| Previous Section | Home Page |
Mr. Hinchliffe: Anyway, I pay tribute to the constructive role that he has played. It is not often that I pay tribute to the Minister, but today is one such occasion. I appreciate the fact that he and his officials have gone out of their way to ensure that this measure is likely to become law before too long.
The Opposition support the central principle of this measure: the separate assessment of the ability of carers to provide care. I should like to set out why the Labour party concluded that a measure like this one was needed, and why we fully support it. As the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West will know, we supported the community care reforms of 1990 but expressed our concern that they might give insufficient consideration to certain issues. One or two of us who were involved at the time should perhaps plead guilty to not having campaigned enough for a measure to meet the needs of carers.
In April 1993, when the changes in community care were taking place, the Labour party issued a discussion document called "New Directions in Community Care".
Column 462
The document set out in some detail our concerns about the need for support for carers, which we felt had not been sufficiently dealt with in the 1990 legislation. We referred in the document to the key objectives set out in "Caring for People" and mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West. Those objectives included ensuring that service providers made practical support for carers a high priority; the assessment of care needs, as my hon. Friend said, should always take account of the needs of the caring family, friends and neighbours.We made clear our view that many carers were sceptical about whether that would really happen. We know of excellent examples in various parts of the country of local authorities and organisations giving carers genuine support, but we wanted to ensure that such practice became far more widespread so as to enable the changes of 1993 to have a real impact. Indeed, we made the following point: "Too often carers are treated not as partners in care but as alternatives to service support."
The same point has been made by a number of hon. Members today. We referred to information that had been published at about the time of the care changes by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. The latest evidence was that carers were receiving even less help then than they had been some five years before. That was an obvious source of worry.
We also identified a number of areas for which we felt that carers needed assistance. By that stage, thanks to the efforts of the Carers National Association, we had recognised the central point of this Bill--that
"carers must be the focus of support just as much as the people they are caring for."
I am delighted to see that that point has become the central element in the Bill.
The document to which I referred, "New Directions in Community Care", which was issued at the same time as the care changes, predicted that in many respects the changes would prove to be a false dawn for many users and carers. I take no pleasure in saying that, to some extent--I think that the Minister will concede that this is the position--there have been problems. Reports have proved, especially those relating to carers, that the changes amounted to a false dawn. In April 1994, the Alzheimer's Disease Society published a study of 100 selected carers. It was clear that 59 had received no assessment of their needs. Indeed, only 13 had a separate assessment. The National Federation of Women's Institutes undertook a study of rural carers. Over the same period, it found that one in three carers in rural areas received no regular support or help. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West referred to Scope. The research of the Carers National Association has also been mentioned. It showed that in 1994 the care changes had made no difference to nearly 80 per cent. of the carers who were surveyed.
We took account of these findings in publishing, in consultation with a range of organisations, including those that I mentioned, the Labour party's consultation paper, entitled "Making Carers Count", in September 1994. I think that the Minister will be familiar with that document's central features. We began by saying that our main concern was to ensure that carers should have separate rights in law. We took the view that there was a need for a measure along the lines of the Bill that was drafted by the Carers National Association. We said also
Column 463
that there should be the opportunity to have separate community care assessment. I sincerely welcome the fact that those specific points are addressed today.The Opposition especially welcome the fact that the Bill covers both parent carers and young carers. In "Making Carers Count", we stated that the particular needs of thousands of young carers should be recognised and that young carers should have access to the same services as other carers.
The needs of young carers have been unrecognised by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. Indeed, it has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber that perhaps none of us has been fully aware of the extent to which their needs have not been focused upon. The experience of many carers has been that of isolation: they have felt entirely alone in tackling a difficult situation that others could not fully appreciate. If that is a factor with adult carers, it is even more of one when it comes to young carers. I hope that the implementation of the Bill will lead to recognition of the isolation factor. Young carers have even less mobility and less ability to communicate their needs than adult carers. In many respects, they are not appreciated. Often, their difficulties and the problems with which they are struggling are unrecognised.
Given my social work background, I was aware, as were some other hon. Members, that there were young carers. However, even I was surprised by the numbers of young carers as revealed by the estimated figures produced by some respectable research. The figures focused our attention on the numbers of children and young persons involved in caring. We became aware of the 10,000 informal carers under the age of 16 years as a result of the Sandwell and Tameside work in 1989. That came as a shock to me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West has said, numbers up to 40,000 have been mentioned. I do not know the basis of that research. We know, however, that many children and young people are tackling the task of caring, often without recognition.
I know from my own direct social work experience--it is somewhat dated, because it goes back to the 1970s, but I believe it still to be relevant-- that often the young carer was seen as the problem. I can recall cases of non-school attendance that brought the circumstances of a child or young person to the attention of local authorities. Those young people were then seen as the problem, and not part of a much wider issue. I hope that the Bill will ensure that they are focused upon and that their needs are specifically taken into account.
I am ashamed to admit that I can recall several children being taken before juvenile courts who were found to be young carers. They were not at school because they were carrying out difficult caring tasks. It is not right that they should be seen as the problem. The wider issues should be addressed, and I hope that we shall start to do that with the elements in the Bill.
I pay tribute to the work of the young carers research group at Loughborough. A little while ago, I had the privilege at a conference of meeting Saul Barker, its director. I commend to hon. Members his speech at that conference and some of the publications that the research group has produced, which tell, in their own words, the story of young carers' experiences. They are very moving
Column 464
experiences and have been recorded by the carers' colleagues at Loughborough. The Bill offers some possibility of the problems being addressed.12.45 pm
I want to be brief, as we want to make progress today, but I shall make just one or two cautionary points on resourcing, which I hope the Minister will address. That point has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. My main concern about the Bill in its revised form is whether, in the present context and given the difficulties that they face, local authorities will be able to do justice to what we are asking of them in this measure. The Minister will recall that, a few weeks ago, we debated the special transitional grant for the current financial year. I do not want to go into detail, but I think that he will accept that there are and have been, for whatever reasons--we are not here to debate them today--severe problems in the implementation of the care changes during the current financial year. We may well see even greater problems in that. I would welcome the Minister's thoughts, when he replies, on how the Government will address those points. I feel strongly that it would be wrong to build up hopes, as has happened so often in this place, in social legislation and then not deliver the goods at a local level, particularly in a matter as sensitive as this. It would be helpful if the Minister would tie in some of these policies with other governmental or departmental policies. As the hon. Members for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) mentioned, housing policies, DSS policies--a whole range of areas--have a bearing on the position of carers.
I know that my hon. Friend and others have given examples of carers and their circumstances. I recall many examples from my time in social work. The most harrowing, perhaps, from my point of view, was being a carer with my wife a number of years ago. As a number of hon. Members have said, when it happens, one suddenly realises the extent to which this issue must be addressed politically.
There are very real needs and problems that the House should tackle. I hope that the measure will prove to be a major step forward for the vast number of people who are directly affected by these issues.
Mr. Bowis: I echo the many tributes that have been paid to the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) for the imagination that he has shown not only in bringing the measure to the House but then going through its consideration to see how best it could be proceeded with. I am grateful to him for the enormous amount of work that he has put in. He was kind enough to pay tribute to my officials and to the officials in other Government Departments--indeed, my right hon. Friend the leader of the House was described as the emeritus Minister with responsibility for social services--and those tributes are gratefully received, but it is a two-way exercise. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has achieved, and through him to Jill Pitkeathley and her colleagues at the Carers National Association. I echo the tributes that have been paid to the many organisations in the caring world that represent people with needs and those who look after them.
Column 465
The two new clauses really contain the main thrust of the Bill. The debate has summed up the whole Bill, in a way. The Bill has received its Second Reading and passed its Committee stage. We are looking, as the hon. Gentleman said, to make changes to the Bill, so that the whole of the United Kingdom is covered.My hon. and Scottish Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been with me throughout to listen, intervene and confirm the pledge on the Children (Scotland) Bill. He will be following up any specifically Scottish matters that have been raised by hon. Members. I know that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West has received reassurances on Northern Ireland, in terms of how Northern Ireland carers will be brought into the measure. The hon. Gentleman also rightly pointed out that part of the reason for the changes was the need to cover different categories, and happily we are able to achieve that.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the importance of helping the family "in the round". We have the family as a whole in mind. The hon. Gentleman described a "carers' army", pointing out that caring involved more people than the national health service and social services put together. The NHS used to be described as the third largest employer in the world--after the Indian railways and the Red army. I am glad to say that we are looking after the carers' army today: I would rather look after that army than look after the Red army any day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), the hon. Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and others mentioned resources. They are indeed important, and a number of messages have been delivered to me on this subject--to be passed on to avid followers of our debates in the Treasury and the Department of Social Security.
The question of ring fencing also arose. We have been able to ring-fence the transitional grant covering the new responsibilities involved in community care, but we have not been able to ring-fence all social services resources; it is for local authorities to make the necessary decisions. We have, however, been able to increase resources for respite care, and day care in particular. We managed to provide a further £20 million last year, and a further £30 million in the current year. That is proof of our commitment.
Another message that we have received is that the Bill on its own is not enough: social services departments must implement it. We have probably all been struck by cases of which we have heard today, in which the arrival of a carer has been seen as an excuse for the withdrawal of service. Our own message to social services departments is that that is not good enough. They should not assume anything; they should check that carers can cope, and that support for the user ensures their ability to do so. If they do not do that, they may find that they must take on the whole responsibility. I also agree that there should be discussions rather than clipboards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), among others, called for support for special educational needs. Although we are not amending the Education Act 1981, which deals with such needs, other services--including the health service--have a duty to play their part in assessments for the purpose of statementing. If parents need support in that regard, it is initially the responsibility of local education authorities,
Column 466
but it may become clear during that process that some needs are best met by social services departments. Measures in the Bill may play their part, but I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said when we draft the guidance that is so crucial to making the legislation work effectively.Mr. Matthew Carrington (Fulham): I am concerned about the drafting of the guidance. Some social services departments, and possibly education departments, may well be tempted to use the voluntary assessment to impose a method of caring; in other words, they may intervene and say that the caring is not being done in the right way. Will my hon. Friend reassure me that that is not the intention, and that it will be up to the carer to decide what method is appropriate for the family and the disabled person involved?
Mr. Bowis: My hon. Friend is right to say that we want carers to be genuinely listened to, and want their wishes to be met. I shall bear my hon. Friend's thoughts in mind when we prepare the guidance. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said, we are changing the Bill radically, but that does not mean that certain categories of carer will be excluded. We are widening the scope. We have been able to avoid problems of definition by not having a specific definition of a disabled person or private carer but by relating it to those being assessed under the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
We must ensure that local authorities take proper account of carers' circumstances when carrying out an assessment of those using community care services. Carers and users have different needs but those needs are linked. We do not want to create parallel rafts of services or parallel assessment procedures. There should be a strong bond between the assessment of carers and those being cared for. Some carers who look after those they love will not want anything as formal as an assessment. The Bill makes that an option and local authorities should continue to follow our guidance and take due account of the informal care that is provided to a person who is receiving community care services, irrespective of whether the carer asks for a formal assessment. Whether assessments are formal or informal I hope that they will be seen as a chance for carers to have their say, in private if necessary, on what responsibilities they can take up and on those that they cannot be expected to cover. Our guidance states that assessment should not assume a carer's willingness to continue to provide care. The starting point should not be, "You are coping fine aren't you?", but, "How are you coping with your current caring responsibilities, and how do you think you will cope in future?"
Hon. Members have spoken about parent carers and disabled children who, of course, are not assessed for services under the National Health Service and Community Care Act. Therefore, it is right to propose that parents or other carers are assessed in the light of Acts that are relevant to them. Like the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West, I want to ensure that parent carers have the same rights of assessment of their needs as carers of adults.
The hon. Members for Croydon, North-West and for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and many other hon. Members spoke about young carers. They are of particular interest
Column 467
to me and I have a special commitment to ensuring that the issue remains on our agenda. We must recognise the role of young carers. As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West said, yesterday we had the pleasure of meeting a group of young carers that he had brought to the Palace of Westminster to see how this place works. That was an invaluable and memorable meeting for both of us. I certainly found it so.As we listened to those young carers, our response was not one of pity but of admiration for their gutsy determination. We heard the concern that has been expressed in the debate that some young people are worried about asking for help in case their responsibilities are taken away from them and they will be taken into care and the family broken up. That must not be what it is all about.
We learned yet again that children must be allowed to be children first. They must be allowed the freedom to make mistakes and not forced to grow up too fast. They should be able to play with their friends without having to worry about whether mum is okay. They should be enabled to achieve their full potential at school and to feel comfortable with their peers and not to be too different from their friends.
I shall not quote in detail the messages that we have received. The Sefton carers newsletter came with notes from two carers, one of whom is a 13-year -old whose mother has multiple sclerosis. The two of them live alone and that child simply said:
"People who look after their mum need someone to talk to." That is often what it is all about. It is about having someone to contact. It is important for them to know other young carers but they should also know an adult who can make sure that they are okay. They should also have the support of the young carers groups that we met and who give such excellent support to young carers in various parts of the country.
Young carers appear to have suffered from a lack of recognition in the past. That has changed and I am determined that their needs should become more visible. Our social services inspectorate is planning further work to spread good practice in that field and I intend to ensure that the topic remains on the agenda. At the end of next week, our chief inspector will send out a letter reminding authorities of the importance of making links between community care legislation and legislation for children to ensure that the needs of young carers and the people for whom they care are met.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) tabled amendments and, while I welcome the principles behind them, I feel that the matters would be tackled better by accompanying guidance. If a carer or a person being cared for has communication difficulties, arrangements must be made to establish their views and capabilities, to ensure that an assessment is carried out in a meaningful way. The principles in the hon. Lady's amendments would be best covered by departmental guidance, and I am pleased to assure her that guidance will be issued by the Department if the Bill is passed. That guidance will go into considerable detail about the way in which assessments of carers should be carried out, and it will cover carers with communications difficulties.
Column 468
We will also consider the problem of more general language difficulties. The provision of sign language, an interpreter, large print or braille may need to be made if communication is to be effective, and people for whom English is not the first language must also be taken into account. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts the assurance that her concerns will be addressed comprehensively in departmental guidance. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendments.I commend new clause 1 to the House, as I commend the Bill as a whole.
1 pm
Mr. Wicks: We have had a full and positive debate about the Bill but, because it has been positive and conducted in such a good sprit, it will no doubt fail to be fully reported in the newspapers. If one of us had thrown a blancmange at another Member, you would have ruled it out of order, Dame Janet. It would, however, have made the front pages of the papers. It is a problem of our times that newspapers do not discuss serious public policy matters as they are debated by the House.
There is not enough time to respond to all the valuable points made by colleagues from both sides of the House, and I recognise the need to make progress. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) raised important issues about parent carers. I was particularly struck by her point that parents who care for a disabled child who has grown up and become an adult worry very
much--understandably--about what will happen to their child when they die or can provide care no longer.
I am sure that she was right to say that that is one of the things which must be taken into account in any sensitive assessment of need. It is surely right that discussions with such parents take place sooner, rather than later. If discussions only start when the parents can care no more, or when one of them has died, it is too late. That is an insensitive time.
The hon. Lady also raised important issues about the needs of those caring for schizophrenics. That is one of the most difficult and heart-rending situations in the whole debate, and I am pleased that it was raised in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms Squire) used some Scottish language--which we did not fully understood--to describe her role in the Bill. I am bound to say that she has been a great source of strength to me personally, not only during the framing and pursuit of this Bill, but in discussions on the whole issue of community care. She said to me--rather humbly, I thought--that she had acted as my parliamentary private secretary during the framing of the Bill. She did, in fact, act as a tough-minded and rather brutal Chief Whip. I am standing behind the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, so I know what a brutal Whip looks like.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West tabled two important amendments regarding those carers who have communication difficulties. She will have heard the Minister's statement that that matter may be best tackled in guidance, not least because--as the Minister said--other groups, including those for whom English is not the first language, may want their needs to be looked at in the guidance. Again, it comes down to good practice.
Column 469
I, too, hope that, having had a discussion and raised the important issue, she will accept the need for guidance on the matter and withdraw her amendments.I was pleased by the discussion about the position in Scotland. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), said in an intervention that he would ensure maximum consistency between England and Wales and Scotland. We welcome that assurance.
I know that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) wished to be brief because his Bill will come up for discussion later. He made the point that he did not want to speak for too long, lest he talked his Bill out--and, more important, mine. He referred to the danger that he might score an own goal. I am sure that, in order to prevent that, those of us who are present will seek to play the role of David Seaman, the Arsenal goalkeeper and prevent the hon. Gentleman from scoring an own goal.
Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend will have to explain that one.
Mr. Wicks: My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield does not understand jokes about football and the way it should be played. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) raised several issues, but particularly focused on young carers. I was grateful both for her contribution to the debate on that issue and for her support and the support of her party for the Bill.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) made an important speech. We last joined in debate in this Chamber on the issue of the Croydon tramlink. He did not want it to go to Beckenham, for some strange reason. We thought that the people of Beckenham deserved it. Today we are running along the same lines in supporting the Bill. The hon. Gentleman spoke movingly about his own experience and the experience of his extended family of the issues at stake. He was right to remind us that the matter is no academic issue. Within any extended family, with few exceptions, people either need care or are carers. In many families, there are both.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) raised the important implications for Scotland. I take the point that, with new councils and social work departments in Scotland, any requirements on those departments will be particularly challenging. I am sure that the Under- Secretary of State for Scotland heard my hon. Friend's view that guidance should be aimed not only at the officials and directors of social work but at new councillors; that we should find ways of informing new councillors about the implications of the Bill, albeit within the context of general community care.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) supported the Bill but sounded a note of caution about its implementation. We do not want to introduce a new universal provision for carers, whether they want it or not. We are about a greater sensitivity than that, even though we are establishing rights in law. Again, it will come down to good practice. In framing guidance, I expect the Department of Health to consult wisely not only with organisations but with groups of carers. I have certainly found that the experts and the best teachers are the carers.
The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) has been a great supporter of the Bill from its inception and he is one of its supporters. I am grateful for his kind
Column 470
words. I thank him not only for his important speech today but for his support throughout this endeavour to put the Bill on the statute book.I have already paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield, even though he does not get the soccer jokes. I repeat those tributes. He has been a strong supporter of carers and a committed one. I am grateful for his words today. I am also grateful for the words of the Minister. I have already paid tribute to his role. I was grateful for his response to a colleague in which he said that the Bill was not in the business of imposing anything on carers. The assessment is not an examination. It is the opportunity for the carers to take control and discuss with the appropriate authorities what would make their lives better. It is obviously a voluntary assessment--it would never be compulsory, but it was important to clarify that.
I also welcome the Minister's strong words about young carers and his important statement today that, next week, the chief inspector for social work and his department will issue a letter to social service authorities about how the needs of young carers are best met.
In addition to the fact that young carers are on the face of the Bill and have the same rights as any other carer, the extra guidance from the chief social worker will be very welcome indeed. It is a clear sign that we are moving in the right direction.
When we met young carers yesterday, the Minister and I were impressed by them and by the fact that, through the Carers National Association, with support from appropriate public authorities, they are in young carers groups and have the opportunity to meet people in similar situations. That is clearly a major source of support for young carers and I hope that the House will find ways to encourage more such groups--although I notice that occasionally they are known as the YCs, but we will ignore that--because we need more of them in more parts of the country. Perhaps the Minister's Department can help to encourage that.
Those of us who do not get 100 per cent. in procedural exams are faced with some complexities when we look at the papers before us. May I remind colleagues that we are largely rewriting the Bill for good and positive reasons--to include more carers--so, when the question is put that clause 1 and 2 should stand part, I invite hon. Members to vote no because we are taking out the old clauses and will later have an opportunity to vote in favour, I hope, of new ones. I will say no when the question is put and supporters of the Bill should do the same.
Question put and negatived .
Clause 1 disagreed to.
Clause 2 disagreed to .
Clause 3
Provision for Northern Ireland
Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to consider the following: Amendment No. 5, in clause 5, page 3, line 10, at end insert--
`(3) Sections (Assessment of ability of carers to provide care: England and Wales) and (Isles of Scilly) do not extend to Scotland.
(4) Section (Assessment of ability of carers to provide care: Scotland) does not extend to England and Wales.
Column 471
(5) This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland.'.New clause 3--- Isles of Scilly --
`--(1) The Secretary of State may by order provide that section (Assessment of ability of carers to provide care: England and Wales) shall apply, with such modifications (if any) as may be specified in the order, as if the Council of the Isles of Scilly were a local authority within the meaning of that section.
(2) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument containing such an order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.
Mr. Wicks: The procedure was easier than I thought, Dame Janet. Perhaps I will apply to be a Clerk of the House one day, if I can guide us through the rest of the Bill with your help.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the policy objectives relate to Northern Ireland and to the Scilly Isles. I was surprised to hear that we needed a special clause and procedures to relate the objectives of the Bill to the islands, but I now understand the need. The islands do not have a separate council but have their own social services authority and, if our objective is that the carers of Great Britain should benefit from the Bill, it must include carers on the Scilly Isles.
The other point of the amendments is to consider the case of Northern Ireland. When we first set out on this legislative journey, we hoped that carers there would be covered by the Bill. We discussed the matter with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office and corresponded with the Minister. The Northern Ireland Office view is that, because of the legislative history and situation of Northern Ireland and the fact that there are no conventional social services authorities there, but health and social services boards, we need to approach the matter differently.
I shall therefore ask hon. Members to remove Northern Ireland from the face of the Bill. I am confident that the Government and the Northern Ireland Office think that the Bill's objectives can be fully related to Northern Ireland in other ways. The Under-Secretary with responsibility for health and social services in the Northern Ireland Office, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), wrote to me on 17 April. Following a meeting that he had with officials from the Carers National Association, he said:
"I promised them that I would write to you confirming the Government's commitment to ensuring that Northern Ireland will keep in step with the rest of the United Kingdom on the assessment of the needs of carers. This I can do unreservedly."
Later in the letter he said:
"I can assure you that without resort to further legislation should, hopefully, your Bill complete its Parliamentary stages, the Boards can be directed, and will be, to carry out assessments of carers' needs, as local authorities in England and Wales will be required to do by your Bill. I can also assure you that in this context carers will include parents of disabled children." 1.15 pm
My reading of that letter is that the Government and Northern Ireland Ministers are committed to ensuring that the benefits of the Bill apply, albeit in a different way, to carers in Northern Ireland, and I accept that assurance. I shall therefore ask colleagues to approve the amendment, which removes Northern Ireland from the Bill. Having
Column 472
met at a meeting in Bryson house in Belfast carers from all over that part of the United Kingdom, I came away with a strong feeling that, in Northern Ireland too, carers were at the heart of community care and we had to find ways--I believe that we have--to include them within the scope of this social policy development.Ms Rachel Squire: I welcome the assurances given by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks), but I must place on record my concerns about community care provision generally in Northern Ireland and its exclusion from the Bill.
I am aware that the legislative framework and the structure responsible for delivering community care in Northern Ireland are different, with the combined health and social services boards and trusts. However, if the Government are genuinely committed to carers and community care, they must ensure that the necessary steps are taken to introduce rights for both carers and those who are cared for, which do not yet exist in Northern Ireland. Why should the community care needs of the people of Northern Ireland be treated differently from those of people in the rest of the United Kingdom?
I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss), has given assurances that the Secretary of State will issue directions with statutory force to the boards, but I have not been impressed by the community care record so far of Northern Ireland's boards and trusts. Only yesterday, we saw the closure of Cairns house, which ignored the rights and needs of the frail and elderly, their relatives, families and staff; I hope that the Under- Secretary will ensure that strong action is taken so that the policy intentions of the Bill are applied in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Bowis: I confirm that that is the case. It is as recorded in the letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland--my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss)--which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) read out. The intention is that this provision will apply to Northern Ireland in the same way.
Mr. Wicks: We have had a brief but useful debate. It has confirmed that the intentions behind the Bill will apply to Northern Ireland. I again ask hon. Members to vote no, to remove clause 3 from the Bill, so that later we can vote, I hope, in favour of a new clause. Question put and negatived.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Clause 4
Expenses
Amendment made: No. 4, in page 3, line 5, leave out from `of' to end of line 7 and insert
`money provided by Parliament any increase attributable to this Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.'.-- [Mr. Wicks.]
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Short title and commencement
Amendment made: No. 5, in page 3, line 10, at end insert--
| Next Section
| Home Page |