Social Care and Military Compensation
Debate between Gordon Marsden and Jane Ellison(9 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for bringing this important issue before the House. It provides me with an opportunity to clarify our current position. I hope the hon. Gentleman will allow me first to place the issue in the broader context, particularly the context of reforms in social care.
To make some sense of that broader context, at the turn of this century there were 25 times as many people aged 85 and over than there were at the turn of the last century. Although this is something to be celebrated, it also means there are more people needing care and support, and three quarters of us can expect to need long-term care.
Care and support is an issue that has, I think, been ignored for far too long, and I am proud to say that this Government have taken steps to put that right. The Care Act 2014 is a bold and historic piece of legislation that for the first time places adult care and support law in a single clear statute. The Act puts people at the heart of the system by enshrining the principle of individual well-being at its core. It will ensure that people themselves will be able to shape their care and support, focusing on what they want to achieve and the outcomes that matter to them, and it will support them to maintain their well-being and independence for longer.
The Care Act focuses on acting early to prevent people from reaching crisis points, and will ensure that everyone can access information and advice to help them understand the new system and what it means for them. This means services for the broader community—not just those with assessed needs—further supporting our aim to help people to stay independent for as long as possible. When we do need care, the Act provides for a single threshold for eligibility to care and support in England, ensuring transparency and consistency, irrespective of where we live. I am pleased that this historic legislation will come into force exactly one week from today.
We do not intend to stop there. How we pay for health care and support is just as important as the care we receive. Most people do not realise that care and support has never been free, unlike health, and we have always been asked to contribute what we can afford. Those who have the greatest needs and the longest care journeys risk losing nearly everything simply to meet that cost.
For all the other areas of life where we face such risks, we are protected by the welfare state or we can protect ourselves through insurance. When it comes to care, however, successive Governments have taken a different view. We are often left alone at the point when we are most vulnerable. That is clearly not good enough, and I am proud that we will be introducing the biggest reforms of how we pay for care in over 65 years. We do so through the cap on care costs, which will put an end to the risk of catastrophic costs, and we will provide greater financial help for those who need it most.
The detailed proposals of how the new system will work are currently out for consultation. With just under a week still to go, I am pleased that we have already had over 700 responses and have engaged with over 1,000 people through a series of events helping to ensure that we take account of a wide range of views. The new cap system will play a critical role in helping people to plan and prepare for the risk of needing care and support, and create the right conditions for the financial sector to create new products that could cover these costs.
When it comes to those who have served their country and have made a great sacrifice in the line of duty, this Government have given a very clear commitment to support members of the armed forces community, both serving personnel and veterans. The hon. Member for Blackpool South has illustrated exactly why that is the right thing to do. We have enshrined that commitment in legislation through the armed forces covenant.
As the hon. Gentleman outlined, for those who have been injured in the line of duty there are currently two different schemes that provide compensation, based on when the injury occurred. For those who were injured before the 6 April 2005, there is the war pension scheme; for those injured afterwards, there is the armed forces compensation scheme. While both schemes have the same goals—to offer financial support to those injured in the line of duty—they are ultimately both a product of their time and the social context in which they were developed. Under both schemes, personal injury compensation lump sums are disregarded when deciding how much someone can pay for care, provided the payments are placed in a trust—I noted the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about regular payments—but other sorts of payments may be taken into account.
The war pension scheme was created after the first world war in response to the large numbers whose lives had been irrevocably changed as a result of their service to their country. In 1918, however, there was no welfare state, no NHS and no benefits system. Most people did not have access to private pensions, meaning that for those needing care but without family or friends to support them, the outlook was often bleak. The scheme therefore provided for that. It provides a basic war disablement pension and a variety of supplementary allowances that would be equivalent to the modern benefits system, and it reflects the fact that people needed to pay for both health and care costs.
By contrast, the armed forces compensation scheme introduced in 2005 reflects the fact that we have an advanced welfare state. It therefore looks to the NHS and the benefits system to provide support, just as it would to anyone, ensuring the principle of “no disadvantage” enshrined in the armed forces covenant.
