Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Greengross

Monday 21st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I express my concern about the provisions of subsection (4) of the Government’s new clause on the independence of the CQC. My instincts are that this will do the absolute reverse of what the Government are seeking to do in terms of the CQC’s independence, which is why my Amendment 143A seeks to remove subsection (4). I do not disagree in any way with the other provisions in this set of government amendments and will explain my thinking. Subsection (4) effectively prevents the CQC investigating, of its own mere motion, the extent to which local authority commissioning practices and decisions on adult social care damage user interests and well-being.

In effect, if the CQC considers, after looking at the results of its work on providers of services, that there is a major stumbling block to good, sound provision of services that promote the well-being of users—the provision in Clause 1 of the Bill—it has to seek the approval of the Secretary of State before it can do any kind of generalised or thematic review of local authority commissioning of services. It has to seek the approval not only of the Health Secretary but of the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. That seems a step backwards from the position we have now, where the CQC, as I understand it, could actually undertake these kinds of reviews. I do not see how the new subsection (4) helps the CQC to get to the root of a problem that may be affecting thousands of users of services. We have already seen that the providers were not the instigators of the policy of 15-minute home visits—it was the commissioners of services who instigated that policy. They required the providers to do that; they almost drove them along the path of not paying for the travel costs of the healthcare assistants who were making those visits. The institutional behaviour that has grown up and caused so much concern among the public and in Parliament has been driven by commissioners.

I suspect that we will have other kinds of such issues as we move through a decade of austerity in public services. It ought to be possible for the CQC to take the initiative and try to get to the bottom of those issues by carrying out a thematic review of the commissioning practices. That is why we need to take out subsection (4), which seems to be incompatible with the rest of the provisions in this set of government amendments, which I thoroughly welcome. All credit to the Government for removing these requirements on the CQC, but why are they spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar? Why are we pushing back on the ability of the CQC to decide that it wants to carry out a review of commissioning practices, when that is not in the best public interest? The Government should think again about this.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I will speak against government Amendments 145, 146 and 149, and speak at the same time to Amendment 147 in my name.

The government amendments would remove from the Bill a requirement for the CQC to conduct regular reviews of adult social care, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, indicated. The Bill gives us an important opportunity to ensure that local government commissioning is effectively regulated. Last year’s EHRC homecare inquiry evidence pointed to serious concerns about some commissioning practices, which were found to put the human rights of older people in particular at risk. Accordingly, the EHRC’s recent review of the inquiry recommendations welcomed the fact that the Government had signalled their intention that the CQC should conduct regular reviews of adult social care commissioning.

Unamended, Clause 83 would reframe Section 46 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 to empower the CQC to conduct periodic reviews of adult social care providers and English local authorities which provide or commission adult social care. It was very disappointing to see that the Government intend to remove clauses requiring the CQC to conduct these reviews through Amendments 145, 146 and 149, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Taken together, these amendments would remove the proposed new requirements for the CQC to conduct regular performance assessments or periodic reviews of local authority social care commissioning, and amend existing provisions relating to special reviews and investigations by the CQC. That would leave it able to review providers and to ask the Secretary of State for permission to run special reviews when there has been a particular issue but unable to run ongoing reviews of how local authorities commission services. It seems counterproductive to be removing this power at the same time as committing to challenging bad commissioning from local authorities.

The proposals announced by Norman Lamb about CQC reviews the other day are very helpful. But, again, they seem to be focused solely on providers and what they are doing, not on the commissioners who have directed these providers. If the CQC is being made independent, should it be seeking approval for such reviews? I believe that the Government have tabled this amendment because they believe that the provisions in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 will be sufficient to keep local authority adult social care commissioning under scrutiny. However, my analysis is that the human rights of people receiving care would be better protected by retaining the requirement under the Care Bill as currently drafted so that the CQC should conduct regular periodic reviews of local authorities’ commissioning of adult social care.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Greengross

Monday 14th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, as the self-appointed keeper to this House of the Dilnot tablets, I support Amendments 55 and 56, spoken to so ably by my two noble friends. Turning to Amendment 55, in framing our recommendations in our report, it was never our intention to impose a new set of rigidities in place of the old set of rigidities. It is important that the new system retains as much flexibility as possible. It is worth thinking about what lies behind much of the argumentation in our report and the new architecture that that report proposes. It is all about people, in as fair, orderly and manageable a way as possible, making contributions from their own resources to the rising costs of adult social care as we cope with, live with and adapt to an ageing population. Given the messiness of the present arrangements for top-ups, it would be perverse not to create the maximum flexibility for people to top up, particularly where these top-ups relate to their ability to stay in a home where they and their family have been very comfortable with the arrangements. Preventing such top-ups would be a truly perverse way of implementing the Dilnot architecture. We need a more flexible way of coping with this. Therefore I support my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s set of amendments.

On Amendment 56, my noble friend has a very strong point. I say this as someone who spent 10 years wrestling with means tests as a senior civil servant coping with social security. In those 10 years, numerous were the times when we had to cope with unforeseen consequences of what we thought were well designed social policy changes, but which turned out not quite to work when subjected to the scrutiny of the real world across a large population. I congratulate the Government on taking our report and turning it into a largely workable—we have a few doubts, but largely workable—set of arrangements that can be brought into operation quickly. However it would be very optimistic to think that there would be no unforeseen consequences—wrinkles, if I may use the word—which needed to be looked at, in particular in the areas of means-testing and the working of the cap. I emphasise that this is not a job application from the Dilnot commission to make, like Frank Sinatra, another return appearance, but we do need some kind of credible, independent body to take a look at this.

I would just gently remind the noble Earl that, at the end of our report, on page 69, we talked about some of these potential wrinkles, including the potential further changes in and around means-testing, which we did not have time to wrestle with but which we just flagged up for the Government. I will go not into the details but just the headlines. Under “Consistent treatment of housing assets”, we noted the way they are treated differently across the social care means test in terms of domiciliary and residential care—they are not treated on the same basis. There is also the issue of whether the means-test taper actually disincentivises savings and the issue of consistency between the way people in residential and nursing care, where it is not continuing care, have to meet general living costs but do not have to meet them where it is continuing care. We know that there are already some potential anomalies in the way that the new architecture will interact with some of those areas. We flagged that up in the report.

My noble friend has argued for some kind of independent advisory committee. He may not altogether thank me for raising some of these potential further changes but they are issues that have to be wrestled with. The new set of arrangements will throw up their own issues, which will also have to be wrestled with. Some kind of independent advisory committee, looking at the way in which the new scheme has worked and has bedded down, particularly in the area of the means test, would be a valuable contribution. I do not think it is a partisan issue. It would be welcomed across the parties and I hope that the Minister can look a bit more favourably on my noble friend’s amendment.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, first, I add my voice in support of Amendment 55, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. We have not fully taken into account the impact that the Bill will have, when it becomes an Act and is brought into being, on the many people who are now in care homes and where the funding of those homes will suddenly become much more public. Everybody will report to the local authority to get on the meter and the extent of people’s self-funding will become better known. There will be a sort of explosion if we do not get this right and do not allow people to make top-ups. What are we going to do: assume that some of these people will be moved from the care home that they are in and where they are, we hope, happy to another care home because there is inflexibility with the top-up system? That would be really cruel and I hope that we can get as much flexibility and remove as many restrictions on people as we can.

Several cases have been brought to my attention of people who are already in a care home running out of money. They, or their relatives, cannot afford the whole amount but want to be able to top up the local authority amount, which, at the moment, nobody is fully aware of. As this is all going to become much more public knowledge, it is important to have as much flexibility as possible. I hope the Minister will have another look at this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, while I welcome Amendment 57, I want to set out the case for the Minister going a good deal further. Amendment 137 follows the discussion in Committee of amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and myself. We have come back with an alternative amendment, which has also been signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. We have done this in consultation with voluntary organisations over the summer, and the wording of Amendment 137 reflects those discussions. To summarise, the amendment would enable the Secretary of State, after discussion, to make regulations that did three things: first, allow people to have their preference for place of death recorded by local health and social care services and for that preference to be implemented wherever practicable; secondly, have their care and support needs and those of carers treated as urgent in assessing needs—and we think, reasonably, that Amendment 57 deals with that; and, thirdly, exempt terminally ill patients from adult social care charges.

Since Committee the Government have brought forward Amendment 57 and, as I have said, I think that it meets many of our concerns about urgent assessment at the end of life. It has certainly had the effect of diluting enthusiasm in some parts of the voluntary sector for a more wide-ranging amendment on end-of-life choice, and I slightly backhandedly congratulate the Minister and his civil servants on achieving that. However, I would still like to have another go at trying to convince the Government, and possibly some members of my own Front Bench, that we should be a bit more ambitious.

Around half a million people die each year in England, about two-thirds of them over the age of 75. A century ago most of us would have died in our own homes. Today, most will die in hospital. The latest figures show that in April 2012, about 42% of people died at home or in a care home. This is an improvement from 38% four years previously, but on present trends it will be at least the end of this decade before half of deaths occur in the place of usual residence. These figures of improvement at the national level, however, conceal considerable regional and local variations.

If you live in the south-west, with 48% of deaths occurring in the place of usual residence, you have more choice than those of us living in London, where the percentage drops to 35%. Of course, as a Londoner I think there are many benefits of living in London, but choosing where I die is not likely to be one of them. There is an even wider variation between local authority areas. The great majority of us want to die at home or the place we normally live rather than, I suggest, the hectic and somewhat impersonal environment of an acute hospital ward. Perversely, we end up not only dying not only in the place where we least want to be but also in the most expensive place.

Marie Curie research has shown that a week of palliative care in the community costs about £1,000 a week, whereas a week of hospital in-patient specialist palliative care costs virtually £3,000 a week. The National End of Life Care Programme shows an estimated potential net saving of £958 per person if you die in the community rather than in hospital. Polling for Macmillan has shown that eight out of 10 health and social care professionals agree that community-based end-of-life care would save money. On top of this, nine out of 10 MPs think their constituents should have the choice to die at home. What is not to like about the first prong of Amendment 137?

I am not trying to dragoon people into dying outside hospital to save money. I want people to have as good and dignified a death as possible, with their friends and families around them. That is more likely to be achieved if they have a right to register their preference for dying at home or their place of normal residence. This would mean fewer people dying in hospital and it would also reduce pressure on A&E departments and acute hospital beds. I suggest that this is a not inconsiderable benefit—as Sir Humphrey would have said—in terms of the cost savings that could arise from allowing people to express their preferences on their right to die at home.

I accept that at this point it may be rushing our fences a bit to pay for exempting terminally-ill patients from local authority care charges. We need some detailed costings and possibly—I suspect the Minister will say this—we need to wait to hear what comes out of the pilot schemes in this area. However, we would also welcome having more information from the Minister on the progress being made in those pilots.

Accepting the first part of Amendment 137 would lay down a clear marker that Parliament wants government to move in the direction that most people want: which is the right to choose to die at home or their place of normal residence wherever practicable. This amendment gives the Government plenty of time to consult on all the detailed arrangements. It does not require those regulations to be made by any particular time and it gives the Government a lot of freedom about what the nature of those regulations might be. We should not miss the chance of this Bill being before Parliament to move in this area and put this change on the statute book. I hope the Minister will respond favourably and be prepared to entertain at Third Reading an amendment of the kind set out in the first prong of Amendment 137. I would certainly be happy—as I am sure my colleagues would—to discuss this further with him.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

I support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about this amendment. We know that the things people say they dread as their final days approach are loss of dignity and loss of respect, and we hear far too much about poor care at the end of life. Very often, it is poor care because people are not in the place they would like to be. We also know that the number of carers identified and signposted by the NHS to the enhanced support is not widely known. We know that much more needs to be done to draw together all the various approaches—I am involved in one of those approaches at the moment, looking with a group of experts at how to improve end-of-life care with doctors, professionals in end-of-life care and lawyers who deal with patients’ wishes. There is still a lot be looked at and brought together, and this Bill gives us a good chance of getting this right, or at least much nearer to being right than it is at the moment.

