Debate Regarding Equitable Life
(19/05/09)

Rosie Cooper (PPS (Mr Ben Bradshaw, Minister of State), Department of Health; West Lancashire, Labour): I declare a personal pecuniary interest as an Equitable Life policyholder; but it is not in that regard that I speak today, but to give the views of some of my West Lancashire constituents. I congratulate David Davis on securing the debate, in which thousands of individuals will take a keen interest.

As an Equitable Life policyholder I realise the problems that its failure has caused many families, when, after a lifetime's work, their plans for the future have been destroyed, because the money that they were depending on is not there or has been much reduced. It is not my intention in the short time available to repeat comments that hon. Members have already made, but I have received significant correspondence from many people in my constituency who have been directly affected and who have expressed their views in no uncertain terms.

One gentleman wrote:

"When I invested money in Equitable Life (over many years) I like other people had been led to believe that we were dealing with a high quality provider of great integrity."

Another constituent told me:

"I remember very well when I made my investment that I was confident that it would be safe; with the belief that I was investing into a blue chip Mutual Society. I thought I had done my homework in selecting Equitable Life...I now feel very deceived and let down. This was a cruel deception."

Lastly an elderly female constituent remarked:

"I'm within a few days of my 80th birthday and am feeling very vulnerable on account of the worry and concern this whole affair is giving me."

There is no shying away from how hurt and raw those individuals feel. They desperately want action and resolution in this sorry state of affairs. Over many years the Equitable Life story has descended into tragedy for many; but just as I understand my constituents' fears and their serious financial problems, by the same token I understand that the Government do not have a straightforward job. However, the Government must seek to reach a fair solution that will compensate people for the failure of regulation. I am pleased that they are committed to taking such action to help those who were hardest hit financially by the failure of Equitable Life, but many believe that they must do more. They must meet their commitment to Equitable Life's policyholders.

It is important to acknowledge that the Government have accepted that maladministration took place, in line with the parliamentary ombudsman's report. The request for an independent review, to ensure that the process for compensating policyholders will be sufficiently robust and accurate, is welcome. There are difficulties, as we have heard, and the last thing that we need is further complication. I want to impress on the Minister the real emotions of my constituents and many others whom we have heard about today, and what they live through each day as they wait for the outcome. I therefore implore him to ensure that the Chadwick review will be implemented as soon as possible.

To read the full Equitable Life Debate, please click here.

Debate Regarding Fire Safety in Schools
(19/05/09)

Rosie Cooper (PPS (Mr Ben Bradshaw, Minister of State), Department of Health; West Lancashire, Labour): I thank my right hon. Friend Mr. McCartney for securing this debate on the vital issue of fire safety in our schools. During the past four years, I have supported and worked with the National Fire Sprinkler Network's campaign to make the installation of fire sprinklers standard in newly built schools. I was alerted to the problem by Bernadette Hartley, who has, sadly, died. She was a great and passionate advocate for sprinkler systems in schools. She worked tirelessly on the project with many fire chiefs throughout the country, and particularly with Peter Holland of the Lancashire fire service. In recent years, their hard work, persistence and commitment to fire safety have delivered progress, and I congratulate them and the Government on that.

Working with Bernadette was quite exciting at times. At one point, we met the TV presenter Nick Ross, who wanted to put an MP from each party—one Liberal, one Labour and one Tory—into a trial fire building by agreement, leave us in there and then rescue us, so that we would realise the impact on the lives of people who could end up in a fire with no prospect of rescue. It never happened, but it often makes me think what will happen to people if we do not do all that we can, not only in terms of buildings—the cost is huge—but in terms of the social and human impact that a fire has.

It has been a long-fought campaign for better safety on school premises, and there is clearly some way to go yet. I welcome wholeheartedly the move by the Department for Children, Schools and Families to encourage the installation of sprinkler systems in newly built schools. Including that in Department guidance will significantly reduce the costs and disruption caused by fires in schools. In our discussions with the National Fire Sprinkler Network, manufacturers and fire departments, it has been made clear that the more the guidance is adhered to and the more sprinkler systems are put in schools, public buildings, shops and areas where the public are at risk, the more innovation there will be and the more the costs will drop. It is important that we get on with it. Safety in our schools is paramount, and the sprinklers add an extra level of security. Schools play an increasingly important role as community hubs. They are no longer open from 8.30 am to 3.30 pm; there are breakfast clubs and after-school activities. They offer a place where the local community can come together. In some places, the local school might be the only decently functioning community facility. We must protect those resources as best we can, as well as the health and safety of the people who use them.

Lancashire county council, as the local education authority, includes sprinkler systems in all new schools built under the Building Schools for the Future programme. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield has said, some 2,000 schools are damaged by fire each year. The Building Schools for the Future programme will invest £25 billion in renewing schools. We should not do anything that might put that investment at risk. We should protect it, and sprinkler systems are a logical next step, especially as we are investing such huge sums.

Installing sprinkler systems makes a great deal of financial sense. The cost of a sprinkler system is 1 to 2 per cent. of the total project cost for a new build. If incorporated at the design stage, it can become cost-neutral, so why not just do it? There are additional benefits. For example, Zurich will reduce a school's insurance premium by 65 per cent. and the excess, which is often about £100,000, to nil. That is an immediate benefit of putting sprinkler systems in schools. It is even more sensible to do so at the design stage.

I want to place on record my support for the work of the National Fire Sprinkler Network and everybody associated with the health and safety of all the people involved in protecting those who use public buildings. I hope that the Department for Children, Schools and Families, being committed to the installation of fire sprinklers in schools, will push on as hard and as quickly as possible.

To read the full debate, click here.

Concessionary Travel Scheme for the disabled and elderly
(06/05/09)

Rosie recently took part in an adjournment debate with regard to the current situation surrounding the provision of free bus/rail travel for pensioners and disabled people who reside in West Lancashire. For the full debate transcript, see here. Rosie released a statement regarding the situation in West Lancashire:

Labour MP Rosie Cooper outlines the issues raised in her Westminster Hall debate on concessionary bus travel schemes and the fraudulent issuing of tickets by bus companies.

"There are many older and disabled people in my constituency in West Lancashire and across the country who rely on public transport to access vital public services, such as their GP; for employment opportunities; and to take an active part in social and leisure activities."

"The introduction of the national free off-peak concessionary travel scheme by the government has opened up a wealth of opportunities for older and disabled people by removing the cost barrier of public transport. Therefore, we must ensure that we get maximum benefit for those eligible from the funding government has committed to the scheme."

"In recent months I have been working with local pensioner organisations in West Lancashire campaigning to get a better, fairer deal on free public transport. We have been on the streets getting people to sign a petition; they have met with council officers to express the strength of feeling and they even protested at a recent council meeting."

"Local authorities, such as West Lancashire District Council, are 'net gainers' through the concessionary travel scheme. I want to see them use the surplus funding to invest in giving local people are better deal on public transport. This could include giving people at the very least the choice between a free bus pass or a free rail pass."

"What I want to see for the older and disabled people of West Lancashire is a fair deal on concessionary travel. Older people in West Lancashire see that their neighbours in Southport and Wigan get to travel for free on buses and trains. They would like the chance and the choice to hop on the train to visit their friends and relatives and take full advantage of the social and leisure opportunities. Pensioners are tired of being Merseytravel's poor relations."

"As for fraudulent tickets being issued, this practice has been brought to my attention by pensioners travelling on local buses. They are being given tickets that do not reflect their actual journey. In some cases drivers have been issuing tickets from a pre-printed roll. These practices undermine the credibility and viability of the concessionary travel scheme."

"I have made press statements calling on those residents using concessionary travel to be vigilant and encouraging them to complain when they are issued with the wrong ticket. I am aware from the complaints received by Lancashire County Council that in 61 per cent of cases of incorrect tickets being issued it would have resulted in an overpayment to the bus operator."

"Any claims from bus operators that are greater than their entitlement means there will be less money in the pot for more people to make more journeys. This will place a greater burden on the council tax payers to fill the unnecessary gap this creates."

"Therefore, I want to highlight how the free concessionary travel scheme can offer real social inclusion benefits for older and disable people but is being undermined. And show how some local authorities that have financially gained through this scheme could and should be doing more for those eligible, and that there certain practices that must be stopped now."

Senior Care Workers
(23/10/07)

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab): The quality of the life of a nation is judged by how it treats people who are most dependent upon the care of others. In this country, the care of our elderly should be not only one of our most important concerns, but one that we constantly monitor and assume to be fundamental to the quality of their lives.

Some months ago, I was approached in my constituency by a series of Filipino care workers who, to be frank, I did not know existed in my constituency. They gave me the names of and information about three care homes, owned by Southern Cross Healthcare, which I did not realise existed. They told me that they, who had been working for periods of between four and six years in this country, almost all of them with children in local schools, mortgages and stable homes, had suddenly been confronted with a case that they had never expected.

The new Border and Immigration Agency had decided, without, as far as I can see, any consultation with Parliament, that the rules for care workers needed to be changed. The work permit applications for senior care workers were altered in such a way that people who had been working sensibly and quietly at difficult jobs were told that their work permits would not be renewed. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Minister is replying to the debate; but frankly, in the past three months, I have been appalled by the way in which his Department—the Department for the Home Office, or whatever it happens to be called presently—has batted me about from one area to another with the highly spurious argument that not one Department is responsible for that set-up.

The Home Office Border and Immigration Agency, however, directly changed the rules of the game. In other words, when those workers entered the United Kingdom, not only were they accepted as capable of acting as senior care workers, but no one ever questioned their status.

David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): The situation that my hon. Friend describes is very much like that in North-West Leicestershire and elsewhere in care homes in Coalville and in Castle Donnington, where Filipino carers have worked for several years. Its worst aspects are tardiness and uncertainty, because the Border and Immigration Agency and the Home Office are not replying to letters. I wrote to the Minister, whom I greatly respect, on 4 July—not a single reply yet. I raised the matter in the Chamber on 9 July with the Home Secretary. I hope that that speeds things up and that we receive replies, so that we can remove the uncertainty hanging over many hundreds of people who perform a vital role for the very elderly in our society.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I hope to set out exactly that set of circumstances, because the whole episode has been a stain on the responsibility and reputation of the United Kingdom.

Many of the Filipino care workers were told that they must apply through their existing management, who initially said that it was the Government’s responsibility and that the workers were not allowed to apply for an extension. Then, when we obtained information from the Government, the management said that a certain rate of pay—£7 an hour for people of their status—had been imposed and that it had been made very clear that, unless the workers were paid that rate, they could not be employed.

Is the Home Office now in charge of wage negotiations for people employed in private care homes? If it is, I understand why the Department of Health sent me a letter that said:

“Matters relating to pay and conditions of employment of staff employed by independent care home operators are for negotiation for employers and employees and/or their representatives, taking account of relevant employment legislation...the Department of Health extends only as far as the regulations and national minimum standards governing the quality and safety of care”.

If that is true, how have we found ourselves in that situation? In reality, large numbers of private health care workers, working in many instances for American chains, have been told that they cannot apply for an extension of care. Owing to the fact that those women—they are largely women—are Filipino and Indian, very law-abiding and extremely worried about whether they will be able to remain if they do not have legal status, they have in some instances been driven out of the country at very short notice, and they are in others terrified that, in some way, they will contravene the rules.

