---

Personal Care at Home Bill

I respect the hon. Gentleman's position. The increase would be significantly more than that at first. There is a perverse effect that one ought to consider. At a time when public finances are very tight—this is something that the Wanless commission specifically identified—a significant amount of public money is being given to some very wealthy people who could choose to fund at least part of their care themselves. I have severe doubts about whether we would be using public money to the best advantage by giving substantial sums to the very wealthy, which would be the effect of the policy that the hon. Gentleman advocates. We will not divide the House on the Bill; we will support it at this stage to facilitate debate. We will vote with the Conservatives on the programme motion, because it is important that the Bill is fully debated and that there are no time constraints. I shall deal with the origins of the Bill first, and then its impact and where we go from here. The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, made the point that the Bill came out of the blue in the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour party conference. It is stretching language to the extreme to describe it as a bridge to a comprehensive reform of the care system. If it genuinely were a bridge, the Green Paper, which took many months to produce, would have referred to a first bridge to a new system, yet it was entirely silent on this unexpected proposal. The Green Paper was long overdue, but it was deliberative and consultative—it went through the process of consulting all interested parties—and, ultimately, it was quite well received across the health spectrum, and particularly by groups representing those with greatest need. Then the Bill came completely out of the blue. In politics, the most devastating criticism tends to come from people on one's own side, and that is especially so when they have expertise in the subject under discussion. That is true of the comments of Lord Warner and Lord Lipsey on this Bill. Lord Warner said of the proposals:""There has been no proper impact assessment, and no data to show how this would work."" Lord Lipsey was, of course, a member of the royal commission to which the Secretary of State referred. He said:""I think it is a bad policy but also a very bad way to do policy just to find a nice highlight for your Labour Party conference speech."" That is pretty devastating criticism. He also said that it was "a bit of gimmick", and that he hopes that the Prime Minister""will reflect on whether this proposal is in the national interest or merely designed to achieve party political interests.""