Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Baroness Meacher

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 113. I applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, both on this amendment and on the years and years of commitment she has given to the support of carers.

It is extraordinary what this Government are prepared to do in this Bill. In revoking the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc.) Act 2003, they are abolishing the “safe to discharge” test, which requires processes to have been followed to ensure that appropriate and adequate care is, or will be, in place for a patient’s discharge from hospital. The Government are proposing that carers’ rights in primary legislation should be put in statutory guidance instead.

As a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I am very conscious that, under this Government, secondary or delegated legislation is used more and more to concentrate power in the hands of Ministers rather than in Parliament. The only possible reason for the Government to remove carers’ rights from the Bill, and to put them into secondary legislation, is to weaken those rights. Can the Minister give any reassurance on that point? It is a very important question.

A number of us recently met with a group of so-called adult carers—teenagers and adults—and also with a group of young carers. Both of those experiences were humbling from my point of view. I will mention a couple of points that came up. One teenager rather casually mentioned that she had begun being a carer at the age of three. This is unbelievable, is it not? I forgot to ask her what she actually had to do at the age of three; it is difficult to imagine. But, whatever she had to do, the idea that she somehow had a sense of responsibility at that age is truly alarming.

The other memorable moment was when a teenager was asked, “What is the most difficult thing for you, or the biggest problem that you have as a carer?” I thought she would say that she did not have any time to play with her friends or that she had to do all sorts of boring and horrible jobs that her friends do not. But no, she did not say any of that; what she actually said was, “The biggest problem I have is that the hospital staff won’t tell me how much medication my mum needs. They say they’ve got to talk to my mum, but that’s impossible.” The selflessness implied in that is just completely extraordinary—and of course there were lots of other incredible points.

If these young carers are not consulted before their dependent relative is discharged from hospital, they may be at school or in the middle of a hockey match—it is just unimaginable that this requirement should be in any way weakened. I ask the Minister to take extreme care on this issue when going back and considering the Bill; only then can we be sure that patients are not just medically fit to be discharged from hospital, as the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said, but are safe to be discharged—that is, carers or others are there to look after them.

BASW rightly points out that revoking a local authority’s Care Act duty to integrate care and support provision with health provision at the time of the key decision about where a person should be discharged to from hospital undermines the model of integration between social and health care staff—surely the absolute opposite of the whole objective of the Bill. I understand that discharge to assess is probably reasonable for medium and long-term care planning. However, an assess to discharge approach is even more important and should be done in hospital, from the date of admission to hospital. Where is that commitment in the Bill? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to support the noble Baroness’s amendment, and my thanks go to Carers UK for its briefing. I declare an interest as a family parent carer of an adult disabled man.

Earlier in Report, community rehabilitation was debated, and Amendment 113 complements this by acknowledging the vital role that carers play in supporting people’s discharge from hospital and promoting a community-based model of care. In Committee, I promoted an amendment that sought to define carers within the Bill, as they are mentioned in three clauses. This amendment incorporates that approach, to ensure that parent and young carers are not overlooked. I cannot stress sufficiently strongly how important rights in primary legislation are for carers, who often have all the responsibility for caring but very few of the rights. They are often experts in how people like to be treated, and they can be experts in a condition that professionals may have little detailed knowledge of.

Carers UK heard from carers directly about their experiences of being shut out of the system as part of the discharge to assess process. For new carers, it was often described as bewildering; promises to contact them just did not materialise. Carers UK research found that carers were not consulted and were not given information and advice or the support that they needed to care safely and well for the person who had been discharged. For several of these people, this involved admission to longer-term intensive support or, sadly, readmission back into hospital again. The amendment would have provided the checks and balances needed to ensure that this did not happen.

Carer experience surveys are also important, and they found that carers’ experiences of accessing health and care services for themselves have either plateaued or deteriorated in the recent past. Carers are twice as likely to have ill health as a result of caring; too often, they are overlooked in policy and practice in relation to health services. This is particularly true for parents of disabled children and for young carers. The work that they do has invaluable medical and economic benefit, often at the expense of their own well-being. I therefore urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Baroness Meacher

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Tuesday 1st March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 9, 10, 14 and 32 and will speak to my Amendment 11, which follows on quite nicely from the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. It refers to mental health, public health and secondary care services as vital to be represented on ICBs.

