Compulsory Jobs Guarantee
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Timms
I can answer that very directly: 5,000 employers are taking part in the Jobs Growth Wales scheme. The Federation of Small Businesses in Wales is a champion. I simply contrast the quote given by the hon. Gentleman with the experience of those on the ground, including the FSB.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Many of the jobs that my right hon. Friend is referring to would come from small and medium-sized enterprises. One of the main problems faced by SMEs on my patch is cash flow—trying to get money from work that they have completed. Is there anything that a future Labour Government could do to speed up payments, so that small suppliers could get the money in and take on young people?
Stephen Timms
I have just mentioned the FSB. My hon. Friend will know how active it has been in demanding change of the kind he describes and makes a telling case for. I agree: more should be done to support small business in that way, and in other ways. We need to reform how the banks deal with their small-business customers too.
Mr Duncan Smith
I will make a little progress before giving way again.
The issue still remains for the Opposition which I thought this debate was about. I thought they would have a fantastic motion that answered all these questions, but they do not. These are the biggest questions: which businesses have signed up to the jobs guarantee, and how many jobs have they guaranteed to provide? In the absence of any answers, I will quote the OECD’s view of these kinds of make-work schemes. For the past 20 years it has demonstrated that such schemes are expensive and counter-productive. Its jobs strategy states that having
“large deadweight losses, displacement and substitution effect… direct job creation in the public sector has been of little success in helping unemployed people get permanent jobs in a more open labour market”.
That is probably the final word on the structure of Labour’s jobs guarantee.
Let us look at how the Opposition propose to fund their jobs guarantee, which I had thought would be dealt with clearly today. The right hon. Member for East Ham said something about it, but they seem to have gone back to their original position. Her Majesty’s Treasury has estimated that for 2015-16 the jobs guarantee would cost £1.54 billion for the over-25s and a further £540 million for the under-25s, so over £2 billion in total for only one year. To pay for it, the Opposition have proposed two measures.
First, they would restrict pensions tax relief for earnings over £150,000. Let us deal with that first. They originally committed that funding for the purpose of increasing working and child tax credits, so they seem to have done a little dodge. I have no idea whether they still plan to use it for that, but I am sure we will find out. Apparently it will now pay for the jobs guarantee. Never mind the fact that it would take—this is a real estimate from those who know—until 2018-19 to implement, leaving three years with no funding to cover the annual cost of £1.5 billion. They cannot just wave a magic wand and say, “The money’s there”; they also have to position the money at the right time. The right hon. Gentleman was forced by the shadow Chancellor to say that there would be no borrowing. Well, that looks to me like a chunk of borrowing.
That is even if the proposal raises any money at all, because the CBI has called it “simply unworkable”, the National Association of Pension Funds has warned that it is a “disaster in the making”, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that it
“would be expensive to administer… unfair and would inappropriately distort behaviour.”
The Opposition would create a problem in the pensions industry and damage people’s savings, and all to fund a programme that simply would not work.
The second source of funding is repeating the one-off bankers bonus tax. I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that no matter how many ways he cuts this, Labour has spent this money 11 times over. That is the 11 that I can find; I am sure my hon. Friends will find a lot more. There were proposals on reversing the VAT increase, at £12.75 billion; reversing tax credit savings, at £5.8 billion; more housing, at £1.2 billion; reversing the child benefit savings, at £3.1 billion; more capital spending, at £5.8 billion; and more child care, at £800 million. It is almost like one of those game shows—“Come on down, there’s another box to be opened and we’ll spend that money as well.” These sources go on and on and on; it is quite fascinating. Yet it has been said time and again that this is a one-off tax. When in office, Labour’s last Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), said of the idea of repeating this tax that it is
“a one-off thing…because the very people you are after…will find all sorts of imaginative ways of avoiding it in the future.”
He had no time at all for the idea of a repetition of Labour’s bankers bonus tax. So there we have it: the cobbled-together nonsense of Labour’s jobs guarantee, destined to fail and wholly and utterly unfunded.
Jim Sheridan
On additional funding for the unemployed—I say this as someone who was unemployed for three years, so I know it is not a nice place to be—would this Government consider channelling any retrospective payments from people who have been found guilty of avoiding tax into fighting youth unemployment?
Mr Duncan Smith
Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that in my time before politics I was made redundant, and I know what it is like not to know where the next pay cheque is coming from. I agree with him: it is a terrible place to be, and no one, if we can avoid it, should be there. That is why we have said that, through the long-term economic plan, we have to make sure that the economy is stable and on a good, long trajectory, and that we get our debts and our deficits down. As regards chasing people who are avoiding tax, this Government, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today at the Dispatch Box, have done more to close tax loopholes than any other Government previously.
Mr Duncan Smith
Hypothecated funding is a matter for the Chancellor, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I will certainly pass his views on. Many of us in this House loathe the idea of some people being able to hide their money away. We think that hard-working taxpayers deserve a fair deal, and the unemployed do too. I am seeing the Chancellor later today, and I promise the hon. Gentleman that I will pass his comments on to him.
As regards Labour’s proposed programme, with the best will in the world, I say to the right hon. Member for East Ham that he could have done better on the back of a fag packet, having had weeks, months and years to figure it out. I suspect Labour Members had to come up with something for this debate and are therefore doing this now. This slot was probably destined for a debate on the health service, but because they have made such a Horlicks of that, they have decided to throw in this business instead.
Let me deal with the success of the employment programme and talk about what we in this Government have done. Universal Jobmatch has transformed how almost 7 million people look for work, with over 4 million average daily searches. Work experience is one of this Government’s great successes for young people, with half of participants off benefits at a twentieth of the cost of the future jobs fund. The Work programme is helping more people than any programme before. Over 1 million have spent time off benefit, and almost 640,000 have got a job, 368,000 of whom have found lasting work, with a third of them staying in a job for 18 months or longer. It is now the most successful back-to-work programme of all those that have been put forward. Performance is exceeding all our original expectations and is better than under any previous Labour programme.
Let us look at how much better the Work programme is than some of the programmes Labour had. More than twice as many people moved into work in the first two years under the Work programme as under the flexible new deal. Nearly three times as many people have been in a six-month job as under the flexible new deal. For recent and new employment and support allowance claimants, Work programme job outcomes are exceeding expectations and rising all the time, compared with Labour’s Pathways to Work programme—never rolled out fully—which had no statistically significant impact on employment outcomes and was assessed by the National Audit Office as poor value for money. The truth is that we are now doing more for people who have difficulties getting into work than the previous Government ever did.
Does the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) still want to intervene, as she has been trying to catch my eye? No, she is on her computer. I hope she was writing up a glowing review of my speech; I look forward to reading it on Twitter in due course. I give way to her.
amendment of the law
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(10 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Budget was trailed as being
“for the makers, the doers and the savers.”
I say “trailed” because this Budget was simply a campaign tour for the Tories, telling us about what their core voters want and what they think ordinary working people want. It hid the truth about those whom it really helped. It certainly did not help the makers or the doers and it failed to get to grips with the serious cost-of-living crisis affecting many people and households across the country.
It was disappointing that the Chancellor came to the House last Wednesday gloating about growth. After three years of flatlining, it is about time, even if it is much slower than predicted and slower than that in the United States of America or Germany. Working people are still getting worse off month by month. Real wages will have fallen by 5.6% by the end of this Parliament, and most people are not feeling this modest growth, but this out-of-touch Government certainly do not get that.
The proposals in the Budget to tackle tax avoidance are welcome, although I doubt whether this Tory-led Government have the political will or courage to stand up to the big businesses. After all, they are funded by these tax-avoiding enterprises and any measures they suggest may not be as big or bold as we would like.
Last year I was involved in highlighting the tax avoidance conducted by what I would have thought was an upstanding British company: Alliance Boots. We need to do something to stop these companies taking our country for granted, and I hope the Chancellor’s proposals will go some way towards doing that.
An excellent briefing paper has been produced by Change to Win and War on Want. They say that Alliance Boots allocated the bulk of its debt to UK entities and that otherwise the UK would have been one of its most profitable jurisdictions. The company’s actions would have been suspect under two proposed models in action four of the briefing. A meaningful earnings-stripping rule would have limited the amount of debt interest the company could deduct, and the attribution of interest across the group on a more equitable basis would have resulted in the company deducting less from its UK taxable income. That is how some of these measures could stop companies such as Alliance Boots, and I hope to see this happening.
These methods could work, but are the Government willing to take on the large private equity-backed companies using sophisticated financial engineering? As I said earlier, I think this Government are either weak or in the pockets of these companies. I would like to be proved wrong and see these measures making a difference. We will have to wait and see.
Action three looks to strengthen controlled foreign company rules and encourage more countries to adopt these rules. This is key when it comes to Alliance Boots. The company is based in Switzerland, which has no CFC rules. It has a subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and if Switzerland had a meaningful CFC regime the Cayman profits could be subject to some taxation in Switzerland, but do we have the credibility to push other countries to implement strong rules, given the limitations of our own regime? We have seen company after company revealed as tax avoiders over the last year or so. They have been getting away with it, and we really do not have a leg to stand on. With such a pro-big business party in power, I am sure other countries will doubt our efforts and it will be difficult to find a genuine solution to this issue. We need to build our own credibility and then work tirelessly to encourage others to do the same.
My party is, I think, planning to vote with the Government on the welfare cap. I want to put on the record now that I will not be joining it. Capping benefits is not the solution to unemployment; it will only serve to bring more people into poverty. Out-of-work benefits account for less than a quarter of welfare spending, meaning that a large group of people are in work and on low pay. As transport and child care costs go up, cuts and freezes will have a bigger impact on those in work. The Government have offered no solution to low pay or zero-hours contracts. They will not accept a living wage and they will not make companies treat their employees fairly, yet they will make it even more difficult for these people through capping spending. I did not come into politics to demonise welfare claimants. I do not want to give welfare to those who do not need it, but only 0.7% of the benefits bill was overpaid due to fraud in 2011-12—that is 70 times less than the amount lost through illegal tax evasion.
I wish to make two final points. First, on the continuous freeze of the council tax, I heard the patronising comments about bingo and a penny off beer, but people want decent public services that are properly funded to make sure that they are warm in their house and their kids are looked after. That is what the ordinary working people want. Secondly, on a more positive note, as chair of the all-party group on scotch whisky and spirits, I am delighted that the coalition Government have decided to freeze the tax on whisky, which is a major driver of the economy, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK. I thank the coalition Government for that measure.
Welfare Reform (Sick and Disabled People)
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and all those responsible for securing this debate, which deals with the concerns of real people out there in the real world. I should clarify, for the benefit of the Opposition Whip—his knuckles are about to explode in anticipation—that I intend to join my hon. Friends in the Lobby this afternoon.
Life experiences and events change and influence our lives. I want to talk about two events in my life that influenced my political thinking significantly. The first was being unemployed for three years, through no fault of my own, simply because I had been blacklisted as a result of my trade union activities. I was not a shirker, because I wanted to work and support my young family, but I could not get employment.
The second experience was talking with a former Remploy worker who was about to lose his job. I remember him telling me that he was fit to work but that his face was so badly disfigured that he could not go out in public without getting a terrible reaction. I remember him saying, “Mr Sheridan, where can I work? Where can I go? If I get on a bus, people will get off. If I go into a restaurant, people will walk out. So where do I go?” The only enjoyment that man had was going out in his disabled person’s car to get some privacy. That was taken away from him. This is about treating people with respect and dignity. The people who conduct the Atos assessments do not take those things into consideration.
