Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Phil Hope (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 12 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Personal Care at Home Bill.


Personal Care at Home Bill

That is even more intriguing. We are seeing the policy crumble as the hon. Gentleman speaks. There has been talk of consensus, although the hon. Member for Eddisbury has spoken about how he has not been involved in any such discussion. However, it is a little tricky to try and build consensus when the Opposition decide to run an underhand and irresponsible campaign on their website suggesting that the Government are intending to cut attendance allowance and disability living allowance for older people. That is simply not true, yet the Opposition continue to run their campaign. It is a form of politics that generates anxiety, uncertainty and fear among older people, and does not fit with the party's claim to be compassionate and progressive. If they carry on with such scaremongering, the Opposition will build no consensus with Labour. If amendment 12 is a probing amendment, I do not understand the impact that it might have on particular groups. I have made it clear that the intention underlying the Bill is that people with the highest care needs should be supported to live at home. I want to make it clear that we think it is important that adults who are part of an adult placement scheme do not miss out on this opportunity, so it is important to make it explicit, even if we do not do so with a broad set of regulations that the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) would welcome, that for the purpose of the Bill, adults on an adult placement scheme, who are often adults with learning disabilities who live with another family, are to be considered as living at home. In our opinion that is the only situation that is required to be excepted from the six-week restriction on the free provision of personal care in accommodation where care is provided as an integral part of that accommodation. In other situations, it should be clear that people are living either in accommodation where care is provided as an integral part of that accommodation and are not eligible, or are living at home and may qualify for free personal care. So to give the Secretary of State further regulation-making powers, as described in amendments 11 and 12, although attractive, is unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Eddisbury to withdraw his amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c597-8 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Community care Capital rules Chronic illnesses Fees and charges Human rights Eligibility Home care services Means-tested benefits Sheltered housing Social services
Legislation
Personal Care at Home Bill 2009-10
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk