Care Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the Opposition strongly support the intention behind deferred payments. I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to give a serious response to my noble friend Lord Lipsey, because the issues before us are how the scheme is going to operate, the complexity that is necessarily involved and the ability of local authorities to do the right thing. Around all those matters, there remain some question marks.

While I would not necessarily support my noble friend on the specification of the interest rate, there are questions to be answered about how the Minister thinks the scheme will operate among the many local authorities which will be charged with discharging the scheme. For instance, on the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, we could see large differences emerge between different local authorities. That would be unfortunate, and I would be interested to hear from the Minister what work his department has done in trying to model how it thinks local authorities will operate the deferred payment scheme.

The argument for a model deferred payment scheme is pretty persuasive. Even if local authorities are to have discretion—I do not disagree with that—in operating their own scheme, surely the production by the Minister’s department of a model scheme would ensure greater consistency and save local authorities a great deal of work in having to work out the details of their own scheme. Given all their other responsibilities, as much support as possible should be given to local authorities. A model payment scheme would be very useful.

I have two points to make on my noble friend’s Amendment 92ZZY. First, it is very specific on the loans being made available for the purchase of point-of-need insurance policies secured against an adult’s legal or beneficial interest in their home. That raises the whole issue of the insurance market. I again ask the Minister to reassure the House that he is confident that the insurance industry is prepared to come to market with suitable products. I know that he commented on this last week, but there remains some doubt about whether insurance companies really wish to operate in this market. Given that the whole thesis of Dilnot is that capping cost would lead to the development of an insurance market, this is something that we need to debate fully and be reassured on.

On Amendment 92ZZZ and the commencement date, I agree with my noble friends Lord Lipsey and Lord Warner about the complexity of what local authorities are being asked to do. We of course need to consider delay, but I do not understand why a different date has been chosen for the deferred payment scheme in contrast to other parts of the Dilnot implementation. It does not seem to make sense and, I would have thought, would be very confusing for people involved.

That brings me back to the second part of Amendment 92ZZY, which is the issue of regulated independent financial advice being made available to a person considering taking out a deferred payment. Surely the Minister will have been convinced by now that the financial consequences of decisions made by people in relation to the provisions in this Bill will be momentous. I would have hoped that by now he would recognise that the assurance that can be given through independent financial advice would be an important safeguard. Unless we have that, I fear that many people will have to make very difficult decisions, involving potentially large sums of money, without the necessary advice. That would detract from the generally consensual way in which we need to go forward. I hope that the Minister will perhaps have some good news for us on that front.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I intervene briefly to ask the Minister a rather pedantic question. Subsections in Clause 35 all use the word “may”. There is no actual requirement for the Government to introduce regulations and therefore for local authorities to be placed in a position whereby they can charge. Why has it been left open, rather than using the word “shall”? If we could take the wording as meaning “shall”, can we assume that each further instance of the word “may”—that is to say:

“The regulations may specify costs … The regulations may require or permit adequate security…The authority may not charge interest under regulations…The regulations may make other provisions”—

is part of a whole package? Or, if “may” does mean “may”, might only individual parts of this clause be introduced, as opposed to the whole clause? For example, subsection (2) states that:

“The regulations may specify costs which are, or which are not, to be regarded as administrative costs for the purposes of subsection (1)(b)”.

If that particular part of the clause were not implemented, it would leave local authorities open to decide for themselves what the administrative costs could be. Whatever internal reasons they may have—and my noble friend Lord Lipsey referred earlier to the reluctance of local authorities—should local authorities have that ability to be flexible? I am seeking to establish whether, if this is all going to happen and we should read “shall” for “may”, all the subsections of Clause 35 will be implemented and that isolated subsections will not be introduced in the regulations. That might create difficulties that we are not foreseeing during the passage of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Earl has said, and I am sure it is welcome, that the Government intend to set a maximum interest rate to be charged by local authorities. Does he agree that, since it is a crucial part of a deferred payment scheme, setting a rate nationally is consistent with a much more uniform approach? That is why I would have thought my noble friend’s amendment would be a sensible way forward. It is not being mandatory and does not go as far as my noble friend Lord Warner, but simply asks for a model scheme to be introduced.

[Earl Howe]

We are absolutely on side with the suggestion that there needs to be a uniform approach to the essentials of this scheme. That includes a national maximum interest rate. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that we do not need a national body running an all-singing, all-dancing, nationally mandated deferred payment scheme. We want to build on the good work already going on out there. The noble Lord made a fair point that only a minority of local authorities currently operate deferred payment schemes. Of those that do, many provide us with a very good basis on which to build and share knowledge with other local authorities. That can start now before the regulations are drawn up. We can and will start work with local authorities to ensure that they are gearing themselves up in the right way to approach this task.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wilkins]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, and the noble Lord, Lord Low. The noble Baroness has been very keen in pursuing these issues for the past five years and her tenacity has been outstanding. I am sure we all recognise that. She has argued comprehensively and excellently for these amendments. We all know that there is huge stress in moving home and, if you are a person in need of care, that stress is beyond words. As the noble Baroness said, it is a monumental risk. I hope that the Committee will wholeheartedly support these amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, on her amendments and on her persuasive advocacy in this area. We debated the issue of equivalent services at Second Reading and the noble Earl said in his response that he felt that when people move from one local authority to another their circumstances are, in many cases, likely to change and that after a move it would not always be appropriate for them to have services equivalent to those that they had before. However, the noble Baroness has answered this point—her amendment has moved on—and she is not asking for an equivalence of services but an equivalence of outcome. That is a very important difference that noble Lords ought to mark. It is a persuasive case. Of course it is not possible to say that a new local authority must provide exactly the same services in the same way, but it must be right to strive to ensure that the outcome for the person who has moved is the same. I have a great deal of sympathy with her amendments and support those which are designed to ensure a smooth transition.

The noble Lord, Lord Low, made an interesting contribution in relation to ordinary residence and the number of disputes that currently arise in relation to it. As he said, Clause 38 and its associated regulations are welcome. However, he is surely right to seek to ensure that the regulations give absolute clarity and I would welcome the Minister’s reassurance on that.

I welcome the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. He should not feel inhibited from intervening in Bills which he thinks apply only to England. His experience is welcome and I hope that he will continue to take part in our debates at future stages of the Bill. I have always found cross-border issues complex. No doubt the Minister will now move many amendments to deal with the issue. However, the substantive point is that, as the four countries of the UK seem to be going their separate ways in relation to health and social care, it is important that we ensure that people moving to and from different parts of the UK are able to do so without a gap in services. In that sense, I welcome the noble Lord’s intervention.

My Amendment 92ZZADA is concerned with the circumstances of carers in relation to a move from one authority to another. Essentially, the amendment requires the second local authority to provide a written explanation where the cost to the second authority of meeting the carer’s eligible needs is different from the first. That explanation should be provided to the carer, the adult needing care and any other person to whom the carer asks the authority to provide an explanation. I am seeking to mirror for the carer the requirement contained in Clause 36(10) to explain the difference in the cost of meeting the eligible needs of an adult when they move from one authority to another.

Perhaps I may probe the Minister about what would happen in a scenario where a carer receiving local authority support moves to a new local authority area but the person receiving care does not. Does the Bill cover this situation? Would a review of the support plan of the carer and the care plan of the person being cared for be triggered? Essentially, on the issue of portability, I want to ensure that the circumstances relating to carers are as well understood as they are to the person making the move. If the Minister cannot specifically respond to that point, perhaps she will write to me between now and Report stage.