get on with the job. As a former Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know that just getting interim reports out of the door can be time consuming. I would rather let the reviewer focus on good recommendations and good analysis instead of bogging him down in a bureaucratic process that will not benefit any of us. I take on board the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, but in the interests of expedition and speed an interim report would slow the process rather than accelerate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Jim Hood)]

Mr Goggins, you did not inform the House whether you wanted to move your amendment formally, or withdraw it.

[Paul Goggins]

I hope that the Minister will continue to give my amendment careful consideration, but I do not want to press it to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Third Reading

Remploy

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

In spite of the tremendous efforts of the staff, and indeed increased sales, there is now a “For Sale” sign outside the Remploy factory in Wythenshawe. The Minister recently confirmed to me that only one of the 19 disabled staff who used to work there has so far been found work. Given that evidence, how can she possibly justify the closure of further factories?

[Esther McVey]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that 19 disabled people were employed at the factory, but in his constituency there are 16,700 people with disabilities, so we have to see what we are doing for all those people. I hope that he can take some comfort from the fact that last year alone Remploy Employment Services found jobs for 527 people with similar disabilities. Therefore, we have faith that we can get jobs for those 19 people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 10th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Gavin Shuker. Not here. I call Paul Goggins.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

In response to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) about the high tax being paid by sacked Remploy staff on their redundancy payments, the Minister gave an encouraging reply and said that the matter would be dealt with as soon as possible. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that means the money will be returned to those sacked staff in the current tax year?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I fully support the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), and I really welcome her arrival. She said that the matter was being looked into right now, and she will receive my full support while that happens.

Specialist Disability Employment

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In these difficult economic times, we have to ensure that the protected £320 million works better for disabled people in this country.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

This is a sad day for the staff at Wythenshawe Remploy, who have fought hard for the past five years to keep their factory open. They have become more efficient and increased their sales. My deep regret is that the Minister has failed to identify the £250,000 of additional print work that would have enabled that factory to break even and stay in business. How will she track the 1,421 people whom she is making redundant today, and will she commit to making a monthly report to Parliament about how many of them find alternative employment?

[Maria Miller]

I had a meeting with the right hon. Gentleman and I know that he comes to the debate with genuine concern about his constituents. He will know that the financial situation of the factory in Wythenshawe was such that it was not possible for a valid financial case to be made even with the sort of extra business he mentioned—there were operating losses of more than £300,000 and 19 disabled people employed in the factory.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however, that this will be unlike the previous round of redundancies, under which there was insufficient tracking in place. When it came to it, we simply did not know how many people moved into employment, although we know that many affected by the previous round retired. We have learned from that mistake. With the permission of the people affected, we will put in place a comprehensive system of tracking. I will undertake to ensure that hon. Members get appropriately regular updates on progress.

Employment Support

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

The important point I made earlier to the hon. Lady about her factory is that we believe that the phase 2 factories have the opportunity to become viable and we shall be looking at ways to make that happen. I hope that, perhaps working with her, we can identify somebody who is able to take on that challenge at local level.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Today’s announcement is a crushing blow to the staff at Wythenshawe Remploy, who have battled against closure for four and a half years. They have made the factory more efficient and have boosted sales, yet their reward is that they are classed as a stage 1 factory, which means that it will close. Can I have an assurance from the Minister that if in the 90-day consultation period a credible proposal is made to keep that factory open—perhaps as a social enterprise—it will be given sympathetic consideration and adequate support?

[Maria Miller]

Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I pay tribute to him for all the work he does to make sure that things are right as we reform the benefits system. I can absolutely assure him that we will look at ensuring that the new face-to-face assessment is done in a fair manner, and we are going out to commercial contracting on that.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

T5. During the recent Westminster Hall debate on the future of Remploy, I was pleased to be able to tell the Minister that at the Wythenshawe print factory sales continue to increase while operating costs are falling. What action has she taken since then to procure additional print work for the factory from Government Departments and agencies, and when does she expect to be able to confirm that the factory will remain open?

[Maria Miller]

That was an important and useful debate to ensure that the work that we are doing in government is made clear. I have asked officials to look at the situation that he raised regarding Wythenshawe to make sure that the appropriate sales teams are in place. He asked when we are going to talk about our long-term decisions, and I can assure him that we will respond on that as soon as is practicable. We are in year four of a five-year plan, and it is important that we have those new plans in place.

Remploy

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Thursday 15th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Strongly as I feel about the issue, Mr Havard, I shall bear your advice in mind. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on obtaining this important and timely debate. I thank the Minister for the opportunity to meet a short time ago to talk about the factory in my constituency, which I appreciated.

I want to make the general point that it would be completely wrong and inaccurate to portray people who want to defend Remploy and keep Remploy factories open as opposing change and modernisation. I speak for myself, but I am confident that no one taking part in the debate, from whatever side, wants an old-fashioned model of factory life for any disabled person. There is no conflict between wanting to keep Remploy factories open and wanting Remploy employment services to do well. For those who can get into mainstream employment, that is great. I want the organisation to work well, but it is not for everybody. It is not an either/or question, but a both/and question. That is an important point.

The Wythenshawe factory in my constituency does print work and fulfilment work. I pay tribute to the manager, Mike Tarry, his predecessor, Alan Reeves, and Brian Anderson, the trade union rep there for many years. I worked closely with all of them. Altogether, there are 21 staff, 19 of whom are disabled. Their employment is life-changing for them and their families—we should not forget their families. That those people can go out and get a full-time job takes pressure off the family and gives parents a real sense of pride in their adult children, seeing what they can do in the world of work.

Four years ago, when the Wythenshawe factory was on a list, facing closure, I pulled together a support and action group including local housing trusts, the local hospital, Manchester airport and a number of private companies in my constituency such as Authentic Food Co., Virgin and Select Service Partner—serious organisations. We came together for two things: first, to save the factory, which, thankfully, we managed to do; and, secondly, not simply to congratulate ourselves on a successful campaign but to work with the factory to build up more sales and business. Based on that experience of the past four years, I want to make three points to the Minister, which I hope that she will bear in mind, along with the many others that will be made.

First—this has already been touched on—local factories must be given more autonomy and control over their budgets and business plans. There is no contradiction in making that argument and saying that we need Remploy to remain in place. The Wythenshawe factory contributes £135,000 to the central coffers of Remploy. It is particularly galling that the £3,700 a month rate relief from Manchester city council goes not to the factory but to the central coffers of Remploy, which simply cannot be right. The manager, Mike Tarry, has already demonstrated over recent months the kind of savings that he can make and the efficiencies that he can drive. If he had more control over the whole of his budget, he would drive efficiencies that, frankly, the centre of Remploy has failed to do.

Secondly, every Remploy factory should be a flagship in its own community, which is certainly the ambition in Wythenshawe. The ambition of the manager and staff is that every year 50 people will get work experience in the factory, so people can work there not full-time or for ever but in the short term on the road back to mainstream employment. People can use the experience of the factory in a variety of ways. The factory is about not only the long-term employment of 21 disabled people but all the other opportunities. My constituency has double the national average for people on incapacity benefit, and we need opportunities for disabled people to get back into work more than most. The idea of closing a factory as a way of getting more disabled people into work is ridiculous.

Finally, we, as Members of Parliament, all have a responsibility to promote our local Remploy factories. Let me give a couple of figures: this year, the Wythenshawe print factory will achieve its highest level of sales ever, £460,000; next year, sales are already predicted to be in excess of £600,000, including substantial contracts with JCB and the City Facilities Management part of Asda, which provides the in-house cleaning and so on for all its stores. Those are substantial contracts for the factory, and the trajectory of sales is upwards all the time. We work with the local authorities, other businesses, the hospital and the airport and airport companies to promote the business, so we are on the way. As has been said, however, the current uncertainty is making it difficult for the manger to get out there and to make sales, because people keep saying to him, “Aren’t you closing? What’s the point of doing business with you if you are facing closure?” So £600,000 sales have been predicted for next year, and if the factory can get sales up to £1 million a year, it will be self-sustaining and not need a penny from anyone.

I have a challenge for the Minister: locally, we are prepared to keep working to ensure that sales go up, but £250,000 of print from central Government would secure the future of the factory. Out of the millions of pounds that central Government must spend on print, that kind of figure must be possible. I openly admit that, when I was in government, we should have done more of that, but we did not. It now falls to this Minister to do more: £250,000 of print from central Government to the Wythenshawe factory would secure its long-term future without a penny of help or support from anywhere else. Then, perhaps, we can talk about different models of ownership, management and all the rest of it, but let us do so once we have the factory on a self-sustaining footing.

The idea that we should close factories to get more disabled people into work is preposterous. It is time for the Minister to be clear that that should not happen and that we should use the factories that we have as a basis for building a progressive and better future for disabled people in work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Benton, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to respond to this debate on behalf of the Opposition and to serve under your chairmanship. I also particularly want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) for leading the debate today, and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it. If there is one thing that all of us have learned over many years, it is that Remploy and its future are of abiding interest to many Members from all parts of the House.

I also want to act slightly at odds with normal parliamentary procedure—since we are not in the main Chamber, I think that I can probably get away with it, subject to your ruling, Mr Benton—by thanking those disabled people from Remploy who have travelled to observe this debate, including members of the trade unions GMB, Unite and Community, who had not been mentioned before in the debate. It is an indication of how the staff at Remploy feel that they have made this journey at this point in the week and at this point in the day to hear this debate. Regardless of the views that have been expressed—there have been some differing views, including some subtly differing views—I hope that those staff will recognise that people in this place take Remploy and the issues affecting disabled people and the future of disabled people very seriously indeed.

I also want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) for their contributions to the debate. I will come back to the points made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne shortly. I am also grateful for the interventions that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). I realise that I have missed out my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) in my list, but I remember his very powerful contribution to the debate.

For very personal and obvious reasons, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), because he and I had many a long conversation about the Remploy factory in his constituency and the model that it provided; I will discuss that model later. He illustrated today that, where we can galvanise a community and put in energy and commitment, we can make a Remploy factory work. Indeed, that comment was echoed by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), who highlighted that where local leadership is shown, we can make a difference.

[Paul Goggins]

I pay tribute to the work that my right hon. Friend did as the Minister with responsibility for disabled people when we were in government and I thank her for the encouragement that she gave to me in the days when we were trying to establish the support group for the Remploy factory in my constituency; she has just referred to the conversations that we had about that issue. Does she agree that, as one or two Members have already mentioned, a key group in any area is local councillors? Councillors are community champions who provide links to the local authority and, because of their experience, they can also help to scrutinise some of the development proposals. Indeed, will she join me in paying tribute to the councillors in my area and elsewhere who have done that?

[Mrs McGuire]

Yes, indeed. We can also look at some of the more successful examples of supported employment, including factories where disabled people work, that have had unstinting support from local authorities. Not all of those factories are Remploy factories. For example, the Royal Strathclyde Blindcraft Industries factory in Glasgow has had enormous input and support from the local authority. It has supported the factory through thick and thin, and hopefully now through thick again, but obviously business conditions may change.

As I said earlier, I want to refer to the comments of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I think that everybody who has spoken in the debate accepts—at least, I hope that can be said of everyone—that there is a change in expectation among most disabled people, and certainly among their spokespersons and the organisations that represent them, and that disabled people want to have a range of choice in employment. Disabled people want the same range of choice that non-disabled people have. Government support is crucial in helping to deliver on those aspirations. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a long and honourable history of working in the disability movement, that we cannot deliver on the aspirations for the majority if we trample over the expectations of the few. In many respects, that is the dilemma that we face in discussing the current issue.

I have heard today from many right hon. and hon. Friends and hon. Members about their own experience of the Remploy factory in their own constituencies. I share their admiration for those factories, because there is a Remploy factory in Stirling. I visited it on the international day of disabled people and took the baton from a young man who works there. As has been said of other Remploy factories, that company of people in that factory in Stirling recognise that Remploy is not only about a job but about a wider network of social support, economic support, health support and all the things that disabled people look for. Indeed, Liz Sayce, in her report, recognised the value of the Remploy environment, and I will read an extract from page 96:

“It was clear from this review that the best factories offer job satisfaction, a supportive and accessible environment and a reasonable income for those they employ. The factories have provided employment opportunities – sometimes for many years – to disabled individuals. They have also provided a sense of community for their employees. Some have pioneered learning and development, often led by Union Learner Representatives, through which individuals have (for instance) learnt to read for the first time, or worked towards qualifications. While some sheltered workshop environments pay staff less than the minimum wage, Remploy factories pay above the minimum wage and offer good terms and conditions.”

I am not going to run away from the fact that, like the Minister, I have wrestled with some of the issues about Remploy. I understand the tensions between wanting to open up everything to disabled people and the fact that some disabled people want to make a different choice, and we have to be careful about how we interpret the perceived settled will of disabled people. We also must recognise the legitimacy of a position that is not the mainstream view of the disability movement—to close sheltered factories—which is that factories should be maintained, to give disabled people a choice. That was always the position, and those of us parliamentarians who are veterans of the Remploy modernisation programme will remember that my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) made it very clear that there was still a place within our range of opportunities for supported factory employment.

