Finance Bill

Debate between Jack Dromey and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey]

Let me spell out the facts: 2 million new homes; 1 million more mortgage holders; half a million more affordable homes; and 1.6 million social homes brought up to a decent homes standard after our Government inherited a £19 billion backlog in housing repairs. In the 1980s, the hon. Gentleman’s Government stood back and allowed a tidal wave of mortgage repossessions. In 2008, we took action to keep people in their homes and, through the kick-start programme, sustained the building industry against collapse and got Britain building again. I will compare that record favourably anytime to the miserable track record of failure of the hon. Gentleman’s Government.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my hon. Friend share my perplexity about the figure for the amount of homes lost that Government Members have come up with in recent debates on housing? If social homes are lost, they are lost through the right to buy. The Government have decided to increase the size of discounts and further encourage the right to buy, so they will probably lose more social homes than they build. We cannot compare net figures with gross figures.

[Jack Dromey]

Indeed, when the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—a man who gives hubris a bad name—launched the new enhanced right-to-buy campaign, he said that there would be one-for-one replacement. One for nine is what is happening. In addition, as freedom of information requests have just shown, Labour councils are building council homes at twice the rate of Conservative and Liberal Democrat councils.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Jack Dromey and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

This debate has clearly demonstrated that Members have very different views on how to tackle the current economic situation. I was very struck by one commentator’s observation that the Government were leaving economic recovery to business—that they were expecting business to spring up and solve our problems. That is what we heard almost two years ago, in the so-called emergency Budget—which did not, in fact, do anything terribly urgent. We were told then that very shortly the shoots of private enterprise would spring to life, particularly if we cut the public sector. Almost two years later, we are still waiting for that, however; it simply has not happened. It is not good enough for us simply to sit back and say, “Somehow, this is going to sort itself out.” It is right to want to stimulate the economy, and to create jobs and work.

Construction and affordable housing are essential. I live in a city with an acute shortage of affordable housing. There are many planning permissions and consents in place for new house building, which would have had at least an element of affordable housing, so the problem is not the planning system. Nothing is happening, however. The ground lies idle, and the building firms have paid off their workers and are waiting for the upturn, hoping that the land values will carry them through.

What is so wrong with wanting to raise some extra revenue and stimulate the economy in that way? If building workers are back in employment and private building firms are flourishing, then those workers will have income with which to stimulate the economy.

There has been a huge downturn in retail over the past few months. I read today that there has recently been a slight upturn because of the good weather in March, but, certainly where I come from, that has now been followed by three weeks of pretty rubbish weather, so presumably that upturn will now have been reversed. There has been a downturn in retail because people feel they do not have money to go out and spend. The whole local economy is affected by that. The knock-on effects on the local economy of investment in affordable housing are huge.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

The Government’s own figures show that house building is down and homelessness is up. In 2008, a Labour Government acted, at the time of the bankers’ crisis, with a kick-start programme, which resulted in 110,000 homes built, 70,000 jobs created and 3,000 apprenticeships. That sustained the building industry. Do we not now need a fresh kick-start programme—hence the importance of our bankers’ bonus tax—so that we can build 25,000 homes straight away, create jobs for unemployed building workers and create hope and apprenticeships for the young people of our country?

Caring Responsibilities

Debate between Jack Dromey and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 15th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this subject under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

This is carers week. It is a time for us to praise carers, to have our photographs taken and to issue press releases to our local newspapers to show how much we care for the carers. In fact, however, it is a worrying time for carers, and the first aspect of that is the budget cuts.

The Government have made a great deal of their injection of £2 billion a year of extra money by 2014-15 to support social care. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), said that this

“means councils can meet cost pressures and maintain services”

However, an Association of Directors of Adult Social Services survey found that 98% of English councils showed overall budget reductions, even when taking account of the additional £1 billion for 2011-12.

Age UK says that spending cuts are projected to reduce spending on older people’s care by £300 million over four years, and that real spending on their care will be £250 million less in 2014 than it was in 2004. That is despite the fact that, during that time, we will have seen a rise of two thirds in the number of people over 85, one of the biggest groups that need care.

In 2005, half of our councils provided support to people who were assessed as having moderate needs. In 2011, however, that figure had fallen to 18%. To qualify for adaptations that could help them to manage better without care, people are assessed largely on the same basis. One example is showers that enable people to bathe without assistance. In the overwhelming majority of council areas, people now have to demonstrate critical or substantial need. Many constituents have asked for help with such things as shower adaptations but have been refused because they do not meet that need. One constituent has told me that, as a result, she can take a bath only if her daughter is there to help, yet she lives some miles away. If she had a shower, she feels that she could use it on her own, without having to call on her daughter for assistance. Not only would that improve her well-being and self-esteem, but it would clearly reduce the need for care. Use of these levels of eligibility for the person who needs the care places a greater burden on friend and family carers, who have to fill the gaps.

I argue that the cuts are short-sighted and could end up being more expensive. For example, if the carers’ help is compromised by having to take on an extra burden of care, or if the ill or disabled suffer accidents—perhaps because they do not have adequate adaptations—it will cost us a great deal more. We know that an older person having a fall is more likely to require expensive hospital care, or that a fall can act as a trigger for needing long-term residential care. Such accidents can often precipitate events that might not have happened for a long time, if at all. It is in that context that I argue that the cuts could be short-sighted.

In April, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) carried out a survey of 61 councils; 27 were Conservative, 29 were Labour, four were Lib Dem. It showed that 88% of councils were increasing charges for social care services; that 16% were raising eligibility criteria, which as I said had already been increased; that 54% were making cuts in the voluntary service; and that almost two thirds were closing care homes or day centres. The Government’s response is often to say that it is primarily for local authorities, under the localism agenda, to decide how to spend the money. I bring to this debate a cautionary tale from north of the border.

Four years ago, the Scottish Government discovered localism, although they did not call it that. In 2007, they entered into a concordat with local government that included the removal of most ring-fenced funds and what I would describe as the velvet embrace of a four-year council tax freeze. Adult social care is not statutory. As a result, it often suffers in budgetary crises. Supporting People funding, which is primarily low level and preventive in scope, has been used since its introduction in 2003 for such things as supporting people in sheltered housing, and helping to meet part of the cost of care packages for people with learning and physical disabilities who have been moved out of institutional care—something that we all agree with—into their own homes.

The end of ring-fencing has led to a reduction in low-level support, the money being used to meet more immediately urgent needs. However, it has proved extremely difficult to track exactly where the funding is being used. The removal of the ring fence has made it hard to be absolutely certain that the money is not being used as it once was, other than through some of the outcomes.

Home care hours have been cut substantially in my city over the last four years. Many people now receive short visits—perhaps 15 minutes at the beginning and end of the day. However, the beginning and end of that day will be whenever the care services deem them to be, and people may be put to bed at 8 pm because it suits the care service. As a result, many families are having to plug the gap. That takes no account of considering such things as paying for care services. Visits can be very brief indeed.

A further difficulty in tracking what is happening is the increasing individualisation of decisions on care. A professional decision that someone needs fewer care hours can be hard to monitor, as individuals do not know what is happening to others and do not necessarily know that there is anything to challenge.

A family who I visited at the weekend have had their care hours cut from 50 to 42 a week. The husband, who is 74, has suffered severe strokes and needs constant care. His family have seen no change in circumstances other than their observation that they are worse, not better. His main carer is his 71-year-old wife; but having been fit and healthy and having worked to age 65, she is now beginning to suffer health problems, and recently suffered a slight stroke from which she has now recovered. No overnight care is provided outwith the family, and the wife often gets little sleep, with other family members regularly having to stay the night to give her an overnight break. The payments that the family receive to pay for care have reduced from £560 per week to £475 per week, based on the argument that their need was less. The family suspect that it is do with funding cuts. It would be more straightforward if local authorities were to say so, rather than suggesting that a professional decision had been made.

Others might touch on this later, but concern has been expressed about what has happened to the money for respite care that was made available by the previous Government. Many of the organisations involved have complained that it was not clear where the money had gone or whether it had been used for the purposes for which it had been granted. Further money has been given. The Prime Minister spoke about it again today. However, the main question is whether the money is being used for the purposes for which it was given. Although a hands-off localist policy makes it possible for Governments, devolved or not, to disclaim responsibility for what is happening, they remain, none the less, the largest funder of local services. A policy of successive council tax freezes tips the financial balance further towards central Government.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

Cutting support for the elderly and disabled is described as the cruellest cut of all. Is my hon. Friend concerned that the Prime Minister described Birmingham city council as “excellent” when it had been branded in the High Court as acting unlawfully in taking away care from 4,100 people in substantial need? Does she not agree that the council should continue to support organisations such as Elders with Attitude because they bring people out of their homes and stimulate them mentally and physically so that they lead a good life and do not become dependent on the national health service or have to go into a care home?

[Sheila Gilmore]

That is clear example of what is happening up and down the country not only for older people who need care but for older carers themselves, who have very specific needs. Half of the 6 million people who are providing unpaid care in the UK are aged over 50. In England in 2010, nearly 1 million people aged 65 and over were providing unpaid care to a partner, a family member, who might be younger than them, or some other person. The largest number were aged between 65 and 74, but there were nearly 50,000 people over the age of 85 who were giving substantial amounts of care. A quarter of all carers aged 75 and over provided 50 or more hours of unpaid care per week. Carers over retirement age are a particularly vulnerable group because they tend to have health issues themselves. Such people say that they really have no retirement or that they have not been able to enjoy the retirement that they had expected.