Hansard

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 free personal care exists within the Labour party, both at Westminster and in Scotland. I was astonished to read in the Sunday papers comments from two Labour MSPs to the effect that the commitment to free care should be reconsidered and the definition watered down somehow.

Brian Fitzpatrick, who is not in the chamber, confessed to being "deeply concerned" about the policy. At least he has an excuse, as he was not an MSP when the Parliament unanimously agreed that the Executive should draw up proposals on free care. However, I am not quite sure what Kate MacLean's excuse is—incidentally, she is not in the chamber either. Was she not listening to the debates that took place in the chamber? On Sunday, she said that free personal care subsidises

"better-off people who can afford to pay for their own care anyway."

Really? Does not she realise that anyone who has assets of between £11,500 and £18,500 has to pay towards their personal care at present? Did she consider the position of people whose only asset is their family home or who have managed to struggle to save throughout their lives in order to be wealthy?

The most depressing thing about Kate MacLean's comment about wealthy pensioners is that it misses the whole point of free personal care, which is the very nature of that care. The fact that any one of us, irrespective of our wealth, could require personal care in our later years makes payment for that care out of general taxation the only equitable way in which to resource personal care needs.

Kate MacLean's comments were timely because they reminded us of the need for a clear definition to be enshrined in law. As I said earlier, I am glad that Malcolm Chisholm has given that commitment today. However, a question mark still hangs over the policy on free personal care, in the shape of £20 million. Before Jack McConnell was sworn in as First Minister, he announced a review of that policy because of doubts about the long-term funding of the package. There is a more immediate funding problem that the Parliament cannot simply ignore. The funding package for the introduction of free personal care in April is still £20 million short, because Westminster is insisting on the withdrawal of attendance allowance from Scottish pensioners as a way of punishing this Parliament for pursuing a policy that it disagrees with.

When the SNP raised that issue during our debate on 27 September, we were told not to worry. We were told that the matter was in hand and that the Executive was confident of winning the argument. When I raised the issue with Malcolm Chisholm at the Health and Community Care Committee meeting on 7 November, I was again told not to worry. On that occasion, I was told that Henry McLeish was leading the negotiations with Westminster and that it would all be fine. The following day, Henry McLeish resigned. It has been two months since the SNP first raised the issue in the Parliament, but it appears that we are no further forward. We are still £20 million short of the amount that is needed to implement free personal care next April.

Worse still, we do not know who is leading the negotiations now. At least when Henry McLeish was leading the negotiations, we knew that he was personally committed to the policy of free care. He had staked what was then his reputation on the matter. Frankly, we do not know what Jack McConnell's position is. All we know is that he has announced a review of free personal care. I dare say that he has had other things on his mind in the past few weeks.

That is why it is important that the Parliament takes two steps today, and I am delighted that Malcolm Chisholm has already agreed to take one of them. The first step that we must take is to send a clear message to Westminster that we want the matter sorted out quickly, so that our pensioners can at last have some certainty about the funding of long-term care. It is unacceptable for Westminster deliberately to undermine the will of the Parliament by withdrawing the very benefits that we want to enhance. We should not think twice about saying so loudly and clearly to Westminster.

The second step, which I am delighted that we will be able to unite around this afternoon, is that we should enshrine in law a definition of personal care, so that any minister—present or future—who wants to water down that definition must do so by primary legislation and not by the back door of regulation.

The care development group has already given us the definition that we should use in the bill. That definition would not deprive ministers of flexibility. If they want to enhance the definition, they should be able to do so by affirmative resolution; if they want to water it down, they should have to go through the Parliament's full legislative process. That would be appropriate. The SNP amendment would give us the opportunity to further both those aims.

In the spirit of unity that has brought us to the verge of implementing free personal care, I urge members of all parties to support the amendment.

I move amendment S1M-2247.1 to insert at end:

"but in doing so expresses its concern at the lack of a definition of personal care in the Bill similar to that suggested by the Care Development Group and at the fact that negotiations with Her Majesty's Government over the payment of Attendance Allowances have not yet been successfully concluded."