My Lords, we have reached the stage where everything has been said and everyone has said it, so I shall try to be as brief as I can. My first duty is a very pleasant one: to welcome my noble friend to our Benches as a full Member of the House. She said that she had no inspiration to work in the Whips' Office. Wearing my Whip's hat, I can say that she is one colleague who it will take a little time to drag in to do dogsbody work, but we have not given up on her yet.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, mentioned, the Bill builds on best practice. As with many areas of legislation, there has been a snowball effect in that as we deal with one set of problems we realise that there are others, and we have only dealt with them in half measures because we have not opened them up before. With this legislation the snowball has grown and is moving faster. I hope that the legislation will attract better things to it. If it is properly enforced, we will know exactly what is going on.

The Bill contains three big clauses. The first relates to carers' right to an assessment, and informs them that they have that right. Information is power. I am fairly sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathly, will agree with me on this. The first time that I heard her speak, I made an incorrect assumption and she disagreed with me, but that was a long time ago. All voluntary bodies tend to spend their time telling people what their rights are. Any such organisation will spend hours telling people, "You can do this; you can have that". Ensuring that an official tells individuals that they should have something done for them is a huge step forward. It is definitely best practice.

The Government attempt to embrace such an approach in many respects. The one-stop shop for social security is an idea aimed at conveying information to people; for example, to ensure that they stop underclaiming, that they know what they are doing and that officials know what is going on. That is vital to ensuring that the Government do not waste vast amounts of time in putting unenacted legislation on the books and putting aside budgets that are not used. If ever there were a good start to a Bill, this is it.

Clause 2 aims basically to enable carers to lead a normal life. The fact that someone is a carer does not mean that he or she should resort to the self-sacrifice of a Victorian melodrama. We do not want that; we want carers to be normal individuals with caring responsibilities. Society owes carers a big thank you for taking on those responsibilities; they should be given as much support as possible. The idea of leisure is another great step forward: if carers cannot work because of their responsibilities, they should be allowed to go out a couple of nights a week to pursue a hobby. If a person is not emotionally stressed, drained and driven into the ground, he or she will probably provide better care for longer. The long-term cost implications are favourable to the Government; everything dictates that they are.

Clause 3 relates to co-operation between authorities. What more can we say? How many of us have spent hours belabouring the Government because departments do not talk to each other. The Chinese walls set up by command structures, and so on, have stopped so much legislation, without many good intentions coming to anything. From the point of view of the development of legislation generally, but particularly in this field, if we manage to introduce a model that will force departments to work together and to take account of each other's guidance, it could do a huge amount for the efficient running of government and its change. I would welcome the inclusion of such a provision as a standard clause in a lot of legislation; it would be a very good idea.

I shall try to summarise our attitude to the Bill. It is a good idea; it builds on best practice. It should have happened ages ago—almost a pre-requisite for any social legislation to reach Parliament. I wish it well. I hope that it is enacted quickly and that its good ideas are enacted with all speed.