Care Home Top-up Fees

Debate between Paul Burstow and David Ward

Tuesday 22nd July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Paul Burstow]

That is a very good point and one that I am sure Care England and other organisations representing care homes would want to take on board.

It is important to understand the scale of the problem. Research carried out last year by the charity Independent Age highlighted the fact that 72% of local authorities—there was a very high response rate to this freedom of information request—were unable to demonstrate that they met their legal obligations with an overview of top-up payments in their area. In other words, they were not routinely monitoring and reviewing whether third parties remained “able and willing” to make top-up payments. That is a core requirement of the existing guidance. The onus is on councils to check that families are not unwittingly making top-up payments for care that should be paid for and met by the council as part of its duties to meet assessed, eligible needs. Those payments can range anywhere from £31 a week to perhaps £131 a week. In some cases, it is probably even higher than that.

The research also found that just under 30% of councils said that they did not hold or collect information about top-up fees in their area. This was a typical quote from a council:

“As a Council we’ve never had any involvement in top-up care home fees...The Council does not know how many top-ups are in place, in any financial year”.

Perhaps most disturbing was that so few councils knew what was taking place in terms of top-up fees arranged between care homes and families in their area. Almost 80% of councils did not routinely check up on the health of top-up payments as part of their annual reviews, and 75% of councils did not signpost families of care home residents to independent advice before entering into third party top-up agreements.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, just for two seconds?

[Paul Burstow]

It will have to be two seconds.

[Mr Ward]

Very few Members are present at the debate. What we are discussing is an enormous problem. Why do so many people not know about it? It is such a serious problem, yet that is not reflected in the number of Members here today. Why do people not know about it?

[Paul Burstow]

I hope that this debate will help with that. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward) are here and will, I am sure, help to spread the news about the debate. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I attempted to get a 90-minute debate. We have a half-hour debate, and I am very grateful that other hon. Members are here, supporting me on this very important issue.

What is driving an increase in top-up payments is the key question. I think that an issue of funding is at the heart of this. More specifically, personal budgets are being set at a rate that simply does not reflect the actual costs of purchasing large numbers of care home places. My right hon. Friend the Minister will know that, in the three years from 2010, local authority baseline fees fell by almost 5% in real terms and rose by 1.8% in 2013-14. It is hard to imagine that that has not had some impact in terms of the numbers of requests for top-up payments during this period.

The problem affects large numbers of people across a wide range of local authorities. The local government ombudsman has said as much. She found Southampton guilty of maladministration causing injustice in the situation of an older woman. The council had sought, wrongly, additional fees beyond the assessed contribution, because no care home places were available within the council’s usual rate. The ombudsman published her report. She considered that that was in the public interest, because

“councils across the country are faced with similar situations”.

The LGO also carried out an investigation into a council near me, the London borough of Merton, in which a contracted private home asked a family to pay a top-up fee that the LGO says it had no right to demand. The report from the LGO serves as a stark reminder to councils that they cannot contract out their legal responsibilities. It was hoped that these reports by the LGO would stop councils turning a blind eye to care providers taking payments from relatives, on the basis that that is outside the agreed care contract. However, the practice continues to affect families up and down the country, which makes the need for today’s debate all the more urgent.

In her report on complaints in relation to adult social care, the LGO revealed that she receives complaints that

“providers have sought to charge…‘top-up fees’ in circumstances where the person’s care needs should be fully covered by public funding.”

The investigations have shown that 17% of all complaints received last year included concerns about the financial elements of care provision; that more than half of those complaints in 2013 raised issues about fees being charged where they should not be; that in 50% of these cases the LGO is upholding complaints; and, specifically in relation to top-ups, that people are

“not being given clear and comprehensive information about their financial liabilities.”

Let us not forget that we are talking about an increasingly frail care home population. The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that eight in 10 residents live with dementia or significant cognitive impairment. Given that, what is the Minister’s assessment of the LGO’s most recent report on all complaints made in 2013, which concluded that complaints about local authority social care increased by 16% and that the LGO often finds fault with top-ups being charged when they should not be? Does the Minister agree that the problem seems to be getting worse?

Soon-to-be-published research by Independent Age based on in-depth interviews with 13 councils reveals a wide variation in local authorities’ practices for arranging top-up fees, in terms of who the contract is with, the terms of the third-party agreement, what and how much information and advice is provided, and how the affordability of a top-up payment is assessed. It is essential that the regulations and the statutory guidance that are being developed in the Department address each of those issues. Perhaps the most striking aspect of that research, which I believe will be presented to the Department later this week, is that none of the councils that participated in the research had any openly agreed or consistent approach to reviewing whether third parties remained willing and able to pay top-up fees. That is a serious problem, which risks becoming bigger still when own-resource or first-party top-ups are permitted much more widely from April 2016.