When I was unemployed and trying to look after my young family, I was not a shirker, as some Conservative Members might have portrayed me. This debate shows how putting workers against the unemployed and public against private is a sinister but typical policy of the coalition Government.
Jim Sheridan
Well, whoever said it, I was certainly not a shirker, because I was desperate for work but could not get it.
I look at the Minister and must say that—I sincerely hope this will not damage his career, or indeed my reputation—as Conservatives go, he is quite a decent man. I hazard a guess—it is no more than that—that he would not mind being shifted to another portfolio. Those on benefits are demonised, and no consideration is given to the circumstances behind why they are claiming. There are some in this place and in the popular press who are obsessed with demonising people on welfare or disability benefits, which I think is unfortunate.
Mike Penning
The hon. Gentleman might have destroyed his career by saying such nice things about me. I wanted to say that he is very generous.
Jim Sheridan
The Minister is safe in that regard, because I do not hold out any hopes for career prospects.
Welfare reform has not only encouraged the “shirker” myth about the sick and the disabled, but made life increasingly difficult for them. The Minister will probably say that the Government have put in place this legislation to ensure that the right people receive benefits, but it is a tactic to divert attention from the gross abuse of power by those with money in this country. Reference has already been made to the obsession with people receiving welfare benefits, but for those with money—the tax avoiders and evaders—life goes on as normal. If only a fraction of the resources used and the time spent on chasing down those on welfare benefits was diverted to tackle tax avoidance and evasion, some people might understand the rationale behind it.
Like many colleagues here today, I have had many constituents come to me with various concerns about the proposed reforms. There are so many different problems that it is difficult to know where to start. The move from DLA to PIP has been a particular concern. Since that move began, fewer than one in six people who have applied have had their claims decided. As other Members have indicated, some people have died before the process is complete. That reminds me of the cases some years ago when people were dying after being diagnosed with mesothelioma cancer but while still waiting for compensation. At that time, their claim died with them.
Inclusion Scotland has highlighted the case of the father of an applicant who was told that they would have to wait at least 10 months for any kind of decision, and perhaps even for a first assessment. A constituent of mine who is undergoing cancer treatment has been told that the eight-week time frame given by DWP is an unrealistic amount of time in which to process an application and offer an assessment slot. When my staff called the MPs’ hotline, they were told that they simply cannot process the number of applicants as there are not enough staff. They also say that most people who have applied for PIP will not be entitled to it, even before individual cases have been looked at. If that is the mindset of the staff processing the applications, it is hard to see how balanced decisions will be made.
When people finally hear about their assessments, there is not much hope. Only 15.4% of new claims have received a decision, and only 12,654 of the 220,300 people who have made a new claim since April 2013 have been awarded some rate of PIP. A constituent of mine got in touch because her father had been diagnosed with lung cancer. Because there is a possibility that his treatment will work, giving him a life expectancy of up to five years, he has not been classed as terminally ill. He is not well enough to attend a medical assessment and so will have to wait longer for a home visit. It appears that letters from his GP, cancer doctor and cancer hospital are not enough to prove the seriousness of his illness.
Like many people in this House and outside it, I had the pleasure of hearing my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) explain clearly where this Government’s priorities lie. Even under Mrs Thatcher we did not treat people like this. I wonder why, even given these austere times, we are now treating people in this country in that way.
Welfare Reform
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Kwarteng, I notice that you have not registered to speak in today’s debate. Protocol suggests that, with the agreement of the hon. Gentleman who introduced the debate and the Minister, you can speak. Do you have permission?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
indicated assent.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
You have permission, but I ask you to leave some time for the Minister.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Bryant, you also did not register to speak. Do you have the permission of the promoter and the Minister to speak?
Job Insecurity
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(10 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Umunna
I think that I have had this discussion with the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) elsewhere. Some will say, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, in the context of falling unemployment, that the main thing is that people should have a job and that, unemployment having risen for much of this Parliament, they should be grateful to have a job at all. Of course we would all prefer to see our constituents in work rather than out of it, but we have to be more ambitious for the people we represent. We want them to achieve their dreams and aspirations. We want them not only to have a job, but to have decent work that pays a wage they can live on and offers a decent level of security. For the Opposition, any old job will not do, because we believe that we must do better for the people we represent, and for the people we hope to represent after the next general election—those in the constituencies of current Government Members.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
On the question of whether any old job will do, my hon. Friend might be aware that 10 years ago today 23 Chinese cockle pickers lost their lives in Morecambe bay under the instruction of illegal gangmasters. There is clear evidence that the gangmasters have now moved into other sectors, such as construction and care. Is it not time we registered illegal gangmasters so that they cannot exploit employees and damage our indigenous work force?
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
As I said earlier, it is 10 years since 23 Chinese cockle pickers lost their lives on the shores of Morecambe bay, working under the instructions of an illegal gangmaster. There is now clear evidence that these illegal gangmasters have moved into other sectors, such as construction, care and leisure. They are also causing significant problems in other areas. I am delighted that my party will commit in its manifesto to extending the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to those sectors, but I wish the coalition Government would do likewise. I shall not hold my breath.
There is a myth going around that people want to work zero-hours contracts. Let us walk in the shoes of a young constituent of mine to see how zero-hours contracts work. The name of the company he works for is SGL, also known as SecuriGroup, and the majority of its work is for the UK Government. The company is not operating to the working time directive. My constituent says, “For example, over the Christmas and New Year period, I worked from Monday to Thursday, 8 am to 8 pm with no breaks. Then on Friday and Saturday nights I worked from 8 pm to 12 am the next day in Glasgow night clubs. During the New Year week I was asked to go straight from working at a school building site to work at a Glasgow night club. If I refuse, I don’t get any work over the following weeks.”
On pay, my constituent says, “I was also told I would only receive the minimum wage of £6.31 per hour over the two-week festive period, and I won’t get a Christmas payslip until next week or a New Year payslip until the following week. I was paid weekly and charged £13 from my salary for my jacket and tie. I was also charged another £3 for my hat. I have not received any uniform shirts, trousers or shoes, which I have to provide myself. For the first few months I was working at a school building site in Glasgow, where I worked two 16-hour shifts, 4 pm to 8 am, one 12-hour shift, 8 am to 8 pm, and two four-hour shifts, 8 pm to 12 am or 9 pm to 1 am. No breaks were given during the 16-hour shifts.”
That is what happens under zero-hours contracts, and that is probably not the worst example. After receiving the letter from my young constituent, I wrote to the company concerned, SecuriGroup, and the managing director, a Mr Russell Kerr, replied, rather aggressively. He ends his letter by saying:
“Any legislation that improves the terms and conditions for our people would be welcomed by SecuriGroup.”
That knocks on the head the idea that employers will be upset if we bring in legislation to stop zero-hours contracts. Mr Kerr suggests that it would be no problem.
The Government could do a lot to end zero-hours contracts. Action is needed on the Government’s contracting culture. As the main contractor in the nation, we cannot wash our hands of employment practices further down the supply chain. We must award contracts only to those employers who police their entire supply chain and eliminate insecure employment. There must also be systems of liability to make the ultimate contractor responsible for employment practices across their supply chains.
There is a serious problem out there: illegal gangmasters are exploiting people and undermining the terms and conditions of indigenous workers. We know that is happening and we should take action to ensure that it does not. There are other connotations, too. It causes problems in our community when people are perceived, wrongly, to be coming in and doing jobs that indigenous workers should be doing. We need to deal with that. The biggest myth of all is that people want to work zero-hours contracts. I have yet to meet anyone who has said to me, “Mr Sheridan, I would like to work a zero-hours contract.” I do not think I will in my lifetime.
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(10 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I also add my best wishes to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who is an avid campaigner on this issue. I will make a brief contribution.
Mesothelioma has long been neglected in terms of research funding. Lord Alton highlighted that while mesothelioma received £1.4 million in voluntary and private sector funding, £22 million is spent on bowel cancer, £41 million on breast cancer, £11.5 million on lung cancer and £32 million on leukaemia. Those are all terrible diseases in desperate need of research, but so is mesothelioma.
The amendments have the potential to save tens of thousands of lives. If a cure is found it could reduce the number of compensation payments required. It is money well spent. Not only will it save lives, it will save the insurance industry money in the long run. It is for this reason that I fail to understand why it is not on board.
I want to expose the myth that mesothelioma is related only to industrial diseases. The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) mentioned the impact on teachers, but it also affects children, ancillary workers, janitors and all kinds of people who are now employed by, or attend, schools. I ask the Minister to take the time to look at the excellent TUC and National Union of Teachers report on asbestos in schools and future compensation payments. There is evidence that some 75% of state schools have asbestos in their buildings. That is a time bomb waiting to explode. It is important to get that message out there.
Equally, it is important to let potential governors of private fee-paying schools and academies know that they could be liable to pay compensation, should they take on that responsibility, if future pupils are cursed with mesothelioma. It is important for the Government to make people aware that, when they take on governorships or other voluntary jobs in schools, they could be made liable for insurance claims.
Jim Sheridan
I speak as a former ship worker on the Clyde. I have seen at first hand the pressure that was brought to bear on employees who worked in and around asbestos and whose jobs were threatened if they refused to work with it. It was only with the support of the trade unions and the health and safety part of those unions that we managed to get that pressure taken off the employees and to give them the protective clothing they had so long deserved.
I do not think that I am the only person in this House who has had a visit from someone who has been diagnosed with mesothelioma. We can see the desperation in their eyes when they know that they do not have long to live and the only thing that keeps them going is the fact that they can get some compensation, not for them but for their families. That is the important thing. The most graphic description of mesothelioma I have heard was from a victim who told me that it was like a tree growing inside you which eventually chokes you to death. That is the kind of death we are seeing, and it is somewhat disappointing.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) talked about Scotland and pleural plaques. The Scottish Government took a different road and were successful in the courts in pursuing compensation for those with pleural plaques, but just for the record, no one in Scotland has received a single penny of that compensation because the insurance industry has now taken the matter through the European Court of Human Rights.
People will have different views of the insurance industry, but I personally have a very toxic view. That is based on my own experience some years ago in Scotland, where there is a different legal system. Then, when people were diagnosed with any asbestos-related disease, their claim died with them. The insurance companies would go to court and have sitting beside them a doctor who would, from a distance, try to gauge how long the person had to live, and the companies would then find some sort of technical reason to get their case put back or delayed in the hope that they would die and their claim would die with them. That is the reason for my toxic view of the insurance industry.
I spoke about the cut-off date on Second Reading, and my opinion has in no way changed. The consultation in 2010 was extremely clear in its intention, and the industry’s very competent public relations people—perhaps the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) might have been one of them—picked up on this issue immediately. There is no doubt that the companies have been preparing for the scheme since the day the consultation was launched, and there is no reason why we should be letting them set the agenda in this way. The rights of victims are being completely ignored by the arbitrary setting of a cut-off date in 2012. The argument that basing the legislation in 2010 is
“unlawful interference with insurers’ property rights”
does not give due importance to the rights of the victims. Having more money should not buy someone more rights, though under this Government that seems to be exactly the case. Nor do I believe the argument about the initial spike in payments. Insurance companies would have put money aside to alleviate the risk of making those payments, and even if they did not, the payments would be a drop in the ocean for this multi-billion-pound industry, which can easily afford to make them.
