Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2—Assessment of carers—

'(1) In section 1 of the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 (c.12) (assessment of ability of carers to provide care), after subsection (2B) (inserted by section (Duty to inform carers of right to assessment)) there is inserted—

''(2C) An assessment under subsection (1) or (2) above must include consideration of whether the carer—

(a) works or wishes to work,

(b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.''

(2) In section 1 of the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 (c.16) (right of carer to assessment), after subsection (3) there is inserted—

''(3A) An assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of whether the carer—

(a) works or wishes to work,

(b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.''

(3) In section 6 of that Act (assessment of person with parental responsibility caring for disabled child), after subsection (2) there is inserted—

''(2A) An assessment under subsection (1) must include consideration of whether the person with parental responsibility for the child—

(a) works or wishes to work,

(b) is undertaking, or wishes to undertake, education, training or any leisure activity.'' '.

I begin by warmly welcoming you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I hope that under your guidance we will have a constructive and productive afternoon. Although I trust that there will be an opportunity later to thank everyone who has helped the Bill to progress this far, I would like at the outset to thank Carers UK and Carers Wales for the excellent professional support that they have provided. In every respect, this is truly an England and Wales Bill. The Minister was generous in his remarks on Second Reading and at the public launch of the Bill, which was attended by English and Welsh Ministers, and at every stage we have had enthusiastic support and co-operation from the Welsh Assembly Government and their officials. It has been a truly equal partnership.

Before I go into the detail of clause 1, I should say that this has been an all-party measure, as was demonstrated on Second Reading when all hon. Members who contributed spoke in favour. During

that debate, my hon. Friend the Minister demonstrated his knowledge and understanding of issues that are close to carers' hearts. He spoke positively about the intentions of the Bill and about certain clauses, such as clause 3, which covers the duty to inform carers. I hope that after this Committee stage the Government will feel able to support the Bill fully.

It is not my intention to rehearse the arguments in favour of the Bill; that was comprehensively done by all those who spoke on Second Reading. However, I want to reflect briefly on the reasons for our being here today, the intentions behind the Bill, and the principles that underpin our discussions. The Bill has been a journey for me and for carers throughout England and Wales who anxiously await the progress of our deliberations. The experience of my wife, Mair, and I in caring for our son, Sam, has helped to inform us on this journey, which has been travelled by millions of other carers, some of whom are in the Room today, and will be travelled by millions of carers after us. They do not have, as we fortunately do, the opportunity to make legislation that will change their lives. It is our task to seize that opportunity.

We shall debate several key issues for carers. Certain principles and intentions underpin the whole of the Bill, but in particular clause 1. They are the health and well-being of carers; ensuring that carers have equal opportunities to work and access to leisure, training and learning opportunities; ensuring that carers have information about their rights; and achieving co-operation between authorities for the greater good of carers. I stress that we are borrowing from the best and want the rest to rise to the standard of the best. Clause 1 defines the purpose of the Bill. It aims to provide opportunities for carers equal to those available to non-carers, recognising that carers should have a life beyond their caring responsibilities. Two bodies that recently wrote to me—the Equal Opportunities Commission and TOPSS, the training organisation for the personal social services—have a very good understanding not only of the principles of the Bill, but of the practical issues that we are trying to address.

Clause 1 derives very much from the new era of democratic devolution in the United Kingdom and specifically from Northern Ireland's equal opportunities legislation, Scottish legislation and the Government of Wales Act 1998, which is underpinned explicitly by the ethos of equal opportunities. Also from my country come specific strategies for social inclusion and social justice, which are driven forward by the new Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration. We are now creating a dynamic policy environment that is conducive to recognising the rights of carers. The recently published Welsh Assembly Government strategic document entitled ''Wales: A Better Country'' speaks of

''our guiding vision of a fairer, more prosperous, healthier and better educated country rooted in our commitment to social justice and to putting health and wealth creation that is sustainable at the heart of policy-making''.

That underpins our approach in Wales and England under the Bill.

Clause 1 is designed to place in law the principle of equality of opportunity for carers in relation to work, education and learning within local authority social services departments. It aims to embed those principles in policies, procedures, commissioning of services and so on. We are trying to break down institutional barriers that prevent carers from accessing their rightful opportunities. A similar duty exists for carers under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and it is from that legislation that we have borrowed. The draft Disability Discrimination Bill will introduce a similar welcome measure for disabled people. I hope that that legislation will be brought forward soon.

One of my aims in clause 1 was to ensure that assessment procedures for carers regularly examined work, training, lifelong learning and leisure issues. I also wanted to ensure that the same opportunities were extended to parents of disabled children like Mair and myself. The new clause does precisely that in a more direct way, and I warmly welcome it. We must not underestimate the importance of work, lifelong learning and leisure for carers, many of whom may face a lifetime of caring. When I think about the application of new clause 2, I see that prejudice against carers working could become a thing of the past. In future, we might not receive letters from constituents saying that they were told to give up work to care for their relative, and that opportunities for them were never even discussed. If we achieve that through the Bill, it will be real progress for carers and for society at large. It will be something that we can celebrate.

The Minister spoke on Second Reading about the Government's problems with clause 1 and its interpretation. In considering whether we should vote against clause stand part, can he reassure me that the principle of equality of opportunity will be incorporated in guidance? Guidance would surely give him an opportunity to incorporate the principles to which we aspire in ensuring that services, policies and procedures are responsive to carers, so that they no longer put up barriers to education and training, but support carers in having a wider life.

In thinking about new clause 2 as a replacement for clause 1, we must draw attention to the fact that it will place on local authorities the same duties in respect of work, lifelong learning and leisure in relation to children as it will in relation to adults—or at least that is what it appears to do. My Bill currently applies only to people aged 16 and over. I understand that the Children's Society, Disabled Parents Network and Carers UK would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Department for Education and Skills whether that is an appropriate way of dealing with young carers. I, too, am keen to ensure that the right organisations are consulted. Representatives of my local authority, Neath Port Talbot county borough council, were enthusiastic about the idea in my discussions with them, but they wanted to think more about it. They especially wanted to consider the guidance further. Organisations such as the Association of Directors of Social Services, which has so far supported my Bill, also need an opportunity to evaluate such a significant change to the legislation.

However, that matter should not hold up the Bill's progress, and I am very keen to see the new clause incorporated into the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. I beg your indulgence, as this is the first time that I have had the honour of presenting the Government's position all on my own in a Committee such as this one. I know that you will be kind to me and guide me past my errors if I make a complete mess of it.

I, too, thank hon. Members for the spirit of co-operation on the Bill shown so far across the House, for our constructive debates on Second Reading and on the money resolution, and for the positive way in which all Members with an interest in this matter have been prepared to engage with each other and to share ideas. I especially thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), whose Bill this is, for the way in which he has been prepared to work closely with me and my officials in devising amendments that will address the Government's concerns about the Bill in its current form. For the avoidance of doubt, let me say that I hope very much that at the end of our proceedings Sam's Bill will be well on its way to becoming Sam's Act and I will be in a position to say that the Government are ready to support it. That said, I should point out why the Committee would be unwise to leave in parts of clause 1, and why I believe that new clause 2 addresses some of those concerns and would therefore be better than clause 1.

I agree with my hon. Friend about what the Bill is designed to achieve. I also agree that it is important to promote equal opportunities for carers: we want them to have as wide a range of opportunities to work, to take up education, and to engage in leisure activities as people who do not have caring roles have. However, there is a slight problem in that ''equal opportunities'' as a legal term is usually backed by a considerable volume of legislation in those parts of the law where equal opportunities are usually discussed, and such precise definitions do not exist for carers.

The Government's key concern about clause 1 is that it would lead to too great a range of possible interpretations of what we expect local authorities to do. What they were expected to do would not be clear to them, and there would be a danger of some local authorities under-interpreting and others over-interpreting their responsibilities. The thinking behind new clause 2 is that the Government believe that we need a much tighter clause that specifically indicates to local councils what they are expected to do, and that narrows the areas in which they will be expected to ensure that carers had the new opportunities.

The Minister is helpfully setting out the Government's position. Will he explain why, even though clause 1 provides the Government with the facility to make regulations, it is not believed to provide a tool for the Government to prevent uncertainty by providing clear regulations?

First, the language of the clause is insufficiently precise. Secondly, although I take the hon. Gentleman's point about regulations, in my view it is always better to be precise in the primary legislation and therefore avoid the need for regulations. There was an opportunity in the Bill to do that, because we could insert the duties into existing legislation. We would not be creating confusion within the existing legislation, because we would be amending it. The more precise language in new clause 2 would give councils a much better direction, so that they would understand exactly what they are expected to do.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon asked whether, in the event that he was convinced of the need to replace clause 1with new clause 2, we would be prepared to set out the position in guidance. I am happy to confirm that there is already policy and practice guidance regarding the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000 which clearly sets out councils' responsibilities and which was well received. I acknowledge with the passing of Sam's Bill—as Sam's Bill becomes Sam's Act—that guidance will become out of date. I am prepared to undertake to review the guidance and, after appropriate consultation, to issue new guidance, should that be necessary. I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured.

Will my hon. Friend make clear what the phrase ''equality of opportunity'' means? Can he confirm that he is happy for the words ''Equal Opportunities'' to be used in the title of the Bill? Is there is an inconsistency other legislation introduced by other Departments which has not included that phrase?

I am happy for the phrase to continue to be used in the title of the Bill. Although we may not actually use the words ''equal opportunities'' in the Bill itself, the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon can be easily understood from his comments when he introduced the Bill on Second Reading and from his speech a minute or two ago. It is his intention to foster equal opportunities between carers and non-carers. Even though we may not use that precise wording to frame our provision, the Government's intention is clear.

We want carers who wish to work to have the right to work. For those carers who wish to take part in education, we want that to be built in to the care plans that are put together for the person for whom they are caring. We want them to have the opportunity to engage in leisure activities, to the extent that I feel that it would be appropriate that if a carer wanted to take part in a physical fitness or aerobics class in the evening, the care plan should be adapted to ensure that the person could be cared for while the carer went out to engage in such activity. The fundamental life expectations that all members of the Committee would expect for ourselves and for our families are often denied to carers because of their responsibilities and duties. What my hon. Friend is asking for, and what the new clause will succeed in doing if it is accepted by the Committee, is to make sure that carers have those opportunities.

When discussing leisure opportunities, my hon. Friend will surely wish to congratulate Monmouthshire county council on funding yet another pampering session for the carers of Monmouthshire, so that they may enjoy aromatherapy and other such things. That reflects the spirit in which the Bill has been introduced. Will my hon. Friend also acknowledge that one of the great things about the Government of Wales Act 1998 is that it enshrines equal opportunity into all areas of the Government of Wales?

It is not for me to comment on what the Government of Wales and the Welsh Assembly do, and I suspect that I would trigger a constitutional crisis if I went too far down that line. However, I am happy to acknowledge the contribution of Monmouthshire county council: its work sounds like the best practice that a lot of councils would do well to adopt. I am not sure that my local council in Kent has gone down the aromatherapy route, but there is no reason why it should not.

I do not want to encourage the Minister to trigger a constitutional crisis by answering this question, but will he clarify whether new clause 2 and other Government proposals will enable the Welsh Assembly to benefit from the legislation once it is enacted?

I can confirm that we have developed our proposals with the full knowledge and co-operation of the Welsh Assembly, and certain parts of the Bill will clearly have an impact on it. There are other areas of activity, which I will describe as we move through the Bill, that I believe that the Welsh Assembly will take action to mimic. That is a matter for the Assembly—it is not for me to instruct it to act—but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I believe that the Bill and other measures will have positive benefits for carers in Wales.

I want now to make some specific comments on clause 1 to ensure that the record shows exactly why we have tabled new clause 2. As it stands, it is not clear from clause 1(1) what social services would be required to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon has the legitimate aspiration that local authorities should change their attitude to carers, but it is not clear how they would fulfil that obligation. Subsection (3) provides a wide regulation-making power, the need for which is unclear.

New clause 2 will require consideration of certain matters in assessments under the Carers (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. It does so by requiring councils to consider whether the carer works or wishes to work, as well as whether the carer undertakes or wishes to undertake education, training or leisure activities outside their caring role. The aim is for it to feed through to the existing duty of councils to establish what services should be provided in light of the assessment.

By amending section 1 of the 1995 Act, the new clause will cover carers of all ages, including children under the age of 16. However, I want to make it clear that the new clause applies when the person is working

or wishes to work. Nothing in it permits an authority to force a child into work. The Government are clear that they want to ensure that young carers can gain maximum life chance benefits from education opportunities, health care and social care. Although the policy is to discourage children from undertaking such responsible roles, which may limit their life choices, we must acknowledge that some do so in practice. The emphasis is on helping the family as a whole rather than focusing exclusively on the needs of individuals within it, whether they are disabled adults or young carers. Children who are carers should routinely be assessed under the Children Act 1989. As a matter of law, they could be assessed under the 1995 Act, but that would not be expected or in line with Children Act 1989 guidance. In so far as they are assessed under the 1995 Act, the new obligation to consider work or wishes to work should remain—for example, if a 15-year-old wanted to take up a paper round.

Following careful consideration of clause 1(1), which would impose a general duty of promoting equality of opportunity for carers, the Government remain of the view that it is impossible to frame any provisions that would make sense within the framework of social services legislation or that would impose a clear and manageable duty on councils and therefore deliver the intended, tangible benefits for carers. Instead, new clause 2 creates a specific duty, making it clear that when carrying out assessments under the existing legislation, councils must consider the wishes of a carer to work or undertake education, training or leisure activities. That makes the principle behind the duty as originally drafted into a concrete duty to act in a certain way. No authority should have difficulty in understanding what they must do. To that extent, it should mean that carers' lives outside caring are properly taken into account by councils. The Government believe that that will help to produce better opportunities for carers to engage in work, education, training and leisure alongside their fellow citizens who are not carers. That is a better approach than imposing a vague duty.

New clause 2 will ensure that the assessment is undertaken in a manner that understands and explores the possibility that carers should be able to participate in life beyond their caring duties, and to think beyond what they need to continue to care. That could include the situation I described earlier, where a carer wishes to go on a training course or join a keep-fit group. In those circumstances social services will have to consider those wishes when planning the care package. As part of their assessment, carers will be able to discuss alternative care services and highlight the importance of equality of opportunity for all aspects of life, such as the opportunity to experience normal family life in the case of the parent of a disabled child. In that example, the package may provide the possibility of freeing some leisure time for the carer and for other children in the family through structured play time with the disabled child, while social services provides services to run the house.

I hope that that explains the rationale behind the Government's thinking. I also hope that, along with

my responses to the questions, it will enable the Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon to agree that clause 1 does not stand part of the Bill and then, subsequently, we will accept new clause 2 to replace it.

It is a great pleasure, Mr. Benton, to see you in the Chair.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Aberavon on introducing the Bill. He knows that we support it. We did not oppose it on Second Reading, nor did we oppose the money resolution, which the Minister moved last week. In his introductory remarks, the Minister said that it was the first time that he had led for the Government on a private Member's Bill and that if he made a mess of it, Mr. Benton, you would steer him in the right direction. This is the first time that I have led for the Opposition on a private Member's Bill. So, if the Minister and I both make a mess of it, you can steer us both in the right direction and we will be able to move towards getting Sam's Bill on the statute book. I am sure that all members of the Committee will support the Minister and myself in that effort.

The Minister has essentially kept his word on the undertakings that he made on Second Reading. He assured the House that the Government wanted to get the Bill on to the statute book. In relation to clause 1, new clause 2 and further clauses that we will be discussing, it seems that he has said to the hon. Member for Aberavon that although the Government and other political parties wish to support him in constructing the Bill, which will provide equal opportunities and better facilities for carers, we wish to build on completely different foundations. If one examines the new clause, to which the Minister spoke, and clause 1, one finds that he has established the new clause on the foundation of the Carer (Recognition and Services) Act 1995 and the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. With the new clause—and with all the other new clauses, I suspect—he is trying to ensure that there are no legal entanglements or contradictions between anything that might come out of this Bill and existing legislation. That is a reasonable objective.

I have some questions on the new clause, especially about the phrase ''equality of opportunity'', which was in the Bill as drafted, but which is not in the more economical new clause 2. I want to be clear what the Minister is saying. I think it is that because there is legislation on equality that applies to certain groups such as people with disabilities but does not provide for carers, the Government believe that a private Member's Bill is not the right vehicle with which to extend the principle of equality of opportunity to carers, just as they believe that it is the wrong mechanism with which to extend that principle to other groups who are not covered by current equality legislation.

I should be grateful if the Minister said a little more about the guidelines that will be issued and their timing. When referring to the guidance, I think he said that the Government would produce it ''should it be necessary''. Will he clarify whether the Government

intend to issue guidance? That is very important to clause 1. I hope that the Minister will also answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Aberavon about consultation on provisions that affect children under 16 with caring responsibilities.

This is the second private Member's Bill on carers on which I have had the benefit of serving in a Standing Committee. It thus occurs to me as we consider clause stand part and the new clause tabled by the Minister, that because of the efforts of Back Benchers, carers legislation has been able to progress over time. We have managed to build an architecture of legislation because of the efforts of hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Aberavon and others before him. However, there must come a point at which the Department of Health needs to consider stepping in to discover, first, whether there is a need to codify and consolidate legislation and, secondly, whether there are gaps that necessarily emerge in the piecemeal process of a private Member's Bill.

The Minister's argument seems to be that the Bill cannot have a clause that advances the case for equal opportunities for carers because, by its very nature, a private Member's Bill is not capable of carrying all the clauses necessary to elaborate on it. Surely, at least in part, the Minister should follow the logic of his own argument, look to the future, and develop an appropriate Government measure. The Government already have a model on which to draw and I therefore ask the Minister why he and his advisers have concluded that the duty in clause 1(1) is too widely drawn and is too susceptible to misunderstanding.

Earlier today, I was looking at the draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the draft regulatory impact assessment, which discuss the impact on local authorities of an almost exact replica of the duty in the Bill. They make it clear that the duty envisaged in the draft Disability Discrimination Bill would have a constrained impact on local authorities. Those are not the precise words in the text, but it is made clear that it would not have an open-ended result, but would place a duty on public authorities to have regard to it and consider it in the context of their other statutory responsibilities. That is what the Bill before us was intended to do. I understand that the draftsmen of clause 1 had to work within the constraints applicable to a private Member's Bill.

I want to pick up the important point made by the Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman). The Minister gave a generous undertaking to the hon. Member for Aberavon that the Government would undertake a review of the guidance after the passage of the Bill through both Houses of Parliament and would issue new guidance if necessary. Has the Department yet undertaken any assessment of the likely impact of the legislation, so as to be able to make at least a provisional conclusion on whether such revisions will be needed? It would help to know whether it is a little more than ''as necessary''. It would help to know whether new guidance will be issued. With that, and with any assurance that the Minister might give, I

would not resist the removal of clause 1. The substitute that the Minister proposes offers a solid and concrete piece of legislation that will help many carers.

I shall try to answer those questions. First, before we can begin consultation on guidance, the Bill must have received Royal Assent. There would then need to be a three-month consultation period. That gives hon. Members an opportunity to work out what will be involved. When I say ''if necessary'', I am mindful of the fact that we will have to wait until we get back the results of consultation before making a decision. It may result in our being advised that further guidance is not needed and that everyone understands their obligations. However, my strong suspicion is that we will have to introduce new guidance, and that the consultation will suggest that guidance will be helpful to those who have to interpret what is required.

Perhaps the best way of illustrating why equal opportunity might be difficult to achieve under the Bill is to give a couple of valid examples provided by my officials. A carer assessed by social services may tell the social worker that she felt that she had been unsuccessful in getting a job in a private firm because she was a carer. Another carer, who seeks accommodation and wants to rent a flat, believes that he has found a flat that would allow him to care for the other person while maintaining his own life, but is refused the tenancy by the landlord because the caring role might require some adaptations to the property.

I am sure that the Committee accepts that such carers would have been treated unfairly, and would want something done about it. However, it would not be a matter for social services. Were we to include the phrase ''equal opportunities'' in a clause that applied to the duties of social services, we might be implying that social services had to engage in duties beyond their normal powers. Our main concern is that, by using that terminology, we might be opening a can of worms that would be better left unopened.

Mr. Burstow indicated dissent.

In any event, whether or not the hon. Gentleman agrees—I can see by his body language that he does not—he will have to put up with it, because that is our view. The simple fact is that we remain to be convinced that the Bill would be the right vehicle for carrying the huge body of legislative guidance that would be necessary to extend equal opportunities to carers in the way that he would like.

I do not want to prolong the debate, but I have given some thought to the two examples given by the Minister—one of a person denied access to a property that was advertised on the open market, and the other of a person turned down for a job. Would that not be covered by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995?

The hon. Lady is right: there may be other legislation that would deal with both those issues. The point is that the way in which the clause is worded might mean that it requires social services to take action in those circumstances, and may even require them to use the legislation to enforce the rights

of the carer. It may become a duty of social services to take such action, but currently it is not, and a private Member's Bill is no place to try to extend their duties. I hope that those explanations are sufficient for the Committee, and that Committee members will agree that clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill, and that new clause 2 should.

I take this opportunity to confirm that, in light of the Minister's observations, I will support new clause 2 and withdraw my support for clause 1. I hope that the Committee will support me on that.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 1 disagreed to.Clause 2Planning for the provision ofinformation for carers