Attendance Allowance and Disability Living Allowance
The next item of business is a debate on motion S3M-5515, in the name of Alex Neil, on attendance allowance for people with disabilities.
It is worth beginning by reminding ourselves of the importance of attendance allowance and disability living allowance to our older people. Attendance allowance is paid to approximately 1.58 million elderly people across the United Kingdom, including more than 150,000 in Scotland who need help throughout the day, during the night or both. It is a tax-free benefit for people aged 65 or over who need help with personal care because they are physically disabled or mentally ill. Of those 1.58 million people, two thirds are aged over 80. Attendance allowance is not means tested, and it is usually awarded without a medical examination. It is paid directly to claimants who may spend it on whatever they like. The current higher rate of attendance allowance is £70.35 per week, and the lower rate is £47.10 per week.
The vast majority of people who receive the benefit do not currently receive formal care from their local authorities. The amount that is spent in Scotland is of the order of £420 million, which does not include the £30 million that the United Kingdom Government cheated us out of when we introduced free personal care. The care component of disability living allowance is paid to another 2.3 million disabled people—mostly non-elderly people—who meet the same conditions or who need help for part of the day or cannot cook a meal. In Scotland, the figure is 330,000 claimants, 250,000 of whom are under 65 and the balance—80,000—are over 65.
At UK level, the benefits cost £9.2 billion a year, £1.1 billion of which is spent in Scotland and £300 million of which relates to people aged over 65. When those benefits were first introduced under different names in the 1990s—to be fair to the Tories, that happened under a Tory Government—the rationale was simple: disabled people, especially those of working age, typically have lower incomes than non-disabled people, and disabled people of any age face additional costs of living that leave them and their families worse off than non-disabled people with similar incomes. Attendance allowance and disability living allowance were originally intended to contribute to meeting those extra costs and were not specifically to pay for care. In other words, they were an anti-poverty measure for disabled people, including elderly disabled people.
The potential impact of withdrawing the benefits is frightening. A recent analysis by the Institute for Social and Economic Research in London, a highly regarded organisation, predicted that the removal of attendance allowance would mean that 40 per cent of current recipients would fall below the poverty line. Across Scotland, that would mean more than 67,000 of our most vulnerable people being forced into poverty by a Labour Government. In the constituency of Pollok in Glasgow, which I have picked at random as an example, the number of attendance allowance recipients is 2,900. If the proposals to remove the allowance were implemented, 1,160 of those people would be forced into poverty, which is a disgraceful situation in that already poor constituency.
The story does not end there, because if the ill-thought-out and daft proposals go ahead, they will impact not only on attendance allowance and disability allowance, but on carers allowance. At present, receipt of attendance allowance by disabled people is one of the grounds for receipt of carers allowance by the carer. Ending attendance allowance will therefore make it harder for carers to receive financial support. There are currently—
Will the minister take an intervention?
Of course.
I am grateful. If the minister and the Scottish National Party feel so strongly about the issue, why is it that only one member of the SNP attended the big debate on the issue in November last year and made only a brief three-line intervention? Has the Government responded to the consultation paper on the proposals and, if so, might we have a copy of that response?
Rather than deal with that petty point, I ask Helen Eadie why her colleague, the member of Parliament for Kirkcaldy—one Gordon Brown—is the author of the proposals. He is letting down all the poor people in Scotland and south of the border.
As I was saying before I was so unwittingly interrupted, 46,300 people in Scotland currently receive carers allowance and could lose that crucial support in order to pay for social care in England.
Let us look again at the numbers for Pollok, which I have selected at random. The number of people in the Pollok constituency of Glasgow who could lose their carers allowance under the Labour Government proposals is 960. That is a disgraceful situation. It is incredible that an anti-poverty measure introduced by a right-wing Tory Government might be abolished by an even more right-wing Labour Government in London.
Many of the proposals originate in the Wanless report that was commissioned by one Gordon Brown in 2006. The report recommended that disability benefits that are paid by the Department for Work and Pensions should be reduced to release money to pay directly for social care in England. That is completely different from the situation in Scotland. Despite what Johann Lamont's amendment says, as already pointed out by SNP MPs and MSPs, the Tory spokespeople and the Liberal Democrats' Norman Lamb, the Wanless proposals take no account of the situation outside England. There has been no discussion, no consultation and no commitment on what will happen to what are supposed to be UK benefits in the rest of the United Kingdom if they are to be abolished south of the border.
Would the minister care to describe that as a union dividend?
I will not rise to that. I am never one for reducing debate to such partisan positions.
I not only refer to the Conservatives and the Liberals but invite members to consider the serious comments that were made today by Inclusion Scotland, which said that it
"continues to view any attempt to withdraw individual entitlement to Attendance Allowance or Disability Living Allowance from disabled people as threatening their financial independence and being completely at odds with the principles of Independent Living. That is a view arrived at through consulting widely with our local member organisations, and individual disabled people throughout Scotland, who are vehemently opposed to the changes in entitlement suggested in the Green Paper, ‘Shaping the Future of Care'."
Similar sentiments have been issued by many other groups, including the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland and the Scottish Association for Mental Health.
As many members are aware, we are engaged in a major programme of work in Scotland to reshape our care of older people. We have already debated the subject in this Parliament. That is important because by 2016, the number of people in Scotland aged over 65—which might even include me—is projected to rise by 21 per cent, and by 2031, the rise is projected to be 62 per cent. For those over 75, the figures are 21 per cent and 81 per cent. We estimate that slightly over 40 per cent of total spending by the national health service in Scotland and social work services is on older people.
The philosophy of our measures and their intent are twofold. They are, first, to prevent our elderly population who need those benefits from getting into poverty. Secondly, they are to allow them to manage their own money through independent living and not have it dictated to them by bureaucrats in local authorities the length and breadth of the country.
The Labour Party has paid lip-service to independent living, but if the proposals go ahead, they will put paid to independent living and they will drive tens of thousands of our older people into dire poverty both north and south of the border.
I move,
That the Parliament notes that the UK Green Paper, Shaping the Future of Care Together, published in June 2009, may have long-term implications for vulnerable older and disabled people in Scotland who are eligible for attendance allowance and disability living allowance as it proposes to remove the universal benefits of attendance allowance and disability living allowance and instead redesign the benefit system to meet English social policy objectives and redirect funding to pay for the provision of a National Care Service in England, while failing to give adequate consideration to the position in Scotland, and calls on HM Government to consult fully with the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, local authorities, NHS boards and other interested parties before proceeding any further.
I come to this debate more in sorrow than in anger—which reflects the dispiriting instinct of the party of Government to do what it does best, an example of which was embodied for us in Alex Neil—not because of the critical issues around care of the elderly, which all of us throughout the UK need to address, but because, again, the Scottish National Party is talking about what others are doing, rather than what it will do. It is settling for a bit of misrepresentation, coupled with a touch of scaremongering, mixed up with that signature SNP approach of a trumped-up feeling of self-righteousness. That demeans this Parliament and those throughout the UK who are exercised by and concerned about the issues at hand.
What we have from Alex Neil is a non-debate about an imagined slight by the UK Government in a Parliament that, with the SNP, is becoming characterised as having a lack of real engagement with the key debates and anxieties of the day. More and more decisions are being taken away from this Parliament and priorities are determined by the ability of ministers to make decisions away from the Parliament, which is reducing it to a place where politicking is the only thing that really seems to matter and where we rather get the sense that ministers are more exercised by identifying alibis than by developing solutions.
This is a week after a number of long cold weeks in which the Scottish Government showed its extraordinary inability to act in the face of the national emergency that was caused by the severe weather by failing to act in the interests of vulnerable and elderly people who were trapped in their own homes. The most striking feature of the discussion and the debate on that issue was the fact that ministers had obviously not even thought about it and saw no role for themselves in co-ordinating the response as the extent of the problem emerged. Given the Government's default position of talking and not acting, that was perhaps entirely to be expected. Far from caring about older people when it really mattered, the SNP Government was complacent, defensive and absolutely lacking in leadership.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Is the member speaking to the debate?
I am aware of what Ms Lamont is saying and I am having a look at it. Ms Lamont, just keep your eye on what you are saying.
I certainly am speaking to the debate, rather than to the nonsense that Alex Neil mentioned. Last week, John Swinney was unable to defend his lack of action and the inexplicable and damaging silence of his health colleague Nicola Sturgeon. He claimed that I had missed the mood, but he was wrong. [Interruption.]
I am sorry, Ms Lamont, but there is another point of order.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. Again, I need to ask whether the member is speaking to the debate at all. She is talking about the weather.
I am aware of that. Ms Lamont has been speaking for just under three minutes. I am sure that Ms Lamont is aware that this is a debate on attendance allowance and I am quite sure that you will find that she will come to that. If she does not, I will deal with it.
The contention is that at a UK level we are moving to deal with the attendance allowance to the detriment of older people. I simply make the point that we have a Scottish Government that is comfortable talking about that, but which will not address its own failings during the recent, and current, emergency in relation to cold weather. I hope that the Scottish Government will consider appointing an older person's champion for that purpose.
