Jackie Baillie (Dumbarton) (Lab): I think that that is truly wonderful, Presiding Officer, but I am not sure whether the rest of the Parliament necessarily agrees—[Interruption.] I hear Alex Neil from a sedentary position performing as the pantomime dame, which he does so well in the chamber.

I will start with something that Alex Neil said. In all the heat of the debate, we need to remind ourselves of the scale of the challenge that we face. Scotland's 65-plus population is projected to rise by 21 per cent by 2016 and 62 per cent by 2031. For those who are 85 and over, the projected rise is 38 per cent by 2016 and 134 per cent by 2031. I look forward to seeing many of my colleagues in that age group.

Not only are those statistics staggering in nature, but they represent a huge challenge for us as policy makers here in Scotland and across the UK. Just as the debate has been initiated in Scotland so it has also, rightly, been initiated across the UK, hence the green paper, "Shaping the Future of Care Together". We need to work together to meet the challenges and to maximise the opportunities that arise from a growing elderly population. The challenge is no different in Scotland than it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The SNP Government contends that somehow it has not been consulted, but I know that there has been regular dialogue between both Governments. These things go on, ordinarily, behind the scenes. They are about the smooth running of Government; it is essential that they occur. The Scottish Government should consider its answer to a question from Johann Lamont on the very issue of the consultation. The answer was made by Shona Robison who said:

"A high level, policy-based response to the UK green paper, Shaping the Future of Care Together, is being drafted by the Health and Community Care Delivery Group. The membership of this group includes the following organisations: COSLA, Association of Directors of Social Work, City of Edinburgh Council, Perth and Kinross Council, NHS Dumfries and Galloway, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde, NHS Lanarkshire, NHS Lothian, NHS Health Scotland and the Care Commission. The draft response will be signed off jointly by Scottish ministers and COSLA.

The UK Department of Health has an extensive interactive consultation running on a dedicated website. Any individual or interest group in the UK can post comments and responses to the consultation up until it closes on the 13 November. I understand that Scottish voluntary organisations are fully aware of the paper and that some of them may be responding to the consultation."—[Official Report, Written Answers, 29 October 2009; S3W-27948.]

The response is helpful. It shows on-going dialogue not only between officials but at ministerial level and between organisations across Scotland. Guess what? The Scottish Government appears to have made a submission. I say "appears" because I had some difficulty finding it—more of that in a minute.

I say to Sandra White that I would take a dim view if the UK Government were to consult on the future of care services. The last time that I looked, care services were devolved. They are a matter for this Parliament and for us to consult on.

Sandra White: Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie: No, I will not.

Sandra White: Will she take an intervention?

Jackie Baillie: Hold on a second.

I welcome the fact that Shona Robison is consulting on the matter. That is absolutely the right thing to do. It will ensure that we have the right approach in Scotland and that we feed into the process. Before collective amnesia sets in, I am sure that the minister will have the good grace to accept that there has been, and continues to be, substantive consultation on the matter, including on a range of issues. The point is an important one.

I am disappointed that the Scottish Government appears not to have published its response. I hope that Alex Neil will give a commitment to do that. I managed to obtain a copy of the letter that the minister sent to the UK Government, although I am not sure that it is the accurate, final version. Not surprisingly, in the letter, the minister is considerably more measured in tone. He says:

"We fully recognise and respect the need for a long-term review of social care and support ... there is a need to explore options for potentially radical changes to the long-term funding of care and support in the UK to ensure that it is 'fair, sustainable and unambiguous'".

That is right, but it is important that members know about, debate and contribute to Scottish Government proposals.

In his contribution, Alex Neil outlined the scale of the challenge that we face, just as I did at the outset of my speech. However, he did not say how we will meet the challenge, what services people can expect and how we will pay for them. I would have much more respect for the minister—as I would for many members in the debate—if he had come to the chamber to outline what he will do about the postcode lottery of services for older and disabled people in Scotland. He should also have said how we will deal with the challenges that we face in all our communities across Scotland. Will he tell the chamber why, for the same service of equal quality, someone in one local authority area is paying £30 a week while someone in a neighbouring area is paying £300 a week? Why are people who are desperate for a direct payment languishing on waiting lists, which are growing? Those are the real challenges for which I accept responsibility; the Scottish Government, too, should do so.

I say to Jackson Carlaw that the Labour Government has led the debate on the implementation of the personalisation of care. We recognise, as the member did in his contribution, that services do not define people: personalisation is much wider and is about how people live their lives. That remains at the heart of our proposals for care of older people and those with disabilities. It is incumbent on all of us, irrespective of party, to come up with proposals to meet such future challenges.

As ever, Alex Neil mounted a robust and loud defence of attendance allowance. Many of us come to this debate recognising absolutely the value of the attendance allowance and the disability living allowance to those who are older and have disabilities. Members are right to note, as David McLetchie did, the difference between a green paper and a white paper. It is early days, and a range of options are being considered. I believe that the UK Government has made its position clear. However, I am astonished at the level of quite disgraceful scaremongering that is coming out of both the Tories and the SNP. I pay tribute to Jamie Stone for his measured speech, in which he made the point that we should not scaremonger on this issue because we are affecting directly the real fears of people who are in receipt of benefits.

The Secretary of State for Health has ruled out categorically using DLA for under-65s and has made it absolutely clear that those who are currently receiving attendance allowance and those over 65 who are receiving DLA will continue to receive an equivalent level of support and protection in any reformed system.

David McLetchie: Will the member give way?

Jackie Baillie: Not on this point, as I want to deal with a comment by Bill Kidd. I am sorry that he is not here, because I want to acknowledge that he has a real commitment to the issue and to say to him respectfully that no decisions have been made. I expect the UK Government to reflect on people's concerns—concerns that have been expressed in many different ways, not just in the chamber but outwith it.

The SNP position is inherently dishonest. I would like the minister to address the issue of why, quite explicitly, councils across Scotland are increasing charges for care services. Helen Eadie highlighted the situation in Fife. I offer West Dunbartonshire as another example. Some people in receipt of care services there may now pay as much as £30 per week more—each and every week. Those are people on low incomes. The target is, quite explicitly, people's additional incomes, such as attendance allowance and disability living allowance. Councils are looking to levy charges on those in receipt of benefits to pay for services. Will Alex Neil stop that practice? He argues that it should not happen at UK level, but it is happening right now, on his watch, in local government in Scotland.

Then we had Bob Doris. I always listen to him with interest, because he never disappoints—he has a single transferable demand for independence. If we have independence, everything will be rosy, but there was not one word about how the SNP will deliver for Scotland's older people.

I have spoken at length and am grateful for the time that I have been given. Finally, I would like to comment on the tenor of the debate from some members on the Scottish Government benches, which has been extremely disappointing. Elaine Smith made an informed contribution when she said that scaremongering from whatever quarter must stop. She is absolutely right. Conducting the debate in the way in which we have seen it conducted by some members this afternoon diminishes the MSPs concerned and the Parliament, and ends up generating an awful lot of heat and very little light. It might have been a better use our time today to debate how we can meet the challenge and opportunities that are presented by the significant increase in the number of older people in Scotland. Scotland would have thanked us for that.

Official Report Thursday 14 January 2010 - Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance