Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Greengross

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me, but I forgot to speak to one of the amendments that is relevant to this group; that is, Amendment 86C. It is about people with dementia who have had a diagnosis. I know that the noble Earl will share the Prime Minister’s view and those of all of us who have looked at the number of people who receive a diagnosis of dementia. We now want to ensure that many more are diagnosed, and diagnosed early.

However, there are many reports that people diagnosed with dementia and their carers feel terribly abandoned after they have had the diagnosis. The Bill’s emphasis on access to prevention services and information and advice for people, particularly if their needs have not yet reached the threshold of eligibility for social care, is welcome. But there are no specific prompts to ensure that people receive the information they need at the time when it is most useful. The risk is that, although local authorities have set up information and advice services, the information does not reach people at the right time. A post-diagnosis information pack tailored to specific long-term conditions should be given to every individual who is diagnosed with one of those conditions. It would provide access to tailored information about the support that is available to them, and it would enable them to cope with the challenges of living with a long-term condition. The pack would provide information on the likely impacts of dementia and contain core information on national and local services. I think that this would be an important aspect of providing the right information and advice at the right time.

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, this Bill has the potential to do for social care what Beveridge did for the welfare state and Bevan did for the health service. It is potentially the most significant development in, for example, residential care since the workhouses were replaced by a more civilised form of residential accommodation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, anticipated precisely the point I was going to make, which is that this is not just a matter for local authorities. My principal reservation about these amendments, if I have one, is that it looks as though the entire burden of information and advice is to be placed on local authorities whereas of course, as the noble Baroness rightly said, there are other potential partners who clearly need to be involved. I scribbled on the grid that is helpfully provided by those who support the Front Bench on this side the words “in collaboration with”, and then I thought of a number of potential partners. Of course the health service is one of them, but in addition I would suggest that the Court of Protection needs to be involved. It has a supervisory and supportive responsibility for a particular group of people and, with the development of lasting powers of attorney and so on, their deputies as well. I have to say—I have said it before and I will say it again—that I am not convinced that the Court of Protection is doing a terrific job in this area, but that is another reason why it should be looked at as a potential partner.

There may be other partners. For example, in the case of younger people perhaps with a learning or other disability, there are roles for those involved in further education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Those bodies might look at their role in terms of what is available by way of education, training and so on. It seems to me that a range of organisations should be involved, certainly as a whole, but more particularly in the provision of information and advice.

On these Benches we support most of the amendments that have been moved and spoken to this afternoon, with the qualification that, where relevant and necessary, a reference to collaboration should be included. For example, in Amendment 82B, the first amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, one would want to see “in collaboration with” appropriate partners.

We support the amendments, notably moved by my noble friend Lord Lipsey, around the provision of independent financial advice. That seems very important. I have a slight reservation about Amendment 86D, which is about payment of,

“the reasonable costs of a first consultation with an independent financial adviser”,

to be paid for “by the local authority”. If I am ever in need of this kind of advice, I would be able to afford that relatively easily. Given the pressure on budgets, is a universal application of that principle necessary or desirable? That, however, is a detail, that might be looked at later. Given the scale of the potential involvement and the potential conflict of interest referred to by several noble Lords, the independence and proper status of such financial advice are important considerations.

With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, I will perhaps anticipate the Minister by quibbling over the word “demonstrably”. Frankly, I am not sure that that takes us very far. As the noble Lord admitted, what is demonstrable to some is not necessarily demonstrable to others. I do not think that that part of his amendment is particularly cogent, although I agree with the rest of it.

I have more serious doubt about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. Amendment 86H requires that the information and advice be provided by “social work-qualified staff”. It could be, but I am not sure that it should be a requirement that it should be, given the pressure on the service in dealing with casework as it is. I do not think that the skills of social workers are always consistent with the role of giving information and advice in the sense that is intended by the amendment.

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Beecham and Baroness Greengross

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as the vice-president of the Local Government Association. I decided to table Amendments 115 and 116 in this group because there is such widespread fear, some of which we have heard about today, in many local authorities and in other areas that this clause relating to the imposition of EU fines could be used as a mechanism for the Government to unload their own responsibilities onto those same authorities. That fear is absolutely understandable.

In her amendments the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, suggests an ingenious mechanism for operating the system. Yet I am sure she would agree that, like other suggestions that have been made—for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—it is a mechanism and no more. That leaves open the basic principles upon which the mechanism would operate. It is a bit like establishing a court of law without establishing the laws upon which it will base its judgment.

To my mind, those principles are very clear. Some people, in addressing this problem, have been arguing that EU fines should never be payable by local authorities. I find that a rather strange argument. In so far as it is prompted by the fear that a future Government might seek to use the legislation to pass their own responsibilities onto local authorities, it is, as I said, understandable but the solution is not the mere deletion of the clause. For local authorities the upside of the Bill is that, at long last, they get the powers that they should have. I totally agree with that but if they have the rights and the powers, they must surely accept the responsibilities that go with them. It must be right that if a local authority does something which, in part or in whole, results in the imposition of an EU fine it should, to that same extent, bear the responsibility. That is all this amendment calls for.

The amendment is merely a clear statement of the principle upon which the mechanisms for deciding the issue will operate. If I might be clear again: it merely says that if it can be proved,

“beyond reasonable doubt that the infraction of EU law has arisen, wholly or in part, as a direct result of the actions of the local … authority … that … authority should be responsible to that extent”.

[Lord Beecham]

In terms of proving “beyond reasonable doubt”, would the noble Baroness accept that the arbitration procedure would be a legitimate forum within which that burden of proof would need to be discharged or is she suggesting some other mechanism, including the courts, by which that test would be applied?

[Baroness Greengross]

I am not suggesting the detailed mechanism now. I agree with the noble Lord that we have to get this clear but I am just trying to clarify the issue. I agree that the phrase “beyond reasonable doubt” actually does no more than bring with it a number of legal arguments and problems. Because this is a difficult thing to prove, if the Minister were to indicate, for example, that she would support such an amendment subject to those words being deleted, I would be happy to omit them.