There are many stories about the subject, and I suspect that other hon. Members who are present have stories from their constituencies. I want to refer briefly to two stories, one from the Alzheimer’s Society and one from Independent Age. The Alzheimer’s Society has told me that it was recently contacted by the daughter of an 84-year-old mother who has dementia and is virtually bed-bound. The mother lives in a nursing home, and the daughter agreed to pay a top-up payment of £35, but that payment keeps being increased and now stands at £75. The daughter feels that the payment is becoming unsustainable, but she is worried about the consequences of not paying and the impact of moving her mother to another care home. Families have to make such hard, emotional and often distressing choices every day.

The example from Independent Age is no less typical. The organisation was contacted by a daughter whose 87-year-old mother has only £7,000 in savings. The mother has Alzheimer’s and has been in a hospital for a month, and she has now been assessed as needing residential care for her own safety. She wants to live near her daughter in Gloucestershire, because her daughter is the only child. The council in London, where the mother lives, has explained that it will pay £441 towards the mother’s care but it has only found one placement at that rate, which is nowhere near where she wants to live. The local authority is trying to achieve a quick outcome, because it wants her to be moved out of hospital as soon as possible, and it is asking for a top-up payment as part of the process. The 87-year-old mother is being informed that she will be moved to the local home at the local authority rate, regardless of her wishes.

Clearly, the guidance on that point needs to be strengthened. Let me offer the Minister some suggestions on what might be done to strengthen the guidance on which the Department is consulting. I hope that my contribution to the debate will be treated as a formal contribution to that consultation. Local authorities must meet their legal obligations, so third-party top-ups are only ever a matter of choice, not a necessity. The best way to ensure that that happens is to make sure that all top-up agreements are agreed in the open between residents and their relatives, the local authority and the care home provider in a genuine three-way written agreement. It is good to see that that is set out in the draft regulations.

Will the Minister ensure that the guidance underpinning those regulations, to which people will refer to find out what scope, discretion and flexibility there is, states that residents should be offered more than one care home place within the amount of their personal budget? At the moment, the draft guidance simply states that at least one setting should be offered that could meet the person’s needs within their personal budget. If that were interpreted in a mean way—not all councils will do this, but I am certain that some will—the council would offer one home at the rate at which it will pay, and that would be that. In the worst case, an individual might be offered a place in a home rated by the Care Quality Commission as poor or inadequate. Provisions should be put in place to ensure that a person has a genuine choice, particularly if the home that they are offered has been rated as failing some of its fundamental standards.

Will the Minister ensure that the new framework actively enables residents to access independent information and advice, so that they can make a decision about whether to pay a top-up and what level of top-up they can afford? How will the new framework actively support residents to understand their entitlements? Does the Minister share my concern that simply calling on councils to consider

“when it is in residents’ best interests”

to signpost them to information and advice is not sufficient? Three quarters of councils do not signpost residents to independent information and advice now, so what will change unless the guidance signals that there should be a change? That is how the draft guidance is currently framed, but surely it would be better if councils routinely signposted people to information. That could be achieved by including a generic statement or section in a model agreement developed by the Department that checks with the local authority, the care home and the third party whether there has been a signpost to independent information and advice. That is a simple, honest check that could be built into the contractual arrangements. I emphasise that information and advice should be independent.

Should it not be incumbent on local authorities to review annually whether top-up arrangements remain affordable and whether people remain willing and able to pay them? Surely that should happen at the same time as the annual review of care needs and an adult’s finances. The draft guidance is too vague on that point; it states that local authorities should review top-ups “from time to time”. It should be made clear that at a minimum, the arrangements should be reviewed annually.

We have to consider the rates that local authorities pay care providers, and whether those rates really keep pace with the real market costs of care. The guidance should make it clear and unambiguous that, where a personal budget needs to be adjusted to meet an adult’s assessed eligible needs and top-up arrangements are not possible, a local authority must always adjust the amount of the personal budget and not seek a top-up to cover the shortfall in local authority funding. That point is absolutely fundamental, but the relevant section of the draft guidance merely states that the local authority should consider adjusting the amount of the personal budget. If a local authority chooses not to do so, it is breaking the law, but it is invited to consider doing something that would be unlawful. There should be no discretion.

Families are being separated. Vulnerable older and disabled people, together with their families, are not being informed of their rights. People who can ill afford hundreds of pounds in top-up fees are unwittingly paying out extra money for essential residential care that is really the council’s responsibility. That is why the guidance should be strengthened.

Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Paul Burstow and David Ward

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I had to leave the Chamber earlier, Madam Deputy Speaker, for an hour or so, but I assume we have been approached by similar groups and organisations that no doubt will have been quoted in previous speeches, so I might be able to curtail my remarks.

I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who has been heavily involved in this issue from day one, with the inception of the White Paper. I thank him for coming to Bradford and talking to people there about local issues, and I welcome his contribution tonight. This is probably the most important Bill we will be considering this Parliament, because it deals with one of the most important areas of public policy that we have to face. There is no choice about it; it is something we have to face. It has been referred to over the years as a ticking time bomb. The good news, of course, is that people are living longer, but that will be accompanied by an enormous cost if we are to ensure that people are provided with the quality of care that they are entitled to and desperately need. It is hugely important.

Like the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), I am confused by the reasoned amendment. I come from a place where people say what they mean and mean what they say, so I find it difficult to read a so-called reasoned amendment that is so scathing of a Bill and then listen to people say, “Well, actually, we’re not opposed to it and will not necessarily vote against it.” I do not understand that. Perhaps this is just a really strange place that I still need to spend more time in before I understand those things.

As I understand it, a Second Reading debate is about the principles, which is why I will avoid going into too many details. From my experience of working with many organisations and groups in the past few years, including very closely in the past 18 months or so, it seems to me that the principles in the Bill are pretty well applauded out there. There is a general acceptance that something needs to be done and that this is a pretty good attempt to lay down some basic principles. That was why the initial skirmishes and exchanges were disappointing.

[Paul Burstow]

My hon. Friend has taken a close interest in, and campaigned on, the Bill during its passage through the other place, and he said how widely welcomed it was outside the House. Would he be interested to know, therefore, that in almost every session of the scrutiny of the draft Bill—

[Paul Burstow]

I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been here long enough to know that I should speak through the Chair.

I simply wanted to say that during consideration of the draft Bill, when asked, many people told us they had nothing by way of criticism of the Bill, although they saw areas where it could be further improved.

[Mr Ward]

I thank my right hon. Friend.

Acceptance of the principles—certainly acceptance of them by myself—is there, but as the Minister knows only too well, as I have bent his ear on the subject so many times, I have some serious concerns, particularly about the FACS—free access to care services—criteria. He will probably not know—it is a recent decision by Bradford council—that the Labour council has decided to move from “moderate” to “substantial” in respect of the criteria. It has to go into a budget process; unfortunately, this will happen. We campaigned hard against that, with a 1,700 names on a petition opposing it, but it is going to go ahead.

What was unfortunate about earlier exchanges was a certain degree of dishonesty. This thing did not happen all of a sudden three years ago. Conservative, Labour and possibly some Liberal authorities—I do not know—up and down the country were from 2005 onwards moving away from “moderate” to “substantial” FACS criteria way before the change of Government and way before the vicious cuts took place as part of the austerity programme. Indeed, it was before the recession really bit, and I regret that. What seemed to be happening was a “follow my leader” approach—“Every other authority seems to be doing this, so why shouldn’t we?” It was seen as a way of reducing the budget. What I argued, continue to argue now and will continue to argue all the way through until this Bill becomes an Act, is that this is a false economy. I have made all those points to the Minister several times, including, in detail, in a Westminster Hall debate.

I believe that eligibility is the gateway to care, but I am not convinced by the proposed savings that are supposed to be made. We worked closely with various organisations, including Scope, which has done a fantastic job of looking at the issue of working age disablement, which accounts for one third of benefit recipients. People desperately need care to live a more fulfilled life, whether it be in education or work. This is just one example—there are many others—where savings can be accrued, but taxation can also be generated if people are given just a small amount of support to become economically active.

Other charities and organisations have raised serious issues. Principles are most important, but data collection is crucial. Charities that exist to help people with Parkinson’s and other neurological conditions identified the fact that they had no idea how many people with Parkinson’s actually received social care. How can that be the case? How can that happen? Something must be sadly going wrong with data collection. Macmillan Cancer Support pointed out that free social care at the end of life needs to be a crucial element of any changes we are looking to make and that, if we aim for true integration, we must have proper identification of carers within their health settings. We should not wait until people are turned out of hospital and go home before identifying who is going to look after the person and provide support. Leonard Cheshire Disability provided further useful information, and I ask the Minister to look further into some of the issues it raised.

