Care Bill [HL]

Baroness Emerton Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Emerton]

86HA: Clause 5, page 4, line 43, after “of” insert “sustainable”

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment 86PA.

Clause 5 emphasises quality, which is to be welcomed, and places promoting diversity and quality in the provision of services in the Bill. However, on behalf of nurses, the Royal College of Nursing thinks that it is not enough merely to quote “quality”. Local authorities are responsible for commissioning services from providers and have a duty to ensure that these providers and services are effective to meet the needs of the individual. It does not believe that at the moment local authorities are fulfilling these duties and responsibilities if they commission providers who fail to deliver high-quality care and, worse, provide care that detrimentally impacts on the health and well-being of individuals, as has been demonstrated in some recent high-profile cases.

As commissioners, local authorities must be part of a system-wide approach to safeguarding vulnerable groups. They are therefore falling negligent in their role if they commission providers and services that are not sustainable and fail both financially and clinically.

The potential impact of this was demonstrated recently with Southern Cross, where the health and well-being—and, indeed, lives—of care home residents were put at risk following the failure of its business model. For this reason, I believe that local authorities have a responsibility for ensuring that services that are commissioned by them are of high quality and sustainable. The two amendments are to that effect. Amendment 86HA seeks to insert the word “sustainable” and Amendment 86PA seeks to insert the words,

“the importance of ensuring the sustainability and high quality of the providers it commissions”.

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, as this is my first intervention, I refer noble Lords to my interests as president elect of GSI, chair of an NHS foundation trust and a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections.

I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 86J seeks to delete “high quality services” and instead insert,

““services appropriate to their needs as identified in the needs assessment and carer’s assessment”.

The problem with the draft as it currently stands is that it is very vague and entirely subjective depending on who is defining “high quality services”. Perhaps the noble Earl can clarify how the Government think it ought to be defined. Otherwise, there is a risk of uncertainty and inconsistency which, certainly when it comes to eligibility criteria, the Bill is designed to eradicate.

My second Amendment 86K would ensure that those in receipt of care and those involved in providing care are involved in shaping the market, as required under Clause 5. I have received a number of submissions about the market-making role of local authorities, and I was concerned to receive a submission from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, which said that while the intention of Clause 5 in promoting quality and diversity within the market is laudable, ADASS was of the view that the proposed duty placed on local authorities is wholly unrealistic. It points to a large number of providers that have no relationship or contact with local authorities, and says that combined with increased personalisation and limited leverage through the regulation framework, the ability of local authorities alone to influence diversity and quality of service is restricted.

I was very disappointed with that response, and rather taken aback by it. I hope that the noble Earl will share my view that in fact local authorities ought to be able to influence not only the market but the quality of care provided by private providers to a very great extent. Would the Minister accept that, to be effective, local authorities need to have a strong engagement both with users of services and carers, and with those who are providing services, too? That is why I tabled the amendment.

I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and I very much agree with her about the need to ensure quality in provision of service. That brings me to my own substantive Amendment 86P, which is very much concerned with the conditions under which care workers are employed in the main by the private sector. This is a hugely important issue. Clearly, we have a growing number of disabled and older people who need care and support. The people working in the care sector are vital. We need quality people who are highly trained and who can give the right commitment to the vulnerable people they are asked to care for. Clause 5 is important because what we see is a very fragmented industry delivering care that in many cases is of questionable quality and employing insecure, low paid, unregulated staff. Amendment 86P is concerned with the importance of fostering a sustainable workforce to encourage the acquisition of skills and decent working conditions that support the continuity and quality of care.

I was shocked to see a parliamentary Answer from the Minister’s honourable friend Mr Lamb recently, showing that more than 300,000 people working in the care sector are employed on zero-hours contracts. The point that I wish to make is this: how can people who do not have the security of knowing what they will earn pass on a sense of security to the people whom they care for? The rise in zero-hours contracts is bad for service users, many of whom are, of course, extremely vulnerable. There is another issue. People who are being cared for want to see the same person to have a continuity of care relationship. We know that that is severely hindered by those wretched zero-hours contracts. I believe that secure employment would allow staff to concentrate on caring rather than worrying about whether they are earning enough money for themselves and their families to live on.

I ought to declare an interest as a member of UNISON, which produced an excellent report, Time to Care, which undertook a survey in 2012 of care home workers. It showed that 80% of those who responded had to rush work or leave a client early to go to another call on what is called call cramming— in other words, too many calls for a care worker to undertake—and 56% received between the national minimum wage and £8 an hour. The majority did not receive set wages. Not surprisingly, turnover is high, while wages and conditions are poor.

Here is a shocking statistic. Nearly 57.8% are not paid for travelling time between visits. This morning I met a carer in Southwark who works roughly 20 hours on a zero-hours contract. She reckons that, because of the travelling time, she actually works for 27 hours, but is paid for only 20. The problem is that there is a race to the bottom because local authorities are, in my view, neglecting their responsibilities for ensuring that, when they place contracts, they are with good quality organisations. The companies who are exploiting their workers in this way are winning contracts at the expense of companies who treat their employees wisely. No wonder, therefore, that 36.7% of respondents are often allocated different clients on a daily basis, so that there is no chance of any relationship being developed.

There are many other statistics. The scandal of the 15-minute visit is well known. Indeed, the UK Homecare Association survey shows that three-quarters of all trips to old people have to be completed in less than half an hour and one in 10 is limited to no more than 15 minutes.

In Committee last week, I discussed with the Minister whether the CQC could be persuaded—or indeed, I hope, instructed—by your Lordships, to prioritise the regulation and inspection of local authorities in their commissioning duties. We have heard a lot about the CQC’s past failures and future hopes. It is clear that the focus is going to be on the NHS. I do not disagree with that, but when you think of the thousands of vulnerable people dependent on care workers, I wonder if the priority is right. If I were in the CQC’s shoes, I would focus on the care sector and particularly on local authorities and their own responsibilities. That is probably the best way to get into this issue.

We could have a debate about the regulation of social care workers. We could debate mandatory training and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has tabled an amendment which would very much focus on that. I hope the Minister will recognise that we have a problem here. If we are to see this legislation enacted in the way that we all hope it will be, I am convinced that we have to look at the way that workers in the care sector are employed and do everything we can to prevent the abuse that we are seeing with these zero-hours contracts.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that I have succeeded in reassuring the Committee that the Bill already places sufficient requirements on local authorities to work with people and providers in their area to develop sustainable and high-quality markets in care and support services. That objective cannot be achieved by legislation alone, and we are therefore working with local authorities and the sector more widely to improve commissioning practices and develop a high-quality social care workforce. I respectfully ask that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has been extremely wide and meaningful when, as the Minister said, it is the first time that legislation has tackled the issue of going to the market place for care. Enough has been said by noble Lords to express the great concern that there is for the standards of care and its sustainability. I thank the noble Earl for his responses, but we would like to take this away to think more about some of the issues raised tonight.

It has been helpful to have the debate and to bring out the issues. Perhaps we can now be slightly more constructive in looking at the way forward. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment on the basis of reflecting on the issues raised.

Amendment 86HA withdrawn.