Care Bill [HL]

Lord Rix Excerpts

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I, too, am delighted that these amendments have given us the opportunity to debate the eligibility criteria and I echo the comments of noble Lords who know better than I do how this will affect them. Eligibility is a critical issue, which affects both disabled people and older people with care needs—disabled people account for one-third of the people affected by the Bill and elderly people the other two-thirds.

The Joint Committee warmly recommended the introduction of a national minimum eligibility threshold as a key way of resolving the current postcode lottery in social care. The new eligibility framework and national threshold proposed in the Bill will go a huge way to alleviate the lottery of care and will be vital in ensuring that there is more clarity and consistency in the provision of care for disabled people and the elderly in England.

The focus on well-being in the Bill was hugely welcomed by the committee. This principle is the thread that runs through the Bill and will ensure that the care system not only delivers basic support but promotes older and disabled people’s independence, allowing them to realise their potential through participating more fully in their communities. This is a bold vision for the future and one that could truly revolutionise the care system. It is therefore key that these two elements of the Bill work seamlessly together so that the well-being principle is at the forefront of the Government’s mind when considering who will be eligible for care, something that the committee explicitly recommended in its report on the Bill.

However, as the Government have rightly recognised, social care is not merely about allowing people to “survive” but about enabling them to live full and independent lives. The Bill explicitly places a duty on local authorities to provide care that promotes the well-being of individuals. In a conversation yesterday with the Minister for Care and the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, it was acknowledged that the draft regulations, which have already been referred to in this debate, were just that—draft. Much more can and needs to be done to make them asset or strength-based. Can my noble friend ensure that the work on the draft regulations proceeds at pace so that they are fit for purpose and meet the needs and requirements of all within the scope of the Bill? Can he also ensure that any work involves those from the sector and expert Members of this House?

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, the Minister knows perfectly well where I stand because I already talked about eligibility at Second Reading and in the debate last week on the future funding of health and social care, led by my noble friend Lord Patel. I was backed in that part of the debate on the question of someone having to reach a level of substantial disability before becoming eligible for care. It should be the right of all people with a disability at least to be assessed properly, from the lowest level of disability to the highest. A level may be set where tens of thousands of people are excluded, such as people with a learning disability. Many are already being excluded by local authorities and being denied the use of day centres, or whatever. I can only plead with the Minister to say something which would give a glow of optimism to all of us who are totally and utterly opposed to the level which the Government are likely to set.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I support Amendment 88Q, which was so powerfully moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. I certainly welcome the Government’s intention to establish national eligibility criteria, so that local councils across the country will be required to provide care for all those with a minimum level of need. However, I share the concerns which were so well articulated by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, that setting the fair access to care services criteria at “substantial” is simply plain wrong. It is wrong because it will exclude many people who I know with autism, and who have a low-level need of support. They will no longer be able to live independently if the level is set at substantial.

Setting the threshold at this level also seems to be running counter to the Government’s stated intention in the Bill, which is to focus on prevention. The requirement for people to have a physical or mental impairment to qualify for support could mean that those without a diagnosis will be excluded and miss out altogether. A great many people with autism do not get a diagnosis. I have been dealing with a case recently where people have been waiting four years to get their daughter diagnosed. I join the National Autistic Society—again, I declare an interest as a vice-president—in urging the Government to reconsider this and set the threshold at something equivalent to “moderate”. That is by far the fairest and best way to do it.

I make no apology for saying something which I think I have said about three times in this Committee: there is substantial evidence from the National Audit Office and NICE to indicate that investing in services for those with a moderate need is cost-effective. New economic modelling by Deloitte, published recently, shows that every £1 invested in support for people with autism and other disabilities who have moderate needs, generates a return across the piece of £1.30. That is not to be ignored and should be part of our consideration. There is much merit in this and I rather feel that the Minister, who is a decent and honourable man, will see that there is. I am sure he is going to give us some good news; at least, I hope he will.

--- Later in debate ---

In that situation, it is very difficult to foresee circumstances in which we can go from where we are now into a new cap system which is consistent between working age and non-working age and make the leap beyond a national threshold of substantial. You could argue that as we are being brave and making this change, we should become braver. The argument against that approach is that we would raise expectations among a lot of people of working age or non-working age about what they will get when the financial reality at the local level is that they will not get it because there will not be the resources to deliver those services. That would be a cruel deception. The only way to break out of that is to say that we will take one particular group—those of working age—and deal with them differently in the eligibility criteria for meeting needs from the older age group. If we are going to keep consistency between those two age groups, we have to accept that at present it is very difficult to introduce this system with eligibility criteria that are substantially more generous than “substantial” under the present FACS system. I fully accept that that is not likely to be a popular view and that it will mean that some people will not get the services they need and may deserve, but—and this is a big but—if you look at the characteristics of this system, even if people do not get free services, they still get a guarantee of an assessment of their care needs and advice on how to meet those needs. That is a lot better than the circumstances that they are faced with under the current system.

[Lord Rix]

How is it that the commission found that people with disabilities and elderly people helped to make up the deficit? I would have thought that they were the very last people in this country who should forgo support from the state system.

[Lord Warner]

I do not think we want to have a debate on our report, but I suggest that the noble Lord reads Chapter 2 which sets out the arguments why we should have consistency between the two age groups and why there was a fairness issue about that. If you distinguish between the two age groups, we favoured not being over-elaborate in means-testing working age people. If the noble Lord reads Chapter 2, he will see that we have in many ways discriminated in favour of working-age people in the treatment of them under a means-tested system. We were not being hard-nosed about it; we were saying that there was a general equity issue about treating people of working age and non-working age under the same architecture in this system. I do not want to detain the Committee with the Warner standard lecture on the Dilnot commission, but I recommend to the noble Lord that he refreshes his memory on Chapter 2, which sets out our arguments.

[Lord Rix]

I would not necessarily put working-age people at the top of the list. I talked about disabled people. I was asking how the commission found that disabled people should be called upon to provide funding to support the pay-off of the deficit.

[Lord Warner]

I do not think that we said that they should fund the deficit. We said how they should be treated under the architecture of a new system for funding care and support in the future.