Children and Families Bill

Debate between Lord Low of Dalston and Baroness Hollins

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment and I wish to give my full support to my noble friend Lord Rix, who moved it. It would place a duty on local authorities to deliver the social care services identified in education, health and care plans. The contention of the noble Lord, myself and the other noble Lords who have their names on the amendment is that there is very little point in assessing a child or young person’s needs, identifying social care needs and putting them in the education and health plan, and then not making the plan enforceable in respect of social care as it is in respect of education provision.

As I think the noble Lord, Lord Rix, indicated, the amendment would add no new duties on local authorities to provide social care in addition to those that already exist. It merely brings together the legislation on education, health and care plans and existing social care legislation. There is currently a misconception that the social care duties in respect of disabled children are not specifically enforceable for an individual child. However, as I think the Government accept, this duty does already exist under Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The proposal contained in this amendment would help to correct this misconception.

The Government have argued that a proposal to create an individually owed duty in relation to social care would prioritise one group of children in need over another. However, there is already an individually owed duty to disabled children in Section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, as I indicated, which is not enjoyed by other children in need. We had a good discussion about this in one of the Minister’s meetings with Peers, which I think we all found very valuable in developing our understanding of the Bill. I think we managed to elucidate in that discussion that if one were going to establish priorities between different groups of recipients of social care, it would have to be done at a prior stage to the formulation of the education, health and care plan. If the authority has got to the point of identifying social care needs and putting them in the plan, it really does not make any sense in terms of integrated education, health and social care provision not to make the provision identified in the plan enforceable.

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, add my support to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rix, which aims to ensure that children and young people receive the care to which they are entitled. I empathise with the battle to get health, education and social care agencies to work together; it is one that I waged on behalf of my son in the past. I know, of course, that I am not alone here and that parents across the country face this uphill struggle.

The absence of a duty to deliver the social care elements of the plan sends out the dangerous message that care is unimportant alongside education and health provisions. It is, as my noble friend says, the poor cousin. For children and young people with a learning disability and their families, this could not be further from the truth. Good social care plays an important part in helping the child or young person achieve their educational goals. That is accepted, whether it is in relation to independent living, supported employment, employment or moving on to further learning. Good social care prevents burnout in families. I understand and am glad that the Government have accepted that there is an issue here, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Welfare Reform Bill

Debate between Lord Low of Dalston and Baroness Hollins

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Low of Dalston]

My Lords, I understand that short speeches are the order of the day so that we may make progress. I shall therefore try to make a short one. I put my name to this amendment because I feel very strongly that the proposal to time limit contributory ESA to one year is one of the most retrograde features of the Bill. At Second Reading, I identified as many as five things wrong with the Government’s position. I will not repeat all those here but I will refer to a sixth, which I did not quite crystallise at Second Reading. The matter was gone into in great detail in Committee, although I was unable to be present. However, I have carefully read the debate twice, most recently through the long watches of last night as I travelled back from Bangkok on an overnight flight with an active two year-old for company.

In any case, the argument emerges most starkly if one sticks to its bald outlines, which have to do with the basic unfairness of the proposal. This was incisively encapsulated by the Disability Benefits Consortium in the words of a woman with Parkinson’s disease. She said,

“There’s no guarantee that I’ll find a job in 12 months. It could take me much longer”.

At this point, one might interpolate, “especially in current economic conditions”.

She continued,

“I’ve worked all my life and paid for decades into the system on the understanding that there will be support if I need it. To be told that all this support could have an arbitrary time limit is both unfair and stressful”.

There are two aspects to this unfairness besides the one which I have just interpolated. First, the condition of sick and disabled people in the WRAG is such that their likelihood of being able to get into work within a year is remote in the extreme, especially in present conditions. As my noble friend Lord Patel has told us, the Government’s figures show that 94 per cent of people in the WRAG need support for longer than a year and a DWP research report entitled Routes onto Employment and Support Allowance, which was published last September, revealed that, despite its name, after 18 months, only 9 per cent of claimants who had previously been out of work on incapacity benefit had found work and still only 25 per cent of those who had entered ESA from work had found new employment. In these circumstances, as the lady quoted by the Disability Benefits Consortium said, to limit ESA to just one year is both arbitrary and unfair. It is in no way evidence-based and is simply cost-driven. The DWP estimates that by 2015-16, 700,000 people will lose their entitlement, of which 280,000 will lose it entirely, which will mean a loss of £94.25 a week.

The second unfairness resides in the breach of the contributory principle that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was so concerned about in Committee; that is, the breach of faith of citizens who have paid their national insurance contributions perhaps for 30 or 40 years in the belief that the support would be there if needed. A correspondent who wrote to me said:

“I believe it is totally wrong that people who have worked and paid tax plus national insurance for many years—36 in my case—should have their entitlement to state support time limited in this manner. It seems that the state is breaking its side of the contract at a time when people are most vulnerable”.

The Minister dismissed this in Committee. He said that national insurance contributions were to cover a wide range of contingencies, including the state pension and the NHS. He argued that a year was a reasonable amount of support to give someone when they got into difficulty. In a letter dated 10 January 2012 addressed to Cross-Bench Peers, to which my noble friend Lord Patel has referred, the Minister said that it strikes a reasonable balance between the needs of sick and disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost. But you might as well say that it was enough to give someone a pension for, say, three years to help them with the adjustment to retirement, after which they are on their own. Perhaps that will come to be the Government’s position: who knows? Anything is possible. Who would have thought that we would be reducing ESA support for which people have been contributing all their working lives to just one year?

Finally, I come to my sixth point, which I failed to develop at Second Reading. Ministers are constantly pointing to the unprecedented amount of support that they are putting in place to help people back or in to work. Only last night a statement was read out on the radio from a DWP spokesperson, which said:

“We are absolutely committed to supporting more disabled people into work. That is why this Government has protected the budget for specialist disability employment services. Aside from our disability employment advisers, we also have specialist teams at Jobcentre Plus who actively work with businesses to encourage them to interview disabled people with the right skills. Work Choice is expected to support more disabled people into employment each year than any of its predecessor government programmes”.

As regards specialist teams, Ministers have little idea of the reality. No Minister could go on the programme and this statement was read out in response to a blind woman—an able person with a lifetime of successful, professional employment, who had been made redundant last May. She told a woeful tale of the poor advice and lack of support that she had received. She received none of the interviews or training that had been promised. She is very eager to find a new job but few, if any, openings have been drawn to her attention. Despite repeated requests, no information has been provided in an accessible form. Her adviser seemed to have had little training. I know the woman concerned and on one occasion she told me that she felt she could do the adviser’s job better than the adviser.

The Work Programme is not working. In these circumstances it is not only unfair but downright cruel to time-limit contributory ESA to one year. At present it is unlimited. To reduce the level of support to just one year at a stroke is draconian in the extreme. I would drop Clause 51 entirely but I am a realist and recognise that, to have any prospect of success, compromise will be necessary. The amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Patel is surely the least one could make to ameliorate the draconian nature of the Government’s proposal. I very much hope, too, that in the light of their conference’s decision to oppose the time-limiting of contributory ESA last September, Liberal Democrat colleagues will search their consciences and also give my noble friend’s amendment their support.

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, local health charities and services are also very concerned about the impact of time-limiting ESA. They are well aware of how difficult it is for people with severe and enduring mental illness to obtain and to sustain employment, especially at a time of deficit. My postbag is full of angry letters. One correspondent wrote to say that her brother took his own life largely due to difficulties in his working environment. She wrote:

“I personally have only ever managed a very chequered career due to living with complex mental health conditions and welcome any effort on the part of our Government to encourage a mental-health friendly workplace and specialist schemes to support people with mental health conditions into work, but”—

and here is the rub—

“on a voluntary basis because I am deeply concerned that any system built on a backdrop of conditionality, sanctions and time limits will prove to be totally counterproductive, leading to fear, anger and disengagement”.

I could speak at great length about some of the many issues that have been raised with me and I support this amendment.