Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020
Lord Shipley Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, a vaccine against Covid-19 is about to be rolled out to millions of people, so I was surprised by one or two of the arguments we heard this afternoon. I cannot, in particular, support the fatal amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, because the consequence would be that England would have no restrictions at all after today. Having got this close to a vaccine, that would be irresponsible. I am doubtful too about the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about which we have just heard. That is because restrictions are necessary to stop unnecessary deaths and pressures on the NHS this winter. She is right about the importance of impact assessments, however.
The R number may have gone under 1.0, and there may have been a drop in the level of new cases—about a third since the national lockdown began—but numbers are still far too high. In the week 15 to 21 November, the ONS estimated that 633,000 people in private households had the virus. That figure seems far too high.
My noble friends Lady Brinton and Lord Scriven said a number of things with which I strongly agree. There is a need for consistency of message. It is now time to do things differently, and we need an end to chopping and changing rules that the public cannot understand.
For me, this is all about the timing of the vaccine rollout. A lot of people are very frightened by the virus, want to get the vaccine as soon as they can, and are prepared to have their freedoms restricted a bit to achieve that. Those who object to restrictions during the pandemic should think carefully about the potential impact of no restrictions on other people. The fact that they themselves have not had coronavirus or, if they do get it, are not at significant risk from it, is secondary to the rights of other people, who may be more vulnerable, to be protected from it. We should add to that principle the very obvious fact that the winter period is when the NHS is busiest, so any action which knowingly weakens the ability of the NHS to cope with the virus in the winter and early spring would make things worse.
I cannot support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, because the Christmas relaxation rules are actually quite strict, and a Christmas celebration would be good for many people’s morale. People will need to be sensible and avoid risks, but beating the virus still needs a degree of trust with the public.
What I have said so far should not be taken as support for the Government. This is because we need to know the strategy to roll out vaccines. We need a test, trace and isolate system that does not fail to make contact with 40% of close contacts. We need the full scientific evidence on which the tier system is based and a clearer exit route from a tier designation. I hope that the Minister might be able to commit to decisions on tiers and local rules being made jointly with local authorities, and that all decisions on tiers will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I come to two further matters. First, community testing was supposed to be the way of moving out of tier 3, as in Liverpool, yet today we have heard that some areas may not get access to this testing until the end of January. Is that true? It does seem a long time.
Secondly, an improved package of financial support for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses is needed in the tier 3 areas—and I should say that I live in one of them. Many such businesses have one-third of their annual turnover in December. If they do not get more help, very many will not now survive. I suggest to the Minister that this should include a further payment holiday for business rates through 2021-22, with a one-off grant system based on rateable value to enable businesses to survive through the winter.
This week, we have heard that nearly one-third of England’s hospital trusts have now exceeded their first-wave peak. We owe it to NHS workers to reduce the stress placed on them over the winter period. The position that we are in today results from failures in the Government’s management of the pandemic over the last year, with constant changes to strategy and to lockdown rules, overcentralised structures and a tendency to act too late. That having been said, we must avoid another national lockdown in the new year. For that reason, further restrictions now are essential, and they do have broad public support.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (No. 2) (England) (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulations 2020
Lord Shipley Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, on her maiden speech.
Clearly, we are at a critical point in the spread of the pandemic. The public will accept tighter restrictions on what they can do, but they need to have confidence that the decisions being made on such further restrictions for their area—in my case, the north-east of England—are grounded on clear evidence that they can understand. The experience of the past few days, with different interpretations of local evidence for Greater Manchester, has demonstrated that need.
Yesterday, one newspaper’s front page said:
“Hospitals in north running out of beds, leak reveals.”
Why do we have to depend on leaks? The NHS nationally and the NHS locally, and directors of public health locally, have a duty to publish as much information as they reliably can as soon as they can. That rule should apply to advice from SAGE as well. This way, conflict and misunderstanding can be reduced, and public support increased for actions that may impact directly on them.
We need all agencies to share publicly their trend analyses and the facts on which they are basing their recommendations to politicians. I said a few days ago that I thought the Government should publish minutes of all meetings between Ministers and civil servants with mayors and council leaders. In view of the experience of recent days, it would certainly help if these discussions were properly recorded and published to reduce spinning and attempts to manage news. Not only would that be in the public interest, it would focus much greater attention on the impact of decisions and the justification in terms of their economic impact on people.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (North East of England) Regulations 2020
Lord Shipley Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the north-east regulations. I fully understand that this is a very complex and fast-changing situation, and I hope that the Minister will take my suggestions as a constructive response to current circumstances. However, the House should be discussing these orders much nearer the date of decision, not nearly a month later. I am speaking this afternoon from Newcastle upon Tyne, and we shall learn later today what changes may be forthcoming for our area, and for others.
The regulations before us today derive from the initial decision on 17 September to introduce the greater social restrictions requested by the seven north-east councils when Newcastle had a rate of 70 cases per 100,000. There was then a further tightening of restrictions, announced by the Secretary of State on 28 September, apparently without proper consultation with those councils. Of course, even tighter rules are now expected.
I want to look at the issue of student testing. Over 2,500 students of the two universities in Newcastle have tested positive, significantly pushing up the local infection rate. We know that most of the students being tested had no symptoms. That makes me wonder whether university cities in the south and the Midlands have had such extensive testing of students without symptoms. Can the Minister give us any information on the evidence base being used to decide which tiers are appropriate to each area, given the apparent differences in the amount of testing?
In terms of process, I remain concerned by the consistent evidence that local testing and tracing leads to better, safer outcomes. England is simply too big to be run on the centralised model of recent months, and the debate over the last few days has confirmed this. To command public confidence in their decisions, the Government need to publish far more than they do. The evidence that limiting the opening of pubs and restaurants even more will result in lower transmission levels may well be accurate, but it should be published.
Our experience of the last few days tells us that meetings between local leaders, civil servants and Ministers should be formalised and minutes should be published. There has been too much claim and counterclaim that the public cannot understand, which can undermine their confidence in the decisions made.
The Government should use district postcodes for their decisions on which tier an area should be placed in. I have not understood why the whole of the north-east of England, from the Scottish border to the southern end of county Durham—some 80 miles—is treated as one area when the infection rates can vary so greatly. Nor have I understood why the 10 pm closure time for pubs and restaurants applies. The evidence suggests it could actually be increasing the rate of infection. Might it not be better to have staggered times of closure set locally?
On the continuation of furlough, the current proposals for financial support are just not enough. If things get worse and more businesses are forced to close, the financial support has to be greater. People’s incomes and their ability to pay bills depend on that level of support from the Government.
I accept it is clear that we are at a tipping point, and great care is needed. I know that local hospital admission rates here are rising, and that we must be careful to get decisions right. That means maximising engagement between decision-makers and sharing as much information as possible through public health structures, with the general public receiving better standards of messaging so they understand what they are being asked to do, what is compulsory and what is advisory.
The directors of public health for Newcastle and Gateshead have both said in recent days that the curve may be flattening. For that reason, the Government should heed advice from local political leaders to be very careful about unnecessary extensions to lockdown rules.
Finally, we need better clarity about review dates. The Minister has said that they are going to be fortnightly; they may need to be weekly.
Coronavirus Act 2020: Temporary Provisions
Lord Shipley Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Clark, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, on their excellent maiden speeches.
As the Minister said in his letter last week, many of the powers used by Her Majesty’s Government relate to the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, but that does not change the basis of our debate today. The question before us is whether the Coronavirus Act 2020 should be extended further in its current form. My view is that to continue to remove effective parliamentary oversight of ministerial decision-making is wrong in principle and leads to poorer decisions. I say that not from a libertarian point of view but because emergency powers underpinned by centralised decision-making must be for genuine, short-term emergencies and must be temporary. I see no reason to continue to sideline our parliamentary democracy. Parliament can operate on fast timescales if it is necessary to do so.
The Government would be most unwise to think they should continue to manage the pandemic by decree. The Hansard Society has reported that in the last six months there have been 242 statutory instruments which effectively bypassed proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate. Given that the Government are extending powers to fine and restrict movement, I submit that it is essential for public confidence that Parliament has a role in making such decisions.
I mentioned the quality of decision-making. What lessons have the Government learned from the failures of their centralised approach to testing and tracing and what will change following the Statements last week? Could I also suggest that the Government take another look at their messaging and use of language? Persuading people is surely better than threatening them, and constant hyperbole in establishing policy risks non-delivery.
In terms of messaging, the Government need much greater clarity in their announcements. For example, last week I asked the Leader of the House why the military was to support the police, since the Government had also said they were committed to providing them with the extra funding they needed. The answer was that the military would backfill support for the police. What is backfilling? With what training and powers will it be done? It is one thing for the military to help the National Health Service with building hospitals and advising on logistics; it is another for it to replace the police. Matters such as this need much greater parliamentary scrutiny in advance. Parliament must be able to debate and agree decisions, not just scrutinise them after the event.
Covid-19: Social Care Services
Lord Shipley Excerpts(4 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, for enabling us to hold this debate. I will concentrate on: emergency planning and procurement; the overall impact of government policies on the social care sector, which Age UK said last week was “an unfolding disaster”; and the lack of integration of health and social care. I declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Local government has mostly done a very good job in providing community leadership and supporting vulnerable people in this pandemic, but I am puzzled as to why our emergency and resilience planning generally has not worked well. It seems to result from the Government’s failure to plan effectively for a pandemic since 2016, despite advice which identified PPE shortages as a major risk; the lack of action in February to treat the pandemic as seriously as other countries were; and the Government’s policy of running a centralised procurement and distribution system, which has ended up with shortages of essential equipment.
I draw two lessons from this. First, a country of our size cannot be run out of Whitehall or its centralised agencies. We should learn from Germany, where more responsibility lies at regional and local level for procurement, and for testing, tracing and isolating. We need to be far more resilient as a country by manufacturing more ourselves. The international shortage of PPE has impacted directly on care homes, where deaths have soared.
The Government seem to have had no plan for the care sector. They should not have been surprised that PPE would be needed by so many organisations outside the NHS, nor should they have been surprised by the need to test; yet by Easter Monday only 505 social care workers had been tested, compared with 48,000 tests for NHS staff. As we have heard, the location of testing centres has meant that many on low incomes have had to travel unacceptably long distances for testing.
Despite the title the Department of Health and Social Care, the care sector seems the poor relation. We need a fully integrated National Health and Care Service. We have voluntary integration in only one-third of England. There are 430,000 residents in nursing and residential homes, with care fragmented between the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. The financial situation for many of those homes is dire, as we have heard. Reform of the financial structure of social care is urgently needed and it really is time for the Government to provide the necessary leadership to start to solve this huge problem. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this debate.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Shipley Excerpts(4 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made some very trenchant points, for which we should thank him.
The gracious Speech contained little to remedy the deep-seated problems affecting the delivery of public services, most of which relate to a lack of money. The Prime Minister’s stated aim is to unite the country and level it up. That is to be welcomed, but I hope the Government understand that it will need a great deal of hard work and a huge injection of cash which, in the context of borrowing constraints for current spending, seems unlikely to be forthcoming.
I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I welcome the inclusion of Bills relating to renters’ reform and ending no-fault evictions. I also welcome the building safety Bill and the fire safety Bill. However, I wonder about the proposed 30% discount for local people who are first-time buyers. It is clearly an attractive policy in principle, but it appears that it may be paid for by local councils through reducing the building of affordable and social homes for rent. That would not be a housing policy for a united country.
The fact is that many of the problems that are being faced by local communities that feel left behind will not be addressed by these Bills. The crisis of funding is stark and the cuts have gone too far. Since 2010, more than half of central government financial support to local government has been cut, effectively abolishing safety nets in the areas that need them most. Yet the Government have committed themselves to keeping taxes down with no increases promised in income tax, national insurance or VAT. Interestingly, council tax was not on that list, and I think we should conclude that the Government are intent on allowing council tax to rise above inflation over the period of this Parliament to help pay for the deficit in adult social care. Even the extra allocation just before Christmas did not meet the deficit forecast for next year.
We now learn that the reform of social care could take the whole of this Parliament, which means that we will have had almost 15 years of failure by the Conservative Party to decide upon a policy. I would ask the Minister where the fair funding review for local government is, where some of the decisions on the long-term future of business rates actually are, and what decisions are likely to be announced soon on the shared prosperity fund to replace lost European funding.
It is said that the Budget in March will be about an infrastructure revolution to help areas suffering poor connectivity and low private sector investment. I welcome that, but the Government should remember that towns that feel left behind have a preponderance of low-paid jobs and older populations as young people leave. Rebuilding local economies means that communities must be empowered. The decline caused by poor transport connections, low investment in education and low levels of skills in the face of large cuts to FE budgets has meant that access to better-paid jobs can be limited. In such areas, public spending can be high, but more often than not that reflects more spending by DWP and the NHS as they deal with the consequences of poor life chances.
We need to create a virtuous circle that is led by investment in FE, skills and schools, alongside a major commitment by the private sector to invest in areas that have been in decline, perhaps utilising local authority pension funds. We also need a change in Treasury rules so that infrastructure investment decisions do not relate just to national economic growth and thus government tax revenues, but to improvements in well-being in specific places.
Finally, the Government have promised to devolve decision-making in England, and that is welcome. Devolution in England will drive local prioritisation of investment rather than wish-listing locally and blaming Whitehall when not everything can be afforded. We need Whitehall’s role to be reversed from one of running England directly to one of empowering the constituent parts of England to make their own decisions on priorities. To that principle, we should add the right to raise specific local taxes.
Grenfell Tower: Toxins
Lord Shipley Excerpts(5 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O'Shaughnessy
I completely concur with the noble Baroness on the levels of anxiety. We know that a number of people who are affected, directly and indirectly, are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The north-west London NHS trust, which delivers mental health services, is dealing with thousands of people, not just those who live locally but those who worked on the site of the fire. I agree that there is a need to reassure people, wherever possible, who have been through this difficult and traumatic experience. I encourage the noble Baroness and all noble Lords to look at the environmental monitoring report on the ongoing levels, which is published weekly. It provides a huge amount of detail and is carried out independently. It does not, at this stage show any cause for concern regarding higher-than-average levels of asbestos, of which none has been found, and other toxins. However, that monitoring has to continue, and as soon as any sign is captured and verified as being statistically significant, it needs to be acted on. That is why we are so keen to see the professor’s work.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the Minister indicated that we should wait for the formal publication of Professor Stec’s report. However, she has briefed officials in a variety of agencies about the dangers that she thinks are apparent. Given that toxins have been found up to a mile away from the Grenfell Tower site, and given that the absorption of toxins through the skin is a serious danger—which it seems is not being checked for—would it not have been wise for NHS England, which must have been aware of this pending report, to have announced last week that, rather than just provide screening for survivors to assess the effects of smoke inhalation, it would assess for skin absorption of toxic material?
Lord O'Shaughnessy
It is not about waiting for the report. Public Health England met with Professor Stec in February of this year and asked for specific details of her research. Repeat requests have been made and I am told by Public Health England that it has yet to receive those details. Of course, there is a need to get good information and to make sure it is reliable, so those requests continue. I can reassure the noble Lord that no one is waiting around looking for information and that extensive monitoring is going on. That kind of information is requested because if there are causes for concern—as seems to be the case from the media reports—they can be investigated urgently.
National Health Service (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
Lord Shipley Excerpts(6 years, 6 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee. I intervene only because one of the largest uses of vehicles is for health reasons. I hope my noble friend will not mind if I say that the Department of Health has perhaps not shown itself to be quite as central to the solution of our problems with climate change as other departments have. I hope this is going to change, and I am intending to bang on his door quite a lot until it does because this is a central issue.
This debate has shown that it is a useful one to have. I am not sure I want to enter into the party politics of it but there are quite good arguments about how many extra community pharmacies there have been, and there is certainly no doubt that the Government have shown themselves to understand this. No doubt there are other arguments, but the issue for me is proximity and propinquity. I am thinking not just about rural areas, although I live in a rural area and I understand the point very strongly; for many people in urban areas who do not have access to motor cars and where bus services are exiguous, the fact that they can walk to a pharmacy or ask others to do so if they themselves are unable to, is an important part of the kind of service that we need. It is disappointing that in the various collections of data we have not spent a bit more time looking at how many journeys are made and how many hours’ worth of diesel are used by people in accessing the health service. We know exactly how many journeys by lorry carry food—it is about 42% of all the lorry journeys in Britain—so we know a lot about these things, but I am not sure we know enough about what happens in the health service. When we are making these judgments, we have to make them in a holistic way.
