Previous Section Home Page

Column 1224

sensitive area without at the same time legislating for similar registration and inspection arrangements as those for residential care?

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have told him on more than one occasion, that that is one of the issues that we shall consider in the general review and inspection during this year. He should remind the House that many voluntary registration and inspection schemes--I am sure that he has encountered them around the country--are being introduced with the good will of the independent sector, which would like its good name to be protected. Even without such schemes, local authorities have the power and, I should have thought, the duty to ensure that good-quality services are provided when placing vulnerable people in services. Surely councils already guarantee such services to people whom they place in domiciliary care. But we shall consider that in future.

Supporting people in their homes, wherever feasible and sensible, is, of course, one of the key objectives of the community care reforms. Under the old system, there was a perverse incentive for people to enter residential care whether they really needed it or not. We have removed that perverse incentive, by basing the provision of both residential and non-residential services on an assessment of need.

The assessment process is at the heart of the Government's community care policy. The assessments are "joint" assessments in the fullest sense of the word. A qualified social worker will be involved and, where necessary, so will other professional staff such as doctors and nurses. They will all have a part to play in deciding on the most appropriate services for each individual. The circumstances of carers, too, will be taken into account in deciding the outcome; so recently I was especially pleased to welcome the Carers (Recognition and Services) Bill, which should bring into statute what we have already made clear is best practice.

Last year, we provided an extra £20 million in grant to encourage the development of home and respite care. Early reports show that that has been put to good use in many parts of the country. This year, we are increasing that sum to £30 million, and I hope that that will help to support carers. I take the opportunity to pay tribute, in which I know hon. Members on both sides of the House will join, to all carers across the country. Theirs is a difficult and demanding task, both physically and emotionally.

Today, the Audit Commission published a comprehensive set of indicators that can be used to compare different authorities. They showed wide variations in the level of councils' performance. Some of the biggest variations in social services arise in the provision of respite services for carers. For example, some authorities provide 10 times more overnight breaks for carers than others do. Of course that discrepancy may reflect different ways of specialising in providing respite care, and other authorities may use alternatives, such as sitting services, but authorities certainly need to investigate the differences.

We do not propose any change this year in the distribution formula. I emphasise the fact that we have clearly shown our commitment to community care and have made substantial resources available. The report


Column 1225

provides for the distribution of additional funds to local authorities totalling more than £600 million for 1995- 96. I commend it to the House.

6.11 pm

Mr. David Hinchliffe (Wakefield): I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the special grant report. This is our only opportunity during the year to have a brief debate in Government time on community care--an issue of profound importance to many millions of people in this country.

I start by repeating the Opposition's strong support for the objectives of enabling older people and those facing physical and mental disabilities and mental illness to live their lives within the community in as normal an environment as possible. To the Labour party, community care is fundamentally a human rights issue, and we strongly support any attempts to deliver to people opportunities that have been denied to far too many people in the past.

As I have previously made clear, we have therefore offered broad general support for the Government's attempts to address the difficulties that arose directly from the previous system of paying Department of Social Security top-ups to people entering independent sector care or nursing homes. The National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 was aimed at unravelling the serious problems that stemmed from the massive expansion of private institutional care, which resulted in many unnecessary admissions of people who should have been enabled to continue living independently.

The Minister mentioned the perverse incentive, but that incentive was a direct consequence of Government policies. The arrangements that prevailed from 1981 to 1993 provide the best possible illustration of the impact of the market on the provision of care, when the models of care offered were often more suited to the business interests of providers than to the real needs of users. The end result was the investment of £10 billion worth of public money in the expansion of private institutional care at a time when official Government policy was to develop alternatives to models that had their roots in the poor law. In short, the market has taken us backwards.

In supporting the changes introduced in the 1990 Act, the Labour party has consistently expressed concern that the implementation of the changes has been adversely affected by the Government's prime objective of protecting business interests. That objective came over loud and clear in the Minister's speech.