As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, mentioned, the coalition of charities has also suggested that end-of-life care should be free at the point of delivery. I know that this requires much more consideration—the noble Lord talked about that. I want to concentrate on hoping that this will be considered and that services to dying people and possible loss of dignity and respect will get a far higher profile as things that need urgent attention. Terminally ill people should have their preferred place of death recorded by local health and social care services. That preference needs to be implemented wherever it is practical. People must have their care and support needs and those of their carers treated as urgent by the local authority responsible for assessing those needs.

For people who are dying, every day is precious. They cannot wait while the bureaucratic wheels grind slowly along, and not always in their favour. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Warner.

Care Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Greengross

Tuesday 16th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greengross]

There are vast numbers of older people—for whom this Bill is designed, in terms of quantity—who we know want to stay in their own homes in their community. Early intervention can make that possible. If we delay, the alternative is crisis-driven. It leads to many older people going into expensive care homes where they do not want to be and from which they do not emerge again or into hospitals, adding to the problems we know about with frail elderly people. I very much hope the noble Earl will reconsider and enable people with moderate needs to have access to services.

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I hesitate to intervene in the debate on Amendment 88Q but I feel under some obligation to share with the Committee some of the thinking of the Dilnot commission where we went into this issue and set out our views in our report. I declare my interest as a member of that commission. I suspect that what I am going to say may be thought of more advantageously by the Minister than by those who tabled the amendment; however, it is important that we consider these factors.

First, we made it very clear in the report that,

“we believe that those who develop a care and support need during their working life should be assessed in broadly the same way as an older person”.

We tried to create an architecture that was reasonably consistent between the needs of those of working age and older citizens. Secondly, when we were asked to undertake this assignment we were asked to consider the feasibility of introducing this and the affordability of the changes. We wrestled with this quite a lot in our deliberations but we concluded in recommendation 6 of the report:

“In the short term, we think it is reasonable for a minimum eligibility threshold to be set nationally at ‘substantial’ under the current system”.

Our concern in doing that was not just that we were mealy-mouthed stooges of the Treasury but the overwhelming amount of evidence given to us about underfunding of the adult social care system over a long period. We considered that and said in the report that it was seriously underfunded and that funding had failed to keep pace with demographic changes in people of working age and those who were not. We thought that the deficit had to be made good but that that was a matter for the Government of the day and would need cross-party consensus if improved funding for social care was to be maintained.

Health and Social Care Bill

Debate between Lord Warner and Baroness Greengross

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Warner]

I shall briefly respond to that. We should never forget that the lion's share of the money that goes on state-funded adult social care comes from central government and is passed through local authorities to be spent on that group through the commissioning of various domiciliary, residential and even nursing home care. Although what I have crafted is a duty on the Secretary of State, a lot of this comes back to where the balance is struck between the NHS and adult social care in terms of priority and funding in Richmond House. They are all under the same departmental expenditure limit at department level.

The sense I had as a Minister was that it is a bit like the Army: you have to put a musician in the canteen. A former director of social services is kept well away from social care in Richmond House. I saw a reluctance in the NHS culture in Richmond House—which, thankfully, has changed with the arrival of David Behan —to fight for social care at the time of expenditure reviews. That is a real and serious issue. The big guns of the acute sector are alive and well in Richmond House when the expenditure review comes around. My noble friend Lord Hunt is nodding—I think enthusiastically, given his current job as chairman of a foundation trust. This is a real issue. We need a bit more balance in the statutory duty on the Secretary of State in order to align the money going into social care vis-à-vis the NHS.