As drafted, the Bill leaves the membership of ICBs very much up to local decision-making. The Minister’s Amendment 31 does not change that; it leaves it up to the ICB to decide what it should look like. My concern is that ICBs may be dominated by managers from a range of organisations, perhaps including private sector health bodies. If such ICBs are established—they are being created as we speak—the Minister’s amendment simply enables them to reproduce themselves over time. There will be a degree of transparency over time, but the amendment ignores key sectors and the need for significant clinical inputs to these boards.

Amendment 31 usefully provides an opportunity for statutory guidance to achieve important objectives. In his letter, the Minister made it clear that statutory guidance will clarify that the ICB’s annual report will cover ICB duties in relation to child safeguarding. I very strongly welcome that. Can he include mental health and public health alongside child safeguarding as very particular services that are too often neglected and really need to be represented on ICBs? If he can agree to include those key services in the statutory guidance, as he has included child safeguarding, I would be very content.

Why are these services so important? As I said in Committee, having chaired a mental health trust for nine years, I am acutely conscious of the importance of high-quality and available child mental health services in particular. Across the country at present, the scarcity of such services means that vast numbers of children with quite severe mental health problems simply never get a psychiatric service at all while they are children. These untreated children will have severe problems for the rest of their lives because of that lack of treatment. It is therefore crucial to have a psychiatrist, who will be very conscious of this, on these ICBs—any psychiatrist will be aware that you have to intervene early if children display mental health problems. That is why I feel so strongly about that; I have watched it happen over years.

Another highly significant field being neglected as ICBs are being formed is public health. As many noble Lords know, I am conscious of the huge impact that effective public health responses could have on drug addiction. Police services are increasingly aware of this and are diverting addicted young people to treatment and away from the criminal justice system. However, this approach assumes that treatment services are available in every urban area, but they are not—they have been dropped or cut. Having a public health consultant on every ICB is crucial if these difficult matters are to be properly dealt with and treatment centres are not just closed because they are inconvenient, or whatever the case may be.

The Government hope to control the growth in knife crime through punitive, serious violence reduction orders. We know from all the research in the field that they simply will not work. The Durham, West Midlands and other police services are way ahead of the game, and more and more police services are following them in showing how best to ensure that violent young people caught up in county lines gangs can be diverted into education and work and away from the criminal justice system. However, that assumes that there are treatment facilities available; otherwise it simply cannot happen. Again, please can the Minister include a public health professional consultant on the ICBs as a recommendation in the statutory guidance, as he has done for child safeguarding. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 14 and 32 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Watkins. I want to give an example from my experience; I declare an interest here as independent chair of an oversight panel, reviewing for the Department of Health and Social Care the use of long-term segregation for children and adults with learning disability and/or autism detained under the Mental Health Act. I have seen the impact of very poor and unaccountable commissioning for this group, with very costly mistakes—costly in money and in terms of lives lost and lives destroyed—because of a failure of commissioning appropriate health and social care in the community.

Some commissioners, frankly, do not have the competencies to do their commissioning job safely. I make this point because—while I appreciate the value of Amendment 31 and its requirement that ICBs would have skills, knowledge and experience, keep them under review and take action if they consider that members are failing in some way—as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, put it, it is rather looking backwards, or marking their own homework, as I might put it, when they do not know what they do not know. This is the problem and why these amendments propose going a little further.

I welcome the Minister’s statement that ICBs will be required or expected to have the appropriate skill mix and experience necessary to deliver all their functions. I understand that the Government will issue regulations regarding fit and proper person tests, which will apply to ICBs when established, including adherence to the Nolan principles, Without the inclusion of the specific skills and expertise required, however, there will be little oversight or accountability of commissioning competence.

I would like the Minister to think again, and to commit to regulations and guidance that set out the criteria and standards that members of ICBs must possess, recognising the responsibilities that they will have and the impact of their decisions on the health and well-being of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Commissioners take decisions of extraordinary influence; they spend large sums of public money. Civil service appointments are made in accordance with a competency framework. There is no reason why commissioners should be exempt from meeting specific eligibility criteria—and not just in the clinical sphere but in the commissioning sphere, for which there is currently no professional competency laid out.

To give another example, later this month I will be sponsoring the Second Reading of the Down Syndrome Bill, the Private Member’s Bill from the other place that will require relevant authorities, including the NHS, to take account of the specific needs of people with Down syndrome. During the Committee stage of the Down Syndrome Bill, the Minister committed to

“having a named lead on integrated care boards who will be responsible for the implementation of the guidance in practice.”—[Official Report, Commons, 2/2/22; col. 642.]

Thus, representation of learning disabilities and autism interests on ICBs would be within the context of the duty of ICBs to ensure that they have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience. Much will depend on the guidance issued by the Secretary of State under that Bill, which would fulfil similar obligations, I hope, to those of the autism strategy and the Autism Act 2009.

I reassure the Minister that I and other noble Lords recognise the challenge that the Government have in seeking to ensure that the new ICBs comprise people with the correct skills to enable the board to carry out its functions, but these amendments ask for a slightly stronger approach. I ask the Minister to assure the Chamber that guidance and regulations will address the requirement for criteria to be specified.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Baroness Meacher

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I hope the House will indulge me for one or two minutes. I welcome the amendment and have no objections to it at all. However, I note that the Government have not come forward with amendments in relation to three other issues. The first is the risk to others and the interface with the mental health review. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us an assurance that the Government will not seek in the Commons to clarify the interface between this legislation and the mental health review. There is talk of using “objection” as the key criterion, but in my view we also need to consider the risk to others as a possible principle to be considered. Can we have an assurance that the Government will not seek to resolve this issue during the progress of this Bill in the Commons?

The second issue concerns independent hospitals, which we have debated. Although I certainly do not wish to reopen that debate, can the Minister give us an assurance that work will be done in preparation for the Commons stages on the very serious situation in which many people find themselves in independent hospitals? These hospitals are often remote and—if I may say so—not well run. People are incredibly vulnerable in them, often far more so than in homes. An assurance that that will be addressed in the Commons stages would be helpful.

The third issue regards domestic situations. Whatever the Government decide to do in the Commons, can they bear in mind the importance of trying to limit the levels of bureaucracy and, ideally, of not continuing to use the Court of Protection? Again, many very vulnerable carers caring for very vulnerable people do not have the resources to deal with a lot more bureaucracy—they already have a hell of a lot to deal with. Can the Minister respond on that point?

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I share my noble friend’s concerns about the impact and relevance of Sir Simon Wessely’s review of the Mental Health Act. It is particularly concerning that the Bill will now proceed to the other place without careful consideration in your Lordships’ House of how it will interface with Sir Simon’s recommendations, which were published in his review only last week. His proposed new dividing line, which identifies whether the Mental Health Act or the Mental Capacity Act should be used in a given situation, will be based on whether P objects or, in the case of people with learning disabilities, whether P’s behaviour puts others at risk. The Mental Capacity Act, as it will be in its currently amended form, has a direct bearing on any changes to the Mental Health Act, and vice versa.

Given this new dividing line, does the Minister expect more or fewer people with a learning disability to move across from the Mental Health Act to the new LPS system? What research is the department doing to explore this, and what impact will the change have on the number of people with learning disabilities and autism detained in assessment and treatment units? Is there a risk that the gains made by the transforming care programme will be reversed? Related to this, and given the uncertainties, will the Government commit to extending the transforming care programme, which is otherwise due to close later this year?

My final point is that the Wessely review specifically recommends that the periods between reviews of renewal decisions should be reduced in the Mental Health Act. This Bill as it stands would allow a responsible body to detain a person for up to three years without renewal review. Surely the Government will want to take this issue equally seriously with respect to the Mental Capacity Act.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Baroness Meacher

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 91, to which I have added my name. There is concern out in the field that care home managers will not be in a position to identify who will undertake the assessments under the Bill. It is not clear what training will be required for assessors. In his earlier comments, the Minister alluded to best interests assessors becoming the assessors under the Bill, but can he confirm exactly who will be undertaking the assessments? Only then can we be clear about what training they need.

The Minister also seemed to give the House an assurance that care home managers would not undertake pre-authorisation reviews. Again, could he confirm that and explain exactly who will undertake the pre-authorisation reviews? Again, the training of these people will depend absolutely on what their role is.

The 2008 regulations define who can undertake assessments. An assessor must be a qualified social worker, psychologist, nurse or occupational therapist. Also specified is precisely what training and testing the deprivation of liberty assessors have to undergo. Even though they are professionals and are required to have two years of experience in their profession, the deprivation of liberty training is also very precise. We need to know the extent to which the professionalism of the present system will be replicated.

