Care Bill [Lords]
Debate between Mike Thornton and Paul Burstow(10 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
My right hon. Friend mentions Laing and Buisson. I believe that it has come up with a formula that should enable people to work out a fair funding system in advance. Is that something we could look at?
Paul Burstow
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the basis of the average fair rate, which I mentioned. New clause 15 would provide a mechanism for establishing a formula by which fee rates are set transparently for both domiciliary and residential care. The organisations representing the sector believe that that would lead to much greater transparency, and I think that it would deal with some of the rather toxic relationships that sometimes appear to exist, both nationally and locally.
New clause 2 is about older people, particularly the proposition that we should take a leaf out of the book of our colleagues in Wales and Northern Ireland in relation to having a commissioner for older people. Ageism and ageist attitudes are endemic in our society and, indeed, in public services. Our society is ageing, with life spans increasing, and that profound change will affect us all. It has implications for how the NHS and care services behave, but it goes far wider.
My new clause simply calls on the Government to work on the mechanics of establishing such a post so that there is someone to listen to and give a voice to older people; to champion their vital contribution to our economy—in work, as care givers and as volunteers, mentors and community leaders—rather than their being seen as burdens, which is how older people are all too often portrayed; to challenge the complacent and lazy stereotypes; and to hold public services to account.
Such a role already exists in Northern Ireland, Wales and other parts of the world. It would involve asking such questions as: why do the 360,000 cases of abuse suffered by older people every year lead to so few prosecutions, why are older people excluded from clinical trials and other research, and why do we stop reporting people’s cancer survival rates once they pass the age of 75? I hope that the Minister is open to the idea, and I look forward to his response.
New clause 26 deals with the issue of mental health, which came up very briefly in Committee. I know that the Minister is a passionate champion of mental health concerns. The new clause simply says that if a person has an accident—for example, breaks their arm—suffers a stroke or has a heart attack, the last place they would expect it to be sorted out is a cell in a police station, but that that is exactly where people who have a mental health crisis find themselves. The statistics are stunning: 36% of all people who are taken to a place of safety find themselves in a police station and stay there for more than 10 hours. Not only have adults been subject to that process, but 263 children, on the most recent figures. My new clause simply seeks to place a sunset provision on the definition of a place of safety, including a police station, which should create a way of concentrating minds to ensure that services are provided in the right place at the right time for children and adults.
I come to new clauses 7 and 9 last because they are about addressing what we might regard as the elephant in the room in any conversation about care services and the Bill’s noble intentions of improving the quality of care and of driving well-being into the heart of how care and support are delivered. The new clauses raise interconnected questions about the future funding of care and support, and about the independent nature of our health and care systems. Social care has for far too long—for decades—been the poor relation to health in decisions about public expenditure. Today’s funding challenges are chronic and are not simply the result of deficit reduction.
New clause 9 reflects the concern of a remarkable coalition of interests outside this place, including the Local Government Association, the Care and Support Alliance, hundreds of non-governmental organisations, directors of social services and chief executives, and many more besides. They all want to serve notice on the Government that they are concerned about the serious impact that the continuing pressure on local government spending will have on the ability of councils to deliver the care and support that everybody in this House wants to be delivered under the Bill. The picture is complex. Different councils are coping differently—some are overspending their care budgets and some are underspending them—but the trend is clear, despite the extra £7.2 billion that was allocated in the 2010 spending review and the transfer of money as part of the better care fund in the most recent spending review.
New clause 9 simply provides for an assessment to be made and signed off by the programme board that oversees the implementation of the Bill. It is not an unreasonable request that we check that the sums add up and that the money is sufficient to deliver what the Bill is about. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about how transparent that process will be. Impact assessments are one thing; this process would be another. I think that it would provide considerable reassurance to those who will have the job of implementing the legislation.
Electrical Safety (Private Rented Sector)
Debate between Mike Thornton and Paul BurstowWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne, and it is a privilege to see the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), in his place. I congratulate him on his appointment to his relatively new position.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on electrical safety in the private rented sector. How we live is changing. According to Shelter, the proportion of homes rented privately in the United Kingdom has rocketed by nearly 70% since 2001, with the private rented sector now home to 3.8 million households in England alone. There is no doubt that the private sector is playing an increasingly important role in meeting housing needs, especially for families. However, this rapid expansion in the market has been marked by a few rogue landlords and some well-meaning but ill-informed landlords, who are failing to ensure that the homes they let comply with basic safety standards. Electrical safety in the private rented sector is an issue that needs addressing urgently.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. There are a number of Members from across the House who are concerned about issues of electrical safety. Every year, nearly 5,000 fires are caused by electrical appliances, and many of them can lead to loss of life or serious harm to the individuals caught up in those fires. Does he agree that where a landlord is letting a property with appliances in it, there should be routine and proper inspection processes in place to ensure that the tenant knows that the equipment that they will be taking on is safe?
Mike Thornton
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention and I entirely agree with him. When I used to work in various offices, everything had to be subjected to portable appliance testing to safeguard me as a worker. It seems a bit unfair that people living in properties should not be protected in the same way. His point is a very good one.