Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe]

Almost everyone now realises that we cannot have action on housing benefit without having action on rents. That is self-evident.

We are having this debate because those who are the targets of this change are not the workshy and the feckless. Too many of them are vulnerable people—the very people that many of us, including many Conservative Members, came into politics wanting to help, such as elderly people no longer fit to wholly look after themselves, veterans, youngsters leaving care and those fleeing domestic violence. The National Housing Federation claims the Chancellor’s changes could cost some people up to £60 a week, enough to force them to leave their accommodation and in some cases add to the growing number of casualties sleeping on our streets as a homelessness crisis sweeps our country like a plague.

The NHF also speculates that the changes may lead to the closure of thousands of homes. The kind of places we are talking about are retirement homes, active elderly establishments designed to improve the quality of life, supported accommodation and temporary accommodation. Is that really the kind of reform that Conservative Members want? There is already a 16,000 shortfall in meeting demand for supportive accommodation, and estimates say that is likely to double by the end of this Parliament.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

I recently had the privilege of officially opening the Hare Hill extra care scheme, which has predicted that if the cap goes ahead, residents there will have to pay an extra £50 a week. That is completely unsustainable.

[Steve McCabe]

We have heard from some Government Members that they have the same fears. A lot now rides on this review.

Without exemption, we are about to witness a housing disaster for those with a clear learning disability who live in supported accommodation. After years of talking about rights and independence, are we seriously going to banish them to institutions and substandard care homes? Seven out of 10 people with a learning disability would prefer to live by themselves or with friends rather than in a registered care home or with their parents. Are they not entitled to aspire to that? Are they not entitled to that degree of independence? Cannot this society, whatever cuts we want to make, afford to show just a bit of generosity to such people? How will the Government ever succeed in closing places like Winterbourne View and delivering on NHS England’s 2015 strategy “Building the Right Support” without a supported housing plan for those with learning disabilities?

What about young people leaving care? How are they going to make the first step on the ladder to independence? Vulnerable young people, especially care leavers, should be excluded from the under-35 shared accommodation rule. We should hear that announced today. Is the Minister now in a position to tell us when the housing benefit regulations for those aged between 18 and 21 will be published? How, too, have we got to a situation where the cap applies to any tenancy signed after 1 April—only 62 days away—and where housing associations are still not clear about the plans?

The Minister has offered no details of his review, and his party has form on promising things during debates on which it subsequently backtracks. In fact, everyone knows there is a dangerous air of hubris about Government Ministers these days. I believe they might find a degree of support if these measures were intended for working-age adults in general-needs housing only, instead of being such a sweeping threat to the vulnerable.

Allowing for the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) when I intervened on him earlier, I believe that the Minister would ease the situation a little if he could say today that service charges will not be included in the cap. It is obvious that sheltered accommodation, support of housing schemes and extra care measures command higher rents than service charges since they are more expensive to build and manage, yet they bring huge savings to the NHS and other services. Some housing associations, including Midland Heart, as we heard earlier, fear that these proposals could cost a huge shortfall of over £1 million, and in some cases discretionary housing payments will not deal with the problem.

Before this debate concludes, the Minister needs to tell us that he has plans to protect vulnerable people. He needs to give some clue as to what they are, and he needs to demonstrate that he has listened to the plight of those in supportive accommodation. We want to hear that he will definitely exclude them from these measures.

Universal Credit Work Allowance

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an absolute delight to follow the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden).

I am grateful that this debate is taking place. My constituency was included in the pilot roll-out of the universal scheme and will be feeling the full force of the dreadful cuts that have come along with its implementation. I remain wholly committed to getting as many people out of the benefits system as possible, and I readily accept the need to reduce the burden on the welfare bill and to do all we can to get people into regular, well-paid work, but to do so at such a high price for those least fortunate is not the way to do it. We must be clear that these cuts will affect hard-working people—these are not people who are work shy—who are the very people we should and must be supporting.