During the debate on 1 March last year I criticised the Government for the serious difficulties caused to local authorities because the funding distribution formula was originally geared more towards ensuring the survival of private institutional care than towards addressing known local needs. I made clear our view that the Government had badly bungled the funding arrangements, and made the proper planning of community care year on year totally impossible for local authorities.

As the Minister will recall, I predicted that, as a direct result of serious errors in implementing the care changes, a number of authorities would face severe difficulties during the 1994-95 financial year. I have taken no pleasure in being proved right as authority after authority has publicly stated its inability to meet legitimate demand for services.


Column 1226

Those authorities could have been identified in March last year, and in November, with four months of the financial year still to go, I established that at least 12 authorities had exhausted their special transitional grants. They had raided base budgets and shunted money from a range of other sources. Some had increased the charge for services, but often they had still been unable to meet the needs identified through care assessments.

The result, as the Minister knows, is an increasing queue of users in the courts demanding judicial reviews of their case. From Gloucestershire to Lancashire, and from Islington to Wandsworth--a Tory authority that covers the Minister's constituency--service users are taking councils to court.

I know that the Department of Health is taking a close interest in that development--as well it might, bearing in mind the prediction by the Association of Directors of Social Services that if the court rules against Gloucestershire,

"Every Local Authority in the country is going to find itself challenged".

I visited Gloucestershire a few weeks ago to speak at a conference, and I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Robert Parry, the chairman of the local carers forum, who showed me correspondence from the Minister and others in the Department expressing a belief that local authorities had been fairly funded. At the same time I met the local director of social services, Mr. Derek Mead, and I was struck by his comments on the court action in last week's edition of Community Care magazine:

"The issue before the Court is what avenues are open to Local Authorities faced with a situation where there has been a cut in grants and a doubling in demands. Something somewhere has to give. We can't be told to meet people's needs whatever they are and then be given a budget which is capped".

The Minister must concede that demand for care services has exceeded all predictions. The Government have trumpeted the care changes as a new deal for users and carers, which is often not quite matched by people's experience. For political reasons their expectations have been raised, and the consequences are all too clear.

Alongside the Department of Health propaganda there are the equally important implications of the introduction of the market in health and its impact on community care. Some organisations, such as Values Into Action, have argued strongly that trust status has meant that local health policies, especially in relation to learning disability, have been in direct contradiction of the professed aims of the Government's community care policy.

In the context of the care of the elderly, the introduction of the market alongside the community care changes has been grasped by health purchasers as a heaven-sent opportunity to pass huge chunks of the traditional health role over to social services departments. When the Prime Minister said that the national health service would not be privatised while he lived and breathed, he ignored the fact that privatisation of the care of the elderly has happened both under his predecessor's Government and under his Government. In 1979 there were 55,139 care beds for the elderly in the NHS, but the number had dropped to 37,539 by 1993-94. In the same period, the number of private care beds increased from 26,095 to 134,510. If that is not privatisation, I do not know what is.

If anything, the process has quickened in recent times. The implications were rightly picked up by the ombudsman last year in respect of the actions of Leeds


Column 1227

health authority, but such examples have arisen across the country. The Minister will recall the survey that I published in December entitled "Passing the Buck", in which more than half the authorities that responded--some 43 councils--gave examples of cost shunting from health to social services. Cost shunting on to councils has been a major factor in the budgetary difficulties of the current financial year. I fear that it will also have a serious effect during 1995-96--the period to which the report that we are debating applies. I know that the Minister will say that new guidelines on continuing care should deal with the difficulty, but they cannot restore to the NHS almost 20,000 elderly care beds that have gone from my constituency and many other areas. The fact that the Department of Health has failed to offer a clear national definition of the health care divide means that battles will continue over who is responsible for what.

We fear that the serious difficulties of the current year are likely to get even worse during the period to which the special grant report applies. The local authority associations predict that the current year's estimated shortfall in funding--the gap between the special transitional grant and known needs--is about £96 million, but under the next financial year's settlement set out in tonight's report it will reach £261 million. Their projections are that for 1996-97 it will reach £495 million and for 1997-98 £796 million. We know that many councils have used base budgets and reserves this year to meet needs that could not be covered by special transitional grant.

