Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. She is so right in saying that people very often have no idea what questions they need to ask and what services they may be entitled to and therefore this aspect of the Bill is far more important than it sounds.
However, I shall speak to Amendment 21 which, in a way, takes us a step further and would ensure that vulnerable people with current or foreseen complex needs receive information and advice in a way that they can understand; also that the information and advice takes full account of their complex personal position. This may sound simple enough, but, in fact, an untrained person with a leaflet on local services, probably including lots of irrelevant information, is quite likely to leave someone more confused than they were before the visit. In fact, if local authorities do not want people to find their way to services that they need, a rather weak and unstructured approach to information and advice is probably the best way to achieve that result, but in the longer run, such a cynical approach will be highly costly.
My few remarks are based on a briefing from the College of Social Work, which has had the benefit of input from front-line social workers, managers, recent directors of adult care and academics, all of whom are very conscious of and concerned about the efficient use of resources. They would not say lightly that one should be developing a service such as this for information and advice unless it were really important. For people without dementia or other disorders which make it particularly difficult to comprehend the world around them, information and advice can probably be provided by less trained people without any great loss.
As was said in Committee, the aims and principles of the Bill are welcome. The College of Social Work is concerned, however, that many of these principles will not be fulfilled in practice. We hope, with the aims and principles in mind, that the Minister will agree to some further clarification in the Bill, or in regulations, on the key role of skilled social workers in supporting and protecting some of the most vulnerable people in society through their involvement at the information and advice stage.
Key stakeholders were grateful that, in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, recognised the point of this amendment. He said that,
“some authorities have also used qualified social care staff as the first point of contact and have found that this can be effective, efficient and timely, helping people to the care and support that will help them most”.
At that stage he envisaged that,
“guidance will set out the clear expectations of what the local authority’s service should cover or what it should seek to do in order to ensure that the information and advice is sufficient”.—[Official Report, 9/7/13; col. 216.]
The aim here is to ensure, by including the appropriate wording in the Bill or in regulations—I fully accept that having it in regulations would be perfectly satisfactory—that professionally qualified social workers will be deployed in sufficient numbers, including at the information and advice stage, for people who really need that level of expertise. As I have already said, those with complex needs may be a relatively small number of people. This should ensure that these particularly vulnerable people are put in touch with the most appropriate services for them. This could avoid the need for more intrusive and expensive interventions at a later stage.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I shall make most of my remarks on the subject of advice and information on Amendment 20, which is a more broad-brush amendment, but I shall just comment on the government amendments in this group, on advice—that is Amendments 16, 17 and 19. I remind the House that I speak as the unremunerated president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers, which accredits, to a gold standard, advisers who can help old people on financial matters.
It would be churlish not to say that the government amendments mark a small step forward, in that for the first time they represent a recognition that independent financial advice can be necessary. To that extent, I welcome them. However, I have to say right away that it is impossible to read the briefings we have had without realising that they have caused great disappointment, particularly among financial service people who are determined to get this right. The Equity Release Council says that the government amendments do not go far enough.
In trying to put my finger on the point, yes, they recognise independent advice and financial advice, but they do not recognise the need for that advice to come from people who are properly qualified to give it. It is not enough to have Tom, Dick and Harry advise in this field. It is not enough, even, for local authorities to send people to see people who they may think are quite plausible advisers, such as Citizens Advice: they do not know the complications involved in giving financial advice, particularly to people who have got some money and need to make sure that it will provide them with the care in a home that they want. They need proper, regulated financial advice, given by advisers who can be called to task by the Financial Conduct Authority if the advice they give is not sufficient, who have to follow the rules set by it and must have the kind of qualifications required by it. Therefore, in my view the Government are some way short of what is required in these amendments. It is to repair that lack that I shall later move Amendment 20.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that in the Inuit language there are more than 300 words for snow. I suspect that if historians were to go back through the annals of the British Civil Service, they would come across thousands of ways in which officials have briefed Ministers to say “no” to requests for advocacy. During the 20 years that I have followed these sorts of issues, during which advocacy has became part of social care, Governments have had to find ways to say, “It’s a very good thing, but we’re not going to fund it”. It was therefore a real joy to see the Government’s Amendments 118 and 119 in this group.
It is fair to say that the Government have taken on board the arguments that have put forward by a wide range of people. We know that the changes to the care system and the complexity of those changes, not least those stemming from the Dilnot recommendations, mean that we are now into a level of complexity which individuals on their own—even those who are fairly well informed—will find extremely difficult to manage. Therefore I very much welcome the Government’s Amendments 118 and 119, in which they recognise that there will have to be advocacy services. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to set aside funding for that.
The Minister will accept that his Amendments 118 and 119 fall somewhat short of my proposal in Amendment 38. I would therefore like to raise a few questions which result from the fact that the government amendments are of a much tighter scope than my proposal. I welcome the amendments, but there are several issues that I wish to ask the Minister about.
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 118 states that independent advocates will,
“represent and support the individual for the purpose of facilitating the individual’s involvement”.
Advocacy in its truest sense is about much more than involvement—it is about enabling people who need help to achieve the outcomes they want. The word “involvement” is not defined, although it is used a lot in the Bill. Will the Minister say whether advocates will have a full advocacy role or whether this is just about securing the involvement of people?
Secondly, I come to individuals who qualify to have an advocate. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause is quite clear that that is reduced to people who have substantial difficulty in understanding and retaining information, in making judgments by weighing things or in communicating their views. What is not in the Government’s Amendment 118 is a right of access for the advocate to access those people. Under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, where advocates are appointed they have a statutory right of access to people and a statutory right to interview those people in private. Given that we are talking about some fairly vulnerable people, would it be possible to ensure in regulations that advocates have a statutory right of access?
The third thing that is missing is that although the Government have taken this welcome step, there is absolutely no duty upon the local authority to listen to what the advocate has to say. That is a huge omission in the process; could it be dealt with in regulations? To echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, it is important that people are properly trained for the roles that they will undertake in this extremely complex set of conditions which they are dealing with. Again, under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act advocates have to be properly trained. Can that be dealt with in regulations?
Finally, can the Minister say whether it will be possible to include a general provision that in future, if additional circumstances arose in which it would be to the benefit of a person to have an advocate, they could have access to one? I am sorry to sound less than pleased—I am, in fact, very pleased by what the Government have put forward—but with a few more minor adjustments in regulations we could have something that is a great step forward.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) The Secretary of State—
(a) has a duty to ensure through national public awareness campaigns that there is a high level of public awareness and understanding of the terms and implications of the cap on the cost of care; and(b) shall publish annually a report on the levels of such awareness and understanding, including the results of a representative poll of adults.( ) Regulations must make provision for when a local authority must refer an adult with care and support needs, or who is making plans for meeting such needs, to a regulated financial adviser; and for when a local authority may refer such an adult for such advice.
( ) The advice and information made available to adults with care and support needs must include—
(a) advice on housing options; and(b) tailored information for individuals with specific medical conditions and complex individual needs.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, perhaps I may start with a procedural point. We have had these matters under discussion for quite some time, and the first three Peers named on the amendment—myself, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—had a most useful meeting with the Minister and Norman Lamb from another place on 12 September. There was complete agreement at that meeting that, if it was at all possible, we wanted to go forward on the basis of consensus on the matters of advice and information, and I am sure that that is right. However, I think it fair to say that we are not quite there yet.
The Minister very kindly agreed to share with us his notes for his speech in reply to the debate this evening in advance so that we could consider them, because many things that he might want to say are very relevant to whether we have a picture for advice that really does the job—sorry to mix the analogies. The Minister fulfilled his kind promise, but only at 2.41 pm this afternoon, and I have not had a chance to digest his words, nor to discuss them with my colleagues, whose names are on the amendment. He also suggested that we should have further talks if they would be helpful, particularly, he said, between Report stage days. Clearly we are not considering finished business here. All I am asking is that there should be agreement from him and from the House that if either he or we think that an amendment at Third Reading is appropriate and necessary—it may well not be—he will not resist it on the grounds that we have thoroughly debated it. This is open territory and we are trying to find a way forward. In that way we can avoid any Divisions this evening. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree.
Lord Lipsey
That is marvellous. That makes it much easier.
As I said, I think we are making headway, but I do not think we are necessarily there. There are three elements to this amendment: the information campaign, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will concentrate on in his remarks; special groups and housing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will address; and I will concentrate on the issue of advice.
Why do I spend so much time banging on about advice? This is an incredibly complicated area. The financial products are very complicated, and many people do not have a natural understanding of them. We all sort of know what a pension is. How many people, even in this House, know what a point-of-use care plan policy is? Who would be able to evaluate whether it was good value for money or bad? There is a large gap in the degree to which people know and understand the kind of products that can be involved here and the issues that can arise.
There is not a lot of this advice about, by the way. Some 53% of councils did not even refer people in care homes for independent financial advice. Only 7,000 of the 53,000 self-funders in care homes have had appropriate financial advice. A point-of-use policy can ensure that they can go on paying for their care however long they happen to stay in the home. Their whole lives are at stake, yet hardly more than 10% have received the financial advice they need.
This is costly not just to the individual but to the councils. Nearly one-fifth of self-funders end up falling back on the state to pay. It costs councils £435 million a year, which is a substantial sum. Much of this could be avoided if people got appropriate financial advice. I do not think that this is not common ground with the Government, but it is, I think, a reason why the Government need to make absolutely sure that they get it right in what they do.
The need for financial advice has greatly increased as a result of the Dilnot scheme. The scheme has no stronger supporter than me, except possibly the Minister. I think it is a very good outcome to a very long and protracted debate. Nevertheless, it does make a lot of things more complicated. I will give an example that I gave in an earlier debate. You can apply for help under the means test and find that you are worse off if you get it because, although you get a little help under the means test, you lose attendance allowance if you get any means-tested support at all. I was amazed when I found that out, and I study this every day. How many people would know that unless they had the right kind of financial advice? That could come from citizens advice bureaux if their computer systems were up to it, but you really want an independent adviser to help you in the round. I do not think that is very controversial.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for the amendment, which covers a number of distinct issues relating to information, advice and awareness of the reforms to care and support funding. I am grateful to them all for meeting me over the summer to discuss these issues so constructively.
A number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, stated that public awareness of these matters, particularly on the potential cost of care, is woefully low and that this needs to be addressed. My noble friend Lord Deben made some telling points in that connection. The Government agree that if we are to realise in the fullest sense the benefits of these reforms, it is critical that people are made aware of them and what the reforms mean for them. There is absolutely no dispute on that point. I explained in Committee that Clause 4 requires local authorities to provide information and advice on care and support, and that this must be accessible to their whole population. This will need to include information on the capped costs system.
However, we accept that local awareness-raising alone might not be sufficient. Furthermore, we accept that the department has an important role to play at the national level. For an awareness campaign to be successful it needs to be delivered in partnership—national and local government working alongside the wider care sector. We do not believe that a specific duty in the Bill would achieve this and we do not think that it is necessary. It is not necessary, for one thing, because we are already building a partnership without legislation. We have embarked upon a joint programme with local government to implement the reforms, and I can assure my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in particular, that awareness-raising will be a part of this. We are engaging with the voluntary sector, care providers and the financial services industry to make sure that we all play our part in communicating these reforms effectively. It is a joint effort and a joint responsibility.
To answer my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the public awareness campaign will be timed to coincide with the coming into force of the key elements—that is, April 2015 for most; April 2016 for the capped costs system. I can assure him, too, that the Government do not intend to shy away from the need to raise public awareness.
Turning to the second limb of the amendment, the Government are not convinced that it is proportionate to require the Secretary of State to conduct a poll and publish a subsequent annual report on awareness of the capped costs system. However, we do agree with the need to monitor the effectiveness of the reforms and the Government have committed to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of all new legislation. Moreover, recognising the need to improve data on public understanding of care and support, we have also taken steps to develop and include new survey questions for the annual Health Survey for England. The new questions will be used to monitor and track public awareness over time. If questions are included, fieldwork will be conducted throughout 2014, and the report will be published at the end of 2015. These data would provide us with a baseline against which we can evaluate changes in public awareness. The survey is conducted annually, so there is scope to include the questions in subsequent years. Additionally, there are already questions in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing— ELSA—which capture public awareness of care and support and expectations of how it is funded. Some data are already available and the next set will be available at the start of 2016. Together, these steps will inform the ongoing implementation and policy development process that will take place in the years to come. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend and provides him with some reassurance.
We are currently consulting about the design and implementation of the funding reforms. Through this we are seeking views about how best to raise awareness of these reforms nationally and locally. We will consider the responses carefully before deciding on the way forward. I can assure the House that this will include a role for the department nationally.
