---

Personal Care at Home Bill

Indeed. That very good point was made not only by my hon. Friend, but also by the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), who speaks with some authority on these matters. The hon. Gentleman asked the Secretary of State about the relationship with carers and the effect of the Bill on carers. In doing so, he was echoing the sentiments so strongly expressed when the Bill that the present Bill amends was introduced in the House back in 2002. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), made it clear that the purpose of that legislation was to marry care with health and to take into account all the elements that constitute quality care—not merely the information provided by health authorities to those responsible for care, but some calculation of the various individuals and agencies that collectively comprise quality care. I shall have more to say about the 2003 Act, which has been mentioned several times in the debate, and about how the Bill marries with that precedent. There is a legitimate difference between principle and purpose. That is not, as it might seem, axiomatic. The principle on which the Bill is founded—that of care in the home—is shared across the Chamber. The purpose of the Bill, however, is less clear. Its purpose in respect of delivering that principle is—I put it as kindly as I can—questionable, because although the Secretary of State claimed in its defence that it was paving legislation, when challenged repeatedly through interventions and by the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen, he conceded, quite generously and certainly openly, that further legislation would be required. Indeed, he spoke of "a major reform" being necessary, but he made no attempt to suggest that this Bill was that major reform; he said merely that it anticipated the major reform that was essential to satisfy the principle and to deliver the objective that all Members share.