Care Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment 86PA.

Clause 5 emphasises quality, which is to be welcomed, and places promoting diversity and quality in the provision of services in the Bill. However, on behalf of nurses, the Royal College of Nursing thinks that it is not enough merely to quote “quality”. Local authorities are responsible for commissioning services from providers and have a duty to ensure that these providers and services are effective to meet the needs of the individual. It does not believe that at the moment local authorities are fulfilling these duties and responsibilities if they commission providers who fail to deliver high-quality care and, worse, provide care that detrimentally impacts on the health and well-being of individuals, as has been demonstrated in some recent high-profile cases.

As commissioners, local authorities must be part of a system-wide approach to safeguarding vulnerable groups. They are therefore falling negligent in their role if they commission providers and services that are not sustainable and fail both financially and clinically.

The potential impact of this was demonstrated recently with Southern Cross, where the health and well-being—and, indeed, lives—of care home residents were put at risk following the failure of its business model. For this reason, I believe that local authorities have a responsibility for ensuring that services that are commissioned by them are of high quality and sustainable. The two amendments are to that effect. Amendment 86HA seeks to insert the word “sustainable” and Amendment 86PA seeks to insert the words,

“the importance of ensuring the sustainability and high quality of the providers it commissions”.

I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, as this is my first intervention, I refer noble Lords to my interests as president elect of GSI, chair of an NHS foundation trust and a consultant and trainer with Cumberlege Connections.

I have three amendments in this group. Amendment 86J seeks to delete “high quality services” and instead insert,

““services appropriate to their needs as identified in the needs assessment and carer’s assessment”.

The problem with the draft as it currently stands is that it is very vague and entirely subjective depending on who is defining “high quality services”. Perhaps the noble Earl can clarify how the Government think it ought to be defined. Otherwise, there is a risk of uncertainty and inconsistency which, certainly when it comes to eligibility criteria, the Bill is designed to eradicate.

My second Amendment 86K would ensure that those in receipt of care and those involved in providing care are involved in shaping the market, as required under Clause 5. I have received a number of submissions about the market-making role of local authorities, and I was concerned to receive a submission from the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, which said that while the intention of Clause 5 in promoting quality and diversity within the market is laudable, ADASS was of the view that the proposed duty placed on local authorities is wholly unrealistic. It points to a large number of providers that have no relationship or contact with local authorities, and says that combined with increased personalisation and limited leverage through the regulation framework, the ability of local authorities alone to influence diversity and quality of service is restricted.

I was very disappointed with that response, and rather taken aback by it. I hope that the noble Earl will share my view that in fact local authorities ought to be able to influence not only the market but the quality of care provided by private providers to a very great extent. Would the Minister accept that, to be effective, local authorities need to have a strong engagement both with users of services and carers, and with those who are providing services, too? That is why I tabled the amendment.

I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, and I very much agree with her about the need to ensure quality in provision of service. That brings me to my own substantive Amendment 86P, which is very much concerned with the conditions under which care workers are employed in the main by the private sector. This is a hugely important issue. Clearly, we have a growing number of disabled and older people who need care and support. The people working in the care sector are vital. We need quality people who are highly trained and who can give the right commitment to the vulnerable people they are asked to care for. Clause 5 is important because what we see is a very fragmented industry delivering care that in many cases is of questionable quality and employing insecure, low paid, unregulated staff. Amendment 86P is concerned with the importance of fostering a sustainable workforce to encourage the acquisition of skills and decent working conditions that support the continuity and quality of care.

I was shocked to see a parliamentary Answer from the Minister’s honourable friend Mr Lamb recently, showing that more than 300,000 people working in the care sector are employed on zero-hours contracts. The point that I wish to make is this: how can people who do not have the security of knowing what they will earn pass on a sense of security to the people whom they care for? The rise in zero-hours contracts is bad for service users, many of whom are, of course, extremely vulnerable. There is another issue. People who are being cared for want to see the same person to have a continuity of care relationship. We know that that is severely hindered by those wretched zero-hours contracts. I believe that secure employment would allow staff to concentrate on caring rather than worrying about whether they are earning enough money for themselves and their families to live on.

I ought to declare an interest as a member of UNISON, which produced an excellent report, Time to Care, which undertook a survey in 2012 of care home workers. It showed that 80% of those who responded had to rush work or leave a client early to go to another call on what is called call cramming— in other words, too many calls for a care worker to undertake—and 56% received between the national minimum wage and £8 an hour. The majority did not receive set wages. Not surprisingly, turnover is high, while wages and conditions are poor.

Here is a shocking statistic. Nearly 57.8% are not paid for travelling time between visits. This morning I met a carer in Southwark who works roughly 20 hours on a zero-hours contract. She reckons that, because of the travelling time, she actually works for 27 hours, but is paid for only 20. The problem is that there is a race to the bottom because local authorities are, in my view, neglecting their responsibilities for ensuring that, when they place contracts, they are with good quality organisations. The companies who are exploiting their workers in this way are winning contracts at the expense of companies who treat their employees wisely. No wonder, therefore, that 36.7% of respondents are often allocated different clients on a daily basis, so that there is no chance of any relationship being developed.

There are many other statistics. The scandal of the 15-minute visit is well known. Indeed, the UK Homecare Association survey shows that three-quarters of all trips to old people have to be completed in less than half an hour and one in 10 is limited to no more than 15 minutes.

In Committee last week, I discussed with the Minister whether the CQC could be persuaded—or indeed, I hope, instructed—by your Lordships, to prioritise the regulation and inspection of local authorities in their commissioning duties. We have heard a lot about the CQC’s past failures and future hopes. It is clear that the focus is going to be on the NHS. I do not disagree with that, but when you think of the thousands of vulnerable people dependent on care workers, I wonder if the priority is right. If I were in the CQC’s shoes, I would focus on the care sector and particularly on local authorities and their own responsibilities. That is probably the best way to get into this issue.

We could have a debate about the regulation of social care workers. We could debate mandatory training and the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, has tabled an amendment which would very much focus on that. I hope the Minister will recognise that we have a problem here. If we are to see this legislation enacted in the way that we all hope it will be, I am convinced that we have to look at the way that workers in the care sector are employed and do everything we can to prevent the abuse that we are seeing with these zero-hours contracts.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments in my name—Amendments 86L, 86M, 86N and 86Q. These amendments are all about quality of care. We know what happens at the moment. There is the opposite of a monopoly in that there are lots of sellers, but largely one buyer of care. Many care homes know this. The local authority is in a very strong position and will tell the care home managers—in the private or voluntary sectors—that they will take 20 beds and negotiate a price which is very low. That means that the care home cannot provide a decent quality of care at that unrealistic price. This has been talked about and written about by Laing and Buisson and various other bodies. It is a known fact among those who follow very closely what goes on, but at the moment it is not really known to the public.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

Under the cap arrangement, there will be for all to see a notional rate that the local authority will pay for care. That is the rate at which the progress against the cap will be measured for a particular individual in a particular area. We are moving to a different system.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

We are almost anticipating a later debate when it comes to the Dilnot cap. This is an important issue. It is well-known, is it not, that self-funders essentially subsidise those people funded by local authorities. We know that some homes simply would not be viable if they existed only on local authority rates. In a transparent era, will self-funders put up with that? The cap relates only to local authority rates, so self-funders, in many cases, will have to pay much more than £72,000 before they can look to the local authority for support. If they now know that in addition to having to pay well above the £72,000 they have actually been subsidising people who have been supported by local authorities, I think it is going to lead to some severe problems.

I do not expect the noble Earl to be able to respond in detail, and perhaps this is in anticipation of the debate that we will have in our next session, but I am not sure whether the issue of fairness has been factored in to an understanding of how this is going to work in practice.

[Earl Howe]

Local authorities and individuals can pay different prices for care. That can be because individuals have consciously chosen premium facilities or because the local authority has negotiated a lower price in exchange for buying care for a larger number of people, which can often happen as well. As is the case now, local authorities and providers will continue to negotiate arrangements and fees for providing care and support. This process should ensure that contracts reflect the market price for providing care. Local authorities that fail to negotiate properly with providers and do not have regard to the actual cost risk legal challenges to the care fees that they set. However, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I would say that in future the independent personal budget will set out the cost to the local authority. That is the transparency point that I was trying to get at earlier.