There is a perfectly good point to be made at the local level. You want to see priority being given to adult social care at the local level, and you want to see openness on the part of local government—which, if I am honest, has not always been there—in working across the boundaries with people in primary care and in the NHS. That is absolutely an issue. However, if in local government you have only enough money to deal with people with substantial or critical needs, then your ability to help people with moderate needs and stop them getting worse will be restricted by the amount of resources available. It will then be extremely difficult to work across that boundary. We know that many local authorities have reprioritised their services, taking money away from other services and putting it into adult social care, but a very clear finding from the Dilnot commission was that the adult social care pot is simply not big enough. It is no good for us to keep uttering that there is a need for integration if there is not enough money at the local level for adult social care to work across the boundaries.

[Baroness Greengross]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and the other noble Lords who have spoken. Over the past 50 years we have seen a huge rise in longevity. In this century and at the end of the last century, that rise in longevity has been largely due to medical success in taming many acute and terrible diseases that once we could hardly even talk about. Now, many cancers can be lived with for a long time. However, the big and difficult condition to be dealt with now is dementia. This is a long-term illness and it is terminal in various forms, yet the care for people with dementia is funded largely through social care. This, in itself, is an enormous anomaly. One in four patients in hospital who are elderly and a huge number of people in the community have dementia, but that illness is treated as being due for social care, not NHS care, although the borders do blend to some extent.

We need to celebrate that huge medical success but we cannot do so if we go on as we are with the funding of, and attitude towards, social care, which remains very much as the Cinderella between the NHS and the community. Many people now say that this differential means that in reality we should close 20 per cent of acute hospital beds and transfer those patients to a different sort of care—perhaps hospitals transformed into community hospitals. It is not a case of killing them off; they should be transformed into care centres where people with these long-term conditions can be properly treated. We really must work towards that and accept the truth of it. If we do that, there will be an obvious need to integrate health and social care quite differently from the way that we have done it in the past. What is needed is not a transfer of resources but integration. We must get this right.

I have recently been involved in the EHRC’s inquiry into the care of older people in the community. We found that while a quarter of a million people are happy with the social care they receive in their homes, another quarter of a million are not—and understandably so because some of the ways in which they are looked after are, frankly, appalling. This is partly because of the huge diversity and differential in the allocation of resources, as well as the status and training of staff in dealing with the most difficult issues and problems. I am not going to go through everything I learnt from that inquiry. The report has been published, and I hope it will be helpful to many people in policy-making and in practice.

If we get this right and we keep people in the community for longer, we will save an enormous amount of money. At the moment, adult social services directors have no choice but to give money to the people in the most acute need, which means that the social care needs of all these other people are therefore not being met. If I were one of those directors and I had to choose where my money was going to go, that is what I would do. That needs to change because of the necessity of resource integration. We must find a way to intervene earlier, for dementia for example, with drugs, early diagnosis, and treatment in the community. People will then be able to live in the community for much longer and many will die in the community. An enormous amount of money will be saved. Care for people with dementia, in particular, in hospital is really unsuitable. It is bad for them and it is extremely bad for other patients. It really must change.

One reason that community care goes wrong is annual budgeting. If, like local authorities, one has to have an annual budget, one can do no preventive work. At least a four-year cycle is needed. It is like starting a business, investing in it, and expecting the return within a year—it cannot be done. One must wait a few years for the return. However, local authorities cannot wait because they lose their central government grants; we need to change that. The well-being boards need to be given the resources to integrate care properly so we can get rid of this imbalance.

Further, the Dilnot recommendations—and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Warner, on the distinguished role he played in this—are the first realistic proposals which bring together all sectors—public, private and voluntary—to get it right, with what seems to be a political consensus. This is such an opportunity, and we really cannot afford to lose it. Older people will suffer the most. There is still an enormous amount of discrimination. The social care we offer to younger disabled adults and to people with physical or learning disabilities is totally different; the attitude, and the range of resources and skills available to younger adults are quite different. This is direct and really damaging discrimination. The only way to change this is by integrating resources through the well-being boards. We need to make Dilnot a reality so that in the longer term all of us know enough to save for our pensions and our care. This amendment is essential if we are to get some action now. I support it very strongly.