It is important to listen to groups on these matters. I will outline the context—for me—of the debate, explore some of the key issues and perhaps identify a number of areas for action by the Scottish Government. If the Scottish Government believes that there is an issue with what is happening at UK level, I am sure that it is more than capable of drawing together the views of the people of this country and representing them. It does not require a motion of this Parliament to do so.
Indeed, the SNP's own Minister for Public Health and Sport has already made a commitment to making a joint statement in response to the green paper. The SNP knows as well as I do that there is no decision on action. I assume that it understands the status of a green paper. The Scottish Government has said that it has developed a response. Perhaps the substance of the debate could have been the Scottish Government's response. We could have discussed that, rather than a theoretical position and its view of something that has not yet been implemented.
There are obviously those—
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me make this serious point. It is obvious that some people are concerned about the implications of some policies that the green paper outlines. The consultation is the place to explore those anxieties.
Will the member take an intervention?
Let me finish my point.
Joe FitzPatrick has spoken—he should sit down.
Order. Could we have the member who is making the speech speaking?
The Scottish Government has misrepresented the debate about attendance allowance and has categorised it in one way, so it finds it difficult to deal with somebody who wishes to explore seriously the policy's implications.
The reality is that green papers are used in the way that the document that we are discussing has been used. It is understandable that ministers wish to consult on potential approaches without being obliged absolutely to pursue them. Shona Robison understands that. When challenged on the fact that the voluntary sector had not been involved in her policy on elderly care, she said:
"it would be dishonest for us to go out with a blank sheet of paper and say to people, ‘What do you think?' We need to be able to put down some ideas to gauge and guide that discussion, and that is the stage that we have reached."—[Official Report, 28 October 2009; c 20547-8.]
Shona Robison understands the role of a green paper. She makes it clear that the Government's responsibility is to shape debates and test ideas. That is what consultations are for.
The UK ministers involved have made it clear that they are continuing the process and that nothing has been decided. The motion implies that no discussion has taken place—
Will the member give way?
I am now addressing the motion—[Interruption.]
Order.
The trouble with SNP members is that they think that shouting something loudly makes it true, but what has been said is not true. The debate is serious and people deserve to have it taken seriously, so let me continue.
The motion implies that no discussion has taken place and that Scotland will not only suffer as a consequence of the proposals—
Will the member take an intervention?
Order. It is clear that the member is not taking interventions.
The minister made even more explicit the implication in the motion that Scotland will somehow lose funding, which will be directed to care in England. That is why the motion calls on the UK Government to consult.
Consultation is, of course, good. In our debate on elderly care in October, Shona Robison, the Minister for Public Health and Sport, said:
"We are, of course, also working with the United Kingdom Government in the light of its green paper ‘Shaping the future of care together'. Given that any changes to the benefits system, particularly attendance allowance, will have profound implications for the way in which social care is delivered in Scotland, that dialogue is important."—[Official Report, 28 October 2009; c 20548.]
We recognise the challenge of the issues. According to Shona Robison, dialogue is taking place and the Governments are working together. I am therefore curious to establish what today's debate is about.
The Westminster Government has rebuffed the argument that the proposal will involve a reduction in the moneys that are available to support people's care. The Minister for Housing and Communities should have confirmed that that commitment was made. The UK minister has said that using disability living allowance for under-65s has been categorically ruled out and he has made it clear that those who receive attendance allowance and over-65s who receive DLA will continue to receive an equivalent level of support and protection in any reformed system.
The minister must be aware that a key issue that drives the debate has been the examination of how a national care service for England might be created. We might wish to—I agree that we should—interrogate the implications of that for Scotland. However; we might as seriously ask why the Scottish Government has nothing to say about minimum care standards, a fair charging regime—for which attendance allowance is used—and the reasonable expectation that charges and the care service should be the same wherever people are in Scotland.
From work that Jackie Baillie and others have done, we know that the charging regime varies widely throughout Scotland. It is suggested that the quality of care is as varied. How does the minister propose that we address that problem, given that any consideration of single outcome agreements reveals a lack of priority for the needs of elderly and disabled people?
I welcome Nicola Sturgeon's invitation today to a meeting to discuss those serious issues, but it is depressing that the minister does not recognise their significance, too. What is the Scottish Government doing to develop meaningful self-directed care? I am very committed to the idea of personalised budgets, but it sits ill with any commitment when waiting lists for direct payments are growing and when it is feared that care in Edinburgh is being categorised artificially to reduce support levels.
This is a critical issue. Indeed, it reflects the concern of many that self-directed care is not being developed. The lack of confidence among people who need support and those who care for them is reflected in much of the anxiety about the possible ending of the attendance allowance and the use of the money to develop care packages. That anxiety remains even when the Government has given the assurance that doing so will not mean a diminution in the level of support.
Carers and people who use the services are anxious that none of us is serious about self-directed support. The minister has to answer these questions. Why are there waiting lists for direct payments? Why are payment levels being reduced so that people cannot direct their own care? I am interested in hearing what the minister has to say on the action that is being taken in the concordat to encourage the process. Will there be a step change in services for older people?
I am also anxious to highlight concerns that have been reported to me on the drop in respite provision. Respite is part of the context of the debate; elderly care is not only about charging. Will the minister tell Parliament how respite figures are monitored and what work is being done to ensure that the cut in respite is not being masked by a lack of reference to the length of time that is offered? One example is in-home care. Carers groups are telling me that people who would have been given two to three hours to have an afternoon away from their care responsibilities are now being told that they can have only an hour or less.
I am aware of the work of the Scottish Government in developing its own proposals on delivery of care for elderly and disabled people. I will flag up a number of issues in that regard about which older peoples groups are particularly concerned. People are concerned about the false connection of volunteers—people who want to support their neighbours—into care packages, making them an obligatory part of a package. There is also the entirely different matter of making the assumption that those who care for their loved ones do so on a voluntary basis.
The Scottish Government has emphasised the importance of telecare, but that cannot be a technological fix for all. In the recent severe weather—
The member should begin to wind up.
If I may, Presiding Officer, I will finish the point.
The original allocation was nine minutes, which I extended a bit because there is plenty of spare time, but I want to spread the time around.
I acknowledge that, Presiding Officer.
I am genuinely concerned that the minister's scaremongering may mean that we lose sight of the key issues that every level of government needs to address in terms of care for the elderly. I urge the minister and his colleagues to reflect on them. The debate on how we treat our elderly people is of critical importance and it speaks volumes that the SNP wants to use it as a vehicle to play games. The Government needs need to address seriously the ways in which to develop minimum standards across Scotland and meet the needs of our elderly population.
I move amendment S3M-5515.1, to leave out from "notes" to end and insert,
"welcomes the opportunity afforded by the UK Government's Green Paper, Shaping the Future of Care Together, to contribute to the debate on issues concerning the future provision of care services; welcomes moves to address the postcode lottery of care and recognises the need for a similar debate to take place in Scotland, taking into account specific challenges and opportunities arising from a growing population of older people; notes that the consultation on the Green Paper closed in November 2009, and looks forward to ongoing dialogue with the UK Government to achieve shared objectives of ensuring that older and disabled people have fair access to good quality services and support."
On a point of order, Presiding Officer, Johann Lamont took three and a half minutes to address the motion. She was then three and a half minutes over time. A member who fails to address a motion in that way should not be rewarded.
That is not a point of order. It might be helpful to make it clear that members have to address the substance of motions and amendments. Members have a bit of latitude in bringing in matters that they believe are germane to the topic. Obviously, that can go too far, in which case the Presiding Officer will bring them to a halt.
I begin by paraphrasing Johann Lamont: she may come to the debate more in sorrow than anger; the rest of us come both in sorrow and anger.
There comes a time when the lifeblood of a Government begins to ebb away in the full glare of the public eye. So stands the Westminster Labour Government today. Even those who have stood resolutely behind the Government are finding its cack-handed policy too much to bear. How must stand Scottish Labour today? I say that notwithstanding Johann Lamont's spirited defence in the debate. She is a politician who has a personal integrity on the issue—which this policy risks compromising.
At first pass, I harboured suspicions that today's debate, originating as it does from the hand of the multitalented and loquacious Minister for Housing and Communities—a man with an eye ever on the main chance—may have been a well-timed, but typical, nakedly brazen attempt to further undermine the union, a sometime cause of the SNP. How could I have been so uncharitable? An investigation of the facts demonstrates clearly and alarmingly the confusion and muddle at the heart of the Westminster Labour Government. The minister has rightly alerted the Parliament to the immediate and pressing danger of the policy.
Surely the minister is the hero of the hour. The T-shirt says it all—in the minister's words, "non-partisan man". He is right: in statements throughout last year and, particularly, in the debate in the Commons in December, the policy of the Westminster Government as articulated by ministers was both confused and contradictory. That is not wholly surprising, given that the policy is led by the hapless Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham. He is a man with an eye on the future, so confusion about the proposal is probably his best course of action for the present. On the one hand, he is decorated as one of the last die-hards to stand four-square in the bunker with the author of this policy, the UK's second-longest serving unelected Prime Minister in history. On the other hand, he is being talked up as the winner of the dubious prize of being the next leader of his party. Being confused must be Mr Burnham's deliberate policy. However, in respect of today's debate that must be inexcusable, given that the wellbeing of so many people throughout the UK is at stake.
The issues arising from the green paper "Shaping the future of care together" are immense, and the financial implications are potentially profound for nearly a quarter of a million Scots who are currently in receipt of vital support. The Government and the Secretary of State for Health propose, to a degree that they are unable to make clear, to chip away piecemeal or wholesale at attendance allowance and disability living allowance to fund a new system of care in England—not so much "Shaping the future of care together" as replacing a system in which recipients of the allowances are in control of how the benefit is spent by one that might more aptly be titled "The state will control the future of your care". As the minister identified, the proposed changes have the potential to have a profound effect not just on future policy in Scotland, but on the funding arrangements of benefits on which many Scots depend.
Before I turn to the financial consequences, let me be clear about our view of Labour's policy. An extraordinary coalition of organisations and individuals share the Conservative view that it is wrong. They include the Disability Alliance UK, which supports DLA and AA
"as national, non-means-tested benefits paid to disabled people to meet their higher living costs";
the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which says that it is "strongly opposed" to the proposal; and the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, which is
"adamant that no one is getting their mitts on vital extra-cost benefits".
Leonard Cheshire Disability, Age Concern, the Parkinson's Disease Society and others are equally concerned, opposed and dismayed.
Our position on the principle that underpins the policy is clear and unequivocal. To paraphrase Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, we make clear today on behalf of Scottish Conservatives our belief that the continuation, in their current form, of disability benefits that were introduced by John Major's Government, such as attendance allowance and disability living allowance, will give current recipients of such benefits and those who will be recipients in the future an opportunity, on a non-means-tested basis, to gain access to cash benefits that will enable them to buy a wide range of services such as informal care, family care, support for travel and support for house improvements, based on personal choice and control. People use attendance allowance and disability living allowance to help them, under their own control, to create a quality of life for themselves that helps them to remain independent. It is clear that if we focus narrowly on care needs, we will miss out much that contributes to wellbeing. There is no health without wellbeing, and there is no independence without sustaining people's quality of life.
Can Jackson Carlaw explain why he is referring to a policy when we are debating a green paper, in which various options are under consideration? Does he know something that we do not?
Johann Lamont made the same defence, which is pretty thin. If the green paper had been presented to the House of Commons by any political party other than Labour, Labour members would have been first to howl abuse and concern at the fact that the subject was being raised in the first place.
There is another aspect of the authorship of the green paper that needs to be clarified. The present Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Murphy, was previously a minister in the Department for Work and Pensions. What opinion did he offer to the Secretary of State for Health? Surely he must have understood the implications not just of the policy but for devolved Administrations. Did he fight for Scotland's interests? Does Mr Murphy stand alongside Mr Burnham, not in defence of disabled Scots but in defence of this appalling policy?
Although the policy itself is unacceptable, it is painfully and regrettably clear that its consequences for Scotland were but a footnote in the UK Government's thinking.
The Labour Government at Westminster has form on that, as the minister reminded us—as was the case with the £30 million loss following the introduction of free personal care. We know that the demographics and circumstances of Scotland are such that the total claims for attendance allowance and disability living allowance taken together for over-65s, and claims for each of those benefits for over-65s taken separately, are proportionately higher in Scotland than in England. Abolition of any or all the benefits and transferring the proceeds to an English department lead to a Barnett consequential calculation according to which Scotland's recipients will lose out, given our higher proportional uptake. Taking into account the present system, that is estimated to be a net loss of about £157 million.
What a shambles. What unnecessary confusion. What a shameless health secretary—all bold on the announcement but panicked at the debate in December into a realisation of the consequences of his own policy and the furore that it has caused. Hope is at hand, however, and the minister can rest somewhat easy in his bed: a Conservative Government elected this coming May will not progress the policy.
We support the Scottish Government's motion and we call on all other members to do the same and not to allow themselves to be bullied into being dictated to by a Labour Government at Westminster that has lost touch with the people of Scotland.
Scotland must hope for better. Labour ministers must consult the Scottish Government, the Scottish Parliament, local authorities, health boards and other interested parties. Their dictatorship is at its end.
It is appropriate to state for the record at this point that my wife is disabled.
My party welcomes this debate on the future of attendance allowance, a benefit that, we believe, plays a specific and crucial role in meeting the additional costs of living with a disability. People are faced with those additional costs whether they are rich or poor, and the universal disability benefit therefore has a special part to play in meeting people's individual needs. In my party's view, a continuing role for a disability benefit that relates specifically to the additional costs of care, but which is separate from the process for assessment and meeting care needs, is an important part of the system.
The United Kingdom Government's green paper considers the development of a national care service in England, under which it is proposed that some elements of disability benefits, for example attendance allowance, be integrated into the social care funding stream. That proposal raises many questions regarding the implications for Scotland. Unfortunately, none of those questions is answered in the green paper, and that is we are asking them today.
The UK Government has clarified that people who are receiving the affected benefits at the time of reform will continue to receive the same level of cash support. Does that pledge extend to people living in Scotland? What will reform mean for people under 65 who do not yet receive attendance allowance? Will there still be universal entitlement and will people still be free to spend the money on the things that they choose to spend it on?
As we have heard from Jackson Carlaw, similar concerns have been voiced by organisations representing older people and disabled people. For example, Capability Scotland argues:
"If attendance allowance were dissolved into the social care ‘kitty', the legitimate concern from disabled people is that these funds would also become means-tested and rationed."
That is the nub of Capability Scotland's concerns.
It is crucial that we ascertain what the proposed changes mean for current and future recipients of disability benefits in Scotland. We also need to know what reform will mean for funding streams to Scotland. There must be no repeat of the situation with free personal care, which has already been mentioned, where changes to the care system here resulted in a funding stream of about £30 million being withheld from Scotland.
In fairness, the green paper acknowledges, albeit very briefly, that any integration of disability benefits funding would affect Scotland. It states that the UK Government will work closely with the
"devolved administrations to reach a shared view on how to ensure the best possible outcomes for all people in the UK."
That is an extraordinarily brief paragraph in a 132-page document. It does not seem sufficient, given the potential of the green paper to make an impact on the lives of approximately 145,000 elderly and disabled people across Scotland. My party, like others, strongly supports calls for greater consultation with all interested parties in Scotland to ensure that relevant concerns are heard and taken fully into consideration.
Scottish ministers must also ensure that they work closely with UK ministers. They must use official channels to engage productively with the UK Government on this important issue. I say to Alex Neil and the SNP Government that they must not use the situation as an opportunity simply to get into a political sparring match with Labour at Westminster. As Jackson Carlaw said, that would take us into the question of the union, and I believe that that is not appropriate.
Is the member aware that dialogue has been going on between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on the issue?
There has been a monologue, not a dialogue.
Opinions differ. I am not in a position to know whether it has been a monologue or a dialogue, but whatever has happened in the past, we must ensure that there is a productive dialogue in the future.
I inform the member and the chamber that the Secretary of State for Health, Andy Burnham, informed the Scottish Government of the publication of the green paper only one day before it was published. I do not call that dialogue, discussion or consultation.
As we move forward, we must ensure that all the facts are relayed clearly and accurately without causing any undue alarm to those concerned. An SNP news release quotes John Mason MP as saying:
"The proposal to scrap Attendance Allowance to help fill the black hole in the care system south of the border is extremely short-sighted. … It is extremely unfair that, while bankers enjoy bonuses from the Labour government's billion pound bail out, it is disabled pensioners who will end up paying the price."
That assertion, along with similar ones from the Conservatives, is both unhelpful and misleading.
Many of the individuals concerned are extremely vulnerable. Although there are many unanswered questions at the moment—I agree with what the minister says about that—it is hugely important that no party uses the issue to frighten people and score political points. What is at issue is simply too important for that. Instead, the focus must be squarely on securing a positive outcome for older and disabled people in Scotland.
I look forward with great interest to the rest of the debate.
We now move to the open debate. As I said earlier, we have some time in hand. If members want it, they can have about a minute and a half more than they were expecting to get. I take it that they can do the arithmetic.
I have long been an admirer of Johann Lamont, a woman whom I hold in great esteem and no little affection, yet her speech was the most woeful that I have ever heard in all the years that I have known her in a debate in the Parliament. I profoundly believe that, along with many of her colleagues, Johann Lamont is deeply embarrassed at being attacked from the left by the Conservatives on the issue. That is probably why we have only a beleaguered gang of four sitting on the Labour benches at this time.
I thank Alex Neil for bringing the debate to the chamber. Although the issue is reserved, it is of huge importance to thousands of Scotland's most vulnerable people. The UK Labour Government's green paper, "Shaping the Future of Care Together", is ironically titled considering that the word "together" suggests some sort of debate or co-operation on the matter. As we heard a couple of moments ago, that has clearly not happened. The green paper outlines the UK Government's plans to create what it calls a national care service that will integrate benefits such as attendance allowance and disability living allowance. However, it has been widely met with criticism, with many people noting that it is nothing more than a cynical attempt to swindle the most vulnerable people in our society out of money that they desperately need, in order to cut Labour's ever-mounting budget deficit.
Over the years, I have, at times, become desensitised to the cold and complacent way in which the Labour Party has often treated the people of Scotland, but I feel that in this instance it has outdone itself. The proposals represent the most appalling attempt to save money by hitting the poorest and most vulnerable—the very people whom the Labour Party claims to represent—harder than anyone else, and I find that shameful. It is no wonder that Peter Watt, Labour's general secretary until 2007, said in The Daily Telegraph on Monday, of the Prime Minister's ascent to power:
"There was no vision, no strategy, no co-ordination. It was completely dysfunctional. Gordon had been so desperate to become Prime Minister that we all assumed he knew what he was going to do when he got there. I imagined there was some grand plan, tucked away in a drawer. But if any such document existed, nobody seemed to know about it. Gordon was simply making it up as he went along."
The UK Government's green paper is a sign of that.
On 1 May last year, the former Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, said:
"There have been things that have been done recently which have made me feel ashamed to be a Labour member of Parliament."
I suggest that today we are talking about such an instance. If rules relating to parliamentary language did not prevent me from repeating them, I would quote John Hutton MP's comments in The Scotsman of 23 December 2009.
We all know that Labour has become an establishment party par excellence, with 15 unelected lords propping up Gordon Brown's chaotic and deeply divided Government. The fact that Labour is allowing the Royal Bank of Scotland—which is 84 per cent owned by the taxpayer—to hand over £1.5 billion in bonuses while cutting the benefits of those who can least afford such a cut says it all.
Through Labour's waffle and backtracking—of which we had an admirable example this morning and which is supported by an almost total media silence from the house newspapers, which are more interested in vilifying the former ministers who were behind last week's clueless coup attempt by Hewitt and Hoon than in helping to head off the proposed cuts—some things are now clear. Those who receive money to spend as they see fit, according to their own needs, will no longer receive that money, which they use to cover the extra costs of living with a disability, such as extra fuel, clothing, leisure and housing costs, and to make up for loss of earnings. The recipient may use that small budget to pay for informal services that are delivered by friends and family, such as grass cutting or lifts to the shops. How can the UK Government seriously expect people to believe that stripping attendance allowance from the nation's older disabled people and handing the money over to local authorities to administer will provide a better system of care?
The green paper states:
"People who need services are often the experts in their own care, and the system for the future must respect this."
The utter hypocrisy of the green paper is clear. On the one hand, it argues that individuals are most aware of their own needs and, on the other, it favours the ability of an overly bureaucratic local authority system to assess individuals' needs as it sees fit.
Currently, 168,000 Scots are in receipt of attendance allowance and, for many, it is an essential source of income that keeps them above the poverty threshold. The removal of benefits would have a catastrophic effect on recipients and their families. The Institute for Social and Economic Research predicted that the removal of attendance allowance would cause 40 per cent of attendance allowance recipients to fall below the poverty line. In my constituency, 1,104 people would thus be affected. Receipt of attendance allowance by a disabled person is one of the grounds for the receipt of carers allowance by their carer. As the minister pointed out, scrapping attendance allowance will make it harder for carers to receive financial support. Currently, 97,000 people in Scotland are eligible for carers allowance and 46,300 receive payments. However, they stand to lose that crucial support in order to pay for social care in England.
Outrage at the proposals is widespread. Help the Aged, Age Concern, the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Macmillan Cancer Support, Leonard Cheshire Disability and the Parkinson's Disease Society have all expressed concern. Indeed, just this afternoon, I received an e-mail from the Parkinson's Disease Society that included quotations from a host of sufferers who explained how the proposal would affect them. One said:
"The government is behaving like a mugger at a cashpoint. It sees old, frail and disabled people with cash in their hands and thinks ‘I'll have some of that'. At least muggers only rob one person at a time."
Our own Jack McConnell expressed his opposition to the proposal by signing Bill Kidd's motion on the subject, and tens of thousands of signatories to a number 10 petition have expressed their outrage. The Labour Party must recognise that the public, the experts and even its own members do not wish it to go ahead with these outrageous proposals, which will impoverish thousands and provide a substandard level of care. The old and disabled people of Scotland deserve and demand better. Is it not about time that the UK Government listened to them? Should not Labour's Scottish front-bench members ignore their London bosses for once and do what is right? We all know that Labour MSPs will, after a modest period of time, turn turtle on the issue of minimum pricing of alcohol on orders from London. Today, there is an opportunity for the worm to turn and to stand up for Scotland and the most vulnerable members of our society.
In case some Labour members do not think that the recipients of the benefits are concerned, I inform them that Carers UK carried out a survey that found that 96 per cent of carers are opposed to the Government's plans.
I am curious about whether SNP members are suggesting that no review of the system of care is required. If so, what would they say about the Citizens Advice response to the green paper? It said:
"For many years adult social care services have been struggling to meet the demand that they face. As a result, many people with care and support needs are currently not receiving the services and financial support that they need."
I have some of those people in my constituency.
I thank the honourable member for Havana north for her contribution, which was a speech rather than a question.
What we see here are proposals to cut benefits. Perhaps the minister will contemplate bringing to the chamber a debate about the plans to cut housing benefit by some £300 million, which have been condemned by Labour MP Frank Field. This is an outrageous set of proposals from the UK Government, and I am delighted that, with the exception of members of the beleaguered Labour Party, everyone in the chamber looks set to unite against it.
I am proud to stand alongside my colleague Johann Lamont. She is a good friend and colleague, and someone many members in the chamber would do well to view as a role model. She has fought for and championed the rights of people in the community who are more vulnerable than the rest of us, and she deserves the absolute support and listening ear of members in the chamber.
I will not tolerate the type of debate that we have had this afternoon, in which bully boys such as Bob Doris and Joe FitzPatrick have stood up and tried to reduce a very serious debate to the sort of behaviour that I used to witness when Militant was active in London. It is ridiculous to bully Johann Lamont for the type of contribution that she was making.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I would like to know whether insults such as "bully boy" are appropriate.
I was listening carefully to what Helen Eadie was saying, and I will listen carefully to what she says in future.
Thank you, Presiding Officer.
I must question the veracity of the Minister for Housing and Communities, Alex Neil. Various euphemisms have for many years existed in parliamentary debates here, at Westminster and no doubt elsewhere, but when someone is being untruthful, parliamentary language ranges from "economical with the truth"—
Order. It is not appropriate to say that other members are being untruthful. I ask Helen Eadie not to go down that route.
The minister said very clearly that there is no consultation—
There is no point in trying—we are not going to have an argument about it. We do not call other members untruthful, regardless of what we may think.
I will leave that point, but the facts will speak for themselves.
The Minister for Public Health and Sport, Shona Robison, in her response of 16 September to a question from Tavish Scott, clearly stated that as part of the consultation process she was ensuring the preparation of
"A formal response to the UK green paper".—[Official Report, Written Answers, 16 September 2009; S3W-26630.]
She also said that the Government was indulging and engaging in the parliamentary process of consultation and that Scottish Government officials were present at meetings with the Secretary of State for Health to debate and discuss the variety of proposals that have been put forward.
We have to consider the whole debate—the big picture. We are talking about reshaping and trying to ensure universal provision for all our elderly people throughout Scotland. That is a growing population. It is evident from the consultation that there is massive interest in the issue throughout the United Kingdom: there were 91,000 hits on the website and more than 17,500 responses to the consultation. It is an important issue for all who have been involved.
The SNP's motion was prompted by the question of how we pay for what the green paper outlines. However, it is disingenuous of the SNP and the Tories to propose that the debate is only about attendance allowance, because it is about a variety of options for how we are going to pay for the change that is needed in the system. The system is broken and must be fixed.
I thank Helen Eadie for taking an intervention. I will ask her the same question that I tried to ask Johann Lamont earlier. Is she personally concerned about the proposals in the green paper?
Of course—every member in the chamber would be concerned about any proposals in a green paper.
The debate is about the funding options. A green paper has the status of a consultation paper, but how many members in the chamber have responded to the consultation? One member of the SNP—John Mason—attended the very long debate that took place in Westminster and made one brief, three-line intervention. That does not surprise me, because where were the SNP MPs when it came to standing up for the people of Scotland on minimum pay legislation? We know where they were: only one SNP MP went to the debating chamber to vote for that legislation. That is the kind of behaviour that we have come to expect from the SNP. The First Minister provides a role model for the rest of his colleagues at Westminster: he never attends Westminster debates to ensure that he stands up for Scotland on the concerns that really matter.
