Lords defeat throws free social care for elderly plans into doubt

Plans to provide free care at home for vulnerable elderly people from October were thrown into serious doubt last night as the Government suffered a string of defeats in the Lords.

Peers voted on four occasions to approve amendments to the Personal Care at Home Bill that would have the effect of holding up the implementation of the scheme by at least six months.

The Bill puts into legislation Gordon Brown's plans to provide 400,000 vulnerable elderly people with free personal care in their homes, at an estimated annual cost of £670 million.

Some £420 million of this would be funded by the Department of Health while the rest would be met by local authorities.

The plans were announced to widespread surprise by the Prime Minister at Labour's conference last autumn in the middle of a consultation period on wider reforms to set up a National Care Service.

But with time running out before the general election, which is expected on May 6, the Government will be hard pressed to reverse the defeats and have reacted angrily to the setbacks.

The most explicit move to delay the implementation of the Bill was led by Lord Best, a crossbench peer and President of the Local Government Association (LGA), who highlighted "anxieties" of councils across the country who are having to find annual costs of £250 million during a time of economic turmoil.

His amendment, which was backed by Tories and Liberal Democrats and would postpone the start date of free home care from October 1 this year to April 1 2011 at the earliest, was approved by 208 votes to 127, majority 81.

Amendments by Labour backbenchers Lord Lipsey and Lord Warner, which would also help to delay the were approved by 201 votes to 134 (majority 67) and 171 to 120 (majority 51) respectively.

An amendment moved by Liberal Democrat health spokeswoman Baroness Barker, which would cause the Bill to lapse after two years unless its provisions had come into force, was approved by 125 to 112 (majority 13).

Lord Best told peers: "The anxieties of the local authorities who are being asked to deliver the new arrangements are of two kinds - first there is the worry that they cannot get arrangements to help 400,000 people in a new way up and running in the next few months.

"These are months that will include local and national elections, with possible changes of local leadership and local policies, and which also cover the weeks of the summer holidays.

"And second, local authorities are concerned that their budgets have already been set for 2010-11."

He denied his proposal was a wrecking amendment and the measures in the Bill would simply be implemented at a later date, adding: "No-one wants this to be a shambles on October 1."

Lady Barker said the timing "could not be worse" and she was concerned that large numbers of vulnerable people would not get any help at all. And Tory spokesman Earl Howe said it was "irresponsible" for ministers to dismiss the concerns of councils.

Labour's Lord Warner, a former health minister and director of social services, also supported the amendment, telling peers: "I have to say that in wilfully pressing on, the Government is choosing to ignore sound professional advice from those who have to administer the scheme.

"All this will do in my judgment is create an administrative shambles that damages service users, carers, local authority staff and indeed the Government's own reputation."

Lord Warner's amendment would have the effect of delaying the implementation of the Bill's provisions until ministers had commissioned an independent review into their affordability and laid the results before Parliament.

Lord Lipsey said his proposal, which would require both Houses to vote on a piece of secondary legislation before the Bill's proposals could come into force, was "a belt to go with Lord Best's braces".

He said that it was not a wrecking amendment but would merely cause a delay so there could be further scrutiny of the Government's plans.

"I can't recall in my lifetime an example of a piece of legislation that has so completely caused a British government to ignore the precepts of good government," he said.

Junior Health Minister Baroness Thornton said: "We do not think it right to delay support to individuals because of local implementation issues. What we think is right is to tackle those issues."

She said the Government had listened to the concerns expressed and would allow councils to "phase in the implementation" of free personal care between October 2010 and March 2011.

Outside of the Lords, Care Services Minister Phil Hope said: "David Cameron must urgently explain why his peers have just overturned a Bill that went unopposed by the Tory party in the Commons.

"I'm sure that the families of those vulnerable people who stand to benefit will be bitterly disappointed and this will come as a blow to all the care charities who back this important measure.

"I can assure them all that the Government is more determined than ever to get vulnerable people the help they have been promised and that we will secure this crucial first step in the transformation of the care and support system."

Later analysis of division lists showed that Lord Warner and Lord Lipsey rebelled against the Government on all four amendments, with Baroness Wilkins joining them on the first two.

Speaking outside the chamber, Conservative health spokesman Stephen O'Brien said: "This shows Parliament at its best. The forces of reason have combined across parties to ensure that we can look again at this rushed legislation and make sure that it is affordable and workable.

"We now have a real opportunity to begin the wholesale and real reform of social care which so many people need."

Liberal Democrat Shadow Health Secretary, Norman Lamb said: “This is a humiliating defeat for the Government on a shabby, shameless and short-term measure which would do nothing to heal a social care system in crisis.
 
“This vote marks the death knell of a cynical attempt to buy the votes of older people which would have led to cuts in social services for some of the most vulnerable.
 
“Labour should be ashamed of its failure to deliver a fair long-term care system for elderly people.
 
“We must now get on with the serious business of securing comprehensive reform. All the parties owe it to those in need of care to provide a fair and affordable solution.”