The next part of Amendment 20 would introduce a regulation-making power to specify circumstances where local authorities must, and where they may, make referrals to financial advisers regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Given that quite a bit of the ground covered in this amendment was discussed at length earlier in the debate, and relates to a number of government amendments which have been accepted by the House, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not rehearse all the arguments they have already heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, emphasised the importance of people understanding the various products that are available. We agree that, in some instances where someone is considering a financial product such as a care annuity, financial advice should be regulated through the Financial Conduct Authority. However, there are many sources of valuable financial advice that do not need to be regulated and can be provided free of charge—such as advice on managing money from the citizens advice bureaux or from the Money Advice Service. In addition, the fact that financial advice is regulated does not mean that it is appropriate for care and support purposes. Very few regulated financial advisers currently have a qualification or expert knowledge of care and support, though we hope that this sector will develop over the coming months and years. In this context, the term “independent financial advice” covers both regulated and non-regulated advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, also asked about the regulation of advisers in this particular field and what we are doing about this. The regulation of financial advisers comes within the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority. We have opened up discussions with the authority and with the Association of British Insurers on the regulation of financial products and advice.
From the comments of the noble Lord, I took it that he accepted that it would be inappropriate to require local authorities to make direct referrals where, for the most part, they do not possess the necessary expertise to judge between advisers. Requiring them to do so would present a significant burden and could result in a local authority making an unnecessary or inappropriate referral. There is the further risk that a referral leading to poor advice could be seen as the fault of the local authority, a point he acknowledged, bringing yet more of a burden of responsibility in increased disputes, and even legal challenge. We believe that the decision to take up financial advice, of whatever form, and the choice of adviser, should belong to the individual and not to the local authority.
In respect of the third limb of the amendment, about housing, this is very similar to Amendment 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which we have already discussed. If the noble Lord has any further concerns, I should of course be happy to speak to him separately.
With regard to the provision of information and advice to people with specific health conditions, this is primarily the responsibility of the NHS. For example, there is a wealth of tailored health and social care information on the NHS Choices website that is public-focused and available to local authorities to use however they see fit. Health and housing are, of course, vital for people using care and support. Clause 3 puts local authorities under a duty to promote the integration of care and support with health and health-related services. The House has accepted Amendment 12 to clarify that this incorporates housing, which includes joining up the provision of information and advice. We will address this in detail through statutory guidance.
I hope that this persuades at least some noble Lords that these issues are all being considered very seriously by the Government, as we work with local authorities and others to implement the reforms. On that basis, I hope that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the positive things that he said from which we can draw encouragement. I was particularly pleased to hear him talk about the national role of the department in information provision and confirm that there will be campaigns around landmarks in the Dilnot report to carry that forward. Equally, there are some things on which, if I may say so, he still is not quite there. Nobody advocates direct referrals—nobody. I accept his argument—everybody does—that you cannot just send people to say, “You have to go and see so and so”, or, “So and so is your man”. The other extreme is to say that you do nothing. You provide, for example, a list of suitably qualified advisers within the local authority area; you tell people how to get hold of them. We should not set up straw men, whom nobody is advocating, in order to fend off suggestions that need to be acted upon.
Some things the Minister said would be valuable to follow up in writing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will agree with me that it would be fascinating to see the monitoring suggestions as a substitute for the poll that he suggested, because if they work, that is fine and we will not press it, but if they seem to fall short, that would be different. I think that there will be room to ask the Minister for further discussions with the movers of this amendment so that we can narrow even further the ground before us. I do not pretend to be fully satisfied as I stand here tonight. I gave my reasons earlier why I do not think that the Government’s amendments to the Bill complete the picture, but we are making progress, as we all want to, and we are having a good dialogue. With the Minister’s help, I want to carry that forward before Third Reading, at which stage we will see whether an amendment is needed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I rise briefly to make two points, the first as a result of my membership of the Joint Committee. Every witness who came before us to give evidence said two things. The first was that this is an excellent Bill for which we have been waiting years. The second was that implementation will be impossible if no more money is put into the system. All our witnesses said that the current proposals for funding are totally inadequate. That is exactly what I feel in my role as a campaigner and spokesperson for carers—and this is my second point. The Bill is all that I could have dreamed of in terms of rights and recognition for carers but will come to nothing if all that results are fewer services that are harder to access, with more pressure being put on carers to do the caring. I am seeing that now in carers’ groups and organisations. They were elated when the Bill was published: now morale is plummeting for fear of what the reality may be.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in asking the Minister for chapter and verse in his call for a review. We all want the Bill to succeed but we cannot, as responsible legislators, ignore this important issue.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I should have put my name to this excellent amendment.
It would not be the first time that the OBR has looked at this issue because there is some valuable material in its report on fiscal sustainability in July 2013, to which I will return in a minute. My noble friend concentrated on how serious the problem is now and how serious it will be in 2016. Perhaps I may detain the House for a few minutes to describe the slightly further away prospect because, if we are in problems now, we shall be in crisis unless something major changes within the next eight or 10 years.
The demographic factors have been widely appreciated, most notably in the report from the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, Ready for Ageing, which indicates that there will be 39% more people aged 85 and over by 2021 compared with 2011, and 101% more—more than double—by 2030. The Select Committee concluded that what will happen is that they will get shoved into hospital, which will be,
“contrary to their wishes, not in their best interests, and more expensive”.
That is not a very good prospect. Moreover, as the OBR has shown, there is the prospect that stays in residential care may get longer and, therefore, cost more. It calculates a variant with a 20% longer stay, which is not implausible. So, just demographically, the situation is very difficult.
However, some less noticed factors all point the same way and add to the pressures. The most prominent factor is workforce issues. Many of your Lordships will have read the excellent report produced last week by the King’s Fund. It projects that by 2025 there will be a shortage in the care sector of 1 million workers—that is 35% of the current workforce. That is assuming that the Government’s immigration policy does not bite even more sharply than we think. You have only to go into a home to see how they are kept going by caring people who have come from overseas and are willing to work for the minimum wage, or near it, to look after our older people for us. Given the Government’s policy, these people will increasingly not be available for this purpose and so wages will inevitably go up. That will be a good thing because these people are terribly underpaid for what they do—it amazes me that the services are as good as they are, not that they occasionally fall short—but the cost to the Government is very sensitive to wages: it is the main expense because around 70% of the costs of an old persons’ home are paid out in wages.
The trite response to that is, “Let productivity increase”. However, in this sector, where one person looks after another, an increase in productivity will invariably lead to a decline in the standards of service. We know this because productivity is going down—it is down 20% over the years 1997-2010—simply because we rightly expect better services for people in the homes. There is no offset available through productivity. Those are the workforce issues.
As to the related fees shortfall, the system works at the moment by local authorities paying rock-bottom prices for the care they buy and self-funders paying rather more. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, sees this as an unfair tax but, being an economist, I know about marginal and average costs and I am therefore less shocked than I should be. However, it is a fact that it is taking place. The shortfall in fees over what will be necessary to provide an economic return for these homes would have cost local authorities £540 million in 2008-09, according to the latest published study by Laing and Buisson, to get the fees up to a level where they provide a reasonable return to the homes.
However, it will be much more difficult under the Bill’s scheme, because at the moment self-funders have no idea what the local authorities are paying for the same places that they are enjoying; they are not told. I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that under the Bill, self-funders will be told what the local authority pays. They will have to be told because the amount the local authority pays is what counts towards the cap. Thus a self-funder may be told that while they are paying £700, the local authority is only allowing £400. Your Lordships can imagine what is going to happen. I do not think that many self-funders will say, “Oh, I’ll be delighted to go on paying £700. After all, I may benefit from the cap if I live for a very long time”. They are going to be enraged. It is not a system that can be sustained. I have no doubt that the fees paid by local authorities and the fees paid by self-funders will come closer together, and that will mean increased bills for local authorities.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I think all five of the non-governmental amendments in this group are down to me, so I crave the Committee’s forgiveness if I am not the soul of brevity on this occasion. All the amendments refer to the Government’s proposed universal deferred payment scheme.
I start by reminding the Committee of the background to this scheme. Its origins lie in the proposal made by a minority of the royal commission of 1999. We—my noble friend Lord Joffe and I—were concerned with one clear defect of the means-tested system. It meant that people were forced to sell their homes to pay for care. The Daily Mail banged on about this practically every week, and it was right—I never thought that those words would escape my lips—to do so. However, we also felt that it would be wrong that people needing care could simply hang onto their homes and eventually bequeath them to their families without spending any of the capital that those homes represented to pay for their own care. Therefore, we proposed deferred payments—local authority loans secured against the value of people’s homes and repayable only when the home was sold, often after the person had died.
Every politician that I have ever discussed this with sees this as a no-brainer. Unfortunately, officials at both local and national levels over the years—I do not of course make this charge against any officials on the current Bill—have taken a rather different view. They could not understand why anyone would hang onto their house when they were living in a care home and they did not want to see valuable homes left empty. The emotional side occasionally escaped them.
The Labour Government nevertheless brought in a scheme to allow deferred payment, but it was essentially sabotaged. A decision was made that no interest should be paid on the loans, and that gave local authorities a financial incentive not to make them. Then many local authorities refused to put schemes in place. If they were challenged in the courts, they lost, but how many people wanted to mount such challenges? Or they denied individual applicants who could succeed only if they showed stamina and determination and lived long enough to see them through.
The result is that the deferred payment scheme has been, if not a complete failure, not by any means a success. There are about 8,000 deferred loans outstanding, which is around 2% of the number of people in care and maybe twice that for self-funders. Most of the schemes are short-lasting in practice. The old person takes out a deferred loan and maybe they hope they will get home after a spell a little longer than the 12 weeks allowed in law to make a decision. Eventually they see that they will not be able to return to their own homes and the deferred loan is brought to an end. It performs a very useful function for the old person in giving them time to think, but the schemes are fairly short-lasting.
I am delighted that the Government have decided to complete the work that was half-botched in the 2000s and which Dilnot endorsed—a universal deferred payment scheme that actually works. The amendments in my name and one in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Warner are designed to refine the Government’s proposals to make them work even better still.
Amendment 92ZZV gets rid of a suggestion in the Bill that people should in some circumstances require third-party guarantees on the loans as well as their being secured against the value of the home. That is belt and braces and I do not see why families should be providing braces when there is a perfectly good belt in place. It would particularly apply when the deferred payment is secured on where somebody else—perhaps the old person’s son or daughter—lives. At the moment, case law provides that a local authority cannot in those circumstances force the sale of a property in order to redeem a mortgage on that property when somebody else lives there. However, if a guarantee was sought from the co-owner, the guarantor could be in a position where they are expected to repay the individual’s care costs based on an unrealisable value of half of the property they live in. This provision may put off people who would otherwise have taken advantage of the scheme and I ask the Minister to look at it again.
Amendment 92ZZW limits the interest rates that local authorities can charge on deferred payments to MLR plus 2%. This is to prevent local authorities attempting to sabotage the new scheme as they sabotaged the previous scheme. They could otherwise do so by charging Wonga rates of interest and this amendment will prevent their doing that.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl could clarify what he said about equity release as an alternative to deferred payments. There seem to me to be two absolutely insuperable objects to that working. One is that you could not have both a deferred mortgage and an equity release on the same property. You cannot have two things secured. More importantly, you cannot get equity release on a house that is empty. The rules of the Equity Release Council—I am on its advisory board—do not permit that. That is not a possible solution to the problem which I put forward.
Earl Howe
I have received advice that, technically, that is not so, but I am more than happy to engage the noble Lord in discussion after this debate. It would largely depend on the availability of a deferred scheme, agreed to by a local authority. It would also largely depend on the quantum of the debt that was already in existence. Of course, setting aside this particular issue, there could be a property on which there was pre-existing debt of a considerable size. It would largely be for the local authority to judge in individual cases whether it was in a position to offer a deferred payment scheme, looking at the facts of the case. I do not think one can make generalised remarks about this. We think that technically it is possible for an equity release scheme to exist alongside a deferred payment loan. As I say, I am sure that the noble Lord, with his insight into the market, will be able to put us right if we have misread the situation.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is, of course, completely right. They are model councils of their kind. It is rather fanciful to present them as possible examples of councils that might wish to do badly by their residents.
This is a major reform that we have committed to introduce in this Parliament. While I am the first to agree that that in itself should not drive the timetable, we think that the timetable is achievable. We are consulting to get the details right and working with the care sector to ensure that implementation goes as planned. The noble Lord raised some important points. I am sure that he knows me well enough to accept that this is not the last occasion when I shall look at the points that he has raised. I shall do so further. For the time being, I hope that I have responded to his satisfaction, at least on some of the amendments, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I genuinely thank the Minister for that response. I do not want to be the least bit churlish about these amendments which, after all, finally put into practice an idea that came to me in the bath 14 years ago. It does not happen very often, but this time we are on the verge.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will be a national interest rate for deferred loans. That completely deals with the point raised by my amendment on interest rates and my point about Wonga rates of interest and is a tremendous breakthrough for this scheme, so I thank the Minister most warmly for that.
Moving to slightly more churlish mode, on whether we have 152 schemes or one, on balance, I buy the Minister’s arguments against having a separate national organisation imposing this or a compulsory national scheme, but that is not the proposal made in my amendment. My proposal was that the Government produce a model scheme that those who wished to could adopt. It might have some bits that could be added on or taken away as local options within the national scheme, but it would at least stop work being done 152 times over. As my noble friend Lord Warner pointed out, some people are working with this stuff for the first time because they have never brought in a deferred payment scheme. I ask the Minister, among the other things that he has kindly offered to consider, to have another look at that specially to see whether we can find some mileage in it.
I got no change on the time of introduction of the scheme, not perhaps greatly to my surprise, but I still believe in my guts that, as this process moves forward, it will become more and more apparent that it is not sensible to aim for 2015. I do not ask the Minister to comment on that now, but I give him an assurance that I—and I hope my Front Bench will do the same—will not accuse him of a U-turn if later on he finds that it is not sensible. A syndrome in government that comes up time and time again is that a Government announce a timetable and, when it is quite clear it cannot be met, go on fighting like made to preserve their original timetable. I shall not say the words “unified benefit”, but I easily could. This does not make any sense. We are all after the same thing here, and if the Minister decides—and I am sure that he will make a very good judgment on this—that it cannot sensibly be met, let him say so openly and we shall be welcoming, not critical.
My final point emerges partly from what we were just talking about: things on which the Government will possibly think again. The noble Earl very generously said that there are lots of things on which he will want to engage in discussions; at one stage he said, “at least not for the time being”, and has made many remarks of that kind. I will make a purely practical point. It is 22 July and the House will return to the Bill relatively early in October, although I do not know when, and many noble Lords are planning to be away for parts of that period. All of us want to resolve as many of these issues as we possibly can without the need for confrontation or debate in this House or, heaven forefend, Divisions, if they can be avoided. Therefore it is rather important that we all reflect on how we can set up a mechanism so that we can continue over this period to discuss the outstanding issues. I know that the Minister will reflect, but he and his officials may want to have discussions with some of us who are involved, so that by the time that we get to Report we will have made use of this Committee stage and found a way to move the House and the Bill forward without unnecessary rancour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
“( ) The regulations must provide that where the financial resources of a carer who has needs for support or of the adult needing care (whether in terms of income, capital or a combination of both) as calculated in accordance with the regulations exceed the financial limit, payments by the local authority shall be tapered in such a way that each complete increase of £500 in resources held by the carer or adult over and above the financial limit shall result in a reduction of annual payments of £1.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, this has been a great test of my filing system, which fortunately has stood up to it on this occasion. Each of these three amendments in my name is entire of itself and could be passed on its own, but they are designed as a package. Taking them individually to start with, they would do three things: first, to make the tariff for the means test proposed by the Government less draconian; secondly, to increase the allowance given to people helped through the means test to pay for their personal expenses; and thirdly, by abolishing overtime of current nursing care allowance to pay for both the above and leave some money over for better care services.
Let me explain this thinking. I am a supporter of Dilnot—at the margin, I disagree with my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours on this. I do not regard Dilnot as perfect, but I regard the distribution of ill effect, which I quite agree with him exists, as a small price to pay for the advantages of Dilnot, namely the danger that people quite at random are chosen to be wiped out financially. So I support Dilnot’s scheme. However, I am, as my noble friend is, aware of its defects. The plain fact—Dilnot is perfectly clear about this—is that it helps only one lot of people and not another lot of people. The Minister quoted figures about who benefits from the system as a whole before the dinner break, but the reality is that, under Dilnot, the poorest gain nothing from a cap; they are paid for by means-tested benefits anyway. Nearly all the benefits go to better-off people. That is a serious defect and it is very expensive—not as expensive with the cap at £72,000 as it would have been under Dilnot’s original proposals, but very expensive. This means that it will compete in practice with another set of problems, namely the sheer lack of resources going into long-term care, a short-fall that is getting worse as the number of older people rises and which will go on getting worse as the demographics described in the House’s report on the ageing population continue. So we have a serious problem.
The package is not designed to take apart the fundamental architecture of Dilnot. It does not take from anyone a single penny that they would gain under Dilnot. It is designed to spread the benefits more widely, all without increasing public spending by a single penny. Is that magic? Your Lordships will be the judge of that.
That is the easy bit, I am afraid, and I apologise to the House for any lapses in techno-speak in the words that follow. The first amendment refers to the tariff. I will explain briefly what the tariff is, because it is not altogether familiar. Suppose that you are above the minimum threshold for the tariff, which is around £14,000 at the moment, and you have some assets. For every £250 in assets, you lose £1 a week in benefit, about £50 a year—the equivalent of an assumed 20% return on your capital. That continues under the present system until you reach the £23,250 cap for the means test, but will continue under the Government’s proposals in 2016 until £118,000 is reached, the top level of the cap. You are fined £1 a week for every £250 that you have in assets. If you start applying that to the government system you discover something that has been virtually unremarked upon in the Dilnot proposals. Although the Government are, in theory, raising the upper limit to £118,000, the fact is that someone with £118,000 in assets will gain virtually nothing under the changed means test. That is for two reasons.
First, once you start to claim local authority help with your care, you stop receiving attendance allowance four weeks later. Indeed, according to Philip Spiers of the old persons’ charity, FirstStop, many people with £100,000 or more in assets, if they were properly advised, would be worse off, not better off, if they claimed local authority support, because they would lose £79.15 a week in the higher rate of attendance allowance, or around £87 when inflated to 2016-17 prices. In other words, the apparent cap for means testing under the Dilnot proposals is actually much lower because you do not need much in assets.
The second thing is that the tariff is ripping into your entitlement. Suppose that you are in a home where the fees are £400 a week—if you live up north, and that is what the local authority allows. Say, for example, you have £100,000 in assets above the lower threshold. It is not nothing, but it is not a large amount. On £100,000, the tariff will amount to virtually all the benefits you get under the means test. There you are, getting quite excited because the Government have improved the means test to help you, but you suddenly find that they have not. You will notice that this feature of the Dilnot proposals was not emphasised by either Andrew Dilnot or government proposals. That is a cruel system to confiscate the wealth of people who have only a little bit of it. If the Bill goes through with this feature intact, I predict that we are laying the basis for disappointment and even anger among a generation of older people and their families—people of modest means—who deserve something better.
My amendment makes the tariff less harsh. Instead of losing £1 for every £250 in assets, you lose £1 for every £500. According to estimates by Ruth Hancock of the University of East Anglia and her colleagues at the PSSRU, the substitution of a £500 tariff for the current £250 would cost around £150 million in public expenditure. That is element one of the package.
I am sorry, but this will take a while because I have three amendments wrapped together. The second component of the amendments is the increase in the personal requirements allowance. It deals with a nasty feature of a very nasty means test. I think that Dilnot himself said that it was the nastiest means test in Britain. If you are on the means test for your care home fees, you are left with just £23.90 a week for all your personal needs. Perhaps you want to give your child or grandchild a birthday present, buy cosmetics or some little comforts, a few sweeties, or even pay for taxis to the doctor when you cannot get about. All that comes out of £23.90 a week. That is not a rich reward for the poorest people in our society to be left with at the end, many of whom have worked long and hard. My amendment raises that to £32.75. That figure, I hasten to add, is completely arbitrary. It is because it costs the same—£150 million—as the change in the tariff. It helps the poorest among us. Thus I have one proposal that helps people of modest means, and one proposal that helps the poorest people. All it means is that they get a smallish share of the goodies handed out by Dilnot to the better off.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)
My Lords, on one level I sympathise with the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to redistribute funding between health and care and support so as to increase the personal expenses allowance and local authority support for those in residential care. However, we need to face the reality of the current economic climate. One important aspect of our reforms is that the greatest support will go to those with the greatest need, and that is surely the policy aim that we need to keep most closely in mind in this context.
Currently, the NHS funds nursing homes to support the provision of registered nursing care. This reduces the burden on the NHS of having to provide NHS nurses in residential care homes. Removing this funding would risk increasing costs elsewhere in the NHS, but it would also breach a serious point of principle. If we were to stop people in residential care homes from being eligible for NHS-funded nursing care, it would undermine one of the founding principles of the NHS, which is that it should be a service free at the point of delivery. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that we would not like to see that.
I understand why the noble Lord seeks to increase the personal expenses allowance. If someone is contributing to the costs of their residential care from their net income, for example from their pension, the personal expenses allowance is the amount people can retain to spend as they wish. This is currently set, as he rightly said, at £23.90. The amendment would increase it to £32.75. When living at home, people pay for their food and heating from their income. It is right that people should continue to contribute towards these costs in residential care. The personal expenses allowance reflects the fact that for most people these costs represent a large proportion of their income, but it allows people to retain some of their income for other uses. The reality is that spending additional resources on the personal expenses allowance would reduce the resources available to provide support to those with the greatest needs.
I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said about the loss of the attendance allowance meaning that people would be worse off. Local authorities should support people to maximise their income. If a given individual would be better off receiving the attendance allowance, the local authority should support them to achieve this. We will bear this in mind as we draw up the regulations.
I turn now to Amendment 91, which relates to financial assessments. One of the problems the Dilnot recommendations attempt to tackle is the cliff edge between being a self-funder and being supported by the local authority. By extending the means test for people in residential care, we aim to avoid a situation where a small change in a person’s capital results in a large change in what they pay for care.
From 2016, the maximum tariff income for someone with £118,000 in assets will be £404 per week. If we reduced the rate at which people contribute toward their care costs from their assets to £1 per week for every £500 of assets, the contribution for someone with £118,000 in assets would become £202 per week. This means that an individual facing a typical care home fee would be over £200 per week better off if they had assets of £117,000 than if they had assets of £119,000. This would reintroduce the cliff edge that surely none of us wants to see.
I believe that our plans represent a fair balance between the individual and the state. People with care needs will receive additional support with care and support costs through the extended means test, safe in the knowledge that health services will remain free at the point of use and that they are protected by the cap from unlimited care costs. I hope the noble Lord will see that there is method in the Government’s proposals. While I totally understand much of his rationale, I think our proposals have a better balance. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am usually extremely complimentary about the noble Earl’s replies to debates, but I do not think that he lived up to his normal standards in that one. He seems to be under a number of illusions. He seems to think that this Bill increases the amount of public spending that goes to the worse off, rather than the better off. It does not. The Bill incorporates what is a most extraordinary priority in terms of distribution, for reasons that I believe to be compelling. Concentrating money on those most in need may indeed be the Government’s general philosophy, I do not know, but this certainly is not implicit in this Bill.
The noble Earl seems to say that if you do as I suggested on the nursing care allowance, you would increase spending by the NHS. The exact reverse is the case. The nursing cost allowance is paid for by the NHS. I am subject to correction, but I believe it to be paid for by the NHS, so you would have an immediate reduction in NHS spending of some £500 million-plus a year.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) After section 54(2) of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (funding by resident etc of more expensive accommodation), insert—
“(2A) The regulations shall only restrict the right of residents to top up their fees to the extent that is reasonable, and in particular they shall not limit top-ups to residents using the 12 week property disregard or the deferred payment scheme.””
Lord Lipsey
This is another piece of arcanery, I am afraid, for the House. It is a genuinely probing amendment.
Not everyone may know what top-ups are, any more than everyone knows what nursing care allowances are. They arise for people who are not paying in full for their own care but want a better standard of care than the local authority is prepared to pay for. There are a quite a lot of these people. There are about 350,000 people in care homes and about 50,000-plus of them get care allowance. If a local authority claims a person’s needs can be met in a home costing £400 a week and the old person or their family prefers one costing £500 a week, they get the means-tested support as if they were in a £400-a-week home and the family finds £100 from their own pockets.
However, there is a strange twist. As long as a third party—usually the old person’s family—is prepared to dip into their pockets for the extra £100, there is no legal problem. They can do so under LAC circular (2004) 20, which derives from the National Assistance Act 1948. But if the old person wants better care, they can top up out of their own pocket only in very limited circumstances. They can do so only if they are subject to the 12-week disregard—which is the period you can be in a care home to see whether you get better and come out—or if they have a deferred payment agreement with the council, when the council may make top-up payments on their behalf. In theory, people cannot top up their own home fees but these can be topped up by other people.
As a historian of the Treasury, I can sort of see how this might come about. The Treasury would not want those whose means-tested contribution is offset by the tariff, as has been discussed, running down their assets to pay for better care, thus throwing more of the burden on the state. However, those in the know say that the restriction is widely ignored, often with the connivance of councils that do not want to get into an argument about whether the accommodation they will provide within their own limits is adequate for the old person. As a result, they allow the old person to chip in for their own care—perhaps he or she puts the money into a son’s bank account, the bank account pays the home and we do not know what goes on.
In parentheses, it is perfectly clear that local authorities know very little about what is going on with top-ups. I refer to the report due to be published by the charity Independent Age tomorrow, which analysed this after doing a freedom of information request on all councils. Out of the councils they asked, only 30 or so can be reckoned to have best practice or a good system for keeping account of top-ups. The rest are either bad or worse.
