| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I also congratulate the Minister on her announcement, in her closing speech when the Bill was introduced,
15 Dec 2006 : Column 1800
There is one great sadness today, however. I know I speak for all noble Lords in missing the enormous contribution the noble Lord, Lord Carter, would have made to this debate. He has fought for the independence of disabled people, for our dignity, choice and control, all his personal and political life. He would want to be here, and he is very much in our thoughts. We send him and his wife Teresa our warmest love and best wishes.
As I said when the Bill was introduced, I believe the Government need this Bill. In the words of NCIL, it will,
- “we have seen the presentation of the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, the piloting of individual budgets, the White Paper, Our Health, Our Care, Our Say, the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 with the new disability equality duty, all demonstrating this Government’s commitment to the principles behind independent living. And yet, in spite of this commitment in policy and principle, in practice social care appears to be in crisis”.
As the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has already pointed out, 70 per cent of local authority social services departments are now offering community care support only to disabled people whose situation is critical. NCIL goes on to say that,
- “reports we are getting from our member groups indicate that direct payments are now being offered in smaller and smaller support packages. Many disabled people now have considerable difficulty getting support for anything other than basic life and limb support, with little or nothing available to support family life, or community-based activity”.
I spoke at length when my noble friend first introduced his Bill and I hope not to repeat myself. But I want to concentrate again on the crucial issue of housing. I particularly welcome Part 4 which deals with housing, as I believe that accessible and affordable housing is the very bedrock of independent living. Our housing stock lasts decades, much of it for over a century, so it is essential that we act now to provide for the independence of generations to come.
Yet, accessible housing it is not regarded with the urgency which it deserves, but I welcome the mention that it has received today. In its 2003 survey of physically disabled people the charity John Grooms found that 40 per cent of the respondents lived in houses that made them unnecessarily dependent on other people. Evidence from the 2003-04 Survey of English Housing published in April 2005 indicates that an estimated 1.4 million disabled people in England are in need of specially adapted accommodation. Of that total, nearly one quarter currently live in unsuitable accommodation.
15 Dec 2006 : Column 1801
The current housing situation of disabled people is dire and the demands of our ageing society, the growth of single households and increasing expectations among disabled people will only make the situation worse. Yet, sadly, the Government’s action, or inaction, since the summer has failed to acknowledge the urgent need for action. As a result, the housing clauses set out in Part 4 of the Bill are even more necessary. First, on the inaction, we continue to await the Government’s response to the research that they commissioned from Bristol University, Reviewing the Disabled Facilities Grant Programme, which the ODPM promised for,
That research clearly set out the need for a strategy across government departments that considered the costs and benefits of disabled facilities grants, linking them with other housing, health and social care policies in order to achieve the best use of resources. I hope that we will not have to wait much longer for the Government’s response.
In the past few weeks the Government have published the revised PPS3—the planning policy guidance on housing and the revised code for sustainable communities. Neither of those has addressed the urgency for strong government action on accessible housing and both documents have ignored the DRC’s recommendations. The DRC had argued that, as a minimum, all new housing should be designed to the lifetime homes standard to meet the needs of occupants as they change over time. While PPS3 places welcome emphasis on insisting that local authorities should plan strategically for the long term and states that developers and planning bodies must take account of the need to cut carbon emissions, the requirement that homes are built to the lifetime homes standard remains just a voluntary matter.
While I welcome the Government’s commitment to environmental issues, the Department for Communities and Local Government has failed to seize this opportunity to incorporate lifetime home standards into building regulations, despite being urged to do so by successive government reports. These include the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit report, Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People, the Social Exclusion Unit report, A Sure Start to Later Life, as well as that of the Lords Science and Technology Committee. The DRC is firmly of the opinion that this would not represent an additional burden on business. In evidence, it cites the fact that Habinteg Housing Association states,
- “that building to LTH standard adds less than 1 per cent to a housing scheme's development costs. This is then repaid in reduced expenditure on adaptations”.
The DRC also points to the situation in Northern Ireland, and states that there,
- “the cost to building to Part R (the equivalent to the English Part M) or increasing the standard to LHS ranged from £165 to £545 dependent on house size, layout and specification”—
“This additional cost would be recouped between 3 to 10 years due to reduced expenditure on adaptations”.
That is but one example of spending wisely in the present in order not to waste money in the future.
15 Dec 2006 : Column 1802
4.05 pm
Baroness Verma: My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this debate and wholeheartedly support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, on an incredibly vital Bill. I declare an interest as an independent provider of care, supporting independent living.
