14 Oct 2008 : Column 589
14 Oct 2008 : Column 589
14 Oct 2008 : Column 589
Tuesday, 14 October 2008.
The House met at half-past two: the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.
Disabled People: Social Care
Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether the forthcoming Green Paper on social care will contain a commitment to ensure that disabled people will be free to move between local authorities without risk of loss of their social care package.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, a Green Paper on the future of care and support will be published early next year. The public debate is informing several key strands of policy discussions, one of which is about the portability of care packages and addresses the question of local flexibility versus national consistency. It would not be appropriate at this stage to pre-empt the outcome of the debate or the policy analysis by making specific commitments about the Green Paper.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. If we accept the principle that she has just explained, that we can make no specific commitment while a Green Paper is being considered—not even debated, but considered—the Government and both Houses of Parliament will be paralysed for years, as these things take time. Having pledged ourselves not to do that, the Government cannot act, and nor can this House or the other place. It would obviously be unacceptable to tie the Government’s and Parliament’s hands like that.
The present system is that anyone can move house if they wish to have a better job, or whatever, but if disabled people want to move house, the new local authority will probably refuse to allow the payment if it disagrees with the previous local authority. Given that that is the case, there is nothing we can do about disabled people that would change the whole system. My noble friend wants to help disabled people, as she made very clear in Committee on the Health and Social Care Bill. Does she not agree that the way to help them is to provide them with a change of system in place of the existing one?
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, my noble friend is completely right. The whole House knows that he is a leading and very successful campaigner in this arena. My noble friend knows, as he acknowledged, that the Government have not stood still while waiting for the publication of the Green Paper. We have had a 45 per cent increase in local council services and extended the right to personal budgets so that people can have control over their own care.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 590
The issue of portability of care to allow disabled people to move from one part of the country to another is a fundamental component of the system being addressed in the Green Paper review. It can be addressed only as part of the wider review, because of its implications for local and national accountability, democracy and the control of budgets. However, that does not mitigate the need for local authorities to have a duty to ensure that, when a disabled person moves into their area, a proper assessment is made of their needs and that those needs are addressed.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, has the department received a report from the Commission for Social Care Inspection on the eligibility criteria for fair access to care services? Will the process to which the Minister refers include children as well as adults in receipt of packages of care?
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, Fair Access to Care Services is, as noble Lords will know, a system to help local authorities to set the criteria for the provision of care services. The Government recognise—indeed, noble Lords have brought it to our attention—that some councils have tightened their eligibility criteria for adult social care. I am afraid that I will have to write to the noble Baroness about whether children are included in that. We are concerned that it means that some people have been denied the care that they need. The Care Services Minister asked the Commission for Social Care Inspection to undertake a review and we are expecting to publish its report at the end of this month.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this issue is a major barrier to disabled people's employment and educational opportunities? If the Government want to increase social mobility, it must be resolved quickly. What interim measures will the Government take given the time that it will take to implement longer-term reform through the Green Paper on adult social care and subsequent legislation?
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. During the recent passage of the Health and Social Care Act we recognised that it is important to allow disabled people to have the same rights—to move house, to go to university or whatever it is that they need to do. Some of the measures that the Government have already taken include providing extra resources at local level and ensuring that local councils properly assess people who have moved into their areas. But the long-term issue, which we need to address, is that in 20 years’ time, 1.7 million more people will need care. That has to be addressed on the basis of the Green Paper and a very wide discussion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as the previous speaker raised the matter of employment, has the Minister taken into account the position of those disabled people who have remitting disabilities who go in and out of needing full-time care? They face great difficulties in getting help when the time comes for them to return to full-time care because of the great delays that occur. Is something being done to deal with that problem?
14 Oct 2008 : Column 591
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point. The consultation process involves the public and stakeholders—indeed, I am attending a public consultation this weekend—and precisely that issue has been raised. It is part of our consideration in the preparation of the Green Paper.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, in their preparation of the Green Paper, are the Government calculating the savings to local authorities of people moving closer to their relatives who assist with care and daily living?
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, that is exactly the kind of thing that the Green Paper will address, because it is very important.
Lord Rix: My Lords, last week I chaired the Learning Disability Coalition meeting discussing the Green Paper on adult social care. Will the Minister confirm that adult social care for those with a learning disability will receive the utmost consideration?
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, the noble Lord, with his record, knows that that is the case. Along with other noble Lords he has helped to ensure that. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who is not in her place, provided us with short articles that helped to inform the themes that we are discussing in the process of creating this Green Paper, as did the noble Lord.
Baroness Golding: My Lords, my daughter had a care package in Hull last year. She then lost both legs and moved to Staffordshire. She is still fighting to get as good a care package as she had in Hull. Will the Green Paper address that problem? Certainly, nobody who loses their legs should have a worse care package.
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, my noble friend, who gave me notice of her question, is completely right and I undertake to look into that case. It is exactly the kind of situation that the Green Paper, which will examine what future planning and provision we need to make, is designed to address.
Armed Forces: Pensions
2.44 pm
Lord Craig of Radley asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Why they intend to abolish the Pensions Appeal Tribunal in England and Wales, which hears appeals from Armed Forces personnel, their dependants and veterans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, we are abolishing the PAT, as its functions will be transferring into the first-tier tribunal established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. It is proposed that the jurisdiction will move in its entirety into the war pensions and Armed Forces compensation chamber, a stand-alone chamber in the new tribunal. Members of the existing tribunal will be transferred into the chamber in the first-tier tribunal to continue their work in the same way as at present.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 592
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I thank the Minister. During negotiations with the Ministry of Justice, Bridget Prentice, the Minister, while proposing the setting up of the Armed Forces chamber, strongly wished it to be recorded that the functions of the PAT England and Wales should be transferred to the social entitlement chamber. This was widely rejected by the PAT membership, the experts and by the service charities—those who support the appellants. Given this, and the fact that PATs in Scotland and Northern Ireland continue unchanged, why have the Government decided that they should not retain the major part of the PAT, which, since 1919, has been the statutory independent body serving those who appeal against awards for injury and trauma?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Lutterworth and District branch of the Royal British Legion. I pay tribute to both the noble and gallant Lord and my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester, in particular, for they way in which they have approached this subject up to now.
I say to the noble and gallant Lord that the Government’s position is solidly that the tribunal should move into the first-tier tribunal, but that it will be in a stand-alone chamber: the war pensions and Armed Forces compensation chamber. That is, as I understand it, what the noble and gallant Lord was arguing with some force over the past months. That will give it its own rules, procedures and expertise. Its membership will of course always include someone who has been in the services, as at present.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, perhaps I should declare an interest as member of the Bridgwater branch of the Royal British Legion; it had not occurred to me previously that it was necessary to do so. The Minister may be aware that many noble Lords have, I suspect, received an urgent letter from the Army Benevolent Fund, expressing its concern about the continuing stream of casualties coming out of Afghanistan, in particular, and the challenges that they will face in their aftercare after their initial treatment has been met. Many of these cases will end up in front of what would have been the much-respected Pensions Appeal Tribunal.
I know that the Minister, with his previous experience in the Ministry of Defence, will wish to approach these issues with great sympathy and understanding, but I do not think that this could be a worse time at which to change the previously well respected arrangements. I ask the Government to think again on this issue.
Lord Bach: My Lords, we are not changing the arrangements. The PAT will be exactly the same tribunal, but it will be inside the first-tier tribunal. It will have the same make-up each time. It will have its own rules and procedures. It will not be part of a social entitlement chamber. It will continue to do its excellent work. The Government have made a number of concessions on this, owing to the strong representations that have been made. It is quite wrong to suggest that the PAT will be in any way lessened or less effective when it becomes part of the first-tier tribunal.
14 Oct 2008 : Column 593
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, for parliamentarians there is surely no more compelling duty than to act justly to the men and women who, alone in this country, contract with the state to lay down their lives in its service. Is my noble friend aware that this is the motivation of those, most notably the noble and gallant Lord, who have worked so hard radically to improve the statutory instruments as first proposed? Is he aware that they were drafted and in print even before the period for consulting the war disabled and bereaved had expired?
That we have come so far since then is due not least to the constancy of my noble friend Lady Royall in working to facilitate a just outcome. To that end, can we be assured now by my noble friend Lord Bach that the department will be resolving the still outstanding points with all possible dispatch?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said, in particular in relation to my noble friend the Leader of the House, who has, indeed, played an important role in these discussions. I agree with him completely that nothing can be more important than properly looking after and compensating those who are prepared to sacrifice their lives for the rest of us and for our freedoms. I can give him the assurance that he seeks; we are striving to find a way whereby the great services that the PAT has performed for ex-servicemen continue to the satisfaction of both the ex-servicemen themselves and the bodies, including the Royal British Legion, that represent them.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, one is tempted to ask, “If it ain’t broke why fix it?”. May I ask the noble Lord whether the Administration will benefit from the proposed name change—that is how it sounds—or will it be exactly as it was before?
Lord Bach: No, my Lords, the users will benefit. Moving to a unified tribunal means that users will be able to appeal both against the entitlement to an award and against the assessment of an award. In the present PAT there is a right of appeal only against entitlement. Challenges to assessment have to be made by way of judicial review. That is one way in which users—they are, after all, the people who matter—will gain by this change.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords—
Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Lee of Trafford: My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, has said, the Pensions Appeal Tribunals in Scotland and Northern Ireland will remain. Is there any danger of discriminatory treatment with cross-border bases and deployments?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the PATs in Scotland and Northern Ireland have always been legally and administratively different from the PAT in England and Wales. We accept that there is concern that the new arrangements may somehow
14 Oct 2008 : Column 594
Bank of England
2.53 pm
Lord Barnett asked Her Majesty’s Government:
When the Chancellor of the Exchequer last had an official meeting with the Governor of the Bank of England; and what was discussed.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Barnett on his birthday. I wish him a very happy day and express the hope that his supplementary will make me happy, too. The Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly has meetings with the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss a wide range of issues.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind wishes and his not unexpected reply. Has he seen the report in the Times, which occasionally gets it right, that there is tension between the governor and the Treasury? That is perhaps not surprising given his recent views. Is it not hard to believe that the governor is still talking about—or has been talking about—increasing interest rates? I do not know whether he consulted his committee in deciding recently to cut them, which we were happy to see. I hope that my noble friend agrees that we are living in unprecedented times when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister are telling major international banks what to do. Will my noble friend ask the Treasury to tell the governor what to do; namely, to cut interest rates in a big way? That is urgently needed. If he will not do that, will he at least have discussions on the matter?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I knew that I would be grateful to my noble friend. Of course these are difficult times and each of the key actors on the scene of saving the financial system and assisting certain banks has a different viewpoint on the contribution needed in the longer-run economic perspective. My noble friend will appreciate that the Government do and will respect the independence of the Bank of England. It is for the Monetary Policy Committee to reach its judgments. In reaching those judgments, it will take into account the fact that certain aspects that contributed to the recent rise in inflation, particularly world oil prices and world food prices, look as if they have somewhat reduced.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I shall press the Minister further on that point. In the real economy, the biggest single thing that will reduce the depth of the recession is a major cut in interest rates, because that affects both consumers and businesses. Will the Chancellor not only make that case to the governor but remind
14 Oct 2008 : Column 595
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord is well informed. He is absolutely accurate about that aspect of the Bank of England Act. He will recognise that interest rates were cut by half a per cent only a short while ago. That is an index of the concern about the difficult times ahead for the British and the world economies. He will appreciate the extent to which there was co-ordinated action across central banks for the reduction in interest rates. That is the way in which we see the international position improving.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, we completely support the Government in maintaining the independence of the Monetary Policy Committee and we completely resist any calls from the Liberal Democrats to suspend its independence. That is extremely important. May I take the Minister back to a question that he did not answer yesterday? He was asked what the impact would be on money supply and inflation of yesterday’s funding of the banks in the bail-out. Today, we have heard that CPI inflation is now at 5.2 per cent, which is more than two and a half times the Bank of England’s target. Will the Minister, who did not answer the question yesterday, at least say whether the Bank of England’s job is now harder or more difficult following yesterday’s government action?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, these are exceptional times and the Governor of the Bank of England is facing difficulties with regard to his part in the management of the economy. Who could doubt that in these exceptional circumstances? These are circumstances that I had hoped were exceptional enough for us to have a constructive question from the Opposition for a change, rather than constant criticism. Let me make it absolutely clear that, as I have indicated, certain aspects with regard to international inflation are moderating to a degree. When the noble Baroness berates the present rate of inflation, she will know that it is still comfortably below the average of the years in which the Opposition were last in power.
Lord Peston: My Lords, we are indebted to my noble friend Lord Barnett for tabling this Question, which enables me to get something off my chest. We are living through the worst economic crisis in living memory. I looked at the forthcoming business to see when we were going to have a whole day’s debate on the subject, but I looked in vain. We have been badly let down by the usual channels, which I regard as an absolute disgrace. Will my noble friend have a word with our share of the usual channels, to draw that to his attention? Will he point out to him that, if we have such a debate, he will have a rare and rather pleasant experience, as he will hear a number of speakers from this side cogently and strongly supporting the Government?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |