My Lords, I am usually extremely complimentary about the noble Earl’s replies to debates, but I do not think that he lived up to his normal standards in that one. He seems to be under a number of illusions. He seems to think that this Bill increases the amount of public spending that goes to the worse off, rather than the better off. It does not. The Bill incorporates what is a most extraordinary priority in terms of distribution, for reasons that I believe to be compelling. Concentrating money on those most in need may indeed be the Government’s general philosophy, I do not know, but this certainly is not implicit in this Bill.
The noble Earl seems to say that if you do as I suggested on the nursing care allowance, you would increase spending by the NHS. The exact reverse is the case. The nursing cost allowance is paid for by the NHS. I am subject to correction, but I believe it to be paid for by the NHS, so you would have an immediate reduction in NHS spending of some £500 million-plus a year.
9.15 pm
On the final point that I am raising now—I could go on at considerable length, but then I already have—it is true that there would be a cliff edge under my proposals. That is not as attractive as the Dilnot steadier slope but, if you have got just above £118,000
and therefore are having to pay for your care, it will not be long before you are at the £118,000 and start receiving means-tested support. However, under his proposals you will not receive much means-tested support because straightaway the tariff will be taking it from you. Under my proposals you will be receiving, as the Minister said, about an extra £200 week as soon as your assets are depleted to that £118,000 level which, as the Government have rightly said, is the amount of money you should be able to hang on to.
I understand that it is difficult reopening at this point matters of this complexity. I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, that the Dilnot inquiry could not consider everything in depth in the time that it had. It is a remarkably consistent and logical piece of reporting. I am not, however, convinced that the Government have come to grips with this or other alternatives as they should have done in their consideration of Dilnot. As there was this great grappling match between the Treasury and the Department of Health as to whether to do Dilnot at all, not surprisingly some of the detail has fallen between the cracks.
I would have been astonished if the Minister had said, “Yes, I buy these proposals” straight out, but he should give further consideration to them and variants on them. This could be done on a lesser scale—you could have a smaller increase in the personal care allowance or different changes to the nursing care allowance—but he should give the matter further consideration between now and Report, not so that he can come up with arguments provided for him which would appear temporarily to be enough to satisfy the House but—I know he genuinely wants to do the right thing with this Bill—to satisfy himself that the Government are achieving the objectives he set out at the start of his speech. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.