It is quite clear that there is a Government agenda of moving adults with learning disabilities away from residential provision to community living regardless of needs or choice. And the main instrument to push this agenda is the "Socially excluded adults Public Service Agreement" (PSA 16).

             Yet the concept of social exclusion is a socially constructed one and defined by ideology, it could be argued that the Government is, in fact, increasing the exclusion of those with multiple and complex needs in residential settings and even contravening its own Human Rights legislation.

             The technical definitions for PSA 16 treats "forms of accommodation that are more institutional, such as registered care homes, nursing homes and health facilities as representing non-settled accommodation." Aside from the argument about what constitutes "institutional" the PSA indicates states that non-settled accommodation is "accommodation arrangements that are precarious, or where the person has no or low security of tenure in their usual accommodation and so may be required to leave at very short notice." It is the issue of security of tenure that is at the heart of the Government definition of settled accommodation.

             The Government regards that those renting from a private landlord, and therefore subject to the likelihood of a six-month short-hold tenancy is more 'settled' than residential accommodation, yet this surely depends on the terms of contract the provider has with the individual or commissioning authority. For example Kent County Council's Pre=Placement Agreement clearly states that contracts may only be terminated with not less than 3 months notice, given that a six-month short-hold tenancy can be terminated at the four month mark it hardly seems that the latter is more 'settled' than the former or that residential accommodation fulfils the PSA term people being required to leave at very short notice.

             The more serious issue though, in terms of accommodation, is the potential infringement of human rights of those who live in residential settings.

             The Health and Social Care Act 2008 was quickly amended during its Parliamentary passage to ensure that private care provision was covered by the Human Rights Act. What most people tend to forget is the reason that the issue arose in the first place. The case of YL vs Birmingham, which led to the change in law, arose because of a private care home issuing notice to terminate care and accommodation provision. Unfortunately because the care company rescinded the notice and the case focused solely on the limits of the Human Rights Act and the actual implications of tenure in residential care remain untested. However, the changes do mean that those living in residential care are, in terms of their accommodation, covered by human rights legislation whereas those who live in privately rented accommodation are not.

             The case was bought under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act  - the Right to Respect for Private and Family Life - and in accepting this (by changing the law) the Government has acknowledged that a residential setting is a home for the individual and that it must respect that with no interference by any public authority. Yet PSA 16 seems to suggest that Residential settings are not a home because there are defined by them as 'non-settled' and that Local Authorities should endeavour to re-settle individuals to meet this definition.

             Surely a contravention of the Human Rights Act

                  There also needs to be questions raised on the other issues of social inclusion, particularly paid employment.

                  One of the principle issues for people with learning disabilities in residential settings is the system of how care is paid, which is the same as elderly people in residential care. Under this system all monies, except the Personal Expenses Allowance, are channelled back to the care commissioners, therefore making paid work for those in residential settings a nonsense as they would still only receive the statutory £21.90 a week.

                  Rather than stigmatise residential settings that, generally, provide good quality person centred care perhaps it is time to re-think the funding system for residential support in a way that allows people into paid employment so than social inclusion can be a goal rather than being discriminated against by a Government who seem to but their ideological ideas above what would benefit people with learning disabilities who chose to live in residential settings.