| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Local Government Finance
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 48) on 1999-2000 Special Grant for developing new approaches to commissioning services for drug misusers (HC 513), which was laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.--[Mr. Allen.]
Question agreed to.
Coleridge Community College
8.18 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): I am proud to present a petition--[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I remind hon. Members that an hon. Member is presenting a petition. They must leave the Chamber quietly.
Mrs. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am proud to present a petition signed by 21,400 residents of Cambridge, opposing the closure of Coleridge community college on the grounds that its closure would mean the loss of an excellent school and a well-used community college, and increasing congestion as the children are bussed across the city.
The petition states:
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
It is my pleasure to present a petition signed by my friend Councillor Renee Spector and more than 10,000 other users and supporters of West Midlands Special Needs Transport Ltd., otherwise known as Ring and Ride.
The petition states:
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald):
I have pleasure in presenting a petition signed by constituents who are members of the Campaign for the Protection of Hunted Animals.
The petition reads:
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Allen.]
Mr. Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne):
The Government appear to be obsessed with youth. They are keen on cool Britannia, and the so-called rebranding of Britain. Yet, as a country, we are getting older--some of us faster than others. I am constantly amazed by the number of 100th-birthday parties to which I am invited in Eastbourne. I see from a newsletter issued recently by the Debate of the Age that Posh Spice can expect her new baby, improbably named Brooklyn Adams-Beckham, to live to the ripe old age of 130. It sometimes seems, however, that the Government are oblivious of those simple facts, and even that their policies, taken together, are designed to disadvantage older people. I think that I can claim to know what I am talking about: roughly 40 per cent. of my voters are over retirement age, and I am co-chairman of the all-party group for older people.
Almost the Government's first act was to abolish tax relief for retired people who had private medical insurance. I received many letters on the subject. For many such people, who had been in corporate schemes when they were working, tax relief was what made maintaining their health cover in retirement just possible. As a result of the Government's action, many had to give it up, or reduce the extent of their cover. I even initiated a debate on the matter, but the Government were deaf to all entreaties.
Then the Government reneged on their clear pre-election pledge to legislate against age discrimination. We all know from our experience as constituency Members how often able older people aged 50 or even younger are tossed on the scrap heap. We have a voluntary code of conduct; no doubt good employers are already following it, but bad ones will not.
Nor has the Chancellor been kind to older people. In his first Budget, he ripped off pension funds to the tune of £5 billion. Then we had the abolition of dividend tax credits, which directly prejudices 600,000 mainly elderly non-taxpayers. The married couples allowance was removed for couples who will be under 65 in April 2000. Widows have lost their bereavement allowance, which has a particular effect on older widows. Moreover, 250,000 women will be losers under the new rules for widows benefit.
Many older people in Eastbourne and elsewhere are very dependent on their cars, but this Chancellor is trying to tax them off the road. Now, we hear that the Government are intending to abolish concessionary television licences. What next, I wonder--especially when the BBC is seeking to raise the fee to well above £100?
The Government are moving towards a two-tier, means-tested state pension system that will penalise those of my constituents who have been thrifty during all their working lives. The so-called minimum pension guarantee is a fraud on pensioners, as more than 1 million pensioners will simply not be eligible for it.
Then there is the state earnings-related pension scheme scandal. As from April 2000, widows and widowers will be able to inherit only half of their late spouse's SERPS
entitlement. Despite the fact that the change was made as long ago as 1986, until relatively recently, the Benefits Agency was misleading my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members, who have been affected by the change. In common with other hon. Members, I referred cases to the ombudsman. I am pleased that Ministers now accept that the problem must be examined, with a view to compensation being paid. I do not know whether the Minister will be able today to shed any light on the matter.
When in opposition, Labour said that things could only get better--but surely it could not have been speaking about our national health service. After a recent debate that I initiated, the Minister ordered an urgent inquiry into nursing at Eastbourne district general hospital. Our local NHS has also had cuts--in chiropody services, for example--that cause great distress to many of my elderly constituents. In all, about 300 people were thrown off podiatry waiting lists.
The royal commission on long-term care deliberated for 18 months, but its conclusions have now effectively been shunted into a siding by the Government. While the commission deliberated, an estimated 75,000 people had to sell their homes to pay for care. When will Ministers tackle the very real problems of funding long-term care for the elderly?
As the Minister knows, many older people are cared for, or are carers themselves. I have had letters from constituents in their 70s and 80s who have taken on the role of carer, often for a spouse suffering from Alzheimer's or another condition. Hard-pressed health services and social services departments are struggling to help when they are able, and I know that the Minister has taken a close personal interest in carers' issues. Although some of the Government's proposals on the matter deserve a cautious welcome, the extra funding announced recently works out at an additional 15p a week--which is hardly enough to recognise the billions of pounds saved to taxpayers each year by the estimated 5.7 million voluntary carers in the United Kingdom.
Taking all those factors together, one could be forgiven for asking: what do the Government have against the elderly?
Mr. Charles Wardle (Bexhill and Battle):
My hon. Friend is analysing accurately the damage that the Government are doing to elderly people. Is it not also true that people who have fought for the United Kingdom, and lived long lives here, resent the Government for putting the euro ahead of the pound sterling and for selling our gold reserves at knock-down prices?
Mr. Waterson:
My hon. Friend makes a very cogent point on a view that is held by many of my elderly constituents.
The most important and pressing issue that I should like to raise today affecting the elderly in East Sussex is the plight of independent residential care homes, which face two major problems: a Labour Government, and a Lib-Lab pact running the county council.
