Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Thursday 23rd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

3. What progress he has made on implementing the final recommendations on compensation in the second interim report of the infected blood inquiry, published on 5 April 2023.

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

9. What progress his Department has made on implementing the interim recommendations of the infected blood inquiry.

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (John Glen)]

I strongly commend the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her work for those who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal, and I look forward to working across the House on this important issue. The Government have accepted the moral case for compensation but it is only reasonable that the response is fully informed by Sir Brian Langstaff’s final report, which is anticipated in March next year.

Local Government Responsibilities: Public Services

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Wednesday 18th March 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the statutory and broader local government responsibilities for public services, including social care.

In the coming weeks and months, it is right that the Government focus on the fight against coronavirus. Local government will be on the frontline of that fight. Local services, from social care and public health to bin collections and now, most importantly, support for volunteering, will help us to overcome the challenge.

It is a time of uncertainty for many people across the country, and the Government need to provide as much certainty as they can. One thing we know is that older people, and those with underlying health conditions, are at greater risk from coronavirus than the rest of the population, as is clear from the social distancing guidelines issued for those groups this week. That means that, in the coming months, social care will be more important than ever because it not only helps to keep hospital beds clear for those who need them, but touches the lives of some of the most vulnerable. Care staff, therefore, will often be on the frontline of our efforts to stop the spread of the disease.

We are particularly concerned about home careworkers, who might provide care for up to a dozen older and disabled people in their homes every day. We want all necessary measures to be taken to protect care staff and the people they work with. As with the NHS, an important part of the solution is personal protective equipment and measures for infection control.

Care providers will face extra costs due to the need for more personal protective equipment and for enhanced cleaning of care homes and people’s own homes, and other measures to minimise the spread of infection—for example, zoning some staff in care homes. Last week, I raised with Ministers the fact that providers have faced great difficulty in obtaining personal protective equipment, and that also applies to infection control products, hand wash and disposable hand towels.

The care sector is extremely worried about being able to get essential supplies such as personal protective equipment. Commissioners can mitigate that by funding the extra costs and by helping providers to access personal protective equipment, perhaps by using some of their own contracts. The Government need to give guidance to local authorities and care providers, however, on the provision and use of personal protective equipment for careworkers and on whether help with accessing supplies can be given to reduce the spread of coronavirus.

We have just had a debate on statutory sick pay, which is particularly important for care staff, who are on the frontline of the outbreak. If they are ill, it is vital that they follow the public health advice and self-isolate, but the reality, as we heard, is that many care staff, like other staff, cannot afford to do so. Even if they are eligible for statutory sick pay, which we do not think they all will be, it is only £94 a week. The Minister needs to set out now what the Government will do to ensure that no careworker has to choose between doing the right thing and facing overwhelming financial problems.

Care providers are also facing increased cost pressures due to staff self-isolating or being off sick. It is right that statutory sick pay will start at day one, rather than day four, but that will increase employers’ liability for statutory sick pay. Requirements for workers to self-isolate will further increase financial pressures on employers. Given that, in virtually all cases, care providers will have to backfill sickness absence to ensure the continued delivery of support, that represents a real cost pressure on providers. With local authority budgets stretched, how can they support care providers to provide for extra statutory sick pay, the cost of backfilling care staff and the personal protective equipment and other materials that will be needed to get through the crisis?

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for why the Government should announce specific support for the social care sector. I noticed yesterday that the Chancellor did not make specific reference to the social care sector which, as my hon. Friend points out, is in a fragile state and under enormous pressures. Is it not time for specific support for the social care sector to be announced?

[Barbara Keeley]

I agree with my hon. Friend. It is great to hear that the NHS will get what it needs, but what about the social care sector?

We know, as my hon. Friend just said, that many care providers were already on the brink of collapse. Many will not have reserves to fall back on. I ask the Minister, as my hon. Friend just has: what will the Government do to sustain care provision and ensure that care providers are able to carry on delivering care at this time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

There are people who genuinely want to help and do their best for their community, but I am concerned to ensure that DBS checks are in place—an issue that has been alluded to—and also about infection control, which fits nicely with what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has just said about some of the procedures that people may be asked to help with. There are real questions about the training and the infection control that need to be in place if we use volunteers.

