Care Bill [HL]

Lord Patel of Bradford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Patel of Bradford]

My Lords, the Minister has clearly outlined the many positive qualities in the Bill. Although I welcome many aspects of it, a number of issues cause me concern, particularly with respect to the care of some of the most vulnerable people in society—those with mental health problems.

I wish to explore four specific aspects of the Bill and seek assurances from the Minister about how the Government intend to address these: first, the lack of adequate safeguards for effective advocacy—for example, in ensuring take-up of personal budgets and protecting those detained under the Mental Health Act; secondly, what I see as unnecessary changes to the definition of mental health aftercare services; thirdly, how adult safeguarding boards will be able to exercise their functions effectively; and, finally, the lack of clarity about continuity of care for people in prison and on leaving prison.

I start with the new national eligibility criteria and personal budgets. Overall, I support the Bill’s focus on this and believe that giving everyone who is eligible access to a personal budget will greatly improve their lives. However, accessing these budgets is a far from simple process. For example, there are already significant variations in the take-up of personal budgets between councils and regions, and between different community groups. The official figures from the NHS information centre show that while 29% of adult care users or carers receiving community services had a personal budget in 2010-11, the rates ranged from 4% in Somerset to 71% in Manchester. The figures suggest that progress on moving people onto personal budgets is slowest in the south-west, where the average take-up is around 18%, and fastest in the north-west, at around 35%.

Moreover, the uptake of personal budgets among people with dementia still lags way behind most other client groups. The Alzheimer’s Society in a report in 2011 found that three in five people with dementia assessed as eligible for a care package were not even offered a personal budget, while 15% declined an offer of one. The report clearly highlighted the importance and need for advocacy or brokerage services and stated that,

“support planning and brokerage services are crucial to enable people to access the system”.

I fear that without a statutory entitlement to effective advocacy and support, some of the most vulnerable users and carers, such as those with mental health problems, learning disabilities and dementia, will not be able to access the system nor have their needs met through the kinds of informal support services that personal budgets are so good at enabling.

I am concerned that it was not considered necessary specifically to reference advocacy within the duty to provide information and advice. In meeting this duty, local authorities will be expected to provide information and advice that is accessible and proportionate to all. Of course, I recognise that an individual’s requirements for information and advice could range from a leaflet or a face-to-face conversation to long-term independent advocacy but, as the Law Society stated, “information … is no substitute” for a proper system of advice and advocacy for service users to navigate what will be a “complex system”.

Further, in a really important point, the Law Society notes that Clause 2(3) states that local authorities may be permitted to “make a charge for” this service and that this will be set out in regulations. I would like to know how vulnerable people who lack resources and in many cases live in poverty will find the means to pay for this. For those who are vulnerable and disadvantaged, charging could in fact become a new barrier to accessing an already difficult system.

What about those with mental health problems? The Bill rightly highlights the Government’s aspirations of achieving integrated and joined-up care, including parity of esteem between physical and mental health. This parity of esteem must include those detained under the Mental Health Act, where there is an even stronger case for the provision of effective and independent advocacy. I feel very strongly that unless all patients subject to compulsory powers under the Mental Health Act can access a truly independent mental health advocate, they will continue to be at risk of missing out on the most basic elements of care and support intended by the Bill. This is even more important for those groups already experiencing significant inequalities, such as those suffering from mental health problems who are from black and minority ethnic communities. It is crucial that we tackle these existing inequalities in the mental health system. I believe that providing effective and independent advocacy would be an essential step in doing this.

In fact, I am very concerned about the relative lack of focus on mental health in the Bill. Frankly, mental health is the biggest unaddressed health challenge of our age and is costing our society and the economy millions of pounds every day, not to mention the cost of the suffering among individuals and families. Why, given the critical nature of mental health problems, have the Government once again chosen to change the statutory provision of free aftercare services for people who have been treated under the Mental Health Act? I speak, of course, about Section 117 services, which noble Lords will recall this House debated to a large extent during the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill. Yet here we are again, faced with what I believe to be an unnecessary and possibly harmful change to these vital services. I will be seeking to make amendments in Committee unless the Minister can explain how these changes help or improve provisions which may not be perfect, but which ensure a degree of protection for those very vulnerable groups of people.

In particular, I am at a loss as to why the Government are attempting to change the eligibility criteria for Section 117 services. For example, Clause 68(5) introduces a new definition of aftercare services such that these services must be,

“meeting a need arising from or related to the mental disorder of the person concerned”.

This is surely unnecessary, but more importantly—and this gives me real cause for concern—given the history of local authorities in trying to avoid their responsibility for aftercare services of this kind, this new definition would enable local authorities to refuse aftercare on the basis that the need is no longer related to the mental disorder. Far from clarifying the position, this new definition adds to the complexity and risk, creating a situation where more people are denied access to these essential services.

I understand that the Government’s aim was to translate the Law Commission’s recommendation on Section 117 of the Mental Health Act into the draft Bill, but I note that the Law Society has asked for specific assurances that there is no intention by government to erode the current free-standing duty to provide free aftercare under Section 117 to,

“some of the most vulnerable”,

individuals in society. I suggest that the proposed new definition of aftercare services is too restrictive and could generate complex legal disputes over whether a service should be provided under Section 117. I will need a great deal of persuading that the proposed changes bring any benefit and do not in fact create the likelihood of greater harms.

Care of the vulnerable must be at the forefront of our efforts. Therefore I welcome the statutory framework for adult safeguarding, which includes the establishment of Safeguarding Adults Boards in local areas. The Bill states that these boards will be required to produce safeguarding plans and updates on progress, and that where a board “knows or suspects” that “serious abuse or neglect” has contributed to the death or serious harm of an individual, it will be required to carry out a safeguarding adult review.

However, I have a number of concerns and questions around how these boards will be able to exercise these functions effectively. For example, not only must local authorities and the NHS work together, but neighbouring local authorities must establish communication systems to ensure that all knowledge on abuse issues is shared not just in a local area but across areas, if another Winterbourne View is to be avoided. We also need avenues of communication for carers and families to register concerns, and for these to be looked at quickly. In fact, carers and families should not only have input on the boards but, I suggest, be supported to act as representatives on them.

Moreover, effective safeguarding work cannot be disassociated from other aspects of care and support provision. For example, with more and more people with higher needs potentially being employers with personal budgets, they will be vulnerable to abuse in their own homes. How will this be safeguarded against? There can be no doubt that for these boards to be effective, local authorities will require additional funding. Where is this to come from? I will not add to the many comments about lack of funding already made by other speakers; I simply pose the question again.

Finally, as I understand it, the whole point of this Bill is to move away from responding to crises and emergencies which can result in costly and unnecessary hospital or residential care. The aim is rather to develop person-centred and preventive approaches that meet real needs in a timely and appropriate fashion. One group who especially need this are those with social care needs who are entering or leaving prison. For this group, care is often not of the same standard as it would be in the community. In fact, a 2007 report by the University of Birmingham for the Care Services Improvement Partnership, Adult Social Care in Prisons: A Strategic Framework, identified major shortcomings in the provision of social care in prisons.

Clause 69 could be a very important step in addressing these shortcomings, particularly considering that around 70% of prisoners will have mental health and substance misuse problems. Providing this care can have a significant impact on reoffending and greatly enhance people’s ability to rebuild their lives on release. However, for such benefits to be realised, it is essential that there is continuity of care between prisons and the community. We need to ensure that prisoners have access to care that is equivalent to what is available in the community. People receiving care before entering prison should continue to receive such support, and any care provided while a person is in prison should be continued through the gate. Local authorities, prisons and probation services must work together to ensure that effective links are in place. I would like some reassurance from the Minister that this will indeed be an outcome from the Bill and one that he recognises is important.

Many aspects of this Bill are welcome and are long overdue. However, there are significant omissions and there is a real risk that in the current economic climate and with the background of funding cuts, nothing will really change. I am concerned about those who are most vulnerable and whether we have truly learnt the lessons from Winterbourne View and Mid Staffs. If we continue to react to problems rather than resolving them at an earlier and more effective point, we will place the most vulnerable in our society at risk. I hope that the Minister will reflect on my concerns and respond appropriately.