Mr. Bowis: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government are putting a further amount of more than £600 million into the community care grant. He says that that is not enough. Is he committing his party, if it were in power at some time in the close future, to put in more? If so, how much?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am repeating criticisms that have been made to me by the local authority associations. They are in the best position to assess the level of needs. I am expressing the concern that they as providers--as people who are landed with the task of administering the new system--have expressed. Councils' projections of the total gap in funding in the current year were reasonably accurate.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead such local authorities or raise expectations unnecessarily in them, so how much would he give in addition?

Mr. Hinchliffe: I think that the Minister is aware that I regularly meet local authority colleagues from different political parties. If he will give me a few moments, I will set out the steps that I would wish to take in our approach to community care. I cannot quantify how much. As the Minister will obviously appreciate, the figures that I have mentioned are those that local authorities say are needed, where there is a gap. The gap is fairly apparent around the country in area after area. The Minister has to face the fact that his Department is directly involved in court cases. He must be aware of the problems that councils face.


Column 1228

The Minister is a reasonable man. He will concede that some councils have genuine difficulties in meeting the task that they have been landed with in implementing the care changes.

Mr. Bowis: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a figure of £700 million in addition to what the Government have provided. He must either say that he would provide less than that if he was in government or that he would give that amount. If he would give that amount, I should like to have that confirmed. I should also like confirmation that it has been approved by the leader of his party and the shadow Chancellor.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The Minister should have listened to what I said a few moments ago. I said that I would expand on what my party would do. We have some important proposals to make to tackle the current crisis in community care. In particular, we would make much better use of existing resources than the Government are making with their policies, which directly impact on local authorities.

If I had been a Minister in the Department of Health between 1981 and 1993, I would have made much better use of £10 billion of public money than the Conservative Government have in respect of reinstituting the expansion of institutional care.

Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield): Perhaps I could give an example to the Minister of the colossal waste of resources. In my area, a health authority and a trust are mothballing provision in the public sector for long-term care of the elderly confused. After 14 days, the family at the side of the bed are given a letter about arrangements to go into the private sector, to be funded from the local authority's budget. This evening there are beds lying empty. Facilities that cost more than £1 million for the specific needs of the elderly confused in my area are not available as a result of the Minister's private care market and his ideology of driving the elderly into the hands of the private sector. Authorities are disbarred from using their own resources, paid for at the expense of the local authority care budgets.

Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes a strong point in the way that only he can. When the Minister talks of his ideology of privatisation, he uses the word "choice", but he means shunting public responsibility for care services on to the private sector. He should take responsibility for some of the problems that arise as a direct result.

I did not intend to use the letter that I have with me tonight, but I shall do so because the Minister has raised the issue of cost and because it reinforces the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). I have had passed to me by the office of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition only this week a letter which I know has also been passed to the Department of Health. It is about a lady in her eighties who is currently in a care home. She faces severe difficulties because her income does not meet the care fees on a week-by-week basis. I shall be only too happy to pass the letter to the Minister.

The lady has received from a group of solicitors in Northampton a letter which says:

"Should the invoice not be paid on the due date then I have been instructed to issue a county court summons forthwith."


Column 1229

The relative who raised the matter with my right hon. Friend ends her letter by saying:

"As I complete the final draft of this letter, there has been a change in Mum's health. She is now dying. Her health has been deteriorating for the last three weeks, but particularly for the last week. I hope that we can at least make sure that others will not have to face the problems described here, but suspect that this may only be the case with a change to a caring Government policy." Such cases are brought to my attention every week and must be brought to the Minister's attention. He talks about the move to the private sector. Such cases are the reality of the care problems that face people in the private sector.

The Minister cannot deny the problem. He can look at the correspondence. I will happily copy it to him, but I believe that his Department has it already. That is the reality facing vast numbers of constituents of both Opposition and Conservative Members throughout the country as a direct result of the privatisation of care by the Minister's Government.

I shall continue to expand the point that I was making about the financial difficulties that face local authorities. I set out the projections that local authorities have made for the effect of current policy and the problems that they face in the next three financial years. We know that many councils have used their base budgets and reserves this year to meet needs that could not be covered by the special transitional grant. The 8 per cent. increase in gross personal social services total standard spending for 1995-96 is almost wholly made up of additional funding for community care in the form of the 1995-96 grant. Local authorities believe that the settlement effectively represents a cash freeze once the effects of additional resources for new community care responsibilities have been excluded. The increase in total standard spending is £0.7 million pounds and, at 0.01 per cent., is well below the average increase of 0.8 per cent. quoted for all services.

In that context, raids on hard-pressed base budgets in 1995-1996 will simply not be an option for many councils. I read with concern the worrying projections of the Association of Directors of Social Services arising from a survey of local authorities published early this month. It showed that more than 80 per cent. of social services departments will have to reduce their services during 1995-1996. The cuts range from 0.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. with an average of £1 million per authority, although one council is cutting £12 million. To stay within budgets, there are proposals to raise strict eligibility criteria, to increase charge levels, to put tighter ceilings on individual packages of care and to reduce investment in domiciliary care. That is the reality of the next financial year from the point of view of those at the sharp end. I recognise that there will never be sufficient resources to meet all expressions of need presented to social services, but steps could be taken to address the serious difficulties that I have described.

There are steps that the Government can take to deal with the crisis that is facing personal social services. They must, first, take account of the impact of the NHS changes in terms of local authority budgets and bring to an end the obvious buck-passing process, which has had huge resource implications for councils. In my survey, I came across the case of a person in a coma who had been passed for community care from a hospital to a local authority,


Column 1230

and people who were unconscious and on drips who had been referred for community care. That is what faces local authorities. The Government must strengthen the continuing care guidelines and further protect councils from having to fund the care of people who should be the responsibility of the NHS. Only this morning, I addressed a conference of health and social services managers, councillors, chairs of health authorities and regional authority members. Their concern was that the guidelines are, frankly, meaningless.

The Government have not addressed some practical problems which are being faced at a local level. They must look at that, and ensure that the guidelines mean something. They must resolve the difficulties in terms of who does what in many local communities.

The Government must also look again at the calculations of future community care funding and its distribution. The Minister will be aware of the Association of County Councils call for research to be undertaken into the definition of the unit costs of community care service. There is a possibility of linking that with local needs identified in community care plans and other relevant information to lead to a much more satisfactory distribution of resources. I repeat the point that I made in last year's debate and, indeed, in the previous year's debate: the Government should drop their dogmatic insistence that the bulk of the special transitional grant should be spent in what they term the independent sector. The Minister knows that there is clear evidence that that requirement is resulting in a significant number of unnecessary admissions to permanent care because independent sector domiciliary care is simply not available in many areas. That condition is wasting scarce resources, as well as resulting in a denial of an individual's rights to care within the community.

I made clear at the outset the Labour party's support for the principle of community care and our policies would take the process a good deal further, with choices for users and carers which they are denied at the moment because of the Government's market dogma. Choice for us means more than giving somebody a list of private carers.

Mr. McCartney: Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister an important question on an issue that the Minister ducked in his eulogy about Government policy? What will be the Government's position on funding if the courts decide to place on Gloucester and other local authorities a duty to fund care propositions? Will a supplementary grant be awarded by the Department? What arrangements has the Department made if, following the court ruling, local authorities have to act unlawfully or carry out the decision of the court in respect of the provision of the service?

Mr. Hinchliffe: It would be helpful if the Minister felt able to respond to that point, as he has had guidance from his officials on what response the Government might make. I am well aware that the Department of Health has been involved in the Gloucester situation, and the Department must be looking at what is happening elsewhere in the country.

In conclusion, our view of choice is somewhat different from that of the Government. To us, it means policies about the active encouragement of a continuum of care options from independent and semi-independent living to


Column 1231

individualised provision in permanent residential or nursing care settings. It means ensuring choice and a good quality of public sector services, as well as the voluntary sector and private provision.

