Abortion

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this debate. I want to deal very briefly with two points. First, I have seen it suggested that abortion on the ground of sex selection is lawful, or not unlawful, in this country. I do not believe that is correct. The law is quite clear that an attempt to procure abortion before the Act was unlawful and now the Act allows abortion to be lawful on four grounds, none of which is sex selection. Therefore it is absolutely clear that the law prohibits that as a ground of abortion in this country.

Responsibility for seeing that the law is observed in this area, as in other areas, is with the prosecuting authorities, including the police and the DPP. The DPP has drawn attention to difficulties in relation to the arrangements that have been sanctioned by the Department of Health in this connection. My noble friend Lord Howe may have some comment to make on that. I cannot see how a medical practitioner could pre-sign the form in a way that conforms with the statute. My noble friend said that the law is construed in such a way as to allow abortion on demand, but the law does not do that at all. It is quite wrong to suggest that the signing of the form could be done responsibly without proper knowledge of the situation of the patient at the time.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself in a strange position, because I agree in part with the amendment moved by the noble Earl and in part with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, although that is not a solution.

I agree with the noble Earl that we need to find a way of reconfiguring NHS services. That reconfiguration cannot just be done through dealing with failing hospitals. It must include other hospitals which currently seem to be delivering good-quality services. We have to find a way out of that. The question is therefore whether the amendment allows us to move forward with reconfiguring NHS services. This is where I find myself more in tune with the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that it may not and that more is required.

Another concern I have is that the commissioners may express views. I would like some explanation of why the commissioners of the NHS foundation trust are to be treated separately from those who commission services from other hospitals. Another issue is that, if the commissioners disagree, NHS England would make the decision. That means that, ipso facto, they will agree with a special administrator—or they will not. In that case, what happens?

Another issue is consultation. Clearly, none of the configuration can occur smoothly unless the public are consulted. At what point will the special administrator consult both the public served by the failing hospital and the public served by the hospital that is not failing but whose services may require reconfiguration?

In summary, therefore, there is a need for amendments that will allow us to move forward with the reconfiguration of services throughout England. In that respect, I am with the noble Earl, but I wonder if he needs to go a bit further. He might consider looking at this further and tabling more amendments at a later stage.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, there is of course quite a long process still to be gone through on the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has said, it seems clear that there is a serious problem. It occurs to me that the special administrator’s primary emphasis will be on the trust to which he or she has been appointed. It is also obvious that changes to one trust may affect neighbouring trusts. Some solution to the problems in the special administrator’s trust may rely on something done in a neighbouring trust.

On the other hand, in that situation it is extremely important that concentration on the problems of the neighbouring trust is given considerable emphasis. Otherwise, the situation may be distorted by too great an emphasis on the special administrator’s trust at the expense of neighbouring trusts brought in to try to help. I wonder whether the wise course might be for us to accept the amendment, in so far as it goes, with an undertaking that, as the Bill proceeds in the other place, that matter would be seriously considered.

This may be an opportunity for legislation that will not quickly arise again. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, there is a serious problem and it might not be wise to put it off indefinitely. I can see the difficulties and understand the situation of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, but it is very difficult to see how to sort this out today. On the other hand, it might be unwise to lose the opportunity to take a step forward in the hope of improving the situation in later stages of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Patel]

I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Willis of Knaresborough, just said. All of the research councils and charities support these amendments. There are the caveats to which he referred, particularly related to clinical trials and data. There is another important issue about the summary given at the conclusion of the research, which not only has to protect the confidentiality of the patients but also needs to be brief, because otherwise it is too cumbersome. On the whole, these amendments that we debated long and hard are most welcome.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I also agree with the view that these are important headings. The precise detail has been mentioned by the noble Lord. Regarding paragraph (c) of Amendment 167, I think that access to the data is quite important although it requires consideration. It is important that the experiment or trial can be repeated. One of the difficulties in the past has sometimes been the announcement of research findings. When those in the same area tried to find out exactly what the findings were based on, there was some difficulty in repeating the experiment and occasionally there was something seriously wrong with the research. Therefore, access to the data certainly has to be kept in view if one is going to have proper transparency. However, I accept that, like paragraph (c) of Amendment 167 and the other paragraphs, it requires an amount of restriction in certain cases.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s decision in Amendment 167 to support the recommendation of the Joint Committee on promoting transparency in research and ensuring full publication of the results of research consistent with patient confidentiality. It is right that this should be a statutory objective of the Health Research Authority. The arguments in support of this at the Committee stage from noble Lords were very compelling and, since then, have been strongly reinforced by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee report into clinical trials and, indeed, the strategy and ongoing work undertaken by HRA itself.

In particular, HRA’s September announcement requiring registration of clinical trials in a publicly accessible database as a condition of ethical acceptance—taking up a longstanding recommendation of the Association of Medical Research Charities—recognises the overwhelming support for this agenda. The HRA has much to do in the coming months to develop its guidance into practical measures, but the Bill now gives clear and explicit direction to its work. The HRA has stressed that it expects the vast majority of researchers, sponsors and funders to embrace the plans to realise greater openness, responsible data sharing and publication of all results, and this is very welcome news.

It is so important for patients and the public to have confidence that the research they have been involved in will be used in the best way to improve understanding and health outcomes for the groups involved. Improved transparency is vital if more patients are to be encouraged to become involved in clinical research—one of the key ambitions of AMRC’s excellent vision for research in the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, referred to reservations. I was going to raise them and I am glad he did. I look forward to the Minister’s response. He may need to write to us in detail about those reservations and his response to that, or there might be a need for some small rewording of the draft provisions before Third Reading.

Finally, we recognise that the HRA is strongly committed to working with other bodies to overcome the barriers to transparency and create a culture of openness. Changing culture is, however, a tough call in the NHS. We also know from the AMRC research survey covering both doctors and nurses that we have a long way to go to get NHS staff to take part in research in the first place, let alone sign up to the transparency agenda. GPs are an important gateway for getting patients involved in research. However, although a majority of GPs surveyed believed it very important for the NHS to support research and treatment for their patients, only 32% of those surveyed felt it was very important for them to be personally involved. Will the Government ensure that HRA and HEE work closely on this very important issue of buy-in to research and transparency by NHS staff? How will they ensure that the CCGs fully engage in this agenda?

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Campbell of Surbiton (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 83. I would have spoken on this in Committee, but unfortunately I was drowning in continuity of care. I feel that we are missing an important aspect in the debate: namely, the provider’s voice. I will give noble Lords an example from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We ran an inquiry into Article 13 of the UN convention on the rights of disabled people. We took evidence from a range of providers, including private sector providers. We heard very good evidence from a private sector provider. When they were questioned about the Human Rights Act, it became evident that there was a great deal of confusion about when their homes were covered and when they were not. They erred towards saying, “No, we don’t think we’re covered because we haven’t been trained in that area”.

It became very evident to me that there was a crying need for clarification in this area. I asked a very simple question about what the witness thought that this meant for her private sector homes. She said, “Well, to be honest, we already do it. We allow our residents to go to bed at whatever time they like before 10 pm”. I feel that the misunderstanding of how the Human Rights Act covers private sector care homes was illustrated in that one moment. Therefore, the law needs clarifying—and this clarification would be welcomed not only by private sector care home providers.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, my name is on the amendment and, of course, I warmly support it. My noble and learned friend, Lord Hope of Craighead, analysed the situation in full, and in a way that in my view was absolutely correct and worthy of being followed. It is quite something for me to realise that my pupil has returned here as a result of his age, but obviously so far his acumen has been in no way affected.

The department says that people who provide this sort of care should consider themselves bound by the Human Rights Act. Why? Is that a mistake? No. So let us make it correct. Let us make sure that they are bound by the Human Rights Act. We are doing exactly what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, suggested: where a particular function is to be regarded as of a public nature, the easiest thing to do is to say that. That is exactly what the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Low, does.