The Chancellor was right to do a U-turn on the proposed cuts to tax credits. They were an abhorrent attack on the financial wellbeing of millions of hard-working people in Britain, including more than 7,000 in my constituency. However, here we are, faced with the same work penalty, albeit with a different name. The cuts are the same, and once again it will be hard-working families who will suffer. The only difference is the name: this time it is universal credit rather than tax credits. The 140,000 people on the pilot scheme will be the first to fall victim to the cuts, and, as we have seen too often under this Government and the last, the north will suffer first too—75,000 people in the north-east are part of the roll-out. In my constituency, just over 1,400 people claiming universal credit will see their household budgets cut, will face increasing pressure when they need to pay their rents, will increasingly struggle to put food on the table and will find it harder to support their children.

This is not just about those currently on the pilot scheme, however; in time, the cuts will affect many more. After the initial cuts in 2016 to the 140,000, it will become a postcode lottery as to whom the roll-out will affect. In the longer term, up to 2.6 million working families could be worse off by 2020 to the tune of about £1,600. A single mother of two, working full time and on universal credit in 2016-17, will be worse off to the tune of £2,981, compared with someone on tax credits. These cuts will also see a sharp decline in the reward for people taking on more work.

The House of Commons Library has shown that a single parent earning a living wage and with one child will increase their wage packet by only £40 by working an extra 12 hours, whereas before the cuts this would have amounted to an increase of £92. The Conservatives continue to perpetuate the rhetoric that they reward those who want to get on. This is simply not true, as is proved simply by their proposed cuts to tax credits and the imposed cuts to the work element of universal credit.

Finally, let me say that only this week wage growth under the Conservatives will be the worst for 100 years. From 2010 to 2020, wage growth is expected to be only 6.2%. Faced with cuts to their work element of the universal credit, the lowest paid in society will suffer massively at the hands of this Government. I urge the Conservatives to reverse these cuts to universal credit for current and future claimants to protect these hard-working people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effect of poverty on increases in the number of people living in temporary accommodation since 2010.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

14. What estimate he has made of the change in the number of people requiring temporary accommodation since 2010.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Disabled People (Justin Tomlinson)]

As hon. Members will be aware, the administration of temporary accommodation is a matter for local authorities, but I hope they will agree that the best route out of poverty is to support people into employment, and I am proud that we have achieved an employment rate of 73.6%, the highest since records began in 1971.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

We are making available £800 million for discretionary housing payments over this Parliament, which is an increase of 40%. The key is that it is discretionary for each local authority. In addition, to recognise the additional costs within London, £60 per household is provided per week to the local authority.

[Simon Danczuk]

Petrus Community, a homeless charity in Rochdale has told me that there has been a significant increase in the number of people requiring temporary accommodation. The figures show that it has nearly doubled over the last five years of this Government. The charity blames these results on the bedroom tax, benefit sanctions, and employment and support allowance claimants being wrongly declared fit for work. What will the Government do about the situation in Rochdale?

[Justin Tomlinson]

The key is providing more houses. A further 800,000 new homes have been built since 2009, housing starts are at their highest level since 2007, and a further 275,000 affordable houses will be built during this Parliament. Through the new homes bonus, we are offering additional incentives to build further affordable houses.

Jobs and Work

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying that I found the comments of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White), particularly about manufacturing, of real interest.

As the economy recovers, we have a genuine opportunity to think about how we are shaping it and about how Britain succeeds in the modern world. My view has always been that Britain succeeds when its small businesses succeed. It is the Government’s job to get behind small business and create the conditions for British SMEs to thrive. I therefore welcome the inclusion of a small business, enterprise and employment Bill in the Gracious Speech. I hope that it will offer an opportunity to have a serious discussion about some of the very real challenges that face small business in Britain.

Having recently set up a small business in Rochdale—Danczuk’s Deli, for which I declare an interest—I can testify to how real some of these challenges are. Whether it is access to finance, late payments or being shut out from the tendering process for local procurement contracts, too many small businesses feel that Government do not always give them the proper level of support.

I have two important concerns. The first surrounds aspects of the small business, enterprise and employment Bill where I do not feel the Government are showing the necessary ambition to tackle the big challenges. For example, the Government talk about increasing access to finance, but they are unclear about what they actually intend to do about it. This country needs an ambitious programme based around regional investment banks aimed at getting banks lending to businesses again. In Germany, where thriving SMEs form the backbone of economic success, nearly 2,000 institutions lend to small businesses. In the UK, fewer than 400 do that. Any Government that are serious about tackling this issue would start by reforming the banks. My first concern is therefore about a potential lack of ambition in the Bill.

