HL Deb 28 June 1990 vol 520 cc1749-56

5 Insert the following new clause:

("Start-up costs

.—(1) The Secretary of State may, for up to five years from the date of any Order under this section, in relation to the functions covered by that Order and with the approval of the Treasury make grants out of money provided by Parliament towards any expenses incurred by local authorities in connection with the establishing of functions and activities arising under this Part, and in making any determination as to the adequacy or otherwise of resources under subsection (4) above the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of making grants under this subsection.

(2) A grant made under subsection (5) above may be for capital or revenue expenditure,").

The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason—

5A because it alters the financial arrangements made by the Commons; and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

4.45 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5A. The intention behind the amendment is to empower the Secretary of State to make grants for up to five years towards expenses incurred by local authorities in establishing their functions and activities relating to community care. I should point out that the Speaker in another place ruled this to be a privilege amendment. Nevertheless, as I have previously argued, the point here is that those who supported the amendment are again seeking to ring fence funds and remove local accountability and flexibility. We believe that that is a negation of our whole policy in relation to having responsiible local government. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 5 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 5A.—(Baroness Hooper.)

Lord Carter

My Lords, this too is an amendment that I moved in Committee and to which I secured the agreement of your Lordships. It is indeed, as the Minister said, linked to the previous amendment on ring fencing. I remind the House of the functions which local authorities will now have to undertake without any extra help from the Government in terms of funding. They have to produce and publish a community care plan and to revise it regularly; they have to publish criteria for undertaking individual assessments; they have to carry out individual assessments; there is the assessment and collection of individual contributions towards the cost of services; they must create the monitoring and inspection units; they have to set up complaints procedures; and they must create the purchasing and budgeting systems and set up systems for case management. For all those functions no additional funding is proposed.

To explain to your Lordships the sort of problems that could arise, only this week I was discussing community care with a member of a district health authority; and it is a particularly efficient district health authority. The gentleman concerned is the managing director of a major multinational company and he has considerable experience in business matters. Referring to just one aspect of start-up costs—that is, computer systems—I shall quote him exactly. He said: What we have is clapped-out hardware, inadequate or non-existent software and I really don't know how we are supposed to deal with all these new responsibilities without extra financial help from the Government. Just how are local authorities supposed to fund all the extra functions to which I have referred? If they try to do it out of the poll tax, they run the risk of being charge capped; if they try to do it out of their non-ring fenced general budget, it can be only be at the expense of consumers of community care. As the Minister knows, there are many precedents for the Government providing either some pump-priming or some start-up funds when a whole new policy is introduced. The question is: why is community care excluded from the possibility of extra funds to help with these very substantial start-up costs, which have been estimated to be as much as £200 million?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, briefly in reply to that point, discussions on financial implications are continuing with local authority representatives.

On Question, Motion agreed to. LORDS AMENDMENT 6 Clause 40, page 46, line 48, at end insert— ("(1D) Before arrangements are made by virtue of this section with any person, that person shall disclose to the local authority making the arrangements any relevant criminal convictions. (1E) On request by a local authority, a police officer shall disclose to the authority any relevant criminal convictions of any person with whom it is proposed to make arrangements by virtue of this section. (1F) Relevant criminal convictions for the purposes of subsections (1D) and (1E) above shall be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. (1G) Any person in respect of whom a disclosure is made under subsection (1E) above shall be informed of the disclosure."). The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason— 6A because it is not necessary as administrative arrangements are being made with the Association of Chief Police Officers for the disclosure of relevant convictions.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6A. That reason is that the position has changed since we debated this amendment and your Lordships decided to put it into the Bill. At that time, concern was expressed in all parts of the House that negotiations with the Home Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers about an administrative arrangement were getting nowhere. I am happy to be able to say to your Lordships that there has now been a breakthrough.

The Association of Chief Police Officers has now agreed to participate in administrative arrangements which would meet the request made some time ago by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to help safeguard residents of homes. Together with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, it has now been agreed that work should start at once on detailed preparation for a scheme that will cover applicants for registration under the Registered Homes Act 1984; that is, managers and owners of residential care and nursing homes and managers of local authority-run residential care homes.

It is not intended that people who are already registered should be subject to retrospective checks, but checks will be made on all new managers in established care homes. That will apply to changes of management as well as to the setting up of new homes. The arrangements will be put in place as soon as possible. Our firm intention is that they should be up and running by 1st April 1991.

I am sure that noble Lords will wish me to express our gratitude to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and to the Association of Chief Police Officers for its co-operation in this matter which marks an important step forward in safeguarding vulnerable people who live in residential care or nursing homes.

Members of another place have quite rightly concluded that the amendment of noble Lords does not now need to be incorporated in the Bill. No doubt it will be recognised that it has already achieved the desired effect. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 6 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 6A.—(Baroness Hooper.)

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, as the mover of that amendment, perhaps I may thank the noble Baroness and say that a word of congratulation is also due to this House as the proposal was supported from all sides. It is gratifying that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been brought to see sense—I hope, in part at any rate—as a result of the amendment that we passed.

It was puzzling to be told that the association felt that the measure would impose a great burden on the police. When asked how many cases were involved, it did not know. It is not clear how the association assessed the gravity of the burden. Speaking for myself, I do not very much mind how the purpose of the amendment is achieved. The arrangements proposed seem to meet entirely the proposition that I had in mind. I am glad to welcome the announcement that the noble Baroness has just made.

Lord Renton

My Lords, those noble Lords who originally voted for the amendment deserve congratulation. The reason that we were given—I say this with respect to my noble friend on the Front Bench—as to why its purpose could not be achieved was that agreement could not be reached between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the chief officers of police. That seemed to me a poor excuse for not getting the thing right.

We have now got the matter right; but I have just one doubt. Can my noble friend assure us that there will be legal power to require previous convictions to be disclosed and to require the police to produce evidence of them? Unless that legal power exists, the arrangement with the chief officers of police, satisfactory though it sounds, might have no legal effect.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, has taken the words out of my mouth. He has, however, set out the situation much better than I could have done. I agree that the reason given on 14th June that the Association of Chief Police Officers did not agree simply did not stand up. It was not good enough. We cannot be told by the police how we should legislate. The police do not determine the law; they have to seek to assist in applying it.

I was delighted that the Association of Chief Police Officers changed its mind as quickly as the government changed theirs in respect of voluntary organisations caring for drug abusers and alcoholics. However, in view of the fact that what we said has now been accepted, it would have been far better if the amendment had been accepted for the very reason that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, gave; namely, that there will be nothing on the statute book that says that. It will depend. Next week the Association of Chief Police Officers may perhaps discover another three. That is rather too many.

This matter should be determined on the statute book, but I shall not press the issue. I have not seen a word said in another place, although I shall do so tomorrow morning. We shall all be lucky. We shall be able to read tomorrow morning whether anything was said in another place. It would be a farce to vote for the reasons that I gave earlier.

Baroness Faithfull

When my noble friend the Minister replies, will she tell the House whether the provision applies to children's homes and hostels?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords—

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, having been told what is contained in Standing Orders, we have to watch that the Minister does not get up too quickly.

Like other noble Lords, I am delighted. For once, perhaps, the Lords can have a pat on the back. There seems to be a reluctance to do that. I am interested that there should be worries over conflict with the Commons on the first amendment. A Bill was recently rejected at Second Reading; I should have thought it that you could not do much worse than that.

The provision is very vague. The Commons' reason states that the administrative arrangements "are being made". How quickly will they be made? Terrible cases continue to come up. I should have liked something much more definite. I am sure that people concerned with such matters share that view. Like my noble friend, I cannot see any objection to the provision being on the face of the Bill, if it is to be implemented. For heaven's sake, can the Minister tell us what is happening now? When will there be some legislation or arrangements—call it what you will—under which those disclosures can be made?

Lord Winstanley

My Lords, we are told that the reasons we were given in good faith for not carrying this amendment on 14th June are now invalid and that there are therefore no reasons for our not having carried the amendment on that day. If the reasons against it have now been removed, why do we not carry it? Why do we not give the other place an opportunity to carry it? The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made an extremely important point. There is nothing on the statute book to protect the police against accusations of having falsely or illegally disclosed information. Surely the provision should be on the statute book. There is no reason why it should not be. The noble Baroness told us that. So why do we not send the amendment back to the other place for it to be put on the statute book?

Lord Kilmarnock

My Lords, as we have often been told that guidance will be given on various aspects of the Bill, will the noble Baroness tell us whether, if the provision is not to be embodied in the Bill, there will be any guidance that covers the point?

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am advised that no power is necessary for the scheme and that regulations relating to spent convictions are already in place which would cover that situation. A separate scheme already applies to children. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, it is intended that the arrangements will be in place by 1st April 1991 which coincides with the other arrangements in the Bill. We are considering whether to issue guidance. However, the main point that has been raised is: why not accept the amendment?

Perhaps I should have said in my opening remarks that, unlike the amendment accepted by noble Lords, the administrative arrangements that have now been agreed will cover all residential care and nursing homes, not just those with which local authorities make arrangements, as the amendment of noble Lords set out. They will therefore cover a wider group of people. In other words, the amendment of noble Lords was narrower.

Lord Allen of Abbeydale

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that it is still the intention to make regulations under the Registered Homes Act requiring applicants to disclose criminal convictions? That was promised at one stage.

Baroness Hooper

Yes, my Lords. I can confirm that.

On Question, Motion agreed to. LORDS AMENDMENT 7 Clause 44, page 50, line 12, at end insert— ("( ) The plan for the provision of community care services referred to in subsection (1) above shall, in the case of those local authorities which are housing authorities, include details on how those authorities propose to meet the housing needs of the persons in their areas who are in need of community care services."). The Commons disagreed to the above amendment for the following reason— 7A because it is detective and unacceptable as it requires a local authority which is a housing authority to consult itself

5 p.m.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7A.

We had substantial discussion on this matter at Committee stage. The amendment seeks to impose on local authorities which are both social services and housing authorities—that is, London boroughs and metropolitan district councils—an obligation to include details of their plans for housing in their community care plans.

I am sure that no one in any part of your Lordships' House, and not least on these Benches, would dispute the importance of housing to the successful delivery of community care services. For this reason the Bill already requires local authorities to consult a wide range of interests, including statutory and voluntary housing agencies, in drawing up their community care plans. Our guidance makes plain the type of information that we expect to see in plans following such consultation. Further, we have also introduced amendments to the Bill requiring local authorities, when carrying out the community care assessments, to refer individuals with apparent housing needs to housing authorities.

There are three main reasons why the amendment is unnecessary: first, because it would apply only to some authorities—the London borough and metropolitan district councils; secondly, because it would impose a requirement on parts of the authority whose main duty—that of meeting general housing needs—lies outside the scope of the Bill; and, thirdly, because the principle it seeks to establish has already been adequately addressed in the Bill and the draft planning guidance. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 7 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 7A.—(Baroness Hooper.)

Lord Seebohm

My Lords, I was not only the mover but also the inspirer of this amendment. After more than 40 years in the housing field I realise that housing is the basic infrastructure for welfare. I talked this over with the AMA, which combines both the social services departments and housing authorities. It was enthusiastic about the proposal. The AMA wants it. It seems rather strange that it should not be allowed to have it if it is the body concerned with this matter.

I was also puzzled by the noble Baroness's remark that the provision would require a local authority which is a housing authority to consult itself. That is an extraordinary reason. I do not understand what that means. In the amendment we are asking that the plans should definitely include arrangements for appropriate housing. Without appropriate housing, great parts of the community care arrangements cannot possibly be implemented. That is the reason for the amendment. In spite of what the noble Baroness said, I cannot see why it should not be part of the Bill.

Lord Tordoff

My Lords, the reasons given by another place for disagreeing with the amendment are meaningless in relation to the clause. The subsection quite clearly states that the plan referred to earlier in the clause shall contain certain provisions relating to housing. It has nothing to do with the housing authority having to consult itself. This was not debated in another place last night so one cannot blame the Members of another place. They simply voted it out without any consideration. It would have been better if the person who wrote the reasons for the other place disagreeing had, first, put them in English, and, secondly, made some connection between those reasons and the amendment that was passed in your Lordships' House. We deserve a better explanation.

Baroness Hooper

My Lords, I am advised that the amendment is unworkable in legal terms because the effect would be that the authority would have to consult and collaborate within itself. It would be extraordinary to require on the face of the Bill different departments of the same authority to consult each other. We must assume that they do that in any event. I am advised that to empower an authority to do so in this way would be unworkable.

Lord Seebohm

My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, there is nothing in my amendment about consulting. My amendment requires that such provision should be part of a plan. There are a number of draft guidelines about what plans should contain. This is one extra element that plans must have.

Lord Ennals

My Lords, is the Minister really saying that she does not think that the housing part of a local authority and the community care part of a local authority should consult?

On Question, Motion agreed to. LORDS AMENDMENT 8 Clause 49, page 54, line 7, at end insert— ("(ba) such voluntary organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests of persons who use or are likely to use any community care services within the area of the authority or the interests of private carers who, within that area, provide a substantial amount of care on a regular basis to persons for whom, in the exercise of their functions under this Act or any of the enactments mentioned in section 2(2) of this Act, the local authority have a power or a duty to provide, or to secure the provision of, a service."). The Commons agreed to the above amendment with the following amendment— 8A Line 6, leave out ("a substantial amount of care on a regular basis") and insert ("care").

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sanderson of Bowden)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8A to Amendment No. 8. In another place the Government were pleased to accept an amendment tabled by the honourable Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye and moved on his behalf by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health at the Scottish Office. The amendment parallels one which was made to the provisions for England and Wales, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, at Third Reading in your Lordships' House, and it makes good sense to bring the Scottish provisions into line. It was thought that the words: a substantial amount of care on a regular basis", were unnecessarily restrictive. I beg to move.

Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8A to Lords Amendment No. 8.—(Lord Sanderson of Bowden.)

Baroness Seear

My Lords, as this amendment parallels one which I moved, I suppose that I must rather grudgingly say that it is some little gain.

Lord Carter

My Lords, my name is also on the amendment. I am glad to add my ungrudging thanks to the Government.

Lord Sanderson of Bowden

My Lords, I accept the grudging thanks of the noble Baroness and I thank her very much indeed for bringing this point to the notice of your Lordships' House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.