Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(10 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
New clause 2 on the importance of research was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Paul Goggins), who sadly cannot be with us today to speak to it. I am sure that the very best wishes of the whole House for a speedy and full recovery will be relayed to his family by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). I thank the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) for her contribution today and the work she has done through the all-party group with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. We wanted to ensure that my right hon. Friend’s amendments were debated in the House and taken forward due to the importance of this issue. He worked tirelessly on behalf of his and all our constituents on this important issue, which still blights the lives of thousands of people. There remains no cure for mesothelioma, but it is vital that research continues to offer hope to those still suffering from asbestos-related diseases. It is also essential that sufferers receive the maximum possible compensation, and that it is not reduced by having to pay legal fees. My right hon. Friend sought to improve this proposal and I intend to press it to a vote.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point, but does he agree that premiums should not be increased, because premiums have already been paid to insurance companies who made huge profits and distributed them to shareholders? They have had the money and they should pay out, as that is what happens with an insurance scheme.
John Woodcock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Insurance companies now have an opportunity to do the right thing and to be seen to be doing the right thing, and I hope they take it.
I said the Minister deserved some credit but I think he has blinked too early in this negotiation. We have all said we recognise the pressures he is under, but there are a lot of Members of this House who know a bit more about negotiations than I do and they will all tell him, just as I am about to do, that people do not tend to go into a negotiation saying, “Well, we’re going to offer this now, but, to be honest, there’s a bit further we could go so just push us a bit more and we’ll be prepared to give you a bit more.” They always say, “This is the last offer and we are not going to go further.”
Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(10 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green
Four years certainly seems a remarkably short period over which to cost the scheme, given the many decades over which the industry expects it to continue. It is a concern—one that we will discuss further in Committee—that the figures seem to have changed since the Bill moved from the Lords to the Commons, and changed back again, in a manner that might be said to favour a particular outcome that suits the industry. We will want to question that in more detail when considering the range of figures being presented.
While the Bill has been proceeding, the Ministry of Justice has been consulting on its proposals to expedite and streamline the process for taking legal action, and to introduce fixed fees for mesothelioma cases, and we have real concerns about the MOJ’s plans for the fate of the scheme before us. Evidence suggests that fixed fees are likely to exert a downward pressure on the level of civil damages, notwithstanding the 10% uplift in damages that has not yet been applied to mesothelioma suffers under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Indeed, our suspicions are borne out by the view of the insurance industry that this Bill and the MOJ process should be seen as part of a single package.
I recognise that the Minister cannot answer for changes that the MOJ will make to court rules, but it is of concern that there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of those changes. I warn him that as the Bill proceeds we will seek assurances that the MOJ’s actions will not adversely affect the scheme in the Bill. Moreover we should remember that these already quite meagre payouts, which are already to be reduced by benefits recovery, will be further depleted by legal fees and fees for medical certificates. We are anxious that the deal looks less and less good for sufferers, and we will return to those points in Committee.
As has been noted, hundreds of sufferers will lose out because the scheme does not take effect until 25 July 2012, which was when the Government published their response to the consultation set up in 2010 under Labour. Although I recognise the time spent by Ministers in detailed negotiations with the industry, we must recognise that between February 2010 when the consultation opened and July 2012, more than 700 people will have died without access to justice. We therefore believe there is a strong argument for the earlier start date of February 2010, and we do not think it credible to suggest that an industry whose very purpose and lifeblood is the anticipation and management of risk has not been preparing for the likely introduction of a scheme such as this since the date of the initial consultation.
As the debate in the House of Lords exposed, this is not a matter of insurers reserving policy—I accept that a more rigorous framework might apply to provision for risk—but a simple matter of business planning. Surely it would have been prudent for insurers to have assumed from 2010 that there would be a payment system with which they would be required to comply, and to have made provision for best and worst-case scenarios. That, too, is a matter we expect to explore further in Committee.
I am sure the Minister will assert that there is a cost to the industry of an earlier start date, and I hope we will have some definitive figures for that. Lord Freud said the costs at 100% of civil damages would be £119 million, and he undertook to calculate figures at the lower percentage—then 70%—introduced by this scheme. It would be helpful to know from the Minister before we go into Committee what progress has been made with those calculations at the level now proposed of 75%.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
My hon. Friend, quite rightly, points out the faux concerns about cost and affordability. Does she agree that insurers are not doing this out of the goodness of their heart? For many years, they received payments for exactly this eventuality, and they should therefore be made to compensate those who are now sufferers.
Kate Green
I can only agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope the industry does not assume that the House will let it get away with the minimum it can propose. I assure the House that the mood of many colleagues from all sides is determinedly that we should do the best we can for victims—we and the industry owe them that.
As I think the Minister has alluded to, there is also a debate to be had about the scope of the Bill. It will exclude the self-employed unless they can determine they were de facto employees, and exclude family members who may have been contaminated—for example because they washed a brother’s or husband’s overalls. It will cover only mesothelioma and exclude all other asbestos-related illnesses. I heard what the Minister said about that, and again, I hope we can explore that issue further in Committee. Lord Freud offered welcome assurance about Ministers’ intentions in relation to other forms of asbestos-related disease when the Bill passed through the House of Lords, and I hope we will be able to secure firm commitments from the Minister on that.
Mr Wright
Any cut-off date will be arbitrary. We just want compensation for victims in our constituencies. That issue will have to be explored, and I hope it is explored at length in Committee.
Secondly, I am concerned about the fact that only diffuse mesothelioma is included in the scheme. Workers have contracted a variety of diseases as a result of exposure at work, including pleural plaques and asbestosis. It is not good enough that only one, narrowly defined condition can be included. Again, I hope that the Minister will amend that in Committee.
My third point was touched on by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I have great concerns about the fact that clause 2 confines the scheme to those employees who were employed at the time of exposure. In Hartlepool I have had at least two cases—I referred to one earlier—in which the wife of a worker developed pleural plaques, then asbestosis and then mesothelioma as a result of washing her husband’s work clothes, which released the fibres and allowed them to enter her lungs. Those women—there are probably many more—suffered and died as a direct result of asbestos exposure caused by an employer. Surely it is only fair and just that they should be included in the scheme. I hope that the Government will accept that secondary exposure is an important part of what the Bill should provide for.
The third way in which the Bill must be improved relates to the amount of compensation provided. We have heard time and again from hon. Members on both sides of the House that the payments will be only 75% of the value of civil claims. That really is a mean-spirited and petty act from the Government against people facing a terrible, terminal disease. There can be no possible justification for the scheme paying less than 100% compensation. Why should victims in Hartlepool miss out on what could be several thousand pounds in compensation, which could provide a little dignity and comfort in their final days or—let us be frank—provide their families with the money to bury them, just because a deal has been struck with the insurance industry, an industry that might have lost or destroyed the policies for which they took the cash from those employees in the first place? Let us be under no illusions: the insurance industry has got a hell of a good deal out of this Government and out of this Bill.
Steve Rotheram
I am president of the Merseyside Asbestos Victims Support Group. I know from the people I have spoken with—I am sure that the same is true in my hon. Friend’s constituency—that most victims want the recognition that someone is being held accountable for their suffering or that of their loved ones. The financial compensation will help them in their last days or alleviate the financial hardship that losing them, perhaps the breadwinner, might bring to their family.
Mr Wright
My hon. Friend makes such an important point. My constituents are victims. They have done nothing wrong. They just tried to do a good day’s work for a good day’s pay. They did not want the trauma and tragedy that exposure to asbestos caused. It is the negligent employers who should be held accountable for that negligence.
The insurance industry should have a key role to play but—let us be honest—has been let off. It has negotiated a scheme that excludes approximately half of all asbestos victims, it can ignore liability for all claims prior to 25 July 2012, its costs are reduced because the average compensation agreement will mean that individually negotiated and assessed costs will not have to occur, and the fault is laid at the door not of negligent employers, but of victims.
On top of all that, the insurance industry is planning to reduce average compensation by 25%, compared with civil cases, and the Government are giving insurers £17 million to set up the scheme. Given that employers’ insurance was compulsory from 1972, the insurance industry has already received the premiums from firms and banked the cash for over 40 years. It has had the money, so now it is time for the victims to receive their fair share.
The insurance industry must have seen the Government coming. The Government have been rolled over by the industry. As a result, my constituents will miss out on justice and compensation at precisely the time in their lives when they need it most. For far too long we have let those people down. My constituents have been let down by a failure to act quickly. The Bill is a step forward, but it does not go far enough for victims of this horrific disease in Hartlepool and elsewhere.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend mentions the part that the Labour movement has played, but there is also the part played by the insurance industry, which has abrogated responsibility from day one and kicked back at every single push that the unions and the Labour movement have made. Does he see any parallels between large industries such as the insurance industry and construction industry that have failed to take responsibility for things they have done such as blacklisting and, much worse, possibly killing people through their irresponsible behaviour?
Ian Lavery
I have been involved for many years in trying to claim compensation for people in work, whether from insurance companies or employers, and it has always been a difficult challenge because they try to abrogate their responsibility at every opportunity. They try to run away from it and to put as many obstacles in the way of any form of compensation as they possibly can. Unfortunately, that is how they operate.
Thank goodness we have trade unions that stand up for individuals who are hurt and who suffer from prescribed diseases such as mesothelioma and other asbestos-related diseases, industry-related diseases and injuries at work. Thank goodness that ordinary people have behind them the security of trade unions, which have the finance at least to try to get the compensation that lots of families should have had.
I welcome the scheme as a massive move forward, but I hope that we can come together in Committee and iron out a few major problems. I will mention four items of concern, but that is not to say that there are not others: first, the level of the percentage payment; secondly, the exclusion of other asbestos-related diseases; thirdly, the cut-off date of 25 July 2012; and, lastly, the claw-back of 100% of DWP benefits when the Bill provides for payment at only 75%—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald).
On the level of payment, why should anybody who will have two years to live, max, be happy with 75% of any compensation? These people are dying.
Housing Benefit
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David T. C. Davies
Let me return to what I was saying. The BBC took me to meet three groups of people, whom it had chosen. The second lady whom I met was looking after four children. They were not her own children; she was their grandmother. The mother, because she was not the main carer for the children, was going to lose out on housing. What those people wanted were two large houses to look after the same family. While I felt sorry for everyone involved, including the children, I have to say that the state is not there to provide not one, but two sets of very large houses for people with large numbers of children.
Another question arose while I was meeting that lady, and it is a frank question. I never use the term “single mother” because I think that it is pejorative, and it has affected people in my own family. I think it is a generalisation. However, I have absolutely no hesitation in talking about feckless fathers. Those children had been brought into the world by a group of different males, and those males, having brought those children into the world, had disappeared and left the two ladies to try to bring them up themselves.
David T. C. Davies
No. I said that I would give way only once to an Opposition Member.
I think it absolutely outrageous that so many young men in our society feel that they can go out, get women pregnant, allow them to have children, make them bring up those children by themselves—often on benefits—and then just disappear. That is utterly shocking. I hope that Ministers will note what I am saying, and that they will get hold of some of those feckless fathers, drag them off, make them work—put them in chains if necessary—and make them pay society back for the cost of bringing up the children whom they chose to bring into this world.
I also met a young couple, 17 years old, both of whom had never worked in their lives. They were living in a two-bedroom or perhaps a one-bedroom flat, and were being expected to suffer some inconvenience—perhaps to move into a studio flat. Let me say to Ministers that, in many instances, they are being far too generous. Why should the state pay for two people to set themselves up in what is frankly a teenage love nest? When I was 17 years old, if I wanted to see my girlfriend I would go and see her on a park bench in Newport. Why are the Government paying for those young people to have a flat all by themselves at all, regardless of whether it contains one bedroom or two?
I got into a lot of trouble, because I suggested to the young man that perhaps he should go out and find himself a job. He said that there were no jobs, which, incidentally, contradicted the example of the lady whom I had seen before him: she had found work. I said, “Why do you not move to where the work is?”, and immediately received a whole load of criticism.
I was even sent an e-mail from someone who wrote “You are a Christian. You should be serving the Lord. One day you will stand by the Lord and account for this hardship.” I wrote back to him saying, “I read my Bible. I do not see anything in the Bible that says that 17-year-olds should be given a flat, but I see plenty of examples of people who have had to move to find a better way of life: Abraham going off to the promised land, or Moses, or the disciples, who toured all over Europe. They all moved.”
Victoria station is a prime bit of expensive real estate. There is Boots, Costa Coffee and Starbucks, and there is an office which is recruiting people to work for Pret A Manger. I went there one day last week, and saw that there were 100 vacancies at Pret A Manger in central London. It was just waiting to take people on. Young people with an attitude and an ability to go out and do a bit of work can find a job with no problem whatsoever, and I do not think that we should be supporting them in the way that we are.
Opposition Members have heard a few anecdotes from me, because they have liked giving anecdotes themselves. What we have not heard from them is anything with much substance. They do not want to talk about the fact that they introduced a measure like this for the private sector. None of them will answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). They do not want to talk about their disgraceful record on house building, which has led to a disgraceful level of overcrowding. Most of all, they do not want to talk about the fact that by borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds which they did not have, they created the financial crisis that forced us into this situation in the first place.
I am very happy to be here supporting the Government —the coalition Government—on this important issue today. I have only one criticism of the Front Bench, and that is this: the next time we are expected to come here and defend a policy with which all of us on these Benches agree, they should issue us with umbrellas, so that we can shield ourselves from the shower of crocodile tears that are raining down upon us from Opposition Members.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
In the lead up to the 2010 general election and in a desperate attempt to detoxify the brand, two words were bandied about to persuade the electorate that there would be a different kind of Tory if the Conservatives were elected. Those two words were “compassionate conservatism”, whatever that is. Wolves in sheep’s clothing—that is what I call it. No one standing on a Tory ticket in the next general election should be in any doubt whatsoever that once again it will be two words that will define their heartless brand of ideological politics—“bedroom tax”.
What happened to the Prime Minister’s mantra that we are all in this together? What happened to the Chancellor’s claim that he would not balance the Budget on the backs of ordinary people? Whatever happened to big society? Almost two thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax in my part of the world are disabled—that is 21,000 people hit the hardest while millionaires get tens of thousands of pounds every year in a Tory tax bung. Before the inevitable accusations of being feckless or unemployable are levelled against any of my constituents by Members such as the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), whose rant should be videoed and played to anyone who doubts that it is the same old Tories, let me point out that 6,000 people on Merseyside who are now in rental arrears had never missed a payment in their life until the coalition’s welfare changes. The majority of those clobbered by this Con-Dem con trick are ordinary working people on low wages. This is entirely a Tory and Lib Dem-manufactured hardship imposed on those who need help the most, driven not by fiscal constraints but by political dogma.
I want to concentrate on three consequential areas of this policy. First, the Government have not given sufficient regard to the impact that it has already had on housing associations.
Ian Mearns
My hon. Friend is right that there is a significant impact on housing associations. The Home Group, a large housing association that has many properties in my borough of Gateshead and thousands of properties across the north of England, has seen a 53% increase in arrears in the past 12 months, mainly as a result of the bedroom tax.
Steve Rotheram
My hon. Friend is right. In areas such as Liverpool and other major UK cities, rent arrears have increased dramatically, which means that housing associations have to find a way to combat the decrease in income while, at the same time, they are expected to commit to building more one and two-bedroom houses. That has the potential to affect their asset base and their ability to borrow money to build those houses.
Secondly—again, colleagues have mentioned this—this is a policy that will cost the Exchequer more than any potential savings. On Merseyside, housing demand is inversely proportionate to supply. As a consequence of not having enough of the right housing type it is virtually impossible for people caught in the bedroom tax trap to move into suitable social housing, so they are forced to consider renting in the private sector, even if that costs more than staying in their existing property and even if no one wants to move into the house that they are kicked out of. It is the economics of the madhouse, and it is our neighbourhoods that are suffering, decimated by a reckless and irresponsible Government inflicting poverty, creating urban blight and breaking up established communities. They are carrying out Thatcher’s legacy by causing instability that destroys the very fabric of society on which established communities are built.
My final area of contention is the social engineering that this Government are imposing on the poorest areas. Moving house may mean kids moving school, as has been mentioned, but it is also about families moving doctor and dentist, and mothers and older children who used to live within walking distance having to travel many miles to see each other. Many families have been forced out of the homes that were theirs for many decades. If they had been paying a mortgage instead of rent, which they could have done, they would have owned the property outright by now. For many they are homes, not houses. Hard-working families have been penalised simply because they could not afford a deposit. Surely that is not what is meant by “compassionate conservatism”—an oxymoron that will be consigned to the annals of political history alongside “Lib Dem principles”.
Be in no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the British people will not support a policy that punishes the poorest, the disabled, our armed forces, those riddled with cancer, the suicidal, the frail and the vulnerable. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) alluded to, this is the Tory poll tax of the 21st century. To think that this policy is a vote winner is severely to underestimate the compassion of the British people. I will always put my trust in the real people outside this place, rather than in a bunch of born-to-rule Tories who have no concept of what ordinary people have to contend with on a daily basis, and a Lib Dem party that has long since sold its soul.
Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Bill
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I feel proud of a whole range of speeches that have been made. They have been principled and have set out the case very clearly.
The straightforward issue is that the judgment basically said that the Government acted unlawfully. What surprises me is that there has been no word of apology from the Minister—not a single word to say, “We got this wrong, and therefore we apologise to the House.” Let us be clear what the judgment said: that the Secretary of State acted beyond his powers. He failed to provide the details of workfare schemes within the regulations and bypassed Parliament by introducing an umbrella scheme—the employment, skills and enterprise scheme. This is not a technicality. In fact—I quote from the judgment of Lord Justice Stanley Burnton:
“There is a constitutional issue involved. The loss of jobseekers’ allowance may result in considerable personal hardship, and it is not surprising that Parliament should have been careful in making provision for the circumstances in which the sanction may be imposed.”
This is a fundamental constitutional issue. The Government tried to slide through Parliament, without adequate consideration, regulations that would eventually deprive our constituents of significant sums of money. The decision found that the Government have unlawfully required tens of thousands of people to work without pay, and, if they have said no, have stripped them unlawfully of a significant amount of their benefits.