When a Welsh nationalist put his questions in that debate, the minister of state was clear in pointing out—as Johann Lamont did earlier—that those who are under 65 will not be affected and will not be included in the financial modelling. In answer to a question from Ann Clwyd, the Secretary of State for Health gave the same answer. He gave a big resounding "Yes"—all the options would be looked at.
It is difficult even to begin to know what the thinking of the Tories is on such a vital policy area. On the eve of the Conservative party conference, the Daily Mail had a front-page headline saying "£8,000 to save your home". Two days later, a spokesman for the shadow health secretary was saying that "top-ups might be required". The £8,000 figure lasted all of two or three days. We know that the debate on attendance allowance has been going on for much more than a decade. During the two decades before Labour came into power, the Tory party dismantled social care, promoted private care and cut billions of pounds from the care budget.
Jackson Carlaw much maligns the Prime Minister—my friend and colleague, whom I am immensely proud to work with—but the Prime Minister has been given world acclaim over and over. Meanwhile, David Cameron worries about the digital air-brushing of his image much more than he worries about policy. The nature of how the world is changing is an important point in this debate.
I see that Tricia Marwick is present in the chamber. She has just reminded me of a point that I almost forgot—I am so glad that she is here—about Fife Council, which is run by the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. Under the SNP and the Lib Dems, between December and April Fife Council will provide no respite care. No shower will be installed in the home of my constituent in Kelty, who is just one of those on what is a long waiting list. Some people are now paying £70 extra every week because of the additional charges that have been introduced by the SNP-led Fife Council, which is supported by the Liberal Democrats. I am ashamed that some members in the Parliament think that it is smug to sit and laugh about that. I deprecate the minister for doing that and tell him that it is not a laughing matter that my constituents are being hurt.
I am pleased that the green paper's proposed changes to the provision of attendance allowance for those of our fellow Scots who will be affected by a major change in the delivery of that benefit has been raised as a matter for debate in the Parliament. The proposals might be contained in a green paper, but the fact is that green papers have a habit of developing into white papers and becoming law. It is important that we ensure that, since we were not asked previously, we in Scotland have the opportunity to put our point of view on the issue.
Having lobbied on the issue at every opportunity since the changes were mooted last July, I must say that I am saddened that the media in Scotland have, in general, been painfully slow to make our public aware of the situation. I see that no member of the media has bothered to turn up to observe today's debate from the press gallery.
I am upset about that lack of media coverage because, although the proposed major change to what is an important benefit was consulted on the length and breadth of England, not one Scottish pensioner, disabled person or organisation was consulted. That is despite the fact that page 104 of the green paper "Shaping the Future of Care Together" states:
"Any changes to the care and support system in England that integrate some disability benefits funding would affect the devolved administrations in Scotland and Wales, and Northern Ireland".
Obviously, the green paper has been compiled to address the future of paying for care in England, but to pay for that care the UK Government intends to raid the welfare benefits funding for the elderly and the disabled.
Page 103 of the green paper proposes
"integrating some disability benefits such as Attendance Allowance into the care and support system."
That means taking money that is currently paid as a non-means-tested benefit direct to the individual elderly disabled person and putting it directly into care services instead. In other words, the benefit will be scrapped.
It is inconvenient that attendance allowance is a UK-wide benefit, because it means that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have care systems that are different from the one in England, will all be affected as well. The number of people who will be affected is quite staggering. As the minister said, according to the Institute for Social and Economic Research, more than 67,000 of the 168,000 recipients of attendance allowance in Scotland would fall below the poverty line if they did not receive that allowance.
We are told that attendance allowance will not be removed but will simply be delivered in a different way. Rather than applying to the Department for Work and Pensions for a UK-wide benefit, people will apply to their local authority, but where will the extra council staff come from to assess eligibility and to pay out that benefit? How will those staff be paid for? What training will they receive and who will provide it?
My understanding is that there is currently a double assessment—people are assessed separately for attendance allowance and for their services. Even if the member does not support the specific proposal, does he not agree that merging assessments is the direction in which we want to go?
I do not think that it will be possible to merge those assessments without an increase in staffing.
How much of the increasingly scarce resources that are available to fund a benefit that is vital to so many people will be eaten up in bureaucracy? The British Government's green paper states, on page 22, that local authorities will be
"the channel for state funding and support"
and will "undertake assessments" of claimants. Therefore, it is fair to say that the duplication across the 32 local authorities in Scotland that will result from the replacement of the current single system will suck scarce resources out of the system.
Members should remember that attendance allowance and DLA for the over-65s are a lifeline for many of our constituents, whether rural or urban. All members have been contacted by such respected organisations as the Royal National Institute for Deaf People and the Parkinson's Disease Society, which have told us that the legitimate fears of people who receive attendance allowance and DLA must be taken seriously by all members of all political parties.
I point out that it is also stated on page 104 of the Government's document:
"We will work closely with all three devolved administrations to reach a shared view on how to ensure the best possible outcomes for all people in the UK."
I hope that that reassures the member.
It would reassure me if the consultation had taken place in Scotland at the same time as it took place in England—that would have made me much happier. It is a bit late to consult people after the fact.
We were elected to act as the voice of people who have serious concerns about such serious issues. We must look seriously at the potential effects on the incomes of, and the provision of care for, the elderly and the disabled. We must also take account of the position of their carers, whose benefit, insubstantial as it is, is dependent on the cared-for person being eligible for attendance allowance.
Members should also remember that it is not only those who currently receive attendance allowance who will be affected; those who would be eligible for it in the future stand to be affected. As has been said, on 22 October last year, the Secretary of State for Health at Westminster, Andy Burnham MP, told the national children and adult services conference:
"I can state categorically that we have ruled out any suggestion that DLA for under-65s will be brought into the new National Care Service."
From that it can be inferred that the DLA care component of payments to people who are over 65 or who will turn 65 could be at risk. He must address that issue, which means that someone who is under 65 and who presently receives DLA would not benefit from any transitional payment after their 65th birthday but would have to reapply for attendance allowance to the local authority that was administering it and would have to be reassessed.
As the saying goes, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The attendance allowance benefit works well in Scotland.
Will the member give way?
No. I am nearly finished.
It is disgraceful that our elderly and disabled should have that benefit tampered with without consultation or prior notice—as has happened in this case—purely as a by-product of changes to the care system in England. I would not like to be the politician or candidate who has to sell that one to the electorate either at the Westminster elections this year or at the Scottish Parliament elections next year.
This is a strange debate to have on the very important issue of support for disabled people and the future of care. The topic is a green paper—it is not a firm proposal—that was subject to consultation last year, when anyone could have submitted a response. I was beginning to wonder whether anyone had read the green paper, so I was pleased that Bill Kidd was able to quote some bits of it.
The Scottish National Party seems to suggest that the green paper is going to impose changes on devolved services, without any input from the Scottish Parliament. After 10 years of devolution, I doubt that anybody in the chamber would sit back and do nothing if there was any suggestion that Westminster intended to impose changes on devolved areas of policy, such as social care. However, the Government is not doing that.
Elaine Smith referred to consultation. However, as has already been said, and as I know from reading the green paper, the 36 consultations all took place in England. If there was nothing to hide, why did they not come up here to Scotland and go to Wales and Northern Ireland to consult people?
Anyone could have responded to the consultation. In fact, we are interested to know whether the Scottish Government did so.
Nothing will be imposed on this Parliament. Even the Tories, all these years on, are now big fans of devolution. Today, they certainly seem to be in coalition with the SNP on this issue. However, they are not averse to spinning scaremongering stories to suit their narrow political agenda for the general election. I have here a copy of a letter from Andy Burnham to David Cameron, to address David Cameron's claim that the Government is going to cut disability benefits. Andy Burnham asked David Cameron to
"withdraw your pernicious and misleading campaign, designed to prey on the fears of the most vulnerable in society."
I hope that he does that.
Can Elaine Smith confirm that, of all the options that are canvassed in the green paper, the only ones that have not been specifically rejected by the Government involve the scrapping of attendance allowance and disability living allowance? That is a fact.
I do not think that it is a fact. There are three options on the table, and the Government has said that it will discuss further any moves in that regard. The implications for this Parliament will be discussed with this Parliament. It is therefore simply wrong to say that the green paper is anything other than a discussion paper, so I am not clear what we are debating today and why we are debating it. The minister's opening remarks served to confuse the issue further, because he is wrong if he is indicating that it is a done deal.
I hope that the minister is not being confused by some members with regard to the Personal Care at Home Bill, which will allow the UK Government to provide free personal care in the home for all people in England with the highest needs. It is a wee, one-clause bill that will end the postcode lottery for the most vulnerable in England. Surely the nationalists cannot object to that kind of improvement for people south of the border. It would be breathtakingly hypocritical if we attempted to interfere in legislation that is under the jurisdiction of Westminster and deny people a free care package that is already available here.
It would be helpful if the debate was about clearing up misconceptions about attendance allowance in the green paper, but it is not, is it? The debate is about the SNP yet again using Parliament's time to snipe at Westminster. We need to know whether the Government submitted a response to the consultation. If it did, why is a copy of it not available at the back of the chamber? If it exists, why is it that the Scottish Parliament information centre could not find it when I asked about it? We would like to see it. Further, have ministers sought meetings with Westminster Government ministers to discuss specific proposals and explore whether in the longer term changes will be needed to devolved responsibilities?
Capability Scotland has called on both the UK and Scottish Governments to reassure disabled people who are worried about their benefits being stopped, because of the misinformation, scaremongering and hype on the issue. Capability Scotland has pointed out that the green paper sets out many different policy options and that we need to be clear about what the implications will be for disabled people in Scotland. It expects the UK and Scottish Governments to clarify that. It is clear that some of the concern arises from alarmist rumours. Due to that, Capability Scotland has felt it necessary to reassure people. I quote from its response:
"We understand that the way the Green Paper has been reported on some websites may lead people to assume that after the consultation period ends, their disability benefits will stop. This is not the case. If you get Attendance Allowance at the moment, there will be no changes within, or at the end of, the consultation period.
There is very little chance that we will see legislation on proposals to reform Attendance Allowance before the next general election and there will be transitional protection for current disability benefit recipients. This means that if a disability benefit is amended or phased out, existing recipients of that benefit retain their entitlement to it."
It is important to make that point. If any changes are made, that will be the case.
I would therefore expect any responsible devolved Government to address scaremongering, denounce it, give people the correct information, and not add fuel to the fire. Will the minister now commit to doing that, rather than panicking people by picking a fight with Westminster when there is no need for confrontation? Sensible discussion should be taking place.
Of course people will be wary of change. I am always wary of what any Government—not just the SNP Government—is up to when it talks about change and modernisation. Sometimes that is because I look at policy with socialist eyes: the modernisation of public services can often be a euphemism for privatisation. However, any sensible person has to recognise that, much of the time, change is genuinely required to make services better and more fit for purpose.
I am not sure how much time I have left, Presiding Officer.
Twenty-five minutes.
Good.
You have a minute or so.
In its response, the Equality and Human Rights Commission stated:
"The Commission congratulates the Government for moving the agenda forward. The current system is unsustainable and is already failing thousands of the most marginalised and excluded members of society. Some fundamentally hard decisions need to be made to achieve long-term solutions, and they can only be made through debate and consensus."
I made that point earlier to our SNP colleagues. Those decisions should not be made through conflict, misinformation and scaremongering. Citizens Advice Scotland makes that point as well. I used its response earlier in an intervention.
The SNP Government really has to stop sniping and start acting responsibly on the issue. I hope that it is listening to members' speeches and that it will take the opportunity that the green paper affords it to inspire a reasoned debate on care issues in Scotland. The reality is that many of the most marginalised and excluded members of our society are not benefiting from the current system. We have to change that, but we should do it through debate and consensus.
Our objective must be to ensure that older and disabled people get good-quality care and support. That should be the most important issue that comes out of the debate and should be what we are all trying to achieve for people in Scotland. The scaremongering around the issue, whatever its source, really must stop.
For the benefit of Labour members, let us remind ourselves what the green paper proposes. It sets out proposals for a new national care service to provide long-term care for older people in England. That is not scaremongering. It says "in England". Never mind Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The only mention of those is relegated to the back of the green paper.
It saddens me that someone who says that she has socialist principles—Elaine Smith—is sticking up for the green paper, white paper or whatever colour it is. I say that because I would like to remind Labour members that it did not matter whether it was a green paper or a white paper that Tony Blair took to Westminster when the Scottish people said, "We do not want to go to war with Iraq." The Labour Government still did that, regardless of what people said. I ask Labour members whether it would have mattered even if we had been able to take part in the consultation process. Would the Westminster Government have listened to us? Will it listen to us even now?
Will the member take an intervention?
I would like to carry on with my speech.
As we heard, the proposed changes to attendance allowance in the UK Government's green paper might affect more than 150,000 people throughout Scotland. That is not a number to be trivialised, glossed over or dismissed out of hand, and it is shameful that some members on the Labour benches appear to be keen to do that.
The questions that the proposed reforms throw up are worthy of debate; in fact, it is vital that the Scottish Parliament has that debate to inform the public how these changes might threaten their livelihoods and to make the UK Government aware of the chamber's stated position.
Johann Lamont's amendment is flatly contradicted by the House of Commons library's own research into the proposed changes. The amendment refers to a "postcode lottery". The research states that
"disability benefits are popular because they provide a universal entitlement which does not depend on where a person lives".
The research also cites the welfare rights expert Neil Bateman, who
"argues that it would be ‘catastrophic for millions of the poorest and most vulnerable' if Attendance Allowance or DLA were diverted to fund social care"
and raises concerns about
"the future of ‘passported extras' such as Carers allowance, and the danger of a ‘postcode lottery' replacing the existing ‘standard, national, transparent and legally enforceable criteria' governing social security benefits."
That last comment should be of interest to members, particularly Johann Lamont.
Although I do not disagree with Sandra White's point about funds being diverted to social care, I wonder whether she agrees that in this kind of debate members on all sides of the chamber should be careful not to denigrate social work departments and councils per se, because they, too, are part of the public sector. I wish Michael Matheson were in the chamber, because I know that, as a former social worker, he would stand up for the profession. I am simply making a caveat.
Jamie Stone is absolutely right. However, I was not actually denigrating anyone; I was simply making the point to Labour members and to Johann Lamont in particular that their amendment is totally skewed and that the House of Commons research note says the opposite of what they are saying. I also remind Mr Stone that these conclusions are not mine; they are the views of the House of Commons library and experts in the field of welfare provision. Johann Lamont is not in the chamber, but I want to put on record that I would be happy to give her a copy of this research so that she can better inform not only herself but the rest of the Labour Party about what is happening.
It is hardly surprising that these proposals have met with real opposition from Scottish society and the various organisations that represent the wide range of people who are likely to be affected. At my surgeries, at meetings of elderly forums and so on, people who have supported Labour all their lives—in other words, Labour's core vote—have approached me to express their concerns and worries about these changes. They are angry at the attitude of their Labour representatives and are looking for people who will stand up for them and ask the questions that the Labour Party is so unwilling to ask. The UK Government might have acknowledged the need to explain these reforms and engage with people who have concerns or who might be affected by the changes, but the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament does not seem to think that it should talk to people and find out what they think about what is going on.
As for the consultation process that has been much lauded by Helen Eadie—who has also left the chamber—and other members of the Labour Party, I accept that a public consultation and a series of 36 stakeholder events were organised between last July and October to give stakeholder audiences the opportunity to learn about the green paper, to share responses and to meet and question senior policy officials. However, as I said earlier, all 36 events were held in England; not one took place in Scotland. That is an absolute disgrace.
Perhaps a member of the Labour Party might in one of their speeches, in summing up or whatever, explain why people in Scotland have been sidelined, ignored and not consulted and are, as usual, expected to bear the brunt of funding social care in England. Even though the UK Government has explicitly stated that the changes will affect the whole of the UK, I fear that we will hear nothing. Also, the Labour Party keeps telling us that the Scottish Government has been consulted, but we now know from the minister that it has not been informed at all. Perhaps when she is summing up, Jackie Baillie will be able to tell me different. I am sure that she will come up with something. It is simply not acceptable to propose the changes without holding one single meeting to discuss their effects with the people who will be directly affected, while it is deemed necessary to hold 36 meetings in England alone.
I would also be interested to know how those meetings were funded. Were they funded by the Benefits Agency? If they were, that would mean that Scottish taxpayers paid to inform people in England of changes while being denied that information here in Scotland. We should know that.
While we are talking about those who are directly affected by the changes, we should take a moment to think about those who will be indirectly affected—those who dedicate their lives to caring for others. Thousands of people save the social care services millions of pounds a year, and we should not forget that, at some point in our lives, most people will know or will become a carer. The proposed changes to carers allowance will directly affect the people who put their lives to one side to care for others, because currently their allowance depends on the people they care for receiving attendance allowance. That is one more reason why the proposals are ill-thought-out and potentially very damaging, and why the UK Government must commit to engaging seriously with stakeholders not only in England but in Scotland before attempting to take its proposals any further.
The Labour Party opposite has been told often enough, so it must know that the proposals have met real opposition throughout Scotland and that, despite assurances from Labour, all is not clear and all is not well. I would like to get my message across to the Labour Party here and at Westminster that it cannot pull the wool over the Scottish people's eyes any more.
I am wondering whether there is some quicksand in the chamber today, because the longer the debate goes on, the more Labour members seem to be sinking away. Only two are left in the chamber, and I am quite concerned about their wellbeing.
I declare an interest in today's debate. My mother and father are in receipt of attendance allowance and carers allowance, so this is a real family situation for me.
