Mr.
Harper: I just want to press the Under-Secretary a little
on the duty to co-operate. She mentioned the evidence that Paul Davies
gave us. When the hon. Member for Rochdale asked
him, “Should
a duty to co-operate be included in the
Bill?”, he
gave the clear and specific
answer: “I
would say so; yes.”——[Official Report,
Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2009; c. 20,
Q22.] His
contention was that what was already in the Bill did not amount to
that. I am grateful for the Under-Secretary’s clarification that
when the pilots are run, authorities of different sorts will be
encouraged to work closely together. However, will she give a
commitment that if, during those pilot schemes, it is found that the
current arrangements are not satisfactory, the Government will look
again at whether the powers need to be strengthened and whether a duty
needs to be introduced, albeit with a recognition that, as I suspect,
the authorities in the pilot areas will be those that are keenest to
make this work? The problems will probably not occur in the pilot
schemes, but will become apparent when the Government try to roll out
the provision more
widely.
Ann
McKechin: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s
comments. We certainly would prefer people to work together in
partnership, and voluntarily, because that will give a greater level of
service and provision to disabled people. However, he is right that we
will be looking closely at the trailblazers to consider whether we need
to make further
regulations. The
Bill gives us the power to provide for regulations requiring
authorities to work together on specific matters so that they share
information or vary conditions attached to financial assistance for the
purposes of the right to control under clauses 31(4) and 31(5)(b).
Clause 31(6) also contains a power to require authorities to have
regard to guidance, which will allow us to take account of the
experiences of users and authorities in the trailblazing phase and set
out further ways in which authorities should co-operate, both in
general and in particular.
Amendment 27
would remove the phrase “in prescribed circumstances”
from clause 31, thereby removing an important clarification from the
Bill. It is important for people to understand that the primary
legislation is a framework and that secondary legislation will set out
how the right should work in practice, including by clearly defining
any boundaries to the right to control. It is important that these
boundaries are referenced in the primary legislation to avoid
misleading people. I therefore have serious reservations about an
amendment that implies that we are making the right available without
limit and in all circumstances. It is not difficult to conceive of
circumstances when the right to control may not be appropriate, such as
when a service is universally
available. We
intend to consult fully on the regulations so that disabled people and
their organisations, providers and authorities can tell us how they
want to manage these issues. Their advice will be crucial to how we
take this matter forward. The consultations will allow us to work
together to deliver a strong, inclusive and supportive regulatory
structure. Given what I have said, I urge the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Harper: As I said, the purpose of amendment 80 was just to
test the Government’s intention and see whether they felt that
the Bill properly carried out the intention in the White Paper. I am
pleased with the hon. Lady’s assurances about the
Government’s intention. I welcome her suggestion about working
together on how the regulations are drafted. Perhaps a useful step
forward, as we move towards Report, might be for us to have a little
more flesh on the bones in respect of the regulations that will be made
under the powers in the clause than we have in the document that the
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform gave us earlier in the week.
I should like a little more detail about how the regulations are going
to be framed. If we had that, we would be a lot clearer about the
Government’s intention when we reached
Report.
Ann
McKechin: We will see whether that is possible. However,
the regulations also apply to Scotland and Wales, and there is a
different position with regard to local authorities, particularly in
Scotland. The powers are given to the Scottish Government and if they
want to mirror this type of trailblazer project in Scotland, they can
do so. However, it is not our intention that the Bill should prescribe
to local authorities in Scotland and Wales—that is a matter for
the devolved
Administrations.
Mr.
Harper: Given devolution, we will clearly see different
arrangements emerging in the different parts of the United Kingdom.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, because one public policy
advantage of devolved Administrations is that they give us the
opportunity to try different policies in different parts of the
country, much as in the United States, where some states are able to
try out policies to see what works. Effectively, we are being given a
pilot scheme in a particular part of the United Kingdom, and although
there are many downsides to devolution, that is at least one positive
point. Of course, everything will depend on the extent to which the
Scottish Government grasp the opportunities in the Bill, but I should
like them, and the Welsh Assembly
Government and the Administration in Northern Ireland, to do so and to
use these opportunities to the greatest possible
extent.
Ann
McKechin: I am pleased to confirm that we are working
closely with the devolved Administrations and that we have an agreement
in principle on this matter. Obviously, they are advancing at different
times, but the point of devolution is that we learn from different
experiences, and, as I said, we will leave the door open to those
Administrations to have similar pilots in their areas. However, I am
pleased to confirm that, on the general principles, we have consent
from all the devolved
Administrations.
Mr.
Harper: That is very gratifying news, because disabled
people throughout the United Kingdom will want to see how the pilots
work. It will be advantageous to see if there are different lessons to
learn from areas with different arrangements for delivering such local
services.
On the point
that the Under-Secretary raised about our conversation on mental health
problems and learning disabilities, I must say that the reason why we
tabled amendment 26 was to probe Ministers so that they were explicit
about the measure. There was no intention to press the amendment.
Indeed, it would have been an example of undue specificity, as the
Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform is fond of saying—we
do not want too much specificity in the Bill.
On amendment
45, I was reassured by what the Under-Secretary said about how the
Government intend to proceed during the pilot, and, as I said, we would
welcome a look at how it works in practice to see whether more
prescription will be required in the regulations. I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
32Provision
that may be made about direct
payments
Mr.
Harper: I beg to move amendment 28, in
clause 32, page 39, line 44, leave
out subsection
(3).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 29, in
clause 32, page 39, line 48, at
end insert— ‘(3A) Direct
payments legislation must include a prescription for any providing
authority to take account of potential long term and multi-agency
savings when considering what represents an “unreasonable
financial burden” under subsection
(3).’.
Mr.
Harper: The clause includes provisions for, and gives
powers to Ministers to make regulations about, direct payments.
Amendment 28 addresses the extent to which a local authority is able
not to allow a direct payment, and to what extent a disabled person can
demand direct payment, because in the circumstances, the local
authority will not have to pay. There is a range
of reasons, if we are being generous—excuses, if we are
not—why local authorities can refuse to comply with a request
for an individual budget to be converted to a direct payment, and there
is a question about whether or not that gives the disabled person
enough freedom to spend the money. The clause, by my reading, enables
an authority to make direct payments in respect of the person securing
the provision of the equivalent service, instead of their having to
provide the service itself. The question is whether that, rather than
giving them the money to spend, will give the disabled person enough
freedom. What I want from the Minister is an understanding of the
extent to which the presumption will work. If the person has their
individual budget—their resource allocation—will they be
able in most cases to take it as a direct payment, or will the local
authority have too many reasons or excuses not to comply?
Amendment 29
addresses the provision allowing a local authority not to provide a
direct payment. It considers the words
“unreasonable
financial burden on the providing authority”.
The amendment, which
was proposed by Mind among others, suggests that when measuring undue
financial burden, one should take a proper long-term perspective. What
we do not want is for a local authority to say, “If I fund a
service in the current year, it may well be expensive this
year.” However, it could result in long-term savings. For
example, it may enable the person to be more independent, and to get
back into work, which would effectively support the welfare reform
agenda that both sides of the House share. Moreover, savings may accrue
in later
years. 2
pm When
making a judgment about the undue financial burden, we want the local
authority to weigh up the short-term cost against those long-term
savings rather than just looking at the present-year cost and saying,
“Because it is a bit more expensive this year, we won’t
do it at all.” That effectively would mean giving up those
long-term savings. It would be perfectly possible for the local
authority to say to the Government that in return for some extra
funding this year and next, there will be some long-term financial
savings. That would be in everyone’s interest, affecting local
government and health spending, for example.
