Social Care Reform (Disabled People)

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Liz Kendall]

I give much credit to the Minister, but the Bill is the continuation of a process that Labour established when we were in government—I want that on the record. [Interruption.] I fully and readily acknowledge that local council budgets have been under pressure for many years. He knows better than anyone that towards the end of Labour’s time in Government we tried to reach an agreement on a social care funding system, which I will come back to in a moment. [Interruption.]

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the Minister to intervene formally if he wishes to say anything, for no other reason than it would assist the Hansard writer.

[Norman Lamb]

I formally apologise.

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

No problem at all.

[Liz Kendall]

I never mind interventions in debates; I warmly welcome them.

I shall make five specific suggestions to the Minister about how the Care Bill could be developed. First, the definition of well-being in the Bill is important. I welcome how broad it is. It covers mental, physical, social and economic well-being; personal relationships; and a person’s ability to contribute to society. The definition also includes ensuring that individuals have control over their day-to-day living, but I question whether the definition is as strong as it could be. The joint report from the all-party groups asks why it could not specifically include promoting independence, to strengthen the definition further.

An issue raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling relates to my point about definitions. The duty to co-operate in the Bill says that local councils will need to work with a range of partners. I understand that Ministers usually do not want to specify lots of organisation types, but I am concerned that although local councils would, we hope, know that they had to co-operate with the NHS, there is a real issue about the DWP. There is not that link-up locally, and if people’s ability to get training and to participate in the work force is so important, will the Minister consider whether, either in the Bill or in guidance, there needs to be more detail about who local councils should co-operate with? I am concerned that that local relationship might not be there.

Secondly, the eligibility criteria are, as the hon. Member for Bradford East said, the most crucial aspect of the social care system because they determine who is and is not eligible for social care support. We absolutely welcome the commitment to clear national eligibility thresholds, but the Minister knows that disabled people, organisations that represent older people and many of the groups involved are hugely disappointed that the draft regulations have set the thresholds at substantial rather than moderate. I am fully aware of the cost pressures on the system, but has the Department done a true cost-benefit analysis, to consider the potential saving? The hon. Member for South Derbyshire made a point about how investing up front can save money further down the line. Has the Minister discussed with his Treasury colleagues whether, if a longer time frame were used for assessing the costs, we would end up saving money for taxpayers if the moderate level was set?

My third point relates to the so-called capped care costs model—aka Dilnot. The Minister knows that I am concerned that the so-called cap on care costs is not really a cap. I am concerned not only because it does not cover hotel accommodation, but because it covers only what someone’s local authority would pay rather than the amount they might actually pay in residential care and because no one will benefit from the cap until 2020.