The aim of the Bill is to streamline the process for authorising the deprivation of liberty. Any streamlining has to be thoroughly welcomed. I mentioned one idea of the British Association of Social Workers for streamlining. It has another interesting idea: that some streamlining could be achieved if the existing practice frameworks for care assessments and the Mental Capacity Act assessments were combined. The result would be that a trained professional undertook the deprivation of liberty assessments in the course of their other assessment work rather than having separate people. It would require revision of the codes of practice for the Mental Capacity Act and the Care Act, but it could be a useful way forward. Can the Minister explain whether this option has been considered? If not, would he be willing be to meet the British Association of Social Workers, and possibly me, to explore whether it has merit?

At present, we are clear neither about the roles of different people—assessors and pre-authorisation reviewers—nor about what their training might and should be. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify some of these things.

[Baroness Hollins]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her support for my Amendment 91, which calls for a comprehensive training strategy to be published to accompany the Act. The amendment comes about in part because little has been said of the training that those in the care sector will receive and on whether they will be resourced to undertake it.

The impact assessment estimates that care home managers will need only half a day’s “familiarisation” regarding the new regime. Given my own difficulties in understanding the Government’s intention despite spending considerably more than half a day reading and researching it and attending many briefings—many of this during recess—I doubt that half a day would be enough.

One reason for the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act being slow is that health and care professionals probably did not receive enough training effectively to embed the Act in practice. This Bill extends liberty protection arrangements to a much larger group of people, including those living in the community. My concerns in this group of amendments, as in previous groups today, focus on the needs of people with learning disabilities and their families, who make up the second largest group of people who will be affected by these changes—in care homes, in hospitals and in the community. Many of them may have been in receipt of such care for a long time, so we are talking not about a sudden referral for care but something which has been long established and where their current deprivation of liberty may be coming to attention now.

Despite this, the impact assessment does not put a figure on the number of people with learning disabilities who will be affected and thus the number of people in a rather wider range of settings who may need training—I may be wrong about this, but I could not see that.

Any training strategy must also consider ongoing training needs and how they will be resourced. We know that the sector is stretched to breaking point, so any additional, unfunded responsibilities will undoubtedly be keenly felt. The training will also need to address the current power imbalance where people with learning disabilities and family voices are often ignored. The fear is that training will be unable to change this culture and that the power imbalance could become worse when care home and hospital managers are able to choose whom they consult. So there is a real concern about the culture.

For this reason and others, my amendment recommends that vulnerable individuals and their families be included in developing and delivering the training. Having co-delivered training for health professionals together with people with learning disabilities and families, I know what a difference this makes in bringing pertinent issues to life for those being trained. If the wishes and feelings of cared-for people are to be at the heart of the system, they must be consulted and involved in the training. I would be grateful for the Minister’s comments on this and for explanations to noble Lords about how those responsible in the sector will be trained and the resources made available.

Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Baroness Meacher

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

I have added my name to Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. My concern is that a failure to meet the person directly might lead to a desk-based review, which would not enable the necessary scrutiny of the appropriateness of the care arrangements.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 45 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, to which I have added my name. These amendments strengthen the human rights-based duties of the approved mental capacity professional.

As it stands, the Bill weakens considerably the abilities of a person or their family or friends to exercise the convention right, under Article 5.4, of any detained person to take their case speedily to court. I think that all noble Lords understand perfectly well how this has come about. Paragraph 36 of Schedule 1 seems to indicate that an IMCA will be appointed only if the care home manager gives the relevant notification. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify in what circumstances an independent mental capacity advocate would not be appointed under the new system.

At Second Reading, I raised my concern that the Bill was going ahead before we knew the outcome of the Mental Health Act review. The Law Commission urges the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals to review the question of the appropriate judicial body to determine challenges to authorisations of deprivation of liberty under the Bill. The Law Commission also urges the establishment of a single legislative scheme governing non-consensual care or treatment of both physical and mental disorders where there is a lack of capacity.

At that point I have to delete chunks of my speech, having just had a meeting with Sir Simon Wessely, head of the Mental Health Act review, and Judge Mark Hedley, a former head of the Family Division, who knows all about mental capacity and everything associated with it. The Mental Health Act review will recommend that there should not be a bringing together of the Mental Health Act and this legislation. Therefore, I hereby withdraw my concern expressed at Second Reading.

As I said, following that meeting, I have deleted chunks of my speech, and I am not quite sure where I can pick it up again. Basically, they agreed with me—we agree about everything, in fact—that appeal to a court should be an absolute last resort. It goes without saying that court cases are incredibly time-consuming, stressful and expensive. It has to be seen as a failure of the system if recourse to a judge is needed. I certainly have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that, as far as humanly possible, we need to focus all the resources we can on the care of individuals, whether in the community or elsewhere.

We know that, if a court demands reports, the care of the patient has to come second to those reports being produced. This comes at a time when 10% of psychiatrists’ posts are not filled and vast numbers of all doctors’ and nurses’ posts are not filled, and it is proving more and more difficult to recruit—we will not mention the reason why. It seems to me, following discussion with Simon Wessely, that it is crucial to get the process right to minimise the need to access the courts. That is what his Mental Health Act review will concentrate on, albeit it will be a lot more liberal and professional than the current Act. It is an excellent process so that we can reduce the need for access to the courts.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Baroness Meacher

Monday 7th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak very briefly to Amendment 34, tabled so comprehensively by my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham. This amendment is of particular importance in view of the enormity of the cuts to welfare spending since the passing of the Child Poverty Act 2010. The Institute for Fiscal Studies reports that this will amount to £123 billion taken from our poorest citizens by 2016-17. The second feature of government policy the effects of which need to be monitored effectively—and would be under Amendment 34—is the conditionality and sanctions regime which undoubtedly increases the stress level of claimants very considerably.

As a panel member, along with Sir Keir Starmer and others, for an inquiry by the Fawcett Society into the impact of the Government’s welfare measures upon women, and by association their children, I found quite appalling the sheer level of errors and abuse in some Jobcentre Plus offices, affecting innocent women who only wanted, if at all possible, to gain their independence from the state. Our inquiry concluded that sanctions applied through no fault of the claimant were affecting claimants’ mental and physical health and the health and well-being of their children to a considerable degree. The Government have a duty to be aware of the consequences of their policies and to respond to the adverse effects.

I am aware that the Minister believes that injustices are limited in number, and that his department is doing its best to lessen them further. However, the inquiry made it clear to us that in fact the quality of service across the country varies very considerably. In some offices the staff were helpful and professional, and claimants certainly reported that. However, in others they were inadequately trained and could be callous and careless, with the most appalling consequences for the families affected. A typical example were mothers who, contrary to the guidelines, were required to travel three hours a day in total to and from work. They could not afford this and believed—rightly, in my opinion—that it was entirely wrong for their very young children to be in childcare for 10, 11 or more hours per day. Despite this entirely unreasonable requirement, such parents were sanctioned and then could not even feed their children. This was not an isolated problem but rather a regular occurrence in offices up and down the country.

Another often repeated story was that of a mother phoning the office to say that she could not attend an interview or required activity due to the sickness of a child, and was told that this information would, indeed, be passed on to the appropriate official. Of course, nothing was done. The mother would arrive at the post office to pick up her benefit only to find that there was nothing there. A sanction had been imposed with no information given to her. I cannot imagine the shock and utter distress of a mother in that situation. I believe that the Government may have adjusted the sanctions regime to ameliorate that problem and to make sure there is a gap between the imposition of a sanction and it taking place. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the position this evening.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation produced a comprehensive review of international evidence on sanctions within systems in which benefits are conditional on claimant behaviour. It confirmed that sanctions strongly reduce benefit use and increase exit from benefits. However, Rowntree also finds that sanctions are generally less favourable in terms of longer-term outcomes, the well-being of children and crime rates, for example.

Every sanction which is unfairly imposed will cause extreme stress to parents, who suddenly find that they have no food for the children and no money even for the bus fare to reach a food bank, and have more debt and so forth. It should be a matter of great concern to the Government that 28% of sanctions are overturned on appeal and a higher percentage—39%—in the case of lone parents. Successful appeals soar for high-level sanctions. Fully 64% of single parents have high-level sanctions overturned on appeal. These must be just numbers to many of us but the Government have a responsibility in my view to report on the mental and physical health effects of the extraordinary hardship behind those numbers. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s Amendment 34 and focus on the impact of benefit sanctions on people with mental health problems. Mental health professionals are extremely worried about the impact of this, which is why this amendment asks for a report containing data to be published.

The latest statistics around the number of people with mental health problems being supported into work though the back to work scheme are astonishingly low. Just 9% have been supported into employment since the scheme began. There are two key areas where better evidence is needed. We know that more than half of people receiving ESA in the WRAG have a mental or behavioural disorder as their primary health condition, and many more people in the WRAG will have comorbid physical and mental health problems.

We also know that people with mental health problems are being disproportionately sanctioned. Recent Freedom of Information requests to the department revealed that in 2014, on average 58% of sanctions for people in the ESA WRAG were given to people with mental health problems—20,000 in all.

The mistaken assumption is that people do not want to work, and that the best incentive is to threaten benefit withdrawal. Research shows that people with mental-health problems have a high want-to-work rate. I could say a lot more about that, but in view of the time I will not. What are the barriers? We need much more information—hence the request for a report.

I would like to share an example given to me by Mind, the mental health charity. It told me the story of a man who has been out of work for most of his adult life due to his mental health problems and who is currently in the support group. Under conditionality in the work-related activity group, this man felt so fearful and anxious of the threat of sanctions that he forced himself to attend his appointment a couple of days after being hospitalised following an overdose. This is just one shocking example of the pressure claimants are under, the health conditions that people face and, crucially, the level of anxiety and stress reportedly caused by fear of sanctions.

I urge the Minister to take these concerns and this amendment very seriously.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hollins and Baroness Meacher

Monday 14th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I support Amendments 77, 80 and 82, to which I have added my name. I will also comment on Amendment 79.

I strongly support the need for adult safeguarding access orders and applaud the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for tabling the relevant amendments. As we discussed last week, as local authority resources shrink further—the Minister referred to a 5% reduction so far—the reality is that care will be left more and more in the hands of relatives, many of whom may themselves be elderly and frail; or indeed they may be younger, with childcare responsibilities and have great difficulty in providing support in all directions. Inevitably, many family carers will find it extremely hard to cope, and there will undoubtedly be situations when elderly or disabled people are neglected or in some way abused. I fear that the only way in which family carers will get the help they need will be if adult safeguarding access orders are available, so that following an alert the local authority can become involved, assess the situation and, where appropriate, prioritise further support.

As public services shrink, the neglect of elderly and disabled people—even gross negligence in some cases—will become a growing problem that could very easily become a national scandal. Having said all that, I part company with my noble friend Lady Greengross when it comes to Amendment 79. We have the criminal law. It may not cover absolutely everything but I would not want to see any increase in the likelihood that an overburdened family carer could face criminal charges if they reach the point where they cannot continue to care appropriately for a relative. For me, the purpose of adult safeguarding access orders is to ensure that problems are identified—they certainly need to be—and support is made available in order to enable a carer to cope in the style they would wish to provide.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Greengross on the duty to report adults at risk, which replicates a duty within the Welsh Bill. I spoke to a similar amendment in Committee.

Providers, together with other partners, will often be best placed to identify abuse and neglect, and it makes sense for them to report to the local authority. At Winterbourne View there were 40 safeguarding alerts, 29 incidents where the police were involved and 78 attendances at A&E but agencies did not take any action. They believed it was someone else’s duty to report and take action. Putting this duty in the Bill would emphasise its importance and would be a vital step in ensuring that the local authority is notified so that it can then take the appropriate action. Leaving this to guidance and local protocols is not a satisfactory solution.

I also support my noble friend Lord Rix’s Amendments 79A and 81A on safeguarding. My noble friend has highlighted how abuse comes in many different forms. The breakdown of the nature of referrals is set out clearly in the Abuse of Vulnerable Adults in England 2012-13 report. The most common was physical abuse at 38,500. There were 24,500 referrals for financial abuse, the third highest. It seems an eminently sensible amendment to add some balance to this clause.

My noble friend’s amendment on safeguarding adults boards sending copies of their annual report to the Secretary of State also seems eminently sensible. Looking at safeguarding annual reports across the country would allow the Secretary of State to see the national picture as well as to monitor what works and what does not. Guidance can be issued where worrying trends are observed and good practice shared. This is about leadership at a national and strategic level, which could help to tackle the abuse and neglect of the most vulnerable members of our society. I do not think it is about extra bureaucracy.