So I do not apologise for the fact that on this, as on many other issues, I shall try to dramatise the fact that we should not be making decisions without asking ourselves, “What is the issue here in trying to meet the requirements which are now statutory?”. By 2050 we have by law to cut our emissions by 80%. We have to meet by law the fourth and fifth carbon budgets, and we have just issued the clean growth plan which is designed to deliver that end. There is nothing in any of that on the contribution of the NHS. It is time we asked the NHS to recognise that part of its role is to ensure that people’s access is as convenient as possible, not just for their convenience or because it saves money for other bits of the NHS, but because we as a community have to look at our statutory requirements to meet our climate change targets.
I hope that my noble friend will accept this as a preliminary thrust on the subject of the health service’s contribution to what we need to do. Indeed, in doing it, it is of course a circular system. Many of the problems the NHS has to deal with result from the subsidiary effects of pollution. It is not a matter not just of changing our climate but of the pollution at a much lower level physically but very high-level in terms of air pollution, and the damage that that does to health. I do not think this is something the health service can avoid and I hope my noble friend will take it into account.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister to clarify four issues. First, does he agree that community pharmacies are for many people the most accessible healthcare location, particularly where there are no GP surgeries locally; that community pharmacies in those situations can take pressure off GPs, and that in fact overall community pharmacies can take pressure off accident and emergency? Both GPs and A&E are experiencing rising demand.
Secondly, I am not clear whether the Government have responded to the Murray review and whether they plan to be clear what they think about that review, which was published in December last year. What policies do they have for community pharmacies as a consequence of that review?
Thirdly, we have heard about rural areas. I agree entirely with what has been said, but I shall talk in addition about deprived urban neighbourhoods where few people have cars. Has the department done an impact assessment on deprived communities’ access to health and care services, because I think it is material to this debate, particularly in the context of my fourth question? Do the Government accept that many pharmacies have cash flow problems? Many do, and I understand that it will be much worse from next month. What exactly is the Government’s grand plan? I cannot see one at the moment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have spoken in this interesting debate. Obviously, the Government disagree with the premise of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but I am grateful for the opportunity that it has given us all to discuss this critical sector. I join the noble Lord in paying tribute to Bill Darling. I did not have the opportunity to know Mr Darling but, having researched his career, I can see that he was a man with a deep commitment to serving his community and the public, and showed true leadership throughout his life, so I pay tribute to him on behalf of the Government and send our condolences to his family and friends.
Perhaps no noble Lord has done more than the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly—I welcome her to her position on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench—to list the benefits and impact of the community pharmacy. It has a vital role to play in the nation’s health. More than that, pharmacies are, as my noble friend Lady Redfern pointed out, both a health asset and a social asset. They play more than just a straightforward health role. There are about 1.6 million visits to community pharmacies a day, and more than 11,500 community pharmacies are in operation, which is 20% more than in 2004-05.
As several noble Lords have pointed out, not least the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, they are increasingly important as healthcare moves into the community, and they certainly have a role to play, particularly in primary care, probably less so in A&E or urgent care. I reassure all noble Lords that the work of community pharmacies is deeply valued by the Government.
The regulations specify a detailed market entry and exit regime and terms of service for making arrangements for NHS pharmaceutical services in England. Their aim is to ensure that there is a proportionate regulatory framework which encourages the delivery of NHS pharmaceutical services that meet local needs, without excessive provision in areas already meeting demand. The regulations have been continually reviewed and updated since their inception, and the Government are committed to conducting a full post-implementation review. The regulations amend the deadline for that review, which was originally 31 August 2017.
As has been discussed, the delay is due to two reasons. First, the judicial review by the negotiating partner, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, was brought into the decisions made by the Secretary of State. We did not feel that it was appropriate to begin a judicial review, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, correctly said. Secondly, of course, we had a general election, and therefore a purdah period, followed by the summer holidays. That had some impact on the ability to conduct proper stakeholder engagement before the deadline. Therefore, the deadline was extended to 31 March 2018, to allow proper and wide-ranging engagement of stakeholders, so that we can fully consider whether the regulations are delivering their intended outcomes. A further stakeholder meeting is scheduled for later this month to present the emerging findings to these stakeholders and to shape the final report to be published early next year. I apologise if I have laboured the point about why the delay happened, but I thought it would be useful, given that it is the topic of the debate.
Public Health England: Alcohol
Lord Shipley Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, that goes slightly beyond the Question on the Order Paper. The Government are committed between now and 2020 to putting £10 billion of new money in real terms into the NHS and we have a plan to deliver on that. Clearly, if the economy changes to a great extent, we will have to keep that in mind.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, the outside broadcast of the recent England v Wales football match showed alcohol marketing every 72 seconds. How does that help public health? Also, why do the Government permit the marketing of alcohol to reach audiences below the legal drinking age?
Lord Prior of Brampton
This is an important issue which the PHE review will take into account. That review should be published before the end of the year and I am sure that we will take action accordingly.
Care Bill [HL]
Lord Shipley Excerpts(10 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 15 and 23. I would draw attention to a welcome tribunal judgment in Middlesbrough last week concerning the decision by Redcar and Cleveland Council on the under-occupancy charge. A woman, who is disabled, won an appeal against the decision of her local council which the council claims it took in line with DWP guidance. The tribunal concluded:
“In considering whether there is under-occupation of the appellant’s property, the local authority have not taken into consideration her disabilities and her reasonable requirements, as a result of these, to sleep in a bedroom of her own”.
Redcar and Cleveland Council said that it had properly applied the law as it stood when it decided this case but that the tribunal had introduced an additional test of reasonableness which did not appear in the Department for Work and Pensions guidance. Amendments 15 and 23 would remove a great deal of the doubt that has now been raised. Amendment 23, which refers to access to suitable living accommodation, must include access to suitable sleeping accommodation. That requires there to be a separate bedroom if reasonably required. Amendment 23 would also make it clear that there is a requirement on a local authority to provide access to suitable living accommodation for a person who needs a specific amount of accommodation to enable them to lead a full life.
There is now a great danger for the Government in a large number of tribunal hearings as a consequence of the decision that was made in Middlesbrough last week. One way of avoiding this is for the Government to give a clearer definition of what “reasonableness” is. Amendments 15 and 23 define what is reasonable. I hope that the Minister will agree to look further at this issue in order to ensure that adults who have care and support needs have access to suitable living accommodation. That is clearly not the case at present and it is unfortunate that a large number of people with disabilities are being placed in an impossible situation because of the under-occupancy tax.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 15 and 23 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. Contemplating the need for changes in lifestyle, managing illness and losing the ability to live independently are very daunting and stressful experiences for many elderly people. The proposals in Clause 4 for local authorities to provide information and advice are crucial in enabling people to have the knowledge they need to make decisions with which they feel comfortable. It does seem that the Bill as drafted has a major omission—the absence of advice on housing options.
I worked as a councillor in a northern metropolitan area for many years. I noticed on many occasions that elderly people were totally unaware of some of the opportunities that were available to protect them. I will give the House one example. An elderly lady asked whether I could help her by getting the electricity board to repair the light on the other side of the footpath across her garden. When I pursued the case, it transpired that because this lady was physically infirm, she was unable to reach her bathroom and lavatory, so she was crossing her garden in the depths of winter to use an outside lavatory. The reason she needed the light was in order to get to it. She was totally unaware of the possibility of making adaptations, with help from the local authority, to provide her with a downstairs bathroom. These kinds of incidents reflect the reality of what elderly people know about in terms of services. It is not good enough to say, “They will find out about them somewhere”. If it was part of this provision, that would be a great advantage to all.
My elderly parents lived at home until they were in their 90s. My father was 96 when he died, and my mother was 95. They were fortunate because I was aware of the adaptations that could be provided for them—small things such as grips, handrails and the like. They enabled my father to cope with the infirmities of my mother and for the two of them together to enjoy independent living. But, as I have said, most elderly people are not aware of this provision. When looking at options for care, most people would not think of asking the local authority about housing options. As a local authority person, I am always cautious of giving extra tasks to local authorities, but I know that this part of the Bill would not create a huge burden because local authorities already provide information about the care-related housing options that are available in their area. The point is that those options are not joined up and they do not come under the provision that this clause as drafted would give. I strongly support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Best.
The issue of the shaping of markets under Clause 23 is also important. We are always in danger of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Criticism is made of departments doing one thing on the one hand and another thing on the other. There is now a requirement on planners to look ahead and make provision for the numbers and types of homes that are needed. Surely the two things should be brought together as indicated and that health provision should advise and direct the planning process in terms of what will be needed in the future. I warmly support both amendments.