Queen's Speech

Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Excerpts

Thursday 3rd June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I add my welcome and congratulations to the new members of the government Front Bench, and look forward to jousting with them both today and next Monday at Second Reading of the Academies Bill. I congratulate also those who have given excellent maiden speeches.

A new political dawn; a new style of government; a new shape to politics; youth at the helm; old ways banished to history; the legacy of previous Administrations overcome, set to rights and relegated to the past; radical solutions called for—I could go on. I am describing 1997, not 2010. Is it the case that things only got better? In one respect at least, clearly not: in one respect, the elections of 1997 and 2010 have a depressing similarity. They both observed a guilty and impotence silence on one of the major issues of the day: demographic change. If noble Lords do not know what that is, they should look around now. We on these Benches exemplify and embody demographic change.

In the campaign, despite the fact that this is a major issue, comparable to that of global warming, there was no significant word from any major party. Noble Lords may recall that, in the early months of this year, there was a flurry, if not of activity, then at least of words about this matter. New initiatives on care of the elderly—one aspect of the problem—burst like bubbles on the surface of a simmering volcano. Much hot air was expended in this House in March, debating a late but ill-conceived government Bill on the subject; but at least and at last, we thought, the matter was back on the agenda. So we turned eagerly to the public debate during the general election that was to follow—and there was nothing. Despite all the hot air and the promises of the importance attached to the topic, there was nothing. That is the first eerie similarity between 1997 and 2010: an issue of major significance kicked into the long grass during the election.

The second eerie similarity is that apparently this is not a matter for discussion in polite hustings society, and certainly not in front of the electorate; and so we had to live with it. However, optimistic as ever, some of us awaited the proposals for legislation in the Queen’s Speech: and our reward was a commission:

“A commission will be appointed to consider a sustainable long-term structure for the operation of social care”.

My first, irreverent thought was, “This is a joke”. My second irreverent thought was, “If this is a joke, I have heard it before, 13 years ago”. The same proposal was made on a major issue: let us have a commission. Perhaps this reminds noble Lords of something. I look at the promise in the coalition document, Our Programme for Government, that the commission will report within a year. The same promise was made—and fulfilled—in 1997; but here we are, 13 years on, back at the starting line. This is incredible. It is also unacceptable.

A group of well meaning and doubtless well minded individuals will consider and report, for that is their remit. What then? There is no promise that the Government will make some decisions, or that a Bill will be presented to this Parliament. We have had groups of well meaning people in significant number over the past 13 years considering and reporting. Even the royal commission and its appendix offered two, or two and a half, solutions. There followed an IPPR report, at least two reports from Rowntree, and two, including Wanless, from the King's Fund. We have had lots of consideration; of considering and reporting there has been no shortage. Of action there has been none—at least none in England.

Do we need a commission? Probably not. Most of the main options for funding are already in the public arena. A competent civil servant could summarise and present them to Ministers within a week. However, if we are to have a commission—which seems inevitable—I will offer two or three proposals for what it could helpfully contribute to the decisions that many of us hope will come out of it. The first—this is a major task to be done in due course—is an analysis of all the streams of funding that go unco-ordinated in to this black hole. This would include the enormous sums already spent by local authorities and the health service on the needs of older people. It would look at attendance allowances, housing benefit, disability benefit and contributions to the cost of care in both cash and kind from private sources and private individuals. These are unco-ordinated and I have no doubt that better co-ordination would produce better care and a more effective use of the resources that we already spend.

Secondly, we could do with an analysis of the policies and practices of the devolved Administrations, each of whom take a different position from that taken in England. If we looked at those, we might learn something both about mistakes and about what works. We also need a plan to integrate health and social care spending across the country. This is the question that we always duck—it is too hard and the civil servants will not like it—but it has to happen if we are to have competent and efficient care. Lastly, as was emphasised in the debates here in March, we need a scheme to enable the portability of benefits from one part of the country to another.

If all this were part of the work of the commission, it would help the Government to lay effective plans to deal with the implications of demographic change. These implications have not gone away in the past 13 years and they will not go away in the foreseeable future. They have to be faced. Despite what some say, I have no illusions about affordability here or, for that matter, in Scotland. I accept that we are in different financial times from those in 1997 and 1998.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister two questions. First, will he give Members of this House opportunities to comment on the remit to be given to the commission? We want to know what it will do. Secondly, can he assure us that the commission will face the big questions and that thereafter the Government will act, whether in agreement or disagreement? We need to move forward; 13 years is too long to wait.