The scheme introduced a modern, fair and simple system that provides a strong basis for the future, but this is a difficult and complex issue. I note the hon. Gentleman’s frustration—as he said, there has been much discussion—but, as I have said, the issue is complex. Depending on the extent of their injuries, veterans can receive a number of different allowances under the war pension scheme, such as constant attendance allowance, an unemployability supplement, comforts allowance, age allowance, treatment allowance, mobility supplement, and medical expenses.
The Royal British Legion broadly accepts that the treatment of war pension scheme payments is complex. I am grateful to it for highlighting its concerns, and for continuing to working with departmental officials to help us to understand the issue better. It is vital for us to understand it fully before considering what is to be done next. We must understand how the two schemes work, and the implications of considering any changes, to ensure that there are no unintended consequences, and we must also understand any cost implications of change. I note what the hon. Gentleman said about the commitment of his party colleagues to reviewing the scheme, but that commitment to a review suggests that they too are cautious, and feel the same need to understand the possible implications.
Mr Marsden
I do not wish to intrude on the Minister’s time, and I agree that the process is complex. I recall Churchill’s observation that it was not the end or even the beginning of the end, but it might be the end of the beginning. Will the Minister tell us how far down the line we might be expected to be at this point, and what stage the Government think has been reached?
Jane Ellison
I will come to that, and will try to give the hon. Gentleman a bit of reassurance about the advanced and ongoing work that is taking place.
Social care is a priority for the Government, and, in the context of difficult spending decisions, we have taken steps to protect care and support services. For example, we have allocated extra funds for those services during the current Parliament. We have created a better care fund, which, next month, will introduce a £5.3 billion pooled budget for health and care that will provide much needed funding for care and support, and will break new ground in driving closer integration of services.
Although spending on care and support is ultimately a decision for local government, we must be mindful of the overall fiscal position. I think that Members on both sides of the House agree on that. We must ensure that if we change the charging rules nationally, the cost will be met. To that end, my officials are continuing to work with their counterparts at the Ministry of Defence—I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some sense of momentum, and deals with his concern about “silo” working—and with the Royal British Legion, with a view to considering the issue during the spending review that will take place after the election.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman—and, indeed, all hon. Members—will welcome the historic reforms that will come into force in just one week’s time. They are very significant in the context of the broader issue of care. This Government have been the first to prioritise care and support. I hope that Members in all parts of the House will feel able to welcome the clear plans that I have set out for the future. As for the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised, I hope he recognises that this is ongoing work which is taken very seriously. His securing of what has turned out to be the last Adjournment debate of this Parliament has underlined the importance of the issue that he has raised. I think that, throughout the purdah period and beyond, the debate will give added momentum to the work that is being done.
Given that this has been the last Adjournment debate of the current Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker—and you and I have shared a number Adjournment debates—let me take this opportunity to thank you and, through you, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers. I also thank all the staff of the House, and, in particular, those who have sat through some of our late-night health debates, of which there have been many. However, I especially thank the Chair, and all those who have supported the Chair during these important Adjournment debates, which give us a chance—as tonight’s debate has—to explore important issues in some detail, outside the heated atmosphere that the Chamber attracts on other occasions. I also thank Members in all parts of the House, some of whom are very regular attenders at these debates, for their attendance tonight, and for the interest that they have taken in these important matters.
Apprenticeships
Debate between Gordon Marsden and Jane Ellison(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Marsden
No, I do not agree. I hear what the Minister has to say, and I accept that he and colleagues have made progress in that area. My point about 19 to 24-year-olds was not that the numbers had gone up, but that it is just as important to look at quality for that group as it is for 16 to 18-year-olds. Let me say rather gently—albeit excluding the Minister from culpability in this respect—that if the Government move in the same glacial fashion as they moved in other areas of quality and due diligence, such as with the regional growth fund, then we will have the opportunity to come back and quiz them further. However, knowing the Minister’s commitment in this area, his perspicacity, his ability to summon up armies of rhetoric—and, indeed, civil servants to do this job—I am sure that that will happen.
