---

Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 206: 206: Clause 226, page 160, line 33, at end insert— ““( ) enabling people to monitor and review the provision of care services and local care services for persons moving their place of ordinary residence into the area.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for the slight delay. I also speak to Amendment No. 220. These amendments are the same as Amendments Nos. 238LZA and 245B which I spoke to in Committee when I highlighted a number of issues around social mobility for disabled people, the freedom to live where they like and local authority responsibilities in this area. Each year, disabled people are being prevented from moving home, or moving from residential care to independent living, because of bureaucratic delays and disputes about who should pay for their care. The root cause of these problems is the definition of someone’s place of ordinary residence, a means whereby local authorities and primary care trusts determine which authority has responsibility for personal support for disabled people who live in their area. There is no legal definition of ““ordinary residence”” and the guidance is unclear. Some local authorities are using this confusion to delay or avoid paying the costs of the care for those for whom they should be responsible. The amendments struck a chord with noble Lords who, speaking with great experience of both the statutory and voluntary sectors, stressed that this problem has been crying out for a solution for decades. There was widespread support for the notion that it is a fundamental principle that the ability to change one’s place of ordinary residence should not be dependent on purely administrative considerations or the convenience of health and social care systems, and that a framework should be put in place for the transfer of funds between authorities so that the issue of ordinary residence can no longer be used as a basis for refusing to provide care and support. In Committee on 23 July, at cols. 611-12, the Minister was extremely positive in her response. She agreed that these were important issues which merited more detailed examination, saying that she was happy to take them away and encourage her civil servants to discuss them with interested parties. She offered to press for significant progress before Report, and undertook to look carefully at the issues and come back with some practical, simple and straightforward suggestions. All noble Lords in this House will be interested to hear what the Minister has been able to achieve between Committee and now. I beg to move.