I recently addressed a meeting, in Eastbourne town hall, of more than 100 worried care home operators. Some of them had already gone out of business, whereas others were under pressure from their banks. They told me that they were facing a triple whammy. East Sussex pays the lowest fees to the private sector of any county in the
United Kingdom. The current rate is £209, which is made worse by the fact that the county council pays its own homes the equivalent of £402 per person per week--an incredible difference of almost £200. The situation is rightly perceived as unfair by the private sector.
Furthermore, by insisting on keeping its own homes open, the county is wasting millions of pounds that could be better spent in the private sector. That is partly a matter of political dogma. I pay tribute to the dedication of staff in the county council-run homes. However, there is no less commitment in private homes, where the facilities are often more modern and more comfortable. It is therefore all the more distasteful when local Liberal Democrat politicians try to make political capital by claiming that residents of those homes would not receive treatment at least as good in the private sector.
Indeed, it is interesting that, in principle, the ruling group seems to have accepted the wisdom of disposing of the county's homes, despite what is said in its focus leaflets from time to time. As Councillor Peter Jones pointed out in a letter to me the other day, in 1998-99, the group tried to sell three homes as going concerns--those that were most non-compliant with current minimum standards.
The Conservatives on the council warned that the poor state of the homes meant that the group would almost certainly fail. Indeed, after some months, the group had failed to find a single credible buyer. There is a real problem here, with the county homes--despite the best efforts of staff--falling below the standards required in this modern age.
This is nothing new. I drew attention to the problem in a debate before the last election. On 19 February 1997, in an Adjournment debate, I said that
I pointed out in the 1997 debate that the disparity between what the council spent on its own homes and that spent in the private sector was £150. The gap has widened in the intervening period. The then Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), said that East Sussex was spending £5 million more than it needed. He went on to say:
The council claims, with some justification, that it does not get enough funding from the Government. We know that the Government have cut grants for areas such as East Sussex. They have also rigged the calculation of
grants, so they no longer fully reflect the effect of large numbers in our elderly population locally. Will he try to justify the level of funding for East Sussex?
We are dealing with Liberal Democrats, so they must look for someone else to blame. It is a bit difficult when they are, effectively, in a coalition with Labour, both locally and nationally. They are talking to Ministers about an all-party approach, but the harsh reality is that they are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
The owners of homes are threatened with over-regulation, and they have the working time directive and the minimum wage to contend with. It is a matter not just of the rules themselves, but of the extra record-keeping that is involved.
As if that were not enough, we have the Government-sponsored report from the Centre for Policy on Ageing, which calls for some nationally required standards, including those relating to room sizes. This is all very well in an ideal world, and we should all aspire to ever-higher standards. However, the plain fact is that many existing homes would have to close if those proposals were implemented. The physical standards proposed are a major problem, but so are the proposals about staffing, sharing rooms and so on. This could be the final straw for many homes. We recently debated that worrying development--at my instigation--in the all-party ageing and older people group.
I am pleased that Ministers confirmed to me recently that the proposals would be subject to proper consultation later this year. Will the Minister outline his plans for the consultation and confirm that he has a genuinely open mind? I am particularly indebted to Terry Fribbens of the East Sussex Independent Care Group and Carole Alford of the Registered Nursing Home Association for bringing this dreadful state of affairs to my attention.
I have heard also from many individuals--too many to name here. Here are some examples of the authentic voice of the independent care sector in my area. A letter from a lady who runs a residential home in my constituency said:
I can tell the Minister without fear of contradiction that there is a major threat hanging over the independent care sector in East Sussex. At least 24 homes have closed in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove in the past year. That is extremely worrying, because they provide more than 90 per cent. of the care home rooms in East Sussex. If they are driven out of business, where are the people in need to be looked after? Certainly not in the public sector.
The Petition of residents of Cambridge and elsewhere declares, that we totally oppose the closure of Coleridge Community College, Radegund Rd, Cambridge.
To lie upon the Table.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to do all in his power to prevent Cambridgeshire County Council from closing the College.
And the Petitioners remain.
That the present system of rebates of fuel duty paid to Commercial Passenger Transport Companies, who operate scheduled public transport services, is not paid to "Ring and Ride" or "Dial a Ride" type services. We consider that this system unfairly discriminates against persons with mobility difficulties to whom these services are the equivalent of normal bus services, which they are physically unable to use.
To lie upon the Table.
To the House of Commons. The petition of residents of the constituency of Maidstone and the Weald declares that we believe that hunting with dogs is cruel and unnecessary and has no place in a modern Britain. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons calls on the Government to act on the overwhelming mandate it has received from MPs and the public to end hunting by making a clear commitment by the year 2000 to legislate for its abolition. And the petitioners remain etc.
To lie upon the Table.
8.22 pm
"even if the Government could be persuaded to give a few million extra pounds to East Sussex, there would be no guarantee that the money would find its way through the system to independent care home owners."
I regret to say that nothing has changed. The same bunch of Liberal Democrats are, in effect, still running the county.
"When a local authority is complaining that it does not have enough money, I cannot understand how it can justify spending about £152 a person a week extra just by placing them in its own homes."--[Official Report, 19 February 1997; Vol. 290, c. 890-898.]
Does the Minister agree with his Conservative predecessor? Has he an up-to-date calculation of the money being wasted in this way by the county council? Does he agree that the council is in danger of abusing its dominant purchasing power in this instance? Will he initiate an urgent inquiry into the policy of the county council?
"The private sector providing Residential Care Homes have been persecuted for too long . . . What we want to know is why we the private sector are paid almost half the fees that the Councils pay themselves. This is grossly unfair."
A lady from another home who attended a meeting that I addressed recently complained about the 1 per cent. or thereabouts increase given by the county to the private sector when it increased the fees for its own homes by 6 per cent. She talked about people in the sector being caused real difficulties by the squeeze from the county council.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |