Public Health
Debate between Marie Rimmer and Baroness Laing of Elderslie(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
In St Helens, 99% of care home staff are vaccinated, and at Whiston Hospital, the best one in the country, 91% have had the first vaccine, 89% the second vaccine and 64% the booster. That has all been done with persuasion, not with the threat of the sack. These people are in a vocation. It is not just a job to them; they believe in the patients. We must not get to the stage where we are threatening people. The GPs have even been involved in persuading the care home staff. Everyone has been involved for some considerable time and that is the way to do it—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Let me just make this clear: more than 40 people wish to speak this afternoon and if people make interventions, it is simply not fair on those at the end of the list who will be trying to speak later on. The hon. Lady is only one of many. The shadow Secretary of State is being very fair, as was the Secretary of State, in answering all the questions, but I must ask people to be reasonable.
Strength of the UK’s Armed Forces
Debate between Marie Rimmer and Baroness Laing of Elderslie(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab) [V]
The British military is currently engaged in its biggest ever—[Inaudible.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We cannot hear the hon. Lady. Shall we try audio only?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but we will try to come back to the hon. Lady later, because the sound quality means that we cannot hear what she is saying.
Education and Local Government
Debate between Marie Rimmer and Baroness Laing of Elderslie(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) on his speech, which gave much laughter. I wish him luck on receiving those cheques, and I hope that those of us on the Opposition Benches will get some as well.
One of the most important responsibilities of any Government is the protection of society’s most vulnerable people. It is not some utopian ideal to believe that we must protect our young and look after our elderly. It is, in fact, a basic measure of a just and compassionate society, as well as a statutory duty for local councils. Sadly, in both those respects, this nation is falling short. In the past decade, we have seen the number of children in care increase by 28%. There are now more than 78,000 children in care in England alone, and as of 31 December last year a total of 529 young children were in the care of St Helens local authority—63 more than the previous year and approximately double the national average. It is an unfortunate reality that there will always be children in need of care. However, I am sure that Members would agree that those numbers are far too high. Demand is outstripping provision and resources.
Another fundamental reason why care is so pressured is a lack of funding right across local authorities, affecting youth services and education. Support staff are no longer in schools to help keep children in mainstream education, which drives them out. Last year, councils had to overspend by £800 million to keep children safe. In St Helens, the greatest financial pressure on the council is children’s social care costs, and particularly looked-after children. In just 10 years, expenditure on those children is expected to have risen from £10.5 million to £25.5 million this year. That is an increase of £15 million—143%. I ask Ministers to consider the challenge presented to that local authority, and there are many more like it.
Often we are not necessarily speaking about good-quality care, as more and more councils are being forced to rely on unregulated care, care not registered with Ofsted and out-of-borough care, away from the child’s support network. I have spoken about these issues before, so I will not go into too much detail; Members can look at what I have said. But those young people who are being placed in unregulated or unregistered care because of a lack of other provision, many of whom have learning difficulties, are far more likely to be vulnerable to predatory groups such as county lines gangs, which are so prevalent in communities like mine. This situation has worsened since I last spoke.
It is not just our youngest who are being let down by a lack of funding. On the opposite end of the spectrum, our adult social care system is on the brink of collapse. Vulnerable adults are also facing the impact of austerity policies. Some 44% of expenditure by Knowsley Council is on adult social care and adult services budgets, and in St Helens we have seen a 40% net reduction in available resources due to austerity cuts. Every £1 million of shortfall equates to 62,500 hours of domiciliary care. In the past two weeks, an additional 52,000 hours of domiciliary care have been commissioned by St Helens Council—not far off £1 million—which can be at between £12 and £20 per hour. This shows an increase in demand as finances are being cut, with more pressure on the care system and people not receiving the care they need.
Without this care, many are driven into hospitals, leading to increased pressures on hospitals. Just on one day last week, Whiston Hospital pleaded with the public not to go to A&E. It had 35 ambulances parked outside waiting for space—space, rather than beds, because the corridors were filled with patients receiving inappropriate care on stretchers. It is now applying to install a two-storey Portacabin to create 60 beds. And this is in an outstanding hospital in this country that has been built for only 10 years.
Councils continue to see their responsibilities increase, with the deprivation of living safeguards, the independent living fund, the Care Act 2014 and transforming care—to name a few. Despite this increase in responsibility, local councils have not seen their funding increase in line. In fact, much more they have seen it decrease. Knowsley, which is one part of my borough, has seen £100 million in cuts in its budget since 2010, with St Helens making £90 million of cuts. The increase in social care funding recently announced for 2020-21 is welcome, but it is not enough to meet current, let alone future, demands. However, there is no news on 2021 onwards. How can local authorities properly plan to meet this statutory duty?
We have heard declarations from Members on the Government Front Bench, including the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, that austerity is over. The Queen’s Speech refers to cross-party consensus on social care reform. I therefore call on Ministers to put this into action. The Government must release the long delayed Green Paper on the future of social care funding. They must also begin a bottom-up review and restructure the way in which we fund social care for children, young people and adults. We must also see an end to austerity and an increase in local government funding that matches the ever-growing responsibilities and pressures that it is facing. It is councils that are looking after the public, not us. They are facing the problems, and we have to provide the resources and structures to enable them to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call, to make his maiden speech, Jonathan Gullis.
Universal Credit Work Allowance
Debate between Marie Rimmer and Baroness Laing of Elderslie(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I wish you and everyone in the House a very happy new year, Madam Deputy Speaker. Unfortunately, it will not be a very happy new year for many people out there on universal credit.
I am very proud of where I come from in the north-west—the St Helens and Knowsley constituencies. We were at the very centre of the powerhouse during the industrial revolution, but sadly we have lived through deindustrialisation. We have struggled to provide new jobs for our constituents, who received good pay in manufacturing. Unfortunately, most jobs are now in services. Many are insecure, involving zero-hours contracts and agency and part-time work, and those that are secure provide very low pay.
The people in my constituency want to work. They are hard workers. They want to be respected, and they want the dignity of providing a home for their families, clothing them and putting food on the table; but they struggle. Many of them go to food banks, and that is not right; it is unfair.
If the Department for Work and Pensions were part of local government, someone’s feet would not touch the ground. For the Department not to carry out an assessment of the impact of taking billions of pounds in benefit away from the poorest people is totally unacceptable. No one would get away with it in local government, but this is central Government, and there has been no impact assessment. Did the Secretary of State not want one? He repeatedly insisted that people would not be worse off under universal credit because of the “into work” benefit changes that were announced in the summer Budget, but now the Government have admitted that that is not the case.
At the beginning, universal credit was sold on the basis that it would encourage people into work. Some went along with that, thinking that perhaps it was right, but they were warned by all the IT experts that it simply was not practical to expect the roll-out to take place in the existing timeframe, and it has repeatedly been delayed. Unfortunately, however, my constituency has had its roll-out. We are on universal credit at the moment—not all of us, but the latest assessment is that there are 1,586 families on universal credit. [Interruption.] That was the estimate in November 2015 and it came from the House of Commons Library. I am sorry but I would rather take the Library’s word than the Government’s. If you have a problem, go and sort it. Of those 1,586 claimants in November 2015, 510 were in work; 510 will be affected. The facts are from the House of Commons Library. They have not been proven wrong to me as yet. Lone parents—adults who are not disabled—will lose £2,400 in net income in April next year. A single person or a couple, where one or more are disabled, will lose £2,000 in April this year. A single mother of two working full time on the minimum wage will lose £2,400.
Too many of the jobs in my constituency are low-paid and insecure. We have many agency workers and the Government have done nothing about agency working. Agency workers turn up for work, they are sent home from work. They could have a week’s work now, a week’s work in a fortnight or work for three months. One agency even offered two week’s work for free for the employer, after which they would guarantee that person an interview for a permanent job—for 12 months. Not many of them got a permanent job. We had people who were told they if they worked at Tata and Jaguar through the agency for 12 months they would get full-time jobs. But it did not happen; they finished just a few weeks before. Seven weeks later, some of them were called back for three weeks. That is what is going on in the real world out there where I live.
The reason benefits have gone up is that the Government of the day’s economic strategy has failed miserably. Do not talk to me about debt in this country, because that has a lot to do with it. We paid off more debt than any Government on record. What is more, we got up to 1% of GDP and we paid £38 billion of the debt. We had to borrow money to save the banks and working-class people’s savings. So do not talk to me about that. We are only up to 0.4% of GDP now. Benefits have soared because you have not produced the jobs that you said would be produced—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I allowed the hon. Lady to get away with it once when she said “you”. If she wishes to attack the Minister, she has to say the Minister or the Government.
Marie Rimmer
I do apologise—the Minister, or the Secretary of State, who is not present and often takes his leave when we are on such subjects.
It is totally unacceptable—
Welfare Cap
Debate between Marie Rimmer and Baroness Laing of Elderslie(8 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
The 1997 to 2010 Labour Government paid off more debt than any previous Government on record—debt left by the Conservative Government. We always know when Conservative Members’ arguments are weak, because they come out with the mantra about the financial mess left by the Labour Government. The financial mess was created and started in America with Lehman Brothers. They use that—[Interruption.] This really doesn’t bother me, because I don’t hear what they’ve got to say.—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. It would appear that it is Christmas. I hope the House has not been attending too many Christmas parties. We behave in a reasonable and polite fashion. If anybody needs to be told to be quiet, I can do that.
Further Education
Debate between Marie Rimmer and Baroness Laing of Elderslie(8 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
St Helens college has shown good, strong and innovative leadership, but it gets funding now only where there are job opportunities and training. Teachers from my college went to the Liverpool docks, to Dock Road, to provide education, at 7 o’clock in the morning, to some 200 Chinese speakers who did not speak English. It was a huge success. There are no bounds to what that college does. It has the inside of a plane to train people in flight hospitality—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. It might be a valid point, but it is not a speech.