Care Workers

Debate between Helen Jones and John Robertson

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I rise to make a brief contribution to the debate. The issues have been set out admirably by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and others. I apologise in advance for the fact that I cannot stay for the wind-ups.

We are facing a scandalous situation. The people who do some of the most difficult jobs in our society are not even reaching the minimum wage because of the scams that are being perpetrated in the care sector. They are not paid for travel, they are on zero-hours contracts, and other scams are perpetrated against them. When I talk to care workers in my constituency, I see that they are decent people who just want to do a decent week’s work, and I can see what that means. They have to rush between appointments, and they feel guilty about not being able to spend time with their clients. They believe that the care they are giving is not of the quality that people should receive.

Care is not just about getting somebody washed and dressed, or giving them their breakfast; it is what it says it is. Care is about spending time with people, listening to them and talking about the problems they face. It says much about our care workers that, as well as worrying about their own wages, as they are entitled to do, they worry about the impact on their clients of what is, frankly, a rotten system.

Let us consider what really happens. If care workers are on zero-hours contracts, they are paid only for their actual appointments, and not for their travelling time. It is estimated that 220,000 people are not being paid the minimum wage. That has been allowed to happen for far too long—those 220,000 people cannot meet their bills at the end of the week, despite working full time. Does the Minister honestly understand what that means? I do, because I remember it from my earlier life. It means running out of money by the end of the week and relying on friends or family to help out. Friends and family bring things saying, “Well, I got it as a two-for-one offer,” or, “This was on sale,” but people know they were not and that their friends and family are trying to spare their feelings. Zero-hours contracts mean that it is a crisis when a child needs a new pair of shoes or grows out of their coat. That is the position that we inflict on people who do some of the most difficult jobs in our society by caring for the elderly and the disabled—the most vulnerable. I suspect that most of us in this room could never do those jobs, except for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who has actually done it.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that nearly half of the firms it inspected in the care sector were not paying the minimum wage. Very few of those firms have even been named and shamed. How many of them have actually been prosecuted? As the Minister said, they are criminals. In what other sector of life would we say to a criminal, “We know you are doing it, and we would like you to stop. We are not actually taking you to court, and we are not prosecuting you. We know you are a burglar, but will you just give it up?” We do that with the minimum wage, which is an absolute disgrace. The Government must take responsibility. Yes, some local councils must take responsibility, too. It is true that local councils do not always monitor the contracts that they give out, do not ensure that people are paid properly and do not check workers’ wages, but that is not surprising given the situation in which they find themselves.

It is all very well for the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) to tell us about the duties he imposed on local councils, but if we will the end, we have to will the means. It is a fact that the councils that face the most draconian cuts under the Government’s Local Government Finance Act 2012 are also the councils that have the highest levels of long-term disability and the biggest need for social care.

If the Government want to impose duties on local councils, they have an obligation to ensure that those councils have money available to meet those duties, otherwise councils will simply put the responsibility elsewhere and fail to meet their own. We know what happens when such systems are in place, and we know what happens when care workers cannot spend enough time with their clients: health problems go undetected, and people’s feelings of loneliness and isolation increase, driving up mental health problems. There are more falls and more admissions to hospital. There is a cost to the people concerned, and to the NHS, because a good care system cannot be run on the cheap. It requires properly trained, properly paid and properly supervised staff. The most vulnerable people in our society deserve no less. The Government have been trying to run care on the cheap, on the backs of dedicated workers who are being treated shamefully, and it is time that that stopped.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members for their use of time.

Local Government Finance Bill

Debate between Helen Jones and John Robertson

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Helen Jones]

I beg to move amendment 33, page 25, line 34, at end insert

‘Any such distribution must be made on the basis of the level of need in any local authority receiving a payment as defined in Schedule 1.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr John Robertson)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 34, page 25, line 38, after ‘distribution”)’, insert

‘including the level of need in any local authority as defined in Schedule 1’.

Amendment 35, page 26, line 19, leave out from ‘made’ to end of line 22 and insert

‘within the following financial year’.

[Helen Jones]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson.

With these amendments, we return to our discussion about ensuring that any local government finance scheme takes account of the varying level of need in our communities, a problem that the Government seem determined to ignore. Interestingly, the Bill does not lay down the basis on which the Secretary of State must distribute the whole or a part of the remaining balance on a levy account at the end of the year, if he decides to do so. That is the problem with the Bill: too much of it is left opaque; too much is unspecified. Even Ministers have difficulty explaining it properly.

I cannot remember whether it was the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), but on Second Reading a Minister was reduced to reading out the explanatory notes when asked to explain the Bill in plain English, but we do know that embedded in the Bill is a blind refusal to address need. It is there in the use of the current financial settlement as the baseline, which, as the Yorkshire and Humberside councils said, means that baselines may not reflect the actual funding that councils need to deliver services to their local communities from April 2013. It is there also in the Government’s refusal to put anything in the Bill about need being taken into account when determining central and local shares; and it is there in the Government voting against our amendments to ensure that need was debated alongside local government finance reports.

It is all very well for the Prime Minister to talk about caring capitalism, but as we debate this Bill we do not see much care for the needs of the elderly, for children, for the working poor or for any of those who rely on local government services. Tory Members ignore it; Liberal Democrat Members weep crocodile tears and then troop into the Lobby after their Tory masters, anyway.

We see the same mindset operating when we consider the distribution of the levy balance. It is open to the Secretary of State not to distribute it at all, and we accept that there may be times when the levy needs to build up from year to year in order to fund safety net payments. If he does decide to distribute it, and it is nice to see the Secretary of State in his place, we will be back to the “all-power-to-Pickles” scenario. There is nothing in the Bill to stop him doing as he likes. What will his decision be based on—on whether he once had a nice day out somewhere, or the fact that an open space was named “Pickles park” in his honour? I cannot see many local authorities represented by Opposition Members getting money on that basis.

In Warrington, we have an Attlee avenue and a Bevin avenue. When the noble Baroness Thatcher was in power, the council even named one of its buildings “Poll Tax house”, to remind people of how the payments that they made had been imposed on them. That is a salutary reminder of how the last time they were in government, the Tories got it so wrong on local government finance. I cannot see us having a Pickles avenue, a Neill nook or anything else that might get us money on that basis.