The public interest lawyers who took the case said that there are basic requirements of fairness, and those basic requirements are usually dictated by Parliament. The basic requirements of fairness in relation to anything like these regulations are to provide people with a clear explanation of what they have been asked to do, why they are being asked to do it, and what the consequences are if they fail to do it. That has simply, as a result of this judgment, not been complied with. That is what the debate is all about.
The solicitor who represented the claimants, Tessa Gregory, summed it up very well:
“The case has revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions was going behind Parliament’s back and failing to obtain Parliamentary approval for the various mandatory work schemes that it was introducing.”
There was a lack of transparency and fairness in implementing the scheme, and claimants had no information about what could be required of them under the back-to-work schemes. The Court of Appeal affirmed the basic constitutional principle that everyone has a right to know and understand why sanctions are being threatened and imposed. That is what this is all about.
It is worth referring to the cases that determined the judges’ action, and putting them on the record. It is staggering that the Government even contested them. Jamie Wilson, the lorry driver, said:
“I refused to participate in the Community Action Programme…because I objected to being made to clean furniture for 30 hours a week for 6 months when I knew it wouldn’t help me find employment. I was given next to no information about the programme, I was told simply that I had to do whatever the DWP’s private contractor instructed me to do and that if I didn’t I may lose my benefits. Being without jobseeker’s allowance was very difficult for me but I don’t regret taking a stand”.
The community action programme
“is a poorly thought out and poorly implemented scheme which even according to the DWP’s own statistics is not helping anyone get people back to work.”
He continued—this is enlightening about the nature of the people we are dealing with; they are desperate for work:
“I am now participating in the Work Programme but it doesn’t involve me working for free, I have to meet an advisor every 3 to 4 weeks who helps me look for work. I will continue to attend these sessions with my adviser regardless of whether or not I am required to attend because I want to find a job”.
That is what people want.
In the other case, Cait Reilly said:
“I brought this case because I knew it was wrong when I was prevented from doing my voluntary work in a museum and forced to work in Poundland for free…as part of a scheme known as the sector based work academy. Those two weeks”
I worked at Poundland
“were a complete waste of my time as the experience did not help me get a job, I wasn’t given any training and I was left with no time to do my voluntary work or search for”
a job. That is extraordinary. She continued:
“The only beneficiary was Poundland, a multi-million pound company. Later I found out that I should never have been told the placement was compulsory.”
The Secretary of State has been quoted as saying elsewhere:
“Does Cait Reilly think she is above shelf stacking?”
I hope that is a misquote. If he did say it, he should withdraw it because it is a disgraceful insinuation about someone’s character. Cait Reilly also said:
“I don’t think I am above working in shops like Poundland. I now work part-time in a supermarket. It is just that I expect to get paid for working.”
That is all she asked for. She continued:
“I hope the Government will now take this opportunity to rethink its strategy and do something which actually builds on young unemployed people’s skills and tackles the causes of long-term unemployment. I agree we need to get people back to work but the best way of doing that is by helping them, not punishing them. The Government ought to understand that if they created schemes which actually helped people get back into work then they wouldn’t need to force people to attend.”
That is what the young woman who took the case to court said, and I congratulate her on doing that. If she had not, we would not be in the situation of contesting what the Government are doing.
Let us be clear about the intent of the Bill. The Government have acted unlawfully. They have robbed some of the poorest people in our society of, on average, £500 of benefits, which is a lot to people living on the breadline. Now the Government are using this retrospective device to avoid paying back to those poor people money that they should not have been deprived of in the first place. The argument that paying £130 million back to poor people would damage the economy is derisory and laughable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) said, if the £130 million was given to the poor who need to spend the money, it would help to boost the economy. To suggest it is a threat to the economy when the bankers have been bailed out with £1.2 trillion is laughable in any Government logic. The suggestion that if we pay the money back, it must come from other claimants is the Government’s classic strategy of divide and rule in their welfare benefits policy.
As my hon. Friend said, the use of retrospective legislation simply ensures that illegality is made legal and sets an extremely dangerous precedent, but that is nothing to do with the money, taxpayers or the economy. It is about prejudice against the poor, the demonisation of the unemployed and the iron heel of a prejudiced state. It is also about the preservation of a large pool of unpaid labour for large-scale corporations to exploit. It is now estimated that the Government will put through 250,000 people on work experience, 850,000 on work programmes and more than 70,000 on the mandatory work activity. At the last calculation, that is about 60 million hours of free labour to those corporations. That is exploitation; it cannot be termed in any other way.
In the past two decades, we have seen a transformation in how unemployment is considered, discussed and viewed. Governments since the second world war had a commitment to full employment and saw as a responsibility their role to ensure full employment. There have always been sanctions within the system to prevent people from abusing it, but they were about ensuring that people were sanctioned if they refused to go for paid work, never unpaid work. Now, just when unemployment is at its highest and it is the hardest time to find a job, the attitude is that unemployment is not the fault of the system or a failure of Government or of society, but a failure of the individual. The individual is to blame, not the society that has caused the unemployment. Therefore, the logic follows that the individual must be penalised, so what the Government have successfully done in the media and elsewhere by ministerial statements is demonise the unemployed—the unemployed themselves have caused their own poverty, rather than the system that has created the unemployment. The result of that logic is what we see today: the poor and unemployed have to be harassed, pilloried, sanctioned, blamed and made to feel guilty for being unemployed.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree not only that the Government have shown no contrition whatever on the issue, which is a mess of their own making, but that they are trying to scapegoat those people who have been sanctioned illegally?
John McDonnell
It is that, but there is also a wider agenda of making people feel guilty just because they are out of work and guilty just because—temporarily, in most instances—they have to depend on some benefits. This is about scapegoating and victimising the poor and people who cannot get a job. It is about harassment and exploitation. At the heart of that is the judgment that Parliament was not properly informed of what those schemes and regulations meant. That is what the judgment said.
I make it clear that I shall vote against the Bill because it is immoral and wrong. Before we vote to render those schemes lawful retrospectively, it is important that Members are aware of what we will be supporting. Boycott Workfare is an organisation that set up— [Interruption.]
