Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I intend to press amendment 18 to a Division, but I will say whatever I have to say at the right moment, to make sure that that is clear.
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. When the hon. Gentleman has completed his remarks, we will deal with the mechanics. He can trust the Chair to do that, I think.
Mr. O'Brien: I am clear, Sir Michael, that I can, thankfully, trust the Chair to do just that.
It is important to ensure clarity because the reablement process is, as the Minister made clear, in the hands of and, in many ways, in the gift of the local authority, the providers. In the provision of wheelchairs, for example, people may fall between various providers. I am anxious about the trigger mechanism that gives people their expectation and their entitlement, at a time when they are very vulnerable and need the greatest possible certainty, together with their carers who, as the Minister rightly said, will continue to be part of the process.
It would be useful to register our concern that the word "undergoing" is not sufficiently clear in the present drafting, and press the amendment to a Division, not least so that anyone reading our proceedings with care in another place will be able to make sure that the trigger mechanism is properly analysed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 18, page 2, line 1, leave out 'undergoing' and insert 'undertaking to undergo'.- (Mr. Stephen O'Brien.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I beg to move amendment 42, page 2, line 27, at end insert-
'(1A) The provisions of this Act come into force on whatever day the Secretary of State appoints by order made by statutory instrument.'.
The amendment would quite simply enable the Secretary of State to appoint the day on which the Act would come into force. It might be the same day that it receives Royal Assent, as I assume is the intention, or it might be another day. Will the commencement sections or other sections of the amended existing legislation require the Secretary of State to set out commencement provisions for the measures in the Bill? Can the Bill commence before the regulations in clause 1(4) are passed? That harks back to some of the other points that we have made about the rapidity with which we are having to consider the Bill without some of the necessary supporting documents, research and basis.
It is worth pointing out that this is the only piece of primary legislation sponsored by the Department since 1997 that includes no commencement provision, which reflects on the nature and provenance of the Bill. The reason for the amendment is that I wish to cause the Secretary of State and the Minister to pause for thought when it comes to putting it into action. I hope that just for a moment, they will contemplate what a mess has been occasioned by the desperation of a Prime Minister anxious to use the final moments of a Government and a Parliament to rush through legislation that appears to have been electorally driven.
We have looked as best we can at the Bill to scrutinise it carefully in the very limited time that we have had available. An important point is that we were up against the incredible tightness with which the money resolution was framed, which understandably and rightly excluded many amendments that we wanted to table. Many people outside this place wanted them tabled, because they have a great need to understand how the system will operate in practice and they need clarity and certainty. We are dealing not only with people who care but with people who have care needs, and there is no substitute for the clarity and the security that it occasions for people in that circumstance.
As Labour Members have made clear, and as the Minister has made clear in answers to me, the Government have assessed the funding only for two and a half years. We have had some discussion about that. That suggests that although the Bill is an interim measure, which is at odds with the fundamental point that it is meant to be consistent with the Green Paper, it has turned out to be something of a spatchcock of legislation squeezed into the end of this Parliament.
I am keen not to detain the Committee, because we have put on record many times our view about the litany of broken promises, from the then Prime Minister Tony Blair promising in 1997 to sort out social care all the way to today, 13 years later. I hope that the Minister will take the chance provided by the amendment to contemplate what many people have said about the Bill, which is that it has driven a coach and horses through the Green Paper process. I know that he resists that view, but it seems real among those who take the closest
possible interest in these matters. Niall Dickson of the King's Fund, and shortly to be of the General Medical Council, said in response to the Prime Minister's announcement of the policy:
"The problem is these latest proposals seem to have been hastily put together and appear to cut across the options set out in the government's own Green Paper. After all, the government has only just finished consulting us on the very different proposals set out in that document."
The English Community Care Association said that
"it is unhelpful to have just one piece of the jigsaw".
The Association of British Insurers noted:
"It is regrettable that the Personal Care at Home Bill undermines the Government's own Social Care Green Paper",
and the Equality and Human Rights Commission expressed the concerns that I set out when discussing the previous group of amendments. Lord Lipsey, who was famously a member of the royal commission on long-term care and is usually no enemy of the current Government, put it most clearly when he said:
"What has gone wrong is that in the middle of the consultation...the Prime Minister has declared"
The reason for this amendment is to give those hon. Members with a keen interest in how the Bill has been put together a chance to talk of their regret about how it has been done, not necessarily its objectives. Many of us agree with its objectives; the trouble is that it does not sit well in the context that we have all been working towards and the attempt to build a consensus. I hope that the Minister will come to recognise that there is a price to pay for political tribalism, given his reluctance to contemplate the merits of our home protection scheme. Taken together with the provisions in the Bill and other measures urged on me by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) among others, that scheme could provide the whole picture, rather than just one piece of the jigsaw. That is why we have tabled the amendment. We do not want to see a postponement of implementation, but this Bill should be seen as part of a consensual process, as far as we can achieve that. In the absence of such a process, and with the Government taking such a tribal approach, we have had difficulty scrutinising the legislation. Its provenance is more electoral and party political than policy driven. The amendment would give the Government chance to pause and contemplate the fact that they should have set the Bill in a broader context. I invite those who think that it could have been handled better-perhaps as Lord Lipsey has suggested-to support the amendment.
Phil Hope: The reluctance of the Opposition to support this Bill was obvious on Second Reading and today. The amendment would require a commencement order before the Bill could come into force, and would be yet another obstacle to the provision of free personal care for those adults and older people with some of the highest needs. We want to help those people live independently in their own homes.
The hon. Gentleman talks about consensus. He holds out the hand of consensus, but in his other hand is the back-stabbing knife of the Conservatives' disgraceful and scaremongering petition on disability benefits for older people. That shows the two-faced attitude of the
Opposition in applauding the Green Paper at the same time as opposing the Bill. It is discourteous when the Conservatives are running a petition on their website that seeks to scare vulnerable and anxious older people with assertions about disability and attendance allowances that are wholly untrue.
Although the Conservatives have been reluctant to support the Bill-describing it as anomalous and perverse, as they have done today-other people have welcomed it unreservedly. Imelda Redmond, chief executive of Carers UK, has said:
"Many families face crippling costs to pay for care, and this historic pledge to end the means test for those with the highest need could make a huge difference to their lives."
That is in stark contrast to the quotes cited by the hon. Gentleman.
Phil Hope: I will give way in one moment, but I was thrown quotes criticising the Bill, and I am going to throw back some quotes from stakeholders who support it.
The president of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services, Jenny Owen, said of the Green Paper and the Bill:
"Today's announcement is an important and valued first step on that road",
meaning the road to creating a national care service. Mike Padgham, chairman of UKHCA, said:
Next Section | Index | Home Page |