Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill — House of Lords, 2020-09-07
Topic: Mixed Topics
Margot Aline (Labour, Centre-left): My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I very much agree with what she had to say. I am speaking primarily in support of Amendments 2 and 93, but I am supportive of all these amendments. I underline the importance of what the noble Baronesses, Lady Masham and Lady Finlay, said about personal care. When the Bill was postponed in the House of Commons, I thought that perhaps the Government were thinking again about the treatment of care workers in the points-based system in light of the Government’s and the country’s applause for them during the height of the pandemic. How naive I was; there was no rethink. Despite the crucial role they played and continue to play and the range of skills involved in their work—organisational, clinical and "soft skills of empathy and patience", as the chief executive of the National Association of Care & Support Workers has explained—the Government, as has already been said, continue to confuse pay with skill and contribution Back in February, the Home Secretary herself conceded that "care is not a low-skilled occupation"— so why is it being treated as one now? To do so in the proposed points-based system is in effect discriminatory, as the equality impact assessment makes clear. It says: "The Government is aware that prescribing a minimum … threshold could have differential impacts on individuals on the basis of their sex. Women may find it disproportionately more difficult to meet the threshold than men." Indeed, but there is no "could" or "may" about it. It will have a differential impact and women will find it disproportionately difficult because, of course, women make up the majority of care workers. Moreover, black and minority ethnic women are disproportionately represented in the care sector, and the equality impact assessment shows that BAME workers will also be adversely affected by the salary threshold In the Commons, the Immigration Minister said that "our vision for the future of the care sector is about providing rewarding opportunities to UK-based workers, not basing it purely on immigration."—[Official Report, Commons, 13/7/20; col. 1250.] Likewise, the Minister, at Second Reading, said that "the immigration system is not the sole solution to the employment issues in the social care sector."—[Official Report, 22/7/20; col. 2232.] No one is suggesting that immigration provides the sole solution or that the future of care should depend purely on immigration but, to quote the Cavendish Coalition of 37 organisations in health and social care: "For a sector where one in six are foreign nationals and which is struggling with 122,000 vacancies in England alone it would be unwise to believe that domestic recruitment will solve all social care’s immediate problems." It warns that we are "swiftly heading towards an alarming destination with no obvious solution for the care sector." Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that those "rewarding opportunities" to which the Immigration Minister referred are to be provided when local authorities are already on their financial knees? As we have heard, funding has gone down in the care sector and the Government have done nothing about it over their 10-year period in office. Do the Government believe that the market will miraculously provide the solution in the absence of immigrant labour?