My second concern is that the Government still have their head in the sand on business rates. I guarantee that at any event with people from the small business world, the subject of business rates will be raised pretty quickly. Business people think the system is broken, and they rate that as their No. 1 concern. They are right to be angry about it.

The business rates system is based on a view that the profitability of a business is linked to the physical size of the premises. That is complete madness in the modern world where many businesses trade online with no physical shops or factories. When we add to that the ridiculous and arbitrary valuation system, we have one of the most unfair and ineffective systems of taxation that can be thought of. The Gracious Speech is a final indication that reform of business rates has been kicked into the long grass for the foreseeable future. If the Government are not prepared to act, will they please give up the empty rhetoric about business rates?

Finally, we need a serious discussion about some of the other proposals in the Bill and how they will work in practice. For example, Jill Nagy from Rochdale Training in my constituency has raised concerns about how the new apprenticeship arrangements will work. She feels that those arrangements will push more bureaucracy on to employers and take it away from training providers, which could cause problems for SMEs hiring apprentices. That is a real issue that could create more bureaucracy and red tape for small businesses, and we need to look at it again.

I hope that many of these issues can be ironed out during the year, and that the small business, enterprise and employment Bill will give us the chance to push for more action on access to finance and business rates reform. Small businesses in this country are all different, but they are united by a sense of ambition and optimism about the future. It is time for the Government to match that ambition.

Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Reid]

I did not catch the year that the hon. Lady mentioned. The WCA was introduced by the Labour Government, and this Government have improved on it.

Following Professor Harrington’s reviews, the Government gave Department for Work and Pensions decision makers more flexibility to request additional evidence, such as a letter from an applicant’s consultant. The fourth independent review was completed in December 2013 by Dr Litchfield. He found that the DWP had made good progress on implementing recommendations from the previous reviews, which have made notable improvements. However, despite all the improvements to the system, and having a system that looks fine in theory, we all know from our constituency work that, in practice, Atos has failed miserably to carry out the assessment contract. Appeals have been upheld for 40% of the original decisions. That shows that there is something wrong with the initial assessments and that more improvements to the assessment system must be made.

We are all aware from our constituency case load of people waiting for many months for their assessment to be carried out. That applies to assessments for personal independence payments as well as for work capability assessments. The limit for PIP assessments is supposed to be 30 working days, but Atos is clearly failing miserably to meet that target. I was contacted recently by the Bute Advice Centre in my constituency. It pointed out that it, and the client, have three weeks from the initial phone call in which to complete and return the application form. The centre and the client have met the deadline on every occasion, but then the long wait begins. One client who has been waiting since 2 July 2013 has heard nothing from Atos. Two other clients on Bute have been waiting since early October. The advice centre tells me that phone calls to the Department for Work and Pensions get a helpful response, but the DWP puts the blame on Atos, and from Atos there is complete silence. That is utterly unacceptable.

Another constituent has e-mailed me to say that her current employment and support allowance claim started last May and she submitted her medical questionnaire in July. After many months of waiting, she was eventually told by Atos that her work capability assessment would be conducted two days after her contribution-based ESA ends if she is placed in the work-related activity group. Such delays make complete nonsense of the system.

It is true that any benefit awarded will be backdated but, as my constituent points out, a claimant may have been eligible for the support group at the time of their application. If their health improves over the year, they may be placed in the work-related activity group backdated to the time of their application, yet if the assessment had been conducted quickly, they may have been placed in the support group. If the person has savings, their ESA will stop after a year, and that may well be before it has even started to be paid. That just makes nonsense of the system.

The long delays are very unfair to claimants, putting them under increased financial pressure and stress. Their suitability for work could be wrongly assessed as the assessment is completed such a long time after the application was made.

As I have said, the system looks fine in theory, and the Government have made improvements, but Atos has clearly completely failed. As we all know, it has announced that it wants to throw in the towel. The Government must get the mess created by Atos’s abject failure sorted out as a matter of urgency, appoint a company that can do the job properly and get the backlog cleared as quickly as possible. People applying for disability benefits deserve their application to be assessed speedily and accurately.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman take any responsibility for the Government whom he supports?

[Mr Reid]

The hon. Gentleman should remember that Atos was appointed by the Labour Government. It was an appalling decision by the previous Labour Government, and this Government inherited the contract.

I support most of the Government’s welfare reforms. They are fine in theory, but in practice, there is a huge number of problems. Atos has failed completely. The Government must get the mess sorted out urgently, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on that point today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and those who have campaigned so passionately for this debate to take place.

I want to read out a letter that was recently received by one of my constituents:

“Dear Miss HOLT,

You are now approaching the end of the 1st Stage of your Intensive Job Focused Activity. We hope that all the activity or training intervention completed so far has not only supported you to achieve your aspirations but has moved you closer to the job market.

You will shortly enter the 2nd Stage of your Intensive Job Focused activity.

Sessions and Workshops may vary depending on the centre you attend.”

The letter was sent to my constituent Sheila Holt on 30 January. I am sad to have to inform the House that Sheila will not be able to attend the second stage of her intensive job-focused activity because she has been in a coma since December. Members of her family have repeatedly informed the DWP and Seetec that she is not well, but those organisations have continued to harass them.

To recap, Sheila has suffered from severe bipolar disorder since childhood and has regularly had traumatic experiences. She has not been in employment since she was 16, but she was pushed into the Work programme before Christmas. She found it extremely difficult, and she was also concerned about having to pay more tax because of changes to council tax benefit. On 17 December, she was sectioned under the Mental Health Act, because she was struggling to cope. While in hospital, she had a heart attack, which caused her to be in coma. Now, at the end of February, I can report to the House that Sheila is still in a coma, but is in a stable condition in the Floyd unit at Birch Hill hospital. Her sister and family continue to visit her daily and, at their request, I have also visited her.

The important point is that before the election, the Prime Minister often toured the TV studios to talk about “broken Britain”. I must say that if his idea of fixing broken Britain means hounding disabled people suffering from mental breakdowns and harassing their distressed relatives, I would prefer the broken Britain that previously existed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington mentioned the bedroom tax that will punish disabled people who need extra rooms for carers, and the scrapping of crisis loans on which disabled people rely. This Government have demonstrated that helping disabled people is simply not a priority. I am also concerned by the continuing uncertainty about the future of the independent living fund. The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People has brought to my attention that at least 873 people in Greater Manchester currently rely on it. Will the Minister tell us whether that fund will remain available for disabled people?

Mr Deputy Speaker, you will not find anybody in this House who is more keen on welfare reform, but to make such reforms the right values must be in place. From what we have seen during the past three years, it is pretty clear that this Government cannot be trusted to reform welfare fairly, and people such as Sheila Holt are paying the price. I want to end with a comment made by Sheila’s sister Linda, who said:

“Sheila can never live a full life again”.

That is a reminder that although the people of this country will have an opportunity to get rid of this Government next May, the damage that the Government are doing will last for decades.

Welfare Reforms and Poverty

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Let me start by thanking those Members who pressed for this important debate, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley). I believe that we should be proud of our welfare system in this country. It provides a vital safety net, and not just for people who have fallen into poverty, but for the disabled, older people and those who need to get back into employment.

However, we should not fall into supporting an argument that suggests that the system is perfect. Too many people take the view that the welfare system is a sacred cow that should be left alone. I do not share that view; on the contrary, I believe that self-reliance and making the welfare state much more accountable and appropriate to people are extremely important. I certainly believe that reforms can be made, especially to the way in which the system supports and challenges people—and, yes, pushes them back into employment. However, when reform of the welfare system is undertaken we must be certain that we do not abandon the most vulnerable people and push them into poverty.

I will give two examples of the Government’s welfare reforms having left vulnerable people without the safety net they need. First, I want to talk about one of my constituents, Sheila Holt. On Friday I met her father, Mr Kenneth Holt, and other members of her family. Sheila is 47 years old. She had an exceptionally traumatic childhood that I will not detail here, but needless to say it was a period of her life that scarred her mentally. She has not worked for 27 years because she has a severe psychiatric condition; she is unable to work. Because of cuts, I suspect, Sheila was relatively recently persuaded to sign off her psychiatric treatment. Soon after that, she was being pushed by the DWP towards the back-to-work scheme. Her family advocated for her, explaining that she had had trauma in early life and had a psychiatric condition. They made those points strongly, but to no avail. Sheila had to start attending back-to-work classes in another town. She struggled with meeting other people. Most importantly, no mental health support or service was offered to her. The safety net was not there for her. She also had to start paying the bedroom tax. Needless to say, she was falling into poverty and beginning to worry about becoming increasingly poor. She started to become agitated and her medication could not keep up with her condition. On 6 December she was admitted to Birch Hill hospital under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983. A few days later, she suffered a heart attack—at the age of 47, which is my age—and she is now in a coma.