We are pleased that progress has been made in community care, but a comparison of provision in Britain with that in some adjacent European countries shows that we are, frankly, light years behind. The problem is not just resources, but thinking, philosophy and attitudes. If our outlook is essentially determined by market dogma and if our central thrust is one of deregulation, we will continue to deny people the rights, freedoms and choices available to the majority. I hope that the Government will accept that our criticisms reflect what is being said to us by users and carers, and that they will respond to some of the serious points that I have made tonight. 6.36 pm

Mr. David Rendel (Newbury): I am delighted to have the opportunity of joining the other two main parties on one matter. In principle, we also fully support the idea that lies behind community care. However, the Government must recognise that, in introducing the processes of community care, they have raised expectations which have failed to be met.

The Government must do something rapidly if they wish the principle of community care to continue to meet with the widespread acceptance that it had before it was introduced in practice. Community care has been widely accepted and implemented successfully in a number of counties. Interestingly, one may exclude Buckinghamshire from that number, and we all know that there are severe difficulties in the community care processes there.

Community care procedures were always bound to cost more than the previous procedures, and the Government let themselves down in not recognising that. Too little money has been allocated year after year for the proper implementation of those procedures and, sadly, that includes the budgets that are about to be set for 1995-1996.

Mr. Bowis: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, let me make a point which I know he would wish to answer. He is saying that inadequate funds have been allowed to resource community care. The additional special transitional grants which we are talking about today were, in the first year, £565 million, in the second year £1.2 billion and in the third year £1.8 billion. The total will rise to £2.2 billion in the fourth year. What figures would the hon. Gentleman put on it?

Mr. Rendel: I am not pretending that I can put a precise figure on that now. The principle was correct, but we must find the right amount of funding to make sure that that principle works in practice. It is up to the Government to make sure that those sums are met out of their finances. I have no doubt that, before the next general election, all of the parties will provide a proper menu with prices for all of the policies that they intend to implement in the new Government. My party will do that, and I hope that other two main parties will as well. They have not always done so successfully.


Column 1232

A number of problems are associated with the financing of community care. The first is a severe problem that has already been mentioned--it is clear that some services that were dealt with within the national health service have been transferred to the community care service without the equivalent funding being transferred along with them. That problem is causing difficulties for the elderly--a particularly vulnerable portion of our population.

The second problem is the way in which funding has been switched. Some £80 million was taken away from funding for the shire counties and provided for the metropolitan authorities, That has caused immense problems for counties such as Devon, Gloucestershire and the Isle of Wight. Numerous hon. Members who represent those areas have already mentioned those problems. It is important that we recognise that that switch caused a certain amount of chaos during the early implementation of community care.

Mr. Bowis: I happened to look at the figures for the hon. Gentleman's county of Berkshire and noticed that, as a result of that change, it received £800,000 more than it expected, in addition to the £1.6 million more than it had expected from the standard spending assessment review. Has the county had difficulty managing that additional income under his party's control?

Mr. Rendel: Sadly, Berkshire is under joint control, not under the control of my party. I wish that it were, but perhaps that will come about soon, as I understand that there is a good chance that some Conservative members of Berkshire council may be about to resign the Whip. Perhaps we shall take control rather sooner than the Minister might think.

My argument was not about Berkshire, but about shire counties in general. Some have done rather better than others. The point is that the switching of resources in such a sudden and unexpected manner throws procedures into difficulties. The shire counties that lost out not unnaturally found it very difficult to provide the community care resources necessary under the Government's new system.

I visited Devon recently and talked to some owners of private homes there. The switch has hit them hard. If there is a lack of resources and the money has to go to publicly funded homes--it would only cost more to shut them down in a hurry--that inevitably causes the private home owners difficulties, as they are without the clients whom they had expected, or without clients who have the funds to pay for their accommodation. The Government must recognise that, in many cases, they have caused problems for the private home owners. If those owners are squealing, perhaps they should turn to the Government.

Mr. McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the Minister about overcapacity in the private sector? If I remember rightly, when the Government introduced the changes, they said that there was 40 per cent. overcapacity in the private sector, which they could not fund. That has led not merely to failure to win contracts--when those are available--but to the cost of repaying loans for refurbishment, or the capital cost of new builds, settling on private home owners. They are having to meet the bills for the capital that the Government encouraged them to borrow, with no income because of overcapacity in the market. They are unable to fund the loans by gaining contracts to care for the elderly. Should the Government


Column 1233

not give some estimate of the number of private sector homes for the elderly that will have to close because of overcapacity?

Mr. Rendel: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It would indeed be interesting to hear the Government's response. Perhaps the Minister will reply when he sums up.

The third problem that has arisen is that, under the Government's new system of assessing the needs of all those who require community care, we are moving towards a system based on need. The Government said so at the time and were right to do so. If one has a system that is based on need, however, one must provide the funding for it, or people will feel let down.

The fourth problem is the fact that local authorities have been forced to spend such a large proportion of their funding on the private sector. Interestingly, the arguments against have focused on choice and on the fact that funding must go into public sector provision because it is there now. One argument that we have not heard is whether there are hidden costs to local authorities when they move the provision of services from the public to the private sector.

The House will no doubt know that the Equal Opportunities Commission produced an interesting report on compulsory competitive tendering today, which apparently shows that the hidden costs have been roughly twice the size of any expected savings. It is clear to all of us who have been involved in local government that, while there are superficial savings in some cases, CCT often costs local authorities a great deal of money because of hidden costs, which are not necessarily obvious from their accounts but are nevertheless very real. The way in which the Government are forcing community care into the private sector may well result in hidden costs that they have failed to recognise. The costs are part of the reason why funds are insufficient to meet the needs of people in community care. It is cruel of the Government, when assessing their needs, to raise the hopes of those who need community care, only to dash them by failing to produce the necessary funding. They are some of the most vulnerable members of our community--the very old, the very sick and people with severe disabilities. They cannot be expected to look after themselves and their own needs. The Government have played a cruel trick on them by introducing the community care system and raising their hopes, only to dash them because community care is not working as we all hoped that it would. The Government must fund the necessary community care resources in line with the identified need of the people concerned.

6.46 pm

Ms Ann Coffey (Stockport): I was astounded to read in the Audit Commission report that came out today that a very low number of elderly people in Stockport, of all the metropolitan authorities, are in residential care and being provided with care in their own homes. I found it difficult to understand because Stockport social services department spends well above the standard spending assessment. It suddenly dawned on me that the problem with the Audit Commission's figures is that many elderly people in Stockport are in nursing homes and, therefore, would not come under the category of residential care. They are in nursing homes as a result of the joint policy


Column 1234

of the local authority and the local health authority for social services to be a health provider. The figures are misleading. The difficulty when one receives an Audit Commission report is that one has to spend a considerable amount of time puzzling out what the statistics mean. If such reports continue to be published, I think that we shall find fewer people in residential homes in Stockport because one of the impacts of joint commissioning by the health authority and social services departments is that purchasing is targeted at those in greatest need. Residential care will inevitably be provided through the nursing sector because the people in greatest need will have health needs that can be provided only through nursing homes.

