| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 5
1.15 pm
Mr. Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 3, line 33, leave out "and" and insert--
'( ) for paragraph (b), substitute--
"(b) in the case of a person--
(i) whose needs the local authority have decided call for the provision of community care services, he is of a description which is specified for the purposes of this subsection by regulations made by the Secretary of State, or
(ii) whom the local authority have decided to provide with services under the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000, he is not of a description so specified by regulations made by the Secretary of State,"; and'.
Section 1(1) of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996--a pioneering piece of social care policy introduced by the previous Administration, for which we give them credit--provides for regulations to be made specifying the persons who may receive direct payments. We have made such regulations. Only those persons specified in the regulations are eligible for direct payments.
The position is different for carers. The policy intention is that all carers assessed as needing carers' services under the Bill should be eligible for direct payments. We have taken a power to exclude certain descriptions of carers in regulations to ensure flexibility should particular circumstances arise.
The amendment would allow local councils to make direct payments to all carers who have been assessed as needing carers' services, unless they are excluded because they are of a description specified in regulations. I urge the House to accept this important technical amendment.
Clause 6
Mr. Hutton: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 3, line 40, after "as", insert--
', subject to subsections (5) and (6),'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 23, in page 4, line 10, at end insert--
'( ) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to local authorities as to the exercise of their discretion under subsection (1).'.
No. 42, in page 4, line 11, after "(5)", insert--
'Except as mentioned in subsection (6) of this section,'.
No. 43, in page 4, line 21, at end insert--
'(6) Section 1(2) of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 does not apply in relation to payments under subsection (1) to--
(a) a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child, other than a parent of such a child under the age of sixteen, in respect of a service which would otherwise have been provided for the child; or
(b) any person who is in receipt of income support, working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit under Part VII of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or of an income-based jobseeker's allowance,
and in those cases the amount of any payment under subsection (1) is to be at a rate equal to the local authority's estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned.'.
Mr. Hutton: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) would have liked to move the amendment--or at least I think he would--if his voice had been strong enough to allow him, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are happy to support it.
New section 17A(5) would apply section 1(2) of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 to direct payments made under the Children Act 1989. Under the 1996 Act, a local authority can have regard to an individual's financial circumstances when determining the amount of a direct payment. However, an individual cannot be required to contribute more than they can afford. Amendments Nos. 40, 42 and 43 mirror the charging arrangements in section 29 of the Children Act 1989, so that the position will be the same for all service users, whether they opt to receive services, direct payments or the new vouchers. We have always made it clear that there should be no financial incentive--or disincentive--to choose one option over another. Our aim has been to create a level playing field.
Amendment No. 43 is the substantial amendment in the group. Section 29 of the Children Act 1989 sets out the recoupment provisions in respect of services. It allows for the recovery of charges from parents and not others with parental responsibility. It also exempts certain low-income families from paying parental contributions. Subsection (6)(a), which would be inserted by amendment No. 43, mirrors for direct payments the charging regime in section 29 of the Children Act 1989. Subsection (6)(b) would exempt those who receive income support, working families tax credit, disabled persons tax credit or an income-based jobseeker's allowance. The subsection would ensure that direct payments made by families covered in those two paragraphs were at a rate equal to the local authority's estimate of the cost of securing the provision of those services.
I strongly believe that it is right that low-income groups should be exempted. We recognise that families with disabled children face increased costs in bringing up those children and that it is harder for parents with disabled children to play their full part in the world of work. It is important that those families under stress who come to social services seeking relief from that stress are not faced with extra expenses that they would struggle to meet.
I should like to add that, at the moment, the amounts collected for children's services by local authorities through parental contributions are small. In the majority
of cases, local authorities make a nil assessment. In others, the cost of collecting a small parental contribution is more than its financial value.In community care, recouping costs through charging service users does not constitute a significant proportion of the revenue available for children's services. The arrangements that the amendments propose will have a neutral effect on local authority finances. I therefore commend the amendments as sensible, fair to service users and entirely consistent with existing arrangements under the Children Act 1989.
Amendment No. 23, which has been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mr. Foster), is unnecessary because section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 provides for local authorities to act under the Secretary of State's general guidance. As I said in Committee, guidance will be issued to local authorities to help them to undertake the new responsibilities that the Bill imposes on them. I have given a commitment to work closely with carers groups and voluntary organisations in preparing the guidance.
I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise that there is no difference between us on the need for guidance and for consultation on it. His intentions will be realised without amendment No. 23.
Amendments made: No. 41, in page 3, line 44, leave out "parent of" and insert--
'person with parental responsibility for'.
No. 42, in page 4, line 11, after "(5)", insert--
'Except as mentioned in subsection (6) of this section,'.
No. 43, in page 4, line 21, at end insert--
'(6) Section 1(2) of the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996 does not apply in relation to payments under subsection (1) to--
(a) a person with parental responsibility for a disabled child, other than a parent of such a child under the age of sixteen, in respect of a service which would otherwise have been provided for the child; or
(b) any person who is in receipt of income support, working families' tax credit or disabled person's tax credit under Part VII of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or of an income-based jobseeker's allowance,
and in those cases the amount of any payment under subsection (1) is to be at a rate equal to the local authority's estimate of the reasonable cost of securing the provision of the service concerned.'.
No. 44, in page 4, line 24, leave out "parent of" and insert--
'person with parental responsibility for'.
No. 45, in page 4, line 26, leave out "parent" and insert "person with parental responsibility".
No. 46, in page 4, line 27, leave out first "parent" and insert "person with parental responsibility".
No. 47, in page 4, line 27, leave out "the parent may" and insert "that person may".--[Mr. Hutton.]
Clause 7
Mr. Dismore: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 4, line 45, leave out clause 7.
This is a probing amendment; I do not necessarily want clause 7 to be removed from the Bill. However, the amendment provides the opportunity to discuss charging. I raised the matter initially on Second Reading when I referred to the briefing that I received from the London borough of Barnet, where my constituency is situated. The briefing outlined Barnet's policy on charging and the anxieties that had been expressed to it on the matter. In an intervention on my speech on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred to the vague explanatory notes, which did not provide much information on charging. He suggested incorporating the word "reasonable". That was a good idea.
Perhaps the best starting point is the view of Carers National Association on charging. It believes that carers should not have to pay for the services that they will receive under the Bill. On a point of principle, it opposes charging for non-residential community care services because carers already devote their time, energy and money to caring. The organisation asks why carers should pay for a service that helps them to continue to do that, especially when many families experience financial hardship and many disabled people refuse services because they cannot pay for them. It points out that carers save local authorities and the public purse money through the unpaid services that they provide for members of their families.
The Carers National Association also refers to the complications that arise from clause 2, which defines the services that are to be provided for carers. I mentioned that earlier in the context of transport to day centres and the risk of carers being charged for a service that is provided to the person who is being cared for. That matter should be tackled. There was no opportunity to do that earlier because of the way in which the debate unfolded. Perhaps those who reply to the debate could deal with the anxieties that the Carers National Association raised.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister suggested that it was right that carers should be charged for services. I have dealt with that point in principle. I understand my hon. Friend's point, and that of the London borough of Barnet. Its briefing states that if it did not charge a reasonable amount for at least some services, they might not be provided. However, this brief debate gives the Government an opportunity to go a little further.
On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Minister said that users and carers would be fully involved in consultation on the charging regime. Perhaps he will clarify the operation of clause 7, and tell us the extent to which charging for council services will be considered as part of the overall review of charging for services for carers and those who are cared for.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |