Social Care
Liz Twist Excerpts(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
As I was preparing for this debate, I looked at last year’s debate and, as other hon. Members have said, it was like we have not moved on at all. We are repeating the same arguments, and nothing has really changed. What has changed, however, is that we are seeing increased demand for social care, whether domiciliary or residential, but local authorities’ ability to deliver that support is decreasing because of financial pressures.
Demand is continuing to rise. Age UK says that 1.5 million people aged 65 or over have an unmet social care need and believes that that could rise to 2.1 million by 2030 if the current approach continues. Last year, over half of the 1.32 million new requests for social care resulted in no services being provided. In my constituency, Age UK tells me that 3,012 older people have unmet care needs, and that 2,517 older people are providing the care that family members require. Of course, we must also recognise that thousands of unpaid care workers are providing support to people in their homes, and we must never forget that. I salute them for carrying out that essential work.
I will reiterate some of the points covered in the previous debate, because they remain central to this debate on social care. We need more money. We do not need the drip feed of a 2% increase in council tax, which in constituencies with a low council tax base, such as mine, will not produce anything near the money we need, compounding inequality and injustice. We need a substantial increase, and Age UK estimates that an increase of £8 billion is required over the next two years to stabilise the current system while we look at what will be provided in the future.
We need to look at the market for social care providers. The market is fragmented at the moment in both residential and domiciliary care, and most authorities have seen providers fail in both areas, meaning that they need to step in as an emergency measure to ensure that people get the help they need. We cannot continue with a market based substantially on price competition, because local authorities are forced to look for the lowest bids. We need quality services that deliver the things that people require and deserve. I would like to see more directly provided social care services, because that gives us control.
We must now develop a workforce strategy for social care. We have talked about that a lot in relation to the NHS plan and the future workforce strategy, but we need to look at it here, too. The social care workforce is predominantly female. They provide the most personal and intimate care to the people we love, and we must recognise the value of their work. They need proper pay. They need professional registration, which people working in the sector are considering. They need improved training and development if we are to recruit and retain the staff we need. We must put an end to carers travelling in their own time, to zero-hours contracts, and to 15-minute visits, which all of us would agree are completely outrageous.
Alex Cunningham
My hon. Friend mentioned the very personal nature of the care provided by prepared carers, but young carers also do this. They allocate medicines, and they even take their parents to the toilet or wash them. Does she agree that so much more needs to be done to recognise the role of young carers and to give them even greater support?
Liz Twist
I certainly agree that we must recognise the work of young carers, who do a tremendous job. We place huge pressure on them, and we thank them for their work. We must look after them, too.
We need a workforce strategy, and there is much more I could say. Others have already touched on the high cost of care for those with dementia, as opposed to a physical illness, and we need to do something in both the short term and the long term. We need a long-term, thought-through plan for providing social care to all those who need it.
We need a plan for social care that supports people when they need it and that cares for people when they need it. It should not just look after them mechanically; it should care for them. The Prime Minister said during the election that he has a plan. Well, let us see it and debate it, because we all know this action is long overdue.
Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Twist Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. General practice, where 90% of all NHS appointments take place, needs to reach every part of this country, including his beautiful constituency, which is, as he says, very sparse. Of course we need to ensure that the practices there are sustainable, and again this is an area in which technology can be of particular help. There is great enthusiasm for using technology so that the travelling times of patients and sometimes of GPs can be reduced.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Caroline Dinenage)
The Government have enshrined in legislation through the Care Act 2014 a council’s statutory duty to meet eligible needs for adult social care. We have given councils access to up to £1.5 billion more dedicated funding for social care in 2020-21 to help them to meet this requirement.
Liz Twist
Figures from Age UK show that 1.5 million people aged 65 and over have an unmet social care need, and Age UK estimates that this figure will rise to 2.1 million by 2030 if we carry on as we are. In my constituency, that equates to 3,012 older people with unmet needs and 2,517 older people providing unpaid care. Those are real people who are not getting the help they need. The Prime Minister said last summer that he had a plan to “fix” social care. Where is it?
Caroline Dinenage
As I have explained, the Care Act sets out the requirement that entitles individuals to a care needs assessment and sets a minimum national threshold at which care should be delivered. We have backed councils up by giving them access to £1.5 billion in additional funding in the next financial year. In the hon. Member’s constituency, that will equate to an additional £5.1 million from the new social care grant. This is something that the Government take very seriously.
Health and Social Care
Liz Twist Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
I will rattle through as fast as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I also want to take as many interventions as I can, if that is okay. [Interruption.] No, okay, no interventions. That is an unusual request from the House, if I may say so. [Laughter.]
Putting social care on a sustainable footing, where everybody is treated with dignity and respect, is one of the biggest challenges we face as a society. The Prime Minister has said that we will bring forward a plan for social care this year. These are complex questions and the point my hon. Friend raises is very important.
The draft legislation on the long-term plan Bill aims to help us to: speed up the delivery of the long-term plan; reduce bureaucracy; and help to harness the potential of genomics and other new technologies. I hope the House will support it.
The third piece of proposed legislation is the medicines and medical devices Bill. We are at an important moment in the life sciences. This country can and will be at the forefront as the NHS gets access to new medicines and new treatments earlier, so patients can benefit from scientific breakthroughs sooner.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
During the election campaign the Prime Minister promised a member of the public that the Government would look into the availability of Kuvan. Kuvan has been available for the treatment of PKU for 11 years. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that that drug becomes available?
Matt Hancock
I can tell the hon. Lady that since the election I have been working on precisely that. I am very happy to meet her to see whether we can make a breakthrough.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) on an accomplished and thought-provoking speech? I am sure that she will represent her constituents well.
I am very pleased to be able to take part in this important debate on health and social care. Earlier this week, I chaired a breakfast roundtable organised by the Industry and Parliament Trust, bringing together industry representatives, third-sector organisations and parliamentarians to discuss the issue of suicide in the construction industry. As chair of the all-party group on suicide and self-harm prevention in the last Parliament, I am familiar with the statistics on the number of lives lost to suicide and the statistics that show that middle-aged men are particularly at risk. However, even I was shocked to hear that two construction workers each day die by suicide and that twice as many die by suicide as die falling from heights.
A huge amount of work has rightly been done on reducing the physical risks in the construction industry. I am glad that there are now moves by some employers and charities such as Mates in Mind to put the same focus on tackling mental health issues and preventing suicide in the construction workforce. There are issues and problems caused by job and financial insecurity, physical stress, working away from home and loneliness.
I want to speak about the wider issue of suicide prevention. I am glad that the Minister is in her place to hear this. Last year, the number of deaths by suicide in the UK rose significantly—an increase of more than 600 on the previous year. There were 6,507 deaths by suicide in 2018. The statistics show that middle-aged men remain the highest risk group, though rates among young people, too, are rising. This is at a time when there is increased talk of improving mental health services in the NHS plan and a focus on suicide prevention. Clearly, the Government need to be doing more for individual people and at policy and practice level to reduce those figures.
Suicide is a public health issue. It is startling to know, from work done by the University of Manchester in 2018, that two thirds of people who take their own lives are not in touch with mental health services in the year before they die. A way needs to be found of reaching out to these people. We know from work by the Samaritans and others that socioeconomic factors are often at the root of the desperation which many people feel. Low incomes, job insecurity, unemployment, housing problems and benefits issues all play their part. Although there is a cross-Government suicide prevention work plan, what needs to happen is for each Department to take clear actions to make a real difference. I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions, for example, has no concrete actions from the plan, but those of us dealing with constituents on a day-to-day basis will know that that Department has a real impact on people, especially when they are struggling.
Most local authorities do now have suicide prevention plans, but the Government must do more to make sure that those that do not develop them as a matter of urgency, and that those that do, follow up the written plans with action and share experience and best practice. I have to say that reducing public health funding is tying the hands of those local authorities that are translating those plans into actions and real interventions.
Some £57 million has been made available for suicide prevention, but those of us who have tried to track it with our local health services have found it difficult to identify what specific actions that translates into when it is spread so thinly that it is almost invisible in the budget. Local NHS services need to make sure that the gaps in services, which too many people can fall through, are filled in. For example, there must be a way for people who are considered “too suicidal” for talking therapies to be able to access secondary mental healthcare more quickly, and non-clinical services need to be available, too.
I have already mentioned the fact that middle-aged men on low incomes have been the highest risk group for many years. Much more needs to be done to understand what really works to support this group when they are struggling. Research, again by the Samaritans, shows that the poorest men living in the most deprived areas are 10 times more likely to take their own lives than the wealthiest living in more affluent areas. We really need some concrete action to address that.
I wish to speak briefly about self-harm. Levels of self-harm among young people are rising. There is a real stigma around self-harm that stops people seeking help. Most people who self-harm do not go on to take their own life, but there is evidence that many people who do have self-harmed in the past. It is a sign of deep emotional distress and people who self-harm must have access to support to identify why they are feeling so distressed. Plans are needed in that area, too.
In summary, suicide prevention is a public health issue and should be tackled as such. Low-income middle-aged men are at the highest risk of suicide and we need to tackle and identify the causes of that and develop accessible services. Levels of self-harm are increasing and need to be tackled now. The Government need to do much more to address this issue and they need to put more resources into both the NHS and the local authorities to reduce the number of people dying by suicide.
Hospital Improvement Plans: VAT Rules
Liz Twist Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair in your new role as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) on securing this debate. I know this is an important subject for her, as she has raised it on many occasions, but she is right that capital—the buildings our NHS operates out of—is actually an important subject for all of us. While it is a shame that there are not many Members in the Chamber, I hope that quality makes up for a lack of quantity. That is certainly the case with her speech, but it is a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist)—who, if I recall correctly, held a debate on this subject almost a year ago—here as well.
The hon. Member for Bristol South was perhaps being unduly modest in her opening remarks about her knowledge of this subject and expertise in this area. While it is always a pleasure to see her speak about it, I always watch with a certain degree of trepidation, because she does know her subject extremely well. My knowledge of VAT and tax rules is rather more limited. Although I spent a period of time as a member of a primary care trust board many years ago, I suspect that my knowledge base will not be as deep as hers. However, I will endeavour to respond to all the points she has made. I recognise that the article she wrote that was published this morning on PoliticsHome highlights a number of these issues as well.
I will start by addressing the capital investment programme that the Government have set out and the impact of VAT on that, and then move on to the hon. Lady’s points about wholly owned subsidiaries and some of her subsequent points. In respect of the VAT position with the new health infrastructure plan hospitals—the new 40 hospitals we will be building—under the tax code VAT will be payable by hospital trusts involved in construction, reflecting that these are new builds and we would expect the appropriate HMRC regulations to be adhered to. However, as the hon. Lady touched on in setting out the background to the VAT rules, VAT chargeable on supplies of goods and services in the UK is collected by HMRC on behalf of the Government, so all moneys received in that way are reinvested in public services.
In addition, the funding provided for the 40 new hospital build projects and other capital schemes includes provision for the VAT charged by the suppliers involved in the developments. There may also be scope for an element of VAT reclaim on aspects of those projects, which will be determined and calculated on a case-by-case basis and in line with VAT regulations and rules. The overall funding allocation for the HIP has been built up by overall cost estimates of the schemes, inclusive of VAT. However, the final amount of VAT payable will be determined once the individual schemes have been fully scoped and costed. Current VAT rules will apply, and VAT recovery will be assessed for each scheme in line with the rules set out in section 41 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the Treasury’s “Contracting Out Direction”. In broad terms, we have made allowance for VAT within the estimated costs of those schemes.
As the hon. Lady noted, it was outlined in the spring statement of 2019 that longer-term plans are currently being considered by Her Majesty’s Treasury to review the section 41 VAT rules, to potentially either allow for full VAT reclaim for NHS bodies on all their purchases of goods and services or remove VAT reclaims entirely from them. The VAT review or policy paper will publish a call for evidence in due course. While I know she would like me to give an exact date, I hope she will forgive me for not making announcements that are possibly more appropriate for Treasury Ministers to make. I will ensure that her request to know that date is conveyed to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I hope that he will be able to respond to her swiftly with further information. In the context of the forthcoming call for evidence, I encourage her and others to contribute. She has a lot of knowledge and expertise in this area, and I suspect that in encouraging her to contribute I am pushing at an open door, because she will certainly do that. I know that the Financial Secretary will be pleased to hear from her.
The hon. Lady focused in both her article and speech on wholly owned subsidiaries, as did the hon. Member for Blaydon in her debate a year ago. While there can be VAT advantages of forming wholly owned subsidiary companies, we are clear that they cannot and should not be set up for the purposes of VAT avoidance, and we wrote to all provider trusts in September 2017 to remind them of their clear tax responsibilities. I may provoke the hon. Member for Bristol South, given her plea earlier, by saying that the origins of this position date back to 2004, subsequently consolidated in the National Health Service Act 2006, but she is right to highlight the changes in the 2012 Act. The position has evolved under Governments of both parties, but she is right to look at the future rather than where we have come from.
We expect all NHS providers to follow the guidance when considering any new arrangements or different ways of going down the wholly owned subsidiary route. There can be advantages in that route, as my predecessor, who is now the Brexit Secretary, set out, for employees in terms of flexibility and choice. There can also be commercial advantages for the NHS bodies setting them up, including things such as enabling providers to employ staff on more flexible and, in some cases, more generous terms and conditions—I emphasise the words “in some”; I see the hon. Member for Blaydon watching me carefully—as well as providing more efficient services in some cases to other trusts, being able to attract staff from the local employment market and giving greater flexibility to the operation of that organisation.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Minister said carefully that “some” staff may be advantaged. Does he accept that the vast majority of staff in low-paid jobs—often women—are not benefiting from this and are in fact losing out in pension contributions? When we met Treasury Ministers last year, we were told that it was for the Department of Health and Social Care to decide what its policy is. Will he now commit to redressing that?
Edward Argar
I thought I was going to provoke the hon. Lady to intervene, but it is none the less a pleasure that she has done so. She does highlight disparities, but I would say that it is wrong to suggest—even taking out wholly owned subsidiary companies within the NHS more broadly—that there is an exact commonality of terms and conditions, pension arrangements and so on; there are differences already.
What I will commit to do—I was going to mention this at the end, but I will say it now—is that I am very happy to meet both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Bristol South to discuss this more broadly in the context of Department of Health and Social Care responsibilities in the NHS, as well as the point the hon. Lady made about self-employed GPs and independent GPs. I am very happy to have that meeting with them. We may have to revert to the Treasury at some time on technical points, but I am very happy to have that meeting. I am very conscious that, in the two minutes or so I have left, there is a limit to how much I will be able to say, but I am happy to pick up other points in that subsequent meeting.
The hon. Lady is right about buildings. It is right that we are building 40 new hospitals and that we are investing capital in our NHS infrastructure, but she is also right to say that, yes, we shape those buildings, but in talking about place-based approaches, they shape us too and they shape our communities, so it is absolutely right that we get this right. On place-based commissioning, I was a cabinet member on Westminster City Council for many years—in the dim and distant past, when I had more hair and it was not grey—and I sat on the PCT at the same time, and where it works for local circumstances, there are clearly opportunities there as well. However, I do think that autonomy remains important, because while consistency and clarity are vital, so too is enabling local autonomy to address local needs and specific local circumstances, and I think we need to be a little bit careful about that.
I will conclude—with about a minute to go before you stop me, Madam Deputy Speaker—by saying I am sorry that we do not have more time for this debate, because it is an important debate. I am sorry there are not more Members here because it is something that would benefit all Members to be involved in. I look forward to any future such debates. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. She is right to highlight this issue, and I hope she will take an active part in putting forward her views to the Treasury review and call for evidence when that comes forward. As I say, I very much look forward to continuing this discussion—if not on the Floor of the House, in a meeting subsequently—and I hope and believe that we will be debating this at some point across the Floor of the House in the near future.
Question put and agreed to.