Let us create a landscape where we can continue to boost apprenticeship numbers. However, if we are going to do that, it is crucial to get the preparatory work right. That means a strong, solid system of careers advice for young people, to ensure not only that they are aware of the vocational opportunities available to them, but that they are given the skills to take them up. We support the principles behind the establishment of the all-age careers service, on which the Minister, while in opposition, and I, as a Back Bencher, agreed some time ago, as members of the all-party skills group. But the Ministers’ noble aspirations have been undermined by the chaos and confusion arising from the Department for Education’s arbitrary abolition of Connexions and the removal of a dedicated £200 million of support provision in schools. It is therefore not surprising that the president of the Institute of Career Guidance, Steve Higginbotham, went so far as to say:
“In reality, the National Careers Service is an illusion, and not a very imaginatively branded one either, and is a clear misrepresentation with regard to careers services for young people.”
A recent survey carried out by the Association of Colleges showed that only 7% of school pupils could name apprenticeships as a potential post-GCSE qualification. That illustrates the problem that still exists in some schools, in which the vocational route is not explained to pupils. Teachers and others need to have a much greater understanding of the role that apprenticeships can play in careers development and future job prospects. I fear, however, that the situation will not improve following the abolition of Connexions.
New initiatives such as the programme announced this week by the chief executive of the CBI to send mentors into schools to promote apprenticeships are to be welcomed. That announcement shows a welcome recognition that everyone needs to play their part, not just teachers. We must also ensure, however, that young people can afford to stay in education. Following the abolition of the education maintenance allowance, college enrolment data from the Association of Colleges show that numbers are down across the board. That has real implications, as many young people will miss out on the opportunity to gain the crucial pre-apprenticeship skills that they will need to take up a placement. If apprenticeships are to play an integral role, we must ensure that they are fit for purpose, and that they can match the expectations of the individuals who take up the placements with those of the employers who take those individuals on.
We need apprenticeship frameworks that allow progression for the individual; they must not just be there for their own sake. I know that the Minister shares that view, as it featured heavily in his “Skills for Sustainable Growth” document last year. Now, however, we need movement to match the aspiration. We need clear portability from apprenticeship frameworks, with qualifications that are pyramidal in shape, rather than horizontal. We need a process of continuous assessment and credit accumulation that builds up a broad competence, rather than just bite-sized chunks of training that do not add up to anything.
It is equally important, whatever the qualification route, that we do not force employers or apprentices into a false dichotomy between functional skills and skills for life. Enabling skills are important for gaining and keeping an apprenticeship, and subsequently a job, as well as a knowledge of specific skills. Both aspects need to be taken into account as we balance our skills needs in the years ahead.
We need clear, accessible pathways from higher-level apprenticeships into higher education. I want to point out that the choices relating to vocational and academic education should not be viewed as an either/or proposition. Perhaps the Minister should ask his colleague, the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), to get UCAS to consider recognising apprenticeship qualifications as part of its tariff-points system. For too long, complacency about the status quo and some minor snobbery in a minority of universities have hampered not only access but the interchange between the academic and vocational worlds. I welcome what the Government have said about the higher apprenticeship fund and the way in which it will be taken forward, but the key question is how those qualifications will be recognised and integrated into higher education progression.
How will this culture shift of which the Minister is so proud be delivered? The national apprenticeships service, which we set up when we were in government, is clearly set to lead from the front, but will it have the resources to deliver the expansion that the Government are talking about? Recent parliamentary questions have shown that the organisation has lost just under 100 staff in the course of the past year, at the very time that it is being asked to lead the delivery of more and more apprenticeships and to oversee the additional initiatives that the Government are pushing out, including those announced today. My own inquiries have shown that regional directors are now finding themselves further stretched by having to cover multiple areas of the country as well as delivering all the new initiatives that the Government are launching.
The Skills Funding Agency is responsible for all post-19 provision, but, crucially, the Department for Education still controls 16-to-18 provision and is arguably not showing the same commitment to apprenticeships and vocational education as Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have done. The problem with all this, and with the Minister’s dual role in the two Departments, is that it is sometimes hard to see who is leading whom.
