Welfare Reform Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for giving me the opportunity to explain why the Bill is drafted as it is on this issue. I will first respond to Amendment 169, which addresses the piloting powers contained in Clause 36. The amendment seeks to extend the 36-month time limit in subsection (1) to the whole clause. I reassure noble Lords that the 36-month time limit already applies to the whole of Clause 36. I welcome the chance to discuss the piloting. We prefer to describe it as "trailblazing", as we think this is an accurate description of what we are proposing. The right to control marks a significant innovation in the choice and control that disabled adults have over their support and services. For this reason, it is right to test it in a number of trailblazing public authorities to inform the decision about wider rollout. The trailblazer design will encourage disabled people, their organisations, and the agencies and authorities involved, to work together to develop innovative solutions to new challenges. This will give us the opportunity to explore how the right to control will work on the ground. This clause gives flexibility over who is included in the pilot and what timescales are involved. The trailblazers will commence during 2010 and it is our intention that the results from their operation should be available during 2012-13, but we have powers to run them for up to 36 months. We may also want to run subsequent pilots along the same or similar lines. Such flexibility will make a real difference, as it will help us to collect the robust evidence needed to inform a decision on national rollout. We are committed to consulting on how the trailblazers will operate. Consultation on the right to control was launched, as I said previously, on 11 June this year and will run until the end of September. It will explore questions such as what we need to do to ensure that disabled people and their organisations can play a full part in our trailblazers, what the implications are for services providers and how they can be assisted to play their part in promoting choice and control in the right to control trailblazers. Answering these questions will be an important test of how the right works in practice. Amendment 167 would remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations which provide that an authority does not have to give a direct payment if that payment would prove an unreasonable financial burden. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, yes, it would have to be prescribed in regulations. It is our intention to introduce the right to control to ensure that disabled people have more choice and control over the services that they receive from the state. This legislation will enable us to meet that commitment. However, there is a balance to be struck. We must ensure that the introduction of the right to control does not disadvantage those who are content with the services they receive and do not wish to change them. The right to control is currently untested. If, for example, large numbers of requests for direct payments threatened existing services provided by the local authority, it would be essential that those who chose to continue to use the service were not disadvantaged—I say to my noble friend Lady Turner that that is the thrust of the point that we seek to cover here—and that pressures on public authorities did not become unsustainable. This clause therefore provides a safeguard for services and public finances. I reassure noble Lords that the clause is not to be used as a way of preventing disabled people exercising their right to control. Clause 34(3) has been deliberately drafted to ensure that we can clarify in secondary legislation and guidance when this provision can be used. We do not want to be prescriptive in primary legislation because we want to develop clear guidelines in collaboration with disabled people and public authorities. The circumstances in which this clause would be used will be carefully considered during consultation. We would expect any public authorities to provide compelling reasons for refusing a direct payment on these grounds and we will issue guidance to make that clear. As I mentioned earlier, we are conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the trailblazers. This will include monitoring the use of this clause to ensure that it has the effect of guarding against unaffordable pressures while allowing effective delivery of services. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured by the explanation of why that provision is in the Bill.