Showing posts with label parliament. Show all posts
Showing posts with label parliament. Show all posts

Monday, 11 June 2012

Raise the Social Value of Social Care


“Why is it you need a degree to get a job in fashion, but when it comes to looking after our most vulnerable members of society any one with no qualifications can get a job as a support worker?” (Guest Blogger, Whose Shoes: http://wp.me/p1enjT-tu )

The above quote highlights one of the intrinsic issues facing social care in today’s society and that is the social value of care services. Whilst the Government will focus on than who actually pays for social care, rather than the actual cost of care services and others focus on the quality of care services provided, yet perhaps where we need to start is changing the view of the wider population to view social care as an essential service, as essential as health given the demographic trends, and a view that social care is there to enhance life rather than be the beginning of the end of life process.

Social Care is not a highly rated career choice. Be honest and ask yourself would you encourage your son or daughter to pursue a career in social care? While many people, when asked, will state that they admire care workers and the work that they do, I suspect that many parents would not be encouraging their children to undertake such a low-paid, low esteem job role. This is, perhaps, reflected in the demographics of social care workers with those aged between 18 & 24 making up around 14% of the workforce and even if we include those up to the age of 34 we still only get to 36% of the workforce. In other words, two-thirds of care workers are aged 35 or above.

This rather suggests, although I can find no research to back it up, that social care work is a career of opportunity, i.e. a matter of what is available when needing a job in later life, rather than a deliberate career choice.

Yet, surely, caring for those in most need in society should be a job that is celebrated and regarded as an important role in our society, one that is rewarded appropriately in accordance with the gravitas associated with the work role.

Another, yet highly connected, issue in terms of valuing social care is that the seeming denial of many people when it comes to their own future and the potential need for care services in the future. Naturally none of us like to think about the possibility of getting old or suffering from some form of dementia and that denial leads to people ignoring the idea of social care until such time that it touches their lives. People do not want to think about being reliant on others to help them through their daily lives and, subsequently, do not think about the type of person they would want to deliver that care.

The same type of denial applies to other types of social care. If it does not directly impact on the life of a person they tend to ignore the issues of those with learning disabilities or mental health issues.

The forthcoming White Paper needs to do more than make technical changes to the current system, it needs to reach out to those not yet affected by the need for social care services and highlight that social care is about everyone’s future not just about those who need services now.

Raising the social value of social care is vitally important and needs to be the priority of Government Policy

Friday, 11 May 2012

Why Care Can't Wait


Panorama has discovered a series of cases in which elderly people have been unsafe and unprotected in nursing homes. Instead of being looked after, vulnerable, elderly people were insulted, neglected, roughly handled or physically assaulted.

Sound familiar?

Yet it is not the episode aired on 23rd April this year where Fiona Phillips exposed the treatment of Maria Worroll at Ash Court. It is an episode that was aired on 12th February 2007. So, in five years, why has nothing been done to prevent these things occurring?

We have had other exposés in between most notably the abuse of people with Learning Disabilities at Winterbourne view but none of these seem to be able to make politicians care enough about social care to take real action on improving the lives of the most vulnerable.

We cannot solely blame the politicians, the national media must take some responsibility. Such events soon disappear from the news agenda and while Panorama will provide us with regular exposés they seem to lack the inclination to ask WHY is this still happening?

I was reminded of that Panorama episode when I was flicking through my copies of the magazine I used to write for. Ironically my column in that same edition focused on the success in care training that had been achieved as had been highlighted in that years “State of Social Care” report from the CSCI. At that point the National Minimum Standards required all care providers to have at least 50% of their staff with NVQ level 2 and real progress was being made on that. Unfortunately that requirement was dropped in 2010 and, in fact, there are no specific requirements at all for care providers to have qualified staff.

In that same column I also raise concerns about whether the level of success in training care workers can be sustained because of diminishing fee increase from Local Authorities and question the effect that proposed registration of care workers may have on the sector. Five years later those fees have continued to be lower than inflation (in the last few years there have been no increases at all) and the registration of care workers has evaporated into thin air.

My reason for looking through those back copies was to try and find when it was that Ivan Lewis faced a question from a backbencher on the practice of local authorities not raising fees to care providers or, if they were, at a rate below inflation. This was in March 2008 and he condemned the practice stating that care providers should, at the very least, expect an increase in fees that kept pace with inflation. Of course this has not happened and the amount being paid to provide care and support has fallen behind in real terms.

So, in essence, nothing has happened to tackle the issues facing social care over the past five years, now we face another delay to action on care.

In five years we still have Panorama exposes on care, we still have no actions on care worker registration and the amount paid to provide care and support to the vulnerable continues to fall behind and while we have had tinkering around the edges with changes in regulator etc no substantive political act has been taken in that time. 


We have had a consultation in 2008/2009 which led to a Green Paper in July 2009 followed but another consultation and a White Paper in March 2010. Then, with the change in Government, we had the Dilnot Commission launched in July 2010 and the Dilnot Report published in July 2011.


Surely we have had enough talking. 

This is why care can’t wait and we need action NOW not later

Thursday, 3 May 2012

Let's Get Social Care Out of the Darkened Corner


The Health & Social Care Act 2008 received Royal Assent on 22nd July 2008 but the bulk of the provisions relating to social care where not put in force until 1st October 2010. So, in essence, there was a two year gap between the final stage of the Parliament and the implementation of the Act. Of course, this is just the end of the process, a bill has to travel through the parliamentary process. For example, the controversial Health & Social Care Act 2012 had its first reading in Parliament on 19 Jan 2011 and received Royal Assent on 27 Mar 2012, probably an extreme example but it highlights the length the process can take.

What’s the point of that little tour of the Parliamentary process?

Simply speaking, the current Government has three years, at the most, left and unless they take action soon on social care there will not be any changes to the current system while this Government is in power, if they do, eventually, legislate it will be left to the next Government, whoever they are, to implement any changes made. And, more importantly, it could be close to three years to see any substantive change in the social care system (always assuming the Government put any substantive changes in a bill!).

To most of us in the sector such prevarication on social care is not unusual and not just limited to the Government in power at present. I won’t repeat the gist of my previous blog (Politicians Seem Clueless About Social Care) but suggest what we need is a radical approach to reforming social care at the very top.

When Ivan Lewis was named care minister in 2006 he promised a radical review of social care, unfortunately that never happened and the first announcement of a consultation on social care came only once Alan Johnson took over the role of Health Secretary from Patricia Hewitt a year later. This suggests that any real action on social care is decided by the senior minister who sits on the cabinet.

Obviously the Health Minister is generally more concerned about Health Care rather than Social Care as evidenced by this Governments pushing through the 2012 Act despite opposition from many health professional organisations. Social Care seems to occupy a tiny corner within the Department of Health thinking.

But why does social care sit in the Department of Health?

Social Care is not a minor area of public policy to be handily attached to what appears to be the most appropriate Ministry.

The number of people receiving local authority funded services in 2010/2011 was 1.6 million and this excludes people who pay for their own care and people deemed by social services as not having sufficient need level to qualify for support and who are cared for by unpaid family members etc., so true figure of those who may need social care services is considerably higher.

Skills for Care estimate that the social care workforce also numbers 1.6 million. So, at a minimum, 3.2 million people are involved in social care services. Add to this the fact that Skills for Care also “work closely with the 40,600 organisations that offer social care people who use services, carers and with other key stakeholders” and it is hard to see why social care does not get much more attention than say the Department of Culture, Media & Sport which has a Cabinet Minister in Charge.

It is also important to remember that social care is not just about health, although that may play a significant part in end of life care etc. the role of social care is to support and care for individuals in their day to day living and health remains the responsibility of health professionals. The public often only connect social care with elderly care but it goes beyond this and beyond the remit of health.

For adults below the age of 65 who need social care services much of the focus is on appropriate housing, employment opportunities and living independently. The latter of which is also a focus of social care for the elderly. Social care is about maintaining links with society and maintaining social well-being in addition to health well-being.

We need action on social care and we need political consensus rather than political paralysis. Let’s start by achieving consensus that social care should not sit in a darkened corner of the Department of Health and it deserves its own Ministry with its own Minister who sits on the Cabinet and has the opportunity to bring forward legislation but more importantly to show that Westminster is truly serious about working for the millions in the country who receive or are involved in delivering, social care services.

Friday, 9 March 2012

Dear MPs - Why Social Care IS Important


Anyone catching the Future of Social Care debate in the House of Commons yesterday must have been struck by the lack of MPs bothering to turn up to discuss on of the most important issues facing the country at the moment.

Perhaps every MP should look to their own constituency and take a real look at the demographics and data of those  they are paid to represent  in order to  realise the importance of social care  in their community.

I live in the district of Shepway and delving into the data makes startling reading. I would hasten to add that the local MP (Damian Collins – Folkestone & Hythe) did attend the debate and make a contribution through an intervention, but I think it is important to share some of the facts and figures to demonstrate why MPs need to look to their own constituency to  realise the importance  of focusing on social care.

Shepway has an estimated population of 101,200, not a major metropolis but it does have one of the largest care sectors in the county of Kent and, despite persistent rumours of affluence in the south east, is in the top 100 most deprived districts in the country.

Of that population 15% is over the age of 70 & 6% over the age of 80. Many of these will be recipients of some form of social care services either at home or in care home settings, of which there are 110 in Shepway (the same number as registered in Brighton & Hove despite the huge population difference). Obviously with a huge amount of care provision there is an equally large social care workforce, all of whom are affected by social care policy set out by Westminster and the policies of Westminster therefore have an impact on the local economy.

Naturally paid for social care provision is not the only aspect of social care. Data from 2001 suggests that around 10% of the districts population are providing unpaid care to family or friends, with 279 of these being under the age of 18. Again decisions made in Westminster have a direct impact on the lives of these people and on those people they care for.
Around 10% of the people who live in Shepway claim Disability benefits (2011 figs) the majority of whom have physical disabilities but it also includes 1365 people with learning disabilities and 1071 with mental health issues.

Social care should be about people not about facts and figures but it is important that those  we pay to represent us  are aware of the importance on social care and just how much social care impacts on the lives of their constituents.

There may be many demands on an MPs time and there may be many areas of policy the promote or prefer to be associated with but the bottom line is they  are paid to represent us  and they should especially be representing the most vulnerable section of the community they have been elected to represent.

There has been much emphasis on leadership in social care of late and one key element of leadership is acting as a role model. Members of Parliament need to act as role models in supporting the vulnerable in society, that means visibly showing active interest and that means turning up for debates in the House!