I do not wish to get into the history of the previous Administration. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, came to the battlefront on that on previous occasions in my hearing. I do not know anything at all about that. However, there are two ways of approaching this. One is to consider amending the Human Rights Act, which I think was happening until the demise of the previous Government put an end to their considerations. The other is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neuberger, said: do not trouble with trying to provide a better policy in the Human Rights Act but say when you want it to apply. That is exactly what is required here.

I sincerely hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment—or that he will table his own amendment at Third Reading. I also hope that this will not be a matter on which we will have to test the opinion of the House, because we agree on the policy that the Human Rights Act should apply. The only question is whether the law has been properly framed to deal with that—and we can have no higher authority speaking on that matter in this House than a retired member of the Supreme Court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I share, of course, the concern of all noble Lords that we should take all reasonable steps to protect vulnerable people who receive social care in whatever circumstances. I enter this debate for the first time with considerable trepidation, having regard to the great distinction of those, both present and absent, who support this amendment. I have to express some real doubts about it.

As far as I am aware this is the first time an attempt has been made to include, within the scope of the Human Rights Act, what may be a purely private function. Those who receive care may not be overly concerned with whether it is being provided by a public authority, a private provider, or in some hybrid arrangement. Nevertheless, this amendment is in effect extending the scope of the convention beyond the terms of the Human Rights Act.

It is important to consider what protection would be available anyway, in the absence of this amendment. If a poor standard of care is provided to an individual, it is likely that the provider will be in breach of an express term of any contract or in breach of a term implied by the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. There will almost certainly be a claim in tort, probably relying on the tort of negligence. There is, of course, a further safeguard in relation to all providers of publicly arranged care, in that all such providers have a duty imposed by Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, at least following what I would submit was the closing of the YL loophole by Section 145 of the Health and Social Care Act. The CQC, as a regulator and a public authority, is subject to the convention.

However, the amendment would, as I understand it, purport to provide some additional remedy; presumably some award of damages. The noble Lord should be aware of the relatively limited scope of damages awards under the Human Rights Act. As Lord Bingham said in the Greenfield case in 2005,

“the 1998 Act is not a tort statute. Its objects are different and broader. Even in a case where a finding of violation is not judged to afford the applicant just satisfaction, such a finding will be an important part of his remedy and an important vindication of the right he has asserted. Damages need not ordinarily be awarded to encourage high standards of compliance by member states, since they are already bound in international law to perform their duties under the Convention in good faith, although it may be different if there is felt to be a need to encourage compliance by individual officials or classes of official”.

The House of Lords also emphasised that the Human Rights Act was not to be regarded as a panacea. Indeed, Lord Bingham went on in Greenfield to say that the purpose of the Act,

“was not to give victims better remedies at home than they could recover in Strasbourg”.

However, that would be the position here if this amendment was passed. My conclusion is that the amendment amounts to an illegitimate extension of the Human Rights Act and would not, in reality, provide any significant extra protection for those who, quite understandably, we wish to protect.

The future of the Human Rights Act will have to await the outcome of the next election. However, amending the Act, which is what in effect this will do, would be inappropriate and, I have to say, unnecessary.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can he explain what, in his view, the remedy is for the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Warner, referred?

[Lord Faulks]

I understand that in the case to which the noble Lord referred, there was a private provider. There would therefore be the remedies I referred to earlier in my remarks—the normal remedies that those who receive services through a private arrangement would have. The Human Rights Act of course is concerned entirely with remedies against public authorities. I respectfully suggest that one must not lose sight of the remedies that exist, and have always existed, in relation to breaches or violations of anybody’s rights in the circumstances described.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

The noble Lord sat down without answering the question that I asked him, which I am very keen for him to answer. My understanding is that this elderly lady was in a home and she was given full notice to leave; there was no question of any breach of contract or anything of that kind. Therefore, the sorts of remedies to which the noble Lord has referred would not be available, whereas under the Human Rights Act there is at least a very considerable probability that she would have some protection.

[Lord Faulks]

I am sorry that I did not answer the question adequately for the noble and learned Lord. My response is that actually the Human Rights Act remedies, which I endeavoured to deal with in my remarks, would not of themselves provide the sort of remedy that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, had in mind. As was outlined by Lord Bingham in the Greenfield case, the remedies are in fact very limited, very often amounting to a decision that there has been a violation, rather than the sort of practical remedy that I understand the noble Lord to have in mind. That is my response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

My Lords, I wish to address the one word “otherwise”. I come under that category of otherwise. Since arriving in the House—let me see now, when was it? I am getting quite old; I can put the wrong statistics down on pieces of paper. Yes, I think it was 2011. I have in the course of the time since then turned up at the House on the wrong day. I got it wrong—not deliberately, not fraudulently, but for “otherwise” reasons—because I am old. I forget to have my post redirected during the Recess and come back to a mountain of post which I have not been able to answer, all because I get the dates wrong. That is because I am old.

As people get older, life gets more threatening. The bureaucracy weighs down on us more and we are frightened of authority. That is why I choose to support my colleague in—which amendment is it? Yes, Amendment 120.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, it occurs to me that the problem has been created by the use of the word “fraudulent”. It tends to suggest that the word “otherwise” is in some way connected with that. I wonder whether one could not take out that whole phrase in brackets. The idea is that, because of some mistake, something extra has been paid out. Ordinarily, it might be perfectly all right to recover that. You do not need to look into the detail of why it was wrong. The person in question—vulnerable people particularly, and those who are not so vulnerable, more recently arrived—may fall into error. The error may result in extra payments out by the local authority which, in ordinary circumstances, it should be able to recover. “Fraudulently” gives an idea of people trying to put something over on someone, and “otherwise” tends to be coloured by the same adverb. Perhaps this problem could be dealt with in that way.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we agree with the general view expressed by noble Lords that we must ensure that vulnerable elderly people are protected and are not discouraged from seeking help when they need it. However, I do not agree with the conclusions reached by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and I regret to have to say that the manner in which he has expressed his concerns risks causing unnecessary worry to people who need care and support. Let me be clear: this power is not there to punish people, as the noble Lord put it, and should be used by local authorities only as a last resort, as I shall explain. Its purpose is to ensure that any charges that should have been paid can subsequently be recovered. It is not to penalise people unduly. But neither should the system reward mistakes or prevent unpaid charges being recovered. This would not only undermine the principle of personal responsibility, it could also result in local authorities having less money to provide care and support to those who need it the most. In practice, it means in some cases a licence to subsidise the better off at the expense of the worse off. Is that really what the noble Lord wants? The use of this power is to recover a debt and is not intended to imply a judgment about the person’s culpability. It does not look for the mens rea; it exists to ensure only that charges not paid can be recovered, as the equivalent current powers do now.

The principle of this provision is not new; the power is 60 years old. The noble Lord likes to make out that we are doing something radically new, but that is not the case. We recognise that there may be a number of reasons why someone has not paid the full amount of the charges due to the local authority, including misrepresentations of their assets which were entirely unintentional. But even where the reason is an accident or a mistake, local authorities still suffer a loss and must be able to recover that loss if there is no other means of doing so. This is public money.

One of the objectives of the Bill is to make access to care and support easier and more focused on people with care and support needs and their families. We expect local authorities to help and support people with care and support needs, discussing any concerns they have and providing advice and assistance as appropriate. This would include advice to help people understand the process of financial assessment and their responsibility to disclose financial assets. I absolutely fail to see why the noble Lord thinks it is socially just to allow people who misrepresent or fail to disclose their assets, whether intentionally or not, to receive more than their fair share of financial support. I reiterate that to do so would reduce the resources available to other people with care and support needs. That is what his prescription amounts to. I am concerned that this amendment would risk making it much easier for people to take advantage of the system and avoid charges and subsequent legal action. What the noble Lord is suggesting is that people could be as careless as they liked when filling out the form. Is that what he wants? The high evidential burden that local authorities would have to meet to recover debts risks making this power largely useless in practice. It would leave local authorities facing costly and uncertain legal action if they chose to pursue the matter.

