---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 6: 6: After Clause 147, insert the following new Clause— ““Continuity of social care support (1) This section applies where an English or Welsh local authority (the original authority) has made a determination of need for care services in respect of a person ordinarily resident in its area under any of the social care enactments, and— (a) has arranged or is providing such services, or (b) is making payments to such a person in lieu of care services under section 57 of the Health and Social Care Act 2001 (c. 15) or section 17A of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41); and the person concerned becomes or intends to become ordinarily resident in a different local authority (the new authority). (2) It shall be the duty of the original authority to— (a) give notice to the new authority if it becomes aware that a person to whom it provides care services or direct payments intends to become ordinarily resident in the new authority’s area; and (b) co-operate with the new authority in making appropriate arrangements for such a person. (3) It shall be the duty of the new authority to provide the person concerned with— (a) services of an equivalent type and quantity to those provided by the original authority; or (b) direct payments enabling an equivalent type and quantity of support to that provided by the original authority, for such transitional period as may be prescribed. (4) Arrangements made under subsections (2) and (3) shall— (a) be made with the involvement and consent of the person concerned; (b) include effective arrangements to meet any new or different needs of the person concerned; and (c) be made in accordance with regulations made under this section. (5) Regulations under this section may, in particular— (a) prescribe the period or periods during which the original authority retains funding responsibility for a person’s care needs; (b) prescribe the period or periods during which the original and new authorities must resolve any disagreements concerning their respective funding responsibilities; (c) prescribe the period or periods by which the new authority must assume funding responsibility for an individual’s care needs; (d) provide for reimbursement by the new authority of expenditure made by the original authority whilst the authorities were resolving a disagreement as to their respective funding responsibilities; and (e) provide for the payment of interest on any sums reimbursed. (6) For the purposes of this section ““social care enactments”” includes— (a) section 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 (c. 44); (b) section 4 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation Act) 1986 (c. 33); (c) section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41); (d) section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (c. 19).”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise for not being here to move this amendment on Report. Unfortunately I was in St Thomas’ Hospital with pneumonia—just across the river, so near and yet so far. I thank the House for its generosity in allowing me to move this amendment on Third Reading. The amendment proposes a practical solution to the intolerable injustice of being, as I am, almost a prisoner of one’s local authority, unable to enjoy the same social and economic mobility and freedom of movement as our non-disabled counterparts. Once in receipt of a care package, we are to all intents and purposes required to remain in one place or risk losing the support we rely on to live if we move to another local authority. Those who do move often face agonising stress, hardship and uncertainty. It can take months and even years for the new local authority to decide what type and level of care package, if any, it will provide. Continuity of care is thrown to the wind. I shall explain how the amendment would resolve the situation and what it would mean in practice when someone in receipt of a care package moved to a new local authority. Their original authority must notify the receiving council and work with it to effect a seamless transition of an equivalent level of support. Crucially, the original authority would retain funding responsibility for a short time until the receiving authority took over the responsibility. The receiving authority would thus be paid to maintain an equivalent level of support for a period specified in regulations. In this way, a disabled or older person would have the statutory guarantee of continuity of support, enabling him or her to maximise opportunities for employment or a better family life. Noble Lords may think that continuity of care is already a statutory obligation under community care law. However, Luke Clements, one of the country’s leading social care lawyers, argues that it is nearly always frustrated by bureaucratic delay and maladministration on the part of the receiving authority. He argues that the Government must urgently implement specific and corrective legislation, as provided by this amendment, to make continuity of social care support a reality. The view of the Equality and Human Rights Commission—on which I serve as a commissioner as chair of the disability committee; I therefore declare an interest—is very clear. In its opinion, the current situation could be open to challenge under the Disability Discrimination Act and the disability equality duty. Discontinuity of support negatively impacts on equality of opportunity for older and disabled people; for example, to move to take up employment or educational opportunities, as would their able-bodied counterparts. As noble Lords will be aware, the Local Government Association has expressed concern that the amendment will put undue pressure on budgets and services. I can reassure the House that that will not be the case. No new demand for services will be created by the amendment. Against the costs to a receiving authority of taking over funding responsibility for someone must be offset a considerable range of savings, such as other service users leaving the authority, and ending unnecessary and costly bureaucratic reassessments. The LGA also questioned whether the amendment could tie the hands of a receiving local authority and be impractical by requiring it to provide exactly the same services to the new arrival. It has been reassured by the fact that the amendment refers to support services, "““of an equivalent type and quantity””." It does not require the same care package. The receiving authority will have great flexibility in how underlying needs are met. RADAR, Scope, the British Institute of Human Rights, Age Concern, Carers UK, Mencap, the National Centre for Independent Living and Help the Aged are among the many other organisations which support the amendment and have been working towards it for years. Like me, they are not prepared to be told once again that a Green Paper consultation on this issue is needed. We have raised the issue during previous social care Green Paper consultations for more than a decade. Each time new social care legislation is introduced, we are told that it is not the right Bill. I believe that this is the right Bill, unless the Minister can give firm assurances that the provisions of this amendment will be very closely reflected in the Green Paper on adult social care and in subsequent legislation. This amendment will enhance the quality of care for older and disabled people at the same time as effectively creating a climate of fairness for all. Let us today pull down one of the most glaring remnant of the old Poor Law that puts disabled people at the mercy of their parish. We owe it to all British citizens to seize this opportunity. I beg to move.