| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, during a debate regarding Church and State in your Lordships' Chamber on 22nd May 2002, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that it would be an enormously complex undertaking with regard to the Church and State if he were to attempt to repeal various Acts, including the Act of Settlement 1701, without,
- "damaging the tapestry of the constitution".—[Official Report, 22/5/02; col. 812.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I certainly would not agree with that. The constitutional reform programme of the last Parliament extended to human rights, it extended to devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, it extended to freedom of information and it extended to reform of your Lordships' House. In all those areas there was a clear and pressing need for change. In this area there is not.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that relationships between Christian denominations in this country, including those between Anglicans and Roman Catholics, are generally extremely good? Is he aware, however, that there are some significant differences between our Churches which impinge, for example, on how Anglican orders are viewed; how children in marriages between Roman Catholics and other Christians are to be brought up; and that perceptions of discrimination exist on different sides within the Church and not just one? Does he accept that the interests of those who pursue this matter may not be religious at all, but might be based upon an understanding of discrimination which in this case could be described as over simple?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am not sure that that is an over-simple question, if I may say so. What I would say is that I am aware of these matters but I do not think that there is at present any general public interest in the repeal of the Act of Settlement. To the extent that there is ongoing debate, the Government will monitor it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that, short of total repeal, those parts of the Act of Settlement that are discriminatory—whether in a practical sense or by perception—could be dealt with in a rather more piecemeal way? Does he further accept that the issue does not trouble people from a Catholic tradition, or indeed from most religious traditions? Most people in this country who have religious belief are full of joy that we have so little discrimination and that there is such a pluralistic and tolerant society in which people can enjoy their religious practice according to their conscience.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree, of course, with the second part of that question. As to the Act of Settlement, in whole or in part, I repeat that I believe that there is no clear and pressing need for repeal or reform.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is correct to say that, at present, none of the top 20 in succession to the throne happens to be a Roman Catholic. Is there any way in which he can know that none of them will be converted in the near future?
Did he by any chance read an article in The Times by Mary Ann Sieghart about three months ago? It stated that during the past 20 years there has been a quite remarkable change in the direction of civil and religious equality for Roman Catholics in this country. Does he agree that that change cannot be complete until the offending passage in the Act of Settlement is removed? Will he therefore initiate international consultations accordingly?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, first, of course I recognise that people can be converted. I am not sure that the noble Earl is ripe for conversion in any particular direction. As for the article by Mary Ann Sieghart, yes, I read it. But I repeat that, whereas it can be said that the Act of Settlement is discriminatory in nature, it has no discriminatory impact today. If it were ever likely to have, the matter would have to be addressed.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that Prince James Francis Edward Stuart should have become King in 1701 on the death of his father. Does he agree that the Act of Settlement was this Parliament's response to the Act of Security passed by the Parliament of Scotland, reserving to Scotland the right to choose their own King? Does he further agree that James Francis Edward poses no threat today and, accordingly, that the Act of Settlement—that piece of eighteenth-century Whig paranoia, which led to parliamentary Union—can be safely laid to rest?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, all that I should like to say about that is that noble Lords will appreciate, as does the noble Earl, that the Act of Settlement was legislation passed by a previous Administration.
Nursing and Personal Care
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Barker asked Her Majesty's Government:
- What difficulties have arisen owing to the distinction between nursing care and personal care for the purpose of funding arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, National Health Service nurses have applied the registered nursing care contribution tool to assess the needs of nursing home residents. A full evaluation of the implementation of the policy has been commissioned and is due to report this autumn.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, in this week when, as a result of devolution, which has just been mentioned, personal care in Scotland became free for older people, will the Minister comment on the report issued this March by nursing home co-ordinators and health authorities that found that six out of 10 nursing homes were passing on costs in increased fees to older people?
At a time when older people in Scotland are receiving free personal care, what is his department doing to stop older people in England paying for what is supposed to be free nursing care by the back door?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is the glory of devolution that Scotland can choose which way it wishes to go and that we in England can choose a different course. We chose a different course because we believed that if we instituted free personal care, we should not produce a single extra service as a result but would benefit many better-off people. We considered that the £1 billion cost of free personal care in England would be better spent on providing services such as intermediate care for all older people to enjoy and to help them rehabilitate, rather than having to enter institutionalised care.
Of course, I have read comments concerning where the money being provided for free nursing care has gone. I understand that the majority of individuals are already benefiting financially from the introduction of NHS-funded nursing care, but, in March, my honourable friend Jacqui Smith announced a package of measures designed to ensure much greater transparency, so that self-funded residents in such homes know exactly what money is being spent where.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that sickness and disability lead to a wide variety of needs—for surgery, for medical drugs, for physiotherapy and for wheelchairs—that are properly met by the National Health Service free of charge? By charging for the other important need arising from sickness and disability—personal care—the Government are being both illogical and unfair. The sooner that that policy is reversed, the better for disabled people.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend speaks forcefully on the matter, as he has done for many years. But the treatment of personal care and NHS services has been consistently applied for many years. When we are faced with the prospect of £1 billion extra having to be spent on free personal care in England, if we adopt the Scottish model, searching questions must be asked about whether that money would be wisely spent. As I said, the Government decided that it would be much better spent on intermediate care, which is designed to rehabilitate older people, in particular, and return them wherever possible to their own home. Surely, that is where the incentive should lie, not in institutionalised care.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that if personal care is neglected, that will frequently lead to expensive nursing and medical care and, in the long run, cost the country a great deal more?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. That is why we announced that under the next spending
review, personal social services will, over a three-year period, receive an increase of about 6 per cent in real terms. That recognises the noble Lord's point.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any transitional problems that we may be experiencing in moving from nursing homes pale into insignificance when compared to the dog's breakfast of a policy of free personal care favoured, alas, by the Scots and by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker? Beside being unaffordable and doing nothing to improve care standards, it represents a massive transfer of money from poorer to richer people.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page