My Lords, Amendment 143 concerns the type of social care provision that should be included in education, health and care plans. Under Clause 36(2), the assessment process for an education, health and care plan should include,
“an assessment of the … social care needs of a child or young person”.
That assessment applies to social care provision from either children’s or adult services, depending on the age of the child or young person with an education, health and care plan. There is no disagreement with the Government in principle. Everyone agrees that an education, health and care assessment should include an assessment of a child’s or young person’s social care needs.
The disagreement concerns which social care needs should be assessed and then included in education, health and care plans. As drafted, the Bill states that following the assessment of social care needs a child’s or a young person’s education, health and care plan—EHC plan—must include the social care provision,
“reasonably required by the learning difficulties and disabilities which result in him or her having special educational needs”.
That is set out in Clause 37(2)(d).
The problem I apprehend with the language in Clause 37(2)(d) is that it is language that cannot be found in any existing children’s or adult social care legislation. I cannot understand why we would want to create a whole new terminology in this Bill when we already have clear definitions in social care law. Amendment 143 is an attempt to address that disparity between existing social care law and the Children and Families Bill. The way in which the Bill is drafted appears to add a new definition of social care on top of the existing duties in social care legislation. That can only cause confusion and uncertainty for council officers and the children, young people and their families who use their services.
5.15 pm
It also means that children and young people with education, health and care plans will still have to go through an entirely separate social care assessment and decision-making process to get the social care provision to which they are entitled. I can see no reason for this new definition which is being created by the Bill and believe it would be more sensible for EHC plans to include any social care services which a child or young person is entitled to receive under social care legislation.
Amendment 143 is intended to address this. My amendment requires EHC plans to include any social care services which a child or young person is entitled
to receive under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The provisions of that Act are being repealed for adults by the Care Bill, but not for children. This is still the legislation which governs the provision of social care services for children with disabilities, and the effect of this amendment would be to ensure that it is the language of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 which is used at this point in the Children and Families Bill, not the language we have at the moment.
The 1970 Act is the main piece of social care legislation under which disabled children receive social care services. The range of social care services that can be provided under it is very wide. My amendment would bring together the legislation on EHC plans with existing legislation on children’s social care. It places no new duties on local authorities to provide social care other than those that already exist. It merely brings together the legislation on EHC plans with existing children’s social care legislation. The amendment would create a more streamlined assessment process, which is what I believe is what the Government really want. Although my amendment deals only with children’s legislation, the same arguments apply to adult social care services provided to young people with education, health and care plans over the age of 18.
I turn to Amendment 164. It places a duty on local authorities to provide the social care services set out in an EHC plan. Amendment 164, which is about making the provision, should be considered with Amendment 143, which is about the assessment. In the Bill, the education provision set out in an EHC plan must be secured by the local authority. The Government’s amendment to the Bill in the House of Commons places a duty on health bodies to arrange any health provision in the plan; this leaves social care as the only part of a plan which is not enforceable.
Amendment 164 would create parity across all the services in a single plan. I believe that this has really been the Government’s intention all along. We know that social care services do not always work as well as they should. Families sometimes get an assessment but do not receive the services which they are identified as needing. This is often due to a lack of clarity about which piece of social care legislation the services are being provided under.
I want to be clear that the proposal to place a duty on local authorities to provide the social care services set out in an EHC plan is not a radical departure from the existing legal framework in social care. This amendment, taken with Amendment 143, brings together existing duties rather than creating new ones. Amendment 164 would consolidate the existing duties in a single plan—which I believe has been the Government’s intention ever since they set out their vision in the Green Paper, Support and Aspiration—without placing additional burdens on local authorities.
Furthermore, it will help to correct the commonly held misconception that the social care duties to disabled children are not specifically enforceable for an individual child. It will provide absolute clarity for children, young people and their families about their entitlements and make it much easier for them to challenge services where they are not getting what they should.
To sum up, there is a strong case for this amendment. In particular, it would create parity across the education, health and care elements of an EHC plan. It would increase accountability for delivering services in the social care system. It would create clarity for children, young people and their families about their entitlement to social care services, and it would do all this without placing any major new duties on local authorities. I hope that the Minister will be able to address these points in his reply. I am keen to ascertain, first, whether the Government still accept the rationale for making social care an enforceable part of education, health and care plans; secondly, whether the Government accept the rationale for EHC plans, including the social care services which a child or young person is entitled to receive under social care legislation; and, thirdly, whether the Government accept that there is already a duty to deliver social care services under the 1970 Act and that a duty to deliver those services is set out in an EHC plan is not a radical departure from existing social care law. I beg to move.