Liverpool City Region (Poverty)

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Wednesday 1st March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered poverty in the Liverpool city region.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I welcome right hon. and hon. Friends from across the city region to this important debate; we speak with one voice on poverty in our area.

Poverty is not an ephemeral concept. For far too many people in our city region, it is part of their daily grind. During the debate I will celebrate the fantastic achievements of charities, voluntary organisations and community groups that work tirelessly to tackle poverty in our area; highlight some of the challenges individuals and families face; and identify what we can do collectively to try to tackle the issue across the Liverpool city region.

During her coronation in July last year, the Prime Minister spoke on the steps of Downing Street of

“fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others.”

However, since her parody of Mrs Thatcher’s 1979 St Francis of Assisi speech, it has been hard to find one policy in which the Prime Minister provides solutions to address the issue.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that the pattern is particularly stark in the Wirral? If a line is drawn down the M53, the difference in life expectancy between the west side and the poorest parts of the east side is 10 years.

[Steve Rotheram]

I absolutely accept that. If lines are drawn right across maps of the city region, there are similar disparities and instances in which life expectancy rates are completely at odds with the attempt to improve everybody’s life chances, as the Prime Minister said she would on the steps of Downing Street.

Will the Minister address the fact that the 55% of working families in poverty—a record high—need hope that things will improve? We need to ensure that there is aspiration for children caught in the cycle of deprivation, and innovation in Government thinking to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping. I think we all remember how things turned out for our area last time there was a Conservative Government. By the time the Tories were ousted from power, our country was far more divided than when Thatcher came to power and promised to heal discord, so Government Members will forgive my cynicism about the veracity of the current Prime Minister’s words and her resolve to tackle poverty.

To get a better understanding of the current situation in the Liverpool city region, it is important to start by charting the economic vicissitudes we have seen in our recent history. Before the financial crash in 2008, the Liverpool city region experienced reasonable levels of economic improvement and was growing faster than the rest of the north-west economy. We benefited from European objective 1 funding and billions of pounds-worth of private sector investment that catalysed our area’s regeneration. The tangible manifestation of our renaissance was the changing cityscape, with projects such as the arena and convention centre and the Liverpool ONE shopping complex generating thousands of full and part-time jobs, helping to boost economic growth and raising visitor numbers. In 2008, we were able to showcase to the rest of the UK what we are capable of when given a fair crack at the whip.

The basic tenet of a decent society, on which I will focus my comments, is fairness. The last Labour Government had taken nearly 1 million children out of poverty by the time we left office in 2010. We helped to alleviate the suffering of many trapped in poverty through the creation of Sure Start centres, which gave our children the best start in life to break the cycle of dispossession. We also introduced tax credits, which helped to make work pay for many low-income families. However, despite improvements, there were still significant problems to tackle in some communities across the six districts.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also recall that, for the first time in history, the last Labour Government removed the link that there had always been between older age and poverty, and took almost 1 million older people out of poverty?

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of our great achievements, removing that link was certainly important in taking huge swathes of older people out of the cycle of poverty.

The indicators and indices of multiple deprivation have gone backwards under the current Government. It is estimated that 91,000 children in the city region are growing up in poverty. Analysis by the Children’s Society estimates that, in the city of Liverpool area alone, 34% of children live in poverty, while 26,800 children live in 15,500 families in problem debt. Debt is a growing issue for many families simply trying to make ends meet. As StepChange highlights, problem debt costs the UK £8.3 billion a year through the damage it causes to family life, mental and physical health, productivity and employment prospects, and costs to the welfare state, the NHS, local government and other agencies.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. There have been many improvements in my constituency, particularly under the last Labour Government, but he has hit on an important point: working people are suffering poverty because they are on very low wages or can find only part-time jobs. One of the greatest challenges is surely how we ensure that people get a better income, because working people are suffering.

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that in-work poverty is increasing. That can be tackled by giving people a proper living wage. That is something that we have said a future Labour Government will do. According to the Office for National Statistics, 46% of individuals living in households in the lowest total wealth quintile are in financial debt, which is twice as high as households in the highest wealth quintile, on 23%.

At a G8 summit in 2011, David Cameron promised:

“Britain will not balance its books on the backs of the poorest.”

However, a recent report by the Resolution Foundation found that this Government’s tenure will be the worst for living standards for the poorest half of households since comparable records began in the mid-1960s. Compared with other developed countries, the UK now has the worst household income inequality in the world, and it is at its most iniquitous since the early years of Thatcherism.

Local authorities are often the first port of call for families suffering from poverty. Liverpool City Council is facing an enormous funding headache. The Government slashed its grant by 58%, yet somehow still believe that the city council should provide the same vital services it once did. I challenge the Minister, or any hon. Member, to have their income reduced by significantly more than half and to still be able to afford to do the same things they did before. That is what the Government expect councils across the city region to do. How can local authorities in the areas of greatest need be expected to help families suffering the effects of poverty with such scarce resources?

A study by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that child poverty costs the public sector between £12 billion and £22 billion a year, which evidences the need for a co-ordinated and collaborative approach to tackle the issue. However, there is a wide range of complex contributory factors that can leave people facing severe hardship. Unsurprisingly, despite the last Labour Government’s rhetoric about eradicating child poverty in the UK by 2020 with the Child Poverty Act 2010, the Tories are making life even tougher for families in our areas that have the highest levels of deprivation. Living costs have risen, welfare reductions are exacerbating child and family poverty, and pernicious policies have had devastating consequences.

The Prime Minister has extolled the vision of a “shared society” although, as with the mantra of the “long-term economic plan”, I have not heard her say much about it recently. Bewilderingly, she has tried to claim the crown of social justice for her party, but when was the last time she or her Government spoke about poverty? Under the Tories, life is increasingly difficult for the most vulnerable, and low levels of social mobility are magnified in areas outside London and the south-east.

Policy has included the bedroom tax, which penalises people for living in a property where the Government consider bedrooms are not being utilised. The problem in areas such as ours, however, is that those living in under-occupied homes had nowhere to go, due to the shortage of suitable properties for them to move into. The Government’s one-size-fits-all approach failed to solve the problem it was allegedly designed to tackle and instead forced people out of their family homes, exacerbating the breakdown of social cohesion in many of our communities. In Merseyside and Halton, we do not have the right housing mix to accommodate demand, which is creating problems in the private rented sector in particular. Increasingly, we have instances of rent poverty, with unscrupulous landlords charging rent rates that renters simply cannot afford. Direct payments have hindered and not helped, too.

People are having to make unenviable decisions about whether to heat, eat or pay rent, so it is no wonder that some get into arrears. In a number of cases, they end up being evicted and are forced on to the streets to sleep rough. Ministers have to take action to clamp down on that growing injustice, instead of spouting erroneous statistics to justify failing policies. I would be happy to accompany the Minister on any night he chooses to walk around any part of our wonderful city region to see the desperation of rough sleepers for himself and to speak to them to find out the reasons behind it.

Year after year, rip-off energy suppliers are racking up the cost of consumers’ gas and electricity bills. The latest hike in prices will cause particular concern to the 4 million UK households who live in fuel poverty. The suffering caused by cold-related ill health costs the national health service £1.36 billion a year, and for many the high cost of energy is exacerbated by substandard accommodation. During our time in government, we invested £18 billion into the decent homes standard. Only this week, the UK Green Building Council reported that 25 million homes would need refurbishing to the highest standard by 2050, at a rate of 1.4 homes every minute.

[Ms Angela Eagle]

In the Wirral, before the previous Labour Government took office, 65% of social housing was below the acceptable standard. Owing to the money that was invested under that Labour Government, when we left office less than 5% of the social stock was below the acceptable standard. Does my hon. Friend recognise how that helped to deal with the problems of poverty, and health related ones in particular? What can be done to take that process further if he is elected Mayor of the city region?

[Steve Rotheram]

I will concentrate on the first bit, rather than the second bit, if that is okay. On the progress made under the Labour Government to tackle what has to be described as the scourge of people living in substandard accommodation, we did an awful lot of good, and we were hoping to do even more. People have to understand that when they are heating a home without double glazing, for example, the heat is easily lost. Simple things such as double glazing or cavity wall insulation help to retain heat, and so reduce bills. That is what we did for hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people throughout the country, and certainly our area benefited.

I hope that the Government will do something simple to tackle the problem of 1.4 homes per minute needing to be brought up to standard until 2050. My party has pledged to get to grips properly with the poor quality of homes. We have made that an infrastructure priority, which would allow us to combat the problem effectively and efficiently. Lamentably, the Government would not join us in the voting Lobby to ensure that homes were fit for human habitation.

Regrettably, my constituency has been ranked No. 1 in the whole country for disability and health deprivation. Life expectancy in Liverpool, Walton is many years shorter than for the residents of Walton-on-Thames, for example. As we heard during Prime Minister’s questions today, the Government have encouraged those with minor ailments to visit pharmacies, so as to alleviate the pressure on GP surgeries and on accident and emergency services. It is therefore outrageous that pharmacies in my constituency will not receive a single penny from the pharmacy access scheme, forcing on some the prospect of having to close. Out of the 394 chemists in the whole of Merseyside, only 18 will be funded, while the constituencies of the Prime Minister and of the Secretary of State for Health will each have seven funded. How does that address poverty of health, as the Prime Minister promised she would do? How does that prevent the knock-on effect for our NHS? How can people help themselves out of poverty when the Government do everything they can to make the basics of life even harder for them?

Recent statistics published by anti-poverty charity the Trussell Trust highlighted the worrying rise in the use of food banks in our area. Between April and September 2016 in my constituency, the North Liverpool food bank supplied 2,638 three-day emergency food parcels to families, of which nearly 1,000 were for children. It is a national disgrace that in the fifth richest economy in the world, almost 1.1 million people rely on food banks.

On this Government’s watch, however, things are getting even worse. Only recently I received a letter from the Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions informing me of two proposed jobcentre closures in my constituency. There are similar problems throughout the city region. The Government do not seem to understand that closing a jobcentre and relocating it miles away creates further barriers for local people trying their best to find work. Perhaps the Minister will explain when he sums up why the Government consistently put obstacles in the way of people who are trying their best to find work. As an alternative proposal, will the Minister agree to run a pilot scheme in the Liverpool city region in which we use our libraries, one-stop shops and community centres to provide a neighbourhood service to help people back into employment?

Education provides the essential building blocks to achieve the economic success that we so desperately need, and yet too many children in Merseyside and Halton are going to school hungry. That has a devastating effect on their educational prospects. Teachers and governors are doing all they can to help, such as with the provision of breakfast clubs for children. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has been a great champion of free breakfast clubs, as research suggests that if children have a decent breakfast, they are more likely to concentrate better, learn more and achieve improved results at school.

The Government are devolving only limited powers to metro Mayors—this is where I should declare an interest—while at the same time fragmenting delivery and centralising accountability in the school system. The Liverpool devolution deal provides the metro Mayor with only limited powers over learning, such as on post-16 skills. Further devolution could present the opportunity for each part of the Liverpool city region to work better together to challenge poor educational performance and spread best practice, rather than for each local authority to operate in splendid isolation. We have the ludicrous circumstance of local education authorities continuing to have statutory responsibility for schools, under legislation such as the Education Act 1996, while being deprived of any levers to pull in order to fulfil those duties and influence outcomes.

When one college reports that 81% of students arrive with English and maths inadequate even to commence studying their courses, we need to address the issues, rather than perpetuate the existing fragmentation. It goes without saying that protecting per-pupil funding rather than proceeding with the Government’s 6.5% real-terms reduction in education spending is a priority for our areas. There is a poverty of aspiration among far too many young people across the city region, so if I am elected in May, I want to be able to convince the next generation that they can be the doctors, nurses or lawyers of the future and start to develop strategies to tackle the root causes of poverty, such as poor educational attainment. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government are so hesitant about further devolution of education powers.

I also want the Government to give metro Mayors the power to reallocate residual apprenticeship levy funding, which could be ring-fenced for innovative apprenticeship programmes. That would not cost the Government a penny, but would afford areas the opportunity to develop apprenticeship programmes to respond to local need. The Government signed up to local commissioning in the devolution agreement, but can the Minister explain why the Liverpool city region is not allocated its own contract package for the work and health programme? The current deal overlooks our local expertise, which we should harness to support people into employment, and would mean that Manchester could develop innovative approaches unilaterally but we could not. Will he address that? Such levers would enable metro Mayors to make a real difference, so I hope that the Minister will address those issues.

Before concluding, I must pay tribute to the voluntary and community sector and the fantastic charities in our city region that do so much to make the lives of others that much more bearable.

[Derek Twigg]

May I take my hon. Friend back to apprenticeships? Riverside College in my constituency, which he is due to visit, provides excellent opportunities for apprentices, but further education colleges have had massive cuts to their budgets. The Government need to address that if they want to expand apprenticeships and have good-quality apprenticeships that link in well with local businesses, because local colleges will be key in doing that. I wonder what my hon. Friend’s view is about that.

[Steve Rotheram]

Like many people here, I was at the debate about FE funding and the need to reduce the Government’s proposed cuts. We partially succeeded in doing that, but the proposed cuts to the budgets of FE institutions across the city region are still significant and will prevent them from doing some of the things that the Government want them to do.

The Government want 3 million apprenticeships in this Parliament. That will not happen if budgets are constantly slashed. I have suggested an alternative. Companies with a turnover of £3 million or more will have to pay a 0.5% apprenticeship levy. I do not believe that all that money will be used for apprenticeships—not all organisations will draw down their entitlement—so there will be a residual fund. With the Government’s help, we could develop an innovative programme so that that ring-fenced money could be used for apprenticeships and we could respond to what is coming down the pipeline and develop skills for the next three, four or five years. I hope that the Minister will address that.

The real issue is that we do not need meaningless slogans from the Prime Minister such as “shared society”. From pioneers such as Kitty Wilkinson, Eleanor Rathbone, Dr Duncan and Father Nugent to the organisations that may go unnoticed but will provide vital support today and tonight to people who are less fortunate, our area has been at the forefront of great social advances for many centuries. If the Government are serious about reducing inequality and devolving powers to start to tackle poverty in all its manifestations, the Minister must give proper consideration to my suggestions. I look forward to his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Rotheram]

I could simply use the time allocated—just over a minute—to enter into a stats war with the Minister. There are certainly more people on zero-hours contracts, more in insecure work and more working families in poverty. However, I will use the time to concentrate on some of the questions I asked. Obviously, there are different methodologies by which we collate statistics, but as local MPs we see the result of Government policies on a daily basis—we do not need stats to prove that.

We have a particular problem with the five constituencies in our city region being in the top 20 for child poverty, but this debate was about poverty in its widest context: poverty of opportunity, poverty of aspiration, poverty of esteem, fuel poverty, rent poverty, child poverty and older people poverty. I started by saying that it is about fairness—that is all we want. I have made a number of innovative suggestions to tackle some of those issues and I am happy to have further discussions with the Minister on health inequalities, decent homes, energy problems, rough sleeping, the apprenticeship levy, the work and health programme, school collaboration and jobcentres.

Just as a last comment, the Minister talked about there being £900 million for the Liverpool city region. I will be 85 years of age by the time we draw down our last instalment—I will be happy to meet the Minister to celebrate that.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

State Pension Age: Women

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Damian Green]

I deprecate any form of personal abuse. I think that one of the problems of modern politics is that everything becomes personalised. I have not been aware of such abuse, as every WASPI woman I have met has been entirely polite and entirely reasonable, and I would wish that to continue.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that the fundamental issue here is not equalisation, because that has been agreed, but fairness? He can give comfort to the 63,000 WASPI women in Merseyside who, through a quirk of their birthdate, will be hit hard and penalised. He can announce transitional arrangements that would give them some comfort that that is not going to happen.

[Damian Green]

I was coming on to discuss what we are doing and what we will do for this group. Supporting older claimants to remain in the labour market, and tackling the barriers to their doing so, is a key priority for the Government. To support that aim, we have abolished the default retirement age, so most people can now retire when the time is right for them, and we have extended the right to request flexible working for all. Flexible working is particularly important for this group of people, who may well have caring responsibilities.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. At the outset, may I welcome yesterday’s written statement from the Minister on behalf of Lord Freud? It goes some way towards addressing one of the central points that I wished to raise, but it also raises a host of points that require clarification. I hope that the Minister will be able to address those. I am certain that my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who has led the campaign for fair compensation for sufferers, will also have a number of questions for the Minister, as will other Members.

As the honorary president of the Merseyside Asbestos Victim Support Group, I place on the record my thanks to the mesothelioma victim support groups up and down the country for their continued championing of victims and for the dignified and diligent manner in which they fight their cause. I should also make special mention of the late Paul Goggins, who did so much in this place to advance the cause of mesothelioma sufferers and without whom we would not have reached this advanced point.

To give credit where it is due, and so that I cannot be accused of being partisan, let me also say that the work of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) should also be recognised. The Government’s U-turn should vindicate her steadfast support for victims of this dreadful disease. By the way, I suspect she might still be smarting from the result of last night’s match, when Liverpool secured a deserved victory over her beloved Spurs.

It is now eight months since the Mesothelioma Bill—now the Mesothelioma Act 2014—passed through Parliament. Given that Parliament will dissolve at the end of next month, I thought this would be an appropriate juncture for MPs to convene to discuss the status of the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme. That, of course, was before yesterday’s announcement, but the issues before us are no less relevant for that.

Throughout my contribution, I wish to focus on two key points: the 3% levy and research funding. First, however, I would like to highlight the issues that remain outstanding after the Minister’s statement. The 2014 Act delivers the legislative framework for the Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme, which is a source of compensation for mesothelioma sufferers who could prove they were negligently exposed to asbestos at work, but who could not trace a relevant employer or that employer’s insurer. In addition, the scheme makes payments to eligible dependants of mesothelioma victims who have, sadly, passed away.

Originally, payments of 80% of the level of average civil claims were to be made in respect of people first diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012. The new guidance means that the uprating to 100% will include all those diagnosed from yesterday onwards but exclude those who have already lodged claims.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on holding this important debate, which is very much needed. I also welcome the change that the Government announced yesterday. He mentions the 2014 Act and those who were diagnosed on or after 25 July 2012, but some were, of course, diagnosed before then. A constituent’s husband died in November 2012, but she cannot get compensation because they fell outwith the claim period of a year. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that should be remedied, given yesterday’s changes and the Government’s more enlightened understanding of the issue?

[Steve Rotheram]

The case the hon. Gentleman highlights is similar to cases Members raised in Committee and on the Floor of the House when the issue was debated. It is for the Minister to respond to the question of what will happen to those diagnosed before the 2012 threshold.

The arbitrary nature of yesterday’s ruling caused great distress to a small group of about 250 claimants who already receive payments from the scheme. Will the Minister comment on the unjust nature of the anomaly created by Lord Freud? Instead of sticking to yesterday’s written statement, the Minister should stand up today and announce that he will backdate the increase to include victims who have successfully claimed at the lower, 80% rate during the scheme’s first eight months.

It is obvious that Lord Freud has had to take the action he has, because, as the Opposition predicted, the number of claimants has not reached the inflated figure the insurance companies came up with to make the compensatory package look punitive—the number is far smaller. Lord Freud admits:

“The number of claimants has proven to be below the level anticipated.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 42WS.]

Yes—a whopping 70% lower. He might put this down to the fact that insurers are only now tracing an increasing number of policies, but if we start with an overestimate of the number of claimants, we cannot simply put any decrease down to the fact that the industry has only belatedly got its act together and started tracing compensators for remedy.

It should not be forgotten that, over the life of this Parliament, pressure from mesothelioma campaigners has pushed the Government to increase compensation rates from the initial derisory offer of 70%, to 75%, then to 80% and now to 100% of the level of civil claims. I pay tribute to those resolute campaigners. The Labour party consistently called for an increase during the passage of the Bill, so I am delighted to see that increase come to fruition.

The scheme is funded by a levy on insurers that provide employers’ liability insurance. Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government gave assurances that the levy would be set at a rate equal to 3% of the gross written premiums on employers’ liability insurance policies. Ministers told us that the insurance industry could afford to fund the scheme through a levy of 3% of GWP without having to pass on the costs to its customers through additional premiums. The expectation in the original impact assessment was that the levy on the industry would raise £338.7 million over 10 years.

In a ministerial statement on 28 November 2014, the Government announced that the levy would raise £32 million in the first year. That in fact represents a levy equivalent of just 2.2%, not the 3% originally agreed to and promised. That was due to the fact that the employers’ liability market accounted for GWP of £1,418 million in 2013—an increase of 4.8% on the previous year. From that figure, it is clear that a 3% levy would net £43.6 million, not the £32 million cited in the ministerial statement. The Department for Work and Pensions does not contest those figures, and it verified them at a meeting involving Lord Freud and the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford. I guarantee that, if the converse had happened and the take from the insurance pot at 3% had been lower than anticipated, the Government would not have argued to increase that percentage. Why, then, are they letting the insurance industry get away with a lower yield because the market has increased?

The issue is a cause of major concern, because the Government explicitly promised that the 3% target would be met in year 1. The importance of the additional 0.8% differential cannot be understated. If the Government chose to act, the additional £11.6 million difference could enable payments to be made to sufferers of other asbestos-related diseases, who are currently not covered by the scheme, or in respect of those diagnosed before the scheme was in place, such as the constituent of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil). The additional £11.6 million could provide much-needed investment in medical research—something I will say more about shortly.

The Minister was not in his current post during the passage of the Bill; his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), was. The right hon. Gentleman declined, in Committee, to enact Labour’s proposal for the 3% levy to be enshrined in law. Instead, he gave Members a cast iron guarantee:

“I say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston, that I met Lord Freud, my fellow Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, this morning. Three per cent. is 3% and we have no intention of moving away from it.”––[Official Report, Mesothelioma Public Bill Committee, 12 December 2013; c. 117.]

He was unequivocal. What do they say about actions speaking louder than words? If the Government do not commit to ensuring that the insurance industry will meet the 3% levy target, they will leave themselves open to legitimate criticism from mesothelioma campaigners that they are on the side of the insurers, not the victims, and are letting insurers walk away from that cast iron guarantee. That is why we pushed for the 3% to be enshrined in law.

