Social Care Reform

Question

11:24:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in cross-party talks on the reform of social care.

My Lords, the Government are facing up to the challenges of adult social care reform. The Prime Minister has tasked the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, to lead an independent commission into social care, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transcend party politics. The noble Baroness is tasked with building cross-party consensus on her recommendations and is starting a national conversation on what is expected from social care.

My Lords, history shows us that reform of social care is a contentious issue and political consensus has been notable by its absence—indeed, parties have used proposals as sticks to beat each other with—but there is agreement on two things: first, the system badly needs reform; and, secondly, this is a long-term project that cannot be solved in one Parliament but across several. In view of that, does my noble friend agree that achieving political consensus is a vital part of any reform of social care? Can she tell the House that this will be specifically included in the terms of reference for the review that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is carrying out?

My noble friend makes very strong points, which I absolutely concur with. This is an issue that needs to be able to stand the test of time and changes, whether they be in leadership or of Government. That is why we are taking the approach that we are. My noble friend will have seen the terms of reference that have been published. They are deliberately broad because we are tasking the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, to lead the work fully independently, which is particularly important in seeking cross-party consensus. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s review is very much about having the conversations cross-party and seeking to bring people together across parties and across sectors and the many individuals who have an interest in this.

My Lords, is not the truth of the matter that there is a consensus between the parties? The Economic Affairs Committee of this House published a report some five years ago. There was unanimity across the House. There has since been another report. This setting up of commissions and so on is just to appease the Treasury, which refuses to provide the money that is needed for social care and is the key to cutting waiting lists and moving forward in the health service. Should not the Government just have the courage to commit to the resource that is necessary instead of kicking this into the long grass for another three years while elderly people and young people suffer from inadequate services and clog up beds in the health service?

I understand the noble Lord’s impatience—I am sure we share it—and I hear what he says, but I have to remind your Lordships’ House that the previous Government did not commit funding to their plans, and I am glad the noble Lord agreed with that. I do not accept the characterisation of this. As my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, it has to stand the test of time. We are not waiting to take action; we have already put a number of pieces of work in place to lay the groundwork, including additional funding for social care authorities, increasing the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit and an extra £172 million for home adaptations. We are not just waiting for this report. By the way, I do not recognise the three-year characterisation because the first phase will report in 2026 and then there will be a further report back by 2028. I feel this is the right way forward.

Eight minus five is three.

I understand that, but the noble Lord said we were just waiting until 2028, and I am not aligning myself with that.

It is recognised that any meaningful social care reform must deliver for unpaid carers. Will the Minister say what role carer organisations are playing in shaping these talks?

Unpaid carers are key because they provide care and support to those who require care. The needs of unpaid carers will be very much part of the commission. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, will be speaking to relevant organisations and those with lived experience.

My Lords, can my noble friend give us an estimate of the number of vacancies in the care workforce and tell us whether there has been an assessment of the impact on the workforce of the restrictions on overseas recruitment for care workers?

I can say to my noble friend that the adult social care workforce is growing. Skills for Care data tells us that there has been an increase of 70,000 filled posts since 2022-23, that staff turnover is reducing and that the overall vacancy rate decreased to 8.3% in 2023-24 from 9.9% the previous year. While the direction is good, there is certainly more to do. As regards international care workers, it has indeed been factored in that we need a workforce, and that is one of the many reasons why the new measures that require care providers to prioritise recruiting international care workers are focused on those who are already in the UK, have visas and require new employment. I am sure we will talk about this as we discuss the Employment Rights Bill and all the directions it is taking to support professionalisation of the workforce and encourage those in the UK to take on adult social care roles.

My Lords, in July last year His Majesty’s Government scrapped the social care cap and curbed winter fuel payments. Sir Andrew Dilnot, author of the landmark Dilnot commission report on social care, said this was a “tragedy” and that “we have failed another generation of families”. With all due respect, the Government are doing a U-turn on the winter fuel payment; can the Minister rule out a U-turn on social care?

Again, I do not recognise the characterisation of a U-turn on social care. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have been extremely clear, as I outlined earlier in response to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, about why this commission is in place. When it was brought to this House previously, I recall that many noble Lords, although not all, were positive about it because they saw the opportunity—which the previous Government did not, not least because they did not fund its suggestions. This Government are absolutely committed to having a lasting, practical answer that involves everybody concerned and will be supported in the right way. I would have hoped that the noble Earl would welcome that.

My Lords, can the Minister explain how cross-party consensus will be constructed in relation to local mayors and local authorities? For example, the leadership in Cornwall Council has just changed, and there are huge care needs in Cornwall. How will we ensure that other parties—those underrepresented in this and the other House—are involved?

As I mentioned, the terms of reference for the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, are deliberately broad. She will set out how she will involve all those who are affected and have a voice, because she wants to make sure that it is a thorough report.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Party.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what progress has been made on addressing the problem faced by many unpaid carers who have been penalised, through no fault of their own, for having been paid too much because of technical failures in DWP? Are we making progress on addressing those very serious issues?

Yes, the relevant officials and Ministers are working on that. I realise the difficulty it has caused and they, too, are very sensitive to that point. I will reflect my noble friend’s comments to my ministerial colleagues.