We might also ask about the situation on the ground. Following the abolition of the regional development agencies, the Government have completely failed to link local and regional growth into their skills policies. That obviously includes apprenticeships. They have swept away the informal architecture that used to bring together the key players who were crucial to delivering apprenticeships locally, including further education, higher education and small and medium-sized enterprises.
I welcome what the Minister said today about the supply chain, but he merely echoed what we have been saying for more than a year. Why did a year have to be wasted before he came to the House to say these things? Why did we have to wait a year for the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) to talk about the Government setting up a set of apprenticeship hubs in a number of city areas? The reason is that both Ministers were fettered by other Ministers, by the Chicago-based economists and by the people who think that they can deliver everything on the ground without any Government intervention, whom the Minister has on other occasions derided. Yes, it is good that the Government are looking at apprenticeship hubs, but who on the ground is going to deliver, arbitrate and energise demand? What about those outside the city regions? Are the second-tier towns, the seaside towns and the suburban and rural areas not entitled to an apprenticeship hub locally? We need those structures on the ground so that business demand can be recognised locally rather than being micro-managed from Whitehall, as happens now.
The situation is not helped by the cluttered environment that has developed in post-16 provision, with the creation of university technical colleges and the potential for free colleges and 16-to-19 academies alongside existing FE colleges. We can all see the results when apprenticeship schemes are run well; we have only to look at the demand for schemes run by BAE Systems, Jaguar Land Rover and Network Rail. I have also seen for myself the excellent work being done by British Gas to encourage more female apprentices, and the work done by the nuclear skills academy. All those schemes demonstrate the value of investing in training and skills for the long term—a point emphasised eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), the shadow Business Secretary, in his recent Bloomberg speech.
This brings us back to the age-old question: what is a good job? How do we match the fluid skills demands of the labour market with the life chances and skill sets of individuals? To boost apprenticeships, we will have to meet the challenge of winning over employers who are still sceptical about the some of the values that apprenticeships could bring. A recent British Chambers of Commerce skills survey showed that many employers were still not ready to engage with the programme. Only 20% of businesses surveyed across the board took on apprentices in 2010-11, with the figure set to drop to 15% in the coming year. The Federation of Small Businesses has rightly highlighted issues of complexity and red tape, which act as a deterrent to its members. So I welcome what the Minister has said today, although we shall have to wait to see the small print and to see how rapidly the proposals are put into practice.
I raised the problems of SME engagement in a debate in June, when I said that the Government needed urgently to consider tailoring apprenticeships better towards their needs. That means not just having financial incentives, which Ministers and others sometimes seem to think are enough, but structuring them to the daily cycle and the needs of SMEs’ work. We need to improve the levels of engagement between large companies and middle-ranked companies—identified only last week as key by the CBI director, Mr Cridland. They can play a vital role in boosting apprenticeships via supply chains.
Undeniable pride and dignity surround apprenticeships. That is why so many hon. Members have been able to recruit support for individual initiatives in their area. It has been the same in my area, and this summer I met apprenticeship award winners at Blackpool and the Fylde college in my constituency. My local paper, the Blackpool Gazette ran a successful campaign to create 100 apprenticeships in 100 days. In these sorts of processes, however, making connections and having middle men can be key. I learned that by talking to my FE college and to apprentices and the SMEs with whom they had bonded.
The Government have re-announced today—this is about the third time—the £250 million scheme to allow employers to bid directly for the training budget, but they need to be careful that the human resources element is not lost in hastily thought-out schemes that do not have safeguards and risk deadweight while funding for learning providers and colleges, which are already voicing their concerns, is top-sliced.
This October WorldSkills hit London, and team UK won 12 medals. I was delighted when by lobbying the Government I was able to play a small part as chair of the all-party skills group in tandem with others in the group in helping to bring that event to the UK. Young people with apprenticeships shone out, including Rachel Cooke from Blackpool and the Fylde, a BAE employer in my area. I agree with what the Minister said about the value of that. Labour Members have agreed with it for many years. Although I did not regret the changes made in the 1990s to the Labour party’s constitution in respect of clause IV, I did regret the removal of the words, to achieve
“for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry”
because that embodied and continues to embody an important part of our tradition and our aspiration. I believe it is crucial that apprenticeships should have and deserve to have this respect—not least because some of the organisations that promote them, such as City and Guilds, which has been with us since 1878, have become a byword for attaining qualifications, rather like Hoover has become a byword for vacuum cleaners. Apprenticeships now span both traditional types of occupation such as stone masonry and thatching offered by the National Trust and the new schemes in the green industry and everything that goes with them. Harsh words have been said about some elements of the service sector in connection with some of the shorter-term apprenticeships, but we have to recognise that the sector will be key in delivering future economic prosperity.
We need to build a bridge of values between the old and new apprenticeships. We need a 21st century offer that combines an appreciation of the traditional strength of apprenticeships with what they can offer for young people, for retraining and for returning to work, particularly for the women of today. All the structural changes and genuine enthusiasm for apprenticeships will be for nothing if we appear to have promised too much from apprenticeships as a one-stop shop for all training and skills and as the silver bullet to solve all this Government’s skills and employment problems. They will be for nothing if we allow the brand to be contaminated by questionable providers or overstretched by branding all forms of training as apprenticeships. They will be for nothing, too, if we do not provide frameworks that offer the flexibility and progression opportunities for a 21st century economy—ones that are able to adjust to changing domestic and international demands.
The Minister did not find time this evening to talk about one issue that looms on the horizon—further education loans, which anyone aged 24 and above, but not the traditional 25-plus division, will be able to take up. Apprenticeships will be a large part of that number; perhaps as many as 100,000 people will be obliged to take up these loans after Government support is wound down. The time scale for the Government to make detailed decisions after consultation is very short, and this is already causing major problems with colleges across the sector, while business groups have raised the concern that the additional bureaucracy in administering these loans could disengage them from the process. A big bang approach to student loans in further education, including for thousands of apprenticeships, is one thing in a time of plenty, but in a time of scarcity, it is quite different.
When we were in office, we revitalised and re-energised the apprenticeship programme. We put in place procedures to ensure that Government contracts such as Building Schools for the Future would take on apprenticeships, and we saw completion rates rise dramatically to their current rate of over 70%. While the Government have sensibly built on much of that inheritance, there are new challenges that they have not yet understood or that have been hampered by silos, divisions in government and a reluctance to understand how Government can shape and enable markets, which includes skills and apprenticeships. Despite all the press statements and all the re-announcements and the conferences, the adult training budget has been significantly cut. The previous Government had put more than £700 million into funding Train to Gain, but that money has not been allocated to apprenticeships. In effect, the Government have not increased the overall budget for training apprenticeships.
Any Government—whether it be this Government or the next Labour Government—will need to build on a strong legacy from the past by working tirelessly to help expand access to the apprenticeship programme, by engaging with SMEs and helping them to overcome the barriers they face and by making apprenticeships offer a clear route of progression, as I have described. We also need to use the enormous power of Government, which includes creating thousands of new apprenticeship opportunities by incentivising companies to bid for Government contracts over a million-pound threshold to offer apprenticeship schemes.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
On that very point, I hope the shadow Minister will join me in congratulating the Mayor of London, who has indeed incentivised major contractors bidding for public projects by insisting that apprenticeships are part of the mix in their bid?
Mr Marsden
Given that I have talked about Scrooge and “A Christmas Carol”, let me say that Dickens would have described the Mayor of London as a phenomenon—possibly an infant one, I do not know. What I would say about the Mayor is that his trajectory in following this Government’s policies in a series of areas is rather interesting, but, secondly, I would say that we are delighted to welcome him to our big tent, as this is precisely what we have argued for a long time.
The Government have discarded the guidance we put in place to encourage this development, so what we want to know is whether the Minister will listen to the broad range of groups supporting this change. Will he go back to those churlish officials who keep putting problems in his way, and will he support the private Member’s Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) when it returns to the House next month? These are crucial issues. While he is at it, will the Minister discourage rather more churlish people such as the Minister for Housing and Local Government for describing apprenticeship requirements linked to public contracts as “ridiculous” and “counter-productive”?
The Government have had to face problems connected with further education loans, queries about ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—funding, active benefit restrictions and so forth. All that tells me is that we need to revisit the elephant in the room, which is how we develop a funding system that weighs properly and incentivises the contributions from the state, employers and individuals. That is a matter that Labour Members take very seriously, so we shall be looking at it in great detail in our policy review.
As we move forward, the world of work will no doubt continue to be epitomised by the rapid change we have seen in the last 10 to 15 years; moves towards hi-tech industries and demand for high-quality niche products will still be valid. Apprenticeships will have to adapt to the challenge of providing skills for jobs that do not yet exist. Apprenticeships will have to respond to the growing wish for people to buy experiences as well as products—hence my comments about the service sector—and that will have implications for the manufacturing-service balance. Our apprenticeship structure must be robust enough to support that evolution. Apprenticeships will also have a key role in the
“partnership between productive business and active government”
to which the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), referred recently.
Opposition Members, many of whose parents, grandparents and other antecedents were apprentices, fully intend to play their part in that process. We will continue to support the Government while they build on our achievements in a sensible fashion, but we will also continue to question them about the devil in the detail—always along the lines of “progression, progression, progression”. We shall be glad to have made a contribution to their learning curve.
Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)
It is that time of the evening when we are almost reduced to “name, rank and serial number”. I shall say “Battersea 109%”, and get it out of the way.
I want to make two points in the short time available to me. I have already referred to the picture in London, in an intervention, but I want to say more about that, and also to say something about the gender breakdown in apprenticeships.
I strongly support the Government’s agenda for rebalancing the economy throughout the United Kingdom, but London is going great guns on apprenticeships, which are an incredibly important part of the UK’s economy. The number of apprenticeships in London increased by 99% between 2009-10 and 2010-11, which reflects the Mayor’s enthusiastic championing of them, and he has set the ambitious target of 100,000 apprenticeship starts by the end of 2012.
Members on both sides of the debate have talked about the way in which public procurement projects can be used. There is no doubt that the Mayor has used big public projects such as Crossrail and Thameslink to drive forward the apprenticeship agenda in London. I know that the Skills Minister has had conversations with the Mayor’s officials on the subject, and I shall be interested to hear his and other Ministers’ responses. I know that they are considering the matter. Given the large number of exciting public projects that were given the green light in the Chancellor’s autumn statement, this seems an appropriate time for them to comment.
I welcome what has been said about the gender rebalancing of the overall number of apprenticeships, but if we dig down into the 12 key sectors which represent about 60% of apprenticeship starts in 2009-10, we see that, as well as the problem of snobbery that some of my hon. Friends have mentioned, there is a problem of gender stereotyping.
Jane Ellison
I will not, but only for the sake of others who wish to speak. I do not wish to be discourteous.
To take a couple of extreme examples, in children’s care, learning and development, the breakdown is 4% men and 96% women, while in plumbing it is 98% men and 2% women. I chose plumbing as an example because in London plumbers can make a fortune at present, and I want women to have the opportunity to be in the high-wage jobs. I chose children’s care, learning and development because we in this House regularly debate the need for more male role models in children’s early years. That sort of gender imbalance in that important area of employment is clearly not right, just as it is also not right that we have a similar gender imbalance in primary school teaching.
While celebrating the overall gender balance across apprenticeship starts, we must use every opportunity—through the new National Careers Service, through visits to schools and firms, and through talking to young people—to encourage young people to look at the widest possible range of professions. It was very heartening to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) talk about the young apprentice she described. There are not enough similar examples. As we approach 2012, we must challenge the obvious stereotypes that still exist, and the apprenticeship programme provides us with a chance to challenge and tackle them.