I should be grateful for answers to some questions. Why are the Government set to renege on the promise that they made to mesothelioma victims and Members of this House about the 3% levy? Given the present understandable uncertainty about whether the 3% levy figure will be met, will the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to amend the 2014 Act to enshrine it in law? If applications to the scheme increase steadily, as more people become aware of it, and claims exceed 3% of gross written premiums, will the industry pay out from the windfall that it gets from the underpayment it currently presides over? What work is the Minister doing with hospitals, colleges, surgeries and GPs to make those diagnosed with mesothelioma aware of the scheme, to encourage increased take-up? How much is his Department spending on promoting the scheme to sufferers?

I will remind the House—as if this were needed—of what a terrible disease mesothelioma is. Thankfully, it is not a common cancer, but according to Cancer Research UK it is responsible for 2% of all cancer deaths in the country. The latest statistics showed that there were 2,570 known cases, which was a rise on the previous 12 months, with 2,429 subsequent mesothelioma deaths in the same year. A victim is likely to live less than a year after contracting mesothelioma. The disease is commonly associated with men who have worked in heavy industry, such as the construction industry, which is why I am proud of the lead that my union, the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, has taken on the issue.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good case. As he says, mesothelioma is an asbestos-related condition usually associated with heavy industry, but the incidence in my very rural constituency is higher than the national average. I just wanted to point out that it does not necessarily occur only in big cities and industrial centres.

[Steve Rotheram]

I absolutely agree, and was not painting a picture in which only males or people working in heavy industry are affected. Women who never worked and who were housewives have contracted mesothelioma, because they washed clothing with asbestos dust and particles on it, which they breathed in. I was not trying at all to underestimate the impact on the rest of the country.

There cannot be a debate on mesothelioma without talking about research. When the 2014 Act was being considered, the late Paul Goggins tabled amendments on that very matter, which I moved. The Government contended in the House of Lords on 9 December 2014, at column 1710, that funding for mesothelioma research is available, but no good research proposals have been forthcoming.

There are two points to make. First, it is estimated that at present £1.4 million is spent on mesothelioma research. That can be compared with research spending of £22 million for bowel cancer, £41 million for breast cancer, £11.5 million for lung cancer and £32 million for leukaemia; we can quickly see that mesothelioma is at the bottom of the research pile. Lord Alton of Liverpool previously made it clear that there are 17 other forms of cancer for which far more research resources are reserved than for mesothelioma.

Secondly, the Government’s position on the quality of forthcoming research proposals is contradicted by the recent announcement that Aviva and Zurich have commissioned the British Lung Foundation to undertake £1 million of mesothelioma research. That is of course welcome, but is not a statutory requirement. It is voluntary, and future moneys may not be guaranteed, but it shows that the industry believes that quality research proposals exist and that it is only the Government who are not willing to back the scientific community to lead on the matter.

I come back to the point about excess moneys raised from the full 3% levy being utilised for the benefit of the victims. Should an additional £11.6 million be available in the pot, even if claimants were paid out at 100% of their claim, as they now will be, there would still be about £5 million left, which could be devoted to research. Why is that not happening? Under section 13(2)(b) of the Mesothelioma Act 2014 the Government can use the amount recovered from scheme payments under the recovery of benefits legislation to help pay for the costs of the scheme. Now that the costs of the scheme can be covered completely by a 3% levy, there is no need for the subsidy. It is currently estimated that nearly £5 million will be recovered from payments. That money should be used to fund medical research, not to subsidise the insurers unnecessarily.

I have several questions for the Minister. I would appreciate it if he replied today, but if he cannot answer them all, perhaps he would write to me and the shadow Minister on each point. The written statement released by the Department yesterday says:

“Following discussion with the insurance industry, I have agreed to introduce some additional administrative safeguards to ensure that we can all be confident that the scheme continues to act as we intended and remains a scheme of last resort.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 42WS.]

What assurances can the Minister give sufferers and their families that that will not lead to increased restrictions and a higher threshold for proof of employer negligence? Why did he meet only with the insurance industry and not with victims to discuss possible amendments needed in the scheme? Why was the need for additional safeguards not picked up during the passage of the Bill through both Houses? Are the Government still lending the insurance industry a full £17 million, even though the take-up of the scheme is lower than expected?

Lord Faulks told peers,

“The Government fully recognise the need to stimulate an increase in the level of research activity and continue actively to pursue measures to achieve this.”

What measures are the Government taking to increase the amount of research? In the same House of Lords debate, Lord Faulks went on to say:

“It is absolutely not the case that there is insufficient funding for research. As I have said more than once, the case is that, at the moment, there is not a suitable number of applications for research.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9 December 2014; Vol. 757, c. 1710-1712.]

What specific number would constitute a “suitable number” of research applications? Has that figure been met?

Finally, there has also been a question of whether insurers have made a profit out of the system because the levy target of 3% has not been met. Lord Faulks agreed to look into that. Can the Minister update Members?

For the public and the mesothelioma victims support community to have confidence in the scheme, it is vital that in the first instance the commitments that this House made to the victims should be met without any hiccups or backtracking. Failure to enforce the 3% levy and to commission the necessary research, with adequate and proportionate funding, would be a dereliction of duty and undermine the entire scheme. We owe it to the victims of this cruel disease to get things right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Lavery]

Again, there are all these anomalies. If we look at the other types of compensation deal with insurers, trade unions and law firms, we see that the vast majority would pay compensation dating back to what is classified as the date of guilty knowledge, not a date that has just been plucked out of the air. As I said, mesothelioma goes back for generations. We should be looking to compensate people—never mind the cut-off date of July 2012. There was even a document for a consultation that began on, I believe, 25 February 2010. Is that not a date of guilty knowledge in itself? Why can compensation not be paid to victims going back to at least 2010?

Everyone who has spoken has mentioned the real issue at the moment, which is medical research. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned Dr Moore-Gillon, who has said that mesothelioma is

“not an attractive area for researchers…If you’re a bright person with a PhD making a career in cancer research and you are told you can work on a mesothelioma project for a year, you’re looking for a new job in 12 months. Instead, you can hook into breast cancer research and be employed for 20 years.”

[Steve Rotheram]

On that point, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. A leading researcher has done some positive work using adult stem cells, which, once they are adapted and injected into a vein, target cancerous mesothelioma cells. Unless additional funding is put forward to develop that research to clinical trials, we will simply be paying compensation to people who have this terrible disease instead of doing what we should be doing—giving them a cure. I am sure that everybody who has mesothelioma would rather have a cure than the compensation.

[Ian Lavery]

I do not think I could have put it better myself. We debated medical research long and hard in the Mesothelioma Bill Committee, but we have not really made any progress. I urge the Minister to think about the fact that we really should put mesothelioma right up there with other cancer-related disease so that we can, as my hon. Friend has said, try to cure and prevent that horrible disease, rather than just thinking that it is right to pay compensation 30 or 40 years later.

Finally, I want to ask for clarification on a point that I am genuinely unsure about. When it was agreed that 80% of the compensation would be paid, the DWP stated that 100% of any benefits that had been paid with regard to mesothelioma would be clawed back. I am not sure whether that has changed, but I would welcome the Minister’s view on that. If it is still happening—the insurance companies and everybody else has come up with 100% compensation, and that is fine—for the period where people receive 80% compensation, compared with 100% clawback from the DWP, surely there is a case for them to have some form of claimant rebate.

All in all, I welcome the statement, but there are still lots of questions to be answered. The Mesothelioma Bill gave us a great opportunity to give 100% support to the victims, but we did not quite get there. Perhaps we are getting there step by step, but why do we not simply take the massive step that is needed and put things right as soon as we possibly can?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I take the hon. Lady’s point that I was not the Minister at the time and was not present at those sittings. She asked me a written question following the written statement in November, and I made it clear in my answer that the 3% figure was the maximum percentage of the active employers’ liability insurance market to be levied on the insurance industry to recoup the costs of the scheme. I made it clear that the figure was a cap, rather than a set rate, and that the levy rate was based on the estimated costs of the scheme, extrapolated from the first seven months of the operation. The scheme is demand-led and calculations for the levy are done afresh each year. An upturn in applications to the scheme would result in a higher levy rate in future years, so the levy rate is kept under continual active review.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister has used the words “levy” and “cap” interchangeably on numerous occasions, which is confusing. During the passage of the Bill, it was clear that we talked about a levy. The right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) was the Minister at the time, and he talked about a levy. When is a levy a cap?

[Mr Harper]

No, I do not think we are at cross purposes at all. It is a levy, but it is capped at 3%. The amount of the levy is set, based on the costs of the scheme. The costs are calculated and then the levy rate is calculated to recover the costs, and it was agreed that the cap would be 3%. That is the position that I made clear in my answer to the written question from the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. It is a levy that is capped at 3%. The deal was that the insurance industry would absorb the costs of the scheme and not pass them on to employers through employers’ liability premiums if they remained below 3%, which is why the 3% cap was set.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister is trying valiantly to justify what he has picked up. It is not what was intended for the scheme and it is not what was said during the passage of the Bill. I understand that the cap is a maximum, but it was calculated according to what the industry said it could afford. The industry said 3% of this huge figure—about £1.4 billion or £1.5 billion—was the levy it would draw down. That was the amount that the industry thought would be needed for claimants, and that is why we get the figure of 80%, by the way. It was 80% because the industry thought it would be swallowed up by the 3% levy. I am sorry, but the Minister cannot have it both ways.

[Mr Harper]

The commitment that the industry made was not in terms of what it could afford. It was about what the industry was going to absorb and not pass on to employers more generally. It was important that the costs of compensating sufferers of the disease did not fall on employers generally. We wanted the costs to fall on the insurance industry. It is worth reminding people that the insurance companies that pay the levy today are not necessarily the insurance companies that took the premiums for the policies in the first place. That is part of the problem, because of the long latency of the disease.

Governments have created all the schemes—the 1979 scheme, the 2008 scheme and this one—because of the long period between when someone has exposure to asbestos and the diagnosis of the disease. The impact of the disease over a very long period of time led to all the issues with employers not being in business—that generated the 1979 scheme—and the inability to trace either employers or their insurers. All such issues relate to that long period of time, which is why it is important that the costs are borne by the insurance industry, although they are not necessarily the same companies that took the premiums in the first place. That is why it was important for the Government to work on this in an agreed and proportionate way, so that we could get the scheme in place to ensure the benefits go to the victims of the disease. If the matter had got bogged down in a big argument and legal disputes, there would not be a scheme and there would not be any compensation for people. Both Lord Freud and my predecessor as Minister wanted to make sure that the scheme came into force, so that it could start benefiting victims of this disease.

Let me respond to a couple of questions that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton specifically put about the written ministerial statement yesterday, which I think was generally welcomed by colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. Lord Freud made it clear at the beginning of that statement that we are going to monitor the progress of the scheme and the extent to which the assumptions about claim rates are borne out.

During the first months of the scheme, the number of claims is much lower than at other times. However, partly because the Employers’ Liability Tracing Office has been doing an increasingly good job of tracing insurance policies—meaning that sufferers of this disease can more easily, and rightly, pursue compensation from those from whom compensation is due—the costs of the scheme are lower than had been thought. Therefore, we thought it was right to increase the tariff from 80% of average civil claims to 100% from the date of the announcement. The regulations to bring the scheme into effect will become law next month, but as is usual in government the uprating will apply from the date of the announcement, in the same way that the scheme in the first place applies from the date it was announced, which was 25 July 2012.

That is a general rule in government. I know that it is always difficult, because when a scheme is set up there always has to be a starting point and obviously some people will always be on the wrong side of that starting point. However, it is a general rule in government that we have to start things from when we announce them, and not backdate them. [Interruption.] I hear the shadow Minister, sighing, but if she ever has ministerial responsibility—for various reasons, I hope that she will not have such responsibility—I think she will very quickly understand the logic of not backdating things, and if she does not then the conversations she will have with others in her party will soon persuade her of the wisdom of that approach.

I want to be clear, although I think it was made clear in the written ministerial statement yesterday, that the announcement yesterday means that the scheme will start from yesterday for those already diagnosed, even though that is ahead of the legislation coming into force. Again, that is the same argument that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) made—I probably mispronounced the name of his constituency, although I always try to pronounce it correctly—when he referred to the starting point of the scheme. I know that he has tabled a number of written questions about this subject on behalf of his constituents, but I am afraid that that has to remain the position.

Both the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton and for Stretford and Urmston, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford, talked about increasing the take-up of the scheme. We have been working with stakeholders, including the Asbestos Victim Support group, Macmillan nurses and other groups, to ensure they have information about the scheme, so that they can notify those victims who have been newly diagnosed. We will continue to consider what more we can do. For example, if someone searches for information about this subject on the internet, as is common now, we have made sure that the scheme will come high up on the search list, so that people can locate it. If anyone has any ideas about how better to communicate that information, I am very happy to listen to them. We think that we are doing a good job, but I guess that one can always do better at communicating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

Given what the hon. Gentleman says, and it is obviously the reason why he has tabled written questions, his constituent is not eligible for this scheme. What I do not know without looking at the specific facts of the case—obviously, if he has not already done so, he can either write to myself or Lord Freud with those facts—is whether they will be eligible for one of the other existing statutory schemes. If the hon. Gentleman writes to us, we can then look into the case to see whether his constituent is eligible for the other schemes.

[Steve Rotheram]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Of course—briefly.

[Steve Rotheram]

I will be very brief, before the Minister finishes his remarks. Given that the expectation, even from the industry, was that the cost of the scheme would equate to 3%—I do not think that is arguable; hence the levy—does he believe that some of the residual amount, or underspend, should be invested in research? It is really important that research is top of the agenda.

[Mr Harper]

There are two separate questions there. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation—I suppose it depends where you start from. His understanding was that the 3% was an amount that was going to be levied to generate an amount of money, some of which would be used for the compensation and then, effectively, others could choose to spend it, but that is not my understanding and not the Government’s understanding of the scheme.

However, his general point—I am trying to answer his question about research funding—is that there is a clear view that there should be more research in this area. I will undertake to go away and look at the gap in the general debate between—

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman went a long way round to get to his usual comment, but most of his facts are incorrect. Let us get the facts right on benefit processing. Each year, we provide £94 billion in working age benefits, and benefits have been paid in arrears for the last 25 years, so there is not an unusual delay. People are often confused about whether or not there is a delay. On benefit processing times, 93% are processed absolutely on time, which is up seven percentage points since Labour left office. The vast majority of the delays are pre-decisions awaiting additional evidence. Of course there is more we can do. I am looking at a report today, and I am going to be positive about ensuring that we can do other things. I can thus announce today that we are looking to new measures committing the Department to raising much more awareness, as was asked for, of the short-term benefit advances. We are doing that through websites, on posters and by providing information in jobcentres. We are testing that and hoping to roll it out at the beginning of the new year. We are also issuing fresh guidance to advisers to make sure that they constantly advise those at risk of the availability, should they need them, of interim payments.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

11. What steps he has taken to accelerate the processing of personal independence payment applications.

[The Minister for Disabled People (Mr Mark Harper)]

The hon. Gentleman will know from my earlier answer some of the things we have done, including increasing the number of health professionals employed by the providers and opening more assessment centres. He will know that the latest set of statistics published in September showed that from March to July we more than doubled the number of cases cleared, and our performance continues to improve.

[Steve Rotheram]

Actually, the latest DWP figures show that of nearly 530,000 applications for the personal independence payment, only 206,000 decisions on eligibility have been made. That means 323,000 disabled people, with 1,000 in Liverpool, Walton alone, have been left in limbo, facing additional costs to cope with ill health or disability. Given his earlier answers, why is the Minister prepared to leave disabled people bottom of his list of priorities?

[Mr Harper]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is listening. I very clearly said—and I have said it a number of times here—that fixing delays to the PIP process is not at the bottom of my list; I have been very clear that it is at the top of my list of priorities. I have said that from the time I started doing this job and we have made considerable progress. We will be able to set out the up-to-date position when I give evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Friend Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg). I have been invited to give an update at the end of January and I will be delighted to do so.

Asbestos Removal

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Westminster Hall

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to have secured such an important debate about the role of the Health and Safety Executive in asbestos removal. Since the debate was tabled, I have been contacted by numerous people who have informed me of unsafe asbestos-removal practices that are happening in various locations and businesses across the country. I thank each and every whistleblower for getting in touch. I regret that I cannot elaborate in great detail on many of their stories this morning because of time constraints. Instead, I intend to focus my remarks on a very specific area—the HSE’s role in the removal of asbestos from high street stores.

I shall focus on three key areas. The first is the deficiencies in the HSE when it comes to adequately assessing the scale of the asbestos problem on our high streets. Next, I shall consider the HSE’s ability to enforce regulation and how the HSE is involved in the process of asbestos removal, and suggest improvements to procedures that would provide better protection for the public. Finally, I shall examine the moral and ethical position of our high street retailers and question whether they are doing all they can to protect people or whether the financial imperative—the need to drive profits—obscures their duty of care.

I shall begin by looking at the existing legislation and regulations in this area. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 place a duty to manage asbestos on duty holders in respect of non-domestic premises. The duty holder will usually be the person or organisation with responsibility for the maintenance or repair of the premises. The duty holder is required, among other things, to take reasonable steps to find out whether there are materials containing asbestos in non-domestic premises and, if so, the amount, where it is and what condition it is in; to make and keep up to date a record of the location and condition of the asbestos-containing materials or materials that are presumed to contain asbestos; to assess the risk of anyone being exposed to fibres from the materials identified; to prepare a plan that sets out in detail how the risks from those materials will be managed; to take the necessary steps to put the plan into action; periodically to review and monitor the plan and the arrangements to act on it, so that the plan remains relevant and up to date; and to provide information on the location and condition of the materials to anyone who is liable to work on or disturb them.

Further, the duty to manage asbestos is a legal requirement under regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2006. That applies to the owners and occupiers of commercial premises such as shops, offices and industrial units, who have responsibility for maintenance and repair activities. In addition to those responsibilities, retailers, as duty holders, have a duty to assess the presence and condition of any asbestos-containing materials. If asbestos is present or is presumed to be present, it must be managed appropriately.

In the context of today’s debate, it is clear that the duty holder is the high street retailer that occupies a unit or building. The Health and Safety Executive has produced a step-by-step guide for duty holders in buildings built before 2000, who have more than 25 employees. In many instances, the advice is to employ a qualified asbestos removal contractor who is licensed and monitored by the HSE to remove the asbestos in a controlled and appropriate manner. However, I will detail how that process is not always as safe as some at the HSE might envisage.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important matter to the Chamber for consideration. He has outlined the role of the HSE, but 4,000 deaths a year are still caused by asbestos poisoning. The last asbestos training pledge initiative took place from September 2011 to November 2011. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is time for the Government to initiate another such campaign to educate people across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain—not only on the mainland, but in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales as well?

[Steve Rotheram]

That is a timely intervention. I absolutely agree that it would be appropriate to revisit that strategy at this juncture, and that is part of what I will ask the Minister to provide us today. I will also ask the Minister about updating education to ensure that people are fully aware of the dangers of exposure to asbestos.

Throughout my speech, I will refer to numerical risk ratings. For the benefit of those who are not from the construction sector, I want to clarify that the risk rating ranges from 1 to 20, with 20 representing the highest risk. Disturbed asbestos that is rated 18-plus usually refers to asbestos likely to come into direct contact with the public—for example, on the shop floor of a store through the ventilation system or in an area of a store that is easily accessible to staff and maintenance workers.

Millions of our constituents, and shoppers from across all five continents, flock to Britain’s high streets on a daily and weekly basis. Our retail industry is truly one of the great British success stories. With that success has come the need for high street retailers constantly to rebrand themselves as companies and to update and upgrade their facilities to improve the retail experience. The refurbishment of their properties usually has to be done as efficiently and as effectively as possible to ensure that it does not have a detrimental impact on profit margins.

Although asbestos was for many decades believed to be a perfectly reliable and safe material to use in construction, people are no longer in any doubt about its dangers and health risks. When the 2006 regulations were introduced, the HSE was given clear instructions on how to deal with asbestos removal in commercial units. However, retailers consistently try to minimise disruption to their stores and trading hours, with the result that asbestos—often in ceiling voids, where dust could be moved by air conditioning and ventilation units—has the potential to come into contact with staff in shops. In some cases, dangerous fibres may find their way on to the shop floor and the space used by the public.

That is not speculation or an unlikely hypothesis. In 2011 it was widely reported that high street giant Marks & Spencer was prosecuted and fined £1 million for failing to protect customers, staff and workers from potential exposure to asbestos. The court case detailed works carried out during the refurbishment of the Reading and Bournemouth stores in 2006 and 2007 in which asbestos regulations were not followed. Billy Wallace, a health and safety practitioner from Greenwich in south London, was a key witness in the case, and I have a copy of his statement to the HSE from 21 December 2006 regarding his experiences at the Reading store. I will read a passage from it, which makes scary reading:

“I was asked to work at the refurbishment of Reading Marks and Spencer...when I arrived at the job, I became concerned by my observations of many contractors working on and within ceiling voids because I suspected the ceiling tiles were asbestos insulation boards...In order for these operators to carry out their works they were rubbing and pushing against asbestos tiles, both damaged and broken asbestos fillets...I could not find any history of tool box talks, especially related to asbestos which could have been particularly pertinent to these works in areas known to contain asbestos...The impression I got was that there were severe pressure and constraints on all contractors to get the job done at any risk...In my opinion the shop floor would have been contaminated with asbestos on many occasions, thereby placing the public at risk...I strongly suspect that members of the public on many occasions would have left the M&S store having purchased contaminated goods (foods, clothing, furniture etc)...This is because the merchandise was still in the shop and vicinity of the works being carried out which on many occasions would have generated asbestos fibres”.

When I read that statement, I immediately began to wonder how widespread the practice was on our high streets. How many shops visited by our constituents contain asbestos that may have been disturbed during refurbishment or maintenance work? Could the food chains in such shops really have been contaminated, as alleged in Billy Wallace’s statement? Could clothes that people purchase contain highly dangerous asbestos fibres? In his summing up on the Reading case, Judge Clark alluded to the tension that he believed existed in Marks & Spencer between health and safety and profit:

“The response from Marks and Spencer was in effect to turn a blind eye to what was happening…it was already costing the company too much money”.

After investigation, I obtained copies of more than 30 fully intrusive asbestos surveys at Marks & Spencer stores across the UK. I will give hon. Members a flavour of the type of comments recorded. One states:

“third floor fallow area, main staircase, debris, risk rated 19 (out of 20), action: restrict access to fallow areas and bring in licensed asbestos removal contractor”.

That survey was dated 21 May 2003, and as far as I am aware, the asbestos is still there; there is no record of its ever having been removed. The argument is that as long as it is left alone and undisturbed, it poses no risk. Although the HSE currently endorses that position, it is a theoretical consideration rather than an example of best practice. That prompts a fundamental question: how can the HSE be presented with such surveys and never follow up on whether companies have removed the asbestos?

The examples I have highlighted are from high street retailers, but the same may be true of hospitals, schools—I know that the right hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) is very concerned about that—public buildings and other commercial and domestic units, in which duty holders have undertaken fully intrusive services, identified asbestos and notified the HSE, only for the process to stall. I believe that where fully intrusive surveys have disturbed asbestos products in buildings with a rating of 18 and above, those products should not be contained indefinitely in restricted areas.

I am led to believe that there are fewer than 150 HSE inspectors engaged in monitoring the removal of asbestos throughout the whole country. In reality, an inspector spends only one day a fortnight on site inspecting the licensed removal of asbestos. When the surveys were first brought to my attention by Billy Wallace, it was made clear to me that the HSE believes that any asbestos that has been disturbed and rated 18-plus must be removed, no questions asked. When pushed, however, the HSE seems content with disturbed asbestos rated 18-plus simply to be placed in restricted areas.

Marks & Spencer now has an industry-leading health and safety team that specifically looks at disturbed asbestos and its removal. The team, however, does not as a matter of course remove disturbed asbestos when it is initially identified due to the prohibitive costs. We must equip the HSE with the flexibility to undertake unannounced field visits outside normal working hours, when most asbestos removal is undertaken. As the HSE budget continues to be cut, there is increased likelihood that inspections will not take place at all in high street stores.

We could also consider introducing an annual inspection of every commercial store in Britain to analyse in detail the property’s safety and to ensure the removal of any disturbed asbestos that has been identified. That would eliminate incidents in which asbestos is left in restricted areas for decades. For some employees, customers and contractors who may have been exposed to asbestos, however, it would come as too little, too late. It is already a matter of public record that Marks & Spencer has been forced to pay out large sums of money to former employees who have contracted asbestos-related diseases following lengthy stints of service in its stores. Marks & Spencer is by no means alone in the practices that it employed, and it has agreed out-of-court settlements with a number of former employees.

Just a few months ago, the investigative journalist David Conn reported that Janice Allen, an M&S employee in the Marble Arch store in the 1970s, settled out of court with M&S for a six-figure sum after contracting mesothelioma. The dangers that M&S staff encountered were exposed due to the diligence of health and safety professionals such as William Wallace, but the truth is that nobody knows how widespread the dangers could be. We simply do not know how much disturbed asbestos identified through surveys carried out by licensed asbestos contractors is still lying in commercial units on high streets across the country; perhaps worst of all, neither does the HSE.

I am confident of five things. First, to the best of my knowledge, and barring the conviction in Reading, M&S has not broken the law as it stands. Secondly, and far more alarmingly, from the surveys that I have seen both Marks & Spencer and the HSE know that dangerous 18-plus risk rated asbestos is still on sites across the country. Thirdly, putting a restriction on disturbed asbestos and leaving it for decades is simply not good enough. Fourthly, profit should not take precedence over people in the application of enforceable safety practices. And finally, the HSE is weak.

The treatment meted out to William Wallace has been of great concern. Instead of Mr Wallace’s expertise being utilised to help improve asbestos removal practices, he has been ostracised. This is a man who, through his dogged determination to uphold the law, defend the rights of workers and see that justice is done in the courts, has undoubtedly saved lives that would otherwise have been put at risk through asbestos exposure. That has come at a tremendous personal cost. Mr Wallace believes he has been blacklisted, and he has been unable to find permanent employment for the best part of a decade. Let us be clear: he is not just a whistleblower but a trained health and safety professional who deserves the thanks and praise of Parliament.

I know my debate is specific to the high street and that the Minister may not have all the specific answers to some of the issues I have raised. I am, however, looking at pragmatic steps that he may be able to take to ensure that the risk of asbestos exposure is reduced. Will he seek assurances that all recommendations laid out in the judgment of Judge Christopher Harvey Clark, QC, particularly on toolbox talks for staff, have been implemented by the retailer in question? Does the Minister agree that such practices should be carried out by other retailers where asbestos has been identified in their stores? Is he satisfied that retailers are adequately informing and educating staff currently working in some older high street branches of the potential dangers to their health of asbestos exposure?

Does the Minister agree that the public will find it difficult to accept that Marks & Spencer can still have high-risk, previously disturbed asbestos in its stores that it has not removed despite a recorded risk rating of 18-plus? Does he believe that the inspection and enforcement of asbestos removal regulations by the HSE is being implemented as he would expect? Is he willing to accept that the HSE knows about disturbed asbestos and does not seem to be fundamentally willing to enforce removal action? Does he share my concerns about the potential exposure to asbestos, over many decades, in some of our high street stores? If he is unable to answer any of those questions fully because of time constraints or because he has only just heard some of the claims, I would appreciate it if he committed to writing to me further about the issues.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) for having secured this debate, which enables us to discuss an important subject. I can answer a number of his questions, but if he thinks that there is anything that I have not answered, I will of course be happy to write to him.

The responsibility for the management and control of health and safety risks, including from exposure to asbestos, ultimately lies with those who create the risk. As the hon. Gentleman correctly said, the duty holder will be those who either own or control buildings that contain asbestos or materials that contain asbestos, and they have a duty to manage safety. Duty holders include retail stores and other businesses used by members of the public. People need to identify where asbestos-containing materials are present, and they need to ensure that such materials are either properly maintained, enclosed and repaired, as appropriate, or removed, where necessary.

The HSE’s advice on asbestos is clear. If the material containing asbestos is in good condition and is not vulnerable to damage, it should be left in place because the risk to those who work in or use the facilities will be lower than if an attempt is made to remove the material. If the material is in good condition, removal is better done at the end of a building’s life, when the building will not be reoccupied. If the material is not in good condition, however, or if it is likely to be damaged or disturbed, leading to the release of asbestos fibres, it should be removed.

Those decisions should be taken on a case-by-base basis because they depend on the specific situation of the building, the location of the asbestos-containing materials, the likelihood of their being disturbed and, of course, the future plans for the building, such as whether it will be refurbished or whether it is coming to the end of its life. Those duties fall on the duty holder. That is the HSE’s approach, and the current regulations, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and the legislative framework on the risk, and on dealing with the risk proportionately, was reviewed relatively recently by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, who thought that the legislative framework is proportionate to the risks from asbestos. The framework is good.

In the case of Marks & Spencer, which was mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, there were two stores being refurbished in Reading and Bournemouth in 2006. As he said, the work required the removal of asbestos-containing ceiling tiles. Marks & Spencer took the decision to remove the asbestos and engaged licensed contractors, who were asked to work overnight in enclosed areas so that small areas could be completed, thereby enabling the shops to open the following day.

However, the way the work was planned did not allow the contractors to remove the asbestos in accordance with minimum standards. As the hon. Gentleman said, there was a prosecution for failings under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, which led to significant fines for Marks & Spencer and for some of the other companies involved. The prosecution was brought by the HSE, and it is right that there were significant penalties because asbestos, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said in his brief intervention, causes the deaths of a significant number of people in the United Kingdom—many from exposure over a considerable period. The best estimate, which I think he suggested, is about 5,000 a year, so the issue is serious. Duty holders must take appropriate steps.

On Marks & Spencer’s continuing work on the issue, I should say that licensed contractors undertaking asbestos removal must notify the enforcing authority. Since 2011, the HSE has received 112 notifications of such work that were identifiably related to Marks & Spencer stores and has inspected on 14 occasions. In those cases, it has found that no enforcement action needed to be taken, meaning that the work was being conducted in accordance with the appropriate risk controls.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned retail premises generally. It is worth saying that the retail sector takes this issue seriously. The Retail Asbestos Working Group deals with managing asbestos-containing materials in the retail sector, recognising that retail environments involve circumstances and conditions that present challenges in terms of public access and dealing with removing and managing the risk from asbestos. A range of organisations are involved in putting together guidance, and the guidance includes a foreword by the head of construction at the Health and Safety Executive, demonstrating that it sets out what steps retail premises of all sizes should take. I mention that because the hon. Gentleman specifically referred to training and the sorts of work done by retail premises.

The guidance makes it clear that there is a range of training. Some of it involves those undertaking licensed asbestos work for high-risk situations, but it also goes right down to information and training for shop assistants who put up notices and decorations, maintenance contractors who carry out daily repairs and other contractors who enter such premises to undertake work that might expose them to asbestos. The guidance is clear that training must take place across a range of staff in the retail environment. I hope that that at least gives the hon. Gentleman some confidence that retail businesses are aware of the requirements.

It is also worth saying generally, so that the hon. Gentleman and others are aware of what the regime looks like, that where it is decided that the proper management of the risk from asbestos-containing materials involves removing the asbestos, licensed contractors must be engaged and the enforcing authority must be notified 14 days before work starts. That will either be the HSE or local authorities, which can then plan visits to monitor the work done.

In the year 2013-14, the HSE received 37,553 notifications and did 1,318 inspections, meaning that 91% of all those holding a licence were visited in that year. Those reviews are taken seriously, so evidence of unsafe or poorly managed work can result in formal enforcement action, which may lead to stopping the work or, in the most serious cases, to prosecutions. Licences can also be reviewed.

It might be helpful for the House to know that there are 415 contractors licensed to remove asbestos as of April this year. Licences are for a fixed period of up to three years. To give an example of the quality assurance involved in the process, 188 licences, including renewals, were granted in 2013-14, while 25 were refused, and 91% of those licensed contractors would have been visited by the Health and Safety Executive at one or more sites where they were removing asbestos. Over the past five years, the HSE has issued 1,715 improvement notices, 552 of them under the duty to manage asbestos, and taken out 129 prosecutions, 24 of them under the duty to manage the risk from asbestos. The HSE is absolutely focused on the importance of monitoring asbestos removal, and it takes robust enforcement action.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Minister is being helpful in identifying the legislative framework in which the industry must work. Is he therefore concerned that asbestos materials with a risk rating of 18-plus have been left in what have been described as fallow areas within stores for years, even up to a decade? Surely that flouts what he said at the beginning about the HSE guidance that damaged asbestos should be removed as soon as reasonably practicable.

[Mr Harper]

Let me address that point directly, as the hon. Gentleman spent some time on it. The general principle that I set out was that the guidance is clear about when asbestos is best left in situ and when it should be removed. My sense, not being an expert, is that judgments about the condition that the asbestos is in and when it is best left there are a technical question.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned some specific surveys that had come into his possession. If it is helpful, I will ask officials to advise me on the issue of where retailers or others have identified damaged asbestos, to use his phrase, in situ and the decision is taken to leave it while containing it. I will ask for advice on that and write to him. It might be helpful if he shared some of the specific reports that he mentioned. I would be happy to ask some of the HSE’s technical experts to look at them and see whether that asbestos properly falls into the category of situations in which it is best and safest to leave it where it is, or the category in which action should be taken. It sounds more like a technical, case-specific question, but I am happy to ask the experts to look at those reports and come back to me. Then I will report back to the hon. Gentleman what their professional judgment is.