I want to probe the current consultation with a series of questions to the Minister, which I hope she will be able to answer, if not this afternoon, in the very near future. In opposition, the Government supported a five-year modernisation plan, so why did the Minister embark on a review nearly two years before that timetable had been exhausted? I suggest that the five-year plan effectively had only two years to run before there was a general election, so why did the Minister go for the current timetable? With the greatest respect to Liz Sayce, the five-year plan did not come out of a review, in a few short months, but was the result of extensive financial investigations, consultations with the disability lobby before a consultation document was published, and extensive and sometimes very robust discussions with the Remploy board and the trade unions, which some of us here will remember. We felt that there had to be a plan with a time frame that would allow Remploy to turn the business around.

We have heard today that some of the factories are being turned around, that order books are overcrowded and new businesses are coming in. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East that there are still some issues about top-heavy management and decentralisation, and we had the five-year time frame so that the issues could be worked through, between the board and the trade unions, with the continued support of Government. I can say this only in the kindest fashion: the current situation has created uncertainty among workers, and indeed among management, about what will happen, and that is stymieing the development of Remploy the business. I have some sympathy with colleagues who suggest that there might be a bit of a withering-on-the-vine strategy behind that.

Given the Minister’s intention to embark on this course of action, what action did she take to involve the board of Remploy and its trade unions in discussions about the issues identified in the Sayce report? What recognition did she give to the trade union analysis of the current operation of Remploy’s enterprises and the questions it raised about the company’s business practices? Did she take any opportunity to discuss some of the issues with the unions? I am not talking about post-consultation discussion, after the paper was published, but about developing the consultation in line with the people who have a strong input into the process. There is a feeling that the consultation is flawed, not least because the Minister perhaps did not appreciate all the implications of the phrase on page 18:

“Government is minded to accept the recommendations of the Sayce Review”.

I do not understand how someone can put out a consultation and then say what they are minded to do before the results have come in.

When the modernisation statement was made to this House on 29 November 2007, the now Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) made the following commitment:

“Let me assure Remploy and its employees that the next Conservative Government will continue the process of identifying additional potential procurement opportunities for them and the public sector work force.”—[Official Report, 29 November 2007; Vol. 468, c. 451.]

What efforts have the Minister and her ministerial colleague made to fulfil that promise? What discussions has she had with the major procurement Departments, including the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence? Has she looked to ensure that her own Department has considered even more ways in which it could open up procurement opportunities for a business in which it has a significant investment? What discussions has she had with colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage local authorities to consider opening up opportunities for individual local factories? What efforts has she made to encourage her colleagues to identify procurement opportunities under article 19? If she is still “minded” after the consultation process closes, what responsibilities will the Government have towards Remploy?

Why is the current pension scheme issue raised in the consultation? Currently the DWP guarantees the company pension scheme, but would it still exist? How would it be managed, and would the DWP have a role in that management? Is the pension fund currently in surplus or deficit, and by how much? If it is in shortfall, what measures will be taken to deal with that? It looks as though the Minister has the figures to hand, but if she does not I would be pleased if she could advise us after the debate. What range of companies does she have in mind that might wish to buy all or some of the Remploy factories? Has she, or have her officials, had any communication with any such interested parties?

The Minister indicates in her consultation that staff might wish to consider acquiring the enterprise businesses, and that they could do so. The consultation also indicates that expert advice would be there to assist, but would any provision be made for a front-loaded capital investment on the part of Government? Would the DWP consider a legacy to those factories, given the deep and extended relationship between Government and Remploy? Those are all unanswered questions in a consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Goggins Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

We already have in place Access to Work, which provides just the sort of support that my hon. Friend is talking about, but all too often that support is, perhaps, focused on the job rather than on the individual. One of the reforms that the Sayce review is talking about is how we can make sure that Access to Work is focused on the individual and not just on particular jobs. In some instances, however, employers are involved in co-funding, so this issue needs to be looked at with care. We are looking at it in our consultation.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

On Thursday I will be visiting the Remploy factory in my constituency and meeting some of the 20 staff who work there. Over the past year they have invested in new equipment and through hard work have won new business. What does the Minister suggest I say to them?

[Maria Miller]

It is excellent that the right hon. Gentleman is visiting his factory and showing staff support, as he clearly is. As he knows, we are consulting, through the Sayce review, about the future of Remploy. We want to make sure that Remploy factories are successful in the future. At present every single one is loss-making, and half the employees in Remploy across the board—I am not sure of the position in his constituency—do not have work to do. That is not an acceptable situation. We need to look for ways of remedying a situation that we inherited and through the Sayce consultation we hope to do that.