Education

Steve McCabe Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Opposition support the principle of personal budgets and direct payments, so we will not oppose the regulations. However, I have a number of questions about safeguards and how the proposals will work in practice.

The draft code of practice, to which the Minister referred, states in paragraph 3.39 that, as an “integral part” of the process of planning personal budgets,

“partners should ensure children, young people and families are involved in the decision-making processes at both an individual and a strategic level”.

How will the Minister monitor that and ensure that those fine words are translated into deeds? In the same paragraph, the code indicates that

“the new joint commissioning strategies will support greater choice and control year-on-year, as the market is developed and funding streams are freed from existing contractual arrangements”.

What steps will he take to ensure that he does not preside over a postcode lottery, with innovation and greater choice in some parts of the country, and reactionary, conservative obstacles in others?

The Minister may be aware of the suspicion directed at his Government that what he describes, understandably, as “choice” could be used by some as a device to save money. As he will know, a number of organisations in the field of special needs education are reporting cuts to the provision for young people, particularly in areas such as speech and language therapy, and are consequently expressing doubts about how the Minister’s brave new world will fare in an environment where severe cuts in local authority services and welfare changes mean that families with disabled children and young people are already facing extremely difficult times.

Will the Minister cite some good examples from the pilots of the kind of joint commissioning models he wants to see, which could be regarded as exemplars that others might follow? It is worth noting that last year, in a survey by the National Deaf Children’s Society, only 12% of parents were aware of the detail of the Government’s plans and only 17% of parents in the pathfinder areas were aware of them. I understand that only six of the 31 pathfinders have piloted personal budgets and that, across the country, only about 500 personal budgets are in existence. Is the Minister confident, therefore, that he has sufficient evidence to support the regulations?

One issue that was raised during the pathfinders was the need to comply with the requirements of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs when families end up acting as employers because they are contracting their child’s support. Is the Minister happy that the guidance on that is sufficiently clear? He will know that those who have experience of personal budgets and direct payments have complained that large parts of the budget can be consumed on administration and paying for insurance and payroll services.

Whose responsibility will it be to ensure that the work force and cultural changes that are necessary for a person-centred approach, for which the Minister has called, actually happen? If that falls to the existing service-level development managers, is there not a risk that they will have an incentive to protect their own roles by tying up organisations such as parent participation groups in bureaucratic service-level agreements, thus weakening their capacity to assist parents, children and young people? What practical steps will he take to guard against that?

There seem to be two potential risks in this approach. There will be authorities that see it as a classic opportunity to minimise the direct provision of services, and which therefore overstate the benefits of personal budgets. There will be other authorities that want to use regulation 6(1)(c) to argue that, however valid the individual request, to accede to it would mean disaggregating funding that supports the provision of services for a number of children and young people. There are obviously legitimate concerns that it will be harder to engage in the planning and co-ordination of services in an environment where much of the funding is in the hands of individual parents and families.

The experience in Essex was that providers were concerned about the impact that spot purchasing would have on their security because of the unpredictability that it brought to the amount of money they would receive over a set period. That is likely to have planning implications. Similarly, Essex county council claimed that the back-office implications included increased invoicing overheads as a result of moving from a large block to individual family contracting. Does the Minister recognise those dilemmas? How does he plan to be kept informed and to intervene to address those problems, if it is necessary? Will the first-tier tribunal be given any guidance on how it should consider such arguments? Indeed, should not regulation 7 specify the exact grounds on which a local authority may refuse? In the circumstances in which a person moves to a new authority, which opts to conduct a new needs assessment, what is to stop it drastically redrawing the terms of the personal budget? That is a common problem with the direct payment provisions for elderly people that already exist. What safeguards will the Minister put in place to prevent this further possibility in postcode lottery funding?

Who will be charged with identifying and encouraging agencies and organisations in each area to be in a position to be nominated to receive direct payments? Will it be necessary for such organisations to be added to an approved list? How will that work and how will a body—especially a new one offering a new type of service—gain access? Conversely, what safeguards are in place to ensure that money is not spent on programmes of dubious or unproven effectiveness?

The Minister helpfully told us that he was looking at the concerns about further education and direct payments, but how will he ensure that colleges do not simply see the money as an opportunity to offer more of the same, rather than personalisation? It is interesting that the disabled students allowance, which I believe the Government plan to scrap, is a personalised, portable payment for the individual rather than a direct payment to the university.

I support the principle of personal budgets, as I have said, but the Opposition would not be doing our job if we did not speak up for the many parents, children and young people on whom the Government plan to unleash this system.