| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bowis: I am saying that opposition to it involves a certain amount of practicality. The practicalities concern not just direct payments but issues that my hon. Friends have raised about how one could establish a national criteria and a national charging scheme. I think that it would be unworkable and unwelcome.
I turn to new clause 7. We are already committed to reviewing how direct payments work and to reporting our findings to Parliament within three years of them becoming available. That review will look at how the Act
is working. It would not be appropriate for it to examine how different local authorities are exercising their discretion on charging. Differences in local authority charging policies are a much wider issue than direct payments and are monitored in other ways. Local authorities are, of course, accountable to their local electorates and the district auditor for their charging policies. We shall expect local authorities to act under the requirements of the Act and the guidance that we intend to issue. There is no need for an additional review of the impact of different charging policies on direct payments.
On amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and as I have already explained, the level of a direct payment must be sufficient to enable the recipient to secure the services that the payments are intended to cover--this may help the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)--and must enable them to do so legally. Payments must not be so small that people can afford the services they need only by breaking the law and not complying with legal responsibilities such as paying tax, and so on. If a local authority deliberately offers inadequate direct payments, it would not, in effect, be offering direct payments at all. It would not be a proper exercise of the authority's powers and could be challenged.
As I have said, the Government intend to issue section 7 guidance saying that the direct payment should be sufficient for the individual to purchase the relevant service--taking into account, of course, any financial contribution that the authority judges that the individual can afford to make towards the cost of care. The guidance will say that the level of payment should be set taking account of the fact that it may involve legal responsibilities, such as paying VAT, or national insurance. Local authorities must also have regard to value for money--this addresses some of the arguments in Committee--and may not be prepared to fund specific costs if the service can be secured more cost-effectively in another way.
Local authorities will need to discuss with people what contingency arrangements should be made using direct payments, and they will need to bear in mind the cost of those arrangements in setting the level of direct payments. If a contingency arises for which someone does not have cover, resulting in that person's needs not being met, under clause 2, the local authority's responsibilities towards that person will be the same as if no direct payment had been made. People will not be left without the care that they need.
The safeguards are adequate and it would not be appropriate to go further. Subject to the Bill's requirements, local authorities must determine the level of direct payments. Just as authorities decide on the nature and level of a community care service someone receives, so they have to decide on the level of the direct payment, the basis of its calculation and what it is meant to cover. Not everyone who receives direct payment will wish to become an employer, although many will. Others will contract with an agency, or secure services in some other way. To give local authorities a legal duty to include an allowance for a specific item that would not necessarily be relevant would not be sensible and would fundamentally undermine local authorities' discretion in their dealings with individuals--which, after all, is at the heart of community care legislation. I ask the hon. Member for Darlington to think again on the new clause. In doing so, I hope that he will join me in supporting the Government
amendments that were tabled in response to Labour's earlier amendments. I hope that we can have a meeting of minds on that, at least.
Mr. Milburn:
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. It seems that that well-bandied around phrase "level playing field" has different meanings in different parts of the House. I am grateful to him in particular for tabling a new amendment that clarifies some of the concerns that disability organisations have raised with all members of the Committee about an inclination towards a means-tested system. That much is clear, and we will return to the issue of net and gross charges in a later debate.
From what the Minister has said about his concerns about a national framework for charging, it seems there is some agreement about the difficulties in implementing such a framework. I noted with interest, however, that the Minister seemed to indicate that, in principle, he was not opposed to the concept.
Mr. Milburn:
The Minister is on the record as saying that.
Mr. Bowis:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put on the record that that is not the case. I stress that there were good practical reasons why I thought that such a scheme was not only inoperable, but would be undesirable and unwelcome. Because of that sensible set of practicalities, I formed a principle upon which I am opposed to the scheme.
Mr. Milburn:
I just about followed the Minister's logic. Who does he have in mind when he says that the scheme would be "unwelcome"? Disability organisations welcome the idea of a framework that brings some clarity. Local authorities--which must administer the direct payments and the community care charging framework in general--welcome the idea of a national framework, as do the local authority associations. When he says that it is unwelcome, he means that it is unwelcome in the minds of Ministers. That is all well and good, but he cannot claim to speak for the nation on this matter.
I am concerned because the principles of fairness and equality are central to the thrust of the Bill. Those principles have been articulated in the phrase "a level playing field", but I am concerned that the Minister wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to be able to say that there is equality between direct service recipients and direct payment recipients while leaving it up to the local authority to interpret that equality.
The new clause and the amendments aim to bring clarity to that position. They do not aim to impose anything upon local authorities, but intend to operate a fair and equal framework that can apply in all parts of the country. I am disappointed by the Minister's response, but since we need to make progress on other important matters I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Bowis:
I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 9, after 'services,' insert
Madam Deputy Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendmentNo. 12.
Mr. Bowis:
As we have heard today and on many occasions in the past both inside and outside the House, the Bill has overwhelming support in the country. The Labour party was of course initially hostile, as we saw during the debate on the Queen's Speech, but I think that Labour came to see the great potential benefits for disabled people--not least having spoken to representatives of the disability lobbies--and so, happily, it has been able to support the Government's measure. I very much welcome that.
Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West):
We seem to have witnessed a change of personality by the Minister within a few minutes. On what basis does he claim that Labour opposed direct payments during the debate on the Queen's Speech? There is not a shred of evidence to support that.
Mr. Bowis:
If the hon. Gentleman reads the Hansard report of the Queen's Speech debate, he will find that some of his hon. Friends put forward--
Mr. Clarke:
Who? The leader of the Labour party supported the idea.
Mr. Bowis:
No, not the leader of the Labour party. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Hansard report, he will find that some of his hon. Friends cast aspersions on the principles--largely because they were worried that they might be some form of privatisation. I am seeking to embrace the hon. Gentleman in support of the measure, and I acknowledge that he now gives 100 per cent. support to the Bill.
5.45 pm
'and
(b) the person is of a description which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State,'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |