Care Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anne McGuire and Sheila Gilmore

Monday 16th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

For reasons that might become clear later, I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward). Before the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) drifts away, let me say that his contribution helped to address some of the issues of transition, which can sometimes get lost in this debate.

We should recognise that this issue is not unique to the United Kingdom; it is a challenge that many countries face, and the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) recognised that, even within the United Kingdom, the devolved Administrations are looking at how to develop their own social care policies in the context of their own nations.

I want to recognise, as some of my hon. Friends have done, that the Bill makes some progress, but I also want to assert our right to highlight the areas where we think it is failing. That is the justification for the reasoned amendment. We could get bogged down in parliamentary procedure here, but I think it is the right of the Opposition to highlight major issues that we think should have been addressed without undermining our support for the principle of the Bill. I hope that those who think that we are being churlish will think again. It is the right route for an Opposition. Talking about being churlish, let me put it on the record that I have rarely heard an opening statement from a Secretary of State, moving the Second Reading of one of his flagship Bills, that was so churlish, so partisan and, frankly, so disagreeable.

For understandable reasons, the debate on social care often focuses on older people, yet as we have heard—from the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) as well as from the hon. Member for Bradford East—a third of those who receive social care are actually working age disabled people. We sometimes overlook their needs, rights and aspirations within the wider debate. Too often “social care” and “elderly” go together, and we need to get ourselves out of that mindset, because although they look the same, I think we would all agree that a younger person’s need for support can be quite different from the support needs of those who are older. The emphasis on older people means that the terms of the debate are often not as relevant as they might be to younger people who require social care. They often want to combine that social care with a life that includes work, education and so forth, and they potentially have a different pace and pattern of life from that of older people.

It was to highlight these issues that the all-party groups on local government and on disability launched a joint inquiry to investigate how social care policy, funding and practice can better meet the needs of disabled adults. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) as chair of the all-party group on local government, and Baroness Campbell of Surbiton and myself as joint chairs of the all-party group on disability, were delighted when 10 parliamentarians of all parties from both Houses agreed to undertake an independent inquiry. The hon. Member for Bradford East was involved in that.

That report was lodged earlier this year and I trust that the Minister and my own Front-Bench colleagues have had the opportunity to consider its recommendations. What came out from all the evidence from disabled people, organisations and professionals was that the current system is not delivering on basic things such as washing, dressing and getting out of the house for many younger disabled people. If social care is to mean anything to the lives of the disabled working adult, it should be underpinned by a real recognition of the importance of an independent life. So the criteria of what is important should also include how the care dovetails into other important elements of daily life such as participation in work or education.

I acknowledge that in clause 1 the Government have recognised that promoting individual well-being is not just about care. They also recognise that it is about

“participation in work, education, training or recreation”

and

“social and economic well-being”

and

“domestic, family and personal relationships”.

However, those ambitions will not be realised unless the issue of eligibility is properly recognised and the substantial anticipated savings highlighted in clause 2 creating a preventive care system will not happen either. I fear that the national eligibility threshold in the Bill is currently set too high. In Committee in the other place, that was recognised by peers from all parties and none. It will shut out 105,000 disabled people from social care and prevent them from living independent lives with dignity.

Councils are now moving at a rate of knots towards providing social care only to those with critical or substantial needs. We cannot divorce what is happening in social care from some of the other changes the Government are introducing. We are moving towards substantial care in terms of social needs and we are withdrawing disability living allowance from people with less complex needs. We are perhaps moving to a situation where those with severe and complex needs will be taken care of and supported while those with fewer needs will not be, so there will be a double-whammy in terms of social care and the DLA transfer.

I recognise that the Government have transferred some £2 billion from the NHS into social care and into making the transition easier, but this cannot be seen outwith the context of a 33% cut in local councils’ budgets by 2014 and the chronic long-term underfunding of the social care system. Over the past three years, £2.68 billion has been cut from adult social care budgets, which is 20% of net spending, but the number of working-age disabled people needing care is projected to rise by 9.2% and the number of older people needing care will rise by 21% between 2010 and 2020.

[Sheila Gilmore]

On my right hon. Friend’s list of changes affecting people needing care, does she agree there is also the issue of the independent living fund which has helped working-age people? The Government have lost a court case in respect of their failure to consult properly on that. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should be looked at carefully?

[Mrs McGuire]

I agree with my hon. Friend and I raised that with the Minister in a Westminster Hall debate. The Care Bill does not address the role that the Department for Work and Pensions plays in supporting social care through the benefit system and the independent living fund is a classic example of that. At present, people who can pay for social care through access to the ILF do not know quite what is happening, because the Minister—as I think he said last week at the all-party group—is still considering his options.

I want to echo a comment by the hon. Member for Bradford East—I can assure him that he will not get so many mentions in any of my speeches again. He pointed to something that I think is often missed, which is that the debate often crystallises around the spend, which is not seen as an investment. I acknowledge the work done by Scope, and carried out by Deloitte, highlighting that for every £1 invested in care for disabled people with moderate needs a saving of £1.30 is generated. The figures are pretty staggering. There would be a £700 million saving to central Government through an increase in tax revenue and a reduction in welfare spending. This Government always tell us that they want to reduce welfare spending; well, there are opportunities to do so without doing some of the things that they are doing. There would be a £570 million saving to the NHS and local government, and £480 million would be saved by local government by avoiding the need for disabled people to enter expensive residential and crisis care.

The Minister knows that there is considerable political and organisational support for a lower eligibility threshold. The draft Care and Support Bill pre-legislative scrutiny Committee recommended that, when setting the national eligibility threshold, the Secretary of State should have regard to the duty of local authorities to promote individual well-being. The report of the joint inquiry I have mentioned also highlighted the issue of eligibility.

We in this House often talk as though we are somehow divorced from the beneficiaries of the legislation we pass, but I say to Members that we are talking about ourselves here. Any one of us could walk out of this Chamber tonight and be in need of social care tomorrow. If we want a good social care system, we should ask ourselves this question: what would we want for ourselves if we had a stroke or a car accident or fell down those marvellous marble stairs outside and cracked our head? That is the criteria that we should be using. This Bill makes small progress, but there is a lot more to be done.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Debate between Anne McGuire and Sheila Gilmore

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs McGuire]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there may be an ideological trend in the Government’s philosophy whereby social housing is seen as welfare housing only, and not as homes for many people in our communities?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think we can see a large element of that in this policy.

As many hon. Members have said, if people move to the private rented sector, the housing benefit bill may actually increase. In Edinburgh, the local housing allowance, which is not especially generous, is £114 for a one-bedroom house. Some of my constituents have asked me about moving into the private rented sector. If they move from their two-bedroom council house, for which the rent is £91 a week, into a private rented property, it will cost more. Rather than a saving, there will be an increase in spending.

The vision set out by the Government is of a lot of single people rattling around in big houses with three or four bedrooms. We are asked, “Doesn’t that seem unfair? Why shouldn’t they move on?” In fact, the vast majority of my constituents affected by this tax are not living in especially big houses. It is suggested that people take in a lodger. I visited a constituent—a woman in her 50s who is on ESA, although she has always worked previously. Her home has two bedrooms, although the second is pretty small, and the kitchen is off the living room. Having a lodger is not just about having someone in the spare bedroom; it involves sharing all those quite small facilities with somebody else. While my constituent is sitting in the living room, perhaps enjoying watching television or whatever she enjoys doing in the evening, the lodger will come through the room, go into the kitchen, make a cup a tea and come out again. Hon. Members have to understand the kind of houses people actually live in.

Local councils in particular are making real efforts to mitigate the impact, but there is a downside to that, because this is another example of where savings in general public spending will not be achieved. How is money saved if, as my council will do, local authorities find additional funding to put into their DHP fund because they believe that that is the humane and common-sense thing to do, given all the disruption that various categories of people might otherwise suffer? That is additional public spending, so we will be saving with one hand and spending with the other. Crucially, the saving that central Government want to make will result in councils having to pick up the pieces.

Working-Age Disabled People

Debate between Anne McGuire and Sheila Gilmore

Thursday 25th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Sheila Gilmore]

Unfortunately, the statistics do not yet show a huge change. The latest statistics show a small reduction in the number of successful appeals, but the number is still very high. Statistics always lag back a few months, so it may be that further improvements are still to come, which would be good. It is particularly important that we get this benefit reform right.

Many people, including those in the disability field and Opposition Members, have asked whether there is any penalty of any sort on the assessor for not doing the job as they should. We are constantly told that we cannot have the information because it is all commercially sensitive. I can understand that perhaps being the case during the tendering process, but I am not clear why it is deemed to be quite so commercially sensitive once the contract is awarded. We still do not know. Public money is going to these organisations, so it is important that we have confidence that this time there is a system in place.

The Select Committee’s recommendation was:

“DWP contracts with private companies for the delivery of the PIP assessment”

should

“directly link the payment of public funds to the production of reliable assessment reports that are ‘right first time’.”

Now that the contracts have been awarded, I hope that the Minister can tell us whether that has been done and whether it will be monitored and reported on. Obviously, if the assessments are much better, there will not be many penalties, but we need to know now whether that link has been made. It would give people more confidence in the process.

The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), briefly mentioned contracting. The PIP assessments have been let on a regional basis. In Scotland and the north of England, Atos won the contract, but it appears to be subcontracting to NHS Lanarkshire to carry out the assessments.

If Atos is not doing the work, what is it getting out of the contract? How much of the contract price goes to Atos and how much to Salus? Salus is the not-for-profit arm of NHS Lanarkshire; it does other forms of occupational health work, which is why it was selected. It is not unreasonable to ask those questions. Such arrangements are becoming all too typical in this new world of outsourcing to large, all-purpose, public service, private companies.

We saw it in the Work programme. At the apex are the big boys such as G4S, A4e and Serco. Sometimes they do the work themselves; sometimes they subcontract; sometimes the subcontractors subcontract. At the bottom of the heap some of the sub-subcontractors see little of the payments. That is a major problem.

What are some of those big companies being paid to do? Are they being paid just to put the contract together? Are they just creaming something off the top? They are certainly not shouldering the risk for their subcontractors, because when those get into trouble—with the Work programme, at least—they are not bailed out by the prime contractor. The main contractors do not carry a financial risk of that kind.

We need to know what is happening with the process. The question arises whether it might not have been easier to contract the work in the first place directly to the NHS. If we talk about these things a lot, it is because people naturally think there may be a connection. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) pointed out that in statements that have been made in the past the connection with WCA was made overtly. It is not only we who make it.

The question of targets has been controversial. Atos has said there are no targets in relation to WCA. The Government have vehemently denied that there are targets. However, it now seems clear from people who have worked as health care professionals in this field for Atos—and this came out of the television documentaries in the summer as well—that there are expectations about normal and correct outcomes of assessments. Health care professionals whose performance deviates from those expectations are audited so that their performance can improve towards them. We must ask ourselves at what point an expectation becomes a target, or when there is very little difference between the two.

If there are such expectations, what cognisance will there be of regional variations in ill health—and even variations within regions? Partly because of industrial history, certain forms of ill health are more prevalent in some areas and they are likely to have a greater number of people with certain conditions than others. If there are to be targets or expectations, whatever we may call them, such things must be taken into account. However, since we do not know the guidance, we do not know whether they are taken into account. I hope that they are.

If the Government want people to be more confident about the changes, they must be more open and transparent about them. In the absence of such openness and transparency people reach conclusions, rightly or wrongly, which tend, in modern parlance, to go viral around the disability community. People then get very frightened.

Another aspect of the matter that has, I suppose, come out of the WCA experience, is to do with what kind of assessment is being carried out and the attempt to restrict complex conditions to a simple set of descriptors. The aim from the outset seems to have been, certainly with WCA, to create a system that could perform large numbers of assessments and achieve reliable and replicable results. People have often complained about a tick-box approach, and that seems to me to be a direct result of that attempt.

It is not just bad practice by Atos; sometimes, critics concentrate too hard on Atos and not enough on the underlying system. I think that what happens is inherent in the adoption of what is effectively a computerised test approach. I am sure it was sold to the Government as the IT answer to carrying out assessments. I think that we all know that IT magic miracle cures are often oversold by those who sell them. Before the Minister says so, I know that it was the previous Government who introduced the WCA and the form of test in question. The fact that they turned out to have inherent difficulties should not mean that we should not criticise them and consider whether we were perhaps naive to think an IT solution could deliver all that was needed.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend also accept that the previous Government had already established some monitoring and evaluation of the WCA as it was initially introduced? They did not go for a big bang approach but were going to role it out gradually, so that lessons could be learned.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Certainly the system had been operating for some time before the roll-out to all the existing invalidity benefit claimants, but it is not clear that the evaluation was put in place first. I think at the time we said that as some concerns were being considered, and new ways of doing things were being found, it would have been more sensible to put those changes in place before moving everyone else across.

The WCA experience tells us that IT is a tool, and should never become the master of the process. The computerised test should not be the whole of the assessment process. What comes through loud and clear from Professor Harrington’s report is the importance of seeing the computerised assessment as only a part of the whole. Gathering essential documentary evidence early in the process is important. I often heard the previous Employment Minister say that people come to WCA appeal tribunals with information that was not there in the first place—as if people keep it hidden at home and deliberately wait for the appeal to produce the information. Many of the appellants say that no one asked them for it. Some people have even said that they turned up at assessments with information that was not looked at. We must ensure that information is made available from the outset.

The other important thing, according to Professor Harrington, was that DWP decision makers should not simply rubber stamp the computerised assessment. They should consider the position in the round—look at the documentary evidence and consider the situation again. That change should now be in place for the WCA, and there are signs that that is happening, although when I have asked the Government questions about how many Atos assessments are changed by DWP decision makers, I have been told that the information is not kept in that form. Again, it is quite difficult to know exactly what is happening.

The Minister’s predecessor gave us to understand that the PIP assessment would be very different. In the Government’s response to our report, they said:

“The face-to-face consultation, as part of the Personal Independence Payment assessment, is fully intended to be a two-way conversation between the claimant and the health professional, allowing a detailed exploration of how the claimant’s health condition or disabilities affect their day-to-day lives. The discussion at the consultations should not be mechanistic and should be tailored to individuals. This is being clearly expressed to potential providers as part of the tendering for Personal Independence Payment assessment contracts and will be set out in detail in the supporting guidance for providers and their staff. The guidance will stress the importance of positive interaction throughout all aspects of the assessment. The contract will require assessors to have excellent interpersonal and communication skills, including the ability to interact with people sensitively and appropriately.

The Department is not placing targets on the time required for face-to-face consultations and is making clear to potential providers that consultations will need to be as long as necessary to reach evidence-based conclusions on individual cases.”

That sounds wonderful, and if it happens we will definitely have a much better assessment process than the WCA one that we have criticised. I have a problem reconciling it with the contract approach. Has it been built into the contracts? How will it work? If an assessment on one day, for one person, takes as long as is needed, what happens to the other people sitting in the building waiting to be assessed?

Are those people going to be sent home or asked to come back another day? What effect will that have on the number of assessments carried out? What are the targets or expectations of how many assessments should be carried out each week or month? There is a conflict—a tension, at least—between those hopeful and optimistic words and a contract-based system that has expectations of putting through a large number of people over a short space of time.

The Committee was also concerned about the frequency of reassessments. Although we accepted that there should be more reassessments than previously, we had concerns about how often people should have to go back through that process. It is very stressful and expensive for claimants. Stress can affect people’s health and make them worse rather than better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs McGuire]

The expectation would be that there might be more accurate assessments, but we must also take on board the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who said that the assessment criteria are set not by Atos but by the Government. The issue is how those assessment criteria are interpreted further down the line. We might get better, more valuable assessments, but as the previous Minister said on more than one occasion in this House, the ultimate decision is made by the decision maker in the Department for Work and Pensions, and the criteria are set down by that Department. We must always remember that.

I want to come on to an issue relating to Atos, of which the Minister may or may not be aware. I understand that this afternoon some major disability organisations are up in arms about the fact that Atos has apparently named them in the contract. They did not know anything about it. As a matter of fact, they are incandescent with rage, because their being named in the contract has given the company an element of credibility. In one instance the contract states, I think, that those voluntary organisations are going to carry out the disability training of Atos staff and do various other kinds of partnership work with the company. Someone in one of the organisations has said, “It is difficult to know whether we should fall about laughing, because it is so ridiculous.”

Will the Minister tell us whether Atos named in the contract organisations that it had not contacted? What is happening now that those organisations are challenging the fact that Atos has put them down there? If the contractual system has proved to be flawed, will the Minister say that she will have to review the contracts? We cannot have a situation in which a private sector contractor uses as cover disability organisations in the voluntary sector, when those organisations have not given their permission and have in some instances said that they would have nothing at all to do with Atos.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is all part of the opacity of the contracts? Public money is going out, and we do not know what is in the contracts or, in the case of the subcontracting, who is getting what money and what Atos is even being paid for, if it is getting other people to do the work.

[Mrs McGuire]

My understanding is that the disability organisations involved did not know that they were listed as Atos partners, if I can call them that, until some of the information was published recently. There are serious questions here. I do not know whether the Minister will have an answer this afternoon, but if she does not, I suggest that she might need one pretty quickly, because some organisations are up in arms.

Finally, I want to come on to young people. I note from page 19 of the Government’s response that they still think that the age of 16 is the appropriate cut-off. There is a myth that the changes will have no impact on young people and children, but by the end of the roll-out of the process a 14-year old who is in receipt of disability living allowance now will be affected by the changes brought in with PIP. The previous Minister told me that 16 was the appropriate age because it is the natural point at which a child transitions to adulthood, but I suggest that the Minister reconsider that. The school-leaving age is going up, and I assume that that will have an effect on disabled young people at school. If a child or a young person was moved from a benefit at the age of 16, when they were still going through their school career, they could be in the ludicrous position of having qualified for DLA but not for what the Government have promoted as the tighter benefit of PIP. Young people in what would be fourth year in the Scottish education system—I do not know what it would be in England—should not be put under such additional stress. I suggest that 16 is no longer the appropriate age. The Government have stated that they are considering a transitional arrangement for people aged 16 to 18, and I am keen to find out the Minister’s view on that.

In conclusion, I will quote an optimistic sentence spoken by the Chancellor just before the emergency Budget, which is highlighted in the Hardest Hit report:

“Too often, when countries undertake major consolidations of this kind, it is the poorest—those who had least to do with the cause of the economic misfortunes—who are hit hardest.”—[Official Report, 22 June 2010; Vol. 512, c. 180.]

There is a strong sense out there that disabled people are the hardest hit. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the hon. Member for Battersea is back in her place. I am sure that she will be a great asset to the Select Committee.

In the Hardest Hit report that I have mentioned, the Paralympian David Clarke stated:

“There are hidden costs [to being disabled]. Computing what those costs are is very difficult…but fundamentally they exist. Withdrawal of [that] additional funding to cover those additional costs, if that is being planned, will jeopardise the independence of disabled people.”

Paralympians did wonderful things this summer, but many of them will say that one reason why they could do those things was because of the additional support from something like disability living allowance. I hope that the Minister will address that issue because we need to consider that there are extra costs to disability. PIP will, according to the Government, recognise the people who are most severely disabled and those in the greatest need, but there are people in great need, and people in greater need. No matter how laudable, if we concentrate all the effort and finance on those who are most severely disabled, there will still be disabled people who require some help to meet those additional costs. That is the dilemma the Government face.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Anne McGuire and Sheila Gilmore

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I accept the hon. Lady’s point that the Minister cannot take part in the debate, but I have not observed a great deal of discussion in the wider press, here or in Scotland, to which he has contributed.

The point that I was making, however, is that many Government Members have no practical experience of the position that obtained in 2007. I think that Government Members are inclined to make light of it and to imagine that we are stirring up a storm in a teacup over something that did not really matter, but it was important. It was a bad day for democracy when so many things went wrong with that combined election. Yes, it did have something to do with the design of the forms; I am not going to say that it did not, for the design did not help. However, the real issue in that context, which was addressed after 2007, was the decoupling of the local government and Scottish Government elections, with an arrangement to ensure that that would not happen again. It seems odd to voters in Scotland, and certainly to political activists there, that we are not just returning to the position in which we found ourselves in 2007, but, I would argue, putting ourselves in a considerably worse position.

Although this will not simply be a matter of practicalities, I should like to draw attention to some of the practicalities of which Government Members may not be aware. The boundaries relating to the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster constituencies are now very different. They have moved apart because the number of Scottish constituencies represented here was reduced in 2005. The Scottish Parliament boundaries have been changed very recently. Their size has not been reduced and the numbers have not changed, but there has been a substantial redrawing which, in most cases, has moved them even further from the Westminster boundaries. There are some very strange boundaries, making it difficult for people to understand who represents them and what constituency they are in.

People who live in the southernmost part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) for Westminster purposes will be in Edinburgh Eastern for the purposes of the Scottish parliamentary elections next year. Given that they live in the far south of Edinburgh, they find it quite difficult to fathom why they have effectively been transported to a different part of the city. That will cause not just a potential for electoral confusion, but serious practical problems relating to the organisation of the elections.

Even more important is the blurring and confusing of the real political differences that have emerged since devolution. I am sure that the same applies to Wales, although I probably do not know enough about its politics or history. No doubt my colleagues will rush to enlighten me. Our politics in Scotland, however, have developed very differently. Not many of the political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament take the lines adopted by the coalition Government here.

For instance, the coalition Government have decided that they want to stop funding the building of affordable housing through grants—I assure you that this point is relevant to the debate, Miss Begg—and instead to fund it by raising rents, which means that tenants will pay for the building of their new homes. I am absolutely positive that no party represented in the Scottish Parliament, even the Conservative party, will espouse such a position in Scotland through the Parliament. In the past—although the situation may change—all the parties in the Scottish Parliament have signed up to free personal care for the elderly. At that time a different view was taken at Westminster, and a different view was taken by my party and by others. However, although some might find it surprising, the Conservatives in Scotland have signed up to that policy in the past.

[Mrs McGuire]

In a radio programme that I heard on Friday, a leading member of the Liberal Democrat party in the Scottish Parliament said that in no circumstances would the Liberal Democrats introduce tuition fees. Has my hon. Friend any idea how we could conduct a debate about tuition fees—given the position of one of the partners in the coalition Government, the Liberal Democrat party—while also trying to conduct a debate about funds for students in Scotland, with all that happening at the same time as the two elections?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for that information, and I do not think that Government Members appreciate that aspect. What we are talking about is not a local government election that we might be facing next year or in 2015. The elections we are talking about are not less important than general elections for people in Scotland, because people in Scotland consider the Scottish Government to be the Government of the country for the purposes for which they have powers. They are a Government: they have a First Minister, a Cabinet and a national aspect in the sense that they are the Government in a Parliament that covers the part of the UK that is Scotland. I am not trying to ignore Wales or Northern Ireland at all in this, and the same principles apply to them.

If we respect what we have achieved through devolution, it is important that we do not allow that to be swamped. We have those different debates and policies, and people have their chance to vote differently, which they do—I am not for a minute going to suggest that people will not vote differently on the same day, because I know that that can happen. The genuine ability to separate out these areas of politics and to allow each legislature its real place and presence within our constitution is simply being ignored by these measures. As I have said, it seems to me that there is no reason for that.

[Mrs McGuire]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument on the practical issues. Has she also had time to consider how the broadcasting authorities will maintain some element of balance, as they will have to schedule programmes for two different elections with two different political dynamics—with different parties being in different positions in different parts of the country? Are we not placing an impossible burden on those whom we are asking to implement the legislation currently going through the House?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. Yet again, that is another aspect of a situation that we are creating. Apparently—the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) let the cat out of the bag—this is being done not for any good and strong constitutional reason or because we can argue about the history of the past 200 years, but because it suits this coalition Government to have this Parliament last for five years. It suits them to have this provision wrapped up with the other parts of the Bill, which will be debated later, to try to ensure that the coalition holds together. This is being wrapped up as a constitutional Bill and it is being presented as something that will last into the future but, given our constitution, it is possible for a future Parliament to change that, so we are not entrenching things.