| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I certainly recognise the importance of carers having a full role to play in consultative processes undertaken by health and local authorities. I am happy to commend good practice in that area to the NHS and local government. It is one thing to say that we need carers to be involved in consultation, but it is important that we provide the conditions under which they can make a full contribution.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the closure of a number of care homes result in a need for even more carers in the personal home? If so, will that great additional cost be borne by families or by social services? What help does the Minister think that the National Health Service or the Government will be able to provide?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the reduction in the number of nursing home beds in the past few years should be seen in the context of more support in the community—which has resulted in some people who would have entered nursing homes in the past not doing so—and of the impact of the intermediate care packages. Of course we are looking carefully at the situation in the nursing home sector. Our expectation is that in those areas where fees have been inadequate, the increased resources for local authorities in the next spending review will feed through into the fees structure. We have encouraged local authorities to work with home owners to reach a more general understanding of the circumstances in which nursing homes operate and ensure that local authorities take those into account when they make their decisions about fees at local level.
Lord Judd: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind the considerable contribution in this sphere made by young people in the family? Will he assure us that the Government will at all times have as a priority support for those young people, who, at considerable self-sacrifice, do so much to support their own families and the nation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I could not agree more with my noble friend. The estimates that I have suggest that there are between 20,000 and 50,000 young carers in this country. Those are people under 18 who have caring responsibilities for another family member who is unwell or disabled. The Quality Protects programme is part of our strategy to help young carers. Connexions, the new youth support service for 13 to 19 year-olds, will also have an important role to play in helping to identify and provide support to such carers.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, the Association of Directors of Social Services recently reported that fewer than one in five local authorities has found sufficient resources to implement the Carers and Disabled Children Act 2000. With that in mind, will the Minister say whether
the money allocated to social care in this year's Budget was a forward announcement of the Comprehensive Spending Review?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the announcement of 6 per cent real-terms growth in relation to the spending review was for a three-year period starting with the next financial year. I believe that that is a very high level of real-terms growth for local authority social services departments. We expect them to spend that extra resource wisely and effectively, and that some of that resource will go towards supporting carers.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, do the Government accept that there is already a shortage of 25,000 residential places in this country and that that number is bound to increase as the present number of carers reduces in line with the demographic trend? If so, will the Government insist that their excellent guidelines for the creation and promotion of village communities, particularly for the mentally handicapped, are respected at local level in future and not flouted as they have been so consistently for many years?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on Wednesday there is to be a debate in your Lordships' House on that very subject and I am sure that those points will be very fully covered. As I said, although there has been a reduction in the number of residential care places, the reduction has not been as great as has often been reported. The figures quoted also very often ignore the fact that, although there have been closures, new homes have opened. I recognise that the residential care sector is under pressure in some parts of the country. That is why the additional resource for local authorities and the concordat between care home owners and local government are so important in addressing those issues.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that employers should be made aware of the capabilities that carers bring not only to caring but to other aspects of their membership of the community? I do not think that that fact is often recognised when it comes to recruitment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend and think that there are some important lessons there for the NHS as an employer.
Island Site East of Westminster Bridge
2.52 p.m.
Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What action they can take with regard to the unused building on the island site east of Westminster Bridge, which used to be occupied by the Greater London Council.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the short Answer to the Question is, very little. The Government are unable directly to take action to secure the reuse of this
site. There is an application for redevelopment of the site currently with the local planning authority, Lambeth Council, following refusal of earlier schemes. I cannot comment on the proposals as they might be the subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State were they to be refused.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Lord to his new appointment and thanking him for his Answer as far as it goes, may I ask him to bear in mind that it is in the national interest that this unusable eyesore and architectural monstrosity should be demolished? There are two reasons for this. First, the building spoils the appearance of an historic part of London. Secondly, three highways converge at the site, each bearing a large amount of traffic, and traffic does not move freely because of the space taken up by that monstrosity.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as my learned friends have already been on at me about commenting on planning applications, I have to be careful about this. I can, however, comment freely on the traffic situation. I think that traffic management round the site is absolutely appalling. However, that matter is solely under the control of the Mayor and not the control of my department or the Government. We take the view that, in principle, it is best not to demolish sites until there is agreement on what should replace them. There is no prospect of demolishing this site and simply replacing it with a traffic island, as I think the Question suggests. As I said, Lambeth Council is considering a planning application. I understand that, in July, it will make a decision on the future of both the island and the accompanying former hospital site.
Lord Richard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this site at Westminster is not the only one in London which deserves to be looked at by his ministry? I wonder whether he could get the Government to cease advocating, or at least try to persuade Mr Livingstone to cease advocating, what are absurdly called "traffic calming measures". My own experience of driving in London for 47 years now is that it has never been worse than it is at present. The traffic calming measures do not calm the traffic and they certainly do not calm the drivers. They seem designed to produce the maximum disruption in the minimum time. While I entirely appreciate the division of responsibility between my noble friend's ministry and the Greater London Authority, I wonder whether the Government could perhaps be a little more forthright about it.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the idea behind the changes made a fortnight ago was to separate transport from housing and planning. As there is now a separate Department for Transport, the issue is not between the London authority and my department. One of my noble friends will be answering questions on transport—which is something that I shall not do.
Lord Elton: My Lords, leaving aside the indivisibility of government responsibility for questions, is the Minister aware that, according to my noble friend Lord Plummer, who was in charge when the eyesore was put up, there is under the eyesore an extremely useful and very important underpass? Can the Minister tell us whether plans are being made to open it at each end so that it fulfils its intended purpose?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I cannot comment on the detail or general principle of applications currently before the planning authorities. The authorities will decide this application in July and I do not know whether the decision will be yes or no. However, it would be wrong for me to comment on any of the detail. The planning application is a matter of public knowledge and everyone can see the details submitted by the developers. There is therefore nothing for me to add to what is already before the council.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page