Euan Stainbank
Main Page: Euan Stainbank (Labour - Falkirk)Department Debates - View all Euan Stainbank's debates with the Home Office
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I will confine my remarks to the impact of the ILR proposals on social care in my constituency in Scotland.
Around 25% of social care workers come from other countries. We need social care staff who live, work and breathe care, and, with an ageing population, we need more of them. Most of those staff have diligently, and with a smile on their face, taken care of our families. None of them have received a good deal—or one that reflects their contributions—over the last few years, with inadequate pay offers often limited to the living wage.
I held a roundtable in November on that subject with Falkirk’s care sector. I thank the fantastic local social care workers who travelled down to London to speak with me before Christmas. The concern they have is simple: employers typically only sponsor when they need to, and the recent rise in those coming on social care visas is due to the pay being unattractive to domestic-born workers. Every employer at my roundtable cited immovable difficulties in recruiting locally as the reason that they were pursuing sponsorship. That is unlikely to improve radically given the setting of successive paltry living wage levels at well shy of £15 an hour, well short of a sustainable wage for attracting domestic workers en masse reliably, and morally insufficient for anyone who contributes by working in such a valuable profession. This is a push without a pull.
As MPs, we are hearing directly from providers—and workers—that a blunt transition to 10-year to 15-year ILR timescales for social workers before further work is done to recruit a sustainable workforce risks leaving one of the most important sectors in our country exposed in terms of recruiting critical workers.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Many people in my constituency who are on the skilled worker visa programme have written to me. They are being told, if they are already on a five-year programme, that it will be changed retrospectively to a 10-year programme. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an inherent issue of fairness in retrospectively making changes, and that, at the very least, the Government should have transitional arrangements?
Euan Stainbank
I agree with my hon. Friend’s point, and am glad that he managed to get it on the record. I also reflect that there will be an economic impact on social care if we are not able to attract a sufficient domestic workforce to compensate for those who would leave the country.
Those changes would risk deterring those already in the sector from staying. Failing to be able to replace them risks worsening standards for those within the industry by extending their unbreakable tie to a sole sponsoring employer or occupation. The Government are right to pursue measures that reduce net migration, and to address the lack of public consent in the immigration system due to the scattergun rise in net migration under the previous Government, who promised the exact opposite for years. But as we seek to invest in upskilling a generation, we must invest in increasing social care pay to a competitive level, so that we can deliver for that sector, and not risk the sector by trading off the short-term welfare of those who work in it as we pursue reducing net migration.