UK Parliament / Open data

Personal Care at Home Bill

My Lords, anybody listening to these debates might find them becoming increasingly surrealistic. There is a debate going on in this Committee between people with real depth of knowledge of this area—I include people like the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, with whom I do not see altogether eye to eye, and also the noble Baronesses, Lady Turner, Lady Murphy and Lady Barker—and Ministers, doing their best to inject a show of conviction into reading out the notes prepared for them by their civil servants, who are themselves trying to inject a note of conviction into defending a policy that has been handed down to them by the Prime Minister and has no intellectual substance behind it, other than what they have managed to cobble together in the few months since he delivered his imprimatur. That came out particularly in the remarks made by the Minister, in saying that this is about getting local authorities to invest in new models of care; it is unfair to expect him to be a great expert on long-term care and it is always great to see him on the Front Bench. Of course local authorities need to invest and to invest heavily in new models of care, but the plain and simple fact of the matter is that they will not have the cash to do so, because they are spending it all on free care for the Prime Minister’s targeted electoral group. That is the reality of the situation. There is no point pursuing this argument further with the Government, save to say this. The Minister said that he was not going to have a Second Reading debate because the House of Commons voted in favour of this Bill. That is perfectly true, but since then, Nick Clegg, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, has this morning announced that they made a mistake in doing so. He has thought it through and—I give him great credit for this—he has changed his mind and is now against the Bill. I hope that he is not the only one. In view of these debates, I hope that before we get to Third Reading the Government themselves may think again about this Bill and see if we cannot yet make this a stepping stone on which a consensus reform could be built. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment 7 withdrawn. Amendment 8 not moved. House resumed. Moved by
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
717 c861 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top