The other
issue that could influence the extent to which local authorities roll
out the scheme is the funding and costs of parallel running. That came
through very clearly from what Paul Davies and Liz Sayce from RADAR
said in the evidence session. Liz Sayce said:
“One
of the issues that has been raised with us is that it can be more
costly to double-run different
systems”.——[Official Report, Welfare
Reform Public Bill Committee, 10 February 2009; c. 19,
Q20.] A system
in which we have individual budgets, direct payments and the existing
provision in one area could be more expensive than moving
wholeheartedly to a system of individual budgets and direct payments
for most people. In the present economic environment, the focus of all
parties will be to spend resources in the wisest and most
cost-effective way possible to provide sensible outcomes. We do not
want to set up two parallel systems that will create extra costs and
burdens. The thrust of both amendments is to look at whether Ministers
have correctly assessed that, whether local
authorities will use that as an excuse for not doing such things and
whether we are giving them too many tools to slow down the process.
Moreover, when we are making cost decisions we must ensure that we
consider not just present-day costs but costs in the future. Real benefits
can be derived from the success of the right to control. If we do all
the things that I listed in clause 29, such as allowing disabled people
to get into further education, higher education, employment and
training to a much greater extent than today, we will find that as well
as improving their quality of life and their life chances, they are
also likely to be in a position to make a greater contribution to
society. Hence, the cost to society will be lower, and disabled people
will have a better quality of life. We should bear that in mind when we
consider the Bill. I fear that we are giving local authorities too many
reasons to say no, rather than giving them the reasons and incentives
to say
yes.
Paul
Rowen: I should like to ask the Minister a question about
the clause, and the amendments moved by the hon. Member for Forest of
Dean. I particularly want to ask about subsection (3) and what is
deemed to be unreasonable. Given that we are not talking about care
services or health services, but about many of the services that will
be provided by external providers or by universities or colleges, what
thought has the Minister given to the definition of unreasonable and
how will it be determined? As the hon. Member for Forest of Dean said,
there might be a high initial cost, such as paying expensive fees up
front when someone goes to university or college, but there will be a
long-term saving if that person contributes to society during their
lifetime, particularly by paying more tax. In the context of Jobcentre
Plus and some of the programmes that are being run, how will the
definition of what is unreasonable be
exercised?
Ann
McKechin: I welcome the discussion on these amendments.
There is a balance to be struck between financial accountability and
sustainability, and extending the rights of disabled people as much as
possible. The simple answer is that we must ensure that there is no
threat to public service provision. Clearly, local authorities have
statutory duties as well as duties to their electorate. The right to
control is currently untested, and we want to use the trailblazers to
find out how to balance both short and long-term considerations, which
the hon. Member for Forest of Dean has rightly pointed out. The Office
for National Statistics has estimated that for those who have a right
to control, perhaps 15 per cent. more are likely to find the ability to
go into work, but we need to evaluate the trailblazers over time, so
that we can calculate where the long-term savings are. The clause is
about affordability and is meant as a backstop to ensure the
sustainability of services. It is not intended to be an artificial
barrier that can be used without giving due consideration to disabled
people’s rights.
Mr.
Harper: May I press the Minister on her comment about the
protection of public service provision? It is clearly important that
local authorities should retain the ability to ensure the provision of
public services, but if we roll this system out, the type of services
that are currently provided will not necessarily stay the same. From
memory, the evidence from the pilots on social
care was that half the money that is currently spent is not spent on
things that the disabled person would choose to spend it on. If we roll
out the system more widely, we will see—as we might see when we
do the pilots—that what people choose to spend the money on will
not be what it is currently spent on, so local authorities are likely
to find that they will not be providing those services any more because
people do not want them.
There will be
a tension—we have all seen what happens if a day centre
closes—but if a day centre closes because most of the people who
go to it, when given the choice, would rather spend the resources on
something else and do not then want to go to it, it is right for it to
close. It would not be right for the local authority to say, “We
want to keep the day centre open and to keep people employed
there,” if the disabled people who use it do not want to go to
it. I know that would bring tension and make things difficult, but we
have to put disabled people at the centre, so I was a little worried by
the Minister’s comments about protecting local authority
provision. When given the choice, disabled people might want something
quite different from what is already being
provided.
| 
