Social Care

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Kate Green

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out the very high percentage of care homes being found to be inadequate or requiring improvements—the figure is over 40% in my local authority. Does she agree that in many cases this is about care not being safe in those care settings? The real worry is not just that the settings are a bit grotty but that the care is unsafe.

[Barbara Keeley]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend takes me ahead in what I was going to say, but I know she has been involved with Age UK in understanding the state of care in her own local area, and I applaud her for that. Cuts have resulted in providers giving poor-quality care, and that is having a serious impact on the lives of people who need care. It means people not being washed or going hours without receiving a meal or being given a drink; it means people being left without help to go to the toilet; and in some cases, as she just said, it means people not being given crucial medication.

Care quality has become so bad that Age UK’s recent report was entitled, “Why call it care when nobody cares?” Many Members went to the launch of the report and listened to the older carers who were there. The anger of those older carers who spoke at or attended the event was palpable. Some told me that they and their families were often at breaking point, that they felt betrayed by a system of care that left them with little or no affordable support, and that they faced rising care costs which they described as crippling, although the care for which they paid was often not good enough.

I know that the Minister was present at that event. She may have talked to one carer there, Elaine from Northamptonshire, whose council is battling insolvency. Elaine gave up her job to care and has cared full-time for her husband ever since, but rather than giving her any extra help, the council recently tried to increase the weekly cost of care support at home from £88 to £178 per week. That was another battle for a carer to fight to obtain the care support that she needed at a price that she and her husband could afford.

Labour Members recognise that unpaid family carers need more support. We understand how much families are doing to look after their family members, and how hard that is for many carers but the Government have not even developed an updated national strategy for carers, having scrapped the planned strategy back in October. Since then, they have even failed to publish the action plan that was promised for January. What does that say about their attitude to carers?

Social Care

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Kate Green

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

It is very important that we bear in mind that the 1.45 million workforce in care will have been local government employees and will have enjoyed local government terms and conditions. We have talked many times about the fact that they are not now paid the minimum wage or travel time. They are very badly paid, with no pensions in prospect.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend knows, in my constituency, which neighbours hers, we have a real problem in recruiting and retaining care workers, many of whom tell me that they can get better paid work in the local Asda than by doing the job that they love. Does she not agree that that is in part due to the fact that private providers, who would like to pay their staff more, cannot do so because of the insufficiency of the value of the contracts that they receive from the local authority?

[Barbara Keeley]

That is absolutely the case. In fact, in a recent meeting with Unison, I was told that, in our area in Greater Manchester, one person could be paid more for putting toppings on to pizzas at Morrisons than for providing care—often to people with dementia or to those who really need that help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

My local authority has the most advanced example of an integrated care organisation in the country—we have already transferred all our social care staff to work for Salford Royal. I have just quoted a situation that shows how the pressure being put on hospitals because of delayed transfers of care is causing them to treat people such as my constituent in the way I described. Conservative Members ought to listen to that, because it is their Government and their Ministers who are causing this pressure to be put on hospitals.

We know that demand on social care is increasing as more people live longer with more complex conditions. The number of people aged 75 and over is projected nearly to double by 2039. That ought to be something to celebrate, but instead the Government have created fear and uncertainty for older people by failing to address the health and care challenges raised by those demographic changes. Indeed, the Conservative party is spending less money on social care now than Labour was when it left office in 2010. The Government seem to have no plan to develop a sustainable solution to the funding of social care in the longer term; they have talked only of a consultation followed by a Green Paper.

Furthermore—and this is raising real fears—the focus has been entirely on the needs of older people, without consideration being given to the needs of the 280,000 working-age people with disabilities or learning disabilities in the social care system. That is profoundly short-sighted, because the financial pressures on local authorities due to the increasing care needs of younger adults with disabilities or mental health problems are now greater than those due to the need to support older people.

[Kate Green]

I am glad my hon. Friend has mentioned younger adults. Does she agree that investing in the care they need will facilitate the Government’s achievement of their ambition to have more disabled people who can work in paid employment? Relatively low levels of expenditure on care for those people would pay great dividends for the Government and the country.

[Barbara Keeley]

Very much so. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is concerning that planned consultations or discussions about future policy should focus so much on older people, when the needs of people with disabilities and learning disabilities are so important. We talked about learning disabilities in a debate last week.

Labour will fill the policy vacuum that exists around social care under this Government. Over the coming months, we will consult experts on how we can move from the current broken system of care to a sustainable service for the long term. We will look at funding options for social care in the long term, such as wealth taxes, an employer care contribution or a new social care levy. Those experts will help clarify the options for funding our planned national care service. Our approach will be underpinned by the principle of pooled risk, so that no one faces catastrophic care costs as they do now or as they would under the Conservative party’s dementia tax.

Our plans are for a national care service. They are based on a consultation—the “Big Care Debate”—that involved 68,000 people. People in that consultation told us that they needed a system that will support them and their families to live the lives they want, that will treat everyone with dignity and respect and that will give them choice and control over their care. I believe those needs remain the same, and they will be at the heart of our ambition for social care.

I urge hon. Members from all parties to vote with the Opposition today so that we can set the foundations for a safer, more sustainable and higher quality care system for the future and reassure those who have become worried about the Conservative party’s dementia tax mess.

Women and the Economy

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Kate Green

Wednesday 9th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is right. I, too, have met the WASPI women. Just the other day, my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) held a Westminster Hall debate on this very subject in which she pointed out the lack of notice to these women. That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) and others when the legislation was passed by this House in 2011.

[Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)]

Since that debate, the former Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has admitted that the Government made a bad decision over these increases in state pension age equalisation. He made the excuse that his Department had not been properly briefed, and he went into crisis talks with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to try to claw back billions. Those women are suffering because of that mistake and that departmental failure.

Personal, Social, Health and Financial Education

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Kate Green

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Westminster Hall

[Barbara Keeley]

That is an important point, and I will come on to it. The PSHE Association has argued for the following key education themes to be included: health, relationships, careers and the world of work and personal finance. The consultation on the Government’s review finished on 30 November 2011. Will the Minister tell us when we can expect to see a revised programme of study for PSHE? On 9 January, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) received an answer to a question on drugs education telling her:

“Revised draft programmes of study…will be sent out for consultation in due course and consultation responses received will be taken into account before final programmes of study are published later this year.”—[Official Report, 9 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 341W.]

May we have more clarity on dates for those revised draft programmes?

I would like to focus mainly on relationship education, which is a key issue in my constituency and for Salford as a local authority, because teenage pregnancy rates are a continuing concern for us. The latest published statistics show that the teenage conception rate in Salford is 57 conceptions per 1,000 young women. That is higher than the north-west region, which has a conception rate of 40 per 1,000, and considerably higher than England and Wales, which have a rate of 35 per 1,000. The latest figure for Salford is the highest in Greater Manchester and, depressingly, it is more than three points higher than the previous year’s figure. That is a clear issue for Salford, because it goes against the national trend. In Salford, the teenage conception rate has declined by only 3% since 1998, while in the north-west the rate reduced by 11% and in England and Wales the reduction was almost 16%. What that means in human terms, which is the most important thing, is that since 1998, between 215 and 250 young women under 18 in Salford have become pregnant in any one year, and 130 to 185 babies are born to mothers in that young age group in any year.

When action to reduce teenage pregnancy rates in Salford seemed to have stalled in 2007, the council’s children’s services scrutiny committee commissioned an inquiry into the extent and effectiveness of relationship education in our schools and colleges. The inquiry report commented:

“Teenage pregnancy is a serious social problem. Having children at a young age can damage young women’s health and well-being and severely limit their education and career prospects. While individual young people can be competent parents, all the evidence shows that children born to teenagers are much more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes in later life.”

The inquiry sent a survey questionnaire to all schools and colleges in Salford. It found that where the teaching of PSHE was not seen as a priority, the delivery of relationship education was not as effective.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise for the fact that I cannot stay for the whole debate, but I am very pleased that it is taking place. Does my hon. Friend agree that an important factor to consider is the quality of teacher training? One reason why teaching may not be good in schools, or why the subject may not be given priority, is that teachers do not feel confident about talking about relationships, including, of course, same-sex relationships.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and that is my next point. The Salford inquiry found that schools were patchy in the take-up of their role in relationship education. In responses to the survey, schools cited “more training for staff” as a key improvement area, but the inquiry found that some schools, even in areas that were hotspots for teenage conception, were unable or unwilling to release teachers for the continuing professional development PSHE course. Another important point is that very few school governors had taken up the responsibility to oversee the delivery of relationship education in their school, and very few had taken on the available training. My hon. Friend is quite right.

The inquiry concluded that direction from Government was needed to make relationship education

“a consistent and compulsory part of the national curriculum.”

The inquiry in Salford was a valuable piece of work, but the situation in relationship education has sadly not improved since. The proposed clauses in Labour’s Children and Families Bill that would have made PSHE, including one year of relationship education, compulsory were lost in the legislation “wash-up” process before the 2010 general election, because Conservative Front Benchers and the usual channels were unable to agree to those provisions.

Funding sources that we used to fund work on teenage pregnancy have not been replaced. The 2007 inquiry report makes quite sad reading, because it envisaged the council being able to continue funding teenage pregnancy projects once grant funding ceased, with schools in teenage conception hotspots also providing matched funding. However, Salford city council has been the subject of budget cuts amounting to £90 million over three years since 2010, so extra funding for teenage pregnancy projects seems a forlorn hope.

That matters because we know that nationally the infant mortality rate for babies born to teenage mothers is 60% higher than for babies born to older mothers; children of teenage mothers are generally at increased risk of poverty, low educational attainment, poor housing and poor health, and they have lower rates of economic activity in their adult lives; and teenage mothers are less likely to finish their education and more likely to bring up their children alone and in poverty. We also know—this is why we are so concerned—that rates of teenage pregnancy are highest among deprived communities, so the negative consequences of teenage pregnancy are disproportionately concentrated among those who are already disadvantaged. Those are all powerful reasons for action.

Child Benefit

Debate between Baroness Keeley and Kate Green

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Westminster Hall

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Her point about universality is fundamentally about the social glue, integration and the sense of communal interest in our children that universal benefits bring.

As others have said, these proposals are unjustifiable as a matter of principle, and unworkable in practice. Hon. Members have alluded to the difficulties of coping, both for families and for the Revenue, when family circumstances change. It may be complicated to pick out who has been a member of a household over the course of a year, or to state at what point they became one, so it may be difficult to assess at what point that should result in a tax liability.

[Barbara Keeley]

Does my hon. Friend intend to refer to the breach of confidentiality in an individual’s tax affairs? That is a serious issue with couples. Years ago, my first piece of casework as a councillor involved a constituent who was being chased by bailiffs for his wife’s community charge. At the time, there were rules on joint liability for the community charge, and that caused huge problems between couples. It seems to me that we are back in the same territory.

[Kate Green]

I have no doubt that if one member of a household is liable for another household member’s income—which is what will happen—that will distort the balance of power, and in some cases compromise the safety of women in that relationship and lead to something that feels fundamentally irrational and unjust. Why is one member of the household being taxed for a benefit that is paid to another member of the household for the benefit of the children? If Ministers want a fairer and more justifiable taxation system, I suggest that they look at having a more progressive system overall. If they want to take more from the rich and have a more progressive system, they should not have begun by reducing the top rate of income tax, which seems to be the Chancellor’s preferred route.

I will conclude with a couple of questions for the Minister. Has he made an assessment of whether couples are likely to continue receiving child benefit and sweep it up at the end of the year in their tax return, or whether they are they more likely to forgo child benefit at the point of payment? In the latter case, what assessment has he made of the impact that that will have on children’s well-being and on family stability? May we see that impact assessment before any further steps are taken to introduce the proposed policy?

Will this measure be reversible? The Opposition are committed to universal child benefit, and I hope that the Government will consider this change as temporary. Will the changes to IT and the taxation system be reversible? What is the IT plan for this development? Could this policy be unwound, or are we stepping towards a major change in attitude to universal benefits from which it will be impossible to retreat? What advice has the Minister received—this is the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)—on individual confidentiality in relation to tax affairs? How will one member of the household be advised about tax liability on a confidential basis without understanding the income of another member of the household, and can that be reconciled with the principle of tax confidentiality? Ministers seem confident that it can be reconciled, but Opposition Members have their doubts.