The reason I tell this story is that Sheila’s family want people to be aware that she was pushed into this situation. Soon after Sheila started her life, she experienced terrible trauma that mentally crippled her. The truth is that she is trying to live through the welfare system as best she can, but the unsophisticated and haphazard way in which it has been changed has forced a very vulnerable woman into a terrible predicament. She had a very difficult early upbringing and now finds herself in the situation she is in today.

My second point is about the discretionary social fund, which has provided crisis loans to people in need. Hon. Members will be aware that in April this year the DWP passed that responsibility on to local authorities. They will also be aware that the fund is not ring-fenced, and it has been open to local authorities to spend it however they wish. For me, this came to light because a number of constituents were presenting to me with difficulty in being able to claim any sort of crisis loan from any sort of crisis fund. One woman who came to see me was heavily pregnant and was being told by Rochdale council’s social services that unless she provided a carpet in her property she would lose the child, who would be taken into care. Ironically, the local authority was not administering the local discretionary social fund in a way that would enable her to claim money to be able to get the carpet.

Rochdale is not an exception to the rule. I carried out some research looking at local authorities right across the country, and it shows that the passing down to them of this responsibility has meant that they have set criteria far too strongly, to the point where one local authority has spent only 1% of its budget for helping people through crisis loans or grants. The irony is that, when the fund was administered nationally, it encouraged self-reliance because it was a loan that the recipient could pass back, but since responsibility was given to local authorities it has not done so because it is now a grant that cannot be passed back.

The best bit came just before last Christmas, when the Government announced that the fund will be scrapped completely from 2015. It will not exist at all and there will be no safety net for those people who really need it. They will be pushed towards loan sharks and money lenders. That will certainly happen in Rochdale and, I have no doubt, in other places as well.

[Chris Williamson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is tantamount to the reintroduction of the Poor Law, which was abolished by the 1945 Labour Government?

[Simon Danczuk]

I certainly take on board the point that we are moving that way in some respects. I am wholly in favour of reform of the welfare state, as I pointed out at the beginning of my speech, but it has to be done compassionately and it has to retain the safety net. If we do not do that, we will see, as my hon. Friend suggests, a return to Victorian values in the way that we administer our welfare state.

I call on the Government to reverse their decision on the discretionary crisis fund. I believe that the purpose of the welfare system is to provide a safety net for the vulnerable, but it is clear that some of the Government’s reforms are destroying parts of that safety net and leaving people much more vulnerable to poverty. As my hon. Friends have said, we need an inquiry into how the reforms are impacting on people so that they are not abandoned and left to poverty.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I do not intend to delay the House for too long. Many of the points I wanted to make have already been very eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I pay tribute to the Minister and the Government for introducing the Bill, which I support.

As has been mentioned, mesothelioma is an industrial disease, but I assure the House that in my constituency—constituencies do not get more rural than the rolling hills of north Derbyshire—the incidence level of mesothelioma is higher than the national level owing to some of the industries operating there. As all of us in the Chamber and more widely know, through casework and from friends and relations, mesothelioma is a truly dreadful condition that causes great pain and is incurable.

I added my name to amendment 1, which I am now speaking to, because I think that 70% to 75% represents progress. In an ideal world, 100% would be the ultimate progress that we would want. However, the 80% figure is a good compromise: it is viable, doable and, as other hon. Members have highlighted, achievable. I do not think that insurance companies will walk away. In the world we live in today, more companies are concerned about their reputation, and given the cross-party strength of feeling in the House about compensation for mesothelioma, it would be reputational suicide for insurance companies to walk away now. I think that we can squeeze that extra 5% out of them, which would be better in the pockets of the victims of this dreadful condition than anywhere else.

I am proud that the Government have gripped the issue, but if we agreed to amendment 1, they could grip it just a little harder. That extra grip would make the mesothelioma sufferers’ prognosis that little bit better and I for one, as a Member representing a constituency affected by this dreadful condition, would be that little bit prouder and stand that little bit taller after what I had done here today.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Like other hon. Members, I start by mentioning my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who has done much on this subject. He organises an annual memorial event in Greater Manchester, in the city centre, and as a Greater Manchester Member of Parliament I have always been pleased to attend, so I thank him for his work in that regard. I pass on my best wishes to his family, and I hope he will be well again soon.

Hon. Members will be aware that Rochdale was home to the world’s biggest asbestos factory—Turner and Newall dominated the town for many years—and it is fair to say that the legacy of asbestos still haunts our town and its people. Walking around my constituency, it is hard to find anyone who has not been affected in some way by asbestos, whether through family members, friends or colleagues, many of whom have been affected by asbestos-related diseases. Asbestos destroys lives and breaks families. In Rochdale, it has left a community legacy in the form of a massive derelict factory site that nobody is prepared to remediate effectively.

The lack of justice and compensation for many of the victims of asbestos is a scandal that has lasted for far too long. I am pleased that the Bill is before us, but we must go further than what is proposed. I believe that the Bill falls woefully short of providing adequate compensation for the victims.

The Bill contains a number of arbitrary decisions that I think are designed purely to appease the insurance industry. First and foremost among those is the cut-off date for diagnosis, 25 July 2012, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) mentioned. I have heard no credible argument for why it cannot be put back to 10 February 2010, when the original consultation started, as my right hon. Friend suggested. I understand that that would assist an additional 700 people. The argument must not just be about cost. However, it is my understanding that with that change, it would fit within the 3% levy if it was taken over the 10-year period.

Secondly, the Bill is very limited in terms of who it supports and helps. It is being spun as a victory for asbestos sufferers, but it is limited to covering just mesothelioma victims and it will not affect people who have come into contact with asbestos domestically. That is a cause for concern.

My final point is about the level of compensation. Frankly, 75% is insulting. We must remember that the Government were proposing a 70% limit. My opinion is that a fair level of compensation would be 100%, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East suggested. I am prepared to support an 80% level. That modest increase would at least give some comfort to the victims.

All those arbitrary decisions raise serious questions about the Bill. I get the impression that the Government are good at standing up for the strong insurance industry, but weak when it comes to standing up for the victims of asbestos.

I will finish by referring to the case of a lady called Mrs Nellie Kershaw. She started work as an asbestos spinner at the age of 12 in the Turner and Newall factory in Rochdale. In 1922, she became too sick to work and was diagnosed by a local doctor as suffering from asbestos poisoning. As it was an occupational illness, she was ineligible for sickness benefit from a local scheme to which she had contributed. Her husband, Frank, who was having to look after the couple’s two children, pleaded with her employers for assistance. They refused to offer any help and she died in poverty on 24 March 1924. To this day, she lies in an unmarked pauper’s grave in Rochdale cemetery. She was 33 years old when she passed away.

Nellie Kershaw was the first person in this country to be diagnosed with asbestosis. She and her family were left with absolutely nothing. Fast-forward 90 years and we are here today quibbling over who should and who should not receive compensation and over how much the compensation should be. As it stands, the Bill does the minimum possible to support asbestos victims.

[Mike Penning]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I am really disappointed by some of them. I understand him wanting to get more compensation, but the Bill would not be here today without Lord Freud fighting to get time, and this Government getting it on the statute book, which, as the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) said, is difficult and had not been done previously. Most people who know me know I do not do party politics, but I cannot sit back and say that we have not done our bit because we are doing our bit—that is why we are here today.

[Simon Danczuk]

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

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

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

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

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

Food Banks

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) talked about sad stories from real lives and she was right to do so. That is why the House is so packed—because of the concern of Members on both sides about what is going on.

A number of contributors have regretted the tone in which the debate has been conducted and they have a point, so let me start, as the Minister for Civil Society, by joining the many colleagues on both sides of the House, but particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris), the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr Godsiff) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who went out of their way to thank the people who set up food banks and who volunteer at and donate to them in their constituencies.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Hurd]

I will not give way at the moment.

Frankly, there has been an enormously impressive human, civil society response to need. That need is not new and perhaps it has been under-recognised by Governments of all colours, but the response is entirely resonant with the very proud traditions of this country’s voluntary sector and churches. It is entirely right that we should start our response by congratulating them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am not going to give way because I want to address this point and we are running out of time. Many Members who contributed to the debate complained about the tone, which was set by the Labour Front-Bench team, who came here to play the blame game, which turns the public off. They are in total denial about the past and the actions of the last Government that precipitated the economic crisis that underpins the demand and the need. They came here almost pretending that there was some golden age before 2010 when the social system worked perfectly, the economy worked perfectly and the big state in all its glory was there to help everyone in need, which is absolute rubbish.

[Simon Danczuk]

Does the Minister accept that scrapping the national social fund has made it more difficult for people to get crisis loans, which has pushed people towards food banks? [Interruption.]

[Mr Hurd]

The social fund is being administered by local authorities, which, as a councillor himself, the hon. Gentleman well knows. [Interruption.]

Housing Benefit Entitlement

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) for securing this important debate on a critical issue. I want to talk about two families who came to see me in Rochdale, but they are just two of the many who have come to see me. I also want to speak briefly about the impact on community cohesion and the role of housing providers.

Mr Berry and his family came to see me relatively recently. After a serious accident 17 years ago, Mr Berry and his wife had no choice but to take the council home offered to them. Since then, they have brought up their two children—a boy and a girl—in the three-bedroom property. They have made modifications, and they have made the house into their home. They are very much part of the local community. However, the Government’s bedroom tax means that they will have to move out of their house. After 17 years, the family are being pulled out of the community in which they have lived for so long. That leads me to the first point I want to make.

Families who have lived for decades on council estates in places such as Rochdale are being forced to move. Homes are being taken away from people, and they will be filled by Asian or Afro-Caribbean families, because that is the nature of the demographics in places such as Rochdale. That will have a direct impact on community cohesion, and that impact should not be underestimated. It will create tensions, and there is the potential for conflict. The Government’s impact assessment on this policy took no account whatever of community cohesion. It is as though the policy has not been thought through.

Let me turn to the second family who came to see me, just before Christmas. The husband is a paraplegic. They have lived in their property for 15 years. The council has spent £18,500 adapting it. It has three bedrooms, one of which is used to accommodate a lift. The other two bedrooms are used by each of the individuals in the home. They have been visited by Rochdale Boroughwide Housing, and they have been told that they will have to pay £22 a week extra or they will have to move out. The family described that as the last straw. They have been through so much in their lives. The lady was crying in my surgery on the eve of Christmas, because of the Government’s policy.

I explained to the family the possibility of receiving temporary discretionary housing payments, but they are not enough. The Government do not seem to understand the misery that they are creating. They have housing providers such as RBH running around implementing their policy, which is having a devastating effect on families and communities. That leads me to my second point.

Housing providers such as RBH have an excellent track record in managing their stock. RBH has mixed communities, because it focuses on creating a balance. It takes into account people’s individual needs, and it constantly reviews under-occupancy and acts on it. The Government should leave housing providers to manage their stock; it is not for the Government to micro-manage such things.

Let me finish by making two important points. First, there is the potential for community conflict as a result of this policy. Secondly, if this is such a good Government policy, why is there not a single Conservative or Liberal Democrat Back-Bench MP here to defend it?

Benefits Uprating

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

For someone retiring this year on a full basic state pension, the triple lock, we estimate, will benefit them to the tune of about £13,000 over the course of their retirement. That is a very significant change whose effects we are not yet seeing in full because earnings growth is depressed, but as it returns to more normal times, pensioners in Nuneaton and elsewhere will see real increases year after year.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

As we approach Christmas, does the Minister not think it extremely sad that his latest cuts to tax credits will put a further 100,000 children into poverty?

[Steve Webb]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because it is a selective quotation from the autumn statement. As well as making the changes to tax credits, we are over-indexing benefits relative to average incomes. As poverty is measured in relation to average income and we are putting up benefits according to CPI, which is about twice the rise in average income, child poverty will be reduced compared with the figure that he gave. There is more to this than meets the eye.