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. She mentions that the Filipino workers are law-abiding. Does she agree that, of all the immigrant groups, they are probably the most industrious, well-motivated, law-abiding and socially integrated in our society? Does she agree also that the Minister should show some compassion when dealing with that group and that they should be allowed to work out their current permits? Their precipitous removal would be at great personal cost to the individuals, their families and the hundreds of thousands of elderly people who need that top-quality care.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I strongly agree with every word that my hon. Friend says. Let us enumerate the qualities of those women: they are English-speaking; they are enormously warm in their approach; and they do difficult jobs in care homes dealing with the elderly—in some cases for the minimum rates of pay. They are doing jobs that Britons do not want to do—jobs that will not be filled successfully by people who are non-English-speaking. However, that appears to be the burden of the argument: get rid of people who are without the European institutions and countries, and replace them with people from eastern Europe. If that is true, it has been done in the most astonishingly incompetent, insensitive and appallingly thought-out manner.

I wrote to the Prime Minister saying that I was being bounced from one Department to another without any clear statement about the circumstances. I shall quote a letter from a marvellous man called David Edgar, who has been doing his best to protect those workers, simply because he was so concerned about what was happening in the care homes about which he knew. He said:

“There is...abundant evidence that...many small care home companies who are desperate to employ experienced and qualified Senior Care Workers who...speak excellent English...are quite happy to pay the imposed hourly rate however their nightmare is the constant moving goalposts of the Home Office, the rules are now so complicated and conflicting that care home managers do not know how to apply for Work Permits, Visas and...at a cost of £190 for each Work Permit...are very reluctant even to try.”

Those are the responsible companies. The irresponsible ones have simply told people that they will not apply for extensions, and they are leaving large gaps. In subsequent evidence, Mr. Edgar says that he believes that many of those women are “now being blackmailed” into doing much harder work to fill the gaps and that, in some instances, they are being told that, if they create any difficulties about their terms and conditions, the Home Office will be told that they are not to remain because the company will not apply for any extended permits.

I apologise, but only yesterday did it occur to me that I could not be the only Member who was dealing with the situation. As we can see from the number of my colleagues who are gathered in the Chamber for a half-hour debate, that is true. Some 24 Members e-mailed me with specific details. Some of them had as many cases as me—I have more than 20 in my constituency—and some Members have up to 50. Some of the cases involve the most appalling stories. In one case, six care workers had their work permits refused, even though they had been here for four years.

My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) and many others have given me detailed case histories that not only chime with what I have discovered but make it clear that the problem continues. My hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Ian Stewart) has approached Ministers and been given the same sort of reply as me and has also been told by a care home:

“The handling of this matter by the Home Office has been shambolic...No one at the Home Office gives a damn about the effect these guidelines have had on staff welfare. This is nothing more than an effort to increase the deportation figures”.

I do not have to agree with every word of that to say that Members of Parliament are extraordinarily concerned about what has been happening to those people.

If the Minister gets to his feet and says, “Of course, this is not a matter for me; it is for the Borders and Immigration Agency”, I can say to him only that there is a lamentable failure in management care in the Government, considering that two major Departments seem totally incapable of deciding what they want to do. If there was wide consultation on the change in the rules, with whom did it take place? When was it brought before Parliament and why were we not aware of it before it happened?

Once Members of Parliament started to raise the matter, the Home Office mildly backed off by saying that there should be a degree of flexibility in how cases are handled. However, as far as I can see, there has been no plain statement of the status of the women in question, even though it is known not only that they are desperately needed in the care homes where they worked, but that their absence is putting enormous strain on the existing health care staff and the quality of life of the people living in those homes.

Since a Department of Health Minister is responding to the debate today, I want to know what the Department intends to do. Why is it not possible for the Home Office to grant those women an amnesty for a minimum of three months after the expiry of their work, if it can clearly be proved that they have been working here, in some cases for up to six years, so that they can apply for other jobs? Let them apply for other jobs in the health service or the care homes sector. There is absolutely no reason why that should not be so.

Filipino nursing qualifications are extraordinarily good. It is all very well for the Department of Health to say, “Well, of course they can get themselves accredited and apply.” Those women have no support system, do not know what they have to do to get themselves accredited in a foreign land and face the considerable pressure of wondering whether they will be thrown out of the country in a short time. It is clear, since none of us seem to have accurate figures of the number people involved, that more and more people’s work permits will soon expire and their cases come to light. Their Members of Parliament will ask for clear protection for people from whom we have clearly benefited, yet seem prepared to abandon without a thought to their situations.

I shall not take the Minister through everything that has happened to senior care workers, but I shall say that David Edgar, who has been fighting this battle almost single-handed, dealt with another Southern Cross home, not in my constituency. He made a request to the Home Office in July, and the carers in question were ordered to leave the UK on 27 July. The Minister was served with a letter before action, and legal action is taking place. However, in August, Southern Cross—the very people who were saying to their workers, “Well, I’m awfully sorry, but as far as we are concerned, once your work permit ends, you are on your own”—signed up to a skills pledge. Like me, David Edgar then went to every relevant Department. There was a change on 13 August, when new work permit criteria were introduced.

A parliamentary Committee condemned the poor treatment, abuse and neglect that elderly residents receive in many care homes, at the same time that even more difficulty was being caused. David Edgar then made formal complaints on behalf of various care workers about the way in which they had been cheated out of money. He was received not only with little evidence that the police intended to investigate but with scant courtesy. Since the beginning of the episode, there has been an appalling set of circumstances that does nobody any credit.

I wish to ask the Minister a number of things. Has his opposite number in the Home Office said that he is prepared to assist those women if they can genuinely show that they have been here for a certain length of time and have the skills to find jobs in the health care sector? If not, is the Home Office prepared to make specific undertakings on how those workers can be assisted in the interim period to deal with the circumstances in which they find themselves?

The Minister will forgive me—I am allowed an elderly moment. I did not realise that he was indeed in the Home Office. I am surrounded by Ministries whose names I cannot pronounce and whose acronyms seem to produce such sounds as “Brrrrrr”. He will forgive me for not realising that he has moved on.

Although I am allowed senior moments, I, too, will need care at a certain time in my life. I shall want it to come from people who are nice, warm and caring and have proper training. The group of women affected exemplify those standards and the best in care work. Many of them are now terrified—I use that word advisedly. I have had people wandering into my surgery, as I am sure other Members have, saying cheerfully to me, “Oh yes, I was refused the right to remain here”—10 years ago, in one instance. Yet these women come to me weeks before their work permits expire and say, “We are so frightened. What are we going to do? We will have to leave our homes and take our children out of school. We will have to deal with it.”

If a mistake has been made, which I believe it has—24 Members of Parliament are not making up the problems that they have told me about—the Home Office should simply say so. It should bring in interim arrangements and make them clear and public. It should stop running away from what it obviously perceives as a suggestion that it is giving special care to those who come from outside the European Community, and it should ensure that it does not impose such things as hourly rates and then tell me that the matters for negotiation are for those in the health care service. It is a case of one or the other: the Government might decide on home care rates—fine, I do not have a problem with their setting minimum rates—but they should make up their mind. When they do, they must remember that the people affected are not toys or counters; we are playing with people’s lives. So far, we have not done a very good job.

Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab): I endorse everything that my hon. Friend has said. There have been such cases in my constituency, and we cannot get people to fill the jobs created. The ladies at Stocks Hall nursing home do a fantastic job. They are caring, diligent and everything that one would want. The residents want them and so do the directors, but they cannot afford to pay them £7.02 an hour. I ask the Minister whether it can really be fair to allow those individuals to come to England, take up employment, settle in the community and then face deportation after two years. They are efficient staff members and really needed.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Minister knows the case. Let us hear his explanation or, better still, his excuses and decisions about what he is going to do to assist such people urgently. This is an urgent problem.