Let me be clear on another point. A local authority should not, as a matter of course, use these powers to recover debts without first having discussed other options with the individual concerned. In most cases, especially those where the failure to pay the correct charges was inadvertent, there would be other simpler routes to follow, such as agreeing a repayment plan which allows for recovery over time in a way that is manageable. The noble Lord suggests that local authorities may exercise these powers in a way that will drive people out of their own homes. Quite aside from the fact that we have no evidence that local authorities behave in that way and have used their existing powers like that, I have to say that I find that assertion particularly unconvincing.

Local authorities are bound by the public law principle of acting reasonably at all times and must act in accordance with human rights legislation, as well as the well-being principle, which we have already debated. That alone should prevent a local authority using this power to force someone out of their home. The noble Lord is stretching our credulity if he is asking us to imagine a set of circumstances in which a court would make an order in favour of a local authority knowingly to evict a person from their home in this kind of situation. It would be counterproductive in the extreme. Should there be any possibility of this happening, we would use statutory guidance to make the position clear. Indeed, where I do think further action is needed is in the form of guidance. We will use statutory guidance under the Bill to set out the steps that we expect local authorities to take. For example, we would expect a local authority to discuss the situation with the cared-for person and their family when appropriate to establish what, if anything, is owed to the local authority; if there is a debt, to establish whether it is appropriate to recover it, because the local authority does not have to recover it—it can choose not to do so; and, lastly, if money needs to be recovered, to find an affordable way for the money to be repaid. As I have said, whether or not the person could have been reasonably aware of something that needed to be included in the financial assessment is one of the factors that the local authority should consider when deciding whether it is appropriate to recover a debt.

We plan to engage with local authorities in the wider sector on what happens at present and how this could be improved. I accept the need for effective communication about financial assessment and the recovery of charges. This highlights the importance of high quality information and advice, including financial advice, which was debated last week, and the importance of the new duties we are placing on local authorities in this regard. Should mistakes be made, people will not be criminalised, nor will any punitive charges be imposed, but ultimately it is right that mistakes are rectified so that individuals do not benefit from any errors they make, whether they were intentional or not. Neither local authorities nor those who rely on their services should be disadvantaged, but the amendment as it stands runs the risk of failing on all these counts.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that the debt recovery power, while to be used only as a last resort, remains important. There is nothing that people should fear from its use. I therefore hope that the noble Lord, on reflection and at this late time, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome how far the Minister has moved from Committee to today. I hope that noble Lords will not think it churlish of me to say that perhaps he might be persuaded to move a little further. I will speak first to Amendment 60, which seeks to oblige a local authority to provide advice and information about what can be done in the event of an emergency, or if needs change. I am specifically talking about what I think we have referred to before as people with fluctuating conditions and needs. We know that there are many millions of people in the country who have fluctuating conditions such as multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, HIV, Crohn’s, colitis, epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease, and there may be many others. Therefore, we are talking about a significant number of people who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill.

Not long ago I was talking to a woman in a wheelchair who had MS. She was very lively, bubbly and sparky, and she said to me: “You know, I’m not always like this. Some days I go down and I can’t even get out of bed, so don’t judge my condition by the way you see me today”. I took that very much to heart, and it is clearly the sort of situation that this amendment is about. As the Bill is currently drafted under Clause 25, it would not really make provision for such situations.

This amendment is actually operationally simple. It would help to ease the pressure placed on formal and informal carers, and would give them more certainty. Not only will it ensure that individuals get the timely care that they need when they need it but, equally importantly, it has the potential to prevent costly and unnecessary hospital admissions. If this amendment is not in place, there is always the possibility that with a downward fluctuation in condition, the person without the support will then have to be hospitalised. That in itself is costly and is utterly undesirable from the point of view of the person who could be helped in the home if this amendment were to be passed.

Local authorities are surely in a position to provide better tailored care, to promote confidence and control and allow people to prepare for such rises and falls in their care needs. The current drafting does not allow for it. A snapshot was taken by the NRAS—the National Rheumatoid Arthritis Society—which indicated that currently more than 30% of respondents with rheumatoid arthritis have been admitted to emergency care as a result of a flare-up in the disease in the past year. This is something which I trust could be prevented if we changed the way in which this clause was to operate. A survey of 1,000 people with MS revealed that 95% of respondents felt that better services during a relapse or a sudden deterioration of their condition would help them to maintain their independence. More than 80% said that they want to be able to plan their care and support in advance of that care being required. This amendment would help people whose conditions might suddenly worsen and, as I said earlier, would potentially prevent unnecessary and costly hospital admissions.

I turn to Amendment 61. As the wording of the Bill in Clause 27 states, local authorities have the power to generally review care plans. However, they are not required to specify when they anticipate that these reviews will take place. This amendment seeks to put some certainty into the process. There should be an agreed date between the adult and the local authority upon which a review of the care and support plan would be offered. I envisage a discussion between the local authority and the person concerned about the best way in which their care needs can be met.

An anticipated review date, agreed between the local authority and the adults, would provide stability and certainty to those being cared for. It is not a large change but it would be beneficial for the people concerned. I do not want to spell out with examples where people have said what a difference it would make if they had this element of certainty. I would like this amendment to be passed, which will give the adult the confidence that their care would continue as agreed until the specified date or until the adult themselves chooses to request a review in line with Clause 27(1)(b).

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I generally support these government amendments, and thank the Minister for introducing them. There is just one small point I want to mention, which has been raised in my mind by the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in relation to Amendment 33.

I had understood paragraph (b) of Amendment 33 to carry the implication that if something was found that would benefit the person in question as a result of examination of what is in (b), the needs assessment would include that. However, I just wonder whether the last part creates the possibility that if the benefit can be received from something in the community, outside the provisions that the local authorities have made, that would be excluded; in other words, it would tend to reduce the needs assessment. I had rather thought that the proper construction of this phrase would mean that that also should be taken into account as included in the needs assessment, and that, where it was available, the cost of it should be included in the needs assessment. Perhaps my noble friend will be able to clarify that point for me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, first, I turn to Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, which concerns the circumstances in which people wish to top up their own fees to pay for more expensive accommodation. To begin with, and for the avoidance of any doubt, I will emphasise that I agree that people should be able to choose to spend their own money on more expensive care, provided it is affordable. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, I want people to be able to choose to live in more expensive accommodation and gain from a cap on care costs, so that they pay part of the cost of care from their own savings and still receive local authority support.

Through the consultation and stakeholder engagement, we are seeking to better understand the impact of relaxing the rules on self-top-ups and to determine what protections may be needed for vulnerable people.

The answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is that consultation will close on 25 October. The Minister of State for Care and Support and departmental officials have, over the past quarter, attended a variety of events covering the care and support sector, local authorities and financial services providers. These have been broadly supportive of the principle that people should be able to contribute towards their care costs from their own assets. Stakeholders have also recognised that people need to make decisions which are financially sustainable for the long term, and that financial information and advice need to play an important role in achieving this. We will be able to provide a more comprehensive overview of the views expressed in our response to the consultation in the new year. I repeat that we are on the noble Lord’s side. Our only concern is to ensure that when we relax the rules, there are sufficient protections, both for the individual and for the local authority.

Amendment 56 concerns review of the operation of the capped-cost system. I am sure we can all agree unhesitatingly that these reforms need to be implemented effectively to deliver the outcomes we are striving for. The capped-cost system will provide peace of mind and protection against catastrophic costs and will target most help at those with the greatest need. I am confident that we can further agree that to deliver these benefits, we need good oversight. Therefore, I am with the noble Lords opposite in spirit. To that end, we will be reviewing and assuring both implementation and funding, and have committed to reviewing the core elements of the capped-costs system within each five-year period. We will also conduct post-legislative scrutiny, as the Government have committed to do across the board for all new Acts. The agreement we have with the Liaison Committee in the other place is that this should be done between three and five years after Royal Assent.

Furthermore, we have established the Joint Implementation and Programme Board with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. We will use this to work with local government on continuing assurance and improvement of the arrangements. We are confident that, in their totality, these arrangements provide generous opportunity for assurance and review to ensure that the reforms remain true to our vision.

For that reason, I do not believe it would be necessary or desirable to supplement these arrangements with a further review by additional oversight bodies, such as an independent ministerial advisory committee. Such additional oversight would cut across the scrutiny conducted by the Health Select Committee and cross-government planning on spending through spending rounds. I am sure that noble Lords opposite will not be totally satisfied with that, but I hope that they will be sufficiently reassured by the confirmation I have given that we will conduct a proper review of the operation and funding of these reforms through several channels. I hope that they will agree that this amendment is, therefore, unnecessary.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Before the Minister sits down, is he satisfied that, without the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, there is sufficient flexibility under the system as it is presently provided to allow for the sort of difficulties that are envisaged as possibly coming out after the consultation?

[Earl Howe]

I can reassure my noble and learned friend that, if we look at the arrangements we are proposing in combination, there will be sufficient mechanisms in place to take account of any unexpected wrinkles that emerge of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, perfectly reasonably anticipates; and to react and respond to those difficulties as appropriate. The answer, in a nutshell, is yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I declare all my interests in this field, which are listed. These amendments are incredibly important for patients who are dying. The Government’s amendment is to be welcomed; I can see no problems with it. It might sound bizarre but I have some slight anxieties over the wording in two places in Amendment 137. It refers to a preferred place of death, whereas I would rather see the words, “preferred place of care”. Many people who are dying know that they want to spend their last days, weeks or months at home. They want to have everything done to support them at home, particularly out of hours. We have debated this for some time within my own specialist teams and specialist services. We are worried that there could be two unintended consequences. People who are not yet ready to confront the fact that they really are dying will be pushed to have that conversation before they are ready, which would be traumatic. There could also be the unintended consequence of some kind of target developing and patients being whipped out of one place of care.

The difficulty we see clinically is that when clinical situations change, patients sometimes change their mind. It is not uncommon for someone who originally said they wanted to die at home to say, when they really are dying, that they feel safer where they are and want their family brought in and as much of a home environment created as possible. It may be the regulations at ward level, or the way in which they are interpreted, which are blocking that and need to be addressed. For example, it does not matter at all if you have a husband on an all-female ward, but I have occasionally known staff to think that it does and that it is not appropriate to have a man stay overnight, which is absolutely appalling. Staff need to recreate the home environment where that person is as much as possible. However, if they have complex needs or unstable symptoms, they may well feel safer in whichever place they are, whether it is hospice or hospital.

In looking at the amendment I also tried to get some details of how many patients are successful under the DS1500 special rules. It is quite difficult, because I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions does not routinely collect that data. However, it seems as if in the year 2011-12, 11% of all successful claims were for the category of patients who were deemed to be terminally ill. One of the difficulties when you are looking at local authority charges for adult social care is that we cannot predict prognosis. That is always the catch with defining terminal illness. We are making our best guess, as it says in the Welfare Reform Act, as to whether someone can “reasonably be expected” to die within six months, but it is no better than that. It is a guess. There are patients who outlive their prognosis. I understand that the DWP does not push for reassessment inside three years, so there is quite a lengthy period of leeway. The potential difficulty that I can see unless this is really thought through and costed is that if somebody turns out not to be dying, what will then happen? Would they be forced to go through a reassessment? Would that then be used to try to claim back money from them afterwards? I raise those questions which would have to be thought through very carefully.

I certainly find it difficult—in fact, offensive—when people have to be assessed for care when they are quite clearly dying. However, there is that group of people you really do not know about. They appear as if they are dying. They tend to be more in the non-cancer rather than the cancer population, where their prognosis prediction becomes really difficult.

Those are just some caveats, although I support the spirit of the amendment wholeheartedly in terms of having patients where they want to be. However, as I said before, we need to focus on their place of care during their last days, weeks and months, and not only on their place of death.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I very much welcome government Amendment 57. Of course, I have supported the recommendation of the Joint Committee on this matter, and continue to do so. Subsection (a) of Amendment 137 is important as a way forward. However, the difficulties to which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has referred, are quite important in this connection. Many people in terminal situations would find a hospice one of the best places to go if that choice were open to them. Many people, of course, would prefer to die at home in a family situation. The hospices are normally able to engender a family atmosphere around death. People I have spoken to in the hospices have said, “If you have to die, this is the place to do so”; the “if” is not all that important.

There are practical questions to be taken into account, but it would be quite a step forward if the Government were able to come forward at Third Reading with an amendment which allowed some form of indication of the place of care, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, says, or the place where one would wish to terminate one’s life in a way that was registered, so that those responsible would be able to give effect to it, so far as is possible, having regard to the changes that can take place in the last few months, days and hours.

[Baroness Wheeler]

My Lords, we welcome another opportunity to consider the very important issue of how people are cared for at the end of their life. The Joint Committee on the Bill urged progress on this vital matter and strongly endorsed the case for the introduction at the earliest opportunity of free social care for terminally ill people. In this context, the Government’s amendment is very much work in progress as it makes explicit the local authority’s power to treat end-of-life care as urgent, in a similar way to how fast-tracked access to welfare benefits such as the disabled living allowance is expedited and works in practice under other legislation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay referred to. The amendment makes it clear that local authorities have the ability to consider the needs of terminally ill people as urgent and to meet their needs ahead of conducting assessments.

We welcome this provision. Many councils already fast track social care in this way, and I hope that this amendment will give those councils that do not the push and impetus that they need to take up this very self-evident and fundamental requirement. The new clause in the Bill is rightly welcomed by the Sue Ryder Foundation, Help the Hospices and Macmillan Cancer Support. However, as Macmillan also points out, the provision is permissive and does not legally require local authorities to meet a terminally ill person’s need for care and support without a needs or financial assessment.

We recognise that there is still much work to be done on this matter. The Government are currently undertaking a review and refocus of the end-of-life strategy and I read in the press over the summer that it was shortly to be published. It is now six years since the strategy was introduced under Labour so I would be grateful if the Minister could update the House on the timetable for that.

As we recognised during the debate in Committee, the results of the seven adult and one children’s palliative care pilots will be crucial to considering the move towards the provision of free end-of-life care as called for by the Joint Committee and as set out in Amendment 137 in the name of my noble friend Lord Warner, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel. We need to understand current patterns and resource use across health and social care at the end of life, and to have the vital data—from across care provided by the NHS, social care, and the voluntary and private sectors—from which the costs of an integrated end-of-life care system can be properly assessed. The Minister reassured the House that the pilots are on track, despite the handover of responsibility to NHS England and concerns that the work was falling behind. We certainly hope that this is the case as the pilot findings will be so important to how future services can be shaped and delivered.

We acknowledge and share the Government’s concerns about the issues raised in Amendment 137 that the infrastructure may not be in place to support people’s preferences about where they wish to die; commissioners need to be sure that the right services are in place in the community to support people being looked after in their home. My own party is currently working on this as part of our policy review and whole-person care commission, and I know that my noble friend Lord Warner’s contribution to that work will be much appreciated and valued. Enabling NHS patients to have the right to die in the place they regard as home or their normal residence can be achieved only if end-of-life care is fully integrated across the NHS, local councils and hospices, to foster mechanisms to make it achievable and not simply an aspiration.

Once again, the position of carers of people who are terminally ill, as well as those they are caring for, needs to remain to the fore when we are looking at this matter. In Committee my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley cited the Carers UK survey that showed just how much more support is needed for carers to help them think and plan for the end of life of the person they are caring for—something that we can and should be taking action on now. Many carers just do not know how to plan for the death of a loved one and how to try to look ahead when caring ends—returning to or taking up work, social contact and managing financially.

One of our bereaved carers I spoke to recently through our local Carer Support Elmbridge had had a nightmare experience over funding and not being able to ascertain who was paying for what in the transition from social care to NHS continuing care before her husband died. This included two months’ overpayment by social services, which had to be sorted out after the death, at a time of great anxiety about family finances. To add to this, an ambulance turned up two months after her husband’s death to take him to his routine blood test at the local hospital. Your Lordships can imagine how devastating this experience was for the carer. Sadly, this is not an isolated case, and an integrated end-of-life strategy has to make sure that these things do not happen.

Finally, in Committee I raised the issue of access to palliative care and end-of-life care for BME groups following the recent and alarming findings of the Marie Curie Cancer Care and Public Health England survey and the shockingly low use of these services among black, Asian and ethnic minority groups. The report identified major problems involving lack of knowledge about services, misunderstanding, mistrust and a lack of cultural sensitivity on the part of providers. In his August letter to noble Lords, the Minister referred to the work that NHS England is undertaking on this in conjunction with palliative care pilots. Will the Government be responding specifically to the Public Health England report, or is it part of the strategy review and refocus? Will the Minister set out for the House the Government’s outline timetable for the review and publication consultation, the timing of the publication of the pilot’s results, as requested by my noble friend Lord Warner, and the introduction of the new funding system for palliative care as promised for 2015?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I rise again as the keeper of the Dilnot tablets on the subject of deferred payments. If we had intended that access to a deferred payment scheme was to be limited to people with assets of less than £23,000, we would have said so in our report. That was not what we intended. I commend the report to the noble Lord, and I hope the House will forgive me if I just cite a few bits of it.

I refer the noble Lord to page 41 of our report. We said:

“Evidence submitted to the Commission suggests that the availability and use of deferred payment schemes is patchy”,

and we went on to explain that. The government consultation document suggests that it will continue to be pretty patchy as well because very few people are likely to come forward for this. We said—and this was a recommendation:

“At a minimum, the Commission recommends an extension to the current deferred payment scheme so that it is a full, universal offer across the country.”

That is what we said.

The Government have given the impression in various interviews—I have gone head to head with government spokesmen about this on a number of programmes—that they were going to support an extended deferred payment scheme and that it would be pretty much similar across the country. If you had a deferred payment scheme in Cumberland, it would look remarkably like a deferred payment scheme in Cornwall. It seems that we are getting into a position where none of this will be the case. It is pretty rough on the public if the Government and their spokesmen are giving the impression that they are implementing the Dilnot recommendations on deferred payment schemes when they are palpably not doing so under the present set of proposals as I understand them.

It is not too late for the sinner to repent—the consultation period is open until later this month. However, it is necessary to revisit this in terms of what government policy is on this particular issue, both in terms of access to a deferred payment scheme and on the issue of a model scheme. The two go hand in hand. It is no good having a model scheme if it is a model scheme for a handful of cases in different parts of the country. We need a model scheme that is actually available so that people who want to cope with the issue of how they fund their care can access a deferred payment scheme. It is always a risk when you are on a committee such as the Dilnot committee that, quietly and unobtrusively, the bureaucracies will nibble away at well intentioned recommendations. Some of us have had this experience ourselves, and some of us have done a bit of nibbling as well from time to time as civil servants, so we recognise nibbling when it is going on. We are in that position here.

It is down to the Minister to start some discussions about this issue, not to leave things to the marketplace, and not to give the public impression that there is going to be a widely available deferred payments scheme when, in fact, it is going to be available only to a fairly limited number of people.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I do not understand why it is necessary to have any kind of limit in relation to this matter so long as there is sufficient security to allow the deferred payment to be feasible from the point of view of the Government. The proposition that the deferred payment scheme should be limited by the amount of assets a person has strikes me as rather unnecessary. So far as a model scheme is concerned, I would have thought that there is a lot to be said for having a form of document which is universal. There would of course be the possibility of different particular provisions relating to particular cases, but the central core of a deferred payment agreement could be put in a form of universal application.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 124 to which I added my name. There were a number of voices calling for an appropriate system of redress for disputed decisions. Many people do not really understand social care systems and why decisions are taken and they feel powerless, often at a time when they are facing enormous challenges and may fear that complaining is going to lead to even more negative changes to their support. It seems to be a matter of justice to have a very clear and understood route to redress and I hope these amendments will be considered seriously.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I support these amendments requiring a system of adjudication able to deal with the whole raft of matters dealt with under the Care Bill, including the borderline with continuing healthcare. The local authorities—152 or something of that sort—will administer the care system. It is quite easy to see that the same problems may arise in different local authority areas. Having a respected system for dealing with these matters would simplify a good deal of this area. I therefore strongly urge the Government to have in place a system which would provide reasonably rapid adjudication of all these issues. The social security commissioners provide a kind of example. One possible solution would be to extend the jurisdiction of the social security commissioners to include this area. Social security arrangements are certainly different from the care arrangements, but there may be sufficient similarity to make that possible. Something along the lines of the social security commissioners would be necessary for dealing with this and bringing into effect a system which local authorities right across the country would respect when one local authority’s decision was dealt with by this adjudicating authority.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 76 of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I also support Amendments 123 and 124. Leonard Cheshire Disability put it so well when it said that it was concerned that the Bill, in placing a number of important and complex duties on local authorities, will have a substantial impact on the lives of older and disabled people without providing appropriate routes for appeal against unjust or factually inaccurate decisions. It says that there is a compelling case for the Government to set up a system to resolve cases where there are disagreements between the local authority and the individual.

When we think of the various ways in which local authorities can impact on individuals who have come within the care system—support eligibility criteria, financial assessment, operation of the cap, charges, personal budgets and the boundary between NHS continuing care and means-tested social care—surely there have to be opportunities for a person to appeal against decisions of the local authority. In Committee, the noble Earl relied first on the current complaints system of local authorities and, secondly, he went on to point out that if a complainant was not satisfied with the response from the local authority, they were then able to refer the case to the Local Government Ombudsman.

However, a complaints system is not really what noble Lords are calling for. Anyone who has seen responses from local authorities to complaints will know that they tend to find in favour of themselves and rarely reopen a question of substance. Noble Lords want an opportunity for a person concerned to put their case and for that case to be considered by a group of people who may be said to be independent of the local authority. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and my noble friend Lord Warner, I am keen on the tribunal approach which deals with social security cases; I have witnessed these cases. Although the noble Earl felt in Committee that these would be expensive, I believe that it is a cost-effective way of allowing people to put their case and for that matter to be decided. I am sure that in the long term it will be more expensive if there is no proper decision. I suspect that we will see lots of judicial reviews being initiated against local authorities. They do not and will not have a proper system for dealing with appeals.

The noble Earl said in Committee that the Government were consulting on processes for providing redress. Although he thought that the results of that review would be available before the Bill had concluded its passage through Parliament, I suspect that that will be too late for your Lordships’ consideration. I therefore hope that the noble Earl might be able to give us some comfort that he will in fact give further consideration to this. I hope that we might return to this point at Third Reading.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

I may need to answer that question later. However, my understanding is that, yes, we can do it through secondary legislation. If I am wrong on that, I will correct myself before the end of today’s proceedings.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Again, before my noble friend finally sits down: he mentioned the principles that would seem applicable to local authority decision-making and appeals from that. I wonder whether one of the principles that should be given effect might be consistency across the country—in other words, fairness between people who live in X and people who live in Y. I suspect that there is a possibility that different local authorities will take different decisions in very similar cases, and consistency across the country would be an important element in the fairness of this new system.

[Earl Howe]

I take the point made by my noble and learned friend. We cannot iron out every kind of disparity, but we should aim for the kind of fairness that he talks about.

I have misled the House: we would not be able to establish a tribunal by secondary legislation—it would require primary legislation. However, as I said earlier, in the consultation that we are carrying out we do not rule out any solution. Clearly, if it transpires that we want to make changes for which primary legislation is needed, we would need to ensure that proposals were brought forward for consideration at the earliest opportunity. In general, we hope that the consultation will flush out any concerns in this area, not least in the area of fairness, as referred to by my noble and learned friend.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, as the chairman of the All-Party Group on Humanism, I am not sure that I should actually be following the previous speakers. However, Amendment 5 in this group is in my name and I want to be nice to the Minister instead of telling him off. The Minister has listened to the concerns that we expressed in Committee about applying the requirement to pursue the obligation on local authorities in Clause 1 to the Secretary of State in his actions, particularly regulations and guidance, to promote well-being.

