Care and Support (Business Failure) Regulations 2014
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Wheeler, who has achieved the rare feat of matching the Minister in both her knowledge of the subject and the eloquence with which she expressed it. I shall raise one or two points on just two of today’s regulations. The first is the market oversight criteria regulations—which, in principle, I strongly support. A few alarm bells began to ring in my skull when I saw that the body to be responsible for this is the CQC. My mind drifted back nearly a decade, I suppose, when we were in this Room debating the amalgamation of three regulators, proposed by the then Government, into the CQC. I remember speaking with all the eloquence that I could muster to explain why this was going to be disastrous, and the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, the then Minister, explaining with great eloquence why I was completely wrong. After that, the noble Lord and I would go outside and he would say, “I totally agree with you, David; this is an act of absolute madness”. I am afraid that for years so it proved.
I regard the CQC as on probation. It has new management. David Behan, the chief executive, is a man for whom all of us, I think, have the greatest respect. There are examples in which the CQC is improving its practice but it is still only on probation, which in itself does not provide me with the complete reassurance that I should like. More seriously, it is all very well having market oversight, but you need the resources to do it. I have done a little back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the Explanatory Memorandum, which suggests that the CQC will spend £6,000 per chain monitoring whether it is in financial trouble. Frankly, £6,000 does not buy much of a top accountant’s time. So while I should like to think that the CQC will pick up readily in advance of crises that there are problems, I doubt whether it is resourced to do so. The Minister and the Government should satisfy themselves that this job will be done and is not just a paper exercise so that, if something goes wrong, they can say that they did something about it. In practice, that will not be effective.
It is not entirely accurate to say that the eligibility criteria regulations translate into legislation the present criterion of substantial. Indeed, it has been argued that this is a slightly more liberal definition than the present substantial definition of what creates eligibility. But it is also not wholly inaccurate. I do not have any objection to this. I have read the useful briefing provided by the Care and Support Alliance but I am not convinced that, given the shortage of finance, to which I shall return in a moment, it would make sense to impose a much looser definition of eligibility and substantial, as recommended by Dilnot—particularly in view of the financial situation in social services.
I know that figures get bandied about for ever on this. I chose to take one from the Department of Health’s publication of March 2014 in which it said that spending on adult social services had fallen by 8% in the previous two years. Since the Government say that that is true, it must be true. Incidentally, we are seeing a folly in public finance which deserves to be highlighted. When you ring-fence one bit of public finance or guarantee it in real terms, that leads to more pressure on other forms of public finance. Because healthcare is ring-fenced and maintained in real terms—I am not arguing about whether the numbers are right—social services ends up taking more of the brunt.
Care Sector
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(11 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kingsmill, for initiating this debate and for her excellent report. There is another vote of thanks that I want to give, which on my part is even more heartfelt: I want to thank the 700,000 people working in the residential sector in particular for what they do for our elderly people.
Of course I know that there are a few bad apples in the barrel. The most profoundly frightening statistic that I have come across in some time is one that says that 54% of people fear going into a residential home because they think that they will get poor or even cruel care—that is the newspapers for you. Then I think of St Luke’s Hospital in Oxford, where my 92 year-old mother is. It is a special place. It is not a special place because it is a special building; to call it workaday would be generous. Nor is it in a special place: it is in a suburb of Oxford. It is special because of the people who work there. There is a highly educated and absolutely delightful couple from Botswana; the Nepalese Gurkhas, with whom the home has a connection; the Filipinos; and the eastern Europeans—a staff of people dedicated to care.
The number of care workers in residential homes is going to have to increase by about a third by 2025 to cope with the demands. Where are they going to come from? I understand why our politics is turning the way that it is on immigration—of course I do. However, weight has to be given to the fact that not only are we providing a home for people from abroad but they are providing services that we as a society desperately need—services that there is not, at present pay rates, a huge queue of British people dying to perform.
My point is that in most areas of public life there is quite a lot of controversy about what needs to be done—sometimes partisan and sometimes not. However, the Kingsmill report has to be taken with Camilla Cavendish’s wonderful report, with bits of the Burstow report on the residential sector and the earlier reports that have been mentioned today. They nearly all say essentially the same thing: the pay is too low. The too-low pay may have even come below the minimum wage and does not approach the living wage. Care workers are forced, often illegally, to pay for their uniform and for training and to spend time on duty even if they are not actually working at the time. Training is inadequate and career prospects are poor. It is hard for a care worker to graduate to becoming a nurse. To me, it is quite wonderful, despite all this, that we have a workforce at all, let alone one that is as conscientious as the great majority of it is.
There is total consensus on what is needed. Why does it not happen? The reason is money. I will give three examples. There is a huge shortfall in the amount paid in fees by local authorities for people in residential care—it is way below what would be an economic rate. Laing and Buisson calculated that for 2008-09 the total sum involved was £540 million. Unfortunately, it will not even give a Member of the House of Lords the current figure that it has calculated for use in this debate; I suppose that it makes its money by selling it. The figure is not likely, however, to be any smaller than that, so the fees are already inadequate. There is going to be an additional problem because, when the Dilnot report takes effect, those who are paying for themselves are going to find out what the council is paying for its own residents and they will say, “Why should I pay more than them?”. That will put more downward pressure on the fees, so the homes will not have the money to pay their staff properly.
Secondly, there are huge demographic pressures, with the number of 85-plus year-olds in 2030 likely to be more than twice what it was in 2011. We live longer, which is great for us, but somebody has to pay. Thirdly—and this annoys me, so I will not labour it—it is very distressing that the Government prefer to cut council budgets, even when those council budgets are the only thing that keeps care going, rather than cut their own budgets, because they feel that they would get the blame for that. No money, no improvement for care workers. Indeed, it will get worse. In addition to the cost of all this, we have the cost of Dilnot, which I on the whole support, although it is a much lower priority to pay better-off people a share towards their care than to provide the basic care that the poorest in our community need.
At the end of the day, there has to be more money for care. When that money is forthcoming, there has to be better treatment for the workforce as a key priority. I hope that this debate and the unanimity that I expect to diffuse it will persuade the Government that eventually, however reluctantly, they and particularly the Treasury will have to face up to this unpalatable fact.
Care: Financial Services Industry
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the role of the financial services industry in funding care provision in the light of the Dilnot commission reforms.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as unremunerated president of the Society of Later Life Advisers and a member of the advisory committee of the Equity Release Council.
The request for a debate on this was sparked by the publication on 21 January, jointly by the Department of Health and the Association of British Insurers, of a document called Social Care Funding: Statement of Intent. To be more accurate, it was sparked by the reporting of that document the next day in the Financial Times, which said that the statement meant that,
“government hopes of early products covering the cost of long-term care for the elderly”,
had been dashed. That was based on one conclusion of the report: it was unlikely that prefunded products to pay for long-term care would emerge, at least in the immediate future—that is, products that people had paid for during their working life. I am myself a journalist, but I am afraid that that really was news only to the FT. There have been no such products for a very long time, and they are even less likely in the light of the Dilnot cap on care costs. The fundamental reasons are very simple: they are supply and demand. From the point of view of companies providing them, they are very difficult policies to produce, because they require you to assess many years in advance how long people will live for, how long they will claim off the policies for and how much the cost will be. That is on top of all the usual problems of moral hazard with any insurance product. To put it technically, they are virtually impossible to price.
Even if those products were on offer, who on earth will buy them? We know that people during their working lives do not much care to think about their last years of life. We know that roughly only one in three people goes into residential care and is therefore most likely to benefit from prefunded products, and we know from talking to independent financial advisers that if you try to raise this sort of product with people during their working lives, they are not interested. They are interested in their pensions, yes, but not in care products. So they have never been a possibility and nothing in the Government’s plans has ever assumed that they were a possibility or were going to happen. If I were an insurance salesman, which thank God I am not, I reckon that I would have a better chance at selling heating to the denizens of hell than I would of selling these products on earth, if they existed. They are unsuitable and unsaleable—what is to like?
The FT missed the real story in the account, which is that there are two classes of product that are saleable and suitable and would supplement the recommendations of Dilnot as interpreted by the Government. One is point-of-use products whereby, if I go into a home tomorrow, I can insure myself so that my care costs are covered, however long I live. The second product is the enhanced annuity—that is, I start off with one pension and then, as I develop greater care needs, that pension is enhanced. I want to say a word or two on each of those products, which are essential in complementing the Dilnot proposals.
Point-of-use policies already exist. It is a small and specialised market, with about 7,000 policies extant and about 1,000 sold a year with three firms providing them. However, very few elderly people know of their existence. That is a point that I shall return to later—not, I think, greatly to the Minister’s surprise. They have a very important part to play in the Dilnot settlement. Dilnot caps costs at £72,000, or at least that is the story. But in reality, for many of the better-off people who go into a residential home it does not cap costs at £72,000 at all. They have to pay £12,000 in living costs on top of the £72,000 but, more importantly, that is £72,000 at the rate that a local authority will pay for a home. To cite the example of someone whom I know and love, who is in a home in Oxford that costs roughly £1,000 a week, she is marvellously cared for but the local authority will not fund £500 so there will not be £500 to count towards the cap. If she wants to protect herself so that she can stay in that home for the rest of her life, as she would like, one way in which she can ensure that is by buying one of the private policies. But Ministers have spoken rather with forked tongues about this. I do not mean the Minister here in particular, but Ministers from the Prime Minister onwards who have tried to obfuscate the fact that the cap covers only the cost of a home at the rate provided by the local authority. Really, the Government have to come clean with the public about what the cap is so that they can protect themselves, and know that they need to protect themselves, if they wish to.
On care annuities, the Government have a bigger role to play. There are a lot of difficult issues here. For example, there could be tax difficulties. If you have an enhanced annuity that raises your income to a level where you are paying higher rate tax, that would be quite a difficulty. Indeed, the tax situation on these annuities is not altogether clear, partly because the Inland Revenue likes to ensure that annuities are taxed. Although they are allowed to rise in line with prices, they are not necessarily allowed to rise in line with needs. The Government have more work to do before those policies can be safely marketed, sold and developed as they should be to help people as their needs grow.
I conclude with two final sine qua nons—I am sorry, that is naughty. I have used two Latin tags in one speech, but your Lordships’ House will forgive me if nowhere else will. Those sine qua nons must be met if the financial services industry is to fulfil its potential as a complement to the post-Dilnot world and not as a substitute for the government cap or assuming that the Government will pay for everything, which is the world that we are, thank God, finally leaving.
My first point concerns regulation. I am afraid that I could speak for a long time on that but, fortunately, this is a time-limited debate. In particular, I am not convinced that the standards required of independent financial advisers operating in this field are sufficiently high. Too many advisers sell too much on the basis of too little knowledge. The standards are simply not high enough. I exempt, as of course I would, SOLLA-qualified advisers, who are very fully trained and equipped—but others are not.
There is also a worry that needs a good deal of thought, and I do not have the solution to this one yet. There is something about in the industry that I would call the fear of FOS—the Financial Ombudsman Service. Many advisers who could play a very useful role for society and themselves by getting into this business are frightened that, although they sell the policies reasonably honestly, they will be found to have mis-sold them by FOS and will be forced to pay huge amounts in compensation. That is something that the Government need to look at, to see if any reassurance can be provided if we are to have the advisers available to provide the advice that people need.
The second sine qua non is the provision of information from the Government about precisely what the scheme does and does not offer as well as what it remains for individuals to provide for themselves. Does that make three Latin tags? On the subject of information, we made very good progress during the passage of the care Bill, and I thank the Minister and his ministerial colleagues for being so open-minded about this. The Government are committed to a national information campaign and to monitoring progress in public understanding, as well as to obliging local authorities to play their part in what we hope will emerge as a holistic system of advice and information. But the devil lies in the detail. I think that it is on balance right that the detail is not in the Bill, but getting the rules absolutely right is essential and giving local authorities the resources that they need to fulfil their advice functions is also essential.
There are also in the advice field complexities entirely of the Government’s own making. It is absolutely crackers to have one date on which the deferred payment scheme is introduced, whereby people do not have to sell their house, and a quite separate date when the Dilnot scheme comes into effect. Can noble Lords imagine how in that intervening year a financial adviser is to explain, let alone provide sound advice, to a client? It is simply impossible. What happens if someone comes to him a few weeks before the new benefit rules come into effect? Does he tell them to take out a deferred payment or not, when that benefits scheme may pay a lot of those costs? This is simply mad. The Minister will be glad to hear that if he agrees to reconsider his policy on this—and I hope that he will discuss it with his colleagues—the Government would actually save a bit of money.
I conclude as I began. The private financial services market has an important role to play as a supplement to Dilnot and providing a holistic system of support, particularly in helping people who have saved hard all their lives to make sure that they protect the assets that they wish to leave to their children. However, although we have passed the Bill and it is passing through another place, there is still much work for the Government and the industry to do if it is truly to fulfil that potential.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
“( ) Regulations must set out how local authorities should facilitate access to financial advice regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority for those adults likely to benefit from it.”
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as the unremunerated president of the Society of Later Life Advisers. Why has this matter come up again at Third Reading? It is because there were discussions in progress between the Minister, the two co-signees of this amendment and me, which had not yet concluded and the Minister generously agreed that we could bring it up at Third Reading. I think that the time has been well used. Certainly on the principles of the matter there is now complete accord between the Minister and ourselves. We are all agreed that taking financial advice must not be compulsory but equally we are agreed that it is not enough for the local authority just to hand over a list of names of advisers and say, “Take it from there”. In the fashionable words of today, we are agreed that they have to be nudged into doing what is invariably in their own interests as well as that of the council.
We are agreed that there is an important role for independent, regulated financial advisers in this field. We are agreed—despite the fact that I have tabled an amendment—that there is no need to put this in the Bill: it makes very good sense to spell it out in regulations. However, we are also agreed, and the Minister will confirm this, that it would be valuable, not only for this House but for outside interests, if he were to spell out in a little more detail the Government’s intentions in this regard. We have reached a position of great harmony. I thank him for all the time he and his officials have devoted to it and the sooner the House hears from the Minister, after one or two comments, the quicker this issue will be seen to have been satisfactorily resolved. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly in support of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, spoke with his usual clarity in moving the amendment and I shall not repeat his arguments, which seem to me to be compelling. However, I will point out that the amendment now before us is in effect the last remaining part of a discussion that started at Second Reading, continued in Committee and on Report and in private meetings with the Minister and his officials. At the start there were, broadly speaking, two concerns about information and advice. The first was about the Dilnot recommendation that there should be an extensive public awareness campaign about the facts and the implications of the cap. Our concern was essentially about the leadership, the scale and the monitoring of this campaign. I am very grateful to the Minister and his officials for all the discussions that they have had with us over this issue.
Earl Howe
My Lords, Amendment 3 brings us once again to the important matter of financial advice. As we have covered this subject at some length previously, and in the interests of time, I will endeavour to keep my response reasonably short. At the same time, I do not intend to make brevity a substitute for substance.
My discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, my noble friend Lord Sharkey and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and my officials’ discussions with the financial services industry have persuaded me that we are all seeking the same end point for financial information and advice. I believe that any apparent distance between the positions of the Government and noble Lords on this issue reflects only the way that I have expressed our intentions thus far. We want to ensure that when people take decisions about how to fund their care it is done in a considered and informed way. We agree that the local authority has a pivotal role to play in ensuring that this happens. I want to set out what I see that role as being in the hope that noble Lords will agree that we are indeed in concordance.
We believe that the local authority should take a proactive role. What does that mean in practice? Under the new system we expect many more people, a large number of them self-funders, to approach the local authority to start their meter running. This provides an invaluable opportunity for local authorities to reach out to these people and tell them about the support that is out there to help them better plan, prepare and provide for the costs of their care. It is particularly important for self-funders that this includes the relevance and the availability of regulated independent financial advice. To pick up the word in the noble Lords’ amendment, this should be a facilitative role for the local authority, providing a nudge in an appropriate direction.
In trying to define what we mean by facilitation, I wholeheartedly agree that handing out a leaflet or placing a page on a website is not sufficient. Instead, local authorities should talk to people and use the opportunity of contact with self-funders and others to give them individually tailored advice that suits their personal circumstances. They are likely to know something about a person’s financial situation and so will be able to tell them about the range of information and advice that might be most relevant to them in considering their care options, whether that is light-touch budget planning or advice from a regulated organisation. It would not be sufficient for local authorities just to tell a person about the types of information and advice available. They will also have to explain how it could be accessed and provide information to enable them to do so.
There is more work to be done before we can finalise what the guidance will say. To get it right, we will need to work collaboratively with stakeholders, including the financial services industry. We have begun to do that already and have had initial discussions and workshops involving representatives from the finance industry. They have confirmed what we all know of some of the necessary complexity in the system, so how and at what stage a person or their family is facilitated to take up regulated financial advice will depend on how and where they have made contact to obtain information and advice. We will gather examples of best practice to inform statutory guidance to help local authorities identify the types of information and advice that different people may need, inform them of those options at the right time and help them to access them.
In addition to the call for evidence and responses to the consultation on funding reform, background work has already been undertaken over the summer that supports the development of statutory guidance. Work commissioned through the Think Local Act Personal partnership has resulted in two publications on information and advice, principles for the provision of information and advice and an interactive map evidencing the difficult pinch points in people’s typical journey through the care system.
We have commissioned detailed work with six local authorities chosen from 40 examples of current practice collected earlier this year to draw together evidence on benefits and effectiveness in developing information and advice services. A number of those examples, including West Sussex, involve directing people to regulated independent financial advice. Helpfully, the ABI has invited my officials to participate in a workshop on access to financial advice being held on 14 November, which we expect further to support the development of guidance.
I am confident that no further amendments are needed to effect what I believe is a shared ambition. The Bill sets out the framework, the skeleton if you like, but it is the statutory guidance and implementation support that will put meat on those bones. What I have set out today is what we will put into practice through guidance. This guidance will be developed in co-operation with all interests, including the Association of British Insurers and the Society of Later Life Advisers, SOLLA, which will build on the good practice that already exists in many areas. We really want this to be the product of co-development which achieves the aims that I firmly believe that the noble Lord and I share.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, expressed concern about what I said on Report about the possibility that local authorities could be held liable in the event that a regulated financial adviser gives poor advice. He pointed out, quite rightly, that such an adviser would be covered under FCA codes, and so on. The issue here is about the local authority making a recommendation to an individual adviser. We do not consider that there is any problem with local authorities providing a list of advisers from whom a person could choose.
On the impact of local authority responsibilities, we have established a partnership with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and have set up a joint programme and implementation board. We have a lot of ground to cover, and I think that no one would deny that we have our work cut out over the next few months, but I can tell the noble Lord that, together, we are absolutely committed to providing the support that is needed by local government to enable it to fulfil its functions. I hope that we have achieved a meeting of minds on this matter and that what I have said today will give the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, sufficient reassurance to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I could not have put it half as well myself. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) The regulations may not specify any threshold of other assets above which a person is not eligible to receive a deferred payment loan.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot be so succinct this time. I might be acquitted of exaggeration if I say that the House's discovery on Report of the Government's proposed £23,250 limit on the non-housing assets people could have to qualify for the deferred payment scheme has caused something of a furore. I am not sure that Norman Lamb, the care Minister—a Minister for whom I genuinely have huge respect—will think that it was his finest hour when he described people with £23,250 in non-housing assets as quite wealthy. They may not be poor, but they are not likely candidates for the Chipping Campden set either.
My amendment would prevent the Government imposing such a limit. I have moved it in this form because we want to have a free-ranging debate this afternoon. I do not say that the matter will necessarily be resolved in this House this afternoon, and I make it clear that I am not an absolutist in this matter. The £23,250 figure is out for consultation—and following the furore a lot of people out there now know that it is out for consultation, which they did not know when it appeared in paragraph 150 of the consultation document. If at the end of that consultation, as I hope and expect, the Government decide to set a much higher figure, I shall reckon that a result.
Let us remember who this scheme is intended to help. It is not aimed at poor people who own their own homes, because they would not be sensible to avail themselves of its provisions. If they kept their homes under the scheme, they would have virtually no money in the bank and could not afford the little things that make life in a care home tolerable: presents for the grandchildren, a newspaper, sweets. At current interest rates, someone with £23,250 would have no more than £700 a year in income from that capital sum. They might have other bits of income but they are not going to be living a life of luxury in a care home off an income of £700 a year.
In arguing for the cap, the Government have tried to argue that it will not exclude most people. They claimed—or at least newspapers have reported that they claimed—that 35,000 of the 55,000 homeowners who enter care each year have assets of less than £23,250. These figures are contestable, as all asset figures are. A very good analysis in the Sunday Telegraph showed that the average 75 year-old had around £100,000 in other assets—a much higher figure than the Government were putting forward. However, that is not the main point I wish to make about the claim that most people have less than £23,250. My point, which I have been raising throughout, is not that the limit would exclude most people but that it would exclude most of the people who would sensibly take advantage of the Government’s proposal. That is why I have said, and maintain, that a £23,250 cap would kill the scheme stone dead and that if that figure remains unchanged, there will be practically no takers for it.
As I have already said, it makes no sense for the poor to do it. If they went down this line, they would be left with so little cash that they would not be able to afford the luxuries of life. But let us be equally clear that it would not make any sense for anybody at the top end of the scale to do it—the Chipping Campdens with millions in the bank who Norman Lamb rightly said would be excluded. If they go into a care home they do not have to sell their home anyway—they can pay the fees out of their investment income or by selling a few shares. They could follow the famous advice that Nicholas Ridley, as Environment Secretary, gave to people who were having difficulty paying the poll tax, to sell a few pictures. A cap excluding them will do no harm since they were not going to take advantage of the scheme anyway.
I can quite see why the Government might wish to avoid promoting a scheme that could easily be portrayed—wrongly, as it happens—as giving a handout to the rich. However, the scheme as devised by Dilnot, as accepted by the Government and as amended, sadly, by the consultative document, is not aimed at the poor or at the rich. It is aimed to help people on middle incomes who have worked all their lives and saved a modest sum. That is why the Daily Mail and the Telegraph—which have appointed themselves, fairly enough, as the spokesmen for such people—have mounted their admirable campaigns against the Government’s proposed cap.
Therefore, the question is, “What cap will ensure that these people benefit?”. The answer is not—I repeat, not—£23,250. When we look for another figure, there is a logic that points us in the right direction. Why £23,250? It is an odd little figure and not something which you would dream up overnight. It happens to be the present upper limit for getting help under the means test. If you have more than £23,250 in assets, you get no help under the means test; if you have less, you get some help.
However—this is quite curious, but I can only explain the facts—the £23,250 cap is going to increase dramatically. Under the Dilnot recommendations, as embraced by the Government, the upper limit will increase to £118,000 in 2016, when the new cap on care costs comes into force. Many more people will get help with their care costs, and there will not be the current precipice whereby people who have a small amount of money—although Norman Lamb describes them as being quite rich—will be disqualified. Instead there will be a much longer plateau stage, when people lose a little bit of money if they have more money in the bank.
If the limit is to be £118,000, it seems that the logical thing would be to say, “Let’s forget £23,250. If the new means-test limit will be £118,000, let that £118,000 also be the limit for the deferred payment scheme”. At a stroke, that would deal with the problem of middle-income people who have worked hard all their lives, while excluding the rich people who do not need help. Job done. That may not happen in this House this afternoon, but I am sure that it will be done when the Bill reaches another place.
This is all quite new stuff, which was only discovered in the past couple of weeks, and I want to make two points in conclusion. Some people worry that if we do as I suggest the scheme would impose a high cost on the state. They need not worry. Loans will be repaid in full with interest when the old person dies, and the average time in a care home is about two and a half years. So the Government’s cash flow will hardly be adversely affected for long, and the scheme certainly will not be loss-making.
The second reason why the scheme will not cost much is that not very many people would be well advised to take advantage of it. For most people it would mean either leaving their former home empty—with the roof rotting and the price that it will eventually fetch for their family, out of which the debt will have to be repaid, declining—or letting it out, which would not be easy for somebody in a care home to manage. For some people—those, for example, who have always had the dream of their children living in their house—it will be a huge comfort to see that dream realised when they go into a care home. I speak with some feeling, because my own mother, who is in a care home, has been able to give her home to her other son and that gives her, as well as him, huge pleasure.
This scheme would prevent forced sales at bargain prices when the market is particularly depressed. It would also give the old person, who might initially have said, “Well, maybe I might return home one day”, time to come to terms with the fact that that may not be so. That can take a bit of time—and some people, miraculously, can return home. The scheme would protect some people, but there will not be very many of them. I would expect the take-up to be in the low thousands, if that, and any cost to be exiguous.
Finally, some noble Lords have come up to me in the Lobby and said, “But surely it’s right that old people should use some of the assets they have accumulated in their lives to pay for their care”. This thought is reflected in the reported remarks of the noble Lord, Lord O’Donnell, about the benefits that we give to old people. I empathise strongly with that school of thought. Indeed, it is what has, entirely unexpectedly, led me to spend the past 15 years trying to stop the feeble-minded proposal of the majority on the Royal Commission on Long Term Care for the Elderly that the state should pay for free care for everybody, and then—with my noble friend Lord Warner—tackling the Government and succeeding in stopping the insane proposal of the Brown Government that care at home should be free for all when care in homes should be paid for. I remember the stout support that I had from the Minister for that successful campaign.
I want people to contribute to the cost of their care, but I believe profoundly that a deferred payment scheme will make that easier, for it will remove an injustice from the present system and therefore pave the way to a new public-private partnership in paying for care—a stable basis on which people can plan for their old age, freed at last from fear.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. It is tempting to go further into the minutiae of these issues, but I think I have been in politics long enough to recognise when a Minister is elegantly preparing for a government retreat. Believing that we have just heard an exemplar of such a speech, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that this can be a short, sharp debate because it is about a very clear matter of principle.
Clause 67(4) provides that councils can recover money paid out on claims for any benefit in Part 1 of the Bill which are made in error—and here are the operative words—“whether fraudulently or otherwise”. My amendment would substitute a longer form of words whereby councils can recover where a claim,
“fraudulently or negligently misrepresents or fails to disclose any material fact that they might have reasonably been aware would have a bearing on expenditure incurred by the local authority”.
That is designed to narrow the scope of the “otherwise” that allows councils to recover in all circumstances. In other words, as the Bill stands, someone who applies for a benefit who inadvertently errs in their application can be pursued to repay the full resulting cost to the council, including the cost of the council’s action, I think. My amendment preserves the recovery if the claim was fraudulent but otherwise allows it only if the old person was negligent. In a sentence, it protects the claimant who makes a slip.
I will give an example of what could happen under the Bill as it is worded. An old person applies for a deferred payment loan on their house so as not to have to sell it. Unfortunately, they make a slip in declaring their assets: they forget some bank account or other. If they had declared it, their assets would have exceeded the £23,250 limit, which the House discovered to its surprise now applies to anybody who wishes to apply for a loan; they cannot apply for a loan if they have more than £23,250. The local authority later finds out and demands its loan back; it perhaps forces the house to be sold to pay it back. I do not suggest that this is going to happen regularly or often but we should not allow the possibility that it should happen at all.
I raised this matter in Committee and subsequently discussed it, with the Minister’s encouragement, with his officials. My aim was to find a compromise that protected the old person who had made a mistake in applying for the benefit while enabling the local authority to go after somebody who was deliberately trying to get something they were not entitled to or who had behaved extremely stupidly and should have known better than to claim.
I thought we were making headway in those discussions but last week the Minister sent me a note refusing to change the Bill. I must say that this is wholly out of character for the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who is usually the most humane of men, and I beg him to think again. If he does not like my wording, that is fine; I am quite happy to consider any other wording that he and his officials may put forward that avoids the pitfalls I suggested. What I will not accept is anything short of an amendment to the Bill.
I know, because he said so in his note to me, that the Minister may claim that he can provide guidance which stops this sort of illegitimate recovery of a debt incurred through error. To that I say two things: first, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush and I would rather change the Bill now than to rely on promised guidance, which we have not seen and could not later amend; secondly, it is not only the people the council would prosecute or seek to get their money back from that we need to worry about. A lot of old people are quite nervous about handling financial affairs—quite rightly, given the complexity of these affairs. They might be thinking of applying for a benefit but if they learn that, under a Bill passed by this Parliament, if they make a slip they can have their assets seized to repay it, many of them will simply decide not to apply at all.
I think I have a pretty thick skin but I was a bit surprised when I read in the newspapers this morning a Conservative spokesman quoted as saying that this was a politically motivated amendment. Just to set the record straight: it was not my idea to amend the Bill in this way. This amendment was put forward by Age UK, which sent a note to all noble Lords explaining why it believes it to be necessary. We all know Age UK: it is a splendid group working for old people. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, used to run its predecessor. A less political organisation than Age UK is hard to imagine, so I hope that the Minister will apologise for the inadvertent—I am sure—slur that has been cast on Age UK.
I should add that Age UK believes that the Bill may be in breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In a House which earlier on displayed such expertise on the subject of the European Convention on Human Rights, I am certainly not going to express my own opinion on whether that view is right or wrong. Nothing could be more stupid than for us to pass this Bill in its present form and later on to find it challenged in the courts, and perhaps overturned.
My argument does not rely on the convention on human rights. It relies on what seems to me to be a simple fact, obvious to anybody who reads this clause in the Bill. This is not the kind of legislative provision that you would expect in a democracy. It is a provision which enables authorities here, in Britain, to punish the innocent and, in the process, to terrify people who might otherwise apply for benefits to which they are entitled. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I predict that in the handbook which all civil servants use to train themselves in their art, his reply will figure as an example of how best to argue an indefensible case, because that is what I think he has just done. “Resent” would be too strong a word, but the argument that by raising this matter I am creating a problem and raising the fears of old people is not plausible. This is what Governments do the whole time: they try to do something wicked, but when that is pointed out to them, they say, “Oh no, it is you who are causing the trouble because you are pointing out that it is wicked”. The fears are raised not by my speeches or interventions; they are raised by the words in the Bill to which the Minister has put his name.
The Minister also said that this power is all right because it is 60 years old. To that I have two things to say. If a power like this has been lurking around in legislation for 60 years, it is about time we took a little look at it, and I hope the noble Earl will start some such operation. Wherever that power exists now, this is a different case because here we are dealing with elderly people. As my noble friend Lady Bakewell so graphically pointed out, with the best will in the world, older people can make mistakes. Whether it applies to other social security legislation, I cannot say. It may do so, but I do not think it is appropriate to this legislation.
The Minister then rightly said that if a local authority goes to court, the court will not grant the order. But before the local authority goes to court, it will have to deliver a letter to the old lady saying that it is going to do so. What will be the impact of that? Is she going to say, “Oh, that is fine. The court will turn it down. I will see my solicitor or my son and get this defeated”. No, the old lady will be thrown into a panic as a result of what the local authority is doing. I agree totally with the Minister that most of the time, most local authorities act perfectly reasonably. That is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is whether on the face of primary legislation there should be the scope for the odd authority to act unreasonably and thereby cause terrible fear and distress to older people. That is what the noble Earl, I am sure inadvertently, is doing.
Finally, I turn to the most powerful of the Minister’s arguments. He said that this would be very unfair because people would get away with it and they would gain at the expense of others who are also claiming benefits. But I beg the Minister and the House to study my amendment. It does not say, “Well, if you fill in the form inattentively and get it totally wrong, you will get away with it”. That would come under the phrase in my amendment, “they might have reasonably been aware”. In most conceivable circumstances, my amendment would allow recovery in just the same way as the Government’s drafting, but it would do so without that frightful “or otherwise”. It is a sword of Damocles being held over the heads of many innocent older people, and they should be spared from that.
The Minister has made his speech and the House has heard both sides of the case. I think that it is time to test its opinion in the Division Lobbies.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 55 on top-ups and comment, also briefly, on the proposal for a ministerial advisory committee.
I can be brief about top-ups but not because the issue is not important. Indeed, its substance is vital if the Government’s scheme for a cap is to work. We made good progress on the basis of the Minister’s remarks in Committee, and further progress was made in the Government’s consultation document, published on 17 July. I hope that he will indicate that things are still on the right track towards reaching final solutions in the near future.
I recapitulate the argument from Committee. You cannot at the moment top up your own care home fees. If you go into a care home, a third party—your son, daughter or friend—can top them up but you cannot put in your own money. That is important now, and the statutory bar is often got around or simply ignored. However, it will be a lot more important once the Dilnot scheme incorporated in the Bill takes effect.
Consider an old person who is living in a home in which the fees are £800 a week. Suppose that the limit to what the local authority will pay in fees is £500 a week. What happens when the person has spent up to the cap, at the local authority rate of course? It may be that a third party can give them the extra money to pay up, but suppose they are isolated and on their own. I am afraid that the answer is simple and stark. The individual would have to choose between only two alternatives. One is to accept the £500 a week from the local authority and move into a cheaper, perhaps worse, home, with all the disruption to that person’s life that that would involve. The other would be waive the local authority contribution and continue to pay the £800 themselves. That would mean that the cap had not done them a blind bit of good. The way round this is to permit individual top-ups, so £500 would come from the local authority, £300 from the individual. The noble Earl endorsed this in Committer when he said that,
“people should be able to use their savings to purchase more expensive care if they want to”.
He went on to say that revised arrangements to this effect would,
“be set out in regulations made under Clause 30(2) of the Bill”. —[Official Report, 16/7/13; col. 736.]
This is spelt out in paragraphs 263 to 266 of the consultative document, which also has pointers to some of the potential risks. I hope that this was with a view to solving those risks and not to coming along at a later stage and saying that they are insuperable. I ask the Minister to make a brief progress report to reassure the House that this bar on individual top-ups is going to be rescinded. Without it, the Dilnot scheme simply will not work.
I will now say a word on the ministerial advisory committee amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who kindly adopted a proposal that I made in Committee. As the House knows, I have previous in this field, having been working on long-term care since I was on the royal commission in 1999. I also have a bit of previous on public policy in general because I started working for Tony Crosland when he was shadow Environment Minister in 1972. Of all the myriad subjects on which I have had to do reasonably serious work in this time, this is by far the most complicated. It involves a mix of financial and administrative problems with the most sensitive human considerations, particularly since it concerns people at a stage of their life when they are going into the second age of vulnerability due to age. Public and private are inextricably mixed in a way that complicates things. The whole cap is part of a private/public co-operation; therefore, it is crucial to align what both parts are doing.
The scale and range of the stakeholders involved is enormous. The Care and Support Alliance had more than 100 individual voluntary organisations which came together to promote a solution in this Bill. There are also a lot of nooks and crannies that are not obvious. I am going to come to one in a speech later this afternoon, a feature of this Bill which only became known to me on Friday which greatly changes the deferred payment scheme under the Bill. There are nooks and crannies that can be simply ignored. We had another one earlier in the Bill. It suddenly turned out that if somebody had an income close to the top for which they could claim means-tested support, they had better not claim it, because otherwise they would lose more than they gained through attendance allowance. So it is a hugely complicated field.
I am not a critic of the department on this, nor of its Ministers. They have wrestled bravely with this, helped of course by the superb Dilnot report—I am standing behind my noble friend Lord Warner, who was involved in that process—which helped hugely to clarify the intellectual framework. But there are complications as yet unfathomed. As the scheme goes forward I promise that there will be lots of unexpected and unintended effects. In particular, how people register they are getting care needs, how they are then assessed, and how it builds up towards a care cap will work out quite strangely. The Government will need the best possible advice on how to do it.
All I am suggesting, as my noble friend Lord Hunt will propose in his amendment, is that it would be well for us to set up right at the beginning a ministerial advisory committee that includes everyone—the voluntary groups, the financial services industry and those who regulate it, and government departments—that can keep on top of these things. As major problems are identified, the committee can report to the Minister on them. As I say, it is not a vote of no confidence in the Department of Health. Indeed, I hope that the department will welcome the proposal because it has shown itself to be willing to talk openly throughout this progress of this Bill. The Minister used a good phrase to describe it when discussing the regulations earlier—co-production. We will need co-production as much after the Bill and the regulations have gone through as before. An advisory committee would provide that.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Earl’s amendments. As we start another day on Report I should declare my interests as chair of a foundation trust, as a consultant trainer with Cumberlege Connections, and as president of GS1. The noble Earl said that the first group of amendments is designed to give more flexibility to local authorities so that they can make a contribution to a person who might normally be affected by the means test. That is entirely reasonable, but I wonder if he could tell us a little more about the consultation timetable from which this has clearly flowed.
I have also noted the amendments that will allow the local authority to charge the cost of care to those people who refuse to undergo a financial assessment. Again, this seems reasonable, but given the difficult circumstances in which that scenario might arise, does the noble Earl not consider that that lends support to those noble Lords who think that there ought to be appeals systems in place? When we come to appeals, I wonder whether the noble Earl might be a little more sympathetic to those amendments.
I want to lend my support to my noble friend Lord Lipsey in relation to top-ups. He argued persuasively in Committee to allow self-funders to top up if they reach the cap but wish to remain resident within a care setting where the costs are higher than the local authority is paying. That is a strong argument, and I, too, welcome the progress that has been made. However, like my noble friend, I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give us a further report on progress on this matter.
I come now to my Amendment 56, which has been very effectively trailed by my noble friend; in fact, it is difficult for me to do as much justice to the amendment as he has done. It requires the establishment of an independent ministerial advisory committee to keep under review the workings of the cap and the means-testing arrangements set out in Clause 17. It is fair to say that all noble Lords who have debated this Bill have welcomed its general intent and the principles that underpin it. The Dilnot commission marked a significant step forward in creating consensus on how people are to be protected from financial catastrophe if they have to fund their own care. We have debated in detail the Government’s response as set out in this Bill: the establishment and operation of the cap, the level of the cap, the continued financial risk to self-funders, the deferred payment scheme, the capacity of local authorities to accept the responsibilities being placed on them, and in particular, I would identify the responsibility for assessing thousands of self-funders who will come into contact with the local authority for the first time. We have discussed the advice to be made available to vulnerable people in a complex area and its interrelationship with the eligibility criteria.
No one, in welcoming the general thrust of the Bill, will believe that this is the last word. I am sure that the operation of the care packages set out in this Bill will need to be kept under frequent review by the Government and particularly by the noble Earl’s department. Oversight of the system would surely benefit from a bipartisan group of people from whom the Government could continue to take advice. My noble friend Lord Lipsey has gone back many years in relation to the debates in this area. Of course, he served on the 1999 Sutherland royal commission. In parallel we have had the Turner commission on pensions and we have seen the benefit of a bipartisan approach in relation to Dilnot.
We would all agree that the funding of long-term care requires stability as far as possible and, even more importantly, a long-term political consensus. As my noble friend Lord Lipsey said, this is a very complex, complicated set of arrangements. We would be best served by the establishment of an independent group that could advise Ministers on how the system was working and enable politicians from all sides to benefit from serious, impartial advice.
I know that the noble Earl has yet to be persuaded of the benefits of an advisory committee, but it would be an effective way to build on the consensus that I think has been created. I hope that even at this late stage, he might be sympathetic.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) Regulations under this section must provide that—
(a) a local authority shall direct anyone considering a deferred payment arrangement to an appropriately qualified financial adviser or to appropriately qualified financial advisers; and(b) any loan under this scheme shall be sufficient to pay for advice under paragraph (a) above.
Lord Lipsey
That is a great relief to me. I will come to the narrow-ish point in the amendments shortly but I want to put them in context.
One of the reasons why advice is absolutely crucial in the deferred payments scheme is that this is one of the least understood and least explored facets of the Bill. I will come on to one or two aspects of that. In a way, it makes it hard to make the case for the importance of advice, because so many things on which advice will be needed have not yet seen the light of day. In Committee I referred to some of the unresolved issues that have been raised by Partnership, the Equity Release Council and others. They will emerge, and this will make it clearer why advice is needed.
I will first put the issue in the following context, to show how unexplored it is. If the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will forgive me, I will correct something that he said in Committee. He said that 40,000 people each year have to sell their house to pay for care. I think that the noble Earl mis-spoke and that he meant to say, “up to 40,000”. That is the explanation that has come to me of what he said. I make no complaint; it is hard when one’s words are examined in such terrible detail.
I have spent a surprising—perhaps wasted—amount of my time trying to trace the figure that 40,000 people each year are forced to sell their home to pay for care. I have been doing it ever since I sat on the royal commission 15 years ago. When we were sitting on the royal commission, we eventually found a very dodgy piece of research, now more than 20 years old, which kind of concluded that the number might be about 40,000. Of course, what happened was not that the piece of research was examined and found to be accurate but that the figure got into the Daily Mail cuttings library, so that every time that paper campaigned against people having to sell their house to pay for care—I praise it for this—the figure was repeated, until it became accepted throughout the world as the number involved.
Having spent all these years studying the subject, I am very tempted to go into greater detail, but I do not think that the House would thank me for it. However, I refer any noble Lord who might be interested to the Full Fact website. It is a fact-checking organisation, of which I am a director, which goes into the matter in minute but very clear detail, and points out that the Government’s claim is based on exploratory research that is almost 20 years out of date.
More importantly, the 40,000 figure is used as if it were the number of people who are forced to sell their house. “Forced” is a funny word in this context. For most people who go into a home, selling their house is the sensible thing to do to fund the cost of care. You do not want to leave the house empty; that benefits nobody. It does not provide housing for anybody; the house starts to crumble and is worth less to you and your family, so you had best sell it and get something that is more suitable. However, the deferred payment scheme is so important because there are people for whom that is not true. For example, some people want their families to live in their house and therefore cannot get cash for it. That is why we have a deferred payment scheme. “Forced” suggests that this is something dreadful in all cases, when in fact it is dreadful in some cases. It is absolutely right, as I said before, that we have such a scheme for some cases but not for all cases.
I now come to another severe complication, and I am afraid that I will have to resort to the vernacular in order to make clear to the House what has happened. The original scheme put forward by Dilnot has had its balls cut off by the Government in the consultation document. That is not too strong a way of putting it, and I will explain why. Yes, every council will offer a scheme, but there is now a huge restriction that will mean that very few people will take advantage of the deferred payment scheme. It would not in any case have been 40,000, but now I think that it will be nearly nil. Why is that? The consultation paper makes it clear, in paragraph 150 on page 44, that you are eligible for a deferred payment loan only if your other assets in total come to less than £23,250. If you have more than that, you have to spend down until you have £23,250 left in the bank or wherever it is, and then you can consider a deferred payment scheme. However, most people who have reasonably valuable houses, who are the people most likely to want to adopt this measure, will have far more than £23,250 worth of other assets. Most of them will not feel the least bit happy if they have to spend down until they have only £23,250 left in the bank before they can get any help from the deferred payment scheme. That hardly pays for a daily delivery of the Racing Post for the rest of their lives, their nightly gin and tonic or more important things such as the literature they want to read or all the things that make their life fuller. For those people, a deferred payment scheme is simply not available.
Earl Howe
I shall come on to the standard scheme proposal in a moment. We need to ensure that this arrangement is rolled out in a way that is financially sustainable for the local authority in each case. We will be supporting the implementation of the capped costs system and an extension of deferred payments with £335 million, which should enable this to happen.
I shall move on to the amendments themselves. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not rehearse at length the same points that I made about financial advice last week, but I should like to take a moment to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, on the specifics of his proposal. It is imperative that everyone has access to sound, reliable information and advice while making decisions about their care to ensure that any option they choose makes good financial sense for them and is sustainable in the long term. It is clear that local authorities have a central role to play in ensuring that their local populations are aware of the range of information and advice, both regulated and non-regulated, that is available to them and that they know how to access it. Last Wednesday, your Lordships accepted my Amendments 16 and 17 which clarify this. The noble Lord’s amendment would underscore the need to make sure that everyone who decides to take out a deferred payment agreement reaches that decision in a considered and informed manner. I agree that that should be the case. All too often, people do not plan ahead for the possibility of needing care and so can find themselves having to make important and lasting financial decisions in a moment of crisis.
Deferred payment agreements can be used to reduce some of this urgency and ought to be accessible to ensure that they provide the peace of mind that they are intended to. For this reason I would hesitate to make the process through which a person can access a deferred payment too onerous. We are currently consulting on the information and advice a person should receive before taking out a deferred payment agreement. We will listen carefully to what is said and we will use this to inform the approach that should be taken. I have already given the noble Lord my undertaking to discuss further what remaining differences we have about financial advice, if any, and I hope that those discussions will allow us to explain in more detail our policy intentions and what our own government amendments in this area aim to achieve. I hope that the noble Lord will agree that we are essentially of the same view about this and that he will be content to discuss the matter with me further outside the Chamber. That being so, I hope that he is sufficiently reassured today to withdraw his amendment.
I turn to Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler. We are in concordance with them that a model deferred payment agreement would help local authorities and that is why we already have one in place for the schemes that are currently operating. What we intend to do now is build on and improve the current model. In doing that, we will work in partnership with local authorities to learn from the well established schemes, some of which have a decade of experience. While the case for a model scheme is clear, I think it would be wrong to mandate national systems and structures for deferred payment agreements. It is important that we strike the right balance between local flexibility and national consistency. Systems and structures must be developed in partnership with local government and allow for and, indeed, encourage local efficiencies to flourish. As noble Lords may know, we have established with the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services the joint implementation and programme board to support the implementation of these reforms more generally and, through this, we will support local authorities to deliver the universal scheme from April 2015. This work will include our commitment to providing a model deferred payment scheme, based on the current model, as well as statutory guidance to support local authorities in exercising these functions.
The statutory guidance on deferred payments, in particular, will have a clear legal status. Local authorities must act under this guidance. This means that they must consider and should follow it, unless they have a justifiable reason not to do so. This would seem to be the same status as is envisaged by noble Lords in their amendment. I hope therefore the noble Lord feels able to withdraw his amendment in light of the reassurance I have given on supporting local authorities to deliver the universal deferred payment scheme and the model agreement in particular.
My noble friend Lady Barker asked whether the scheme was a model for how local authorities manage the burden on themselves. This is not designed to be a scheme that makes a profit for local authorities. The interest rate is likely to be set at a rate which recognises local authority borrowing rates, and so ensures that the scheme is cost-neutral.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On the first two of the three legs of his argument, I am happy to support what he said. Through helpful discussions over the summer, I understood that he had meant to say “up to 40,000.” I make no criticism of him for misleading the House. Any misleading he did is on a tiny scale compared with the misleading that has taken place with the whole country through these repeated cuttings file references. History will now have on record in this debate the truth about these numbers. That is a form of progress, if not legislative progress.
Secondly, I should like to thank the noble Earl for what he said about advice. We are near to having another meeting before Third Reading on advice. We are all after the same things on advice with the same constraints. We have not quite cracked it yet, but I hope when the House comes back on Third Reading to the matter of advice, we shall do so, either in the form of an amendment, or of a shared understanding on where we are going which might take the form of regulation or guidance. On those two things, I agree with the Minister.
However the Minister did not confront my most important point. Let us be absolutely clear. This Bill does not provide a universal deferred payments scheme. It provides a deferred payments scheme only for people who have less than £23,250 in assets. There is no universal deferred payments scheme. Further, this has been done in a back-door manner which disgraces the Government. It was not in Dilnot. We have heard decisive testimony on that from my noble friend Lord Warner. It was not in the Government’s announcement of their response to Dilnot. It was not in the Second Reading speeches. It came out between stages of the Bill in this consultation document. The noble Earl suggested that there would be people with more than £23,250 who could benefit from deferred payments so we did not have to worry. The relevant bit from paragraph 154 of the consultation document says:
“More generally, we also intend that authorities should have the discretion to provide deferred payments to people in residential care who do not necessarily meet all of the mandated criteria.”
Those criteria include the £23,250, so that sounds quite good. The next sentence says:
“For example, if someone has slightly more savings”—
I stress the phrase “slightly more savings”—
“than the £23,250 threshold but would qualify for a deferred payment soon, an authority might prefer to offer the option upfront.”
That is a tiny loophole. This is essentially a £23,250 threshold that the Government have smuggled in, telling nobody until they had to produce this document and hoping no doubt that by 25 October, nobody would have noticed. I shall tell you who will notice. The Daily Mail will notice. The Daily Mail and other newspapers which campaigned so that people would not have their houses seized—I applaud them and have applauded them before for doing so—are now going to learn that the Government have welched on the deal. The tsunami that will hit the Government in consequence will hurt not only this proposal but the Government as a whole.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. She is so right in saying that people very often have no idea what questions they need to ask and what services they may be entitled to and therefore this aspect of the Bill is far more important than it sounds.
However, I shall speak to Amendment 21 which, in a way, takes us a step further and would ensure that vulnerable people with current or foreseen complex needs receive information and advice in a way that they can understand; also that the information and advice takes full account of their complex personal position. This may sound simple enough, but, in fact, an untrained person with a leaflet on local services, probably including lots of irrelevant information, is quite likely to leave someone more confused than they were before the visit. In fact, if local authorities do not want people to find their way to services that they need, a rather weak and unstructured approach to information and advice is probably the best way to achieve that result, but in the longer run, such a cynical approach will be highly costly.
My few remarks are based on a briefing from the College of Social Work, which has had the benefit of input from front-line social workers, managers, recent directors of adult care and academics, all of whom are very conscious of and concerned about the efficient use of resources. They would not say lightly that one should be developing a service such as this for information and advice unless it were really important. For people without dementia or other disorders which make it particularly difficult to comprehend the world around them, information and advice can probably be provided by less trained people without any great loss.
As was said in Committee, the aims and principles of the Bill are welcome. The College of Social Work is concerned, however, that many of these principles will not be fulfilled in practice. We hope, with the aims and principles in mind, that the Minister will agree to some further clarification in the Bill, or in regulations, on the key role of skilled social workers in supporting and protecting some of the most vulnerable people in society through their involvement at the information and advice stage.
Key stakeholders were grateful that, in Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, recognised the point of this amendment. He said that,
“some authorities have also used qualified social care staff as the first point of contact and have found that this can be effective, efficient and timely, helping people to the care and support that will help them most”.
At that stage he envisaged that,
“guidance will set out the clear expectations of what the local authority’s service should cover or what it should seek to do in order to ensure that the information and advice is sufficient”.—[Official Report, 9/7/13; col. 216.]
The aim here is to ensure, by including the appropriate wording in the Bill or in regulations—I fully accept that having it in regulations would be perfectly satisfactory—that professionally qualified social workers will be deployed in sufficient numbers, including at the information and advice stage, for people who really need that level of expertise. As I have already said, those with complex needs may be a relatively small number of people. This should ensure that these particularly vulnerable people are put in touch with the most appropriate services for them. This could avoid the need for more intrusive and expensive interventions at a later stage.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
I shall make most of my remarks on the subject of advice and information on Amendment 20, which is a more broad-brush amendment, but I shall just comment on the government amendments in this group, on advice—that is Amendments 16, 17 and 19. I remind the House that I speak as the unremunerated president of SOLLA, the Society of Later Life Advisers, which accredits, to a gold standard, advisers who can help old people on financial matters.
It would be churlish not to say that the government amendments mark a small step forward, in that for the first time they represent a recognition that independent financial advice can be necessary. To that extent, I welcome them. However, I have to say right away that it is impossible to read the briefings we have had without realising that they have caused great disappointment, particularly among financial service people who are determined to get this right. The Equity Release Council says that the government amendments do not go far enough.
In trying to put my finger on the point, yes, they recognise independent advice and financial advice, but they do not recognise the need for that advice to come from people who are properly qualified to give it. It is not enough to have Tom, Dick and Harry advise in this field. It is not enough, even, for local authorities to send people to see people who they may think are quite plausible advisers, such as Citizens Advice: they do not know the complications involved in giving financial advice, particularly to people who have got some money and need to make sure that it will provide them with the care in a home that they want. They need proper, regulated financial advice, given by advisers who can be called to task by the Financial Conduct Authority if the advice they give is not sufficient, who have to follow the rules set by it and must have the kind of qualifications required by it. Therefore, in my view the Government are some way short of what is required in these amendments. It is to repair that lack that I shall later move Amendment 20.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I think I am right in saying that in the Inuit language there are more than 300 words for snow. I suspect that if historians were to go back through the annals of the British Civil Service, they would come across thousands of ways in which officials have briefed Ministers to say “no” to requests for advocacy. During the 20 years that I have followed these sorts of issues, during which advocacy has became part of social care, Governments have had to find ways to say, “It’s a very good thing, but we’re not going to fund it”. It was therefore a real joy to see the Government’s Amendments 118 and 119 in this group.
It is fair to say that the Government have taken on board the arguments that have put forward by a wide range of people. We know that the changes to the care system and the complexity of those changes, not least those stemming from the Dilnot recommendations, mean that we are now into a level of complexity which individuals on their own—even those who are fairly well informed—will find extremely difficult to manage. Therefore I very much welcome the Government’s Amendments 118 and 119, in which they recognise that there will have to be advocacy services. I also welcome the Government’s commitment to set aside funding for that.
The Minister will accept that his Amendments 118 and 119 fall somewhat short of my proposal in Amendment 38. I would therefore like to raise a few questions which result from the fact that the government amendments are of a much tighter scope than my proposal. I welcome the amendments, but there are several issues that I wish to ask the Minister about.
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposed in Amendment 118 states that independent advocates will,
“represent and support the individual for the purpose of facilitating the individual’s involvement”.
Advocacy in its truest sense is about much more than involvement—it is about enabling people who need help to achieve the outcomes they want. The word “involvement” is not defined, although it is used a lot in the Bill. Will the Minister say whether advocates will have a full advocacy role or whether this is just about securing the involvement of people?
Secondly, I come to individuals who qualify to have an advocate. Subsection (4) of the proposed new clause is quite clear that that is reduced to people who have substantial difficulty in understanding and retaining information, in making judgments by weighing things or in communicating their views. What is not in the Government’s Amendment 118 is a right of access for the advocate to access those people. Under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act, where advocates are appointed they have a statutory right of access to people and a statutory right to interview those people in private. Given that we are talking about some fairly vulnerable people, would it be possible to ensure in regulations that advocates have a statutory right of access?
The third thing that is missing is that although the Government have taken this welcome step, there is absolutely no duty upon the local authority to listen to what the advocate has to say. That is a huge omission in the process; could it be dealt with in regulations? To echo the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, it is important that people are properly trained for the roles that they will undertake in this extremely complex set of conditions which they are dealing with. Again, under the Mental Capacity Act and the Mental Health Act advocates have to be properly trained. Can that be dealt with in regulations?
Finally, can the Minister say whether it will be possible to include a general provision that in future, if additional circumstances arose in which it would be to the benefit of a person to have an advocate, they could have access to one? I am sorry to sound less than pleased—I am, in fact, very pleased by what the Government have put forward—but with a few more minor adjustments in regulations we could have something that is a great step forward.
Lord Lipsey
“( ) The Secretary of State—
(a) has a duty to ensure through national public awareness campaigns that there is a high level of public awareness and understanding of the terms and implications of the cap on the cost of care; and(b) shall publish annually a report on the levels of such awareness and understanding, including the results of a representative poll of adults.( ) Regulations must make provision for when a local authority must refer an adult with care and support needs, or who is making plans for meeting such needs, to a regulated financial adviser; and for when a local authority may refer such an adult for such advice.
( ) The advice and information made available to adults with care and support needs must include—
(a) advice on housing options; and(b) tailored information for individuals with specific medical conditions and complex individual needs.”
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, perhaps I may start with a procedural point. We have had these matters under discussion for quite some time, and the first three Peers named on the amendment—myself, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—had a most useful meeting with the Minister and Norman Lamb from another place on 12 September. There was complete agreement at that meeting that, if it was at all possible, we wanted to go forward on the basis of consensus on the matters of advice and information, and I am sure that that is right. However, I think it fair to say that we are not quite there yet.
The Minister very kindly agreed to share with us his notes for his speech in reply to the debate this evening in advance so that we could consider them, because many things that he might want to say are very relevant to whether we have a picture for advice that really does the job—sorry to mix the analogies. The Minister fulfilled his kind promise, but only at 2.41 pm this afternoon, and I have not had a chance to digest his words, nor to discuss them with my colleagues, whose names are on the amendment. He also suggested that we should have further talks if they would be helpful, particularly, he said, between Report stage days. Clearly we are not considering finished business here. All I am asking is that there should be agreement from him and from the House that if either he or we think that an amendment at Third Reading is appropriate and necessary—it may well not be—he will not resist it on the grounds that we have thoroughly debated it. This is open territory and we are trying to find a way forward. In that way we can avoid any Divisions this evening. I would be grateful if the Minister would agree.
Lord Lipsey
That is marvellous. That makes it much easier.
As I said, I think we are making headway, but I do not think we are necessarily there. There are three elements to this amendment: the information campaign, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will concentrate on in his remarks; special groups and housing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, will address; and I will concentrate on the issue of advice.
Why do I spend so much time banging on about advice? This is an incredibly complicated area. The financial products are very complicated, and many people do not have a natural understanding of them. We all sort of know what a pension is. How many people, even in this House, know what a point-of-use care plan policy is? Who would be able to evaluate whether it was good value for money or bad? There is a large gap in the degree to which people know and understand the kind of products that can be involved here and the issues that can arise.
There is not a lot of this advice about, by the way. Some 53% of councils did not even refer people in care homes for independent financial advice. Only 7,000 of the 53,000 self-funders in care homes have had appropriate financial advice. A point-of-use policy can ensure that they can go on paying for their care however long they happen to stay in the home. Their whole lives are at stake, yet hardly more than 10% have received the financial advice they need.
This is costly not just to the individual but to the councils. Nearly one-fifth of self-funders end up falling back on the state to pay. It costs councils £435 million a year, which is a substantial sum. Much of this could be avoided if people got appropriate financial advice. I do not think that this is not common ground with the Government, but it is, I think, a reason why the Government need to make absolutely sure that they get it right in what they do.
The need for financial advice has greatly increased as a result of the Dilnot scheme. The scheme has no stronger supporter than me, except possibly the Minister. I think it is a very good outcome to a very long and protracted debate. Nevertheless, it does make a lot of things more complicated. I will give an example that I gave in an earlier debate. You can apply for help under the means test and find that you are worse off if you get it because, although you get a little help under the means test, you lose attendance allowance if you get any means-tested support at all. I was amazed when I found that out, and I study this every day. How many people would know that unless they had the right kind of financial advice? That could come from citizens advice bureaux if their computer systems were up to it, but you really want an independent adviser to help you in the round. I do not think that is very controversial.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for the amendment, which covers a number of distinct issues relating to information, advice and awareness of the reforms to care and support funding. I am grateful to them all for meeting me over the summer to discuss these issues so constructively.
A number of speakers, including the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Warner, stated that public awareness of these matters, particularly on the potential cost of care, is woefully low and that this needs to be addressed. My noble friend Lord Deben made some telling points in that connection. The Government agree that if we are to realise in the fullest sense the benefits of these reforms, it is critical that people are made aware of them and what the reforms mean for them. There is absolutely no dispute on that point. I explained in Committee that Clause 4 requires local authorities to provide information and advice on care and support, and that this must be accessible to their whole population. This will need to include information on the capped costs system.
However, we accept that local awareness-raising alone might not be sufficient. Furthermore, we accept that the department has an important role to play at the national level. For an awareness campaign to be successful it needs to be delivered in partnership—national and local government working alongside the wider care sector. We do not believe that a specific duty in the Bill would achieve this and we do not think that it is necessary. It is not necessary, for one thing, because we are already building a partnership without legislation. We have embarked upon a joint programme with local government to implement the reforms, and I can assure my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in particular, that awareness-raising will be a part of this. We are engaging with the voluntary sector, care providers and the financial services industry to make sure that we all play our part in communicating these reforms effectively. It is a joint effort and a joint responsibility.
To answer my noble friend Lord Sharkey, the public awareness campaign will be timed to coincide with the coming into force of the key elements—that is, April 2015 for most; April 2016 for the capped costs system. I can assure him, too, that the Government do not intend to shy away from the need to raise public awareness.
Turning to the second limb of the amendment, the Government are not convinced that it is proportionate to require the Secretary of State to conduct a poll and publish a subsequent annual report on awareness of the capped costs system. However, we do agree with the need to monitor the effectiveness of the reforms and the Government have committed to conduct post-legislative scrutiny of all new legislation. Moreover, recognising the need to improve data on public understanding of care and support, we have also taken steps to develop and include new survey questions for the annual Health Survey for England. The new questions will be used to monitor and track public awareness over time. If questions are included, fieldwork will be conducted throughout 2014, and the report will be published at the end of 2015. These data would provide us with a baseline against which we can evaluate changes in public awareness. The survey is conducted annually, so there is scope to include the questions in subsequent years. Additionally, there are already questions in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing— ELSA—which capture public awareness of care and support and expectations of how it is funded. Some data are already available and the next set will be available at the start of 2016. Together, these steps will inform the ongoing implementation and policy development process that will take place in the years to come. I hope that is helpful to my noble friend and provides him with some reassurance.
We are currently consulting about the design and implementation of the funding reforms. Through this we are seeking views about how best to raise awareness of these reforms nationally and locally. We will consider the responses carefully before deciding on the way forward. I can assure the House that this will include a role for the department nationally.
The next part of Amendment 20 would introduce a regulation-making power to specify circumstances where local authorities must, and where they may, make referrals to financial advisers regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Given that quite a bit of the ground covered in this amendment was discussed at length earlier in the debate, and relates to a number of government amendments which have been accepted by the House, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not rehearse all the arguments they have already heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, emphasised the importance of people understanding the various products that are available. We agree that, in some instances where someone is considering a financial product such as a care annuity, financial advice should be regulated through the Financial Conduct Authority. However, there are many sources of valuable financial advice that do not need to be regulated and can be provided free of charge—such as advice on managing money from the citizens advice bureaux or from the Money Advice Service. In addition, the fact that financial advice is regulated does not mean that it is appropriate for care and support purposes. Very few regulated financial advisers currently have a qualification or expert knowledge of care and support, though we hope that this sector will develop over the coming months and years. In this context, the term “independent financial advice” covers both regulated and non-regulated advice.
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, also asked about the regulation of advisers in this particular field and what we are doing about this. The regulation of financial advisers comes within the remit of the Financial Conduct Authority. We have opened up discussions with the authority and with the Association of British Insurers on the regulation of financial products and advice.
From the comments of the noble Lord, I took it that he accepted that it would be inappropriate to require local authorities to make direct referrals where, for the most part, they do not possess the necessary expertise to judge between advisers. Requiring them to do so would present a significant burden and could result in a local authority making an unnecessary or inappropriate referral. There is the further risk that a referral leading to poor advice could be seen as the fault of the local authority, a point he acknowledged, bringing yet more of a burden of responsibility in increased disputes, and even legal challenge. We believe that the decision to take up financial advice, of whatever form, and the choice of adviser, should belong to the individual and not to the local authority.
In respect of the third limb of the amendment, about housing, this is very similar to Amendment 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Best, which we have already discussed. If the noble Lord has any further concerns, I should of course be happy to speak to him separately.
With regard to the provision of information and advice to people with specific health conditions, this is primarily the responsibility of the NHS. For example, there is a wealth of tailored health and social care information on the NHS Choices website that is public-focused and available to local authorities to use however they see fit. Health and housing are, of course, vital for people using care and support. Clause 3 puts local authorities under a duty to promote the integration of care and support with health and health-related services. The House has accepted Amendment 12 to clarify that this incorporates housing, which includes joining up the provision of information and advice. We will address this in detail through statutory guidance.
I hope that this persuades at least some noble Lords that these issues are all being considered very seriously by the Government, as we work with local authorities and others to implement the reforms. On that basis, I hope that they feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the positive things that he said from which we can draw encouragement. I was particularly pleased to hear him talk about the national role of the department in information provision and confirm that there will be campaigns around landmarks in the Dilnot report to carry that forward. Equally, there are some things on which, if I may say so, he still is not quite there. Nobody advocates direct referrals—nobody. I accept his argument—everybody does—that you cannot just send people to say, “You have to go and see so and so”, or, “So and so is your man”. The other extreme is to say that you do nothing. You provide, for example, a list of suitably qualified advisers within the local authority area; you tell people how to get hold of them. We should not set up straw men, whom nobody is advocating, in order to fend off suggestions that need to be acted upon.
Some things the Minister said would be valuable to follow up in writing. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, will agree with me that it would be fascinating to see the monitoring suggestions as a substitute for the poll that he suggested, because if they work, that is fine and we will not press it, but if they seem to fall short, that would be different. I think that there will be room to ask the Minister for further discussions with the movers of this amendment so that we can narrow even further the ground before us. I do not pretend to be fully satisfied as I stand here tonight. I gave my reasons earlier why I do not think that the Government’s amendments to the Bill complete the picture, but we are making progress, as we all want to, and we are having a good dialogue. With the Minister’s help, I want to carry that forward before Third Reading, at which stage we will see whether an amendment is needed. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I rise briefly to make two points, the first as a result of my membership of the Joint Committee. Every witness who came before us to give evidence said two things. The first was that this is an excellent Bill for which we have been waiting years. The second was that implementation will be impossible if no more money is put into the system. All our witnesses said that the current proposals for funding are totally inadequate. That is exactly what I feel in my role as a campaigner and spokesperson for carers—and this is my second point. The Bill is all that I could have dreamed of in terms of rights and recognition for carers but will come to nothing if all that results are fewer services that are harder to access, with more pressure being put on carers to do the caring. I am seeing that now in carers’ groups and organisations. They were elated when the Bill was published: now morale is plummeting for fear of what the reality may be.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Warner, in asking the Minister for chapter and verse in his call for a review. We all want the Bill to succeed but we cannot, as responsible legislators, ignore this important issue.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I should have put my name to this excellent amendment.
It would not be the first time that the OBR has looked at this issue because there is some valuable material in its report on fiscal sustainability in July 2013, to which I will return in a minute. My noble friend concentrated on how serious the problem is now and how serious it will be in 2016. Perhaps I may detain the House for a few minutes to describe the slightly further away prospect because, if we are in problems now, we shall be in crisis unless something major changes within the next eight or 10 years.
The demographic factors have been widely appreciated, most notably in the report from the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House, Ready for Ageing, which indicates that there will be 39% more people aged 85 and over by 2021 compared with 2011, and 101% more—more than double—by 2030. The Select Committee concluded that what will happen is that they will get shoved into hospital, which will be,
“contrary to their wishes, not in their best interests, and more expensive”.
That is not a very good prospect. Moreover, as the OBR has shown, there is the prospect that stays in residential care may get longer and, therefore, cost more. It calculates a variant with a 20% longer stay, which is not implausible. So, just demographically, the situation is very difficult.
However, some less noticed factors all point the same way and add to the pressures. The most prominent factor is workforce issues. Many of your Lordships will have read the excellent report produced last week by the King’s Fund. It projects that by 2025 there will be a shortage in the care sector of 1 million workers—that is 35% of the current workforce. That is assuming that the Government’s immigration policy does not bite even more sharply than we think. You have only to go into a home to see how they are kept going by caring people who have come from overseas and are willing to work for the minimum wage, or near it, to look after our older people for us. Given the Government’s policy, these people will increasingly not be available for this purpose and so wages will inevitably go up. That will be a good thing because these people are terribly underpaid for what they do—it amazes me that the services are as good as they are, not that they occasionally fall short—but the cost to the Government is very sensitive to wages: it is the main expense because around 70% of the costs of an old persons’ home are paid out in wages.
The trite response to that is, “Let productivity increase”. However, in this sector, where one person looks after another, an increase in productivity will invariably lead to a decline in the standards of service. We know this because productivity is going down—it is down 20% over the years 1997-2010—simply because we rightly expect better services for people in the homes. There is no offset available through productivity. Those are the workforce issues.
As to the related fees shortfall, the system works at the moment by local authorities paying rock-bottom prices for the care they buy and self-funders paying rather more. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, sees this as an unfair tax but, being an economist, I know about marginal and average costs and I am therefore less shocked than I should be. However, it is a fact that it is taking place. The shortfall in fees over what will be necessary to provide an economic return for these homes would have cost local authorities £540 million in 2008-09, according to the latest published study by Laing and Buisson, to get the fees up to a level where they provide a reasonable return to the homes.
However, it will be much more difficult under the Bill’s scheme, because at the moment self-funders have no idea what the local authorities are paying for the same places that they are enjoying; they are not told. I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that under the Bill, self-funders will be told what the local authority pays. They will have to be told because the amount the local authority pays is what counts towards the cap. Thus a self-funder may be told that while they are paying £700, the local authority is only allowing £400. Your Lordships can imagine what is going to happen. I do not think that many self-funders will say, “Oh, I’ll be delighted to go on paying £700. After all, I may benefit from the cap if I live for a very long time”. They are going to be enraged. It is not a system that can be sustained. I have no doubt that the fees paid by local authorities and the fees paid by self-funders will come closer together, and that will mean increased bills for local authorities.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I think all five of the non-governmental amendments in this group are down to me, so I crave the Committee’s forgiveness if I am not the soul of brevity on this occasion. All the amendments refer to the Government’s proposed universal deferred payment scheme.
I start by reminding the Committee of the background to this scheme. Its origins lie in the proposal made by a minority of the royal commission of 1999. We—my noble friend Lord Joffe and I—were concerned with one clear defect of the means-tested system. It meant that people were forced to sell their homes to pay for care. The Daily Mail banged on about this practically every week, and it was right—I never thought that those words would escape my lips—to do so. However, we also felt that it would be wrong that people needing care could simply hang onto their homes and eventually bequeath them to their families without spending any of the capital that those homes represented to pay for their own care. Therefore, we proposed deferred payments—local authority loans secured against the value of people’s homes and repayable only when the home was sold, often after the person had died.
Every politician that I have ever discussed this with sees this as a no-brainer. Unfortunately, officials at both local and national levels over the years—I do not of course make this charge against any officials on the current Bill—have taken a rather different view. They could not understand why anyone would hang onto their house when they were living in a care home and they did not want to see valuable homes left empty. The emotional side occasionally escaped them.
The Labour Government nevertheless brought in a scheme to allow deferred payment, but it was essentially sabotaged. A decision was made that no interest should be paid on the loans, and that gave local authorities a financial incentive not to make them. Then many local authorities refused to put schemes in place. If they were challenged in the courts, they lost, but how many people wanted to mount such challenges? Or they denied individual applicants who could succeed only if they showed stamina and determination and lived long enough to see them through.
The result is that the deferred payment scheme has been, if not a complete failure, not by any means a success. There are about 8,000 deferred loans outstanding, which is around 2% of the number of people in care and maybe twice that for self-funders. Most of the schemes are short-lasting in practice. The old person takes out a deferred loan and maybe they hope they will get home after a spell a little longer than the 12 weeks allowed in law to make a decision. Eventually they see that they will not be able to return to their own homes and the deferred loan is brought to an end. It performs a very useful function for the old person in giving them time to think, but the schemes are fairly short-lasting.
I am delighted that the Government have decided to complete the work that was half-botched in the 2000s and which Dilnot endorsed—a universal deferred payment scheme that actually works. The amendments in my name and one in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Warner are designed to refine the Government’s proposals to make them work even better still.
Amendment 92ZZV gets rid of a suggestion in the Bill that people should in some circumstances require third-party guarantees on the loans as well as their being secured against the value of the home. That is belt and braces and I do not see why families should be providing braces when there is a perfectly good belt in place. It would particularly apply when the deferred payment is secured on where somebody else—perhaps the old person’s son or daughter—lives. At the moment, case law provides that a local authority cannot in those circumstances force the sale of a property in order to redeem a mortgage on that property when somebody else lives there. However, if a guarantee was sought from the co-owner, the guarantor could be in a position where they are expected to repay the individual’s care costs based on an unrealisable value of half of the property they live in. This provision may put off people who would otherwise have taken advantage of the scheme and I ask the Minister to look at it again.
Amendment 92ZZW limits the interest rates that local authorities can charge on deferred payments to MLR plus 2%. This is to prevent local authorities attempting to sabotage the new scheme as they sabotaged the previous scheme. They could otherwise do so by charging Wonga rates of interest and this amendment will prevent their doing that.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I wonder if the noble Earl could clarify what he said about equity release as an alternative to deferred payments. There seem to me to be two absolutely insuperable objects to that working. One is that you could not have both a deferred mortgage and an equity release on the same property. You cannot have two things secured. More importantly, you cannot get equity release on a house that is empty. The rules of the Equity Release Council—I am on its advisory board—do not permit that. That is not a possible solution to the problem which I put forward.
Earl Howe
I have received advice that, technically, that is not so, but I am more than happy to engage the noble Lord in discussion after this debate. It would largely depend on the availability of a deferred scheme, agreed to by a local authority. It would also largely depend on the quantum of the debt that was already in existence. Of course, setting aside this particular issue, there could be a property on which there was pre-existing debt of a considerable size. It would largely be for the local authority to judge in individual cases whether it was in a position to offer a deferred payment scheme, looking at the facts of the case. I do not think one can make generalised remarks about this. We think that technically it is possible for an equity release scheme to exist alongside a deferred payment loan. As I say, I am sure that the noble Lord, with his insight into the market, will be able to put us right if we have misread the situation.
Earl Howe
My noble friend is, of course, completely right. They are model councils of their kind. It is rather fanciful to present them as possible examples of councils that might wish to do badly by their residents.
This is a major reform that we have committed to introduce in this Parliament. While I am the first to agree that that in itself should not drive the timetable, we think that the timetable is achievable. We are consulting to get the details right and working with the care sector to ensure that implementation goes as planned. The noble Lord raised some important points. I am sure that he knows me well enough to accept that this is not the last occasion when I shall look at the points that he has raised. I shall do so further. For the time being, I hope that I have responded to his satisfaction, at least on some of the amendments, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I genuinely thank the Minister for that response. I do not want to be the least bit churlish about these amendments which, after all, finally put into practice an idea that came to me in the bath 14 years ago. It does not happen very often, but this time we are on the verge.
I warmly welcome the Minister’s assurance that there will be a national interest rate for deferred loans. That completely deals with the point raised by my amendment on interest rates and my point about Wonga rates of interest and is a tremendous breakthrough for this scheme, so I thank the Minister most warmly for that.
Moving to slightly more churlish mode, on whether we have 152 schemes or one, on balance, I buy the Minister’s arguments against having a separate national organisation imposing this or a compulsory national scheme, but that is not the proposal made in my amendment. My proposal was that the Government produce a model scheme that those who wished to could adopt. It might have some bits that could be added on or taken away as local options within the national scheme, but it would at least stop work being done 152 times over. As my noble friend Lord Warner pointed out, some people are working with this stuff for the first time because they have never brought in a deferred payment scheme. I ask the Minister, among the other things that he has kindly offered to consider, to have another look at that specially to see whether we can find some mileage in it.
I got no change on the time of introduction of the scheme, not perhaps greatly to my surprise, but I still believe in my guts that, as this process moves forward, it will become more and more apparent that it is not sensible to aim for 2015. I do not ask the Minister to comment on that now, but I give him an assurance that I—and I hope my Front Bench will do the same—will not accuse him of a U-turn if later on he finds that it is not sensible. A syndrome in government that comes up time and time again is that a Government announce a timetable and, when it is quite clear it cannot be met, go on fighting like made to preserve their original timetable. I shall not say the words “unified benefit”, but I easily could. This does not make any sense. We are all after the same thing here, and if the Minister decides—and I am sure that he will make a very good judgment on this—that it cannot sensibly be met, let him say so openly and we shall be welcoming, not critical.
My final point emerges partly from what we were just talking about: things on which the Government will possibly think again. The noble Earl very generously said that there are lots of things on which he will want to engage in discussions; at one stage he said, “at least not for the time being”, and has made many remarks of that kind. I will make a purely practical point. It is 22 July and the House will return to the Bill relatively early in October, although I do not know when, and many noble Lords are planning to be away for parts of that period. All of us want to resolve as many of these issues as we possibly can without the need for confrontation or debate in this House or, heaven forefend, Divisions, if they can be avoided. Therefore it is rather important that we all reflect on how we can set up a mechanism so that we can continue over this period to discuss the outstanding issues. I know that the Minister will reflect, but he and his officials may want to have discussions with some of us who are involved, so that by the time that we get to Report we will have made use of this Committee stage and found a way to move the House and the Bill forward without unnecessary rancour. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Lipsey Excerpts(12 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise to make two brief points. First, this argument is not really about eligibility criteria but about money. It would be highly desirable to extend eligibility to people with only moderate needs, but we will find it extremely hard simply to cater for people with substantial needs unless the pot of money is substantially expanded. That is the elephant in the room. In all the discussions here, we are describing a marvellous new system, but we have not yet said how it will be paid for.
Secondly, I think that eligibility criteria are, to a degree, a bit of a phantom. We know that there is variation between authorities across the country: some accept people with moderate needs and some accept them with substantial needs. Quite aside from that, there is overwhelming evidence of enormous variety not between local authorities but within local authorities depending on who is assessing you and their state of mind. I quote in support of this a report from the National Care Standards Commission in 2005-06 and an excellent report by the PSSRU last year which tells you what actually goes on when people are being assessed. You might have a social worker who is terribly sympathetic to the older or disabled people she is assessing, and her boss who is, no doubt, sympathetic but who knows what budget he has to meet each month. In those cases, you simply get a wrestling match.
Thirdly, and to me most worryingly, once the cap comes in, people and their families will have a huge economic interest in demonstrating that they have substantial needs because that is when the meter starts ticking for them getting help. The danger is that those with, in some cases, the biggest needs will not be very good at gaming the system. Somebody with autism may be told by their parents to seem as bad as possible so they can get the meter ticking. They are not going to be very skilled at that, but the mums and dads of articulate middle-class people will have a different set of instructions to go on. There will always be a tendency to exaggerate—play up to the full may be a better way of putting it—their needs to get them graded as substantial.
I make these points, not to draw any firm conclusion, not even on the question of whether those with moderate needs should be catered for, but to say that more fundamental thinking has to go into deciding how eligibility criteria should be set and operated. This has not yet been apparent, even in the Government’s improved scheme which is encapsulated in the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
My Lords, my Amendments 88R and 88S take us back to the amendments which I moved last week on eligibility criteria, inspired by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell. Promoting individuals’ well-being, assessing their needs and those of carers, deciding on eligibility and the priority for needs to be met, developing them with an appropriate care and support plan, enabling the best use of a personal budget and/or direct payments and ensuring continuity of capacity during and after a move, such as a house move, are all processes or stages in which the active engagement of NHS professionals or services could have a positive effect on the outcome for individuals and carers.
In his response, the noble Earl said that he agreed and that the Care Bill already allowed for that kind of co-operation from the NHS through Clauses 1 and 3. He also pointed out that Clause 12(1)(f) sets out regulations where a local authority must consult with someone with expertise before undertaking an assessment. He went on to say:
“Regulations may also set out conditions around co-operation with the NHS, by specifying the circumstances in which the local authority must refer the adult concerned for an assessment of eligibility for NHS continuing healthcare”. —[Official Report, 3/7/13; col. 1272.]
That is helpful but I wonder if we should go further and place an explicit responsibility on the NHS so that we know it plays its part in full.
Amendment 88Q, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my Amendment 88T focus on the eligibility criteria in the draft regulations. We support national eligibility criteria. As the consultation paper says,
“the needs which are determined to be ‘eligible’ vary from one area to another”,
at the moment, with local authorities,
“able to set their own ‘eligibility threshold’ or ‘criteria’…This approach has led to perceived wide distances between areas and inconsistency in the offer made to local people, confusion and legal challenge. Because local authorities are able to vary the threshold over time, it also leads to the fear that people may lose their care and support if ‘eligible needs’ are reclassified locally”.
It is also very helpful to have the draft regulations available for debate and I have been able to discuss them with a number of stakeholders in the last few days. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that there is concern among many stakeholders about the level at which the criteria are set. This is reflected in the amendment in her name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Low, and my noble friend Lord Touhig. However, we must also take account of the points raised by my noble friends Lord Warner and Lord Lipsey because this is, in the end, an issue of funding. I hope that, when she winds up, the noble Baroness will address the issue of affordability. This may be a technical point, but this might be a matter of supply, since the Commons might well assert their own position in this regard. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will, no doubt, advise us on that matter.
The guidance is very important and my noble friend Lord Warner said that it was a good first shot. I agree with him and it is certainly something to work on. However, could it warrant more parliamentary scrutiny than is normally given to regulations? We usually have a debate of about one hour; the conventions allow us to defeat a statutory instrument on very few occasions, and there is no opportunity to amend those regulations. We have benefited enormously from having a Joint Select Committee to advise us on the draft Bill: might it be right to have a similar process in relation to the regulations? I hope the noble Earl might be sympathetic to my Amendment 88T, which asks for a joint parliamentary committee process to look at the regulations before they are laid before Parliament.
Baroness Pitkeathley
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 89B as well as Amendment 89A, as they are both amendments about the circumstances in which a carer can be charged for services. Carers UK—I declare an interest as its vice-president—has estimated that carers save the UK economy £119 billion per year. That is a statistic that I never tire of giving your Lordships. Local authorities recognise the value and cost-effectiveness of supporting carers. As a result, very few local authorities charge for services provided to carers. The Government’s impact assessment for the Bill sets out current evidence on the cost-effectiveness of supporting carers, and refers to the benefits received from doing so: for example, preventing or delaying hospital or residential care admissions; sustaining the caring role; improving the health and well-being of carers; and, crucially, assisting carers to remain in or return to work.
The Bill includes a power to charge carers for services, and a power to charge for arranging services for carers. Given the benefits of providing support for carers, I shall argue that it would be counterproductive to charge carers and thereby reduce the take-up of support.
The current legislation under which support is provided is the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, which started as a Private Member’s Bill. Under the Act, services provided to a disabled person in order to meet the needs of the carer cannot include services for the disabled person that are “of an intimate nature”. It is for that reason that that same wording is used in Amendment 89A.
Interpretation varies concerning to whom, and by whom, services are provided, but the definition legally prevents carers being charged for a respite care service that includes personal care provided to the person whom the carer cares for. As I have said, very few local authorities now charge for carers services. However, given the difficulties with local authority funding, about which we hear constantly, I am concerned that more local authorities may consider charging carers in the future.
Following a recommendation by the Joint Committee scrutinising the draft Care Bill—on which I, together with several other Members of your Lordships’ House, served—the Government have sought to protect carers from being wrongly charged, by introducing the following wording in Clause 14:
“The power to make a charge under subsection (1) for meeting a carer’s needs for support under section 20 by providing care and support to the adult needing care may not be exercised so as to charge the carer”.
Although the intention of this wording is welcome, it does not provide any definition of what is a service for the carer and what is a service for the adult. So it does not prevent local authorities charging carers for services such as replacement care and other things that help them.
It is important that any potential conflict is resolved so that carers and disabled people have clarity about their personal budgets. Independent personal budgets can be useful in relation to managing options and direct payments. Whose budget is this to come out of? It will also be important when the carer count is introduced that we have clarity, so that the disabled person knows whether the cost of care is starting to accrue to their account.
Decision-making on whether services are designed to give carers a break or result in them having a break from caring is very variable at the moment. Some local carers’ services, for example, have experienced variations in approach from their local authority. I cite a particular example in which a local carers’ organisation that provides a sitting service—that is, replacement care, so that carers can take a break—operates with two neighbouring local authorities. One regards replacement care as a service for the cared-for person, including sitting services. The next-door authority allows carers to purchase a sitting service, as long as it does not include intimate care, with their direct payment. Varying interpretations mean that there is a disparity for carers in the same area. Some can access breaks, while some cannot. This creates difficulties for the service provider and for those who want to support carers.
In the current legislation, the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, services provided to the disabled person to meet the needs of the carer cannot include services for the disabled person that are of an intimate nature. My Amendment 89A seeks to reproduce that wording in the Bill to probe the distinction made in the Bill between carer services and services for a disabled person and to clarify how the current wording would prevent a carer being charged for respite or replacement care provided to the carer. Without a clearer definition of whose service is whose, negative consequences for the carer will inevitably result. Carers may be prevented from having a break; they may find that they are subject to charges for services that should be allocated to the disabled person; and social workers and others assessors’ time will be taken up in trying to allocate services to people.
I hope that the Minister, who I know to be totally committed to supporting carers, as are the Government, will accept this amendment to clarify the position with regard to charging carers. I beg to move.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I rise briefly—I fear that that will be the last time that I will use the word “briefly” tonight—to speak to Amendment 104ZB in my name in this group. This is another bits and pieces group; my amendment does not relate to the excellent speech just made by my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley.
Clause 64 enables a local authority to recover money owed to it in connection with the provision of care and support. A person’s failure to disclose any material fact would make them liable to recovery proceedings. However—and this is the nub—it would do so even if they had done so inadvertently. This seems terribly draconian and might well deter people from taking steps, such as asking for a direct payment, which they might perceive as carrying the risk of legal proceedings. This clause should refer only to misrepresentation, and the deliberate failure to disclose information, rather than incorporating, as it does, accidental failure.
These decisions of where to apply for help are taken at time of acute stress in many families. There may have been an incident, such as a fall or a stroke, which has changed the picture for that family entirely. At that stage, the last thing that people want to worry about is whether they have inadvertently failed to disclose some piece of information and will have legal proceedings taken as a result.
I cite an example given to me by Age UK, which was contacted by a husband whose wife has dementia. She has a private bank account that she will not let her family have access to, and discussions of financial arrangements upset her terribly, so he has not yet gained a power of attorney over her affairs. Despite knowing that his wife has assets, her husband is paying for everything relating to her care with his benefits and pensions. He feels that he could not make an accurate disclosure of her assets that would be necessary to get the benefits to which he is entitled. Imagine how that person would feel when faced with this clause and the danger that an inadvertent failure to disclose fully would lead to the local authority taking him to court.
Lord Lipsey
That could arise, I suppose, but it has not arisen in this case. I am not even sure—it is very difficult with these cases, and I do not know if it is even known—whether the man I am referring to has attempted to find that way around it. This lady gets distressed at the mere mention of financial affairs, so it is not surprising that he is ducking away from that. As the noble Baroness says, there could be capacity issues. In certain circumstances, clearly, there could be a court decision that she no longer has capacity to exercise discretion, but that is a long and difficult route to go down in the situation of this poor old man and his poor wife. That is the sort of situation that I am trying to avoid. I am not trying to open the door so that everybody can get away with claiming everything. I am simply saying that if people have inadvertently misled the local authority, the authority should not go after them in the courts to get its money back. It seems a moderate proposal, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to it.
Lord Low of Dalston
I shall speak to Amendments 89BA and 92ZZM. I very much welcomed the comments of the Minister at Second Reading, when he stated that the Government,
“intend to use regulations to ensure that services ... currently … provided free, including … minor aids or adaptations, remain provided free of charge”.—[Official Report, 21/5/13; col. 826.]
That seems only right, since minor aids and adaptations are qualifying services under the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act (Qualifying Services) (England) Regulations 2003.
The Government do not want to see local authorities charging for services that they are not permitted to charge for today. Clauses 2(3)(b) and 14(6) hint at this, explaining that regulations may prohibit local authorities from charging for particular types of support. However, the Bill should be explicit about what local authorities are prohibited from charging for.
I shall take the amendments in reverse order. Amendment 92ZZM relates specifically to personal budgets and would ensure that anyone needing care and support and requiring equipment or adaptations costing under £1,000 would not be financially assessed as part of a personal budget, which would effectively impose a charge for those items. In considering the amendment, will the Minister clarify how equipment and adaptations will be provided for in personal budgets? Will he ensure that regulations are unambiguously clear on the need for equipment and adaptations to remain free and for there to be no variations at a local level? The College of Occupational Therapists has some concerns about this.
I know that the Minister understands how important these provisions are to ensure effective preventive services that reduce both the demands on care services and the cost to local councils. In many instances, occupational therapists assist those requiring care and support by recommending the provision of equipment, minor adaptations and assistive technology, often resulting in recommendations, disabled facilities grants for safe management of progressive conditions and the moving and handling of people.
Equipment and adaptations are critically important, as they reduce the need for escalating care, protecting the individual and saving the resources of cash-strapped local authorities. Any reference to the provision of equipment and adaptations is notably absent from the legislation. However, these aids are critical for many people, and it is important that the Government are clear about how equipment and adaptations will be treated under the Bill. I hope that the Minister will agree not only that they should remain freely available but that they should not attract a charge by the back door when made the subject of a personal budget.
Amendment 89BA is a probing amendment to seek an assurance from the Minister that the provision in the Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Act (Qualifying Services) (England) Regulations 2003, preventing local authorities charging for minor aids and adaptations under £1,000, will be maintained and to ask whether the £1,000 threshold, set 10 years ago, will be kept up to date.
Earl Howe
My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, and the concerns she has raised about the Bill’s practical implementation. I am sure it is a shared view across the Committee that people should be supported to remain independent within their own homes for as long as possible. As the Bill recognises, supporting carers and preventing or delaying the need for care and support are both vital to achieving this goal.
On the specific amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, our previous debate shows the value and importance which noble Lords place on carers and the need to support them. I thank the noble Baroness for her recognition of the significant improvement that this Bill will make. I reassure her that the Bill makes it clear that local authorities cannot charge carers for services provided to the person being cared for. Our clear view is that Clause 14(3) puts this matter beyond doubt, and this would include services of an intimate nature provided to the person being cared for.
Local authorities need to retain the flexibility to meet the needs of carers in the most appropriate way. This might include providing services to the adult needing care such as feeding them or taking them to the toilet. Providing these services is necessary to allow carers of people with the greatest needs to take a well earned break from their responsibilities. However, Amendment 89A would create a legal barrier which may hinder the provision of support to carers. For that reason, I do not warm to it.
Amendment 89B would ensure that services provided to carers were provided free of charge by the NHS. Local authorities currently do not usually charge carers, as they recognise the vital work that they do. In some cases, however, local authorities may charge a fee for services provided directly to carers, such as when the local authority arranges a trip for them. We want to continue to give local authorities this flexibility.
The noble Baroness expressed a worry about the scope for different interpretation about who is the beneficiary of a particular service. In most cases, I suggest that it will be clear what is being provided to the adult needing care and support as opposed to the carer. However, statutory guidance will be provided to help to promote national consistency on that point. I hope that that reassurance will provide the noble Baroness with the wherewithal to withdraw the amendment for the time being although I will, of course, reflect further on what she has said.
On Amendments 89BA and 92ZZM, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Low, that we intend to maintain the existing entitlements to aids, minor adaptations and intermediate care in regulations. Aids and minor adaptations costing up to £1,000 will continue to be provided free and without the need for a financial assessment. We will shortly be consulting on the implementation of our reforms to care and support funding, which will inform the future regulations. In designing the new regulations, we will consider whether we should update the list of services which must be provided free of charge. However, we must bear in mind that further limitations on the ability of local authorities to charge would reduce the resources available to support people with the greatest needs. The draft regulations will be subject to a further public consultation to ensure the final regulations are based on the best available evidence.
As I indicated earlier, we are introducing a fairer system, including a cap on care costs. It is right that people who can afford to do so should continue to contribute a fair amount towards their care costs, and when they do not, Clause 64 allows local authorities to recover these costs as a debt. I understand the desire to protect people who make mistakes or accidentally fail to disclose relevant information. However, I fear that Amendment 104ZB, which would require local authorities to prove intent, would result in complex and expensive legal cases. Intent is not always easy to prove. Local authorities will not be able to charge people more than their due debt and the costs incurred in recovering that debt, and we think it is right that they should be able to do so even if someone has made a genuine mistake. This is not about instituting recriminations but about correcting mistakes. We should surely allow local authorities to take action in such a case if we believe in protecting public money.
Lord Lipsey
I am a bit bemused. I cannot see where my amendment states that local authorities have to prove intent, nor do I see in the noble Earl’s argument any reason why the person who makes a mistake should have to pay not only the extra money they have received but the cost to the local authority of retrieving that money. That seems to me a punishment too far.
Earl Howe
I had rather assumed, perhaps wrongly, that if, for whatever reason, there has been a discrepancy in the declaration made by a person, it either has to be a genuine error, or something more deliberate, in which case there is intent involved. I am not sure what other explanation there could be. That was why I read into the noble Lord’s amendment what I did.
I think that the ability of a local authority to recover costs ought to act as a disincentive to people to be careless about what they are doing. They should make sure that what they declare is accurate and should be made aware that if they make a mistake, it might prove a little more costly to them than just rectifying the error. This is not about imposing recriminations on people. It is right for local authorities not to be out of pocket when other people out there could be benefiting from the public money that is available.
Lord Lipsey
The noble Lord has interpreted my amendment one way; I have interpreted it in another way. It may be that the Bill, either as it is or as amended, is not quite right. Can the noble Lord agree that we have further discussions to see if we can find a way forward that satisfies us both?
Earl Howe
I am more than happy to discuss this with the noble Lord and I apologise if I have misunderstood his amendment. I certainly would not wish to do that.
The noble Lord, Lord Low, asked me how equipment and adaptations will be addressed in a personal budget. Those costs that are intended to meet eligible needs will be included in the personal budget, or the independent personal budget, and will count towards the cap. We intend that aids and minor adaptations will be provided free of charge however they are funded, including by way of direct payments.
The noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, asked me when the regulations under Clause 14 will be published. We intend to publish the draft regulations after the forthcoming consultation on funding reform. This consultation will enable the regulations to be based on the best available evidence. She asked where are the provisions about complaints and redress in relation to charging and, indeed, all of Part 1. Existing complaints provision for adult social care is through regulations. The provisions of the regulations mean that anyone who is dissatisfied with the decision made by the local authority about their assessment or eligibility would be able to complain to the local authority and have that complaint handled by the local authority. The local authority must make its own arrangements for dealing with complaints in accordance with the 2009 regulations.
The Government recognise that the existing framework allows local authorities flexibility in the development of the process for dealing with appeals and challenges. There are options for local authorities to introduce independent elements to the complaints process through a range of formal and informal measures. Each local authority will therefore have a different process and we appreciate that local variation will result in varying user experiences. If a complainant is not satisfied with the response from the local authority, they can refer the case to the independent Local Government Ombudsman.
I hope that those remarks will be helpful and that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will for now be able to withdraw her amendments.
Lord Lipsey
Lord Lipsey
Now for something completely different. These amendments hardly deserve the epithet “probing”—more a light examination by the doctor’s fingers. What they do is, in essence, simple. They substitute for the monetary cap proposed by the Government a cap based on the number of years a person has been receiving care at a substantial level.
The origins of my amendment were in a proposal floated in the minority report to the 1999 royal commission on the funding of long-term care. As I was the author, I remember this quite well. It did not even gain the support of a majority of the minorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Joffe, declined to sign up to it. Nevertheless, it has had a life after death and I think it can claim paternity —the noble Lord, Lord Warner, knows better than I—for the cap proposal in the Dilnot report, because it shares precisely the same objective as the cap: to limit the costs of care to those unlucky enough to require it for a long time as it costs a lot of money. That is the aim of the proposal.
When I first saw the Dilnot proposal, I thought that it was clearly superior to the one in the minority report—everyone would spend the same before the state kicked in. But as time has gone on I have become much less sure of this as two defects of the Dilnot version have become more apparent. The first is that it is extremely complex for local authorities to administer. There have been figures of between £300 million and £500 million floating about for the cost of administration, before money is handed out to people. That is because, to implement the Dilnot report, it is necessary to track each individual from the time the meter starts ticking to see exactly what they are spending on care or, rather worse, to see exactly what a local authority thinks it should be providing in spending on care for each individual—a sort of abstract concept that has to be turned into a concrete figure.
As will be apparent from other amendments I have tabled, I am not even confident that local authorities will have their systems sufficiently sorted to manage it by the proposed start date of April 2016. There is a non-negligible risk that this will prove to be universal benefit mark 2, a scheme that will in practice prove impossible to operate. I hope I am wrong but the fact is that, putting the best face on it, it will cost a lot of money to implement without any of that money going to better care, and not a penny of it going to the people who should be helped. In the Government’s ghastly jargon, it will be money spent on bureaucracy, not front-line services. That is my first query about the Dilnot way of doing things.
My second point is equally worrying. The Dilnot system is terribly difficult for anyone normal to understand. When do you start to get it? How much is assessed as being the cost of the care that you may get from the council? How much have I spent? How much of that counts towards the cap? People may say, “My care costs differ because my condition goes up and down”. All those factors are crucial if people are to know what they spend out of their own pockets. I am sure that better-off people who are in full possession of their faculties will work it out, but we know that 40% of people over 80 have some degree of dementia and are therefore not in full possession. Certainly, those with computer-literate families and sons or daughters who happen to be independent financial advisers will crack it all right. Their claims for substantial care needs will be there on day one in a large pile on the local authority’s desk. They will know every penny that has been spent, but are we confident that everyone else will? Just explaining the system and the process of communication, to which we shall come later, will be jolly difficult. It should be remembered that more than half the people think that the state at the moment pays their entire care costs without deductions. There is a long way to go from there to understanding Dilnot.
By comparison, a time-based system is simplicity itself. You have an assessment, and if it shows that you need substantial care or its equivalent under the new system, the clock starts ticking. Five years later, you no longer have to pay the cost of your care. That is very simple. Five years is what you have to find. In my variant, the council would then pick up the whole cost, not some notional cost, as under the Dilnot cap, and you would simply have to find your hotel costs where applicable. That is simplicity itself and, incidentally, it makes it much easier for you to insure privately. Private insurance companies are going to struggle to know how much their liability will be under the Dilnot system. Under a time-based system, they will know that they have a liability. If you live more than five years the state will pick up the bill and the only bit that they will have to cover is the first five years.
How does that compare in generosity with Dilnot? It will probably be about the same. The Dilnot cap would be reached by someone in residential care rather more quickly than the five years but, on the other hand, as you are going to be paid only in part if you reach the cap, you may not be any better off. I suspect that for those receiving care in their own homes my proposal will prove to be more generous than Dilnot’s £72,000 cap. In most cases, people will take more than five years to reach the £72,000 and it may therefore be slightly more generous to people who live at home, which is no dreadful thing.
Sunny optimist though I am, I do not expect the Minister to go snap on my scheme today. I am not even sure that I do. He and his colleagues had enough trouble getting the Government to sign up to Dilnot, and they will not want to execute any unnecessary U-turns now. However, I suggest that he puts this proposal in his bottom drawer because it may become apparent in six, 12 or 18 months’ time that Dilnot, as encapsulated in the Bill, is simply impossible to administer on any realistic timetable. When that day dawns— I hope it does not—my scheme may come in handy. I beg to move.
Lord Warner
My Lords, my noble friend will not be surprised if I gently defend the Dilnot commission’s recommendations on a cap. His final suggestion of putting his proposal in the bottom drawer was actually rather good. I remind the House that as a young civil servant I was once the recipient of a Health Minister’s regular manuscript notes asking me about progress on various matters. They ended up in my bottom drawer because he had usually forgotten about them. Putting this recommendation in the bottom drawer may be the best thing to do.
I think that my noble friend has forgotten the task that the Dilnot commission was set. It was not the case that we just brought a cap out of the ether and projected it on to an unsuspecting world. We were trying to fulfil the task that we were given, which was to make recommendations on how,
“to achieve an affordable and sustainable funding system … for care and support for all adults in England, both in the home and in other settings”.
In particular, we were asked to examine,
“how best to meet the costs of care and support as a partnership between individuals and the state … how people could choose to protect their assets, especially their homes, against the costs”,
and,
“how both now and in the future public funding for the care and support system can be best used to meet care and support needs”.
I suggest that to fulfil those requirements it is probably better to concentrate on money and try to achieve a credible system than to concentrate on time. One of our main purposes was to project the idea that if we could get citizens to be more engaged with the realities of a means-tested adult social care system, they would plan for the future in a better way than at present. Money is the currency in which they would be thinking, to all intents and purposes. That is why we came up with the idea of a cap.
My noble friend is right to ask how well prepared local government is to introduce this system. There are some genuine concerns about that, which we will debate later. However, he is a little pessimistic about our ability to develop, perhaps over a longer period than the Government might like, a taxi-meter system that works for the Dilnot proposals. They are essentially a taxi-meter system. You need to clock up the costs that are being spent over time until you reach the cap. There is a thing called IT; it is not always well used in the public sector but it is possible to take the pain out of all this. We as a commission did not envisage a new pencil-and-paper system that 152 local authorities would reinvent in individual and separate ways. It is a complex system but it is actually not that difficult to manage, once you get into the swing of it.
I say very gently to the Minister and to my noble friend that we sweated blood for about a year to try to get a very large number of people to agree on a way forward. This is not the time to go back to square one and think of another way of doing it.
Earl Howe
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, explained very clearly, these amendments would mean that the capped system counted time rather than costs. I agree that there are advantages to this approach. The Dilnot commission, in considering this option, said that using years instead of costs would be easier to administer and simpler to understand, and I appreciate those arguments. However, the commission also made the case that to adopt this approach would disadvantage those with more intensive care needs, who over a given period of time could spend significantly more on care than those with less intensive needs, so that what we might gain in simplicity we should lose in fairness. I am sure that we all want to see a fair care and support system giving the most support to those in the greatest need. Using time instead of costs would undermine that goal.
We are committed to using notional spend—in other words, the equivalent of what the local authority would pay to meet an adult’s eligible care needs. As with using time, it is in fact relatively simple to administer because it fits in with the current system of needs assessment. It also ensures that people with more intensive needs are not disadvantaged. That is why the Government agree with the Dilnot Commission, which said,
“the only suitable way of deciding when a person has reached the cap is to meter notional spend.”
The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed to the understandable fear that Dilnot will mean spending money on administration rather than on meeting people’s needs. I accept that times are challenging for councils, but we are committed to funding these reforms. Critically, we are also committed to co-producing the implementation of the reforms to minimise the bureaucracy that accompanies them and maximise the benefits that they bring. The noble Lord suggested that local authorities might not be ready to implement Dilnot in 2016, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, also asked about this, and whether we were intending to test the robustness of the system. We shall be coming to the issue of readiness in the next group, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that there is sufficient time to develop what he referred to as a taxi-meter system.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, took us to a point that he has made in this Chamber before about Dilnot, and his view that it is fundamentally unfair. I simply say to him that the vast majority of state support, under the Dilnot system, will be provided to the roughly 40% of older people with the lowest income and the lowest wealth. The cap, and the extended means test, provide the most reassurance to that particular group. Our view is that we need a system that protects people with the greatest lifetime care needs. It is not about protecting people with the greatest wealth.
To clarify the question that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, raised in the previous group of amendments about the guidance under Clause 71, this will indeed be statutory guidance, and it will look and feel like a code of practice. Importantly, it will have the same legal status. However, we do not think that guidance should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny every time it is updated, as with a code of practice Statutory guidance under this Bill will have the same status as the current guidance issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. I hope that this is helpful.
In a later group of amendments we will come to what local authorities think about the new system and indeed the whole area of financial services. However, I was reassured that the Local Government Association said that it fully supports and welcomes the inclusion of a cap on what an individual will pay. The Association of British Insurers has welcomed the announcement that we have made as a positive step forward in tackling the challenges of an ageing society. Arising out of that is a sector-led review that is working constructively with government to understand how the market will develop and create the right environments for products to succeed. That review will be completed over the summer.
I hope that with those comments the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will for now be content to withdraw his amendment. I hope that he found my comments, if not ones that he can agree with immediately, at least ones that he will put into the context of the Bill in, I hope, a manner that he will understand.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, which was a miracle of putting very well the point that has come out of the debate. I thank all those who have participated. We have here a trade-off between simplicity and fairness—it is as simple as that. The Government—unusually, my party might think—have opted for fairness, and my party might not be surprised that in this case I have opted for simplicity. However, the matter will rest. Of course, if this system goes absolutely swimmingly, I shall forget that I asked the Minister to put it in his bottom drawer, but if it all goes wrong I shall tell the world that “I told you so”. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Greengross
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. A similar amendment in my name is not as strong as his amendment. I think that his would do the job that needs to be done remarkably well and I hope that it will be agreed by the Minister.
Lord Lipsey
My Lords, I will speak to the amendments in this group standing in my name but, before I do so, I should like to offer the strongest possible support for the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and particularly for the words that he said at the beginning about the information task that we face here. This is not just a question of advising individuals when they go to their councils, although that is important and we have had a debate on that. It is a question of making the whole of our society aware of what is going on against a background of very great ignorance and misinformation. It is crucial that something is done on a real scale to turn that around and that the best communication skills are used in doing so. We have to move from the language that we use in this Chamber as aficionados or geeks studying the detail of the Bill to the general public out there, and that is a hell of a task.
As I said, I will speak to my Amendments 90D, 92ZZB, 92ZZC and 104ZC. Amendments 90D and 92ZZC relate to a topic that we touched on in the debate on the previous amendment—namely, the costs and administrative difficulties for local authorities of introducing the cap in the scheme. The Local Government Association has expanded on the numerics in the briefings for this debate, as has London Councils. I think that the local authorities have a slight tendency to underplay what is going on for fear that the Government will take the whole thing away from them, and they want to be shown as “can do” rather than “can’t do”. When you get into the detail, and look below the politicians in local government at the fine detail of those who have to implement it, you find that it is quite difficult.
The Government have in principle accepted the burdens doctrine, namely that if they make local government do something they will pay for it. They have provided around £335 million to pay for that. None of this extra money is coming now, by the way. The contributions will not start until 2016. Bad though the administrative mess may be, if local government does nothing to prepare for this scheme until 2016 it will certainly fail. Already it is doubtful whether the burdens scheme is really being met. Many of the costings put forward are fingers in the air stuff. The detail has yet to be grappled with. Details crucial to costing the implementation of the scheme, such as the eligibility requirements, are only emerging bit by bit. We do not even know what the government money is supposed to cover. Does it fund in full the cost of additional self-assessments, when the self-funders and people who will potentially benefit from Dilnot queue up for assessments? I really do not think that we know the detail of duties around advice and information, on which we spoke earlier, or on the funding for setting up new deferred payment schemes.
My change is designed to write into the Bill what is in effect the burdens doctrine. Whatever the cost, the Government must pick it up. It is not as if local authorities have got large chunks of money in their pocket at the moment to reach in and pay for all this stuff. They do not. They cannot afford basic care services at the moment, so this is a huge task. There is a huge task, too, in training the local authority workforce to do assessment and implementation on this scale, and indeed in creating the workforce.
These facts lead me to believe—and I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Warner, with whom I agree on nearly everything, agrees—that it was a terrible mistake to bring forward the start of the scheme from 2017 to 2016. We know why it happened, do we not? The Government found that they had a few spare quid in their pocket, and wanted to be able to tell the electorate that Dilnot was nigh, and so without proper consideration of any kind they brought the date forward. It was a U-turn, and my amendment U-turns on the U-turn to get back to the right place where they were to begin with, namely that the scheme will come in in 2017. This would give it a good chance to work.
I turn now to my other amendments in this group. I hope that we might finally get an actual concession from the Minister, instead of words of great sincerity and great sympathy and not much change. My other amendments in this group refer to the setting up of a ministerial advisory group on the cap and the means test. They insist that this group should be consulted in the planned five-year review of how all of this is working. This is not a criticism of the Department of Health. I have been impressed by how effective officials have been in grasping this scheme, particularly as for most of the time that Dilnot was under consideration they probably thought that it was never going to happen. They are a first-class team, but I do not think that they possess a monopoly on wisdom, and indeed they do not think so, either. The Minister just referred to the working parties with the financial services sectors that have been set up to give advice. I applaud that.
I think that there are complexities in all of this that even the most literate advisers have barely grasped. I will come to some of them, for example when we come to the detail of the proposals on the means test. It would be helpful if Ministers had to hand a helpful advisory group comprising academic experts, local authority representatives, representatives of the financial sector and someone from Dilnot. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Warner, would like to volunteer. A group of that kind would not second-guess Ministers on every detail, but would offer its general advice on how things are progressing and how they may be set right if there are departures from the course on the way forward.
Lord Warner
My Lords, I support the comments made by my noble friend Lord Lipsey. There is a case for setting up some sensible monitoring arrangements. This is not just to check up on the Government, but to make sure that this system is working in the way that everybody wants it to. It is a big change, and we are starting from a position which means we have to grasp the nettle, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said. I strongly support his amendments.
I want to refresh the House’s memory of what we said in the Dilnot commission report. I will briefly detain noble Lords with a quote:
“There is very poor understanding of how the adult social care system currently works and how much it can potentially cost. Many people live under the false impression that social care will be free if they need it. If people are confused over how the system works and the costs that they potentially face, they will not prepare appropriately for the future”.
That setting was why two of our 10 recommendations were that the Government should develop a major new information and advice strategy to help when care needs arise. To encourage people to plan ahead for their later life, we recommended that the Government should invest in an awareness campaign. We deliberately put those responsibilities on the Government. We did not put them on local authorities. We did this because we thought that unless the Government of the day—and this would apply to a Labour Government as much as a coalition Government—took a grip on this awareness campaign and planned the information and advice strategy, we would end up with a badly informed public and a mishmash of different local authority systems up and down the country.
We are not going to make this system work well or deliver the changes in the Bill and in the Dilnot commission report, unless there is investment. In our report we put the price tag of this as being a massive public awareness campaign. The public do not start from a position of being well informed about how they prepare for the future care and support needs that they will have in later life. The only way to start to change that is for the Government to grasp the nettle. I strongly support the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to put this in the Bill. We should put a clear responsibility on the Secretary of State to run with the ball on this issue and, in effect, to monitor progress, not on a five-year basis but on a regular, annual basis. If we do not do something like this, we will live to regret it. We will see failure of implementation and failure to take the public with us on this major set of changes.