Jenny Watson, chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, said of the Bill:
“Lord Ashley’s Bill should be welcomed by us all—because one day, we all may need the support that it provides”.
It should be unacceptable to us in 21st-century Great Britain, often cited as the fourth or fifth-largest economy in the world, that we still have too many people living in circumstances quite unsuitable for even a basic existence. Some 1.4 million disabled people live in homes that need some form of adaptation, and nearly 330,000 live in homes totally unsuitable for their needs.
Recent years have seen a decline in what is available in care packages for the disabled and elderly. They are often reduced without warning and usually with no back-up support to family members. Earlier this week, we discussed the deficits in the NHS and the profound effect that was having on other government departments, having to pick up care provision without adequate support, funding or training. Time and again, the very people who need help and support in ensuring that they do not burden the state and that they enjoy access to as much independence as possible are being driven to lives of isolation and entrapment in their own homes, with little or no access to the outside world.
The work of our unsung voluntary and paid carers saves the country huge amounts of money, but we cannot keep removing the pillars of support enabling them to do so. The current level of bureaucratic tape and the many different departments which must be dealt with are a particular worry. There often seems to be no partnership thinking at all. Every department follows duplication, triplication and more information required before a sensible package can be discussed. The user has little control in any planning of care or provision.
From my own personal experience in care provision, I know that people have often been encouraged to live independently but without proper aids or support packages in place. I could give numerous examples, but shall give only one or two. A service user’s only requirement for access to the outside world was a ramp, so that the wheelchair he sat in all day could go out of the house. One and a half years later, there was no ramp, but the service user had passed on. My other
15 Dec 2006 : Column 1803
While we all maintain that our human rights are breached if we cannot access services which we believe are ours by right, how can it be right that, in planning and developing packages to enable people to live as independently as possible, those people have so little say in the matter? We all demand and expect that we are given proper opportunities for education, employment and training. We all expect and demand that, if the system fails, we will receive compensation and support. Local authorities need to work much harder in partnership with employers and educationalists to ensure that opportunity is not denied. They must offer greater access, not only to enhance individuals’ lives, but to reduce the costs to local authorities.
The funding of social care has to be seriously revisited. As our ageing population is set to outgrow our working population, it seems only sensible that time, money and thought spent now will alleviate many of the problems being stacked up for the future. Will the Minister assure the House that no further cuts will take place to care packages being carried out now, and that she will revisit how care packages are assessed and see how these can reflect a more interactive participation in the wider community?
4.10 pm
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, I am grateful to be able to speak in the gap. Like others, I wish the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, well with this important Bill, which is dear to his heart and to so many disabled people.
Dame Jane Campbell has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. It is important to remember that, when she campaigned for direct payments, she had experience both of being someone with severe disability and of having been a carer, having cared for her first husband during his terminal illness. I will focus on carers in this brief time.
The Bill sets out two very important principles. The first relates to the requirement to consult carers on strategy and on defining the duties of local authorities. The other is in recognising the fluctuating requirements of people with disability. Things are not fixed. They get worse and sometimes they get better.
Carers are not all adults. Many are children. It is estimated that 175,000 children and young people in the UK help to care for a sick or disabled member of the family and there may be many more than that. Some of these youngsters provide a great deal of care. It has been estimated that 18,000 children aged between five and 15 provide 20 hours of care a week. Nearly 9,000 provide at least 50 hours—more than seven hours a day. Most of these young carers are looking after a relative with a health problem or disability. Very often, the relative is a single parent because, sadly, the partner has not been able to stay the course and has left. But the child, who loves the parent however disabled that parent is, of course will
15 Dec 2006 : Column 1804
Almost half these young carers report mental health problems and that they are emotionally affected by caring. I have seen some of these carers when they come to apply to university. They are quite inspirational in what they have had to do and how they have managed to achieve against all odds because they have been motivated enough to want a career in the health service. These carers take on a huge amount of work. Those providing emotional support often do not know what they will be coming home to. Sadly, sometimes children come home and find that their parent has died while they have been at school. The trauma of that cannot be underestimated. They shop, they help pay the bills and they have to open doors to strangers. Other children are told not to open doors to strangers, but these children have to because otherwise nothing would happen in their homes.
The Bill sets minimum standards which will be crucially important. I hope that, in the consultation with carers, it will be remembered that these children and young people are also carers and deserve to be consulted just as much as adult carers. I also hope that the fluctuating requirements outlined in the Bill will be respected as I hope this Bill will be implemented into practice.
4.14 pm
Lord Addington: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is nothing if not tenacious. To bring this Bill back so quickly and to bring it back when it gets a chance to be properly aired and discussed in Parliament is a very important act. I extend my congratulations to those who have been helping the noble Lord and assisting him behind the scenes, including the Disability Rights Commission—and Caroline Ellis will probably be almost as red as the Benches, she has been thanked so much.
The Bill is a coherent and sensible approach to getting these issues together. However, what struck me when I looked through it was that there was nothing new here. Virtually every single clause has been debated in the past five or 10 years in Parliament. I appreciate the timely reminder of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that we must get the Bill right technically; she does an important service to this House by saying that. But every part of the Bill has been discussed at least once, if not dozens of times, and if best practice and encouragement worked, we would not be here. That is probably the historical lesson to draw from this.
If a voluntary approach is to work, it must be given considerably more push from government. That refers to government as a whole, not to a particular party. The amount of pushing required to get previous Conservative Governments to do work on this matter was also quite monumental at times. I know that every step of the process will get slightly easier as the
15 Dec 2006 : Column 1805
The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, is gaining a worrying reputation as a rising star in this Chamber. She put her finger on a very important matter when she pointed out that blatant self-interest was involved in this for all of us. We must get this right, because it will affect all of us, directly or indirectly, given the ageing profile of the population and the fact that more people with disabilities live longer.
Noble Lords have alluded briefly to the issue of costs. At the moment, what happens is that by not doing X or Y we pay double for Z later. I am sorry for pausing—a dyslexic should never use the alphabet in his examples! By not meeting immediate costs and maintenance, you end up with a damned great repair bill later. That is effectively what is happening. Provisions for disabled people are being squeezed because they can be. Because there is not the legislative priority behind them, of course they are pushed aside. They may be brought back under other initiatives, but then they are pushed aside again. They will always be under that pressure until we get something that ensures that we tackle immediate needs head-on.
In education debates, we have looked at the situation for those with disabilities or special educational needs and it has been established that we must have something that guarantees that the problem will be dealt with up front, in legal terms. We are rapidly approaching that situation here, because we are not addressing the problems. We would not be here again today if we had addressed those problems on previous occasions.
I have a technical question for the Minister. Is there one aspect of the Bill that is not covered by some form of voluntary guidance? The question might be a little unfair, but we should discuss it in Committee. If we do, we can start to look at how far the Government’s thinking has developed at least on what should happen. Could we also have a little guidance on how fully the cost implications of the Bill have been considered? What potential savings have been identified in the government think tank? Expense will probably be the last defence offered against implementing the provisions. I do not agree, as I said, but it would be helpful to know the Government’s thinking.
I have made one or two notes and thought about raising other issues, but I shall instead finish by saying a few words about what will happen if we do not get
15 Dec 2006 : Column 1806
Can the Minister please give us some idea how the Government intend to introduce a process, or a line of thought, to ensure that all these bits of best practice are referred to in guidance—the sop offered in so many discussions in Parliament—and introduced? If we do not get such assurance or a plan to work to, we will have to return with further Bills. Should we have to do that? We are not going to go away. We know that the Government will have to give in and give us something. Why not do it quickly so that we can all go on and do something else?
4.22 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the temptation on an occasion like this is to recycle the speech one made last time. I shall resist that temptation. I do, though, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on bringing his Bill forward again. However I must warn him that what he seeks is one of those issues that seem to take a long time to bear fruit. However, as my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes said, perseverance pays. I know, of course, that my right honourable friend David Cameron has written to the noble Lord on the subject of independent living for disabled people, saying that my party desires it for as many people as possible, both for those who are disabled and in the social care field more widely. I hope and trust that I have never given the impression that I believe anything different. If I have, it is certainly a subject that would cause my days on this Bench to be numbered.
What I do, and always have done, is base my consideration of any issue regarding disabled people on a very simple concept upon which no one anywhere has ever contradicted me: that disabled people are people first, disabled second. It follows from that that I believe that disabled people should have the same rights as able-bodied people. I believe that, on the whole, they have those rights but are unable to access them because of discrimination.
So, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has highlighted this afternoon, disabled people still have quite a long way to go to catch up with able-bodied people. There have, however, been great strides in this direction. My right honourable friend Mr Hague introduced his disability Act in 1994, and this Government tightened it up in their amendment Act which we discussed in the 2004-05 Session. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, will not have to wait yet another 10 years to get a Bill like this one on to the statute book.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |