---

Health and Social Care Bill

moved Amendment No. 209: 209: After Clause 140, insert the following new Clause— ““Continuity of social care support (1) This section applies where— (a) 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— (i) has arranged or is providing such services, or (ii) 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 (b) 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) All arrangements made under subsections (2) and (3) are to be made with the involvement and consent of the person concerned and must include effective arrangements to meet any new or different needs of the person concerned. (5) 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: This is the first amendment that I have tabled in this House since arriving. I am very excited because if I could choose an amendment this one would certainly be high up on my list of priorities. The amendment will right one of the most fundamental flaws in our social care system—the absence of a clear statutory provision to guarantee portability or continuity of support for disabled and older people when they move from one area to another. In my view, the amendment is underpinned by a fundamental human right set out in Protocol 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 2, which deals with freedom of movement states: "““Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence””." Due entirely to the way we organise social care within local authority boundaries, the freedom of movement of disabled and older people is entirely dependent on whether or not a local authority social services will agree to take over your support. Therefore, when I am offered the job of a lifetime in Newcastle, it is not me who decides whether or not I can take it, but the local authority which decides whether or not it wants me. It is as simple as that. Let me briefly set out a broader case for the amendment, which has the support of the national coalition, Our Lives, Our Choices, which brings together older people, disability and carers organisations in support of independent living. The amendment also reflects one of the measures included in the Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill, which has twice been brought before the House by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Currently, if a disabled person moves out of their local authority area they must give up whatever payments or services they are receiving and start again from scratch to negotiate a new package with the new local authority. This necessitates a costly reassessment even if the person’s needs have not changed. Needless to say, this presents a huge bureaucratic cost to the local authority and, at the same time, causes frustration and stress to the service user. When my colleague, Dave Morris, made the move from Barnett to Tower Hamlets to take up his post as principle disability adviser to the Mayor of London, it took a year to re-establish his support package. Throughout the year he was told on at least three occasions that his package was, "““too burdensome for the local authority to take on””." His job was in jeopardy; his peace of mind was in shreds. Some individuals have literally died waiting for an answer. In the Guardian last week, a recently retired director of social services in Wiltshire said: "““We still have what can look remarkably like the remnants of the Poor Law system of outdoor relief, paid for by parish rates (what we now call council tax). We lose our entitlement to help if we cross the parish (the local authority) boundary, have to be re-assessed and will hit a different policy about who gets help and who doesn’t, making geographical mobility extremely risky””." At the Disability Rights Commission, I recall a case involving a blind woman with diabetes, arthritis and a small child who had moved area. There had been a complete failure by both local authorities involved to plan a seamless transition. Consequently she was left without support for two years. We spoke to her GP who advised us that her situation was so bad that it had become life-threatening. We had to intervene. We did. And we got things moving. I am pleased to say that she is still alive, but it was tricky. As well as putting lives and mental well-being at risk, the absence of a right to portable support has a negative impact on employment opportunities. There is little point in applying for a job in another part of the country unless you know that you can relocate in the sure knowledge that your support will be ready and waiting. It is stressful enough applying for a new job without knowing whether you will able to get out of bed to get there. It also has an extremely negative impact on family life. Many disabled and older people provide support to other relatives, but are prevented from moving closer to them because of this fundamental flaw in the system. The same case can be made for moving to areas where housing may be more affordable in retirement. We are all told to move, but if your portable support is not with you, then you cannot. The current situation is, I have to say, grossly inefficient. Why waste scarce resources on reassessment if someone’s needs have not changed? Of course needs may have changed slightly, and my amendment covers that eventuality. I do not believe that my amendment can be resisted on the grounds of cost. I propose that those whose eligibility for social care support has already been established should be entitled for a transitional period to equivalent services or direct payments to cover their support needs before they need undergo any reassessment in a new local authority. The amendment provides explicitly for liaison between both authorities to ensure that preparations are made in a timely way. We can debate the details—much of which would need to be dealt with by regulations—but at this stage I seek a clear statement of support from the Government. I appreciate that I am still relatively new around here in this formidable House, however, I can anticipate the Minister’s response. I suspect that we will either be told that the amendment is not necessary or that we must make the case for inclusion in the Green Paper on social care. As someone who knows the social care world backwards, these reassurances will not be adequate. There is currently nothing in primary legislation that tells local authorities to ensure that when a disabled person moves, their support package follows them seamlessly. Local authorities are required to re-assess from scratch when someone moves into their locality, even if their health needs have not changed one iota. I know that that is fact. Urgent action needs to be taken to remove this barrier to social and economic mobility. Serious human rights violations are occurring and will continue to occur if the matter is not resolved. What is needed is a clear duty which gives rise to an enforceable right, as provided by this amendment. I beg to move.