Between February 2010 and 25 July 2012, an extra 700 people will have died as a result of mesothelioma, and they should not have had to suffer due to the insurance industry dragging its feet. This proposal is affordable within the Government’s figures and, more importantly, it is fair.
Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I come from the same area of the Clyde, which has had a long tradition of shipbuilding, and we know that victims of asbestos-related illnesses are still being identified. Does he agree that perhaps the insurance industry is looking ahead and estimating that what we had hoped would be the peak in the number of these victims is not the peak? In fact, still to this day, GPs on the Clyde actively ask people who go to see them with chest complaints, “Where did you work? Did you work near asbestos?” Is not that why the insurance companies are so reluctant?
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. He, like me and many people who worked in the industrial sector, whether it be in the shipyards, in the mines or wherever, live with the constant fear that a cough could develop into something more worrying like mesothelioma. In the industrial sector, regardless of the part of the country we come from, that is something we have to live with on a daily basis.
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
In my constituency the kinds of activities that tended to provoke this condition, such as dock-related activities, declined some time ago. That was not, however, many decades ago, so this is still an issue for people in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that months, let alone two years—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Unfortunately, interventions have to be very short, because others want to speak. If interventions could be shortened, that would help.
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The docks are another area where mesothelioma was a constant threat and problem, particularly in places such as Leith, which is a big dock area.
On compensation, as I have said, I think the numbers are still to peak. There is a mesothelioma problem in schools and I think the problem will only get worse. It will be interesting to hear what the insurance companies have to say about teachers and others in schools who will suffer from this horrible disease.
On the levels of payment, it is totally unjust and unfair that victims of mesothelioma whose documents were either lost or destroyed will receive less than 100% of the average compensation. In an earlier debate we argued that the level should be set at 90% of the average. A precedent has already been set in the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which covers the liabilities of insolvent insurers in circumstances involving compulsory insurance.
We support the cross-party amendment 1, which would set a lower level of 80%, although it is not ideal. I think that amendment 4, which would set the level at 100%, is the fairest solution and perhaps that is what we would seek in a different and better political environment. I think that the insurance companies, as opposed to the victims, could agree to set the level at 80%. The 90% level was already affordable, as it was still within the 3% levy on gross written premiums with which not only the Government, but the industry, are happy. If we set the level at 80%, I am sure the insurance industry would not only be happy, but feel as though it had got a good deal. At least it would put an extra £6,200 in the pockets of victims. Morally, 80% is the absolute bare minimum the Government should be aiming for.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a good point about the moral limit, but does he agree that the whole concept of contributory negligence and the apportionment of damages suggests that the victim is in some way responsible for the damage caused? That is anathema in these circumstances: these people are totally and utterly innocent, but they will walk away with less than what they truly deserve.
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We now live in a society in which some of this country’s most vulnerable people are being asked to pay the price with regard to not only mesothelioma, but other areas relating to quality of life.
Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. The clawback provisions mean that victims will have to pay back 100% of previously paid benefits. Is there not an inconsistency in the fact that the state seems to have a greater demand of 100% clawback, whereas the victims will get only 75% of the compensation due to them?
Jim Sheridan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Do we really aspire to live in the kind of society that does that to people? They needed those benefits for various reasons, but now 100% of them will be clawed back.
Jim Sheridan
As they say in the best pantomimes, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right—you could not make it up. It is incredible that the clawed-back money goes to the insurance company.
To move on to ring-fencing and the 3% levy, insurance companies will get a good deal from the Bill, as I have said. Even if they keep paying a 3% levy until no more mesothelioma cases exist, it will be a good deal. It is therefore completely right that the 3% should be ring-fenced. Colleagues have already mentioned many ways in which the Bill falls short, but the extra money that ring-fencing the levy gives could pay for some of those shortfalls: to compensate victims of other asbestos-related diseases, to research a cure or, indeed, to increase the fund payments to a much fairer 100% of the average compensation. The insurance industry well and truly expects to pay 3%, and is financially prepared to do so. There is no reason to let it get away with paying less.
I well understand that the Minister, who is a decent man, claims to have done his best on the issue, but I still think that there is room for improvement. I encourage him to continue to pursue insurance companies for a better deal for those who deserve it—the victims and their families.
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.
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The one constant I find from people who suffer from mesothelioma is that it covers all disciplines. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr Hepburn) is right that the disease is mainly concentrated in the industrial towns and cities, we now see incidents of mesothelioma in other disciplines, such as in teaching.
Before we go into the pros and cons of the Mesothelioma Bill, it might be appropriate to look at the effects of mesothelioma on people. The best description of the disease comes from one of my constituents, who said that it was like having a tree growing inside him. He said the branches spread and eventually choke the sufferer to death. There are people out there who, when they cough, are anxious that they could be suffering from mesothelioma. When that person catches a heavy cold, their families are worried that they have mesothelioma or pleural plaques, which is the start of the disease.
When I worked in the shipyards in Glasgow, we used to make fun of the asbestos workers, or pipe coverers as we called them. They then became known as laggers and were then upgraded to insulating engineers. We used to mock them and make fun of them, not knowing that we were swallowing the same particles of asbestos that covered everyone who worked in that industry. I warmly welcome the work of asbestos support groups, and none more so than Clydeside Action on Asbestos, which does a tremendous job in helping people cope with that difficult disease.
There has been much criticism of the insurance companies during this debate, and I am sure that much of it is right, but perhaps I can take colleagues back to some years ago in Scotland. When a person died in Scotland their claim for asbestosis or mesothelioma died with them. The insurance companies used to invite the sufferer to court, because the thought was that if a person was diagnosed with mesothelioma, they did not have long to live. These people decided to cut to the chase and try to get as much money as they could from the insurance companies before they died, so they went to court to get a judgment.
During the court case, the insurance people had doctors sitting beside them, trying to ascertain how long that person had to live. Then they would find some technical reason to postpone the case, hoping that in the intervening period the person would die and they would not have to pay out. I know that the trade unions came in for a lot of criticism, but the Transport and General Workers Union campaigned hard and successfully to get rid of that heinous legislation. It is important that we understand those events. Even today, producers export asbestos to some of the most vulnerable countries in the world. There is no protection whatever on offer. These people are now being subjected to what we were subjected to some 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
As chair of the all-party group on occupational health and safety, I welcome the Bill. As the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) knows, the process began under the previous Labour Government, with the consultation in February 2010, and I am pleased that the coalition has at least in part kept the sentiment of those original proposals. Sadly, the Bill does not go anywhere near far enough and the Government are well and truly siding with the insurers, who have profited from the collection of premiums over many decades and who will now continue to be subsidised by people suffering from diseases other than mesothelioma.
It would be remiss of us not to recognise the excellent work that was done by Michael Clapham, the former Member for Barnsley West and Penistone, who worked extremely hard not just on mesothelioma cases but on all industrial cases. He fought hard to get the compensation that people deserved. That responsibility has now been taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who is secretary of the all-party group and who does equally important work on these issues.
In our all-party group, we recognised that there was a real need to address the issue of asbestos-related illnesses as a consequence of working in certain environments. For that reason, we set up the asbestos sub-committee. It is devastating that, even though we have known of the dangers of this chemical, workers have continued to be exposed to it and are only now, decades later, discovering the consequences of their employers’ negligence.
Almost every week, there are plumbers, trade workers, electricians and joiners who die from this hidden killer. Their work has been the bedrock of our society. They have built the infrastructure that we rely on, and so it is only right that they are compensated for the sacrifices that they have made.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who is no longer in her place, talked about teachers suffering from mesothelioma. The all-party group produced an excellent booklet, highlighting both the problems and solutions of the disease. She was right that we should deal with the old schools first and then build up the effort to try to get rid of the diseases. We are talking about not just teachers but administrative staff, janitors and even children. I do not want to frighten people, but this is an issue that must be addressed. Unfortunately, the Education Department has chosen to ignore the information that we have provided.
About one in eight sufferers cannot trace their employer or insurer to lodge a complaint. That is completely unjust, and it is luck of the draw whether a person’s records have been lost due to the widespread misplacement of them by the insurance industry. Indeed, in bringing forward the Bill, the Government have acknowledged that. It seems strange that they accept the unfairness, to an extent, but will not allow these people to claim the same amount as those who can trace their employer or insurer. Those people who are suffering from mesothelioma and other industrial diseases through no fault of their own, and who cannot get access to their records, again through no fault of their own, are being penalised by losing 25% of their damages. Not only that, but through this decision, asbestos victims will absorb 25% of the ongoing cost because insurers lost or destroyed their policy records. That is simply not fair: not only is that money necessary to these people, but it is only right that they should receive it.
Obviously, we would welcome higher compensation and would raise it to 90%. That is not the full 100%, but I am convinced that the Government would be more than happy to accept that rise as it is still affordable according to their own figures. It still falls within the 3% levy on gross written premiums, which not only the Government but the industry are happy with. The figure would also work as there is a precedent for it in the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which covers the liabilities of insolvent insurers in circumstances where compulsory insurance is involved. That compensation level is legal, established and much fairer than the one proposed by the Government.
Mesothelioma is a dreadful disease, but it is not the only asbestos-related disease and the Government’s choice to focus only on it is another injustice of the Bill. Lord Freud said in the other place that other asbestos-related diseases need to be considered and I, as well as my colleagues, would like to hear the Minister affirm that comment and explain the steps that will be taken to look into those diseases, too. It is frankly offensive that the Bill has neglected all but one group of people who have been exposed to asbestos. That limitation excludes 50% of asbestos victims and adding them would represent just 20% of the cost. I ask the Government what are those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer, asbestosis and pleural thickening supposed to do?
The Government say that proving causation is simpler for mesothelioma as asbestos is the only known cause, but I would point the Minister towards a successful precedent: the T&N UK asbestos trust and the payment of claims not just for mesothelioma but for other asbestos diseases.
As the Minister will be aware, Opposition Members feel that the cut-off date for the proposed scheme is another unfairness. The consultation was issued in 2010 and its objective was very clear, as it stated:
“The Employers’ Liability Insurance Bureau…would be a compensation fund of last resort and would ensure that some individuals who are unable to trace…insurance records would receive compensation”.
That is clear to me and I have no doubt that the insurance companies panicked at that point and began to prepare immediately. They spent thousands of pounds on public affairs officials, which might explain why the Government seem to be on the side of the insurance industry in this case, and those officials will be calculating and planning how to react to each and every policy proposal. They will not have missed this and the companies are well and truly ready.
The companies argue that if the legislation was based as far back as 2010, that would amount to
“unlawful interference with insurers’ property rights”,
but they are happy to put their rights ahead of the far more important right to life and loss of property rights of the victims we are speaking about today. Surely the Government cannot accept that; surely even they can see the complete injustice. The date of 25 July 2012 is arbitrary and it would make far more sense to choose February 2010 as a start date for the scheme.
In yet another example of the Government favouring the industry over our constituents, it is becoming clear that the scheme will be administered by the insurance industry in one way or another. We have seen time and again that industry regulation does not work and it is important that an independent body is established to take charge. A scheme administered and run by the industry would have a clear conflict of interest between assessing the eligibility of applicants and keeping the levy on insurers low. How could we be sure that a fair number of applicants was being considered if the industry was in charge? Lord Freud commented that the Government would explore the options for an independent oversight committee and I would be keen to hear the same assurances today.
We are concerned that the scheme awards claimants only 75% of civil compensation rates while clawing back 100% of previously awarded benefits and lump-sum payments. It is unclear why the Government will claw back a greater percentage than is being paid, which will mean that the applicant will receive a net sum that is substantially less than 75% of the net sum he would have received in the courts if the insurer could have been traced. It is somewhat immoral that the state is being given a greater right of financial recovery than the victim and it is grossly unjust that victims are being penalised twice. I hope that the Minister will outline exactly how he will think about changing that.
Finally, let me say a word on research. I do not want to spend too much time on that, as the Bill already needs a lot of work to make it a fair and just solution to a disgraceful situation, but until recently very little was spent on research into mesothelioma in the UK. In the other place, we were promised a joint strategy with the Department of Health on how to encourage proposals for high-quality research into mesothelioma and it is clear that more money should be spent on finding a cure for the disease. I hope that the Government have not forgotten those issues.
As I said earlier, I welcome the Bill. We have worked long and hard to secure it, but it has flaws. I hope that the Government will see that it should be fair and just. Insurance companies can afford the risk, but asbestos victims have already paid with their health. Do not make them pay financially as well.
Universal Credit (Wales)
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
Is not part of the problem the whole climate of uncertainty and insecurity in which benefit claimants are living? In particular, the bedroom tax means that carers cannot have a bedroom available for night sitters, people on home dialysis cannot have a room for that purpose and, more worryingly, parents without custody of their children during the week cannot keep a room so that they can have custody of them at weekends. Should the Government not have sorted that out before introducing yet more changes?
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. In anticipation of the number of interventions that may be coming, it would be acceptable if they were brief.
Stephen Doughty
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon). I will come to the issue of uncertainty, but that point has certainly been reflected to me by many constituents and organisations that work with those affected by the changes. I have spent much time speaking to constituents. One of the benefits of standing in a by-election is spending an awful lot of time speaking to people, and the issue regularly came up on the doorstep. I have spoken to housing associations and other registered social landlords, to local authorities—specifically Cardiff council—and to other experts. Although there are a variety of views about whether the simplification of welfare payments is desirable, there are clearly consistent fears and forecasts of dire consequences that Ministers and the Department for Work and Pensions have not adequately answered or addressed. Perhaps the Minister will do so today.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is new to the Chamber, but we would like to leave some time for the Minister to respond.
Stephen Doughty
Thank you, Mr Sheridan. I will give the Minister some time to respond very shortly.
If the examples I gave before the intervention are not good enough, the Minister can look at the example of National Energy Action in Wales, which works extensively on fuel poverty. It recently stated:
“Sweeping changes to welfare reform including Universal Credit…will be hitting Welsh households hard in the coming months and will have major implications for the Welsh Government's plans to tackle poverty, including fuel poverty, in Wales.”
My friend, Huw Lewis, the Housing Minister in Wales, has said:
“We can't make any distinction here. I think it would be foolish if people were under the impression that it's just going to be something that affects people in social housing.”
There are huge concerns, which are shared by not only me or the people who have raised them with me on the street or in correspondence to my constituency office, but also the largest local authority in Wales, a number of housing associations, the bodies representing such people and a wide range of other experts. Wales will be hit disproportionately by the measures and by what could be an extremely chaotic set of reforms. I am seeing, frankly, poor evidence of support and engagement from DWP Ministers and others, and I fear that many unintended consequences will affect some of the most vulnerable people across Wales.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(11 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Duncan Smith
I do agree with my hon. Friend. Universal credit should help that enormously through its disregard process, which I call the work allowance. The allowance of a couple with a child will be more than £6,000 when they go back into work; under the present system it is only £520, and under the Work programme it is a little more. The difference is enormous and will provide a real boost and a real income to families and support them at home.
Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the ever-increasing number of workplace pensions that are wound up in mergers and takeovers, as happened at Whitbread where former employees have lost their pensions. Will he review the legislation in order properly to protect people’s pensions on mergers and takeovers?
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)
We are obviously concerned when anybody does not get the pension they were expecting. The regulator has powers where corporate restructuring has been designed to avoid pension liabilities. If the hon. Gentleman gives me more details of the case, I will be happy to look into it.
Working-Age Disabled People
Jim Sheridan Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mrs McGuire
My understanding is that the disability organisations involved did not know that they were listed as Atos partners, if I can call them that, until some of the information was published recently. There are serious questions here. I do not know whether the Minister will have an answer this afternoon, but if she does not, I suggest that she might need one pretty quickly, because some organisations are up in arms.
Finally, I want to come on to young people. I note from page 19 of the Government’s response that they still think that the age of 16 is the appropriate cut-off. There is a myth that the changes will have no impact on young people and children, but by the end of the roll-out of the process a 14-year old who is in receipt of disability living allowance now will be affected by the changes brought in with PIP. The previous Minister told me that 16 was the appropriate age because it is the natural point at which a child transitions to adulthood, but I suggest that the Minister reconsider that. The school-leaving age is going up, and I assume that that will have an effect on disabled young people at school. If a child or a young person was moved from a benefit at the age of 16, when they were still going through their school career, they could be in the ludicrous position of having qualified for DLA but not for what the Government have promoted as the tighter benefit of PIP. Young people in what would be fourth year in the Scottish education system—I do not know what it would be in England—should not be put under such additional stress. I suggest that 16 is no longer the appropriate age. The Government have stated that they are considering a transitional arrangement for people aged 16 to 18, and I am keen to find out the Minister’s view on that.
In conclusion, I will quote an optimistic sentence spoken by the Chancellor just before the emergency Budget, which is highlighted in the Hardest Hit report:
“Too often, when countries undertake major consolidations of this kind, it is the poorest—those who had least to do with the cause of the economic misfortunes—who are hit hardest.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]
There is a strong sense out there that disabled people are the hardest hit. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Battersea is back in her place. I am sure that she will be a great asset to the Select Committee.
In the Hardest Hit report that I have mentioned, the Paralympian David Clarke stated:
“There are hidden costs [to being disabled]. Computing what those costs are is very difficult…but fundamentally they exist. Withdrawal of [that] additional funding to cover those additional costs, if that is being planned, will jeopardise the independence of disabled people.”
Paralympians did wonderful things this summer, but many of them will say that one reason why they could do those things was because of the additional support from something like disability living allowance. I hope that the Minister will address that issue because we need to consider that there are extra costs to disability. PIP will, according to the Government, recognise the people who are most severely disabled and those in the greatest need, but there are people in great need, and people in greater need. No matter how laudable, if we concentrate all the effort and finance on those who are most severely disabled, there will still be disabled people who require some help to meet those additional costs. That is the dilemma the Government face.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I remind colleagues that we are scheduled to conclude at 4.30 pm. As has already been said, the Minister has been asked to answer a number of serious questions, but the Chair of the Select Committee has indicated that she would like a few minutes at the end to conclude.
Esther McVey
I will get to that at the very end. Perhaps the right hon. Lady should wave to me about a minute before the end so I can ensure that I get there with what I have.
Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)
Order. That will need to be a few minutes before the end so that the Chair of the Select Committee can wind up.
Esther McVey
Thank you, Mr Sheridan.
I have been corrected, so perhaps the right hon. Member for Stirling could wave to me a few minutes before the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) speaks.
When hon. Members spoke about the whole DLA reform and consultation, I do not think they necessarily knew the full length of the consultation that has been embarked on. The consultation has been very thorough and has taken place over a long period. The Government code of practice on consultation recommends a minimum of a 12-week consultation, but I will put into context how we set about this consultation.
When there was a debate on whether we should change DLA to PIP, there was a consultation with disability groups, health groups and social care groups. That consultation was long before any change came into being and lasted for 10-and-a-half weeks. After that, there was a 10-week consultation on the reforms to which more than 5,500 people responded. There was then a 16-week informal consultation on the initial drafts of the assessment, followed by a further 15-week formal consultation on the second draft of the assessment, after which there was a 14-week consultation. In total there have been 55 weeks of consultation, which is a year-plus. By anybody’s reckoning that is a considerable amount of consultation. The consultation has been a real listening exercise, because there is no point in having it if we do not amend and change things as we see fit. As the Bill progressed and became the Act, key things were altered. Again, we are listening, and when we do finally table all the assessments, I believe the consultation will be reflected in them, too. Questions have been asked about when that will happen; it will be later on in the year, but it will be as soon as possible. There are many things to balance: we have to fit a specific timetable, which, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South said, begins in April, but it would be incorrect to put something in play if we had not listened to everyone for as long as we possibly can.
I will pick up some of my notes, because the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) asked whether there are targets for the length of assessment. No, there are no targets for how long an assessment should take or for how many assessments should be completed in a week or a day. She is right: there are challenges, and it will be tough, but this is written into the contract. I met the two key providers yesterday to discuss how they have to engage with people and how the system has to be humane. They have to listen and be caring and all of those things, because—she is right—we need rigour and confidence in the system.
On the monitoring of quality and consistency across the PIP providers, guidance has been very strict, and training will be strict, too. They will be closely monitored for quality, auditing and the work of the health professionals. We are seeking feedback from claimants. They will be monitored again in two years, as well as this being ongoing. Should we see any discrepancies in appeals and reassessments where there seem to be issues, that will be monitored, too.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East asked about other types of targets. There are no targets or expectations for assessor performance in the work capability assessment, and there will not be any in PIP. Yes, performance is monitored and assessors are audited. Where abnormal results occur, we will look into them, but everything has to be of the highest possible quality.
The hon. Lady talked about the initial start-up in Bootle and how it would roll out across the country. The Department will test the effectiveness of the IT system, and the assessment and referral and claiming process. The Department will also be able to validate assumptions about the timings of the process: the initial telephone call, the claim form, the completion and the assessment duration. All of that will be tested in the original bit, which goes from April to June.
The hon. Lady asked many more questions, but I wonder whether I should move on to another question, which I think all hon. Members asked, about how disabled people are portrayed in the media. The right hon. Member for Stirling correctly pointed out that the superheroes of the Paralympics make up a tiny percentage of people with disabilities. Just as I will never be an Olympian, most people with disabilities will never be a Paralympian. However, the Paralympics shone a light on an area that we hope to capitalise on and open up disabled people to mainstream media. To that end, as somebody who worked in the media for 14 years, I hope that I can bring some insight and knowledge. I have asked straight away for—I would like to say a media summit, but that might make it sound even more highfaluting than it actually is—for a media round table. When one considers that there are 11 million people with disabilities in the UK and what percentage of the population that represents, it seems only right that such organisations as the BBC or ITV would look at that as a significant audience they should be reflecting, not just occasionally but daily, in all their programmes, whether they are dramas, news or current affairs.
It may be that we have to be even more careful about the language we use. If we know that the issue will be polarised and put into headlines and TV captions—we know that that will happen—then we need to be more careful about how we talk. I have never mentioned the word “scroungers”. I am mentioning it now because other hon. Members have mentioned it, and maybe we should all stop using it.