[Barbara Keeley]

Very much so. I am following all the social media input from my constituents, and I am glad to see that people are very keen to help. However, we must be careful, because we are talking about very vulnerable people, often with complex care needs, and we do not want to put them into difficulties through the efforts of volunteers, so we need guidance on that point.

Let me turn to self-isolation. I had to self-isolate for five days last week, and I know it is not easy, but it will be particularly hard for people with anxiety disorders, who rely on a routine to cope. Both now and once we are on the other side of this, what support will the Government be offering to help address the mental health consequences of the pandemic and of self-isolation or shielding for long periods? I noticed in the media that there were programmes showing what is being done in Wuhan in China, with hundreds of counsellors talking to people on a phone helpline, talking them through the difficulties they were experiencing. I think we may have to be thinking about something like that. In particular, many older people are now looking at several months potentially locked down in their own home, so what can the Government do to ensure that those people do not become lonely and isolated, with all the mental health consequences that would cause?

The challenges facing local government over the coming months are not limited to social care. The Government finally published yesterday the public health grant for the next financial year. Between 2014-15 and 2019-20, budgets were cut by £870 million, although there has been an increase to the grant this year. While the publication of the allocations finally provides some certainty to local authorities, the reality is that their public health functions are likely to be focused on coronavirus for the foreseeable future. Public health services such as smoking cessation are vital to prevent people from acquiring long-term health conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which can make a future case of coronavirus more serious. Will the Minister commit to allocating further money to public health if local authorities need it to keep people safe during the crisis?

The other major area of concern is homelessness. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government announced a fund yesterday to help local authorities provide accommodation for homeless people who might have coronavirus, which is welcome, but given the scale of the homelessness crisis in this country, can the Minister tell us whether that fund will be topped up if needed? We do not want local authorities to have to ration support now because they think they might need some of it later.

I understand we are expecting a statement at 5 o’clock on education, and the Government are not yet closing schools—we may hear more at 5 o’clock—but we do see more teaching staff off work ill or self-isolating. Schools are being closed for certain years, and other closures look increasingly likely. I have seen that in my constituency. For many children, school is a place where they can get breakfast and free school meals. If children have to stay at home, they may go hungry. What support will be put in place to protect those children if schools are closed, whether that means providing food for them or ensuring that social services are monitoring their condition?

Lastly, I want to mention bins and waste collection. The safe handling of waste that could be contaminated by coronavirus will be a major challenge for public health and for the protection of the staff who work in that vital service. Will the Minister tell us what action is being taken alongside local authorities to ensure the continuity of waste collection services, given that the staff who work in those services will themselves be subject to illness and self-isolation?

We also need to think about council tax. If the Government are giving business rate relief for coronavirus, why not council tax relief for the general population? If people are out of work for an extended period, council tax is a big cost. Councils would need reimbursement for lost income, as they would with business rates. Additionally, we need councils to show some restraint with pursuing council tax arrears through the courts. Although loss of income for councils could be a very big issue at a time like this, depending on how long everything lasts, everything points to Government support and action for that. I should say to the Minister that I am happy to supply him with a list of all the questions I have asked, because it is very difficult for him to answer everything all in one go.

Coronavirus poses a unique challenge for this country. We will all need to work together to tackle it. The work that local authorities do will be central to addressing the crisis and will help to hold communities together as we do so. It will not be easy, and I am sure there are many issues we have not foreseen. I thank everyone working in local government and in social care and all our teachers and teaching staff, because they are a vital frontline service. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that local authorities will get all the help they need in the weeks and months ahead to tackle this crisis and to carry on providing the services that people rely on every day.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

That is a question that the hon. Lady needs to put to her own party. What has happened up to this point is that the Government have been asked repeatedly to pause, to carry out more consultation, and to consider redrafting the Bill. There is a list of 40 organisations that have asked for a pause and a redrafting of the Bill. This is a familiar situation from health and social care legislation—it has happened before in this House. The Government could have considered a pause, and the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), knows that I have discussed that with her. The whole question really falls back on the Government.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend refers to what happened in 2012 with the Health and Social Care Bill. We had to have a pause halfway through its parliamentary stages because it had not been thought through properly. I worry that we might end up having the same thing happen again if the Government do not take heed of what the shadow Minister is so clearly setting out.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my hon. Friend for saying that, and it is the case.

Let me give an example. Just last week, the BBC’s “Victoria Derbyshire” programme exposed the horrific case of Rachel Johnston, a woman with learning disabilities who died after having an operation to remove all of her teeth. Rachel had a long-standing and extensive dental problem, but, clearly, could not consent to the dental work. Rather than doing the surgery in several treatments, the dentist opted to remove all her teeth in one operation, using the Mental Capacity Act to authorise the use of a general anaesthetic because he deemed it to be in her best interest. After being discharged, Rachel bled profusely from her gums, developed breathing difficulties and later died. How on earth can that treatment have been in her best interest? That case shows a need for greater safeguards, not fewer safeguards. We should not allow medical professionals to make decisions without considering the best interests or wishes of people who lack the capacity to consent to treatment.

I recognise that, as the Secretary of State mentioned, the Government conceded in the House of Lords that the cared-for person must be consulted, but there are still worrying aspects of the Bill that undermine that principle. We should ensure that individuals have access to an independent advocate. That is a vital safeguard that allows people to challenge authorisations, and it should be the default. The manner in which the independent mental capacity advocates can and should be appointed remains ill-defined and even contradictory.

The Minister in the House of Lords, Lord O’Shaughnessy, seems to have dismissed concerns raised about the application of a best interest test before the appointment of an advocate. The role of an advocate is essential to allowing individuals to access appeals and review their rights. Access to support from advocates should not depend on best interest tests, and the provisions in the Bill are far weaker than those proposed by the Law Commission. Yet despite that being pointed out in the debate in the House of Lords, the Minister there seemed unwilling to listen to advice, merely saying that it would work “in practice”. That is simply not good enough. These factors amount to a severe undermining of the concept of the individual’s best interests, which should be at the heart of the Bill but is sorely lacking.

I will now address the backlog of deprivation of liberty safeguard applications, because at the outset the Government presented the Bill as a cost-effective way of reducing it. On Second Reading in the House of Lords, the Minister claimed that the Bill would relieve

“local authorities of the…legal liability burden of more than £408 million by removing the backlog of…applications.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 July 2018; Vol. 792, c. 1060.]

But he made no mention of how that would happen. Our conclusion is that by attempting to place the onus for assessments on care home managers, the Bill would remove the responsibility from cash-strapped local authorities.

The Government initially tried to pass responsibility for assessments on to care home managers, and that was clearly intended as a cost-cutting measure. That was amended in the House of Lords, but care home managers will still decide whether an assessment needs to take place and will also identify whether the person being cared for objects to a liberty protection safeguard for their own care and treatment. The British Association of Social Workers has said that this presents a potential conflict of interest for care homes, as they need to maintain occupancy and may not readily identify an objection by the cared-for person.

The BASW has a further concern about the grounds on which the responsible body would decide whether it or the care home manager would make the necessary arrangements for an LPS authorisation. There is a significant risk of a two-tier system, whereby local authorities under financial or waiting list pressures would default to care home managers completing the new duties, and other local authorities under less strain would do the assessments themselves. I think we have enough of a postcode lottery in care without adding to it through the Bill.

Care England, which represents the network of care providers, says:

“There is a lack of clarity about the role of the Care Home Manager...the separation of roles between care homes and community care provision seems designed to increase rather than reduce confusion and complexity.”

Indeed, the body is so concerned by this Bill that is has also said:

“This ill-considered Bill risks storing up a range of problems of a kind that we do not want and should be slowed or returned for redrafting.”

There remains a further dangerous conflict of interest at the heart of the Bill because of the role that independent hospitals are given in the assessment process. Despite debate in the House of Lords regarding the role of independent hospitals, under the Bill they would still be allowed to appoint their own approved mental capacity professionals. That would allow independent hospitals the responsibility to authorise deprivation of liberty for people in that same hospital for the assessment and treatment of mental disorders. That is plainly wrong.

Social Care

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

That is what we are debating. Of course the NHS should put its own house in order, too, but delays should not happen on account of social care. People should not be stuck for weeks or months in hospital, waiting for a care home placement or a nursing home placement. I shall go on to say why.

Returning to the issue of the backloading of funding, in view of what was happening to social care, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services appealed before the last autumn statement for £700 million of the promised better care funding to be moved forward to this year and next year. That appeal was ignored. Reacting to that, Ray James of ADASS said:

“Ministers must know that their proposals do not deliver sufficient funding to meet the growing number of older and disabled people requiring increasingly complex care and support…The Council Tax precept will raise least money in areas of greatest need which risks heightening inequality. Councils in deprived areas will have greatest social care needs, yet they will raise less than a third of what more affluent areas do through this approach.”

He went on by clarifying that ADASS does

“not believe that the funding for the next couple of years will anywhere near meet the costs of the national living wage and the increasing demand for social care.”

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In my Hull constituency, not only have we seen massive cuts to the local government budget since 2010, but the precept that we can raise—2%—is much smaller than the gap in the budget for social care. By comparison, wealthier areas of Yorkshire such as East Riding are able to raise far more, so this is a double whammy for deprived areas.

Contaminated Blood

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Tuesday 12th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Diana Johnson]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point.

Fourthly, there are concerns that under the plans money will be used to pay for new drugs to treat hepatitis C, which will be bought separately from the NHS budget, so will cost more. Under guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, everyone with hepatitis C should be eligible for treatment with a new generation of drugs from the end of February 2016, so when funds are allocated for treatment, that means once again that money does not go directly to those who need financial support.

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

Does my hon. Friend, who is making an excellent speech, agree with my constituent, who is affected and feels that the changes are deliberately punitive and exceedingly cruel, as they use requests for changes to support schemes to affect people in that way? My constituent has had to use the ex gratia payment from the Government to fund treatment refused by the NHS, as many other people have had to do. His annual payment will decrease over time and he will lose the additional support that is currently provided. People such as my constituent are hit again and again, so how can the consultation on reform go ahead on that basis?

[Diana Johnson]

I shall move on and complete my speech.

Fifthly, there is concern about the fact that beneficiaries in England will be worse off than beneficiaries in Scotland. The Scottish proposals are far more generous to hepatitis C stage 2 and HIV sufferers, who will receive £27,000 per annum or £37,000 if they are co-infected, which is welcome, but are much less generous for hepatitis C stage 1s, who will receive an additional lump sum payment but no ongoing support. The Scottish proposals have been broadly welcomed, partly because of the way in which the consultation was conducted in Scotland, and the clear acknowledgement, for example, that the existing trust structure will be scrapped.

Finance Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think making such comparisons is particularly valuable and I will come on to the reasons why.

The insurance industry has raised concerns about the impact of this increase. Huw Evans, director general of the Association of British Insurers, responded to the proposed increase in insurance premium tax by warning that consumers would be worse off. He said:

“Insurance Premium Tax is a tax on people and businesses at the point at which they buy a general insurance product. So it’s very disappointing to see a more than 50% tax increase being imposed on consumers, especially when the insurance industry and Government has worked so hard in recent years to bring down the cost of essential insurance.”

The ABI calculates that the new rate of insurance premium tax will add almost £10 to the average annual household insurance policy for buildings and contents combined, and over £12 to the average annual comprehensive motor policy. However, the increase will be much higher for some groups, and I want to come on to talk about them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about householders in areas prone to flooding who might already have to pay high premiums and for whom this is an additional amount they will have to find on top? That is certainly the case for a number of properties bought under the Help to Buy scheme set up by the Treasury, as those properties built after 2009 are not eligible for the Flood Re insurance scheme the Government have brought in.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, and I will come on to that, because the cumulative impact of this and other changes in the Budget on specific groups is of great concern. My hon. Friend is right that there could be a real issue in parts of the country prone to flooding. We do not want to see families in the properties my hon. Friend talks about that are outside the Flood Re scheme go without insurance.

Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Friday 1st November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Barbara Keeley]

It very much is, and I really do agree with my hon. Friend.

I agreed with the point my hon. Friend made earlier about long-term unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, being high in Salford and my constituency, as it is in his. In my constituency—only a part of Salford—we have almost 3,000 jobseekers, of whom 900 are unemployed young people and 390 are over-25s who have been unemployed for two years or more. In fact, the number of people who have been unemployed for two years or more has risen this summer by 34%. I hear from young people, week in, week out—as I am sure do other hon. Members—about how over one or two years of unemployment they can start to lose hope. I get some really desperate appeals for help and support from them.

The previous Labour Government’s offer was that by 2015 there would be an apprenticeship for every 16 or 17-year-old who wanted one and was suitably qualified. We should keep that in our minds, because obviously, with the economic difficulties in recent years, we do not want 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in education, employment or training to lose hope, and I think they could do so. Worryingly, the number of apprenticeship starts for under-19s has fallen by 20,000 from 132,000, in 2010-11, to 112,000 last year. That is a dismal record. Youth unemployment remains stubbornly high, yet the number of apprenticeship starts for that age group have fallen. That is pathetic.

Government Members, in particular, have spoken about the difficulties of small employers taking on apprentices. You might be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I took on an apprentice in my constituency some years ago. She was a 17-year-old who had started her business administration apprenticeship in a bakery, but was interested in working in an MP’s office. She was an excellent staff member and completed her apprenticeship, becoming one of the highest-achieving apprentices the college had ever worked with. In her early 20s, she is now a county councillor serving part of your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker. We can, therefore, support apprenticeships. It is an interesting development that not only did she train in business administration, but she has gone into local government and I am sure is doing an excellent job.

[Diana Johnson]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. I, too, took on an apprentice in my office—a young person who had been made redundant part way through his apprenticeship—and he was such an excellent employee that I kept him on and found him a job. MPs showing how apprentices can bring added value to even a small office is a good example of the value of apprenticeships.

[Barbara Keeley]

Indeed, it is. I should say—I am sure it was the same for my hon. Friend—that that excellent experience was partly due to the training supervised by my office manager, to whom I give credit. As employers, we have to remember that we can play our part. Like all employers, we must offer training. What is more, having a 17-year-old working with us really revitalised my office. I was invited to a 21st birthday party—the first I have been to in a long time!

Apprenticeships.org is the website of the National Apprenticeships Service. In May, we were worried that only 37 apprenticeships in Salford were available on the website, and now there are still only 44, so the situation is not improving. There are other websites, but that is the national one. Salford city council is doing an excellent job providing support for apprentices and apprenticeships through Salford Futures, an employment initiative that has been running since April 2012. It, like the earlier example from Tameside, provides support to unemployed Salford residents through the provision of work experience placements and pre-employment training and support. It also encourages local employers to create and develop employment opportunities through the provision of grants, funding and wider business support. I have managed to link up employers who contacted me with that business support, and I know it is excellent.

Salford Futures is being delivered with the support of the Greater Manchester combined authority, not just individual authorities. The hon. Member for Shipley talked about his local authority perhaps not excelling in procurement, but local authorities can work together on this, and that might be a solution for any authority that feels it does not have the skills to do it. It is supported by the Greater Manchester combined authority and co-funded through the Greater Manchester commitment to youth employment scheme. There are some excellent partnerships in areas such as Greater Manchester, which are committed to ensuring that we tackle the scourge of youth unemployment. The package of support for employers includes

“Access to a 13-week wage subsidy, paid at national minimum wage, for any employer that recruits an eligible Salford resident into an apprenticeship or job with accredited training for a minimum period of six months…Brokerage and dedicated recruitment support…Information and advice on accessing additional funding opportunities, including the National Apprenticeship Service’s…initiative…Wider business support from Salford City Council's business team”.

I commend the business team. I put an employer who was interested in taking on apprentices in touch with them, and I know that they gave that employer a great deal of support.

The Bill would ensure that suppliers who won major public contracts began to offer apprenticeship opportunities if those contracts were at a certain level. We have just had a lot of to-ing and fro-ing about the circumstances, but the Bill actually follows on from “Apprenticeships”, the fifth report from the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. Having looked into it, the Committee recommended that approach, and suggested that at least one new apprenticeship could be provided for every £1 million of procurement spending.

I have described what Salford city council has been doing, but there is also good news from Salix Homes. Our housing associations are really showing the way ahead. Salix Homes was recently named by Salford council as the chosen landlord to take ownership of the 8,500 council homes in Salford in a proposed stock transfer, although that is, of course, open to consultation. It has worked to secure a commitment from its contractors—or subcontractors—to recruit two apprentices for every £1 million invested in homes and communities throughout Salford. That amounts to more apprenticeships than the number recommended by the Select Committee, and it shows what can be done. Salix Homes has promised that if the stock transfer goes ahead, it will invest a further £700 million over the next 30 years, which it says

“could generate more than 1,000 new apprenticeships for…young people.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has been a champion of ensuring that youngsters have those opportunities and that businesses provide the apprenticeships that they should provide.

[Barbara Keeley]

It was pointed out to me last week that the Care Bill, which I hope will return to this place in a few weeks, makes commitments on health education. Health education costs £4.9 billion. Caring for older people in our communities is a vital job, which now takes place mainly in the private sector, but there is no reward of the sort that we are discussing for the few employers who bother to train people. This is a new area that is opening up as we integrate health and social care. We cannot spend a huge amount—£4.9 billion—on the health side of the equation and not train people, for example through apprenticeships, to take up a valued career in social care.

[Diana Johnson]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend has a great deal of experience of social care and carers. Earlier in the debate, I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) the issue of how the NHS is spending its money and whether it takes into account whether businesses offer apprenticeships. Given all the reorganisations and changes in the NHS, we need to ask whether clinical commissioning groups are doing everything they should be doing to ensure that their contractors are providing training and apprenticeships. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) makes the important point that we need to focus on training people in the care sector. There have been scandals in many parts of the country because people have not had the skills that are needed to care for the elderly.

I want to mention again the Hull training awards, which I attended last Friday. A number of businesses in the city have supported apprenticeships for many years. I have been going to the awards for about five years. The number of businesses is growing year on year, but many employers still do not offer apprenticeships and do not feel that it is something that they want to do.

According to surveys, more than 80% of those who employ apprentices agree that they make the workplace more productive and 81% of consumers would favour a company that takes on apprentices. More than 200 types of apprenticeship are available, offering more than 1,200 job roles. Among employers who employ apprentices, 92% believe that apprenticeships lead to a more motivated and satisfied workforce, and 83% rely on their apprenticeship programme to provide the skilled workers they need for the future of the company. One in five employers is hiring more apprentices to help them through the tough economic climate.

I started by saying that offering apprenticeships was a no-brainer. Why would a business not choose to do it? The facts and figures suggest that every employer should at least consider hiring an apprentice. Money from the public purse should be spent on companies that provide more than just the service or the widget by investing in communities and young people.

Personal, Social, Health and Financial Education

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

The schools White Paper “The Importance of Teaching” announced a review to determine how to support schools to improve the quality of teaching in personal, social, health and economic education, PSHE, including giving teachers the flexibility to use their judgment on how best to deliver it. In launching the review, the then Minister with responsibility for schools, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), said that Ofsted had reported some weaknesses in the schools visited. Although PSHE was judged to be good to outstanding in three quarters of the schools, the report noted that pupils needed more knowledge and better understanding in education on relationships, drugs and alcohol, and mental and emotional health.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

From her experience as a member of the Health Committee, will my hon. Friend say something about the role that PSHE might play in ensuring that young people in this country are as healthy as possible?

[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.

Social Care (Local Sufficiency) and Identification of Carers Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Friday 7th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I welcome the Minister to his new role and to his first debate, I think, in the main Chamber as Minister responsible for care services. After being drawn third in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, I knew that I wanted to introduce a Bill to improve quality of life for carers. I have been able to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill on the identification of and support for carers three times in the past, in 2006, 2007 and 2010. A number of the sponsors of this Bill also supported the earlier Bills. I particularly highlight the support of the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who both supported each of those three Bills. I also want to highlight the support of the former Minister for social care, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who supported my Bills in 2006 and 2007. I thank the former Minister for his work on this Bill and for meeting me and the Bill’s sponsors to discuss the issues.

The issues addressed by this Bill are of great importance to carers and the people for whom they care. The Bill is supported by 28 national organisations and I shall mention some of them now: Age UK, the Alzheimer’s Society, the Carers Trust, Carers UK, Independent Age, Leonard Cheshire Disability, Marie Curie Cancer Care, Parkinson’s UK, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and the National Union of Students. In addition, 57 local organisations and three NHS bodies support the Bill, as well as more than 2,000 individual carers.

Clauses 4 to 6 focus on the identification of carers. I will talk about them later, but first I shall speak to clauses 1 to 3, which address the sufficiency of social care. We know that demographic pressures are increasing the demand for care services, which is often described as the care crisis. I, like other hon. Members, have argued many times that we need to close the funding gap for social care. The provision of sufficient social care is complex. As Andrew Dilnot says in the report of his commission on the funding of care and support:

“It is a matter for celebration that people are living longer. For many, these are extra years of good health and quality of life. For others whose care needs grow, we see much fear and uncertainty. Caring for and supporting each other should be something to celebrate. In the life and work of individuals and carers we can see dignity and independence made possible, and much that is good about our communities and society.”

We should indeed celebrate the fact that we are living longer and that more than 5 million carers are willing to provide care and support to a family member or friend, but we should also ensure that we support those carers and acknowledge that they have a right to work, and to have a social life and leisure, alongside their caring commitments. The Government frequently express that as their aspiration in carer strategy documents, but it is not what happens in many parts of the country.

A lack of identification of carers and of appropriate support for them has costs for not only the individual but our economy. Carers UK estimates that 1 million carers have given up work or reduced their working hours so that they can care. Its 2011 survey found that 31% of working age carers gave up work or reduced their working hours to care because support services were insufficiently flexible, because the person for whom they cared did not qualify for support, because there were no suitable services in the area, or because the services were too expensive or not reliable enough.

There are many case studies showing the great impact that giving up work to care has had on carers’ lives. Salford carers centre told me of carers who, after seeing no way of avoiding giving up the work that they loved in order to care, felt “desperate” or

“upset at being pushed into a corner”.

Carers UK cites the example of Susan who cares for her adult son, Tom, who has severe autism. Tom needs a lot of care, including constant supervision, because he regularly has fits. He has no sense of danger and does not eat unless prompted. Susan used to be head of English at her local school, but she was forced—she had no alternative—to give up her job to care for Tom because his college holidays did not fit the school holidays, and it was impossible to find suitable replacement care for him. Susan would like to work but, without appropriate care services, she can fit in only 12 days of supply teaching each year around caring for Tom.

Age UK told me about Christine who cares for her mother, Margaret. After Christine’s father died, and owing to her mother’s mobility problems, Christine offered her mother the chance to live with her. She intended to carry on working, but her mother’s mobility deteriorated, and the strain of caring and also working in a demanding job led to the total collapse of her health. After giving up work and using all her savings, Christine found that she had to go on benefits, which wounded her pride and played on her health. Employers for Carers, a business forum of 55 employers representing nearly 1 million employees, supports the Bill as a measure that is important for our country’s future economic productivity.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Given the country’s economic circumstances, we all recognise the importance of keeping people in jobs whenever possible and of creating jobs as part of an attempt to grow the economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill would go some way towards helping that to happen?

[Barbara Keeley]

Absolutely; I thank my hon. Friend for that point.

The Bill is also supported by British Gas, BT, Bright Horizons and PricewaterhouseCoopers because they believe that its measures are important. Caroline Waters OBE, the director of people and policy at BT and the chair of Employers for Carers, says:

“We are seeing the mounting costs, not just to families but to business of a care system that often cannot support carers trying to juggle work with care. Stimulating the care market can deliver an economic triple win—better services for families, the infrastructure to help employers retain skilled staff and a real boost to economic growth. The debate started 20 years ago with childcare and there is now a pressing need to bring the same focus and progress to care for older and disabled people. This Bill would start this important process by placing a duty on local authorities to ensure a supply of care as is already the case for childcare.”

Members of the Employers for Carers forum increasingly report staff leaving work at short notice to take on caring responsibilities. The peak age for caring is between 45 and 65, and that age frequently coincides with the peak of an employee’s skills, knowledge and experience. Losing such employees can lead to large retraining costs on top of recruitment costs.

A recent report by Dr Linda Pickard of the London School of Economics shows that carers giving up work to care costs about £1.3 billion a year in lost tax revenue and benefits. Also on costs to the economy, a recent report by Carers UK suggests that the failure to address the funding of adequate care provision, as other countries have done, means that we are missing out on jobs and growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barbara Keeley]

Very much so. It sometimes involves social workers and very often teachers. Teachers need this awareness because young carers may fail to turn up at school, not do their work on time, and not be there for exams. It is often said by young carers’ organisations and projects that GPs and health professionals ignore young carers. A 10 or 11-year-old is expected to care for someone with perhaps an alcohol problem or a mental health problem, and yet the GP or doctor involved in that situation simply ignores them, treating them as if they were not there.

[Diana Johnson]

Given what my hon. Friend is saying about young carers, there appear to be similarities with looked-after children. Measures have been put in place in schools to ensure that looked-after children are given the support they need in difficult circumstances. Could we transfer those measures to children who are caring for siblings or parents?

[Barbara Keeley]

I am sure that there are similarities. This field of work is opening up, but much more needs to be done.

It is interesting to talk to organisations such as the Carers Trust and the Children’s Society, which run the young carers projects, about identification, which my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) mentioned. Young carers are already eligible for assessment under carers legislation and as “children in need” under the Children Act 2004, but very few of them are identified or ever assessed for support. In supporting the Bill, the Carers Trust says that

“clear duties on local authorities and further and higher education institutions to identify and support young carers will help ensure that inappropriate caring is prevented or reduced so that young carers can enjoy the same opportunities and outcomes as other children and young people.”

BBC Local Radio

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Keeley

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Westminster Hall

[Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Our part of the world has problems with flooding, and Radio Humberside is excellent at picking up on it and is on the scene straight away to get out information. Radio Humberside is excellent, and I pay tribute to its work on that particular issue, as well as all of its other work.

In December 2007, Radio Humberside was recognised by the Prime Minister of the day as one of the flood heroes. Peter Levy came to London and was awarded a certificate for Radio Humberside’s work.

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

It seems that many Members have experienced floods. It is coming up to a year since we had a terrible gas explosion, which was covered by BBC Radio Manchester. Some 200 families were evacuated—so it was a similar situation—and I praise BBC Radio Manchester’s unrivalled coverage of that terrible crisis for the affected families across the area.

[Diana Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. In the days, weeks and months following the floods, Radio Humberside gave people information from the National Flood Forum on what they should do and where they could seek advice, which was important. Many hon. Members across the House know of the importance of local radio.

I will finish shortly because many other hon. Members wish to speak. I am told that, if there is a civil emergency, local radio broadcasting on, say, a pan-Yorkshire basis could switch back to very local transmission. Given the reduction in staff numbers and available resources, I do not know how feasible that would be, how quickly it could happen and whether we would get the service we need.

My final comment is on the demographics of the people in my constituency who listen to Radio Humberside. Overall, 79% of listeners come from the C, D and E demographics, and, as other Members have said, they do not access BBC services in any other way. Those groups are the hardest to reach with public service information, so it is vital that local radio output gets to those people whom we cannot reach in any other way.