Atos Work Capability Assessments
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Gilbert
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and what he says goes to the nub of the points I wish to make. This debate should focus on the practice of how these assessments are being conducted. He, like me and probably every Member, will have had scores, if not hundreds, of constituents experience a similar problem as they go through the system.
There is a consensus in the House on the principle of making assessments. The last Administration set up the WCA and the Atos contract in 2008, and it was right that in 2007 Liberal Democrat Members pressed for and secured the annual review of how the WCA was being implemented. Over the last few years, as every hon. Member will know, these reviews have revealed a catalogue of errors, and, to their credit, the coalition Government have taken action: there has been increased flexibility for assessors to take additional evidence, not least from consultants; there has been better communication with people undergoing assessment; and new standards have been implemented for descriptors. All that is having results. The numbers going into the ESA support group have risen to 26%—from 11% under the last Administration —so fewer people are now being found fit for work.
None of us can underestimate or undervalue the human effect that some of these assessments are having. I would like to read into the record an e-mail I received from a constituent. It is probably similar to e-mails that all hon. Members have received. It reads:
“They never asked about the amount of pain I have to contend with or how tired I get from coping with it. After the interview I was told I was to be disallowed ESA benefit. I could probably go down the route of appeal but I really don’t feel like fighting for a benefit that I have already been made to feel that I do not deserve, neither do I have the energy”
to appeal. If we in this House cannot give voice to these people, who are some of the most vulnerable in our society, I really do not know what we are for.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
To illustrate one of those cases, I shall cite a letter I received from a constituent, Janine, in Liverpool. Her dad was thrown off sickness benefit in November after an Atos work capability assessment and was declared fit for work despite suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Six weeks later, on Christmas day, Janine’s father died. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this example clearly highlights the fact that the work capability assessment, run by the DWP, is fundamental flawed?
Stephen Gilbert
As I have said, and as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge, the point is not the principle of conducting assessments but the practice—how they are rolled out and how millions of our constituents experience them. Constituents have told me that they find the process dehumanising and degrading and that they are often seen by people who are unqualified to make an assessment of their condition. We have to get the assessment process right. That is right for the individuals concerned, but it is also the decent, moral and humane thing to do.
I am particularly concerned about those with fluctuating conditions such as ME—myalgic encephalomyelitis, or chronic fatigue syndrome—and those with lifelong degenerative conditions, who will never recover from the illness from which they are suffering but who continue to be called in for repeated assessments. The principle is the right one; the practice, however, is failing many millions of the most vulnerable people across the country. Although the coalition has made welcome efforts to get right a system that it inherited from the last Government, much more still needs to be done to ensure that we are doing things in a humane way.
Unemployment
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Byrne
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were promised that this was going to be the greenest Government ever, but a wide group of green and conservation organisations now say that the Government are comprehensively failing to meet that commitment. We all know that one of the key growth sectors for the future has to be low-carbon industries. The Government should therefore be doing more to get people into work in these sectors, not least by providing some regulatory certainty about the future.
Let me finish my point about the collapse in the rate of people flowing off benefits and into work. There is a very basic test. The Minister’s plan is not working unless it is getting more people off benefits and into work, unless the unemployment bill is coming down, and unless it is really making a difference—and right now, he is failing on every single count.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the 227 additional people who have joined the dole queue in Liverpool, Walton may be seen by the Conservatives as just collateral damage from their failed economic policy, but for each of those individuals, although they are a statistic to the Government, theirs is a personal tragedy? Does he agree that they are still the same old Tories who believe that unemployment is a price worth paying?
Mr Byrne
Many will draw exactly that conclusion, not least because when they see a Secretary of State who is unable to come to this House and set out how many jobs his various initiatives are creating, they must conclude that he simply cannot be bothered to find out.
I want to spell out how two particular groups are being pretty badly hit by this Government’s policies. The human cost of the Government’s failure to get people back to work, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) alluded, will be on everybody’s minds this afternoon. When families get together this Christmas, there will be plenty of anxious talk about the year ahead. This House has debated many times before the dangers of creating a lost generation, and today that news got even worse. Youth unemployment is up by 54,000. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said earlier today, long-term youth unemployment is up this year by 93%. Two hundred and seventy of us now represent constituencies where long-term youth unemployment has risen by over 100%. That is simply not good enough.
Housing Benefit
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(13 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jon Cruddas (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
I think that I now have two hours and eight minutes in which to speak on the single room rate—only joking. This debate dovetails with the last debate on benefits uprating, as often happens with Adjournment debates, purely by accident. Today, we have also seen one of the most dramatic overhauls of welfare reform in this country. I want to make a few comments on the likely consequences of changes to the shared room rate, sometimes known as the single room rate, proposed by the Government. I do not do so simply to make party political points, but because I am concerned about specific, substantive consequences that might emerge for many young people in this country. My comments echo those contained in a letter dated 2 November to the Minister for Housing and Local Government from 16 of the country’s leading organisations providing housing and support services to homeless people.
Today we have seen a significant change in the Government’s proposed housing benefit reforms, with the removal, supposedly, of the 10% reduction for those on housing benefit after one year on jobseeker’s allowance. I suggest to the Minister that he might like to signal another change on the proposed benefit regulations. I doubt that that will happen, but I know that he will give thorough consideration to my points.
The shared room rate currently applies to single people under 25 on housing benefit in the private rented sector. Local housing allowance claimants who are single, under 25 and without dependants are currently eligible only for sufficient LHA to cover the rent of a single room in a shared house, rather than self-contained accommodation. Under measures announced in the comprehensive spending review, the threshold for the shared room rate will be increased to 35 years of age from April 2012. All single, childless adults under 35 will see their LHA cut from the current one-bedroom rate to the SRR. The Government estimate that 88,000 people will be affected by this change.
The Department for Work and Pensions housing benefit statistics show, however, that in August 2010 120,000 single people aged 25 to 35 years old were claiming LHA. The Minister might want to comment on that in his response, because it means that if the proposal goes ahead an additional 120,000 people will be competing for shared accommodation. That will be an issue not just in inner London, as we often hear in the House during debates about housing benefit changes, or even in outer London; the evidence suggests that it will affect tens of thousands of young—actually, not that young—people up to the age of 35 across the length and breadth of this country.
We know that the SRR causes considerable problems for young people, with many unable to secure or sustain affordable accommodation and left facing shortfalls, arrears and homelessness under the current regime. According to the housing charity, Crisis, the average loss will be £47 per week, with some people seeing their benefit entitlement literally halved.
Even at current LHA rates, the difference between the one-bedroom rate and the SRR rate can be substantial. For example, according to Shelter, the shared room rate stands at £71 per week on average, while the rate for a one-bedroom flat is £137 per week. In the east Thames valley, it is £88 versus £150 per week; in inner east London, it is £103 compared with an average of £235; and in Oxford, the figures are £80 and £150. In more than half of all areas, shared accommodation rates are about one third or more lower than one-bedroom LHA rates.
Everyone will admit that those are very high losses from a very low baseline. Currently, the maximum award of local housing allowance—housing benefit in the private rented sector—is only £107 per week for a one-bedroom property, and that falls to just £69 for SRR claimants. Obviously, that is before other cuts to housing benefits kick in, which will reduce those rates even further. LHA rates will drop from the 50th to the 30th percentile of local market rents from April, and many 25 to 34-year-olds will therefore suffer a double wave of cuts and, arguably, have no choice but to move.
For example, a 33-year-old on the Wirral is currently eligible for the one-bedroom rate and will receive £91 a week in LHA. The LHA cut will bring the one-bedroom rate down to £86 per week, but from that point they will be eligible only for the SRR, which is expected to be £56 a week, meaning a accumulative overall cut in the local housing allowance of some £35 a week. Cuts at that level will be replicated throughout the country and leave single adult households with unaffordable shortfalls in their rent. Many will have no choice but to move to cheaper accommodation. Crucially, however, owing to a lack of shared accommodation, many will be unable to find a single room and be forced to remain in more expensive self-contained accommodation, creating further shortfalls, the risk of eviction and, possibly, homelessness.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposed changes will have a subsequent impact, increasing homelessness especially in areas where people already find it difficult to get accommodation?
Jon Cruddas
That is one of the points that I want to address in the long time that I have to develop my arguments.
Some 75,000 people claim SRR, so the change will more than double the number of claimants, placing significant further pressure on the limited existing pool of shared properties. According to housing charities that deal with the homeless, the vast majority of people affected by the change will lose their current accommodation; and they will have to go somewhere. It is unlikely that landlords will accept such significant reductions in rent, or that someone on a limited income will be able to make up such shortfalls. To confirm what my colleague just said, tens of thousands of people currently in self-contained flats will therefore be forced to seek shared accommodation, or they will arguably become homeless.
There is simply not enough shared accommodation available. Current claimants already struggle to find an affordable property, with DWP figures showing that some 67% face a shortfall between their benefit and their rent, averaging out at £29 per week, compared with 49% of all LHA claimants. On anyone’s account, that is a significant amount for people on a low income, and it will cause problems such as debt, arrears and homelessness, which all MPs will undoubtedly witness every week.
This change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) said, is likely to cause more homelessness, including, in the worst instances, rough sleeping. Apart from the impact on individuals, it is extremely costly to the public purse. Crisis estimates that the annual cost of homelessness per person is between £9,000 and £41,000 per year.
For vulnerable people who have been homeless or are leaving supported accommodation, care or prison, sharing is particularly inappropriate and can be extremely detrimental to their well-being. Currently, the only exemptions from the SRR are young care leavers aged under 22 and those who receive the middle or higher-rate care component of disability living allowance for people who are severely disabled and need a carer. Other people with serious disabilities or illnesses, mental health or behavioural problems, or who are vulnerable in other ways, will not be exempt and will be expected to share accommodation—a situation which, in many instances, will be inappropriate, as professional advisers argue.
As regards homeless people and those leaving an institution, 20 to 35-year-olds are already disproportionately likely to end up sleeping on the streets, while 27% of rough sleepers in London are aged between 26 and 35, and 36% of Crisis’s clients are in the age group affected by this change. The change will place significant barriers in the way of breaking out of the cycle of homelessness and undo progress that has been made by formerly homeless people who have now secured private accommodation. Charities working with young homeless people are often unable to move them into appropriate accommodation because of the SRR, and this problem must increase, all else being equal, as more people are restricted to the lower rate. A Crisis survey of schemes that help people to find private rented accommodation found that the low level of the SRR was the biggest policy concern.
There are consequences for hostels, too, as costly beds will become blocked with people unable to move on. For offenders leaving prison, sharing can be particularly inappropriate. There is already a problem with individuals under 25 bed-blocking probation hostel places because of the SRR, and that problem is likely to increase under the current proposals. It should also be noted that those convicted of serious offences are disproportionately likely to be in the same cohort of those aged about 25 to 34, and, for many, sharing with others poses particular risks. Reoffending costs the economy £13.5 billion annually, but stable accommodation reduces the risk of reoffending by some 20%.
What about people with mental and physical health problems or dependency issues? For these groups, sharing can cause particular problems, as they may have particular needs in relation to the type of accommodation that they can occupy or find it very difficult to get on with other people. There are fears that other difficulties such as bullying could result. People with dependency problems may have a negative effect on others in a shared property.
Moreover, we should consider parents or expectant mothers. Non-resident parents who want to maintain a good relationship with their children can have them to stay in a self-contained flat, but this is unlikely to be possible or appropriate in shared accommodation. When parents live some distance away, that could mean that they are unable to maintain contact with their children. Pregnant single women may have to return to a shared property with their newborn, precisely at the point when moving can be financially and physically unrealistic.
At a time of rising youth unemployment, this change risks penalising young people even further. Those under 25 already face a lower rate of jobseeker’s allowance and are therefore likely to struggle to make up even small shortfalls between the benefit and their rent. Competing with older tenants will make it even more difficult for them to secure affordable accommodation.
What about the impact on communities and houses in multiple occupation? This policy may increase the number of HMOs in deprived areas at a time when some local authorities are using recently introduced powers actively to tackle the prevalence of HMOs, which are often poor-quality properties run by unscrupulous landlords.
We should also consider the problems facing benefit recipients when searching for housing. Claimants can struggle to access shared accommodation, even where it does exist. Adverts for shared property are the most likely explicitly to bar benefit claimants. Research by Shelter suggests that as few as 7% of tenants in shared accommodation would let a spare room to a benefit claimant. Many house-shares are reluctant to let to benefit claimants because of real or perceived problems with the benefits system, such as delays in processing payments and the practice of paying benefit in arrears when rent is payable in advance.
The arguments that I have put forward have been technical, but it is useful to demonstrate the possible consequences in human terms, so I will report a number of case studies of single, homeless men that have been brought to my attention this week by various housing charities. The first is the case of a man with trust and gambling issues who moved from supported accommodation to a self-contained flat:
“He is working with a Tenancy Sustainment Team. He has always tried his best to work and LHA has supported him a little due to the low pay he is receiving. Moving him into shared accommodation would place him in severe hardship.”
Another case study is of
“A man with mental health issues, trust issues and who suffered from abuse as a child. He struggles to be around people.”
He, too, moved from supported accommodation to a self-contained flat and is supported by a tenancy sustainment team. The case study continues:
“To move him into shared accommodation would no doubt place him in either a homeless situation…or end up in prison.”
That is the advice of the professionals.
Another case is that of a young man who was moved on from supported accommodation:
“His main goal was to get accommodation so that he could bond with his child. He has anger issues and works with a Tenancy Sustainment Team worker. His child can now come and stay with him at his home from time to time. To move him to shared accommodation would affect the arrangements with his child that he waited so long for and could well place him back on the streets or lead him to abandon his accommodation. He struggles to support his child with the little money he has at present.”
Another case is that of a 24-year-old who has had one custodial sentence for a sexual offence and has breached his licence on more than one occasion:
“He is currently in a hostel having resided there for three and a half years, but due to pressure…he is having to be moved on. Probation are unwilling to allow him to reside in a shared house due to the risk he poses to females. Probation have advised that should he move into a shared house his offences have to be shared with the landlord and fellow tenants, which means this could put his safety at risk.”
Another case brought to me this week is of a 27-year-old client who is a sex offender. He has been living in a probation hostel and is ready to move on. He is vulnerable and requires ongoing, floating support. He needs self-contained accommodation because of sharing issues, particularly if females live at the property, visit it or stay with other tenants.
Another client has bipolar disorder and suffers from periods of extreme depression and paranoia. He is very concerned. He has been sectioned a few times and is worried about it happening again. He is being discharged and is having to return to a shared house. He finds others knowing about his condition very uncomfortable because there is still prejudice and misunderstanding about mental health issues. All those cases are concrete examples of the consequences of the reform that have been brought to my attention in just the last few days.
What is the Government’s rationale for the change? I will anticipate the Minister’s response slightly by offering a few reasons that he is likely to give. First, there appears to be an argument that many young people share houses and that, everything else being equal, many benefit recipients should therefore also share houses—thus the change to the single room rate. The Government will also argue that the age of the first-time buyer has risen. Although that may well be the case, it is not true that large numbers of people share properties. In fact, 2% of people share properties with someone who is not a relative or a partner. If the changes come in, 17% of those on local housing allowance will be in shared accommodation.
People who are not on housing benefit and who do share, such as young professionals in this city, do so largely out of choice so that they can live in a better location, live with friends or have more disposable income to save for a deposit to get into the housing market. It is simply not the case that the same characteristics apply for housing benefit recipients. What is more, people who are not on housing benefit have access to a much greater pool of properties because, as I have said, many landlords will not let to benefit claimants. People who are not on housing benefit generally have a choice about who they live with, which is rarely available to people on lower incomes.
Many who share accommodation by choice in the private rented sector will do so with one or two others. Largely, that will be more expensive, and so unaffordable on the SRR, claimants of which are therefore likely to have to share with larger numbers of people, with a higher turnover of tenants, and with little or no choice over with whom to share. Unlike students or young professionals, who tend to share with people whom they know or who have similar backgrounds, people on housing benefit often share with strangers, which can lead to inappropriate sharing situations, and suitability and security problems, and it can affect the sustainability of a tenancy. Supportive evidence is provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which has analysed the SRR and the views of claimants. It says that
“the prospect of sharing with strangers was a source of considerable anxiety”
and
“having to share with older people was noted to be particularly daunting, especially for female claimants.”
I tentatively suppose that the Minister will put forward a second argument: that landlords will lower their rents or people can be supported by discretionary housing payments. The Government have argued that people might be able to renegotiate rents, but, given such significant losses in entitlements—some could be halved—that hardly seems likely. With our housing department, I have done a survey of letting agencies and the current state of the housing market in our local borough. In the cheapest housing market in Greater London, there is no evidence of a lack of demand for such properties, and therefore no evidence of a downward flexibility in rents in our communities. I tentatively suggest that that is probably the case around the country.
The Government also make the case that they have increased the discretionary housing payments budget to help local authorities to give additional support where they consider it is needed. However, the amounts are insignificant. Our borough is, I believe, the fastest-changing community in Britain because of the dynamics of the city’s housing market. It is the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London, with the lowest rents, but it has taken the strain of the city’s demographic shifts in past 10 years. In total, I believe that we will receive some £120,000 of that discretionary money, but I tentatively suggest that that will not quite be enough because of the extraordinary flows of people caused by the broader housing benefit changes proposed by the Government.
I therefore suggest that the argument that the discretionary housing payments are significant enough to allow for the system to bed in does not stack up. Indeed, over a four-year period, the total DHP pot is £190 million. That is intended to help both those who currently experience a shortfall and those affected by all of the changes to the housing benefit system. To put that in context, the Budget announced £1.8 billion of cuts to housing benefit, and estimated a further £215 million saving from changes to the SRR.
The third argument that the Minister might come up with goes something like this: some LHA claimants chose to live in shared accommodation, so there cannot be that much of a shortage. Indeed, some housing benefit claimants do choose to share when they are in fact entitled to live in self-contained accommodation. For some people in some areas, sharing is appropriate, particularly if they have friends they can share with or if they were in a shared property before needing recourse to housing benefit. However, it is quite a different proposition to ask 120,000 to leave their current accommodation and try to find a shared property.
In conclusion, I urge the Government to rethink raising the SRR threshold, or at the very least to delay the measure to give local authorities time to ensure that there is sufficient housing stock to meet the increased demand for shared accommodation. I urge the Minister to reflect on what Centrepoint says when he considers the consequences of some of the changes that I have outlined:
“If young people are not supported to access affordable move-on accommodation, they will be forced to access expensive emergency and supported accommodation for longer periods. This failure to progress can lead to young people losing confidence and re-engaging in destructive behaviour patterns”.
While achieving savings in the short term, the proposed changes could lead to greater costs to the taxpayer in the medium to longer term. I urge the Government to rethink.
Jobs and the Unemployed
Steve Rotheram Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Yvette Cooper
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) should learn a few lessons from economic history. He should look at what happened not just in the 1980s, when there was not the same scale of world recession, but in the 1930s and at the orthodox views being put forward then by Bank of England Governors and senior politicians and the devastating consequences that they had. Keynes was led to write his general theory because of the deeply destructive approach that so many people in senior positions took and the consequences that devastated the lives of millions of people who were pushed into unemployment and poverty. Businesses were destroyed for many years as a result of that approach—the approach that the Conservatives seem to want to go back to.
I agree that borrowing needs to come down, and of course we need to ensure that the deficit comes down in a steady and sensible way as the economy recovers. However, by cutting an extra £40 billion for ideological reasons in a way that will hit jobs and the economy, the Conservatives are turning their back on the unemployed. Ministers need to tell us what they will do to help young people this summer. What are they going to do to reassure parents that their sons and daughters will not be stuck on the dole for more than a year? All that they promise is a Work programme sometime in the future, with incentives for private sector companies to help people find work but no guarantees to young people or anyone else that they will actually get work. There are no jobs for them to go to.
Ministers also want people to move house to help the labour market, but it is not clear where they want them to move to. The Secretary of State has said that he wants the unemployed to move to more affluent areas where there are more jobs. In fact, if they do not and they are out of work for a year, their housing benefit will be cut. At the same time, the Government are telling working people on housing benefit in affluent areas that they have to move to cheaper areas because their rents are too high. If they do not, their housing benefit will be cut, too. The Secretary of State is telling my constituents that if they do not move south to get a job he will cut their benefit, and his own constituents that if they do not move north to get a cheaper home he will cut their benefit too. Presumably they can wave at each other as they pass somewhere along the A1.
The Secretary of State wants people to give up cheaper housing to find work, but he also wants people to give up work to find cheaper housing. He is telling people to get on their bikes, but with no clue about where they are supposed to go. That is the same Secretary of State who said last year that he wanted to maintain community ties. He said:
“It is getting more and more difficult for parents in some poorer backgrounds…that extended family link is often severed by the fact that they can’t get living near their parents.”
Yet those are the very same community ties that the Government’s policies on employment and housing would rip up right now. They are cutting help for people to get jobs and cutting their benefits too.
Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s contention appears to be that the future jobs fund is simply training without a job guarantee? Is that not just snobbery, as they do not put forward the same argument—nor should they—that people accessing degrees should have a guaranteed job outcome? Quite simply, is it not true that the Tories have never believed in parity of esteem between vocational and academic training routes and still believe that unemployment is a price worth paying?
Yvette Cooper
My hon. Friend is right. I know that his constituency was hit very badly in the 1980s as a result of the decisions that previous Conservative Governments took, and that that is why he feels so strongly that we should not take those decisions again. We have to do everything possible to help people back into work.
The Guardian has even reported that Ministers want jobcentres to give out charities’ food vouchers, so now they are turning the clock back not just to the 1980s but to the 1930s. It is looking less like welfare to work and more like welfare to the workhouse.
Mary Creagh
I think that we should have both. I do not think that 50,000 apprenticeships will be enough; nor do I think that cutting Peter to spend money on Paul is a fair way to allocate resources.
Steve Rotheram
I am a product of something similar to the future jobs fund. In the late 1970s, there was something called a pre-apprenticeship scheme. I did six months on that and was very fortunate to complete it. The scheme was not just academic, as it gave me some transferable skills. It taught me to get out of bed and it led me, in later life, to do a master’s degree in contemporary urban renaissance. That is the sort of opportunity that the future jobs fund is providing.
Mary Creagh
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He truly is a renaissance man, and I hope that many of the young people whom we met who got their entry-level work through the future jobs fund end up sitting on these green Benches. I hope that they can make the same incredible progress and journey that he has made in his life.
I turn now to the Work programme set out by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). I have a great deal of concern about it. In a speech on 27 May, the Secretary of State spoke about
“a single scheme that will offer targeted, personalised help for those who need it most, sooner rather than later”.
If it is a matter of sooner rather than later, why are we waiting until next year for it to come in? I suppose that that has to do with the fact that the Government want to set up what I presume is a national contract with large-scale training providers. I tried to intervene about this earlier, because the Government are asking those providers to bear the risk of training people even though their contract payments will depend on outcomes.
That raises a series of questions. First, at a time when deflation, very low growth or even a double-dip recession are all possible, why does the Minister think that the private sector will turn to the banks for loans to cover this training given that, as we heard earlier, the banks are averse to risk and not very good at lending? Output-related funding is currently calculated on the basis that it takes six or nine months to get a person into work and then 13 weeks to ensure that he or she has lasted in that job. Why does he think that organisations in the private sector such as Capita or BT will line up to take on the massive risk involved in training people and employing them, when there is such a huge amount of uncertainty?
I have another question for the Minister, and I will give way to him if he can answer. How does he think voluntary sector organisations such as Nacro—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—will be able to do this? Such organisations have specialist programmes working with the most difficult, hard to reach and disadvantaged people—prisoners, young offenders and ex-offenders. They have the benefit of being present in and running training courses in prison and are then able to offer some sort of continuity when the offender leaves. I am also thinking of providers such as Rathbone training, an organisation that I had the privilege of serving as a trustee for seven years. These are small-scale organisations—Rathbone’s turnover when I left it in 2005 was £40 million. Why does he think that they will go to the bank—or their trustees would say that they should go to the bank—and borrow up to £20 million at a time, with a personal guarantee of the trustees, who are jointly and severally liable, who are for a programme when it is not clear that they will get the rewards from it?