Chamber
Plenary, 15 May 2008
15 May 2008 · S3 · Plenary
Item of business
Free Personal Care
I say to Lord George Foulkes that whatever else the Barnett formula may or may not be intended to do, it is not intended to penalise and punish this Parliament for taking legitimate policy decisions. In respect of my tone and how persuasive I am to members on the Labour benches, Margaret Curran's press release yesterday confirmed that Labour would toe the London line. I for one will be delighted if Labour wants to perform another U-turn, change its mind and stand up for Scotland's interests, but I will not hold my breath.
Lord Sutherland's report confirmed that the policy of free personal care has widespread support and is delivering real benefits to tens of thousands of older people. However, he also confirmed the concerns that both we and local government have raised about the clarity and funding of the policy in its early years.
In my statement to Parliament last week, I set out the Scottish Government's formal response to Lord Sutherland's report. I confirmed that we have accepted in full his 12 recommendations. Specifically, I confirmed that we will make available from next year additional resources of £40 million per year to address the funding shortfall that he identified. Those resources will be reflected in next year's Scottish budget, so I am happy to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment. Both we and local government have agreed that there is a need to ensure that the additional funding will deliver improved outcomes for older people. We will continue to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that that is achieved.
I further advised Parliament that our actions in taking forward Lord Sutherland's recommendations will sit alongside a wider package of measures that we have been developing with our partners in local government. Specifically, we will establish a more open and transparent system that both explains how access to free personal care is managed and ensures greater clarity and consistency in relation to needs assessment and waiting times.
We will improve information for users and carers about what the policy does and does not cover, and we will introduce legislation to stop councils charging for food preparation. In that regard, I understand the sentiment behind the Tory amendment. However, I sincerely believe that if we are to secure the future of the policy, we must get beyond Parliament and local government blaming each other for shortcomings and instead work together to solve the problems and deliver the improved outcomes that I know we all want to see. I am pleased with the positive progress that we and local elected members have made so far towards achieving those developments, and with our commitment on additional funding in place we will continue to work over the next few months to further refine the detail of the proposals.
During the questions that followed my statement, members from all parties reaffirmed the Parliament's commitment to free personal care and made a number of positive comments. Mary Scanlon rightly highlighted the importance of the Government and the Parliament acting to improve public understanding. I was grateful to Ross Finnie for his statement on the wider principles raised by the issue of attendance allowance funding. I also noted Malcolm Chisholm's important observation about the key message that arises from Lord Sutherland's report about the longer-term demographic challenges, about which I will say more later.
Today, however, I will focus specifically on the issue of attendance allowance funding. As members know, following the introduction of free personal care, attendance allowance was withdrawn from people in Scotland in residential care who received personal care payments. That decision was unjust: it was a clear reaction by the United Kingdom Government to a policy that it did not approve of and did not want to be implemented. However, as Lord Sutherland noted, the decision was also anomalous. Attendance allowance is still paid to people who receive free personal care in their own homes and to residents of care homes in England who receive free nursing care payments through their primary care trust.
There are three reasons why we must actively and vigorously pursue the recovery of attendance allowance funding. The first is to right a wrong that financially disadvantaged the Scottish Government and, by extension, the Scottish people. As a result of the United Kingdom Government's decision, the Scottish Executive was forced to set personal care payments for those in care homes at a level that compensated for the withdrawal of attendance allowance. That meant that there was no loss to individuals—the right thing to do—but the Scottish budget bore the brunt.
The savings from the withdrawal of attendance allowance were not transferred to the Scottish budget as they should have been. Instead, they were retained by the UK Treasury and, as a result, the increase in costs borne by the Executive could not be offset. There is no doubt that that contributed directly to the funding gap identified by Lord Sutherland. That is the first reason why the issue must be pursued.
This Government, acting in the interests of our vulnerable older people, will fill that gap, but the Parliament should be clear that that does not mean that the UK Government should be let off the hook.
Lord Sutherland's report confirmed that the policy of free personal care has widespread support and is delivering real benefits to tens of thousands of older people. However, he also confirmed the concerns that both we and local government have raised about the clarity and funding of the policy in its early years.
In my statement to Parliament last week, I set out the Scottish Government's formal response to Lord Sutherland's report. I confirmed that we have accepted in full his 12 recommendations. Specifically, I confirmed that we will make available from next year additional resources of £40 million per year to address the funding shortfall that he identified. Those resources will be reflected in next year's Scottish budget, so I am happy to accept the Liberal Democrat amendment. Both we and local government have agreed that there is a need to ensure that the additional funding will deliver improved outcomes for older people. We will continue to work with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to ensure that that is achieved.
I further advised Parliament that our actions in taking forward Lord Sutherland's recommendations will sit alongside a wider package of measures that we have been developing with our partners in local government. Specifically, we will establish a more open and transparent system that both explains how access to free personal care is managed and ensures greater clarity and consistency in relation to needs assessment and waiting times.
We will improve information for users and carers about what the policy does and does not cover, and we will introduce legislation to stop councils charging for food preparation. In that regard, I understand the sentiment behind the Tory amendment. However, I sincerely believe that if we are to secure the future of the policy, we must get beyond Parliament and local government blaming each other for shortcomings and instead work together to solve the problems and deliver the improved outcomes that I know we all want to see. I am pleased with the positive progress that we and local elected members have made so far towards achieving those developments, and with our commitment on additional funding in place we will continue to work over the next few months to further refine the detail of the proposals.
During the questions that followed my statement, members from all parties reaffirmed the Parliament's commitment to free personal care and made a number of positive comments. Mary Scanlon rightly highlighted the importance of the Government and the Parliament acting to improve public understanding. I was grateful to Ross Finnie for his statement on the wider principles raised by the issue of attendance allowance funding. I also noted Malcolm Chisholm's important observation about the key message that arises from Lord Sutherland's report about the longer-term demographic challenges, about which I will say more later.
Today, however, I will focus specifically on the issue of attendance allowance funding. As members know, following the introduction of free personal care, attendance allowance was withdrawn from people in Scotland in residential care who received personal care payments. That decision was unjust: it was a clear reaction by the United Kingdom Government to a policy that it did not approve of and did not want to be implemented. However, as Lord Sutherland noted, the decision was also anomalous. Attendance allowance is still paid to people who receive free personal care in their own homes and to residents of care homes in England who receive free nursing care payments through their primary care trust.
There are three reasons why we must actively and vigorously pursue the recovery of attendance allowance funding. The first is to right a wrong that financially disadvantaged the Scottish Government and, by extension, the Scottish people. As a result of the United Kingdom Government's decision, the Scottish Executive was forced to set personal care payments for those in care homes at a level that compensated for the withdrawal of attendance allowance. That meant that there was no loss to individuals—the right thing to do—but the Scottish budget bore the brunt.
The savings from the withdrawal of attendance allowance were not transferred to the Scottish budget as they should have been. Instead, they were retained by the UK Treasury and, as a result, the increase in costs borne by the Executive could not be offset. There is no doubt that that contributed directly to the funding gap identified by Lord Sutherland. That is the first reason why the issue must be pursued.
This Government, acting in the interests of our vulnerable older people, will fill that gap, but the Parliament should be clear that that does not mean that the UK Government should be let off the hook.
In the same item of business
The Deputy Presiding Officer (Trish Godman):
Lab
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-1902, in the name of Nicola Sturgeon, on free personal care.
The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Health and Wellbeing (Nicola Sturgeon):
SNP
I welcome this opportunity for members to consider and explore more fully our response to the independent funding review of free personal and nursing care. T...
George Foulkes (Lothians) (Lab):
Lab
Will the member give way?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
No. If Lord Foulkes cares to listen to me for now, I will take an intervention later.When Labour said two weeks ago that it accepted all Lord Sutherland's re...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Will the member give way?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I would be happy to hear Lord Foulkes's explanation of the U-turn.
George Foulkes:
Lab
First, I want to offer a little piece of advice. So far, the cabinet secretary is not being very clever in trying to convince us to accept anything that she ...
The Deputy Presiding Officer:
Lab
I have not discussed the Barnett formula.Mr Foulkes, this is an intervention.
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I say to Lord George Foulkes that whatever else the Barnett formula may or may not be intended to do, it is not intended to penalise and punish this Parliame...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
Lord George Foulkes has had sufficient time to intervene already.The second reason to pursue the issue relates to the point made last week by Ross Finnie. Th...
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
Lab
I will of course explain the substance behind our amendment in my speech. Does the cabinet secretary acknowledge that, in his report, Lord Sutherland recogni...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I hope that the later explanation of Labour's U-turn is better than that pathetic effort from Margaret Curran.The third reason to pursue the issue involves t...
Duncan McNeil (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab):
Lab
Will the cabinet secretary take an intervention?
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I am in my last minute.I agree whole-heartedly with Labour's former First Minister Henry McLeish that the issue should not be a matter of petty rivalries. It...
Margaret Curran (Glasgow Baillieston) (Lab):
Lab
I reiterate what the cabinet secretary said: this debate is indeed important and welcome. I also reiterate what was said last week. We thank Lord Sutherland ...
Nicola Sturgeon:
SNP
I accept the points that Margaret Curran makes. She is absolutely right and has correctly quoted Lord Sutherland. However, he also said that before we review...
Margaret Curran:
Lab
I was just about to address the issue of attendance allowance directly. To some extent, Nicola Sturgeon has made my case for me. In her fairly lengthy speech...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP) rose—
SNP
Margaret Curran:
Lab
I ask Christine Grahame to let me make a point that I need to make.We accept and have argued consistently that the resources should come to Scotland, but I w...
Mary Scanlon (Highlands and Islands) (Con):
Con
We welcome this debate on free personal and nursing care, which is often referred to as the flagship policy of the Scottish Parliament's first session. In mo...
Ross Finnie (West of Scotland) (LD):
LD
The position of the Liberal Democrats remains that one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is how it looks after its elderly. In common with many, we hav...
George Foulkes:
Lab
Will the member give way on that point?
Ross Finnie:
LD
I hope that this intervention will be considerably briefer than the member's earlier intervention. However, I am graciously pleased to allow him to intervene.
George Foulkes:
Lab
Ross Finnie will remember that the UK Government, of which I was a member at the time, made it absolutely clear that it could not make a specific grant to th...
Ross Finnie:
LD
I do not mind entirely accurate recollections but, with all due respect, that intervention was not entirely accurate. I do not think that the then Scottish E...
Dr Richard Simpson (Mid Scotland and Fife) (Lab):
Lab
That is a gross misinterpretation of the Wanless report, the point of which is the need for a broad and strategic review of the policy. Indeed, that is why t...
Ross Finnie:
LD
Ross Finnie might not have got it correct, but he knows that after setting out three possible models, including free personal care for the elderly and a part...
Christine Grahame (South of Scotland) (SNP):
SNP
I congratulate Ross Finnie on his thorough and logical analysis of the issue and support the Liberal Democrat amendment. As those who recall my question to t...
Margaret Curran:
Lab
Christine Grahame must appreciate the argument that I am making today. I am not saying that the attendance allowance issue should not be addressed. My issue ...