Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Greg Mulholland (Liberal Democrat) 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

Thank you, Sir Michael. I think that I was as confused as you were by the lack of anybody who wanted to discuss the amendment. I want to speak briefly about amendment 18, which the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) wants to press to a vote. We would clearly all support the reablement process in principle, but it has to be done in a way that reassures people that it has not been done unnecessarily and that it is not going to be a burden to people. If it is pressed to a vote, we might need to support it, but we will wait to hear the Minister's comments. Amendment 43 is designed to protect people for whom a medical professional thinks that reablement would not be appropriate. That group would include the terminally ill or anyone on whom the process might have a detrimental effect. The idea behind the amendment is that, although we support the idea of reablement, it must not be possible for a local authority to refuse someone free personal care at home on the ground that that person refuses to undergo a process of reablement if a qualified medical practitioner has said that the process could realistically do more harm than good. We have to acknowledge that, given the huge cost implications for local authorities, there is a possibility that they might seek to push people into undergoing reablement, or repeat reablement, and that they might threaten to withdraw services if an individual refuses to reply. The amendment would give the option of an exemption for those people who, for good reason, feel unable to take part in the reablement process, particularly those who are in possession of a doctor's note or another form of recognised medical advice recommending that that would not be suitable. Making people go through that process could cause them great anxiety or even physical harm. We believe that the measure should be a vital part of the reablement process if we are to have confidence in it, and I reserve the right to push the amendment to a vote at the appropriate time if I do not hear a satisfactory response from the Minister.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
503 c631-2 
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