The Audit Commission provided an indication, not of the performance of a local authority, but of the purchasing trend because of the level of nursing and the health needs of elderly people. It showed how local authorities are turning into health purchasers. I become disappointed when I hear the Minister talk about community care. Although he constantly says that the Opposition are guilty of the maxim that private is bad and public is good, he is guilty of always assuming that public care is bad, private care is good, and the only way to improve public care is to introduce a market mechanism. Essentially, that is what community care is about. I sat as a councillor on a social services committee when we were deciding what to do with our residential homes because of standards being set by the Department of Health to improve the physical environment and the space to which people were entitled. Those standards were all good and proper, but the council was not allowed to borrow money to improve standards in the public sector. The council closed a number of residential homes because it did not have the money to improve standards. There was no fair playing field between the public and private sectors, as the private sector had access to capital borrowing and could therefore provide private homes to the standards set by the Department of Health, and the local authority ended up purchasing places in private homes. We all felt that it was a bit of a rigged market, which had more to do with the Government's ideology than with a genuine attempt at a partnership between the public and private sectors, which we would all welcome. The Minister said that local authorities' responsibilities go beyond spending the community care grant. We understand that. May I illustrate the problem by explaining the position in Stockport? Stockport is a capped authority, and since the disaster of the poll tax, the proportion of Government grant to money raised by the council has increased enormously. Some 80 per cent. of the council's income is Government grant, so the Government have a stranglehold on the council's resources. Inevitably, that affects the council's spending and how it decides between priorities. For example, the Government's failure to fund the teachers' pay increase has meant that it has had to be funded from elsewhere in the budget. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Minister, but it is not rubbish.

Mr. Bowis: I did not say that it was.

Ms Coffey: Part of those funds are being taken from money that should be spent on community care. The council is unable to provide home helps, which are part of community care. In my authority, like all authorities,


Column 1235

the problem with the home help service is that it has been targeted at those in greatest need. Although people in greatest need require home helps, those in a little less need have no access to home helps because the council cannot provide home helps for them all. Effectively, therefore, the community care infrastructure is not preventive but targeted at those in greatest need. That is fine, but it creates problems.

A core issue in respect of community care is enabling people who live in their own homes and who become disabled or elderly-infirm to climb the stairs to the bathroom. Installing chair lifts in private housing is a big problem because the money comes from the urban renewal grant, so the application competes with applications for mandatory grants to renovate houses. If the council wants to make more money available for installing chair lifts, it must come from other budgets. If no chair lifts are available, elderly-infirm and disabled people cannot stay in their own homes and we therefore do not have the community care or choice which the Government talk about.

So let us not pretend that there are not enormous problems. I hear the Minister talk about the money which the Government give local authorities, and it seems like a lot of money. But when I see my constituents' problems, all I can say to the Minister is that, although it may seem like a lot of money, it is not sufficient to finance the community care procedures that the Government have introduced. The measure of the scheme's success must be whether community care can be delivered. My experience, and that of all my hon. Friends, is that it cannot. Local authorities are being turned into health purchasers to save the health authority budget. That was not the original intention of community care, which was essentially to provide a community infrastructure for people to stay in their own homes, not to buy privately the health care that should be provided through the national health service.

In case the Minister thinks that my view is unbalanced, may I raise a problem about which I have corresponded with him on behalf of private home owners? If elderly people who were admitted to a private home before 1993 and funded their place themselves now run out of money, they cannot be funded through the community care grant. They may receive a DSS grant but that will be less than the purchasing price within the private home. For elderly people to receive funding from the community care grant, they must leave that home. They cannot go into another home managed by the same organisation but must find a home managed by another organisation.

Mr. Hinchliffe: May I reinforce my hon. Friend's concerns? I discovered from a parliamentary answer recently that 78,500 people come into the category that she describes. It is a serious problem and I hope that the Minister will deal with it.

Ms Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that supportive comment. As I was saying, elderly people who run out of funds must be evicted from a home in which they may have been living for five or six years, but if they go to a private home run by a different organisation, they will be funded out of community care money. Where is the sense in that? How does that care for elderly people? I understand that the legislation was framed to prevent abuse by private


Column 1236

home owners, but its only effect has been to abuse elderly people. As the Minister knows, moving elderly people from one home to another puts them at risk--

Mr. Hinchliffe: It kills them.

Ms Coffey: As my hon. Friend said, it effectively kills them. I have corresponded with the Minister's Department about that matter but have not received an answer, so I am pleased for an opportunity to raise it in this debate.

We shall have no sensible idea of what community care funding is about until we resolve the problem of the respective purchasing roles of health authorities and local authorities for the health needs of elderly people. Although a recent Government circular told authorities that they must come up with a number of continuing care beds for elderly people and an appeal process will be put into operation, that issue is by far unresolved. The problem with the community care grant is that much of the money is, of necessity, being used to buy health care because the national health service has decided to give up caring for elderly people as that produces no profit.

6.58 pm

Mr. John Gunnell (Morley and Leeds, South): I have only a minuscule amount of time to speak, so I suggest that the Minister and I meet to discuss some of the issues.

I was part of the Audit Commission when it drew up its original report on community care. Although progress has been made, two matters are causing great difficulty and a third is now on the horizon. They need to be tackled. In some cases, they show a departure from what the Audit Commission originally envisaged. First, obviously many authorities find that there is not enough money. The figure for Leeds appears generous if one compares it with other figures in the table, but Leeds is £3 million short of the money that it expected to receive. That is bound to have an impact on community care. For example, when reductions are made in the total budget, there is an increase in vacancies for social workers. That makes the assessment process much more difficult. Therefore, considerable difficulties result from a shortfall of funding. It is not a generous settlement, and it should not be considered generous. Secondly, grave difficulties result from the restriction of 85 per cent. going to the independent sector. I am not dogmatic about those issues. Yesterday, I met people from my constituency who run homes for Registered Residential Care Homes. They expressed their anxieties about some of the other private care homes in the city which were not registered. They felt that I should inquire about them, and especially that I should examine whether people in those homes had control of their pocket money. They felt that control of pocket money added to people's status and their sense of having a little independence. They said that that happened in their organisation, but that some other organisations, for commercial reasons, took all the money at the start and allowed individuals little freedom to choose the way in which they used any of it. Anxieties about the quality and actions of some care homes were therefore expressed to me by other private care homes yesterday.

The third factor, which must be considered in future, is the likely impact of the Government's pronouncements about long-term care coming as a direct result of the


Column 1237

Leeds case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Obviously, in this country that will be a critical issue for the future.

When I lived in the United States, I found that people spoke about the American dream, but they also spoke about the American nightmare. The American nightmare was that all one's resources would be spent and used up on health care in one's old age, and that one would then be forced to rely entirely on a welfare system which, in the United States, is very poorly developed.

We are approaching a position in this country in which many elderly people realise that any long-term sense of security is being taken away from them by Government. They now know that, if they have specific afflictions that the health service says will not improve, they may be off into a private home and their original homes will have to be sold to pay for their upkeep. In that way, the American nightmare is coming to this country, and it is a cause of grave concern.

I do not know whether the Minister has met many local authorities which have difficulty meeting their community care budgets, but I should like the opportunity to have a proper discussion about some of the issues that I mentioned, which cannot be discussed properly in a short debate.

7.2 pm

Mr. Hinchliffe: With the leave of the House, I wish to make one or two brief arguments in summary.

The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made some important arguments in his contribution about the over-concentration on private provision of institutional care; fair arguments that apply, not only to Berkshire, but elsewhere in the country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) made the important argument that local authorities are now health purchasers. That is a simple fact. Five or 10 years ago, they would certainly not have dealt with the type of cases with which they now deal. They are now health purchasers, but they are not funded as health purchasers. The Government must tackle that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Gunnell) reinforced that argument by describing the impact of problems with long- term care. I am worried that the Minister's line has consistently been that local authorities should be able to manage. He believes that bad management is at the root of the problems faced by some of them.

I was very conscious of the remarks of Mr. Peter Stock of the National Users and Carers Group, who has written to the Secretary of State for Health, complaining that her Department's press release on an issue had manipulated the facts. I quote from Community Care of 9 March 1995. Mr. Stock said:

"The document, which concentrated on remarks by John Bowis that a few councils were unable to resource their community care programmes because of bad management, did not reflect the group's views and had prompted him to consider resigning."

That is the users and carers group, which says that arguments about bad management simply do not wash. It is not the issue. Is it any wonder that directors, according to the same magazine, are outraged by Bowis's attitude to cuts? [Interruption.] Directors of social services are outraged; perfectly reasonable people, as the Minister well knows, are outraged by his attitude.


Next Section

  Home Page