Welfare Reform Bill

I thank the noble Baroness for the amendment. I am pleased that it is her favourite as it is the one on which I can respond most fully from the Government’s point of view in the way that she has anticipated. I know that there has been engagement on these issues not only with officials, but with the Secretary of State and the Minister for Disabled People, Jonathan Shaw. Amendments 164 and 165 would substantially restructure the section in Clause 33 dealing with the core regulation-making powers. The amended version of the text sets out a more prescriptive structure to the right to control process, which more explicitly mirrors the self-directed support process, as identified by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. As well as making further consequential changes, Amendment 166 would provide the power to create the right to appeal to an independent authority in the event of a refusal to make a direct payment. The Government have worked closely with disabled people in developing the proposals for the right to control. We want it to work and do not want to be caught in the trap, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, said, of the professionals always knowing best and people missing out because they are not as thrusting or able to make their way through systems as others might do. I welcome the innovative approaches that we are developing to co-produce proposals. The amendment illustrates that bringing the voice of disabled people into the heart of government and co-producing policy in no way impacts on the important independence of the views of disabled people The Government are fully committed to the right to control, as set out in the welfare reform White Paper. I accept that the powers in the Bill are broad, but that is to ensure delivery of our White Paper commitments and to encourage local-level innovation. It will enable us to draw on best practice experience from the right-to-control trailblazers in designing any strategy for wider rollout. As I said on the previous amendment, on Thursday 11 June the Government launched a national consultation on the right to control, which will help shape the regulations made under this section of the Bill and help to ensure that the trailblazers fully deliver on our commitments. Starting with Amendment 166, I agree that there should be an effective way for an individual to challenge decisions taken by relevant authorities. We have always made it clear that the right to control places disabled people at the centre of the services they receive, and the ability to challenge decision-makers is one element of this process. That is why we have included Clause 33(3)(e). It enables the Secretary of State to require an authority to review any decision that it takes, not only in relation to direct payments, but more generally for the right to control. As noble Lords will be aware, any decision made by a public authority can also be subject to judicial review. That will include decisions made in relation to the right to control. However, the creation of an independent authority as an appeal mechanism for the right to control would require significant public funding. For many relevant services that could be included in the right to control, there will already be review and appeal processes in place. There is no current evidence to suggest the need to replace these mechanisms with an independent appeals authority. At this stage, when decisions are still to be taken regarding the funding streams that will be included, it would not be appropriate to specify in the Bill an independent authority as the appeals route. Once our consultation is completed, a decision will be made regarding which services will be included in the trailblazers. We will then work with the relevant authorities to ensure that appropriate review mechanisms are in place in line with Clause 33(3)(e). We will evaluate the effectiveness of the arrangements made for reviewing right to control decisions in the trailblazers. I hope that these commitments in particular will reassure all noble Lords on this point. Turning to Amendments 164 and 165, I appreciate the concerns expressed by noble Lords, and I agree that it is vital that disabled people should find the right to control easy to access and use. The Government fully expect authorities to be proactive in informing people about the right to control and what it means to them. We already have powers to ensure that this happens, both by issuing guidance and, if necessary, by imposing duties on authorities through regulations. The Government also recognise the importance of ensuring that the disabled person will be at the centre of the right to control process. It is entirely right, as this amendment emphasises, that a disabled person should be able to tailor the support that they receive and have a range of options about how it is delivered. This has always been our aim and this is what we intend to deliver through regulations. The right to control is not just about direct payments. The intention is for disabled people to have choice, and control, over the resources that the state makes available to meet agreed outcomes, whether these resources are taken in the form of a direct payment or in the form of services arranged by the public authority. Where a disabled person chooses to continue to receive services, the Government will expect authorities to respond flexibly to the individual’s needs and wishes where reasonable and practicable. However, while I appreciate the principles behind this restructuring, I feel that it fails to capture some vital aspects of our White Paper commitments. For example, this amendment does not reflect our commitment that the outcomes to be achieved through an individual’s support plan must be agreed in partnership between the authority and the individual. This approach was clearly signalled in the White Paper and is central to the right to control. Although the individual will have choice and control over support, we need to recognise that the resources available have been voted for by Parliament for an agreed purpose. This approach ensures that the authority will remain ultimately responsible for the statutory outcome and will be able to provide some further assistance if needed. This does not, however, reduce the individual disabled person’s role in deciding the specific details of the support they want to receive. It is also worth noting that any changes to the text of the Bill would need to meet our existing commitment to protecting public expenditure. That was referred to in more detail in another place. I am sure that noble Lords will accept that this is particularly important in the current economic climate. Although I would not be able to support Amendments 164 and 165 in their current form for the reasons I have stated, I recognise the importance of ensuring that the legislation clearly reflects our policy commitments and am sure that we will have made progress in this respect when we return to the matter at a later stage. So, with the assurance that we will return to this matter again after discussion, certainly with the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.