[Steve Rotheram]

That would be a partial solution. What I am trying to understand is whether the Minister thinks the situation is acceptable, given the framework that he has outlined and the fact that HSE’s guidance says to remove asbestos. I am talking about broken pieces of asbestos, not a hole in the wall. I am talking about dust being left. It is obviously dangerous; it is 18-plus risk-rated asbestos. Surely best practice would be to get rid of the asbestos as soon as reasonably practicable. Does the Minister think that a decade is a suitable time scale?

[Mr Harper]

I was clear in what I said; the HSE advice, which I think is sensible, is also clear. If the material is not in good condition—from the hon. Gentleman’s description, it sounds as though that is the case—and it is likely to be damaged or disturbed, leading to the release of asbestos fibres, it should be removed. Duty holders have a responsibility to do so, and to ensure that their workers, shoppers and others are not exposed to that risk.

On judgments in specific cases, as I said, I take the hon. Gentleman’s word for it; he has read the reports and I have not. Clearly judgment must be made on a case-by-case basis, which is why I said that it would be helpful, just to get a flavour of the issue, to have experts look at the reports that he mentioned to see whether the HSE’s guidance is being complied with and, if not, whether action can be taken.

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Strangford has left the Chamber, as I was just about to address his intervention on the campaigning idea. He and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton mentioned training and education. The HSE has well advanced plans to run another campaign this autumn particularly targeting at-risk tradespeople, such as plumbers, joiners, builders and electricians, who are aware that asbestos is dangerous but are often ill-informed about how to deal with the risk.

The campaign will include the distribution of 200,000 free asbestos safety kits, information and a web app to help people work more safely with asbestos, as well as a national and regional media campaign that will cover Scotland and Wales as well as England. Northern Ireland— this is particularly relevant to the hon. Member for Strangford—will make its own arrangements, but the HSE will provide advice about the campaign and share relevant information so that it can be run across the whole United Kingdom.

To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton about a toolbox, I should say that everyone involved in the sorts of trade affected, whether they are licensed contractors or tradespeople who may be exposed to risk, should be properly educated about the risk and the steps that they need to take to ensure that they do not expose themselves to the known risks from asbestos. We want to reduce the annual death toll resulting from historical exposure to asbestos. I hope that that is helpful, and I think that I have set out clearly what work we can do after this debate to take forward the hon. Gentleman’s points.

Affordable Homes Bill

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Friday 5th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

To be honest, I am always a bit dubious about this particular Minister’s use of statistics. I remember the days when he boldly stood at the Dispatch Box as Immigration Minister and told us that we did not have to worry about net migration because it was falling dramatically, and that we would be able to see that when the figures were placed in the public domain. I think it was last Thursday when we were shown that net migration had risen by 38%. Admittedly, he had stopped being Immigration Minister by then, but—[Interruption.] The truth is that, according to the Government’s own evaluation, one in five people affected are in arrears because they have not yet been able to pay any of their bedroom tax, and that another 29% have not been able to pay all of it. So the honest truth is that one in four of the people in social housing are in arrears. That is a long-term problem that will undermine the whole of the social housing sector.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise to the House for my late arrival this morning, which was due to the west coast main line train service. He just mentioned arrears. I can guarantee that such arrears have increased in my constituency and many others, and that that is having a detrimental effect on the health of the people involved. Mental health issues in Walton have gone up exponentially. Does he agree that that is one of the unforeseen disgraces of this pernicious tax?

[Chris Bryant]

I would agree with my hon. Friend, except for his use of the word “unforeseen”, as this was completely foreseeable and indeed completely foreseen by every organisation in the land, apart from the Government. I sometimes think to myself that blindness is one thing but wilful blindness in politics is disgraceful beyond measure, and that is what has been shown on this.

Personal Independence Payments (Liverpool Wavertree)

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Chope. I am grateful to have been granted this debate on the time taken to process personal independence payments in Liverpool, Wavertree. Concern in my constituency is significant. The cases that have been brought to my attention are appalling in their number and their nature. I am in the Chamber today to represent constituents who have come to me, some in real despair, and to ensure that their stories are heard. I am also grateful to the organisations that have contacted me to share their national experience on the issue: Macmillan Cancer Support, Citizens Advice and Mencap, to name but a few.

As the House heard yesterday, delays to personal independence payments are a problem not only for the people of Liverpool, Wavertree, but for people the length and breadth of the country, who are facing unacceptable waits before receiving money that they are entitled to and that they desperately need. PIP is a non-means-tested, non-taxable benefit available to people suffering from ill health or with a disability. It is intended to help the recipients cover the additional costs arising from their condition, whether in or out of work. Additional costs can include a taxi to the hospital, higher utility bills and equipment that is essential for independence.

PIP is replacing disability living allowance for people of working age. In February last year I opposed the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2013, which legislated for the introduction of PIP, and I opposed what is now the Welfare Reform Act 2012 on Third Reading, but I am not in the Chamber to debate the ins and outs of PIP itself. I am here to highlight the ways in which the appalling handling of its introduction has brought distress, hardship and unnecessary pain to too many of my most vulnerable constituents. The debate is about individuals waiting months and months for a decision; terminally ill people being passed from pillar to post; and the sick and vulnerable being forced to use food banks, because the money that they are entitled to has not appeared. The debate is about common human decency, treating people with dignity and respect, and how the Government have failed to protect such fundamental principles.

In the limited time available, I would like to share with hon. Members some of my constituents’ appalling stories. We know that the phased introduction of PIP began back in April 2013, but six months later, in October 2013, the Department had made only 16% of the decisions it had expected to make by that time. The decision on my constituent, Mohammad Shafieian, should have been made, but was not. He originally made his claim in September 2013 and had to survive without the help he needed for eight months.

My constituent Thomas O’Donnell suffers from serious epilepsy, depression, arthritis and memory loss. He originally made his claim for PIP in August 2013. The months went on without him having an assessment, and he fell into financial difficulty. He was struggling to pay his rent and he could not afford his bills. By the time he came to me in March this year, Thomas was suicidal. Eight months on, he was still waiting for a decision. His epilepsy was causing him to have daily violent fits and he was surviving on just £30 a week. He did not have cooking or washing facilities in his home and he did not have any food. After months of my helping Mr O’Donnell navigate an impossible system and raising his case on the Floor of the House, he was eventually awarded the money he was entitled to, but eight months of waiting and the hardship and strain had taken a toll. His doctor confirmed that he was suffering from malnutrition. I am appalled that my constituent was suffering from malnutrition here in the United Kingdom in 2014.

Another constituent, Trudie Ann Birchall, made her claim for PIP on 20 November 2013, just after she had been diagnosed with cervical cancer. The Department for Work and Pensions was aware of her diagnosis, but it took Atos five months, until 7 April, to get around to assessing her. She was told after her assessment that her claim would be decided by 5 June, but that came and went, and she had to wait almost another fortnight to be informed of her entitlement.

The Minister’s Department has said that people with terminal illness should have their applications fast-tracked and a decision made within 28 days. What concerns me is that Ms Birchall’s case is not exceptional. Since the introduction of PIP, thousands of cancer patients have been left in the dark, with at least 4,500 of them waiting six months or more to find out even whether they will be awarded the benefit.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), who said in yesterday’s debate something along the lines that the debate is not about the philosophy of welfare reforms, but about the way it is delivered? We have all seen in our advice surgeries examples similar to those my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) is outlining. Does she agree that it is simply wrong for our constituents to pay the price of this Government’s incompetence?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for his emotional contribution, which highlights the challenge facing too many of our constituents who come to our constituency surgeries to highlight the process they have had to go through and the weeks and often months of waiting. That is not acceptable.

I was talking about the impact specifically on cancer patients. It is appalling that we should treat them in this way, which is why I am delighted to have secured this debate to ask the Minister to explain what he and his Department will do about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Chope, even if we have been somewhat delayed by proceedings in the House; I fully understand why that was. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on securing the debate. She is joined in the Chamber by her colleagues from Liverpool, a city I have a great empathy with. I was there only a week or two ago with the mayor. He was very pleased to see me, simply because, I think, I created the cruise terminal in Liverpool, even if I did not save the coastguard station, but we cannot have everything and I did try very hard.

I have been in this job some eight or nine months and my officials will confirm, probably by not nodding, that I am brutally honest about the problems we have with PIP. I have said time and again that the time it is taking the contractors to do the work we are asking them to do, and the time it is taking my Department to do things, is fundamentally unacceptable. I have put a series of measures in place, which I will discuss during the short time I have. If I cannot answer the specific points that the hon. Lady made, or if I forget—I am naughty in that way sometimes—I will certainly write to her with a more fulfilling set of answers.

I say at the outset that if any Member of the House has constituents who are waiting for PIP for an unacceptable length of time, then, like many colleagues in this House, they should write to me. The hon. Lady has done so, as has the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who is by her side. I cannot promise that that will resolve the situation instantaneously. I am not even certain at times that my intervention will give them the result that they want, but at least I will be aware of the situation, and we can look carefully into the detail of what has gone on. The point I want to make is that people should not be afraid. Nothing that they say to their MP, and nothing in the correspondence that comes to me, would have any effect on the speed or the decision, and that is absolutely crucial. If I put nothing else on the record today, that is very important.

I will touch on a couple of points that the hon. Lady raised, and then on the proposals. In the debate in the House yesterday, we announced how we intend to speed up PIP, and we have set specific targets for that. Thank goodness we live in a country where cancer is not, frankly, the death knell that it perhaps was when I was a young man. The fear of cancer is still there, but for so many people, cancer is curable, and they can go on to live fulfilling lives. When I am looking at decisions to be made on terminal illness, I rely enormously on the consultants and the fantastic work that Macmillan does.

I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Work and Pensions very soon after I came to this job, and it was put to me that it was taking 28 days to make a decision on PIPs for terminally ill people. I said to the Committee that that was unacceptable, and that I would like to get it under 10 days on average. I have done so. It is not the Department’s view that it should take 28 days. That is what it was taking, wrongly; it is inside 10 days now. I think we can drive that down more, particularly with the help of Macmillan and the work I have been doing with it. I do not agree with everything that Macmillan says, but on this particular issue, we work very closely together. We are working now on more technology and particularly on secure PDFs, which in the 21st century, you would think we would use much more widely in government than we do. However, secure PDFs will be used and we will get rid of some of the paper.

Someone having cancer does not, thank goodness, mean that they are terminally ill, though I fully understand the real concerns of someone who has had that diagnosis; but if the consultant or Macmillan tells us that information, under exactly the criteria that were there under the previous Administration, we click into a completely different different system so that we can get the payments out as fast as we can. The length of time that has been taken for a PIP is unacceptable. I am working very closely with providers and my officials at each end of the process to make sure that it is sped up, and to make sure that the contractors—both Atos and Capita—fulfil our requirements as regards quality and have enough capacity in their systems to ensure that they do that. That is something that we are working on. As I have said before, this means that I will be paying the contractors more to deliver the services that we are asking from them quicker. That has an effect on my departmental expenditure limit—I fully accept that—but the most important thing is that we get the payments to the people who deserve them and need them so much, and that people who do not need them do not get them.

[Steve Rotheram]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mike Penning]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I did not intervene on the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, so that I would have enough time, because this is a very short debate. I have to finish soon and there are some really important points I want to make. If I get towards the latter part of my comments and I have made the points I want to make, I will naturally give way to the hon. Gentleman.

We said in the Chamber yesterday that we expect that by the autumn, no one will be waiting for an assessment for more than 26 weeks and by the end of the year, we expect that to be no longer than 16 weeks. The previous Administration did not have a disability living allowance target, but we have set out that by the end of the year we expect that the waiting time for assessments will not be longer than that. That means that we are investing. We are putting people alongside the contractors from my Department, so we are shortening the journey time. Perhaps they are concerned about certain methods, or whether we can do as many paper-based assessments.

One of the biggest issues that has occurred with the PIP is that under DLA, only about 7% of people applying would ever have had a face-to-face assessment. I think we all accept that that was too low. If there is anybody in this Chamber who does not accept that, I do not understand why. What was wrong is that we went to 97% face-to-face assessments—excluding, obviously, terminal cases—and I think that was unacceptable, and we will drive that down. Within the contract agreements, we would like it to have been 75% to 25%. That was what was set by Ministers in the previous Government. I would actually like to see it much lower—I think 60% to 40% is probably about where we should be. Interestingly enough, the face-to-face assessments that were done under DLA were done by Atos; it was doing the job before, and it is doing part of the job for us now.

I did make a decision, in parts of the country, to turn off natural reassessments for DLA. Let me give the reason why. Capita is doing natural reassessments, but in the other parts of the system that are dealt with by Atos, I was very conscious of people who had no money coming in from this sort of benefit—in other words, they did not have DLA previously and were not getting PIP—and I felt that we should ensure that new claimants were dealt with quicker. I will not turn on natural reassessment of DLA payments that are being converted into PIP—unless a person’s condition deteriorates—until we have got the backlog under control and we are getting the figures that we are talking about now. That is very important. I do not want people with DLA to think that that will suddenly happen tomorrow, and we will be talking to them. We will not. Their payments will stay—I repeat—unless their condition deteriorates.

It is enormously important that we work as fast as we can to ensure that the assessments are done correctly and that lots of people are not worrying about appeals. That is why the decision makers look at the decisions again—natural reconsideration, as it is called. Of course, individuals have the right to appeal, but although these are the early stages, it appears that we are making decisions correctly—not in every case; some still go to appeal, but certainly nowhere near as many are going to appeal as we expected, and there are more people getting more from the PIP decision than they did under DLA.

I can give an example of that. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, alluded to some of her constituents’ conditions, particularly in relation to mental health. It was ever so difficult, if not impossible, to get the highest rate of DLA with a mental health condition; people will do so under PIP. There are people getting that now, and that is right and proper. I will move on to another issue, but I did promise to give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) if I thought there was time. There is time, so I will give way.

[Steve Rotheram]

The right hon. Gentleman prides himself on being from an ordinary working-class background, unlike many of his colleagues. Does he not understand, then, that the fundamental issue is the hardship being caused to constituents, as has been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger)? It is no good just outlining what has happened to date. The Government need to do something to tackle the issue and to alleviate the problems that people are having. These are some of the most vulnerable people that any of us will ever come across in our lives.

[Mike Penning]

I am not talking about what has happened. I have said that what happened in the past was unacceptable. I repeat that we expect that by the autumn no one will be waiting for assessments longer than 26 weeks, and that by the end of the year no one will be waiting longer than 16 weeks. That is not the past; that is going forward. A whole series of measures, including contract negotiations, are being dealt with to ensure that we can do that. The hon. Gentleman knows me well enough; I would not stand up and say that unless I believed that it could actually happen. I am absolutely determined, perhaps because of my background, although this is not a means-tested benefit. Everyone who is entitled to it gets it, no matter what, but I also fully accept that if someone’s income is low, this is such a desperately needed amount of money.

There is other help that can be given. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, touched on the cost of taxis to the hospital and things like that. There are financial schemes whereby we can help with that, but what really should happen is that we should get the benefits sorted as fast as possible, and the measures that we are taking now—not what we did in the past—will allow us to do what we expect to do by the autumn, and to go beyond the 26 weeks and get down to 16.

With regard to terminal cases, we know anecdotally of some cases that are taking three to four days. On average, it is about 10 days. That means that there are still some, sadly, that take more than that. We will drive that down with technology. We can drive it down by ensuring that part 2 of the form comes back in much quicker than it did. The benefit starts from when the person makes the phone call, or someone makes the phone call on their behalf. That is unlike the old DLA, which started only when the forms arrived. However, we are still struggling to get claimants to get the forms back in as soon as possible.

There is the question of whether we can work more closely—I hope that we can—with the relevant charities and groups that are often advising claimants. There is the question of whether we can work more closely with colleagues across the House to ensure that we get the forms and the information back. That does not mean that we need tons and tons of information. Very often, we get a large amount of information in weight and size terms, when what we really need is a consultant’s letter, a GP’s letter and an explanation of the condition. The assessment is not in any way, shape or form a diagnosis; that has to be done by experts elsewhere. This is a capacity decision as to what their needs would be. I think that we can do a lot more work on that.

One area that we are looking at, for instance, is whether we can share information across different benefits. I know that the previous Administration looked at that. It is quite a complicated area, but we would think it would be common sense. If someone has the higher rate of PIP, we could see where that would link across to what their employment and support allowance would be and perhaps vice versa. It may not give us all the information, but often it would give us more information than we had before.

No Minister, of any colour or persuasion, can say that mistakes will not happen. However, I am determined that we have as few mistakes as possible. Of course, anyone, when we get the decision wrong, has the right to go to appeal, to go to the tribunals. I sat in on some of those tribunals, and one of the things I found was that we just did not have the information, sometimes, that was being presented to the tribunal. If we can deal with that, we can explain things to people much better, and not only because of our reconsideration of the claim.

With PIP, we now make phone calls directly to the claimant to explain why the decision has been made and why it is within the rules. We have found that very helpful. I have sat in on and listened to those conversations. I was in Liverpool, where those calls are made; one of the PIP centres is in Liverpool. Any of the hon. Members here today are welcome to go in and talk to the staff and listen to the calls that are being made. I think that that would be very useful to colleagues, particularly as the centre is on their doorstep. I am not saying that every claimant they would listen to would be from the same part of the world as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, or the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, but it would be useful to go there. We have made that offer to the Front-Bench team in relation to not only this benefit but others, and I hope that it will be taken up.

I am ever so aware of the concern and the unacceptable lengths of time that the claims are taking. I am doing everything I possibly can to shorten that process, and to get more people having paper-based assessments. That will speed up the process. When people have a face-to-face assessment, that should be done in an environment that is helpful to them, so that we can get the decision made quicker. We have committed ourselves: we expect the length of time to be 26 weeks by the autumn and 16 weeks by Christmas. That is a position that I think we would all be very happy to be in.

Payment Scheme (Mesothelioma)

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

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

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

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the Minister on the progress that has been made. Any progress towards the 100% that the Opposition believe to be justifiable is a step in the right direction. Can he assure the House that the legal payment of £7,000 will not be a pro rata payment, and that claimants will receive the full amount even if they do not use it all on legal advice?

[Mike Penning]

Let me try to be as blunt as I possibly can, which is not unusual for me. The £7,000 is theirs. Even though the money is targeted at legal fees, how claimants spend it is entirely up to them. As I have said, we are trying to make the application as simple as possible. If they spend none of the money—remembering that we are talking about a fund of last resort for those who have been unable to find their employer or their employer’s insurer, and that, sadly, the money will often go to the dependants and loved ones of sufferers of this terrible disease—they will be able to keep all of it. Others, including hon. Members and trade unions, will assist them to ensure that they are not ripped off. The important point is that the £7,000 is an additional sum on top of the 80%.

I know that some colleagues are disappointed that we have not moved to 100%. Some colleagues may also be disappointed about the cut-off date, which we discussed extensively during deliberations on the Bill. As I have said—the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) will understand this as a former Minister—I did not want to delay compensation by breaking the existing deal. The regulations are in their current format to avoid delay and allow the scheme to start, we hope, in the first week in April. We want to help those who desperately need the funds quickly.

Welfare Reforms and Poverty

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) and join him in thanking the Backbench Business Committee for finding time to accommodate today’s important debate.

It is crucial when the Chancellor complacently talks of a recovery that Opposition Members articulate the more accurate reality for the hard-pressed and hard-working families of Britain, but I will concentrate on the effects of the reforms on my city, and I make no apology for doing that.

According to a study by Sheffield Hallam university and the Financial Times more than 64% of neighbourhoods in the Liverpool city region can be categorised as being in economic deprivation. The average for a local authority is just 15%. Such a stark statistic should in itself explain why Liverpool’s five MPs—I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) is present—have been so steadfast and vocal in this place in our opposition to the Government’s welfare reforms and cuts across the spectrum.

Let us look at the abolition of council tax benefit. While Liverpool opted to reduce rebates by no more than 8.5%, a further 44,000 Liverpool households of working age have had to start paying additional council tax as a result of the Government change, at an average of £1.70 per week. I know some Government Members will scoff at that, and I know it works out as roughly the same amount per year as the Prime Minister pays for a haircut, but when just a few pounds a week makes all the difference the loss of £1.70 a week hits low-income households hard.

There is not only the council tax benefit issue, of course. There is also the Government’s beleaguered bedroom tax, as we have heard, which does not just affect the disabled; it actively targets disabled people. This has detrimentally impacted on 11,600 working-age households in Liverpool with an average reduction in housing benefit of £14 per week. In Liverpool, despite the largest budgetary cut in the country and with the council being asked to do even more but with 52% less in budget, council officers have had to deal with a 34.2% increase in benefit appeals, which in real terms equates to 6,768 individual cases with the resulting costs to the staffing budget.

In 2013 Liverpool city council saw 7,360 people apply for discretionary housing payments, which amounts to a staggering 610% increase on 2012. More than four out of five of these applicants were social sector tenants affected by the bedroom tax. Liverpool city region is one of the five most indebted areas in the UK and the national, regional and local figure for individual and household accumulated debt is rising. That is why unemployment is never a price worth paying and why exploitative zero-hours contracts and the proliferation of part-time temporary jobs are never the answer.

My constituency of Liverpool, Walton is in the top 10 constituencies for the highest levels of unemployment and, as I am certain other Members would agree, the vast majority of the unemployed people who come to see us are desperate to find work. They want a job—they want to find employment—but unfortunately opportunities are limited.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I reinforce the point my hon. Friend is making about people wanting to work? I held a jobs fair in Liverpool in October last year, to which more than 3,000 people desperate for jobs or apprenticeships came. I want to support what my hon. Friend said about the overwhelming majority of the people who are unemployed in his constituency and mine desperately wanting work.

[Steve Rotheram]

I agree, and I support the sentiments behind my hon. Friend’s holding of that fantastically successful jobs fair and the sentiments of the ordinary people we speak to. Sometimes we in this place see everything through the prism of what happens in London, and that is wrong. Out in our constituencies the reality is very different from the growth we sometimes see not across the board in London and the south-east, but in certain parts of this end of the country.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mike Penning)]

One of the reasons I brought the cruise terminal to Liverpool in my previous job as a Transport Minister was to create jobs, that proposal was refused by the previous Labour Government. A lot of Government Members have exactly the same aspirations as the hon. Gentleman has for his constituency—to bring jobs to the area, which is why I made that decision.

[Steve Rotheram]

I thank the Minister for that intervention and I have previously put on record my thanks to him for making that decision. It was a brave decision, but it was also the right decision for Liverpool and for this country. I might be playing into the hands of Conservative Members by saying this, but when we joined the EU—the Common Market, as it then was—Liverpool found itself on the wrong side of the country and business transferred to the east. However, Liverpool is once again an international destination of choice, and it now finds itself on the right side of the country for the increasing transatlantic trade. We are hoping to open the first Panamax facility in the UK there in the near future, which will create jobs. Perhaps the Minister can therefore claim some credit as a catalyst for the regeneration of our waterfront.

[Mike Penning]

I want some more credit, actually, because Peel Ports will do that, and I also granted permission for that. The commercialisation of the Manchester ship canal will really open up that part of the world to international trade.

[Steve Rotheram]

I am not going to say quite so many nice things about the other end of the M62, but I understand the Minister’s point.

The massive increase in apprenticeships has been mentioned, and we welcome any genuine increase in their numbers. I used to work for the Learning and Skills Council, however, and I know that a large percentage of the increase in apprenticeships that the Government are claiming consists of rebranded training programmes for over-25s who are already in employment. What we really want is for the Government to tackle youth unemployment in those aged under 25 and to introduce real apprenticeships to bring those people job opportunities.

Lots of people in my city are on benefits for the very first time. Far from being in clover—it beggars belief what we read in the right-wing press—they are struggling to make ends meet, and the problem that thousands of Liverpudlians are facing is new to them. For many, the idea that they might miss a rent payment is totally alien. They have not done that in the past 20 years, but since May 2010 their individual household incomes have been on such a downward trajectory that they now find themselves in rent arrears, seeking advice on debt management and unable to afford the daily cost of travel, food and energy.

The Government now admit that, thanks to their flawed economic plan, they will miss their own economic targets by more than half, yet they still try to pass it off as a great achievement. That plan has meant that growth has been non-existent for three years, that small and medium-sized businesses have gone bankrupt at a rate we have not seen before, and that people’s money no longer goes as far on payday. The Money Advice Service estimates that 8.8 million people in the UK now have serious debt problems, but only 17% of that group have access to the debt advice that they need. That shows the depth of the problem.

Figures suggest that 40% of the adult population in Liverpool are struggling with serious debt problems. Let us stop and consider that for a moment. More than a third of all working-age people are in serious debt. Their wages are simply not enough to pay off what they owe, let alone pay their monthly bills. That is central to my party’s reason for highlighting the cost of living crisis. The findings of the New Policy Institute prove that, for the first time, more than half of the 13 million people living in poverty in the UK are in working families. That really exposes the folly of the Government’s rhetoric about strivers and skivers, workers and shirkers. With the cost of living rising faster than wages in virtually every month since this Government came to office, it is a betrayal of the Britain we live in not to recognise that recovery is a hell of a long way off. The fact is that, out there in the real world, people are hurting.

Just under 11,000 people were fed by the South Central and North Liverpool food banks between April and October 2013. I took the opportunity to visit the food bank in my area on Friday, and the work that it is doing is unbelievable. It has never been so busy. Instead of listening to the absolute nonsense peddled by the Secretary of State for Education about life choices, we should be congratulating those volunteers and the people who donate to food banks so that our constituents and citizens can have a decent meal of a night. Forget the Government’s flawed line about the rise of food banks over a 10-year period while Labour was in office; that figure of 11,000 is double what it was just 12 months ago, and 35.3% of those who have been fed by the Liverpool food banks are children.

The poverty inflicted by this Government has wider implications. In a letter to the British Medical Journal, David Taylor-Robinson of the university of Liverpool and his fellow academics have highlighted the doubling of malnutrition-related hospital admissions nationally since 2008. I am sure that many Members will also have seen the recent briefing from the charity Shelter, encouraging those with rent or mortgage repayment problems to seek early advice rather than allowing the problems to build up. Unfortunately, the cuts to citizens advice bureaux and legal aid make it more difficult to get appropriate advice. One of the advice centres in my constituency has had to close. In quarter 2 of this financial year—I am going to run out of time unless somebody intervenes on my to allow me an extension. [Hon. Members: “We can’t.”] All right. In that case, I have run out of time, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher) on securing this incredibly important debate on the need for a commission of inquiry into the impact of this cruel, callous coalition’s policies on poverty in the United Kingdom. I wish to focus in large measure on the impact of housing and the welfare reforms that have been put in place, but I wish to start by addressing the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), who referred to the pernicious reforms that have been made to the council tax benefit system. We hear a lot from the Government about freezing council tax. That is fine and dandy for the people who have the resources not to need council tax benefit, but the very poorest people, even in those local authority areas that had a freeze on their council tax, are seeing an increase in the amount of council tax they are expected to pay. That is absolutely disgraceful, and I do not know how Ministers can sleep in their beds at night when they are inflicting such penalties on the poorest people in our country.

As I have said, housing is a key area in addressing poverty in our country. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) said that the commission we are talking about should have a slightly wider remit, and that is important, as it should incorporate housing, too. What we saw when this Government came to power was a massive reduction in investment in affordable housing in our country. One of the first things they did was to cut it by 60%—that is what they did when they first came to power. Their housing policy is shambolic. They are not building anywhere near enough houses for the people in our country, and the houses they are building are too expensive—to buy or to rent. People are caught in a Catch-22 situation. Youth unemployment is growing, with about 1 million young people on the dole, and low pay is endemic. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton pointed out, some 6.7 million people living in poverty in our country are in employment —that is disgraceful.

Let me briefly touch on my personal story, and how things have changed from the 1970s in terms of what ordinary working-class people were able to do and the sorts of lifestyles they were able to afford, particularly the housing. I was a 19-year-old apprentice bricklayer when I was able to buy my first house, with the benefit of the option mortgage scheme brought in by the 1974 to 1979 Labour Government. I was earning £60 a week and I was able to buy a brand new three-bedroom house that backed on to a canal for £10,000. That was three times my salary then, but it would be impossible to do the same today because the average price paid by a first-time buyer is £185,000. I have checked on the internet what a bricklayer can earn these days. On average, they earn £10.28 an hour, or £21,382 a year, so the average price for a first-time buyer would be a multiple of 8.6 times their salary. In this day and age, an apprentice bricklayer earns around £170 a week, or £8,840 a year, so a multiple of 21 times their salary would be required. People can no longer put down roots in the way that they did, because they have been priced out of the market. I am talking not just about buying but renting as well.

It is vital that we build the houses that people need. Labour is committed to building 200,000 homes per annum, which is vital in not just delivering a social need but putting thousands and thousands of people back into work. We need a renaissance in council housing, because the private rented sector is ill-suited to social housing, which has led to the obscene housing benefit subsidy system that was set up by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young) when he was the Housing Minister. On 30 January 1991 he said:

“If people cannot afford to pay that market rent, housing benefit will take the strain.”—[Official Report, 30 January 1991; Vol.184, c. 940.]

Well, take the strain it most certainly has. Some £24 billion a year is being paid out in housing benefit. According to the House of Commons Library, £9.3 billion is going into the back pockets of private landlords. Compare that with the £1.1 billion this Government are putting into building affordable homes for people. The affordable homes programme summary said that will result in just over 67,000 homes per annum. Imagine if we put all that money into building homes for people. Think of all the jobs that could be created. If we just used the amount that is going to private landlords, we would be able to build 600,000 homes a year. We are building nowhere near that. We have a massive housing crisis in our country. There is a crazy housing subsidy system, which needs to be reformed. There are 1.7 million households on the housing waiting list across our country, 4,000 of which are in Derby. More and more people are reliant on the vagaries of the private rented sector. That cannot go on. What we need is a change in emphasis. We need a bricks and mortar subsidy to build the homes that people need. We need a council house, renaissance, to regulate the private rented sector and to ensure that land is released to build homes that people can afford.

[Steve Rotheram]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that Labour’s pledge, if we were to be the next Government, would mean an additional apprentice for every £1 million of public sector contracts?

[Chris Williamson]

That is a really important commitment. Let me refer if I may to some other statistics. I have talked about a massive investment in council housing. It is important to recognise that for every £1 of public sector investment in infrastructure, the Exchequer gets back 56p. As the net expenditure is somewhat less, it is well worth making that investment to generate the apprenticeships to which my hon. Friend referred and the jobs across the piece that are required, and to build the homes that people need. We need this commission. Its terms of reference should be somewhat wider than has been set out in the motion. If we can invest in the housing that we need, it will help to create stable communities, generate jobs and promote economic growth. Yes, we need a commission, but we also need a Labour Government in 2015 with the radical commitment that we saw in 1945 to deliver what Beveridge achieved. We need to deliver on the recommendations of the commission, which has been called for by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Rotheram Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As has been made clear beyond this Chamber, we are looking at that matter at the moment, and we have been discussing it with a number of other European nations, the vast majority of which are clear and with us on the idea that freedom of movement should not result in an opportunity for people to take benefits from wherever they want and to pick and choose their benefit areas. We are looking at how we can come to an agreement on those time scales and limits.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

19. What his most recent estimate is of the number of people who will be claiming universal credit by April 2014.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Based on caseload projections, we expect more than 6,000 claimants from the pathfinders to be on universal credit in January.

Beyond the pathfinder scheme and in the live running of universal credit, we are also rolling out other components, such as the claimant commitment. Jobcentre Plus advisers have agreed around 120,000 JSA claimant commitments, rising by some 30,000 each week. That continues our progressive approach to date, enabling a safe and successful delivery.

[Steve Rotheram]

The Secretary of State has made a pig’s ear of the roll-out of universal credit. Does he agree with his colleague, the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who claimed that the mess was all his fault?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Actually my right hon. Friend did not make that claim. If the hon. Gentleman had gone on with the quote, we would hear that he said:

“I’m a very strong supporter of what he is doing…and I’m absolutely confident that”

he is capable of implementing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Penning]

One of the things we have done in the past couple of weeks, since I came to this post, is get information back from tribunal judges. Previously, we did not have that information. We are studying why judges are making those decisions, so we can make sure that we get decisions right before they go to tribunal.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T6. Given the praise for the Health and Safety Executive from respondents to the recent triennial review, including positive feedback from the business sector, will the Minister support its regulatory function of saving British workers’ lives, instead of repeating the tired old Tory mantra about work-based dangers: “It’s health and safety gone mad”?

[Mike Penning]

I am slightly disappointed in my hon. Friend for asking that sort of question, because it is very important that health and safety is taken seriously in the workplace and in public areas. Right across the Christmas period, I went public about the need to ensure that Christmas was not spoiled by stupid comments, and stupid local authorities saying, “We shouldn’t do this or that”—throw snowballs, or have Christmas trees in certain areas—“because of health and safety.” That is wrong, and it has nothing to do with health and safety; it is an insurance risk.