Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow & Furness, Labour)

I beg to move amendment No. 226, in page 43, line 16, leave out from beginning to `is' in line 17 and insert—

`(1A) For the purposes of this section a ``qualifying person'' is—

(a) (in relation to any time before the appointed day) a person to whom section 26A(1) or section 86A(1) applies; or

(b) (in relation to any later time) a person to whom either of those sections applied immediately before that day.

(2) Where a qualifying person'.

Mr John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart, Labour)

With this it is convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 267 and 268.

Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow & Furness, Labour)

The amendments will ensure that local authorities are under a duty to identify people with preserved rights, to assess their care needs and to make community care provision for them after the repeal of section 26A of the National Assistance Act 1948. Section 26A established the preserved rights scheme.

Clause 49 requires local authorities to secure community care services for people with preserved rights. It also places an obligation on them to identify people with preserved rights and to carry out care assessments on them. As worded, the clause is linked to the requirement and responsibility to people to whom section 26A applied. However, subsection (1) repeals section 26A. That would mean that if, and when, the Bill received Royal Assent and came into force, section 26A would not apply to anyone. We do, of course, want local authorities to be under a duty to identify people with preserved rights and to make appropriate provision after the repeal of section 26A. That may be necessary where the details of someone with preserved rights reach the local authority's attention only after the system of preserved rights has ended. The amendments will ensure that local authorities remain under a duty to identify people with preserved rights and to make community care provision for them after the repeal of section 26A.

These amendments are purely technical and make sure that there are no loopholes that people under the preserved rights scheme might slip through. I hope that the Committee will be able to accept them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 314, in page 44, line 18, at end insert—

`(8A) The relevant authority may by regulations prescribe that local authorities shall communicate such information as it shall prescribe concerning the effect of this section to persons who are likely to be qualifying persons on the appointed day, in such manner and at such time prior to the appointed day as it shall prescribe.'.

I shall not detain the Committee on a clause that has received such a general welcome. However, there is an important issue. It is proper to remember that one of the principal reasons for which preserved rights were created in the first place was to provide an assurance to those already in care homes that they would be able to remain there. As the Minister has said, there will be a duty on the authorities to identify and to assess those with preserved rights. That assessment may give rise to a quite different—though desirable, I suppose—provision of care than they are currently enjoying. The Government's response to the royal commission on long-term care states at paragraph 2.27:

``Some of the younger disabled people with preserved rights probably should not be in residential care at all.''

It goes on to outline quite desirable and proper alternatives to that. However, the paper continues, and observes in paragraph 2.30 that

``the prospect of changes to both schemes also worries people.''

In paragraph 2.31, it states:

``The Government will therefore issue guidance that people must not be moved against their will out of their existing care homes unless there is a compelling reason why they should move.''

Of course, there has to be some provision for that, but as the Government have acknowledged in their own paper, there is some anxiety. All that we seek is an an assurance from the Government that they will ensure that proper publicity and information is made available ahead of the implementation of those provisions to provide reassurance for those people who will be affected by those provisions.

Mr John Hutton (Minister of State, Department of Health; Barrow & Furness, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for New Forest, West for the way in which he moved his amendment. That will allow me to reassure both him and the Committee not only about the reasons for making the changes, but also about the manner in which we will implement them.

It has been widely recognised, by the royal commission and many others, including our own constituents, that the preserved rights scheme is a source of serious difficulties for many people in our country. First and foremost, it restricts a person's choice of accommodation to part III accommodation. For younger disabled people in particular, that is an unnecessary restriction. There are other ways, and other care settings, in which care can reasonably be provided. The preserved rights scheme does not allow that choice to be made.

There are also serious problems about the shortfall between the residential care that the preserved rights income support provides and the rate at which those care services are being challenged. That is causing serious difficulties for many thousands of people, particularly the elderly, who are experiencing real distress as a result.

The changes are being made for the right reasons. We are making the system better for people in long-term care, and we will not introduce those changes in a way that will disrupt the continuity and pattern of the provision of care for the elderly or for younger disabled people who currently receive the preserved rights income support. I understand why the hon. Gentleman has tabled the amendment, and I share his concern to ensure that people who are affected by the ending of the preserved rights scheme should be given as much information as possible about the impact of the change.

The hon. Gentleman courteously acknowledged that we have consulted extensively about the proposal and have tried all along to make sure that people understand what we are doing. We try to respond to the concerns that many people naturally feel if the pattern of funding for their residential care is altered. We have worked closely with the Department of Social Security to ensure a smooth transition to the new system. The DSS plans to notify people with preserved rights to benefits of the reasons for the change to their benefit payments, and to explain the local authority's involvement in, and future responsibility for, their care needs. The DSS plans to do that well in advance of the changes taking place.

Clause 49 allows for an approach to be made by local authorities to the people affected before the change takes place. That means that we shall expect local authorities to undertake care and financial assessments in many cases before the appointed date. As a result, a considerable number of people affected by the change will have had some personal contact with the local authority before the change takes place, and should be fully informed about how it will affect them.

In addition, we intend to issue guidance to local authorities to address the issue of how to prepare for the changes. The guidance will make clear to the local authorities their responsibility for ensuring that they provide an explanation about the impact of the change to those affected by it. I share the hon. Gentleman's concern, but hope that he will recognise that there is no need to regulate and that the point of concern, and issue of principle, that he has raised, are fully accepted by us. We intend to make sure that the changes operate smoothly and fairly.

Mr Desmond Swayne (New Forest West, Conservative)

In view of the Minister's reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

No. 267, in page 44, leave out lines 28 and 29.

No. 268, in page 44, line 34, at end insert

` ``the responsible authority'' shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2).'.—[Mr. Hutton.]

Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.