These mysterious top-ups go on, otherwise the old people would have to move out of the home they are in and into a local authority home. As noble Lords know, if you move old people from the home they are in to another home, what frequently happens, I am afraid, is that they die. This strange top-up mess is more difficult in the post-Dilnot world. Because of the extension of the asset limit for means tests, many more people will be receiving means-tested support, and anyone who is receiving means-tested support cannot do a top-up; that is the law. Many more people will therefore find themselves limited in what they can do if they stick by the law—which, as I say, they often do not.
Secondly, because the deferred payments scheme will be made available to everybody, more people will escape through the loophole in the current regulations that allows those on deferred payments to top up—you can do it if you have a deferred loan from the local authority but you cannot if you do not. The injustice between those who can and do defer and those who do not is made worse—the former can top up but the latter cannot. That will be a growing problem and a huge incentive for people to take out deferred payments, because they can legally top themselves up that way.
Thirdly, and potentially more importantly, let us suppose a person is self-funding and in a home where the fee exceeds what the local authority will pay. They reach the cap, having spent their £72,000. What will happen then? The state will meet that part of the cost of the home that they are in which is equivalent to what they would pay if they were in the home selected and provided by the local authority—their limit. If the home costs more than that—£600 a week not £400—where will the rest of the fees come from? Perhaps their family does not have any money for a top-up or is unwilling to provide it. Who is going to top it up? I am afraid that the crude reality is that some people will persuade the council to pay the higher fee while others will be moved—and, as I have already said, people who are moved will as a result, on average, die considerably younger. That is not a side-effect that Dilnot planned for but it is a side-effect of the way it is going to work out. Nothing much has been said by the Government about what happens if you reach the £72,000 cap and are in a home costing more than the local authority is prepared to pay. Until we get reassurances on that, the reality must be that they will be moved out to another, poorer, home and that this is going to be a tragedy.
The irony is that these are not poor people falling back on the state. They may well have assets and might be very willing to put in a bit extra to ensure that their last years are comfortable, but they are prevented by law—if they obey it—from doing so. Either they decide to opt out of Dilnot and fund their care in full, in which case they will not benefit from the cap and Dilnot, for them, amounts to nothing, or they go through the business of moving to the inferior home and we will have inflicted that disaster on them.
This area has not been much explored but there is a simple way of dealing with it, which is incorporated in this amendment. It is simply to end the ban on residents topping up their own fees. I do not think the cost would be very much but if the Minister has some other way of dealing with it, he should tell the Committee now before we endorse a policy which could lead to the mass eviction of old people from the residential homes in which they have long lived, in sharp contravention of all we are aiming to do in this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I intervene on this to talk very briefly about what the Dilnot commission said on this issue. I will quote just two sentences from page 22 of our final report, which are worth putting on the record. We said very clearly:
“The state-funded care element will be based on a local authority care package, but people will be free to top up from their own resources, should they wish. If someone moved to a different local authority, they would take with them a record of their contributions to date”.
That is a very clear statement of what our policy was. When we were taking evidence, there was not a lot given to us about the extent of top-ups.
If I fast forward to my time on the Joint Select Committee with other Members of this House, the issue of top-ups seemed to have changed quite significantly between the time when the commission reported, having considered all this, and the time that the Joint Select Committee was working on it. There were not good data, other than that many of us have been increasingly learning that the top-up levels have been quite considerable in some homes. There is clearly a problem with the cross-subsidising of people who are state funded from self-funders. The issue is now complex and I do not know how good the Government’s data are on the use of top-ups. We were clear that you could count towards the cap only what the state-funded element of that payment was, which would be determined by what the local authority would pay in its area for the care being provided. If we depart from that principle, we will end up in chaos—and probably end up with a much higher public expenditure bill.
There is an issue here that the Government need to think about, but in principle we should do nothing to stop people topping up if they and their family are prepared to provide for a higher level of care. The present rules were drawn up for a different time and on top-ups, the world has moved on. We need to get this straight before we finish this Bill.
Earl Howe
My Lords, having disappointed the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on the previous group of amendments, for which I shall try to make amends over the summer holidays, I hope to do a little better with this one but I predict that he will not be completely satisfied with my answer.
People should be supported to receive the care they want and should be able to use their own assets to achieve this when they can afford to do so, but this should never be an excuse for local authorities to underfund the cost of meeting people’s needs. I agree with the noble Lord that people should be able to spend their money on purchasing more expensive care and support for themselves if they wish to do so, provided this is affordable. We are seeking better to understand the impact of such a relaxation and the protections that are appropriate for vulnerable people. It would clearly be undesirable for a person to spend their life savings on residential care and late in life be faced with the prospect of having to move to alternative accommodation purely on affordability grounds. I take that point absolutely. In addition, we want to consider the implications for the ability of local authorities to arrange services for other people. If individuals were to use their resources to purchase more expensive care, this could ultimately reduce local authorities’ income from charges. This in turn would reduce the amount of care the local authorities could arrange for other vulnerable people. There are a number of factors at play here, which we need to think through a bit more.
In principle, people should be able to use their savings to purchase more expensive care if they want to. We are determined to clarify and modernise the care and support arrangements in a way that is fair and reasonable to people who need care, their families and the taxpayer. The revised arrangements for people to use their savings to pay for their own care will be set out in regulations made under Clause 30(2) of the Bill. Through the public consultation on funding reform, we are seeking better to understand how relaxing the existing restrictions on making additional payments, which the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, outlined, might impact on the wider care and support system. The evidence we hope to gather from the consultation will inform the regulations that will set out the revised arrangements. Those regulations will also be subject to further public consultation. In view of that, which is really a long-winded way of saying that this is work in progress but we are on the noble Lord’s side, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
I can clarify one point in relation to when local authorities take over responsibility for funding care. It may be appropriate for the local authority to meet any additional cost, for example, where moving the person receiving care and support would adversely affect their health. However, where paying the higher cost might limit the local authority’s ability to support other individuals with care and support needs, the person may have to move to less expensive accommodation. In making any decisions, the local authority has to consider the exercise of its duty to promote that individual’s well-being.
I hope that those are helpful remarks. I would be happy to discuss this issue with noble Lords between now and Report.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Having berated him for his previous speech, I can more than fulfil his expectations on this. He has done all that I could have hoped for and more. It will be extremely well received in the world outside that the Government are finally getting to grips with this long-outstanding anomaly. I do not blame this Government. Various Governments have been exactly the same. We are going to get a solution that is essential if the Dilnot scheme is to work as we meant it to work. It is very good news to hear the Minister state so strongly in principle that if people want to use their own money to top up their fees, they should be able to do so, although I understand his reservations about the impact that might have on the local authority market. I look forward to his further work on the subject and to discussing it with him and his officials, as will, no doubt, other noble Lords who have an interest in this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Warner
I do not think that we said that they should fund the deficit. We said how they should be treated under the architecture of a new system for funding care and support in the future.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise to make two brief points. First, this argument is not really about eligibility criteria but about money. It would be highly desirable to extend eligibility to people with only moderate needs, but we will find it extremely hard simply to cater for people with substantial needs unless the pot of money is substantially expanded. That is the elephant in the room. In all the discussions here, we are describing a marvellous new system, but we have not yet said how it will be paid for.
Secondly, I think that eligibility criteria are, to a degree, a bit of a phantom. We know that there is variation between authorities across the country: some accept people with moderate needs and some accept them with substantial needs. Quite aside from that, there is overwhelming evidence of enormous variety not between local authorities but within local authorities depending on who is assessing you and their state of mind. I quote in support of this a report from the National Care Standards Commission in 2005-06 and an excellent report by the PSSRU last year which tells you what actually goes on when people are being assessed. You might have a social worker who is terribly sympathetic to the older or disabled people she is assessing, and her boss who is, no doubt, sympathetic but who knows what budget he has to meet each month. In those cases, you simply get a wrestling match.
Thirdly, and to me most worryingly, once the cap comes in, people and their families will have a huge economic interest in demonstrating that they have substantial needs because that is when the meter starts ticking for them getting help. The danger is that those with, in some cases, the biggest needs will not be very good at gaming the system. Somebody with autism may be told by their parents to seem as bad as possible so they can get the meter ticking. They are not going to be very skilled at that, but the mums and dads of articulate middle-class people will have a different set of instructions to go on. There will always be a tendency to exaggerate—play up to the full may be a better way of putting it—their needs to get them graded as substantial.
I make these points, not to draw any firm conclusion, not even on the question of whether those with moderate needs should be catered for, but to say that more fundamental thinking has to go into deciding how eligibility criteria should be set and operated. This has not yet been apparent, even in the Government’s improved scheme which is encapsulated in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my Amendments 88R and 88S take us back to the amendments which I moved last week on eligibility criteria, inspired by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. Promoting individuals’ well-being, assessing their needs and those of carers, deciding on eligibility and the priority for needs to be met, developing them with an appropriate care and support plan, enabling the best use of a personal budget and/or direct payments and ensuring continuity of capacity during and after a move, such as a house move, are all processes or stages in which the active engagement of NHS professionals or services could have a positive effect on the outcome for individuals and carers.
In his response, the noble Earl said that he agreed and that the Care Bill already allowed for that kind of co-operation from the NHS through Clauses 1 and 3. He also pointed out that Clause 12(1)(f) sets out regulations where a local authority must consult with someone with expertise before undertaking an assessment. He went on to say:
“Regulations may also set out conditions around co-operation with the NHS, by specifying the circumstances in which the local authority must refer the adult concerned for an assessment of eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare”. —[Official Report, 3/7/13; col. 1272.]
That is helpful but I wonder if we should go further and place an explicit responsibility on the NHS so that we know it plays its part in full.
Amendment 88Q, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my Amendment 88T focus on the eligibility criteria in the draft regulations. We support national eligibility criteria. As the consultation paper says,
“the needs which are determined to be ‘eligible’ vary from one area to another”,
at the moment, with local authorities,
“able to set their own ‘eligibility threshold’ or ‘criteria’…This approach has led to perceived wide distances between areas and inconsistency in the offer made to local people, confusion and legal challenge. Because local authorities are able to vary the threshold over time, it also leads to the fear that people may lose their care and support if ‘eligible needs’ are reclassified locally”.
It is also very helpful to have the draft regulations available for debate and I have been able to discuss them with a number of stakeholders in the last few days. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is concern among many stakeholders about the level at which the criteria are set. This is reflected in the amendment in her name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Touhig. However, we must also take account of the points raised by my noble friends Lord Warner and Lord Lipsey because this is, in the end, an issue of funding. I hope that, when she winds up, the noble Baroness will address the issue of affordability. This may be a technical point, but this might be a matter of supply, since the Commons might well assert their own position in this regard. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will, no doubt, advise us on that matter.
The guidance is very important and my noble friend Lord Warner said that it was a good first shot. I agree with him and it is certainly something to work on. However, could it warrant more parliamentary scrutiny than is normally given to regulations? We usually have a debate of about one hour; the conventions allow us to defeat a statutory instrument on very few occasions, and there is no opportunity to amend those regulations. We have benefited enormously from having a Joint Select Committee to advise us on the draft Bill: might it be right to have a similar process in relation to the regulations? I hope the noble Earl might be sympathetic to my Amendment 88T, which asks for a joint parliamentary committee process to look at the regulations before they are laid before Parliament.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 89B as well as Amendment 89A, as they are both amendments about the circumstances in which a carer can be charged for services. Carers UK—I declare an interest as its vice-president—has estimated that carers save the UK economy £119 billion per year. That is a statistic that I never tire of giving your Lordships. Local authorities recognise the value and cost-effectiveness of supporting carers. As a result, very few local authorities charge for services provided to carers. The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill sets out current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of supporting carers, and refers to the benefits received from doing so: for example, preventing or delaying hospital or residential care admissions; sustaining the caring role; improving the health and well-being of carers; and, crucially, assisting carers to remain in or return to work.
The Bill includes a power to charge carers for services, and a power to charge for arranging services for carers. Given the benefits of providing support for carers, I shall argue that it would be counterproductive to charge carers and thereby reduce the take-up of support.
The current legislation under which support is provided is the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which started as a Private Member’s Bill. Under the Act, services provided to a disabled person in order to meet the needs of the carer cannot include services for the disabled person that are “of an intimate nature”. It is for that reason that that same wording is used in Amendment 89A.
Interpretation varies concerning to whom, and by whom, services are provided, but the definition legally prevents carers being charged for a respite care service that includes personal care provided to the person whom the carer cares for. As I have said, very few local authorities now charge for carers services. However, given the difficulties with local authority funding, about which we hear constantly, I am concerned that more local authorities may consider charging carers in the future.
Following a recommendation by the Joint Committee scrutinising the draft Care Bill—on which I, together with several other Members of your Lordships’ House, served—the Government have sought to protect carers from being wrongly charged, by introducing the following wording in Clause 14:
“The power to make a charge under subsection (1) for meeting a carer’s needs for support under section 20 by providing care and support to the adult needing care may not be exercised so as to charge the carer”.
Although the intention of this wording is welcome, it does not provide any definition of what is a service for the carer and what is a service for the adult. So it does not prevent local authorities charging carers for services such as replacement care and other things that help them.
It is important that any potential conflict is resolved so that carers and disabled people have clarity about their personal budgets. Independent personal budgets can be useful in relation to managing options and direct payments. Whose budget is this to come out of? It will also be important when the carer count is introduced that we have clarity, so that the disabled person knows whether the cost of care is starting to accrue to their account.
Decision-making on whether services are designed to give carers a break or result in them having a break from caring is very variable at the moment. Some local carers’ services, for example, have experienced variations in approach from their local authority. I cite a particular example in which a local carers’ organisation that provides a sitting service—that is, replacement care, so that carers can take a break—operates with two neighbouring local authorities. One regards replacement care as a service for the cared-for person, including sitting services. The next-door authority allows carers to purchase a sitting service, as long as it does not include intimate care, with their direct payment. Varying interpretations mean that there is a disparity for carers in the same area. Some can access breaks, while some cannot. This creates difficulties for the service provider and for those who want to support carers.
In the current legislation, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, services provided to the disabled person to meet the needs of the carer cannot include services for the disabled person that are of an intimate nature. My Amendment 89A seeks to reproduce that wording in the Bill to probe the distinction made in the Bill between carer services and services for a disabled person and to clarify how the current wording would prevent a carer being charged for respite or replacement care provided to the carer. Without a clearer definition of whose service is whose, negative consequences for the carer will inevitably result. Carers may be prevented from having a break; they may find that they are subject to charges for services that should be allocated to the disabled person; and social workers and others assessors’ time will be taken up in trying to allocate services to people.
I hope that the Minister, who I know to be totally committed to supporting carers, as are the Government, will accept this amendment to clarify the position with regard to charging carers. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise briefly—I fear that that will be the last time that I will use the word “briefly” tonight—to speak to Amendment 104ZB in my name in this group. This is another bits and pieces group; my amendment does not relate to the excellent speech just made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley.
Clause 64 enables a local authority to recover money owed to it in connection with the provision of care and support. A person’s failure to disclose any material fact would make them liable to recovery proceedings. However—and this is the nub—it would do so even if they had done so inadvertently. This seems terribly draconian and might well deter people from taking steps, such as asking for a direct payment, which they might perceive as carrying the risk of legal proceedings. This clause should refer only to misrepresentation, and the deliberate failure to disclose information, rather than incorporating, as it does, accidental failure.
These decisions of where to apply for help are taken at time of acute stress in many families. There may have been an incident, such as a fall or a stroke, which has changed the picture for that family entirely. At that stage, the last thing that people want to worry about is whether they have inadvertently failed to disclose some piece of information and will have legal proceedings taken as a result.
I cite an example given to me by Age UK, which was contacted by a husband whose wife has dementia. She has a private bank account that she will not let her family have access to, and discussions of financial arrangements upset her terribly, so he has not yet gained a power of attorney over her affairs. Despite knowing that his wife has assets, her husband is paying for everything relating to her care with his benefits and pensions. He feels that he could not make an accurate disclosure of her assets that would be necessary to get the benefits to which he is entitled. Imagine how that person would feel when faced with this clause and the danger that an inadvertent failure to disclose fully would lead to the local authority taking him to court.
Lord Lipsey
That could arise, I suppose, but it has not arisen in this case. I am not even sure—it is very difficult with these cases, and I do not know if it is even known—whether the man I am referring to has attempted to find that way around it. This lady gets distressed at the mere mention of financial affairs, so it is not surprising that he is ducking away from that. As the noble Baroness says, there could be capacity issues. In certain circumstances, clearly, there could be a court decision that she no longer has capacity to exercise discretion, but that is a long and difficult route to go down in the situation of this poor old man and his poor wife. That is the sort of situation that I am trying to avoid. I am not trying to open the door so that everybody can get away with claiming everything. I am simply saying that if people have inadvertently misled the local authority, the authority should not go after them in the courts to get its money back. It seems a moderate proposal, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.
Lord Low of Dalston
I shall speak to Amendments 89BA and 92ZZM. I very much welcomed the comments of the Minister at Second Reading, when he stated that the Government,
“intend to use regulations to ensure that services ... currently … provided free, including … minor aids or adaptations, remain provided free of charge”.—[Official Report, 21/5/13; col. 826.]
That seems only right, since minor aids and adaptations are qualifying services under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act (Qualifying Services) (England) Regulations 2003.
The Government do not want to see local authorities charging for services that they are not permitted to charge for today. Clauses 2(3)(b) and 14(6) hint at this, explaining that regulations may prohibit local authorities from charging for particular types of support. However, the Bill should be explicit about what local authorities are prohibited from charging for.
I shall take the amendments in reverse order. Amendment 92ZZM relates specifically to personal budgets and would ensure that anyone needing care and support and requiring equipment or adaptations costing under £1,000 would not be financially assessed as part of a personal budget, which would effectively impose a charge for those items. In considering the amendment, will the Minister clarify how equipment and adaptations will be provided for in personal budgets? Will he ensure that regulations are unambiguously clear on the need for equipment and adaptations to remain free and for there to be no variations at a local level? The College of Occupational Therapists has some concerns about this.
I know that the Minister understands how important these provisions are to ensure effective preventive services that reduce both the demands on care services and the cost to local councils. In many instances, occupational therapists assist those requiring care and support by recommending the provision of equipment, minor adaptations and assistive technology, often resulting in recommendations, disabled facilities grants for safe management of progressive conditions and the moving and handling of people.
Equipment and adaptations are critically important, as they reduce the need for escalating care, protecting the individual and saving the resources of cash-strapped local authorities. Any reference to the provision of equipment and adaptations is notably absent from the legislation. However, these aids are critical for many people, and it is important that the Government are clear about how equipment and adaptations will be treated under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree not only that they should remain freely available but that they should not attract a charge by the back door when made the subject of a personal budget.
Amendment 89BA is a probing amendment to seek an assurance from the Minister that the provision in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act (Qualifying Services) (England) Regulations 2003, preventing local authorities charging for minor aids and adaptations under £1,000, will be maintained and to ask whether the £1,000 threshold, set 10 years ago, will be kept up to date.
Earl Howe
My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the concerns she has raised about the Bill’s practical implementation. I am sure it is a shared view across the Committee that people should be supported to remain independent within their own homes for as long as possible. As the Bill recognises, supporting carers and preventing or delaying the need for care and support are both vital to achieving this goal.
On the specific amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, our previous debate shows the value and importance which noble Lords place on carers and the need to support them. I thank the noble Baroness for her recognition of the significant improvement that this Bill will make. I reassure her that the Bill makes it clear that local authorities cannot charge carers for services provided to the person being cared for. Our clear view is that Clause 14(3) puts this matter beyond doubt, and this would include services of an intimate nature provided to the person being cared for.
Local authorities need to retain the flexibility to meet the needs of carers in the most appropriate way. This might include providing services to the adult needing care such as feeding them or taking them to the toilet. Providing these services is necessary to allow carers of people with the greatest needs to take a well earned break from their responsibilities. However, Amendment 89A would create a legal barrier which may hinder the provision of support to carers. For that reason, I do not warm to it.
Amendment 89B would ensure that services provided to carers were provided free of charge by the NHS. Local authorities currently do not usually charge carers, as they recognise the vital work that they do. In some cases, however, local authorities may charge a fee for services provided directly to carers, such as when the local authority arranges a trip for them. We want to continue to give local authorities this flexibility.
The noble Baroness expressed a worry about the scope for different interpretation about who is the beneficiary of a particular service. In most cases, I suggest that it will be clear what is being provided to the adult needing care and support as opposed to the carer. However, statutory guidance will be provided to help to promote national consistency on that point. I hope that that reassurance will provide the noble Baroness with the wherewithal to withdraw the amendment for the time being although I will, of course, reflect further on what she has said.
On Amendments 89BA and 92ZZM, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Low, that we intend to maintain the existing entitlements to aids, minor adaptations and intermediate care in regulations. Aids and minor adaptations costing up to £1,000 will continue to be provided free and without the need for a financial assessment. We will shortly be consulting on the implementation of our reforms to care and support funding, which will inform the future regulations. In designing the new regulations, we will consider whether we should update the list of services which must be provided free of charge. However, we must bear in mind that further limitations on the ability of local authorities to charge would reduce the resources available to support people with the greatest needs. The draft regulations will be subject to a further public consultation to ensure the final regulations are based on the best available evidence.
As I indicated earlier, we are introducing a fairer system, including a cap on care costs. It is right that people who can afford to do so should continue to contribute a fair amount towards their care costs, and when they do not, Clause 64 allows local authorities to recover these costs as a debt. I understand the desire to protect people who make mistakes or accidentally fail to disclose relevant information. However, I fear that Amendment 104ZB, which would require local authorities to prove intent, would result in complex and expensive legal cases. Intent is not always easy to prove. Local authorities will not be able to charge people more than their due debt and the costs incurred in recovering that debt, and we think it is right that they should be able to do so even if someone has made a genuine mistake. This is not about instituting recriminations but about correcting mistakes. We should surely allow local authorities to take action in such a case if we believe in protecting public money.
Lord Lipsey
I am a bit bemused. I cannot see where my amendment states that local authorities have to prove intent, nor do I see in the noble Earl’s argument any reason why the person who makes a mistake should have to pay not only the extra money they have received but the cost to the local authority of retrieving that money. That seems to me a punishment too far.
Earl Howe
I had rather assumed, perhaps wrongly, that if, for whatever reason, there has been a discrepancy in the declaration made by a person, it either has to be a genuine error, or something more deliberate, in which case there is intent involved. I am not sure what other explanation there could be. That was why I read into the noble Lord’s amendment what I did.
I think that the ability of a local authority to recover costs ought to act as a disincentive to people to be careless about what they are doing. They should make sure that what they declare is accurate and should be made aware that if they make a mistake, it might prove a little more costly to them than just rectifying the error. This is not about imposing recriminations on people. It is right for local authorities not to be out of pocket when other people out there could be benefiting from the public money that is available.
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord has interpreted my amendment one way; I have interpreted it in another way. It may be that the Bill, either as it is or as amended, is not quite right. Can the noble Lord agree that we have further discussions to see if we can find a way forward that satisfies us both?
Earl Howe
I am more than happy to discuss this with the noble Lord and I apologise if I have misunderstood his amendment. I certainly would not wish to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked me how equipment and adaptations will be addressed in a personal budget. Those costs that are intended to meet eligible needs will be included in the personal budget, or the independent personal budget, and will count towards the cap. We intend that aids and minor adaptations will be provided free of charge however they are funded, including by way of direct payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked me when the regulations under Clause 14 will be published. We intend to publish the draft regulations after the forthcoming consultation on funding reform. This consultation will enable the regulations to be based on the best available evidence. She asked where are the provisions about complaints and redress in relation to charging and, indeed, all of Part 1. Existing complaints provision for adult social care is through regulations. The provisions of the regulations mean that anyone who is dissatisfied with the decision made by the local authority about their assessment or eligibility would be able to complain to the local authority and have that complaint handled by the local authority. The local authority must make its own arrangements for dealing with complaints in accordance with the 2009 regulations.
The Government recognise that the existing framework allows local authorities flexibility in the development of the process for dealing with appeals and challenges. There are options for local authorities to introduce independent elements to the complaints process through a range of formal and informal measures. Each local authority will therefore have a different process and we appreciate that local variation will result in varying user experiences. If a complainant is not satisfied with the response from the local authority, they can refer the case to the independent Local Government Ombudsman.
I hope that those remarks will be helpful and that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will for now be able to withdraw her amendments.
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey
Now for something completely different. These amendments hardly deserve the epithet “probing”—more a light examination by the doctor’s fingers. What they do is, in essence, simple. They substitute for the monetary cap proposed by the Government a cap based on the number of years a person has been receiving care at a substantial level.
The origins of my amendment were in a proposal floated in the minority report to the 1999 royal commission on the funding of long-term care. As I was the author, I remember this quite well. It did not even gain the support of a majority of the minorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, declined to sign up to it. Nevertheless, it has had a life after death and I think it can claim paternity —the noble Lord, Lord Warner, knows better than I—for the cap proposal in the Dilnot report, because it shares precisely the same objective as the cap: to limit the costs of care to those unlucky enough to require it for a long time as it costs a lot of money. That is the aim of the proposal.
When I first saw the Dilnot proposal, I thought that it was clearly superior to the one in the minority report—everyone would spend the same before the state kicked in. But as time has gone on I have become much less sure of this as two defects of the Dilnot version have become more apparent. The first is that it is extremely complex for local authorities to administer. There have been figures of between £300 million and £500 million floating about for the cost of administration, before money is handed out to people. That is because, to implement the Dilnot report, it is necessary to track each individual from the time the meter starts ticking to see exactly what they are spending on care or, rather worse, to see exactly what a local authority thinks it should be providing in spending on care for each individual—a sort of abstract concept that has to be turned into a concrete figure.
As will be apparent from other amendments I have tabled, I am not even confident that local authorities will have their systems sufficiently sorted to manage it by the proposed start date of April 2016. There is a non-negligible risk that this will prove to be universal benefit mark 2, a scheme that will in practice prove impossible to operate. I hope I am wrong but the fact is that, putting the best face on it, it will cost a lot of money to implement without any of that money going to better care, and not a penny of it going to the people who should be helped. In the Government’s ghastly jargon, it will be money spent on bureaucracy, not front-line services. That is my first query about the Dilnot way of doing things.
My second point is equally worrying. The Dilnot system is terribly difficult for anyone normal to understand. When do you start to get it? How much is assessed as being the cost of the care that you may get from the council? How much have I spent? How much of that counts towards the cap? People may say, “My care costs differ because my condition goes up and down”. All those factors are crucial if people are to know what they spend out of their own pockets. I am sure that better-off people who are in full possession of their faculties will work it out, but we know that 40% of people over 80 have some degree of dementia and are therefore not in full possession. Certainly, those with computer-literate families and sons or daughters who happen to be independent financial advisers will crack it all right. Their claims for substantial care needs will be there on day one in a large pile on the local authority’s desk. They will know every penny that has been spent, but are we confident that everyone else will? Just explaining the system and the process of communication, to which we shall come later, will be jolly difficult. It should be remembered that more than half the people think that the state at the moment pays their entire care costs without deductions. There is a long way to go from there to understanding Dilnot.
By comparison, a time-based system is simplicity itself. You have an assessment, and if it shows that you need substantial care or its equivalent under the new system, the clock starts ticking. Five years later, you no longer have to pay the cost of your care. That is very simple. Five years is what you have to find. In my variant, the council would then pick up the whole cost, not some notional cost, as under the Dilnot cap, and you would simply have to find your hotel costs where applicable. That is simplicity itself and, incidentally, it makes it much easier for you to insure privately. Private insurance companies are going to struggle to know how much their liability will be under the Dilnot system. Under a time-based system, they will know that they have a liability. If you live more than five years the state will pick up the bill and the only bit that they will have to cover is the first five years.
How does that compare in generosity with Dilnot? It will probably be about the same. The Dilnot cap would be reached by someone in residential care rather more quickly than the five years but, on the other hand, as you are going to be paid only in part if you reach the cap, you may not be any better off. I suspect that for those receiving care in their own homes my proposal will prove to be more generous than Dilnot’s £72,000 cap. In most cases, people will take more than five years to reach the £72,000 and it may therefore be slightly more generous to people who live at home, which is no dreadful thing.
Sunny optimist though I am, I do not expect the Minister to go snap on my scheme today. I am not even sure that I do. He and his colleagues had enough trouble getting the Government to sign up to Dilnot, and they will not want to execute any unnecessary U-turns now. However, I suggest that he puts this proposal in his bottom drawer because it may become apparent in six, 12 or 18 months’ time that Dilnot, as encapsulated in the Bill, is simply impossible to administer on any realistic timetable. When that day dawns— I hope it does not—my scheme may come in handy. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised if I gently defend the Dilnot commission’s recommendations on a cap. His final suggestion of putting his proposal in the bottom drawer was actually rather good. I remind the House that as a young civil servant I was once the recipient of a Health Minister’s regular manuscript notes asking me about progress on various matters. They ended up in my bottom drawer because he had usually forgotten about them. Putting this recommendation in the bottom drawer may be the best thing to do.
I think that my noble friend has forgotten the task that the Dilnot commission was set. It was not the case that we just brought a cap out of the ether and projected it on to an unsuspecting world. We were trying to fulfil the task that we were given, which was to make recommendations on how,
“to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system … for care and support for all adults in England, both in the home and in other settings”.
In particular, we were asked to examine,
“how best to meet the costs of care and support as a partnership between individuals and the state … how people could choose to protect their assets, especially their homes, against the costs”,
and,
“how both now and in the future public funding for the care and support system can be best used to meet care and support needs”.
I suggest that to fulfil those requirements it is probably better to concentrate on money and try to achieve a credible system than to concentrate on time. One of our main purposes was to project the idea that if we could get citizens to be more engaged with the realities of a means-tested adult social care system, they would plan for the future in a better way than at present. Money is the currency in which they would be thinking, to all intents and purposes. That is why we came up with the idea of a cap.
My noble friend is right to ask how well prepared local government is to introduce this system. There are some genuine concerns about that, which we will debate later. However, he is a little pessimistic about our ability to develop, perhaps over a longer period than the Government might like, a taxi-meter system that works for the Dilnot proposals. They are essentially a taxi-meter system. You need to clock up the costs that are being spent over time until you reach the cap. There is a thing called IT; it is not always well used in the public sector but it is possible to take the pain out of all this. We as a commission did not envisage a new pencil-and-paper system that 152 local authorities would reinvent in individual and separate ways. It is a complex system but it is actually not that difficult to manage, once you get into the swing of it.
I say very gently to the Minister and to my noble friend that we sweated blood for about a year to try to get a very large number of people to agree on a way forward. This is not the time to go back to square one and think of another way of doing it.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, explained very clearly, these amendments would mean that the capped system counted time rather than costs. I agree that there are advantages to this approach. The Dilnot commission, in considering this option, said that using years instead of costs would be easier to administer and simpler to understand, and I appreciate those arguments. However, the commission also made the case that to adopt this approach would disadvantage those with more intensive care needs, who over a given period of time could spend significantly more on care than those with less intensive needs, so that what we might gain in simplicity we should lose in fairness. I am sure that we all want to see a fair care and support system giving the most support to those in the greatest need. Using time instead of costs would undermine that goal.
We are committed to using notional spend—in other words, the equivalent of what the local authority would pay to meet an adult’s eligible care needs. As with using time, it is in fact relatively simple to administer because it fits in with the current system of needs assessment. It also ensures that people with more intensive needs are not disadvantaged. That is why the Government agree with the Dilnot Commission, which said,
“the only suitable way of deciding when a person has reached the cap is to meter notional spend.”
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed to the understandable fear that Dilnot will mean spending money on administration rather than on meeting people’s needs. I accept that times are challenging for councils, but we are committed to funding these reforms. Critically, we are also committed to co-producing the implementation of the reforms to minimise the bureaucracy that accompanies them and maximise the benefits that they bring. The noble Lord suggested that local authorities might not be ready to implement Dilnot in 2016, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked about this, and whether we were intending to test the robustness of the system. We shall be coming to the issue of readiness in the next group, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that there is sufficient time to develop what he referred to as a taxi-meter system.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, took us to a point that he has made in this Chamber before about Dilnot, and his view that it is fundamentally unfair. I simply say to him that the vast majority of state support, under the Dilnot system, will be provided to the roughly 40% of older people with the lowest income and the lowest wealth. The cap, and the extended means test, provide the most reassurance to that particular group. Our view is that we need a system that protects people with the greatest lifetime care needs. It is not about protecting people with the greatest wealth.
To clarify the question that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised in the previous group of amendments about the guidance under Clause 71, this will indeed be statutory guidance, and it will look and feel like a code of practice. Importantly, it will have the same legal status. However, we do not think that guidance should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny every time it is updated, as with a code of practice Statutory guidance under this Bill will have the same status as the current guidance issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. I hope that this is helpful.
In a later group of amendments we will come to what local authorities think about the new system and indeed the whole area of financial services. However, I was reassured that the Local Government Association said that it fully supports and welcomes the inclusion of a cap on what an individual will pay. The Association of British Insurers has welcomed the announcement that we have made as a positive step forward in tackling the challenges of an ageing society. Arising out of that is a sector-led review that is working constructively with government to understand how the market will develop and create the right environments for products to succeed. That review will be completed over the summer.
I hope that with those comments the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will for now be content to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he found my comments, if not ones that he can agree with immediately, at least ones that he will put into the context of the Bill in, I hope, a manner that he will understand.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which was a miracle of putting very well the point that has come out of the debate. I thank all those who have participated. We have here a trade-off between simplicity and fairness—it is as simple as that. The Government—unusually, my party might think—have opted for fairness, and my party might not be surprised that in this case I have opted for simplicity. However, the matter will rest. Of course, if this system goes absolutely swimmingly, I shall forget that I asked the Minister to put it in his bottom drawer, but if it all goes wrong I shall tell the world that “I told you so”. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. A similar amendment in my name is not as strong as his amendment. I think that his would do the job that needs to be done remarkably well and I hope that it will be agreed by the Minister.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group standing in my name but, before I do so, I should like to offer the strongest possible support for the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and particularly for the words that he said at the beginning about the information task that we face here. This is not just a question of advising individuals when they go to their councils, although that is important and we have had a debate on that. It is a question of making the whole of our society aware of what is going on against a background of very great ignorance and misinformation. It is crucial that something is done on a real scale to turn that around and that the best communication skills are used in doing so. We have to move from the language that we use in this Chamber as aficionados or geeks studying the detail of the Bill to the general public out there, and that is a hell of a task.
As I said, I will speak to my Amendments 90D, 92ZZB, 92ZZC and 104ZC. Amendments 90D and 92ZZC relate to a topic that we touched on in the debate on the previous amendment—namely, the costs and administrative difficulties for local authorities of introducing the cap in the scheme. The Local Government Association has expanded on the numerics in the briefings for this debate, as has London Councils. I think that the local authorities have a slight tendency to underplay what is going on for fear that the Government will take the whole thing away from them, and they want to be shown as “can do” rather than “can’t do”. When you get into the detail, and look below the politicians in local government at the fine detail of those who have to implement it, you find that it is quite difficult.
The Government have in principle accepted the burdens doctrine, namely that if they make local government do something they will pay for it. They have provided around £335 million to pay for that. None of this extra money is coming now, by the way. The contributions will not start until 2016. Bad though the administrative mess may be, if local government does nothing to prepare for this scheme until 2016 it will certainly fail. Already it is doubtful whether the burdens scheme is really being met. Many of the costings put forward are fingers in the air stuff. The detail has yet to be grappled with. Details crucial to costing the implementation of the scheme, such as the eligibility requirements, are only emerging bit by bit. We do not even know what the government money is supposed to cover. Does it fund in full the cost of additional self-assessments, when the self-funders and people who will potentially benefit from Dilnot queue up for assessments? I really do not think that we know the detail of duties around advice and information, on which we spoke earlier, or on the funding for setting up new deferred payment schemes.
My change is designed to write into the Bill what is in effect the burdens doctrine. Whatever the cost, the Government must pick it up. It is not as if local authorities have got large chunks of money in their pocket at the moment to reach in and pay for all this stuff. They do not. They cannot afford basic care services at the moment, so this is a huge task. There is a huge task, too, in training the local authority workforce to do assessment and implementation on this scale, and indeed in creating the workforce.
These facts lead me to believe—and I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Warner, with whom I agree on nearly everything, agrees—that it was a terrible mistake to bring forward the start of the scheme from 2017 to 2016. We know why it happened, do we not? The Government found that they had a few spare quid in their pocket, and wanted to be able to tell the electorate that Dilnot was nigh, and so without proper consideration of any kind they brought the date forward. It was a U-turn, and my amendment U-turns on the U-turn to get back to the right place where they were to begin with, namely that the scheme will come in in 2017. This would give it a good chance to work.
I turn now to my other amendments in this group. I hope that we might finally get an actual concession from the Minister, instead of words of great sincerity and great sympathy and not much change. My other amendments in this group refer to the setting up of a ministerial advisory group on the cap and the means test. They insist that this group should be consulted in the planned five-year review of how all of this is working. This is not a criticism of the Department of Health. I have been impressed by how effective officials have been in grasping this scheme, particularly as for most of the time that Dilnot was under consideration they probably thought that it was never going to happen. They are a first-class team, but I do not think that they possess a monopoly on wisdom, and indeed they do not think so, either. The Minister just referred to the working parties with the financial services sectors that have been set up to give advice. I applaud that.
I think that there are complexities in all of this that even the most literate advisers have barely grasped. I will come to some of them, for example when we come to the detail of the proposals on the means test. It would be helpful if Ministers had to hand a helpful advisory group comprising academic experts, local authority representatives, representatives of the financial sector and someone from Dilnot. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would like to volunteer. A group of that kind would not second-guess Ministers on every detail, but would offer its general advice on how things are progressing and how they may be set right if there are departures from the course on the way forward.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. There is a case for setting up some sensible monitoring arrangements. This is not just to check up on the Government, but to make sure that this system is working in the way that everybody wants it to. It is a big change, and we are starting from a position which means we have to grasp the nettle, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said. I strongly support his amendments.
I want to refresh the House’s memory of what we said in the Dilnot commission report. I will briefly detain noble Lords with a quote:
“There is very poor understanding of how the adult social care system currently works and how much it can potentially cost. Many people live under the false impression that social care will be free if they need it. If people are confused over how the system works and the costs that they potentially face, they will not prepare appropriately for the future”.
That setting was why two of our 10 recommendations were that the Government should develop a major new information and advice strategy to help when care needs arise. To encourage people to plan ahead for their later life, we recommended that the Government should invest in an awareness campaign. We deliberately put those responsibilities on the Government. We did not put them on local authorities. We did this because we thought that unless the Government of the day—and this would apply to a Labour Government as much as a coalition Government—took a grip on this awareness campaign and planned the information and advice strategy, we would end up with a badly informed public and a mishmash of different local authority systems up and down the country.
We are not going to make this system work well or deliver the changes in the Bill and in the Dilnot commission report, unless there is investment. In our report we put the price tag of this as being a massive public awareness campaign. The public do not start from a position of being well informed about how they prepare for the future care and support needs that they will have in later life. The only way to start to change that is for the Government to grasp the nettle. I strongly support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to put this in the Bill. We should put a clear responsibility on the Secretary of State to run with the ball on this issue and, in effect, to monitor progress, not on a five-year basis but on a regular, annual basis. If we do not do something like this, we will live to regret it. We will see failure of implementation and failure to take the public with us on this major set of changes.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise to support the amendments of my noble friend Lord Hunt and the remarks just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross.
There have been a number of scandals, both about care at home and care in care homes, over the past year. I am astonished that the situation is not much worse than it is. When you see the pay and conditions imposed, and the people working under absurd and exploitative conditions in this sector—I use that old-fashioned word, exploitative, because it is the only one that applies—it is quite remarkable how many of them still care and still work their heads off for the people for whom they care We should pay due tribute to all those people.
Approaching this objectively, and it has been this way for some time, we have a situation that would be solved readily in a free market. The supply of people providing care is going down, and it will continue to go down, largely because of the Government’s crackdown on immigration; many of the workers in this sector are immigrants, as can be seen when visiting nearly any care home. The demand is going up year after year, if only for demographic reasons. What you would expect to happen would be for pay to go up, attracting more and better workers to the sector, thus resolving the situation. However, that is not happening.
Why? Because, in effect, there is a monopoly purchaser: the local authority. However, the local authority can only buy with the money it is allowed by the Government. As we know, the amount available for care, which should have been going up, has been going down. You can call on the CQC or local authorities to pay more but they are in an impossible position. If they do not connive in the appalling conditions inflicted on these workers, they will not be able to provide the services at all. So they try to get through another year and accept a lower tender or another company, even though they know that their standards are appalling. This is not the fault of the local authority. It is the fault of our national failing to put money into care while we have continued to ring-fence money for health and education.
I was once asked by a Care Minister, if I had money to spend in the care sector—having studied it quite a bit on the royal commission—how I would spend it. I said that I would give them all £1 an hour more and improve the standards of their training. I would say exactly the same thing today. I am supportive of the Dilnot proposals; I think that it is wonderful that we are spending more than £1 billion to help richer people not to be wiped out by their care costs. It is a great thing. However, it is not as great a thing as it would be if, at the same time, we were providing the money to allow local authorities properly to look after and provide basic services to people who need them, and to provide the money that would enable those providing those services to live decently and with pride in the wonderful job that they have been given to do.
Lord Low of Dalston
My Lords, I support Amendments 86N and 86Q tabled by my noble friend Lady Greengross, to which I have added my name.
This is a very important debate. As has been said, these amendments are all about quality and speak to many of the concerns to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just given powerful expression. The Care Bill introduces a number of important new duties and responsibilities to help place the right values at the heart of our care system. The well-being clause, for example, provides a foundation stone for the principles that should inform the whole of social care. However, our social care system is only as strong as the services that are actually commissioned. With budgets getting tighter and tighter, and demand getting ever greater, local authorities all too often commission care and support services based solely on finding the cheapest possible option. Unless we can ensure that the way in which services are commissioned drives the quality outcomes that we all want to see, important changes such as the well-being principle will remain simply a pious aspiration.
Amendment 86N would oblige local authorities to adhere to minimum standards in the way that they commission services and would give the Government power to make regulations for appropriate minimum standards. Amendment 86Q would provide for regulations to ensure that care visits lasted long enough to deliver the support needed. This would exert an important influence on the quality of services for disabled and older people. Focusing too much on cost creates an unacceptably high risk that care will be of the poor quality that we have heard too much about of late, which does not meet the basic needs of vulnerable people for support to enable them to live with dignity.
There are some fantastic examples of high-quality services across the country, despite severe budgetary constraints, and much can be learnt from how some local authorities have been able to build quality into what they do. However, there are also too many examples of people suffering as a result of poor-quality commissioning and receiving totally insufficient support, which consists simply of fleeting visits from carers who barely have time to say hello, let alone get to know and understand the needs of the person they are supporting.
I have heard of many cases of care workers rushing in to deliver care in visits of 15 minutes or even less. Fifteen minutes is not long enough to help people wash, get dressed, prepare a meal and use the bathroom. It is hardly long enough to take your coat off. It certainly is not long enough to promote people’s well-being. Care visits can be the only contact that socially excluded and vulnerable people have in a day. It is sobering that Leonard Cheshire Disability has recently announced that it will not accept contracts that provide for visits of 15 minutes or less.
A recent survey of local authorities found that 90% still pay providers according to the time they spend with the service user rather than the outcomes they achieve. This simply encourages a race to the bottom. The Bill needs to contain provisions that will help to ensure that quality of service is a key consideration in commissioning decisions. There must be checks and balances in the commissioning process and quality must be part of the equation. If we want a society that provides care based on need and not merely that which can be provided at the lowest cost, we need to support these amendments.
Ministers in the Department of Health have made a number of positive statements about improving quality in care. I hope that the Minister might be willing to accept these or similar amendments, but I ask him at the very least to clarify what the Government intend to do to make the positive rhetoric on quality a reality when it comes to commissioning services.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Browning
My Lords, I will speak to two amendments standing in my name in this grouping. The first is Amendment 86H, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has put her name. This deals specifically with proportionality and early identification in providing information and advice.
In its report on adult social care, the Law Commission argued that it was essential that the issue of proportionality be addressed in the regulations setting out the assessment process. The Law Commission stated that where a person has complex or multiple needs, a proportionate assessment would require an in-depth and comprehensive exploration of those needs—something which we have already heard about this afternoon. Defining complex needs can be difficult, with the full extent of needs not always immediately identifiable. For instance, older people in particular do not always present their needs accurately on first or subsequent contacts.
Deploying qualified social work staff across all areas of service provision, including the information and advice stage, would help—as this amendment seeks to do—to ensure that the potential for complexity is recognised early on and the individual receives signposting to non-statutory services and/or initial statutory sector support proportionate to their needs.
Looking round the Chamber, I see several people who I meet on a weekly basis as we are currently carrying out post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act. The assessments of capacity across a range of people—not just the elderly, who are very important, but even much younger people—are extremely important. It is extremely important that there are qualified social workers who are involved in this exercise.
To have the social worker available at the pre-assessment stage, as part of an information and advice team, would allow unqualified staff the benefit of accessible professional support. I am aware that the College of Social Work supports this measure and the duty on local authorities to ensure that in providing advice and information, qualified staff are deployed in sufficient numbers to ensure that all aspects of need are taken into account. This would ensure that people are put in touch with the most appropriate services for them from the earliest opportunity.
I am aware of the letter that my noble friend sent to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, dated 27 June, in which he covered in the first paragraph the query by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about ensuring that there are sufficient skilled workers. When he responds, would he cover this question of sufficient qualified social workers? His reply to the noble Lord dealt mainly with staff employed in the health service as opposed to social services. We have heard a lot in these debates about the need for multidisciplinary teams in decision-making, so I would be grateful if he would address the question of the number of skilled social workers who might be deployed, particularly at the initial information and advice stage when early assessments are carried out.
My second amendment in this group is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Barker. It addresses the question of independent advocacy and proposes a new clause. Of course, I am aware of the role of, and the statutory requirement for, IMCAs in the Mental Capacity Act. I will not pre-empt the findings of the post-legislative scrutiny committee on the Act, but I will explain why I felt it necessary to propose a new clause in the area of independent advocacy. I refer the Committee to my interest in the register, and in particular my ongoing interest in autism, mental illness and people with learning disabilities.
The right to advocacy is essential to enable the people who find it hardest to communicate to exercise their rights, represent their interests and obtain the services they need. Clearly, if somebody is deemed not to have capacity, there is already statutory provision for an IMCA to assist them with decision-making. However, it is also vital that those who experience substantial difficulty in understanding, retaining, using or weighing information relevant to an assessment, and then expressing and communicating their views, should also have access to an advocate. I referred just now to autism. People on the autistic spectrum might be deemed to have capacity but their disability might mean that they would have difficulty on their own, without the help of an advocate to explain and help them work through the decision-making process. That group is not adequately covered by the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act.
Advocacy is separate from information and advice. It provides support to some of those who are most vulnerable and most in need of services, including those with autism. There was a recent commission on autism and ageing chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. Both she and I have had to forfeit the presentation of that report to be here in the Chamber. The report found that the families of people with autism frequently act as their advocates. Ninety-six per cent of parents with a son or daughter with autism recently told a National Autistic Society survey that they were concerned about what would happen when they passed away or were unable to support their children. This fear is common to parents of people with many different lifelong disabilities, not just autism. Families frequently say how worried they are about what will happen when they can no longer perform an advocacy role, and that independent advocates must therefore be available.
If the Bill is to help ensure people access the support they need—including people who are currently missing out—advocacy will play a vital role. I ask my noble friend to consider this large group of people who are not covered by existing statutory provision, for whom the new clause would provide a safety net to enable their services and package of care to go forward, thereby ensuring that they have equal opportunity to access the services that we are discussing in relation to the Bill.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, perhaps I may remind the Committee that I am the honorary president of the Society of Later Life Advisers. SOLLA accredits the gold-standard financial advisers who will be so important to the working of the Bill.
My six amendments in this group are Amendments 83B, 83C, 86B, 86D, 86F and 86G. Before I turn to them, I will say a few words more generally about advice and the Bill. If the Bill is to do the job we all hope and expect it will do, information and advice should be not just an add-on but a central requirement, without which the Government’s plans, however well meaning, will collapse, and old people and their families will end up frustrated and angry. This is for several reasons. First, there is a widespread reluctance among old people and their families to face up to the problems of care in old age: how to get it, whether to be cared for at home or in a home, and how to pay for it. It is marvellous that people are living ever longer, but that does not mean that the very last years of their life are easy. Not surprisingly, people do not like to contemplate the years before their demise until they feel they absolutely have to.
Secondly, there is an extraordinary ignorance among older people and their families about social care. More than one person in two still thinks that the state will pay in full for the care that they will require. Thirdly—it is early days, I know—there is even less understanding of Andrew Dilnot’s solution. For example, many people—I have even come across a few in this House—think that once you have spent £72,000 on care, you will be looked after for free. This is not so. You will have to fund hotel costs of £12,000 a year. More importantly, you will have to fund the excess care costs over what a local authority would pay to look after you. That could cost a further £25,000 a year. If my arithmetic still works, that means many people will have to pay £37,000 a year after the cap has been reached, so they should plan for that.
Different people in different situations need different advice. Somebody whose care costs are paid in full needs different advice from somebody on the means test. Whatever their circumstances, very few people are capable of navigating these waters without a trusted pilot or pilots. Local authorities are experienced in conducting assessments of people and in helping them. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, made this point well. They have interests that may be different from, or even conflict with, those of the people they are advising. For example, under the existing deferred payment scheme you do not have to sell your house but can take out an interest-free loan. It is evident from the figures that many local authorities try like mad to persuade people not to go down that road because it costs the authority a lot of money if they do. Even if it would be beneficial to the individual, they steer them away. It is human nature. That is why it is vital that when advice is needed on this kind of subject, it should be independent of the local authority.
Baroness Browning
I agree with what the noble Lord said. Something that is rarely mentioned but is often a solution for many elderly people when they go into care is not that their house is sold but that it is rented out. That can be a very viable, practical and suitable solution. Local authorities never mention that, and nor do they have the means to provide such a service.
Lord Lipsey
I quite agree with the noble Baroness. That is exactly why independent financial advisers can be so helpful. Often, the rent on the house will pay for the whole of care, and still leave the home to be handed on to the children if that is what the old person wishes.
All this underlines the fact that it is crucial that the advice comes from people who are qualified to give it—not necessarily local authority social workers, CAB advisers, regulated independent financial advisers and so on. Nor is it any good the local authority just handing out a list of people and saying, “You can go and see them and ask their advice”. For one thing, frequently there are issues of mental capacity, and the stress on an old person at this time is likely to be severe, particularly if they are thinking of going into a care home. For another, there is the general reluctance problem, and people are also often frightened by the cost of the independent financial advice that they may be seeking.
Some local authorities in these circumstances are performing heroically. I recently opened a centre in West Sussex which combines the resources of voluntary organisations, the local authority and independent financial advisers to offer a comprehensive service. It has recently relaunched its service and a local radio station, Spirit FM 96.6, has featured it in its drive time programme every weekday, which is tremendous. Incidentally, in doing this, the local authority is not acting wholly selflessly. Many people in West Sussex who have moved out of London to retire have quite a bit of resources but do not have infinite resources. If they are not well advised on how to use their resources they will run out of money and fall back on the council and its means-tested benefits to pay for their care. However, if they are properly supported, learn to use their money well and are advised of the products that are available to help them, they will not fall back on the local authority. So this, again, is a case where appropriate advice, properly structured, can save public money, not cost it.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I declare an interest as unpaid president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers. I want in my remarks to concentrate on the Dilnot-related parts of the Bill—that is to say, the cap and the related changes to the means test. I should state straightaway that I welcome the cap. Indeed, I hope that the House will not think it unduly immodest of me if I claim to be, if not its father, perhaps its grandfather. In the minority report of the 1999 royal commission, which I signed with the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, there was a proposal that people should have their care costs covered if they were in care for more than five years. I was not even able to command the majority in the minority on that matter, because the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, did not agree with me on that, although we agreed on everything else. So right from the beginning I have been a strong supporter of people being protected against catastrophic costs of care. I emphasise the word “catastrophic”, because I am also extremely glad that the Government opted for the £75K cap, which I referred to in this House in my initial reaction to the Dilnot proposals, and not for the much lower figures put forward by the commission, which frankly I thought to be unaffordable.
I hope that my credentials as a broad supporter of what the Government are doing are established and that it will not seem impossibly contrarian if I point out two disadvantages of the proposed scheme that we need to bear in mind throughout proceedings. The first is that it is still pretty expensive—£1 billion by the end of the next Parliament, rising to £2 billion by 2030, according to calculations by the Health Economics Group at the University of East Anglia and the LSE’s PSSRU. In the times of austerity in which we are living, any increase in public spending needs to be very thoroughly justified, because of its implications for taxation if nothing else. There is a particular danger in spending money on helping people to pay for care. The real acute and immediate crisis that we face is not about people paying for care; it is about the amount of care that we are providing, on which spending has been cut by about £710 million in real terms since this Government came to power. There are loads of figures, but that is the one that hit me. People are doing without services. If you do not have substantial needs, you do not get services any more. When the priorities come to be weighed, that seems to me to be the pre-eminent one.
There is also the issue of where this money goes. The Dilnot proposals—for all their advantages, which I will come back to before noble Lords get convinced that they should not go forward—do little for the poor. They mostly benefit the better-off. That is because poor people get paid for in full under the present means-testing system. It is the better-off who have to pay. Of course they do not like that and it understandably creates a furore. Even the Government’s plan, which I will call “watered-down Dilnot”, benefits most the better-off. According to the same academic sources that I quoted, the plans in 2030 will be worth £52 a week to people over 85 in the top quintile by income—the top 20%—compared with just £20 a week to those in the lowest quintile. That is an inevitable consequence of replacing means-tested benefits with targeted universal benefits, which is why some of us are chary of the current fashion for scrapping means tests.
Dilnot argued that the cap will protect a bigger share of the assets of those with modest wealth than those with lots of wealth. That is true. It is, however, also true that those with modest wealth will have to contribute to the cost of their care a higher percentage of their wealth than will richer people. It was therefore as difficult a choice for me as it was for Joel, my noble friend Lord Joffe. I go back to the only dispute that we ever had.
Against those disadvantages had to be weighed two important advantages. One is that there is real injustice in the present system, because it is a total lottery as to whether you need care or none at all. It seems unfair that one set of people, however well off they may be, have their wealth wiped out because they happen to need a lot of care, while more people—about two-thirds—get away with the full loot to leave to their children because they do not happen to need care. That lottery is unjustifiable.
I have been in politics for some time and, frankly, I thought that it would be a tremendous advantage if, at reasonable cost, we could get this issue of paying for care off the agenda and concentrate on the things that really matter—the money that has to go into care services, the way that those services are organised and the way that individuals get more control over those services. The issue of the old having to sell their homes to pay for care is a distraction from a more important debate, and the proposals, at modest cost, will take it off the agenda. It is right to proceed with them, but I am sorry that the cap changed from £75,000 to £72,000 and that it has been brought in a year earlier as a result of the Budget. That means increased Exchequer costs earlier, which is robbing money that should go on services.
Incidentally—this is a side issue, but important—the administrative burden on local authorities is quite alarming. Getting this done by 2016 is a major deal. Authorities will need to invest huge amounts in systems, staff, advice and all these things—perhaps £500 million just for the administrative costs. The Government must—I repeat, must—pay for that in full, but it will be nip and tuck as to whether it is done in an orderly fashion to the new timetable. If that had not been done, we would have had a little extra money. At quite modest cost, the government scheme could be tweaked to do more for those with relatively modest wealth and we would not have to worry as much that all the benefits were going to the better-off.
This now gets a bit geeky, but I will persist. The Government propose to raise to £123,000 the limit on how much wealth you can have before you stop getting means-tested support. That is good; it represents the value of a cheap house in some parts of the country. However, it is not very good. I do not know how many noble Lords are fully aware of this but, in fact, if you have £123,000 in assets and that modest house, all the money that the Government are trying to give you under the means test will be taken away from you. Why is that? It is because of a little-known thing called the tariff. Under the present system, for every £250 that you have in excess of about £14,000 in assets, you lose £1 a week in benefit. You would require a 20% return on your savings—£50 a year on £250—to benefit. The money is taken out of your pocket by this tariff in the means test as it is put in by the increase in the ceiling.
How could this be changed? It could be done easily. Suppose that the tariff was changed so that, instead of losing £1 for every £250 of your assets, you lost £1 for every £500. Therefore, those with assets of up to £123,000 would get decent benefits from the state towards the costs of care. Nor would the cost to the state be great. According to the academics whom I quoted, the cost would be around £150 million—less than a sixth of the cost of the Government’s proposals. A small slice would go to those with modest income and wealth and, if necessary, it would reduce the very large slice going to those with substantial income and wealth. In other words, if this proposal were to be combined with the cap proposals, we would have a much less regressive package. If it were necessary to fund it by raising the cap from £72,000 to, say, £80,000 or a little more, that would be a price well worth paying for a more socially just solution.
My party has rightly criticised the Government, mildly, because their plan does not do enough for the less well-off. Here is a ready-made solution. The Minister was described at a meeting earlier this afternoon as a saint. I would not dissent from that. I do not mean to be offensive to the noble Earl, but he would not like the tag put on him that he cares only for the better-off. When the Bill goes to Committee, I am confident that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will stand up and accept amendments to reduce the tariff to £1 for every £500, thereby making this Bill much more progressive and helpful to those hard-working people on modest incomes who want their fortunes to be protected.
Social Care Funding
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, and pay tribute to his work over many years in this field and in the royal commission some years ago. I will convey his wishes to my noble friend and other members of the usual channels. I agree that it would be unsatisfactory to have an unduly short debate on a complex and important subject.
As regards the thresholds, I hope I can reassure him. It is our intention, as I mentioned, to introduce clauses into the care and support Bill when it reaches Parliament that would embody the essence of the Dilnot proposals but to leave it to regulations to set the relevant numbers for the cap and the means test, for example, so that it would be a relatively easy matter for a future Government, if they so wished in brighter economic circumstances, to change those figures if they felt that that was the right thing to do.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, better half a loaf than no loaf at all and, to that extent, I welcome the Government’s Statement. Does the Minister agree with all noble Lords who have spoken who have emphasised the importance of all-party agreement, if it can be obtained on this subject, so that old people know the background they have to plan against when looking to their futures? With that in mind, will he meet one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Hunt by trying to make this package slightly more favourable to the less well off and not, as it is, somewhat, at the moment tilted towards the better off, so that it is easier to achieve that all-party agreement and to go forward united to something that all old people will so greatly welcome?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I am with him in spirit. I say that because not only do I believe in cross-party consensus on a matter as important as this, but I hope he will accept from me that the way we have tried to structure this package, taking the cap and the means test in combination, has precisely been to target those of more modest means. Currently only those with assets of less than £23,250 and a low income receive help from the state with their care costs. Our changes will mean that those with property value and savings of £100,000 or less in 2010 prices will start to receive financial support. That means that the most support will go to those in greatest need. I am advised that had we, for example, opted for a higher means-test threshold, it would not in practice have brought into the net that many more people. We felt that the fairest way of cutting the cake was to try to concentrate the benefit on those of lowest means while also removing the fear of catastrophic care costs from everybody in the system.
Social Care
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, it is said that there are many Members of your Lordships’ House who habitually recite Trollope in their sleep, but I do not think many of them will have read his novel The Fixed Period, and I do not suggest that they do because it is pretty dreadful. It is set on the island of Brittanula where the law says that on reaching the very advanced age of 67—two years less than the age of the average Member of your Lordships’ House—people should be admitted to the college, as it is called, to spend a final year reflecting on their life. Then they are placed in a warm bath amid the smell of incense and their veins are opened so their life flows away. It turns out that this solution to the problems that we are considering today has certain disadvantages—for example, healthy inhabitants in their 66th year frequently try to flee the island—but, and this is the serious point, if we continue as we are in this country, the disadvantages of Brittanula may seem as nothing compared with the disadvantages of continuing life into an old age which, for poor people in particular, is characterised by neglect and degradation on an incomparable scale.
The signs of stress are already there. Fewer councils provide home care services for those with less than substantial needs. There are tales of care homes on the verge of bankruptcy because they cannot afford to provide decent services on the inadequate rates local authorities pay and of 15-minute home visits, which is barely time to change a diaper, let alone to have a chat.
The Government have sought to take some steps to mitigate the worst effects of fiscal stringency, although whether the extra money notionally made available is actually flowing through to services on the ground is another matter. Care services have been cut by less than other services, as the excellent IFS briefing circulated for this debate shows. There has been a cut of 4% in social care, but planning and development has been cut by 43%. However, this is cold comfort, for the plain fact is that we should not be contemplating spending less on care services—that is, if we want to avoid the Trollope solution—but more because the number of older people is growing rapidly. The number of those aged 65 or more will go up by 27% between 2010 and 2022, according to the OPCS. We should be spending more because the number of old people in impaired health at the end of life is increasing. There will be a 32% rise in those with disabilities in that period, according to the PSSRU at the LSE. The old hope that as we lived longer, we would have shorter or the same periods of ill health at the end of our life is unfortunately not necessarily being realised, and more people seem to be lingering on in more difficult states. We should be spending more because the cost of providing care will escalate. You cannot readily increase productivity in care in the way you can in some other walks of life. Just think about it; how do you change a nappy quicker? We should be spending more, increasingly, I am afraid, as the Government’s anti-immigration policies bite, making it harder to attract decent staff.
We are not allowed visual aids in this Chamber, or I should now hold up the notorious Barnet graph of doom, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. It shows what the council expects to spend on services and, on another line, what it expects to be allowed to spend in total. By 2030, spending on social services alone, the bulk of that on old people, exceeds the total budget. Either no bins will be emptied in Barnet and there will be no libraries or parks—no town hall, even—or there will be further big cuts for old people.
It is important that the more that needs to be spent does not have to be just public money; we know there are restrictions on that. There is private money available, most particularly, the very large sums that increasing numbers of people have locked up in a valuable asset; namely, their house. It is surely right that they contribute from that to the cost of their care and do not just give it to their children, much though they may wish to do so, and as desirable as it often is. Their care should come first. Of course, half the people in care homes at the moment do not have to pay because their wealth and income are too low. There will need to be public money for them.
Where does Dilnot fit into this? We are in danger of confusing Dilnot with the shortage of funds. Dilnot is not aimed at the shortage of funds problem. It is aimed at quite a different problem: the care lottery which means that some people, the better-off people, will not need to spend anything on care because they will live to a hearty age and then die, whereas others will need to find literally hundreds of thousands of pounds to fund their care. That is deeply unfair.
The Dilnot solution has attracted consensus support. I am part of that consensus, but with one proviso. Public spending is limited. The more we spend to implement Dilnot, the less we will have to put in place better care services. We are given a choice, and we have to be careful that it is weighted in favour of decent care services, not in favour of more help for people to pay for them. I favour Dilnot, but on as cheap a basis as possible, with a £75,000 cap the minimum that should be contemplated, as was floated in the White Paper.
Finally, and wearily, I turn to the integration of health and social care. Wearily for this reason: I, we, all of us have been talking about this for years and years. It features in every single report that comes out on the subject, and to say that progress is “patchy” is to take an extremely optimistic view. I am afraid that I do not expect that to change soon. Everybody pays lip service to integrated care, but the brute fact is that, on one side, you have local authority budgets with one set of incentives, including the incentive to pass as much cost as possible to health authorities; and, on the other side, you have health authorities with another set of incentives, including the incentive to pass as much cost as possible to local authorities. While that persists, we will not get very far. Without integrated budgets, you will not get integrated services. It is as simple as that in principle, if extremely hard to put right in practice.