Important principles are at issue here. On the national criteria, I may not like the level, but it is important to have standardisation. On the carers assessment, we should be applauding the fantastic proposal to make carers the centre of attention, as they are so often forgotten. How many times have carers ended up being the people who need care because of the lack of support they receive? A young person I know has come to my office on a regular basis to express serious concerns about the people he was caring for, but I have seen with my own eyes that person deteriorate over the last 12 months or so as a result of the lack of support that he has received. The Bill introduces a wonderful innovation, which we should all appreciate.

I have already mentioned the principle of integration. We have the framework: the health and wellbeing boards are still in their early days, but this way of bringing together the different parts of social care, public health and the national health service is so important. The links between health and social care are crucial. I cited a case in the Westminster Hall debate of a man in his 50s who had an accident at work when reversing his vehicle. He had no seatbelt on, as he was just backing into the car park, yet he became tetraplegic. He was in Pinderfields hospital for five months. He received superb support and everyday attention, but when he went home in the ambulance, he could not get into the house because there was no ramp. He had to go away again. Then the local authority provided the money for a ramp and the hospital brought him back again, but he could not get in because it was a wooden ramp and they did not dare take him on it because that would have broken it. That is madness in this day and age, and it needs to be dealt with.

On the cap on lifetime payments, we do of course need to discuss in detail what it should be and how it should be operated, but please let us not talk it down, because an incredibly important new public policy is being put forward here, which we should applaud.

Let us try to forget what happened earlier. It was unpleasant to see and I do not think it truly represents the true passion and commitment of people on both sides of the House to improving social care for the people of this country.

Health and Social Care

Debate between Paul Burstow and David Ward

Monday 13th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

I welcome that comment from the Minister and look forward to seeing more detail.

My final set of concerns relates to money. I and other hon. Members have referred to the report by the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services that came out last week. That report can be portrayed in very different ways. I took heart from the finding that despite undoubtedly being confronted with serious budgetary constraints, there is a lot of incredibly good practice by local authorities to protect front-line services. Only 13p in every pound of cuts has come from services being taken away directly.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

Can I tempt my right hon. Friend to comment on his proposals on the use of universal benefits for wealthy pensioners? I know that he has produced a pamphlet.

[Paul Burstow]

I will try to do that in the one minute and 14 seconds left to me.

The ADASS survey paints a quite disturbing picture of the next two years. More providers will face financial difficulties and there will be increasing pressures on the NHS as social services shunt people into health care services.

The spending review that is under way is for just 12 months. It needs to fund the successful implementation of this legislation, and not least the introduction of the Dilnot proposals. More than 450,000 people will need assessments to get into the new system. The spending review also needs to sustain the transfers of money from the NHS to social care. Beyond that, the spade work needs to be done now to make the case for the critical interdependencies between social care and health that will sustain our social care system and make our health system deliverable and affordable.

The Queen’s Speech, with its specific commitment to this legislation, contains a landmark reform that will do a great deal to improve the quality of life of our constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Burstow and David Ward

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Paul Burstow]

I know that the hon. Lady follows these issues closely. In September we published a plan for consultation on the proposals, which includes looking beyond the Dilnot commission’s recommendations at issues of quality, regulation, and many other aspects of how we can secure a comprehensive reform of social care. Today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to Opposition Front Benchers with the aim of resuming the discussions across parties to ensure that we get the conversation going with the new Opposition Front-Bench team as soon as possible.

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

In a recent ministerial response, I was informed that public health services were a matter for the local NHS and that it would not be appropriate for Ministers to become involved or intervene. The transfer of staff from PCTs to local authorities excludes staff delivering services relating to weight management, smoking cessation, physical activity promotion, sexual health, community development and diabetes awareness-raising. How on earth can local authorities pick up the responsibilities without being given the staff who would enable them to do it?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Paul Burstow and David Ward

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

I welcome the Minister’s response to the issue, which I acknowledge is the responsibility of local authorities, but they face many other difficulties, not only with nursing care but with residential care and the increased demand for it. What effective support will there be, other than additional words of support?

[Paul Burstow]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Over many months, we have been in discussions with colleagues at the Local Government Association, and the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services recently produced new guidance on maintaining continuity and quality of care for individuals in homes that may be in difficulties. That is the appropriate way for us to proceed. We continue to work with them to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place. However, I remain focused, as all Members in this House should be, on ensuring that the company has the best possible opportunity to get itself on a stable footing so that it can continue to provide the care that people want.