Disabled Persons (Independent Living) Bill [HL]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill, so comprehensively explained and compellingly argued by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. I applaud his unfailing spirit and tenacity and regret the absence of that other tireless campaigner, the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, who sends his apologies. This House and many other people, not only those with disabilities, owe them both a great deal. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, said: "““I hope that today I have planted a seed in Parliament that will be transformed into a mighty piece of legislation, giving to Britain’s disabled people the freedom and independence they cherish and which they have been denied for too long. The Bill is a blueprint for the future, but the time to embrace it is now””.—[Official Report, 14/7/06; col. 957.]" We need a design plan to help resolve the problems highlighted in the excellent debate last Thursday of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Lockhart. I hope that the technical, detailed points of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, may firm up the blueprint. I should like to add my thanks to the Disability Rights Commission as a whole and, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, to the extraordinary Caroline Ellis. The DRC has described the Bill as a timely response to the crisis in social care. Our social care system is certainly in need of wholesale reform. That is not just the view of the Bill’s main supporters; it is what several senior local authority managers are saying. The current system is unable to meet the needs of those who use the services and will be unable to meet the challenges of growing expectations and demographic change. The symptoms are clearly visible: the majority of councils can now provide nothing to those with more moderate needs; families and carers are at breaking point; and shocking case studies are gathered by the DRC in its recent Independence Day report on disabled people prevented from working, kept apart from their families and deprived of basic, essential support. At Second Reading, I concentrated on personal care. I will spare your Lordships a repeat, except to explain and declare my interest. I will then touch on a couple of wider implications on which I hope the Minister might give her views, follow up with a question I raised last time and ask a new question. I said in that debate: "““I must declare a close interest, in that I have for the past four years needed increasing amounts of help with personal care: washing, dressing and getting out of, and now getting into, bed. I am in receipt of a higher rate of disability allowance, which in no way covers all the costs. I do not qualify for any further financial help. I add this only to make it clear that this is not a personal moan, but one on behalf of all those who cannot manage and are not in control of their lives””.—[Official Report, 14/7/06; col. 968.]" Recent reports from In Control, a body which comprises Mencap and Valuing People and is developing new systems of self-directed support with local authorities, similar to those proposed in the Bill, supports the case for change. Its initial pilot—I think there were six—demonstrate major improvements over a range of outcomes, increased numbers of disabled people in paid work, and strengthened family cohesion. Everyone who was in residential care at the start of the pilot, including those with learning difficulties, was able to move into the community, in many cases at a greatly reduced cost. In Control says that the efficiencies released by reform could be absorbed by more people claiming rights to support, but that is precisely what needs to happen. We need a system that can deliver real choice and participation for the many rather than inadequate care for the few. I turn now to the wider-scale effects on women and carers. As the Minister will know, the DRC has worked closely on issues of reform and investment in social care with Carers UK and the Equal Opportunities Commission, both of which have expressed strong support for the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. This is not just a Bill for disabled people; it is now seen as a Bill for carers; it is a Bill for women struggling to build up adequate pension provision for the future; and it is for the one in four families affected by disability. It will contribute to greater gender equality and it is strongly supported by the EOC, which concludes in its briefing: "““The reality of an ageing population means that social care can no longer be regarded as a ‘private’ matter. This Bill will help ensure that there is support for disabled people, people with health problems, older people and carers in 21st Century Britain””." I hope that the Minister might comment on the benefit for women and agree that the Bill could have a major beneficial impact on the life chances of the 175,000 young carers who, according to research by Barnardo’s, Carers UK and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, provide day-to-day support for disabled parents, primarily because their parents are not receiving adequate statutory support, or because they fear involving social services. The Bill provides explicit rights to disabled people to be supported with parenting and other key aspects of daily life, and new safeguards to ensure that families can stay together. Over time, this will surely eradicate the serious educational disadvantages and the health problems that so many young carers face. I know that my noble friend Lady Finlay will talk a bit more about young carers. I raised some specific points for clarification at Second Reading. I asked why earned income was not excluded from charging assessments for disabled people in residential homes, and cited the case of Doug Paulley, the talented web designer who has been headhunted but cannot take up the job because of the huge financial disincentives. He could keep only £20 of anything he earned, and the rest would be absorbed by care home fees. I argued, first, that the life chances report said that that should be looked at. Secondly, I said that, as it would not affect a huge number of people, it would hardly make much impact on public spending while having the huge benefit of enabling people like Doug to work. The Minister said that she would look at the matter, and I hope that she can give me an encouraging reply or say that the Government will treat it as a matter of urgency. My final question concerns the impact of the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 on disabled people’s choice of carers, and on specialist care agencies. Peter Henry, who is tetraplegic and needs 24-hour help, also runs a care agency, which specialises in the recruitment, employment, placement and management of live-in carers for spinal-injury disabled adults. I have used the agency on several occasions, and can vouch for the quality of the specialist training and the appropriateness of the placement of carers. His concerns are both as a service user and provider. As a service user, he prefers an age range of 21 to 45 because of companionship and shared interests. You are inviting someone to share your life and to go everywhere with you. Motor insurance is prohibitively expensive if the carer is under 21. It is a physically demanding job, so an older person cannot really do it. It requires intimate personal care. Spinal-injury trained carers are trained to do things such as manual evacuations, which the average carer is not trained to do. There is also the issue that an adult can choose who enters his home to share his life. He has a choice. As a service provider, Peter Henry matches the carer to the client. Again, that is based on choice and lifestyle. He has done some research, and can statistically prove that clients strongly prefer the 21 to 40 age range. Until now he has advertised for carers in that age range. He has been trying since the summer, so far without success, to ascertain whether his company can use Schedule 8 to the regulations, by which they could deem the advertisement age band a genuine occupational requirement, or indeed any other clause to exempt his advertising and recruitment. The Minister has a copy of his letter, so I will not go into further detail; suffice it to say that he cites bits in the Sex Discrimination Act and the Race Relations Act that would deal with the problem from that point of view. Indeed, the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, contains clauses that may be able to deal with it. I hope the Minister will be able to give an answer—and, I hope, a positive one. If it is negative, I hope we can take the issue further and try to resolve it. I look forward to her reply, and wish the Bill a speedy journey much nearer to the statute book this time than it got previously.