---

Health and Social Care Bill

I join other noble Lords in welcoming the Government’s move in this amendment and their recognition of a situation that was clearly wrong and harmful to many vulnerable people. I must also put on record my remaining regret that, although people might be in exactly the same situation in the same institution, one of them might not be afforded the same protection because he has a capital fund that may not be particularly large, even in today’s property market. I wish to make two points, the first of which follows the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. The term ““publicly arranged”” needs to be clarified. That could perhaps be done through the consultation process. The term could have a damaging effect on the assessment of needs by local authorities. Some local authorities already hide behind the potential financial impact on them of giving people advice as a reason for not giving any and for not performing assessments. We need clarity on that. My second point has not been raised so far. Unlike many adults with disabilities or learning disabilities, many older people in residential care have conditions that can change rapidly, which is why they often wind up in the Bournewood gap. They go into a residential home because they are becoming slightly frail or unable to manage, then they experience physical or, more likely, mental deterioration. Will the consultation exercise which the noble Baroness mentioned include provision for reviews? These people’s personal circumstances can change. It is not unusual to find people in residential care who went in perfectly capable of managing their own affairs but who, because of deterioration, have wound up lacking mental capacity or are in the Bournewood gap. Although the noble Baroness got in her retaliation first on many other points, I do not think that she mentioned that. If she could address that point, I would be pleased.