Most people should be sympathetic to the idea of reforming the benefits regime in England and Wales to provide better services for those who are most in need: I know that I am. However, any increase in social provision must be paid for somehow, and whether the scheme is affordable will be the UK Government's main consideration when deciding whether to implement its policy. Numerous areas of Government spending could be curtailed to increase that provision. I will not make party-political points about the things that I would cut, but we are certainly starting to get a full picture of the Labour Government's staggering past and present waste. Parliament needs to send out the message today that when the UK Government goes looking for cash to pay for any new schemes, it should look elsewhere, because this Parliament will fight to protect the dignity of up to 168,000 Scottish elderly disabled citizens whose income is being put at risk by the UK Labour Party.
We are talking not about luxury items but about the most basic level of financial support for many people who are leading considerably more difficult lives than many of us lead. It does not matter how hard the two Labour members who are in the chamber at the moment try to dress up the proposals, they will take money away from Scottish pensioners. It could not be clearer. Labour Party interests and the interests of Scotland's most vulnerable citizens are in direct conflict. It is simply not decent to come to the chamber and pretend that the green paper is anything other than a stated intention to scrap attendance allowance, and to save money by paying less to those who are in need in order to commit to higher expenditure and social care provision in England and Wales. Labour seems to be saying that somehow it will not really affect Scotland. How can that be? Where is the detail to support such claims? It is certainly not in the green paper.
What about the knock-on effects? In the city of Glasgow area that I represent, there are more than 8,400 carers allowance claimants. If attendance allowance is a required benefit for claiming carers allowance, will that knock out the other benefit? What about informal care arrangements with family members and friends? Where is the recognition of the enormous efforts of those unpaid carers when attendance allowance payments barely cover additional expenses?
The only thing that seems clear in the green paper is that Labour is getting rid of attendance allowance. I say that because I have not heard one Labour MP or MSP rule it out. If the paper is a consultation, let me hear someone on the Labour benches rule out scrapping attendance allowance—now is their opportunity. I see that two more Labour members are with us, but the quicksand seems to have been replaced by tumbleweed and silence. As I said, the only thing that is clear in the green paper is that Labour wants to get rid of attendance allowance, which I believe is wrong.
As Labour members have refused to rule it out, they must think that I am wrong and that I am misinforming people. Therefore, they think that Age Concern, Help the Aged, the Royal National Institute of Blind People and Leonard Cheshire Disability are wrong and are misinforming people. That is if we believe the Labour argument, but I do not accept or believe it. According to Labour, the Institute for Social and Economic Research must be wrong, too, when it says that the measures could force 40 per cent of attendance allowance recipients below the poverty line. Even the former First Minister Jack McConnell must be wrong. My goodness, he was wrong on many things, but on this one he is certainly right.
Let us not beat about the bush: it is not good enough simply to say that we do not yet have the full detail—we know enough. The UK benefits system is infamously cumbersome and inflexible. If some members were not so dogmatically opposed to the Parliament having control over the tax and benefits system, we might get a real debate on how the proposals would impact on Scotland. As the system stands, I can see no workable way for attendance allowance to be removed while simultaneously protecting the income levels of people who currently receive it. It is not clear from the green paper how any Barnett consequentials from social care spending in England will come to Scotland. We are not even sure whether the Scottish Parliament would be able to reinstate any lost income.
A similar situation has arisen with the Scottish Parliament's policy on kinship care. The UK tax and benefits system has not been flexible enough to allow us to top up the income of vulnerable people who are kinship carers using our Scottish block grant. If we did that, the UK tax and benefits system would take it away. The system is inflexible and cumbersome and we have no way of knowing whether it will be any better under the robbing of attendance allowance that the Labour Party proposes. I doubt very much that it will be.
Can we look at the wider context of what the member is saying, which is that, if money is withdrawn from disabled people in Scotland—however it is done—they are unable to spend that money in the local economy? That surely has as much of a hit in Bob Doris's constituency as it does in mine. The spend from such people supports local businesses and therefore benefits the wider Scottish economy.
I completely agree with Jamie Stone. That is a perfect example of the unintended knock-on consequences of taking money away from the poorest and most vulnerable people in Scotland. That is why I hope that this afternoon the Conservatives, Lib Dems and SNP will oppose Labour's plans to take money away from the most vulnerable people in our society.
Does the member recognise the comment in the green paper that
"Whatever the outcome of the consultation, we want to ensure that people receiving any of the relevant benefits at the time of reform would continue to receive an equivalent level of support and protection under a new and better care and support system"?
Is the member suggesting that, if the decision is taken to end attendance allowance—although that is only subject to consultation, as he said—people who currently receive it will cease to receive it?
Oh jeez—where to start with that? Elaine Smith specifically talked about people who currently receive attendance allowance, thereby saying that no one else will be able to get it if the allowance is scrapped. If Elaine Smith had listened, she would know that I clearly outlined that, given the UK tax and benefits system, it is not possible to give the guarantee that she mentions. I certainly will take no assurances from a UK Government that guaranteed me that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
I have one further key point, which is that all the devolved Administrations and the UK Government, irrespective of which party is in power, have to work together closely before even a green paper is produced, because a domestic decision by the UK Government for England will have a knock-on effect in Scotland, Ireland and Wales. Likewise, a domestic decision in Scotland will have knock-on effects for the UK tax and benefits system. It is scandalous, stupid and outrageous that there was no consultation with Scotland or the Scottish Government. We should support the Government's motion and chuck out these abhorrent Labour plans.
It is always a joy and a pleasure to engage in an intelligent debate and I look forward to my next opportunity to do so. I say that because, notwithstanding the seriousness of the issue, it was a piece of party-political mischief, six months out at the most from a general election, to lodge the motion. Equally, it was a piece of kite flying by the Labour Party at Westminster to publish a green paper, not that many months ago, when, if the polls are any guideline, it is questionable whether it will be in power to apply any part of it.
This has not been a particularly rational debate, although one or two good points have been made. The representations that we have received about the debate from across the disability sector clearly indicate the level of misunderstanding and the lack of clarity in the green paper, the responsibility for which lies firmly at the door of the Westminster Government. When the Westminster Government puts such a document into the public domain, it must get its act together and clarify exactly what it is talking about. It seems to me and, based on what other members have said, it seems to many others, that that has not been done effectively, efficiently and consistently. That is not good enough. It is not good enough that people feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are under threat as a result of a document that has been published by the Government of the day.
Jamie Stone made some very good points in his speech and, in particular, in his recent intervention about disabled people's spending power.
My concern about some of the comments made by Labour members is that the phrase quoted from the green paper about the provision of a service of an "equivalent level" takes us away from the independent living agenda. It means that we will take away from people the right to make decisions about their life, their expenditure and their social activity and even decisions about employing the staff that they want. It is surprising that that has come forward, even as a proposal, from a Labour Government—albeit one that is probably in its death throes. That is not acceptable.
To take this money, however it is configured, and give it to our local authorities, when across Scotland people have to wait—in some cases for two or three years—for independent direct payments to be authorised by local authorities, is not a recipe that will enhance in any way, shape or form the ability of disabled people to make decisions about their lives. In the 1980s we moved away from a situation in which people were in institutions and their lifestyles were directed by organisations. Any alteration to how these benefits are given as an entitlement to disabled people that means that they will be at the behest of either bureaucrats or even more politicians is not acceptable. That is the debate that we should have been having rather than the party-political knockabout to which, sadly, it descended.
I take that serious point about how we deliver on the rhetoric that we hear throughout the chamber and elsewhere and how we make the personalisation of care real. Does the member think that there is a difficulty in developing a care service that establishes minimum standards and reasonable charging throughout Scotland? To what extent does that mean that we would have to cut across the individual role of local authorities?
There has to be a national care standard, but I am not sure that there can be a one-size-fits-all approach to delivering it. Care has to be person centred and based on the needs of the individual, but there have to be minimum guidelines and a benchmark against which the service is delivered, so that the individual can see whether they are getting what they would recognise as the minimum standard. There has not been quite enough leadership in driving forward that agenda—I am not referring exclusively to the current Administration, although I am tempted to do so.
I cannot say a huge amount about the debate that is positive. It has provided some entertainment but, regrettably, it has not succeeded in taking forward the agenda in a serious way. It has not done this chamber or the public perception of our understanding of how serious these issues are for disabled people a great deal of justice.
At this stage, we have six minutes in hand, so, to be fair, I offer each of the remaining closing speakers up to an extra two minutes each. I call David McLetchie, who has up to eight minutes.
We should start by acknowledging that, as Labour members pointed out in the debate, a green paper is, first and foremost, a consultation document that is issued by a Government and which might, as this one does, set out a number of policy options for discussion. Green papers are in essence political toes in the water—they are designed to test the temperature. In that respect, they stand lower in the hierarchy of Government publications and pronouncements than, say, white papers, which are more in the nature of statements of policy and proposals for legislation.
However, although green papers may canvass a number of options, they do signal a direction of travel. It is interesting to note from this green paper that, of the five options canvassed, those that remain under consideration and have not been specifically rejected by the Government would all involve, in one way or another, the scrapping of attendance allowance and disability living allowance for the over-65s. I refer Elaine Smith and Helen Eadie, who disputed that point, to the impact assessment that accompanies the green paper, which, in relation to the options and their funding, states:
"The estimates make a number of assumptions, including that funding from some disability benefits, for example Attendance Allowance, could be drawn into the care and support system to deliver a new and better offer".
It is a matter of debate whether it would be a new and better offer, but there is no doubt whatever that the scrapping of these benefits is a key part of all the options under consideration.
As we have heard, for people in Scotland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, the proposals will have profound consequences—nearly a quarter of a million Scots claim the benefits that may be scrapped if the proposals are introduced here. As members pointed out, for most of those claimants the benefits constitute a major part of household income. They are a direct cash benefit that gives those claimants control over expenditure on their care needs. Alex Neil generously acknowledged the role of the previous Conservative Government in introducing these benefits and their importance as an anti-poverty measure. Bill Kidd was also quite right to praise their value.
It is precisely because the green paper is a consultation document that I am appalled to find that Her Majesty's Government failed to consult in advance the Scottish Government on the implications for Scotland, so that all the options could have been considered by everyone in the United Kingdom at the same time. Given the history involving this Parliament and Government and the relationship between attendance allowance and free personal care, one would have thought that the lesson would have been learned by now. To be frank, it is little short of a disgrace that such an approach comes from the Labour Party and the Labour Government, which are supposed to be committed to maintaining the United Kingdom.
The green paper was published in June. In the same month, we received the Calman commission's final report, which discusses at length Scotland's place in the United Kingdom economic and social union. Calman points out that
"social protection is financed by UK-wide resources."
He says:
"This seems to us to be a fundamental part of the Union, and the evidence is that Scottish people wish it to continue."
Hear, hear to that. He also says:
"There has to be a common understanding between the Parliaments in the Union about the services that constitute the welfare state—the most important of which will be health care, care for the elderly and education—and on what basis are they supplied—substantially free at the point of need."
Hear, hear to that. However, in the very same month as the Calman commission's report was issued, the United Kingdom Government published a policy paper that discusses changes that have profound implications for that social union, and for the balance between payments to individuals through the reserved system of welfare benefits and care services that are delivered to the same people through the Scottish Government and our local councils, under devolution. The paper contains no discussion whatever of the implications for Scotland of that profound change in the benefits system and makes only the scantiest reference to Scotland, as Jamie Stone said.
Labour should hang its head in shame at that omission. Nothing is particularly wrong with Johann Lamont's amendment; the problem is that it is months late. Scottish Labour has—frankly—fallen down on the job. Her Majesty's Government was responsible for initiating the discussion through the joint ministerial committees and the other organisations and institutions for co-operation between Her Majesty's Government and the Scottish Government, so that the proposals could be considered in the round.
Is it seriously suggested that attendance allowance and disability living allowance could be scrapped in England but retained for Scottish claimants? Does Labour seek to dismantle the whole concept of a UK-wide social welfare and benefits system? If that is not Labour's intention—I hope that it is not—why were the proposals not properly discussed with the Scottish Government before the green paper was released, to see whether a common approach north and south of the border could be achieved?
We Conservatives might not have liked the common approach that might have emerged. As Jackson Carlaw said, Conservatives oppose any proposals that entail scrapping the allowances and oppose the transfer of funds from direct payments to individuals into funding of service provision. However, the proposals should at least have been discussed between the Governments beforehand and Scotland should not have been excluded or merely considered belatedly as an afterthought.
I regret to say that Her Majesty's Government has done the union no favours with its casual attitude to this important issue. Thankfully, that Government will soon change and we will have a Conservative Government in the United Kingdom that respects the role of the Scottish Government and of the Parliament and will involve our institutions fully in discussions on important policy issues that—as in this case—clearly have consequences for devolved and reserved responsibilities. David Cameron has made that pledge and his Government will most certainly honour it.
In redistributing time, I find that I have a little more for Ms Baillie than I thought. I can offer her 10 and a half minutes.
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.
Will the member give way?
No, I will not.
Will she take an intervention?
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 he 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.
Will the member give way?
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.
I call the minister to wind up the debate. Minister, you have until 5 o'clock.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I did not wish to interrupt Jackie Baillie's speech, but I bring this matter to your attention and ask for clarification. By my reckoning, I do not believe that Jackie Baillie addressed the motion in her speech. I never once heard anything that—
That is not a point of order, Ms White, with great respect. You are eating into the time that the minister has to wind up.
This has been a good debate, in general terms. I do not agree with Hugh O'Donnell's point—it is perfectly legitimate for this Parliament to have a debate and express concerns on behalf of the people of Scotland, including those who would be directly affected, as to the potential consequences of the green paper should its provisions be implemented.
In addition to being a legislature, we are the platform and the voice of Scotland. Today, we have been acting as the voice of Scotland in saying that if the proposals go ahead in the form in which they have been presented by the Labour Government in Westminster, they will be highly detrimental to our older citizens in Scotland, and indeed south of the border. Although I am a nationalist, I am concerned about poverty south of the border as well as north of the border.
We should not forget that the purpose of the debate is to ensure that we defend the living standards and rights of our elderly citizens, in this case vulnerable elderly citizens who are disabled and who require a certain level of benefits to maintain a decent standard of living. Nearly a fifth of pensioners in Scotland are still living in poverty, much of which is concentrated among disabled pensioners. Anything that could make that poverty even worse must be resisted and fought against enormously strongly.
I say to those who accuse me of scaremongering that it is not me, the Scottish Government or any speaker who has expressed concern about the proposals today who is doing that. The best way to ensure that nobody is scared would be to withdraw these proposals.
I will deal with some specific points about consultation. Let me run through what has happened. First, the Scottish Government got less than 24 hours' notice of the publication of the green paper from Andy Burnham, the Secretary of State for Health, who of course is now in favour of minimum pricing for alcohol.
Secondly, when the consultation was carried out, not one event was held north of the border, whereas 26 consultation events were held south of the border.
Thirdly, the green paper and its contents have been the subject of two meetings at official level. Our officials reported back to us that at no time were representatives of the UK Government prepared to discuss the proposals' policy implications. The meetings indeed took place but, from our point of view, they were extremely unsatisfactory and certainly not informative.
It is significant that the green paper is signed by seven secretaries of state: Andy Burnham, Yvette Cooper, John Denham, Ed Balls, Tessa Jowell, the Lord Mandelson, who signs everything these days, and Liam Byrne. It is noticeable that there is no signature from the Secretary of State for Scotland. If Scotland was included in the UK Government's thoughts, why is the signature of the Secretary of State for Scotland not on the document?
The Labour Party has spoken about the need for a dialogue. That has been our point all along—we have sought to have a dialogue, but it has ended up being a monologue because the discussion has been all one way, from us. What Jackie Baillie demonstrated was that the Scottish Government has consulted extensively in Scotland on its policy. However, with respect, I say to her that the Scottish Government is not just another consultee; we are the Government of Scotland. That means that we should have been consulted before the green paper was drafted and published. We should have been consulted on the consultation and on the consequences for Scotland and the people whom we represent. The UK Government says that it is a green paper but, as we know from experience, green papers have very big white edges.
Mr McLetchie highlighted effectively the fact that, ultimately, every option includes the abolition of attendance allowance and DLA for the over-65s in Scotland. The UK Government has not told us what will replace attendance allowance in Scotland. Is it to be abolished in Scotland as well as in England? If so, what will happen to the money?
Will the member take an intervention?
No.
We know that the last time we dealt with such issues, the UK Government cheated us out of £30 million a year and then asked us to trust it. How can we trust people who cheated their own Government in Scotland out of £30 million a year? They have not told us whether there will be means testing for what will replace attendance allowance and DLA or what the Barnett consequentials will be. We know that Andy Burnham changed the baseline figures for health in the budget last year in order to reduce the consequentials for Scotland. The guy then asks us to trust him and his policy.
Will the minister take an intervention?
No, I will not take an intervention. If the front-bench speakers from the Labour Party would not address the motion, why should I take an intervention from them? [Interruption.]
Order.
We are promised the equivalent of attendance allowance and DLA, but what is the equivalent of attendance allowance and DLA? Does it mean £70 a week still going into the pocket of each poor pensioner who is disabled? Does it mean the DLA money still going into the pockets of the poor pensioners? Does it mean that people will still get the carers allowance that the poor pensioners are going to be denied? We do not have any answers to those questions. [Interruption.]
Order. There is too much noise.
As Jackson Carlaw said, the Scottish Government has approached this policy issue in a way that is about social policy, not the constitution. It is social policy, poverty, pensioners and the disabled that we are concerned about. What really gets me about the proposals is that we have a so-called Labour Government stripping the most vulnerable people in our society of vital income and benefits. To paraphrase a former leader of the British Labour Party, we have the grotesque sight of a Labour Government—a Labour Government—scuttling around with green papers, white papers, budgets and bills so that it can deny our pensioners the income, the pensions and the benefits to which they are entitled. Harold Wilson once said that the Labour Party is a crusade or it is nothing. After 13 wasted years, it is nothing.