I congratulate the Minister on listening to those concerns and tabling government Amendment 138, which effectively meets the concerns that we have. I suspect that my co-signatories, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, would say that the Minister’s amendment may not be quite as elegant as ours, but we are not going to have a competition about aesthetics; he has met the point and I thank him very much for what he has done.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I warmly support that. I am happy with the parliamentary counsel’s draft, which is what the Government are going to move, and we have to understand that some lawyers are better than others at making drafts.

So far as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is concerned, I hope that the Government will pay considerable attention to what has been said about it.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to government Amendment 2 on dignity and respect. I know that it was implicit in the well-being clause in the earlier versions of the Bill that we looked at, but I am very pleased that the need to ensure that all people are treated with dignity and respect has been brought out so explicitly. These are words that the man and woman in the street really understand; they get to the heart of some of the concerns about the type of social care that has sometimes been provided, which has fallen well below those standards, and caused some of the scare stories that we have heard so much about recently.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, and I raised this issue in Committee, but as he is unavoidably unable to be in his place today, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on behalf of both of us, for listening and for bringing this amendment forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I particularly support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. It is obviously important that the situation regarding children who are carers is properly focused. As your Lordships know, I am a vice-president of the Carers Trust and have an interest from that point of view. I have difficulty understanding exactly the scope of the clauses here, because the clause dealing with well-being talks about the “individual”. I assume that this includes the disabled child as well as the carer, and that the same is true even when the child is not disabled. If one has a carer, the child will be an “individual”, I assume. The adult definition comes in the next clause, Clause 2. Clause 1 refers to an “individual”, so I assume that children are included in that clause and therefore that the local authority, in performing its functions, has an obligation to have regard to the well-being of children.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Tyler said, Amendments 7, 10 and 34 in this group about young carers provide an opportunity within our debates to welcome the Written Ministerial Statement yesterday from my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education about the Government’s proposed amendments to the Children and Families Bill on the assessment of young carers. They give effect to the Government’s stated intentions to consolidate and simplify legislation relating to young carers’ assessments, making rights and duties clearer to both young people and practitioners. In the Government’s view, these provisions sit most appropriately within children’s legislation.

The right to an assessment of needs would be extended to all young carers under the age of 18, regardless of who they care for, what type of care they provide or how often they provide it. Local authorities would have to carry out an assessment of a young carer’s needs for support on request or on the appearance of need. The amendments also enable local authorities to align the assessment of a young carer with an assessment of an adult that they care for.

I believe that the government amendment will achieve the desired effect of my noble friend Lady Tyler’s amendment to Clause 10 by putting a young carer’s entitlement to an assessment on a similar footing to the provisions in the Care Bill for an adult carer’s assessment. I have also tabled an amendment to Clause 12 of the Care Bill, which we will debate shortly, that makes it clear that a local authority may combine an adult assessment with a child’s assessment, including a young carer’s assessment, provided all parties agree. The government amendment to the Children and Families Bill will also achieve the desired effect of Amendment 10 by requiring local authorities to take steps to identify the extent to which there are young carers within their area who have needs for support.

Amendment 7 would extend to young carers provisions in Clause 2 that require a local authority to provide services, facilities and resources to prevent or reduce needs for support among adult carers. Prevention is an important matter to highlight, but the Bill already makes sufficient provision on this issue, as it requires local authorities to have regard to overall family circumstances when fulfilling their duties under the Bill.

Clause 1 requires local authorities to promote an individual’s well-being in exercising all their Part 1 functions, including those in Clause 2. Domestic, family and personal relationships are specifically included, and such relationships could encompass parenting responsibilities, the adequate functioning of the family and the household and the impact of providing care and support on other members of the family. We do not think that it would be appropriate to refer to preventing the needs of young carers specifically. One means of preventing their needs will be, of course, to meet or delay the needs of those whom they care for, and this is clearly covered by the existing provision. There may be other means, which could include the provision of services directly to the young carer. However, such routes would not be appropriate for adult care and support to take, and we do not believe that a duty should sit within adult legislation.

We will make it clear in statutory guidance that all these provisions should take into consideration family relationships and circumstances, and I am happy to make a commitment that such guidance will refer specifically to the importance of preventing children undertaking inappropriate or excessive caring responsibilities. In addition, in drafting regulations about an adult’s assessment under the regulation-making powers in Clause 12, we will make it clear that a whole-family approach should be adopted, where appropriate. An adult’s assessment should then take into account the functioning of the family and the household, and the impact of providing care and support on other members of the family, including children.

I turn to the position of those with parental responsibilities for disabled children, which is an important issue. However, we do not consider it appropriate to include provisions within the Care Bill about the assessment of parent carers of disabled children, as proposed in Amendments 6, 8, 9 and 35 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. In the Government’s view, the main provision for assessing and supporting those caring for disabled children should be in children’s legislation, so that the family’s need for support can be looked at holistically. In most cases, the best way of supporting a parent carer of a disabled child and other members of the family is by the provision of support directly to the child concerned. It would not be appropriate for adult care and support to be undertaking an assessment of those needs, when adult support is not best placed to meet them. The view of the Minister for Children and Families is that there is already sufficient provision under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 to provide for the assessment and support of children in need, including disabled children and their parents.

I turn to Amendments 46 and 58 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, about charging carers for support. We remain of the view that local authorities should retain the power that they have now to charge carers for support provided directly to them. Many local authorities do not impose charges on carers because they, of course, recognise the valuable contribution that carers make to society. However, some may choose to impose a nominal fee to cover a proportion of the costs of providing a particular form of support for carers—for example, a relaxation class or gym membership—and we do not think it appropriate to remove that discretion and flexibility. Indeed, removing the ability to charge even a small amount could result in the withdrawal of such services altogether.

The noble Baroness argued that the cost of caring should not count towards the care account within the cap arrangement. Local authority assessments take the support provided by carers into account in determining the care package. We are clear that the care package should count towards the cap, because that should ensure that all people receive the support that they need. We have heard from the care and support sector that the cap will provide carers, as well as care users, with the financial support to help them decide on the right care for them to help provide, and to reassure them that their families will not face catastrophic care costs.

I have some concern about the noble Baroness’s Amendment 48, which proposes that the provision of intimate services to a person needing care cannot be provided to meet a carer’s need for support. This would create a legal barrier that could significantly hinder the provision of a much-needed type of support to carers. Let me provide one example. It may be appropriate to meet a carer’s needs by providing a service direct to the person cared for. If some type of replacement care is provided to allow the carer to take a break from caring, it may look like home care delivered to the adult needing care, even though it is provided to meet a carer’s needs. The amendment would seriously limit the ability of local authorities to make such arrangements because it would provide that the care workers could carry out some activities, but not others of an “intimate nature”. That could leave a situation where the care worker was able to sit with an adult needing care but not take them to the toilet. That is likely to lead only to confusion, I suggest. We accept that clarity is needed about when a type of support should be considered to be provided directly to the carer, and when to the adult needing care. We will produce guidance on this matter, but we cannot support an amendment that sets such an inflexible rule in primary legislation.

I also reassure noble Lords that the Bill is already very clear that carers should not be charged for any form of support that is provided directly to the person needing care. Clause 14(3) makes it absolutely clear that local authorities cannot charge carers for services provided to the person being cared for. This would include services of an intimate nature.

I hope that I have reassured noble Lords that, together, the Care Bill and the Children and Families Bill provide a clear legislative framework to support local authorities to consider the needs of young carers and protect them from excessive or inappropriate caring roles. On the important issue of assessing those with parental responsibility for disabled children, we remain of the view that they are best supported through the provisions of the Children Act 1989. However, I have noted the concerns raised about those who care for disabled children having the same entitlement to a carer’s assessment as young carers and adults caring for adults will have through the respective provisions of the Children and Families Bill and the Care Bill. Department of Health officials will explore further, with officials at the Department for Education, the issues raised by the noble Baroness. I know that my noble friend Lord Nash is always willing to listen to the concerns of noble Lords on these and other matters.

I hope that I have also reassured noble Lords that the Bill is already very clear that carers should not be charged for support provided directly to the person needing care. However, I am conscious that I have not directly answered an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, about the need for identification of carers to ensure that there is no unmet need. It is important to support people to identify themselves as carers so that they can access information, advice and support in their caring role. My department is funding the Royal College of General Practitioners to raise awareness among health professionals. Health and well-being boards should also be identifying the numbers of carers in their local population through joint strategic needs assessments.

My noble and learned friend Lord Mackay asked whether children were already covered in the scope of Clause 1. They are covered in terms of the functions set out in Part 1 of the Care Bill. The local authority must have regard to the well-being principle in discharging any function under Part 1 that relates to children. They would be “individuals” in the case of the exercise of that function—for example, in the provisions relating to the assessment of children in anticipation of their transition to adulthood. I hope that that is helpful.

I have taken a little while to reply to these amendments, but I hope that I have been sufficiently illuminating to encourage noble Lords not to press them.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, when this issue was discussed previously I had the feeling that Monitor had at least some claim to having the kind of expertise which goes some distance in this area whereas, as far as I could understand it, CQC did not seem to. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that what either of them has at the moment is probably unequal to the task of seeking out exactly what is going on and seeing how great the risks are. It is pretty obvious that to understand the risks in these financial transactions is a very difficult task. We have seen examples, not particularly in this area but in others, where serious risks have emerged which were not suspected until very close to the time of their emergence.

I also agree with the view that one great factor in the care regime is the number of local authorities that are to be involved. Some degree of understanding at least the variation across these 152 authorities is essential. During the workings of the Joint Committee, I was impressed by the skill of some of the local authority representatives we had before us but they were in quite a particular position in relation to their work. I am not sure that their knowledge, expertise and feel for the situation necessarily goes right across the sector. I do not at all decry the valuable work that local authorities do but the variety of tasks assigned to them is very great and the care situation must be among the most difficult of their responsibilities.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, this is an important debate and the collapse of Southern Cross has brought it home to us how the risk of financial failure is likely to be a continuing problem in this sector. That is why it is important to understand whether the regulatory regime that the Government are proposing will be robust enough and whether it will have access to the kind of information that will enable the regulator to take a view on the viability of those companies which seek to do business in this area.

We are going back partly to our earlier debates when we discussed the new failure regime. At that time, I referred to the Department of Health factsheet that we were given, which said that the new failure regime will give regulators clear roles in tackling failure. However, I do not think that is actually so in practice. According to the department, the Care Quality Commission will focus on exposing problems and requiring action while Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority, which deal with non-foundation trusts, will focus on intervening if a poorly performing provider is unable to resolve the situation by working with commissioners. As we have heard today, the CQC retains enforcement powers for social care, general practice and independent sector providers. This whole picture is very confusing and in his Mid Staffordshire inquiry Robert Francis made it clear that regulatory complexity can contribute to system failings.

I am still unclear about the interrelationship between Monitor, CQC and the NHS Trust Development Authority so as to know whether they are going to work together to ensure that problems are acted on. I am still unclear whether when Monitor and the NHS Trust Development Authority are asked to intervene as a result of the CQC’s concern about findings in relation to safety and quality, they simply carry out the instructions of the CQC or have to go through the same process to satisfy themselves as public bodies with specific statutory duties—certainly in the case of Monitor—whether they share the concern about quality or simply take the CQC’s word on trust. As the actions of these regulators are likely to be tested in the courts, one way or another, clarity at this stage would be very welcome indeed.

My noble friend makes the case that, because of its expertise and experience, Monitor would be a better bet for looking at financial issues to do with care providers. It is very difficult to understand why bits of the system have been dealt with differently and the CQC is considered acceptable in relation to private care providers for adult social care and so on but not for NHS foundation trusts. The Government have brought a rather curious mish-mash to your Lordships’ House.

On my noble friend’s second amendment, I share his view and am not sure that NHS England is the right body to have a duty to scrutinise the commissioning plans of local authorities. However, I very much agree with my noble friend that it is very important that there is a method of checking on the performance of local authorities in their commissioning of adult social care services. My noble friend mentioned Winterbourne View as an example of where a number of local authorities placed clients but having placed them paid no attention to their experience. That was a salutary warning about the problems of local authority commissioning.

I wonder whether the CQC ought to be the body which undertakes that responsibility. Clause 5 sets out that the local authority is responsible for promoting diversity and quality in provision of services. The local authority clearly has responsibility for ensuring that there are sustainable providers in the market. I also refer my noble friend to Clause 80 which sets out the CQC’s responsibilities in performance assessment and performance ratings. My noble friend will see that under Clause 80(2) the proposed new Clause 46(3) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 sets out that:

“The Commission must, in respect of such English local authorities as may be prescribed … conduct reviews of the provision of such adult social service provided or commissioned by the authorities as may be prescribed”.

My reading is that the CQC is given powers to do what my noble friend wants. The question—we debated this when we debated Clause 5—is the extent to which the Government are so going to prescribe. I would like to hear from the noble Earl, if possible, that the Government have reflected on our earlier debate and have come to the view that it would be a very good thing to prescribe that all local authorities should have their commissioning performance reviewed by the CQC as a matter of priority.

My noble friend raised the question of Winterbourne View. We debated the problem of the contracts local authorities have set with private providers where they are contracting staff on very low rates of pay. These are the same providers which in some cases are giving 15-minute periods of service, with staff on zero-hour contracts and often having to pay the cost of their travel. I do not believe that those are the right circumstances in which a quality service could be given. That is why I believe that the CQC should prioritise the commissioning responsibilities of local authorities. If it did, it would answer the question posed by my noble friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I crave my noble friend’s indulgence. I am concerned about the warnings in advance of a collapse. That seems to be an area of very considerable importance, and I wonder whether Monitor is supposed to be responsible for trying to forecast that. Secondly, if that is correct, obviously the discussions will need to ensure that it has the necessary expertise to do that and, as the noble Lord has said, that is a pretty difficult task.

[Earl Howe]

My noble and learned friend is, of course, right. That goes back to a question posed in an earlier group by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, about what the definition is of business failure. We propose to define in regulations circumstances in which a provider can be deemed to have failed. Those circumstances may include a situation in which a provider is struggling to service its debts as they fall due or has breached its financial covenants under loan agreements, or an administrator, liquidator or receiver has been appointed—which is a clear-cut case of failure. As I said, this will be defined in regulations because we want to capture these various different scenarios where a business can be deemed to have failed. We will, of course, consult on the regulations before they are laid. No doubt what I have just said will be refined and augmented during that process.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, as we are approaching Statement time, I will be brief. I want to support the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, in her Amendment 88G, which advocates the need for advocacy. In the world of learning disability, advocacy is often totally essential. Information and advice which is not proportionate, frankly, can be quite useless. Advocacy may well come from parents and carers, but sometimes it can be the wrong advocacy. An independent advocate is essential to many people with a learning disability, so I wholly support this amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I have spent most of my life as an advocate, so I have to say how important advocacy is. I want to say a few words in relation to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, about continuing NHS care. The point is important in that Clause 22, as the boundary between health and social care, is vital.

I would have thought—I may be wrong and obviously the noble Baroness will correct me—that it ought to be the general practitioner who advises a patient as to whether they need continuing NHS care. During our deliberations in the Joint Committee there was quite a lot of discussion about the question of continuing NHS care, and it is obvious that there is some conflict of interest. The local authority providing the care may wish to have it provided by the NHS since that would be free and not its responsibility, so the boundary between the NHS and local authorities is particularly relevant in this connection.

At the moment, I do not see how it can be for the patient to claim continuing NHS care. The GP should be able to say to the patient that they need it and that should be sufficient for it to be provided. The likelihood is that a patient would have great difficulty in assessing for himself or herself whether continuing healthcare was needed, so it must be a matter for professional advice. I think that the advice that we are talking about in this context is advice about local authority services, not about the services that the NHS can provide. However, as I say, the boundary between the two is vitally important. I hope that the point made so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, arising from her own inquiry, will be looked at with a considerable degree of care.

[Baroness Greengross]

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

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

NHS: Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

The question surely is whether my right honourable friend is saying things that are true. My judgment is that he is very near the truth, if not spot on. Most people will ask themselves whether it is the Department of Health or the press which oversensationalises things. I think I know the answer to that.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, in considering the way forward in inspections, might not prominence be given to local inspection systems? After all, a national system cannot be in all the places at once, whereas local people can see what is going on in their local area. There might be something to be said for strengthening that aspect of the inspection system.

[Earl Howe]

My noble and learned friend makes an important point. Of course, that will be the virtue of local Healthwatch, which will be the eyes and ears of the local community in a particular area. We have also strengthened the role of governors of foundation trusts, whose job it will be to have an equally up-to-the-minute view of their organisation’s performance.

Care Quality Commission: Morecambe Bay Hospitals

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I recall the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, making those points very powerfully some years ago when we debated the Bill that created the CQC. He makes an extremely important point. I think that we can take it from the statements of David Prior yesterday that the decision taken in 2009 to take a generalist approach to inspection was a mistake. The CQC’s inspectors are in one sense specialist inspectors who are trained and supported to carry out their role, which they do to the best of their ability. However, requiring inspectors to have oversight of a wide range of service types from slimming clinics to acute hospitals, and indeed mental health establishments, has spread expertise too thinly.

We are clear that we must now work with the CQC to create a much more specialist approach to inspection, including on mental health. I think that the three new chief inspectors we are appointing will help to do that. It is not the whole answer, because they need to be supported by clinical expertise and by the people who are experts by virtue of their experience in care services. However, I will take away the noble Lord’s idea of a chief inspector of mental health. I must be honest with him that we have not discussed this, but I am sure that we now should.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I wonder if my noble friend would take account of the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that legal advice can sometimes prevent people from doing the right thing. I was very sorry to hear that. I think that good legal advice should in fact produce the result of people doing the right thing. The second point I want to make relates to the claims against the health service for negligence. These have been quite substantial over the years. Could the CQC look at that area and examine the grass-roots standard of care given to patients?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the deputy Information Commissioner is quoted as saying that confidentiality and data protection issues should not stand in the way of disclosure where disclosure is clearly in the public interest. I completely agree with that. That is why our instant reaction yesterday, when we were told by the CQC that legal advice had said that the names of the individuals had to be kept confidential, was to challenge that. I am pleased that that decision is to be reversed and the names will be released.

On my noble and learned friend’s second point, most certainly yes: the CQC should take a view about matters relating to negligence. However, I would add that apart from the CQC, we now have the new Healthwatch bodies, part of whose function will be to make sure they provide good soft intelligence on what is happening in NHS and social providers in their local areas. The Healthwatch bodies can then act as the eyes and ears of the CQC, which, with the best will in the world, cannot be everywhere at once. In terms of the future—this is clearly a longer-term agenda—I hope we will have a system that is better equipped to pick up this kind of incident should it ever occur again.

Care Bill [HL]

Lord Mackay of Clashfern Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who speaks on these matters with a particular authority and profound experience. I should mention my interests: I am a vice-president of the Carers Trust, a member of Barnardo’s and I have honorary fellowships from three of the medical royal colleges.

I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his explanation of the Bill. I also congratulate the department and the Ministers there as quite a number of changes have been made to the draft Bill and yet they have managed to get it in so early in this Session. One of the difficulties that that may entail is that the funding arrangements may not be fully known at the beginning of our consideration of the Bill in Committee.

I was privileged to be a member of the Select Committee engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and I want to acknowledge the great expertise of my fellow committee members and the excellent chairmanship of Paul Burstow, who was the Minister before he found himself chairing this committee.

In the many submissions that the committee received there is one that goes very deep into this situation. It is from the King’s Fund, suggesting that the time may have come for a reappraisal of the arrangements between social care and healthcare. As I went through the Bill, I appreciated from time to time that the division between these two areas affects integration. There was a great desire for integration and I share that. One of my lawyer friends connected with the committee said that as a lawyer he had some difficulty with integration. One can see why that is. The King’s Fund has raised a huge question about whether some change should be made. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, will have something to say about the matter later, with his expertise in this area.

The Bill sets out in Part 1 a very welcome and wonderfully wide principle of well-being as its object for individuals. I am thankful for the alterations, and indeed the widening of that principle which was made on the recommendations of the Joint Committee. However, I echo what has already been said—that without adequate funding the anticipation of what the Bill will achieve will be considerably higher than the realisation, which can only be damaging for those who promote the anticipation in the first place.

The Joint Committee advised that the duty to have regard to this well-being principle should be incumbent on the Secretary of State when he is making regulations under the Bill. I must say that that seemed to me, and I am sure to the rest of the committee, to be eminent common sense. Sadly, however, in preparing the Bill, the Government did not feel that that should happen. In the explanation given in answer to our recommendation 22, the Government say:

“We do not agree that the Bill should require the Secretary of State, when making regulations or issuing guidance, to have regard to the general duties of local authorities under clause 1”.

As regulations are intended to give effect to the obligations of the local authorities under Clause 1, one would think that in making regulations it would be common sense to have regard to the principles on which the local authorities should work. Here is the Government’s answer:

“Local authorities are responsible and accountable for social care. We believe that creating new duties for the Secretary of State would distort these clear lines of accountability”.

I have some difficulty in understanding that. The object was not to create new duties for the Secretary of State but to assist him in performing the duties that he has to make regulations. It seems to me that to attempt to make regulations in relation to this matter for local authorities, which are bound by the general principle, it would only be sensible that the person making the regulations should have regard to the general principle.

I welcome the Bill very much: it has great opportunities, subject to what I have just said about the funding. I shall comment on only one or two particular points because there are many speakers and there will be many matters that people want to raise and I do not want to create unnecessary repetition.

Clause 22, as it is now, defines the difference between healthcare and social care. The Joint Committee commented on that but the department has enlarged the clause; it is bigger than it was before, but I am not sure that it is much clearer. In particular, it provides that if a registered nurse is to be employed, the consent of some commissioning board—usually the national one, I think—is required. I would have thought that something could be done about that without requiring continual reference to the commissioner.

I will not say much about the Dilnot clauses because generally they came later than our committee could have seen, but I agree with the point that the eligibility and cost arrangements nationally must be important for the Dilnot cap to work. It ought to be the same fit whether in London or Cumbria. That would require a degree of uniformity across both cost and eligibility that might be quite difficult to attain.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, has already mentioned the human rights point. The Joint Committee suggested that this should be put in, and I adhere to this matter being looked at in Committee in due course. The point I particularly wish to stress is the situation of young carers. The Joint Committee recommended that this should be dealt with in the Bill. The answer is that it is inappropriate that children should receive adult care. However, that was not the point the Joint Committee sought to make. Its point was that the Joint Committee considered that there can be a relationship between the care provided for the adult and the child providing that care.

One of the important factors is that the child’s obligations of care, which are often undertaken cheerfully and voluntarily, do not cause damage to the child. The imposition and undertaking of undue burdens of care for adults, which may be given out of love, affection and loyalty to the adult, may be damaging to the child. I—and I think the Joint Committee as a whole—believe that this is an important factor to be put into this Bill. The regulations and legislation about care of children are contained in five different statutory provisions, starting with the Children Act 1989. There have been others since and I gather that there are about six different provisions of guidance on these matters. The children are surely entitled to some degree of simplification, just as the adults are, by this Bill.

Another point I shall touch on is the question of guidance. The Joint Committee recommended that guidance should be by way of a code, which should be available and endorsed by Parliament. However, the Government have said: “This is not really necessary. It is not quick enough; things change so quickly that we need to change them all the time, therefore it is not appropriate in this situation to have a code”. We expect a lot of social workers and often they are the people who take the burden of complaint when something goes wrong. It cannot be right to have a lot of different pieces of paper for social workers to know what the guidance is—and when the guidance changes the pieces of paper just increase. They do not always seem to destroy the previous pieces of paper, so the difficulties for people trying to carry out this work are increased by that system.

I remain of the view—which we can discuss in Committee—that guidance should not be ad hoc pieces of paper, but a code, which can last for a reasonable time. After all, the statutory provisions have lasted some time. There are many other matters that one could raise, but I do not want to find myself shortening the time available for others.