Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Tracey Crouch

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Kate Green]

Indeed I do. Research by Global Future, for example, points starkly to the gap in the social care workforce today, the growth of that gap as a consequence of demographic change, and the potential implications of the proposals in the Government’s White Paper. I will say a little more about that in a moment, and colleagues may wish to expand on it, too.

In respect of personal assistants, if we assume that the percentage of that workforce mirrors that of the social care workforce as a whole, we could assume that perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 are non-UK nationals, including European economic area nationals. That covers only personal assistants employed to provide social care; I have no information on the breakdown by nationality of personal assistants employed by holders of personal health budgets. However, there are a total of 42,000 personal assistants employed by holders of personal health budgets, which might suggest, if the proportion of non-UK nationals is similar to that in social care, a further 3,000 to 4,000 people.

My amendment seeks to address the concern about the ongoing ability of disabled people to recruit this important workforce after Brexit if the proposals in the Minister’s White Paper, particularly those relating to the salary threshold, came into effect. Wherever personal assistants are employed, they are a vital resource for disabled people, whose lives would be very difficult without them—especially, for example, those who live in isolated rural communities where it is difficult to get end-to-end social care.

Many—perhaps the vast majority or even all—of these personal assistants earn way less than £30,000 per year. Typically, many will earn only half that. As I have said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen pointed out, the sector as a whole already faces severe pressure. Skills for Care says there are approximately 110,000 unfilled vacancies in the sector at any one time. Global Future’s research points to growing pressures as a result of a changing demographic, which, combined with the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this Bill and the proposals in the White Paper, could lead to a shortfall in the workforce of perhaps 400,000 by 2026, including a shortfall in the number of personal assistants. At the present rate of recruitment it would take us 20 years to make up that gap.

This workforce was considered in detail by the Migration Advisory Committee in the report it published last year. While acknowledging the shortfall, the MAC suggested that it could be made up in a number of different ways were access not available to EEA nationals to fill vacancies in the labour force—for example, by persuading former care workers to come back into the sector or by improving retention rates.

However, MAC also says that if the fundamental problem of recruitment and retention in the sector relates to pay and conditions, the only way we can use alternatives to recruiting non-UK nationals—indeed, even if we are recruiting EEA nationals—lies in improving pay and conditions across the sector, which will require substantial funding from the Government. In any event, it would take an heroic effort by the Government and the sector to fill that workforce gap without access to EEA nationals, not least as this demographic time bomb is ticking right here, right now.

For disabled people who employ personal assistants, this could be disastrous. They need committed, skilled carers. They need continuity of care; they cannot afford to have people coming in and out of the workforce. They need certainty and reliability. Therefore, there are real concerns that, if a skills threshold were imposed or, most importantly for this amendment, if a salary threshold of £30,000 applied, they might be forced to look to fill vacancies using people on short-term work visas who would not have the skills or be able to provide the continuity of care.

Governments of all colours have long supported the concept of personal budgets as a facilitative means to support independent living for disabled people. It would be a crying shame if the ambitions that the Government set out in their White Paper and the provisions of this Bill worked against that aim. I hope the Minister will, in the course of our debate, be able to offer some words of reassurance to personal assistants and, most importantly, to the disabled people who employ them.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

It is no longer a surprise that I rise in sympathetic support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. I am the independent chair of Medway Council’s physical disability partnership board, and with that role come connections to Kent’s physical disability forum. I have campaigned for a long time on some of the issues people with physical disabilities face and on how, through better partnership working, they can have a really productive relationship with the local authorities that serve them.

One issue that has come up in meetings over the last 12 months is shortages within the personal assistant workforce post Brexit. Many people are incredibly anxious about whether they will be able to recruit the team they need to support them in their lives. I have not seen anxiety like this on any other issue. It is not necessarily about the Bill specifically but about the impact of Brexit on this recruitment crisis.

As the hon. Lady stressed, many people simply cannot work, or indeed live anything that resembles a normal life, without their personal assistants. With his permission, I want to reference a concern of a member of that forum called Clive. Clive works full time as a senior campaigner for Citizens Advice and runs the Thanet citizens advice bureau extremely ably. He said at a recent meeting that, four years ago, before Brexit, he advertised for a new personal assistant and received 110 applications, three quarters of which were from EU nationals. Immediately after Brexit, he put out an advert, and instead of 110 applications, he received four, none of which was from an EU national. After placing his latest advert, he received only one applicant, who happened to be an EU national. He is absolutely reliant on good personal care, and he fears there will be an accidental consequence as a result of the Bill’s minimum threshold on this part of the workforce.

Many people like Clive face issues such as those the hon. Lady set out, and I hope the Minister listened to what I thought was her reasonable and sensible speech. This issue is unique, in many respects, among the wider issues around the EEA national workforce, and I hope she will speak to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions who have responsibility for those with disabilities and those in social care who are responsible for personal healthcare budgets. Hopefully, at some point, she will come back with the reassurances that are sought by people such as Clive, who is my constituent and a member of that forum, and by others across the country on the future employment of personal assistants.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Kate Green and Tracey Crouch

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Kate Green]

Q What would you suggest would be more useful in identifying the roles that need to be filled? How would we measure that?

Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: I think that we know what we need in this country. We know that we need nurses, so it might be that we are looking for that skill, as opposed to an arbitrary salary figure.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

Q My colleague asked part of the question that I wanted to ask, regarding comments made this morning by the Migration Advisory Committee about EEA migrant workers making up a lower fraction of care assistants and NHS workers than the national average. Did you say that the percentage of nurses from the EEA is 10%?

Professor Dame Donna Kinnair: My understanding is that roughly 10% come from the EU.

Mesothelioma (Insurance Premiums)

Debate between Kate Green and Tracey Crouch

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Westminster Hall

[Tracey Crouch]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As a strong campaigner for justice for victims, I found myself in a bizarre situation last year, in that I felt sympathetic towards the pre-action protocols originally proposed in the Government review, because I felt that they might speed up access to justice and make the process simpler for victims. As it happens, the Government ditched the pre-action protocols and will introduce measures that may take away 25% of a victim’s damages to fund the conditional fee arrangements and after-the-event insurance. I want to get as much money as possible to the victim as quickly as possible. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has said, once people find out that they have mesothelioma, they have little time left in their lives to plan for the financial security of their dependants because, very sadly, they often die quickly and nastily within six to nine months of contracting the illness. They will not be thinking about shopping around for after-the-event insurance or the best-priced legal fees when they are trying to deal with their horrible disease.

There is a slight irony in the fact that I am speaking about mesothelioma from notes written on cards sent to me—and, I assume, all parliamentarians—by Macmillan. This debate gives me a good opportunity to thank those who support victims of mesothelioma, such as Macmillan nurses. They deal with lung cancers all the time, but mesothelioma is quite possibly the worst that they have to deal with. It is an opportune moment to congratulate those who help sufferers of mesothelioma.

I return to LASPO. When the Bill went through Parliament, section 48 granted a welcome exemption from sections 44 and 46. Parliament had its say, and the House of Lords defeated the Government on the issue. Paul Goggins, who worked closely with the then Minister on the matter, and I welcomed the measure, and we sought assurances that if there were to be any change, Parliament would be given a say on it. Lord McNally, the then Minister of Justice in the House of Lords, made it clear that although commencement orders would be introduced by statutory instrument in the usual way and did not require the approval of both Houses,

“The amendment means that the commencement cannot begin on mesothelioma claims until a review has been carried out and a report published on the likely effect of the provisions on mesothelioma claims.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 April 2012; Vol. 736, c. 1824.]

I argue that a proper review has not been conducted, and a report has definitely not been published. It is disrespectful to Parliament that a decision was made in a written statement that sections 44 and 46 would be applied in this way. If that assurance was not enough, I received a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), the Minister’s predecessor, which stated that the Lord Chancellor would review

“the likely impact of the reforms on mesothelioma cases and publish a report.”

We did our very best to secure the exemption for victims of mesothelioma during the passage of LASPO. We did so in good faith, believing that a proper review would take place and that we in Parliament—and those, including the victims, who have real concerns—would see the outcome of that review in a report. We have not yet seen such a report. That is unfair on parliamentarians and, more importantly, victims.

[Kate Green]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for all the work that she does on this issue, which I know is much appreciated by victims and their families. Does she agree that without such a report, it is impossible to make sense of any changes in circumstances that have occurred since the passing of LASPO? To observers from outside, there has been no reason for the Government’s complete change in direction.

[Tracey Crouch]

I agree with the hon. Lady. I understand that as part of the mechanism of government, reviews are often carried out, as a consequence of which changes may be made swiftly. When we have been promised a report so that we can assess whether the impact of the changes under LASPO will affect mesothelioma victims, I expect the victims, those who have contributed to the review, and parliamentarians who have spoken about the matter to have access to that report.

Although it might be too early to conduct a proper assessment of the effect of sections 44 and 46, we must be aware that the legal ombudsman has made it clear that the changes are causing considerable stress and excessive loss not only to mesothelioma victims but to other personal injury claimants. Mesothelioma victims are a special case, for reasons that have been outlined. The Government recognised that in their written ministerial statement, and the introduction of section 48 of LASPO indicated that mesothelioma should be considered differently from other personal injury cases.

I want to pick up on the written ministerial statement, which the hon. Member for Middlesbrough has mentioned. It referred to the Mesothelioma Bill, an important piece of legislation for those who cannot trace their insurer, which will be welcomed by the 300 or so victims every year who cannot get compensation through the civil claims process. LASPO is not relevant to the Mesothelioma Bill. LASPO deals with those who are going through the complex civil claims process, but the Mesothelioma Bill is there for entirely different reasons. If we continue to mix the two pieces of legislation—the Minister should listen carefully to this, because it would have a Treasury impact—we may end up providing a disincentive for people to trace their insurer because they find it too difficult to do so through the civil claims process. If they trace their insurer, they may lose 25% of their compensation as a result of sections 44 and 46 of LASPO. We want people to access the scheme for the right reasons, and those measures create a perverse incentive for people to access it for precisely the wrong reasons.

I was going to read the exact quote from the late Paul Goggins that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough used, in order to make the point that people find it repulsive that victims of mesothelioma could be asked to shop around to get the best deal from those who might represent them. However, the hon. Gentleman made that point perfectly adequately, and I hope that the Minister heard it the first time. We must acknowledge the fact that the report has not been published. We are not trying to be difficult with the Minister—I am certainly not. All I want is to put the victim at the centre of the process. To be perfectly honest, it does not feel like that is the case currently.

I am sure that the Minister is aware that over the past few years 15 people have died of mesothelioma in his own constituency. That is the 15 deaths that are registered; it is not necessarily the 15 people who have had secondary exposure, such as the women who washed overalls or the children who hugged their father when he came home from work. Of the 15 people who were registered, statistically two of them would not have bothered to go into the civil claims process because it is too complex. Those who have, I hope, have been adequately compensated for simply going to work and contracting a disease. The danger is that the legislative changes proposed on the Minister’s watch could mean that more people do not get the financial compensation they deserve, either because they do not go through the civil claims process, or because they do and are punished by losing 25% of what they should get to lawyers or insurers.

Our system should be simple, faster and better for victims. We know how many people have died of this disease so far; we do not know how many people will die of it in future. We do know, however, that they will die quickly. We also know that they will want to pass away leaving some sort of financial security for their dependents. I urge the Minister not only to publish the report—it is a moot point as to whether the process was conducted properly or whether the question asked was at all relevant to mesothelioma victims—but to halt the introduction of sections 44 and 46 until much further consideration has taken place.