Chamber
Plenary, 28 Nov 2001
28 Nov 2001 · S1 · Plenary
Item of business
Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill: Stage 1
I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on his appointment. We have known each other for a long time in different roles and I am sure that he will bring to the job his commitment to and passion for health and social inclusion issues.
In the policy memorandum, it is made clear that most of the bill's provisions will have an impact on local government because of local government's central role in delivering social services. I am surprised and disappointed that I am the only member of the Local Government Committee who will speak in today's debate. The Local Government Committee took evidence and fed in to the Health and Community Care Committee's report. Local authorities expressed a number of concerns in that evidence. The minister acknowledged that there are challenges for local authorities in the bill in respect of joint working and resources in particular. I will perhaps address that later.
My colleague Nicola Sturgeon addressed the need for a definition of personal care within the bill. The Local Government Committee also felt strongly that there should be such a definition and the social work directors of Perth and Kinross Council and South Ayrshire Council indicated in their evidence to the committee that there should be a base-line definition of personal care on the face of the bill. I welcome the minister's commitment to introduce an amendment at stage 2, because it would be quite unacceptable if such an important piece of legislation gave to present and future ministers the power to determine by regulation what personal care is. We cannot allow personal care to be a political football that is juggled between health and finance ministers, who will decide by regulation from year to year what constitutes personal care and what does not. Decisions should be made based on what the patient needs, rather than on what can be trimmed to accommodate the budget of the day. I welcome the assurances that the minister has given.
An issue—which is not directly related to the bill and therefore cannot be removed by amendment—that came up in the Local Government Committee is the problem of dual financial assessments. Those assessments will be required as a result of the different levels of capital assessment for income support and for home care. It is absolute nonsense that we should even consider putting elderly and vulnerable people and their families through two different assessments. Not only will that lead to increased stress and confusion, it will—to be frank—be a bureaucratic mess.
Although I acknowledge that benefits and income support are a reserved matter, I would like the Executive to consider with colleagues in Westminster the possibility of a single assessment procedure. I would welcome an assurance from the minister that he will take forward that suggestion as a matter of great urgency.
Local authorities will be pivotal in delivering the social work services and, as many members have said, joint working will present many challenges to the culture, management, structures and accountability of local authorities and health boards. The Local Government Committee heard evidence of good practice out there, but we need to ensure that that good practice is the minimum that is required in joint working.
My view is that much more work needs to be done before we can be confident that joint working arrangements are flexible and secure enough to ensure that the person who needs the service gets the service. We need to stop the turf wars that take place between health boards and local authorities.
Local authorities are also concerned about the resource implications of aspects of the bill. It is vital that the necessary resources are provided to ensure that the bill has the opportunity to make the difference that we know it can make.
The bill will be better when it is amended, but it must not be allowed to fail simply because there is not sufficient money to support it. I give a warm welcome to the bill and the amendments that the Minister for Health and Community Care said that he would lodge. However, it is vital to local authorities and health boards that the resources that are needed to fund the bill are put in place and that they work for the benefit of the people who need the bill.
In the policy memorandum, it is made clear that most of the bill's provisions will have an impact on local government because of local government's central role in delivering social services. I am surprised and disappointed that I am the only member of the Local Government Committee who will speak in today's debate. The Local Government Committee took evidence and fed in to the Health and Community Care Committee's report. Local authorities expressed a number of concerns in that evidence. The minister acknowledged that there are challenges for local authorities in the bill in respect of joint working and resources in particular. I will perhaps address that later.
My colleague Nicola Sturgeon addressed the need for a definition of personal care within the bill. The Local Government Committee also felt strongly that there should be such a definition and the social work directors of Perth and Kinross Council and South Ayrshire Council indicated in their evidence to the committee that there should be a base-line definition of personal care on the face of the bill. I welcome the minister's commitment to introduce an amendment at stage 2, because it would be quite unacceptable if such an important piece of legislation gave to present and future ministers the power to determine by regulation what personal care is. We cannot allow personal care to be a political football that is juggled between health and finance ministers, who will decide by regulation from year to year what constitutes personal care and what does not. Decisions should be made based on what the patient needs, rather than on what can be trimmed to accommodate the budget of the day. I welcome the assurances that the minister has given.
An issue—which is not directly related to the bill and therefore cannot be removed by amendment—that came up in the Local Government Committee is the problem of dual financial assessments. Those assessments will be required as a result of the different levels of capital assessment for income support and for home care. It is absolute nonsense that we should even consider putting elderly and vulnerable people and their families through two different assessments. Not only will that lead to increased stress and confusion, it will—to be frank—be a bureaucratic mess.
Although I acknowledge that benefits and income support are a reserved matter, I would like the Executive to consider with colleagues in Westminster the possibility of a single assessment procedure. I would welcome an assurance from the minister that he will take forward that suggestion as a matter of great urgency.
Local authorities will be pivotal in delivering the social work services and, as many members have said, joint working will present many challenges to the culture, management, structures and accountability of local authorities and health boards. The Local Government Committee heard evidence of good practice out there, but we need to ensure that that good practice is the minimum that is required in joint working.
My view is that much more work needs to be done before we can be confident that joint working arrangements are flexible and secure enough to ensure that the person who needs the service gets the service. We need to stop the turf wars that take place between health boards and local authorities.
Local authorities are also concerned about the resource implications of aspects of the bill. It is vital that the necessary resources are provided to ensure that the bill has the opportunity to make the difference that we know it can make.
The bill will be better when it is amended, but it must not be allowed to fail simply because there is not sufficient money to support it. I give a warm welcome to the bill and the amendments that the Minister for Health and Community Care said that he would lodge. However, it is vital to local authorities and health boards that the resources that are needed to fund the bill are put in place and that they work for the benefit of the people who need the bill.
In the same item of business
The Presiding Officer (Sir David Steel):
NPA
Our next item of business is a debate on motion S1M-2247, in the name of Susan Deacon, on the general principles of the Community Care and Health (Scotland) ...
The Minister for Health and Community Care (Malcolm Chisholm):
Lab
There have been many significant developments in community care in this Parliament's lifetime, and the Community Care and Health (Scotland) Bill marks a furt...
Nicola Sturgeon (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I welcome the new minister to his post and wish him well in the job. I congratulate the two new deputy health ministers, although it is perhaps appropriate t...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
Does the member recognise that all 19 Conservatives voted in favour of free personal care? Will she endorse that fact?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I accept that, but it was the 19 years that preceded those 19 votes that led to me to make that judgment about the Conservative party. The real threat to fre...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
I congratulate the new minister. That he has gone from being a member of the Health and Community Care Committee and back-bench rebel to Minister for Health ...
Malcolm Chisholm:
Lab
I want to point out that that was not correctly transcribed because, if members think about it, what I said was that free personal care could be regarded as ...
Mary Scanlon:
Con
My quote came from the Official Report.Page 67 of the Sutherland report states that personal care"falls within the internationally recognised definition of n...
Malcolm Chisholm:
Lab
I am sure that the member will accept that clinics are hardly an institutional setting. Does she accept that not only the number of visits but their length a...
Mary Scanlon:
Con
I welcome the minister's point about increases in funding, but as I think all members of the Health and Community Care Committee have said, we are looking fo...
Mrs Margaret Smith (Edinburgh West) (LD):
LD
I welcome Malcolm Chisholm to his new job as Minister for Health and Community Care. As Nicola Sturgeon said, that is one of the most difficult jobs in Gover...
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Mr George Reid):
SNP
We move now to open debate. Sir David announced that time would be tight, but some speakers have dropped out since then, so I shall allow up to five minutes ...
Margaret Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab):
Lab
I record my congratulations to Malcolm Chisholm, Mary Mulligan and Hugh Henry on their appointments, and I look forward to working with them in the coming mo...
Tricia Marwick (Mid Scotland and Fife) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate Malcolm Chisholm on his appointment. We have known each other for a long time in different roles and I am sure that he will bring to the job h...
Janis Hughes (Glasgow Rutherglen) (Lab):
Lab
I echo the comments that have been made elsewhere in the chamber and offer my congratulations to Malcolm Chisholm and to the two new Deputy Ministers for Hea...
Bill Aitken (Glasgow) (Con):
Con
When this matter was first debated, there was a consensus that the bill was an important piece of legislation. It is a sad fact that none of us is getting an...
Dorothy-Grace Elder (Glasgow) (SNP):
SNP
I do not know why Bill Aitken is so worried about blank cheques. He knows perfectly well that one has been issued to pay for the new Parliament. Anything tha...
Nora Radcliffe (Gordon) (LD):
LD
I congratulate the new health team, wish them well in their work and pay tribute to Susan Deacon for her contribution as our first Minister for Health and Co...
Irene Oldfather (Cunninghame South) (Lab):
Lab
I offer my congratulations to the new minister and his two deputies. I also extend my good wishes to Susan Deacon. As Margaret Smith said, two of the three m...
Alex Fergusson (South of Scotland) (Con):
Con
I take part in the debate with great personal pleasure. That is partly because, as I am now on the wrong side of 50, I am keen to ensure that as much as poss...
Colin Campbell (West of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I want to reiterate the point made anent the £20 million attendance allowances that are being held back by the UK Exchequer, to which the people of Scotland ...
Ben Wallace (North-East Scotland) (Con):
Con
If Scotland was independent, will Mr Campbell tell us where he would find the £20 million? Whom would he tax to get the £20 million to provide free personal ...
Colin Campbell:
SNP
We have already paid the money in tax to the United Kingdom Exchequer; it is sitting there as part of the totals that we have already paid in. Good try, Mr W...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
If members want their time to be extended, permission will gladly be given on this occasion.
Karen Whitefield (Airdrie and Shotts) (Lab):
Lab
I add my congratulations to Malcolm Chisholm and his two new deputies. I wish them well in their new role. I pay tribute to the work of Susan Deacon, our for...
Mr Keith Raffan (Mid Scotland and Fife) (LD):
LD
I welcome the minister to his new post. When I first became a spokesman on health, there seemed to be at least two health debates a week. I was thrown in at ...
Members:
Go on.
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
SNP
Order. Carry on, Mr Raffan.
Mr Raffan:
LD
A lot has happened since then, not least in the past few days—so that period is almost pre-history. We have come a long way since the Minister for Parliament...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Will the member give way?