Social Care: Workforce Strategy

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, when you have very rapid turnover of staff and a high level of resignations, it is not always the staff who need training but the managers. As we make people more valued among the staff, will we ensure that managers learn how to do that and that training goes to all levels of the care-working profession?

[Lord Markham (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. I am aware that some homes have half the turnover rate of staff than others, clearly demonstrating much better levels of management and skills. I agree, and that will be part of the training.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness. She always makes interesting speeches, some of which she and I have discussed over cups of tea outside the Chamber. Given the exigencies of the five-minute limit, I hope she will forgive me if I do not take up her points and instead go straight to the issues that I wish to raise with the Government as they set out their plans for the next five years.

In summary, I want to draw the Government’s attention to some weakness in the way our economic system currently operates and make some suggestions for its improvement. At the outset, I want to make it clear that I am a strong supporter and defender of the market-led economic system, but the fact that I am such a strong defender and supporter does not mean that I think it is incapable of improvement or above reproach. I must say, I have had to reach the conclusion that the system, in its present configuration and in recent years, has not delivered rewards sufficiently fairly across all sectors of society and all regions of the country.

On behalf of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn hinted at some of this during the last general election campaign. The fact that his solutions were, frankly, beyond ridiculous should not blind us to the somewhat unpleasant fact that, nevertheless, there are questions that require a substantive response. Such a response will certainly be needed from this new Conservative Government if we are to keep faith with those voters who turned the red wall into a blue one. There is, therefore, a pressing need to create what might usefully be described as a more responsible capitalism. I congratulate the Government on the approach and tone that they have adopted so far. These are, however, early days, and I note that familiar country phrase: fine words butter no parsnips.

What practical steps should the Government now take? First, they should, without delay, introduce legislation to reconstruct the UK’s inadequate audit regime. There is general agreement, supported by the Government’s own reviews, that the present system no longer retains public confidence. A proper audit regime is an essential building block in the establishment of a more responsible capitalist system, so it is particularly disappointing that the Government intend to bring forward such legislation only, to use that famous Whitehall phrase, when time allows.

The Government could also usefully institute a much wider and in-depth consideration of the pinch points of modern capitalism. This could include: first, an analysis of the consequences of the different tax treatment of interest on borrowing, which is tax deductible, and on dividends, which is not; secondly, consideration of whether share purchases should give immediate rights of ownership of the enterprise or whether some period of longevity should be required; and, thirdly, consideration of the asymmetric nature of the risks in modern corporate activity, with some groups able to insulate themselves and some—mostly workers in factories—unable to do so. Finally, and perhaps most controversially, it could include consideration of whether limited liability status should become a privilege, not a right, so that in cases of particularly egregious personal behaviour, individuals could face the full consequences of their actions.

Responsible capitalism could not, will not and should not be created by government alone. It will require a wholehearted commitment by British industry and commerce, in particular its leaders and trade associations, to change the culture and end the sense of entitlement that has prevailed in recent years and has so disfigured the corporate scene. Profit of itself is not a business purpose; it is the result of creating and selling a product or a service that people wish to purchase. There is therefore in business a moral dimension, and a failure to make this distinction has damaged the reputation of our industrial and commercial sectors.

Let us take this week’s example of Mr Neil Woodford, fund manager extraordinaire, whose fund has performed so badly that redemptions have been stopped and investors cannot withdraw their money. How can Mr Woodford look at himself in the mirror and say it is fair that he should personally withdraw £9 million-worth of dividends from his fund management company, let alone justify that to a wider audience and the wider world? Our market system can, should and must do better than that.

Elderly People: Powers of Attorney and Living Wills

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, not only for giving us the chance to debate this important matter, but for having introduced the whole subject with such a clear and informative exposition which has laid out very clearly the challenges we face.

In my few moments I do not want to merely repeat much of what she has said. I found her arguments persuasive, and I agree with them in large measure. I want to raise an associated issue which concerns wills, powers of attorney, and the flow of funds to voluntary groups, many of which are providing services to dementia sufferers. Like the noble Baroness I fear there is another issue which may be falling between different governmental stools. Some noble Lords will be aware that I undertook the review of the Charities Act for the Government. A couple of years ago I produced a report about it entitled Trusted and Independent: Giving charity back to charities. There were a number of proposals to try and improve the position of charities, some of which have formed the basis for legislation now before your Lordships’ House, including the Protection of Charities Bill, which is in pre-legislative scrutiny. One issue that was raised was the number of charities. There are over 160,000 registered charities, and probably as many again unregistered charities, so in all a third of a million charities. There were great concerns about duplication. Many members of the public felt that charities were overlapping and that money was being spent on administration and fundraising which could be better deployed in providing the services for which the charities had been established in the first place.

There is room for a debate on that topic, but not tonight. The freedom for people to decide what they do with their voluntary giving seems a pretty important principle. But there is an issue as to why charities do not merge. In my research, this is for one of two reasons. One is amour propre among the trustees, they cannot bear to collaborate and they would rather work on their own than work together. But there is another important technical reason that concerns bequests and wills. This is where we come to the relevance of our debate tonight. As many Lords will know, bequests and wills are a very important source of fund-raising for charities, but they obviously take time to emerge because unfortunately it requires the person who made the bequest to die before the money changes hands. Importantly, where two charities merge, and as a result one disappears, a bequest to the latter may well be null and void unless the wills are drawn appropriately widely.

I will give a quick example. Let us assume that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and I have both set up separate dementia charities, and after a period of time we agree that we should merge them. We go to the Charity Commission, we get it blessed, and it is all done properly and above board. We also agree that because her charity is larger and more famous than mine, hers should be the surviving charity, and that the Hodgson charity should just disappear. But if the Hodgson charity was hoping for a legacy, it may be that because of the way trust law is drawn, that bequest will be null and void, because there is no longer a Hodgson charity to which the bequest can go, and therefore the bequest must go back into the estate from which it was originally drawn. That seems to me an entirely counterintuitive outcome. The person leaving the money wishes to leave some to the dementia sector, and the merger has been approved by the regulator—so why should the bequest then fall foul of what I would consider a narrow technicality? I understand that that is not my noble friend’s direct responsibility, but I use this opportunity to urge him to remind his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Cabinet Office, as well as the Law Commission, that there is an issue here that is worth tackling. It applies with equal force to powers of attorney, to which the noble Baroness referred. As people live longer, there may be longer periods when they are not compos mentis. The role of family members and advisers holding a power of attorney needs to be similarly properly and widely drawn to avoid the counterintuitive outcomes that I have just described. I am not clear whether the prescribed form of the lasting power of attorney has sufficient flexibility built into it to enable this to happen.

Finally, this issue also applies to standing orders and direct debits. Banks will refuse to redirect such payments to the surviving entity. Instead, they require all direct debits and standing orders to be re-signed. Noble Lords will be perfectly aware that if you tried to get all direct debits and standing orders re-signed, the fall-out rate would be very high indeed, with a very big consequential loss of funding to the charity hoping to receive them.

To conclude, the issue of the implications of dementia is an important and growing topic. My intervention seeks merely to urge the Government to ensure that legal practices are kept up to date with the evolving conditions of our society and, in so doing, maintain the badly needed flow of funding to charitable and voluntary groups, dealing with the very difficult problems of our society, including dementia and other progressive diseases.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

This is my first intervention on this Bill. It is not an area of government policy in which I have historically taken a lot of interest so I am some way outside my comfort zone. However, when I saw that my noble friend Lady Byford had put down two amendments about financial records and appropriate billing, both areas I have taken an interest in, I felt I should support her and put my name to them.

I fear that if I could glance over at the speaking note prepared for the Front Bench on Amendment 92ZFA, I would see the words, “Resist on the grounds that this is unnecessary and the clause already provides for it”. That may be so, but if you read the Explanatory Note to Clause 41 carefully, at paragraph 230, I am not sure that it actually places a duty on the local authority to follow up complaints where they are made by external parties, such as one holding a power of attorney, as my noble friend mentioned in her opening remarks. If would be helpful if my noble friend on the Front Bench could give some reassurance on this point and also for the record confirm, as I am sure must be the case, that people holding powers of attorney are “representatives” as defined in this clause.

The new clause inserted into the Bill by Amendment 92ZFB is a much more significant development. If the Minister’s officials were to call for and examine a range of the invoices sent to individual residents or patients by different companies for the provision of care services, she would see a considerable variation in the quality and, above all, the clarity of how the charges are laid out and calculated. To be fair to the companies, it is not easy to do because it becomes quite complex, quite quickly. For example, local authority rebate periods do not always coincide neatly with the charging periods of the individual care homes. Then there are the charges for extras over and above normal care. In the vast majority of cases these are entirely legitimate but, if you look at the records and the way they are laid out, all too often they are not clearly itemised and often a one-line entry, “Additional Charges” on an invoice received perhaps a month later makes it very hard to verify the accuracy or otherwise of the charge.

We need to keep at the forefront of our mind the fact that these invoices are addressed to elderly people who perhaps are more easily confused or may be browbeaten. In particular, if they have no relatives or representatives to help them, they may be over-ready to accept the invoices at face value and pay them. I particularly support my noble friend’s amendment because it seems to address three important objectives. First, it encourages the emergence of best practice among care homes and the way they lay out their charges. Secondly, it helps individuals and their families understand what is being charged and whether it is accurate. Thirdly, and possibly most cynically, it reduces any temptation to pad invoices with additional items. I do not suppose for a moment that the precise wording of this amendment meets the standards required by parliamentary draftsmen. However, I hope when my noble friend comes to wind up she will consider it an idea worth following up.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 92AA to which the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, spoke so powerfully a few minutes ago. I declare an interest—or, more accurately, a regret—in that I represented YL in the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House and failed to persuade a majority of that committee that those who operate care homes under a contract with a local authority are performing a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act and therefore are obliged to comply with human rights principles. The complexity of the legal issues was such that the much lamented Lord Bingham of Cornhill and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale of Richmond, both dissented from the views of the three judges in the majority.

As the noble Lord, Lord Low, has mentioned, Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 addressed the issue by bringing some care home providers directly within the scope of the Human Rights Act, providing direct legal protection for residents of such homes. However, important gaps in the law remain. Duties under the Human Rights Act are not owed by the person who provides residential care to persons who pay for it themselves—that is, when the local authority is not paying—and the provider of care services, when that provider is not a local authority, has no duties under the Human Rights Act when providing care in a person’s own home.

I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Low, that, in the light of the changes to be introduced by this Bill, it is important that the law should clearly address liability under the Human Rights Act. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Low, who made a very powerful case, that the vulnerability of the person receiving care, and the risk of abuse, mean that the law should now impose duties on the provider under the Human Rights Act in all these circumstances to encourage the maintenance of high standards and provide a direct remedy for the victim in appropriate cases. It is really no answer for the Government to say, as they have previously indicated, that it is undesirable in principle to specify the scope of the Human Rights Act in relation to public functions. The YL judgment already does that in a deeply unsatisfactory and narrow manner.

I accept, of course, that improved regulation and proper training will play an important part in protecting the interests of those receiving care. However, I ask the Minister to accept that the principles and the remedies under the Human Rights Act will add a significant and necessary further dimension to the obligations of those providing care and to the rights of those receiving it. I hope we will receive a positive response from the Minister this evening to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Low, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.