Long-term Care
Our next item of business is a statement by Susan Deacon on long-term care. There will be questions at the end of the statement, so there should be no interventions during it.
On 5 October, I made a statement to the Parliament setting out the Executive's plans for the care of older people and our response to the report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. My statement today builds upon, and reports on progress since, that statement and sets out the next steps that we will take to improve long-term care for older people in Scotland, following the Executive's recent policy review.
In October, I set out a three-year investment package, rising to £100 million per year in 2003-04, which will deliver radical, wide-ranging improvements in the care of many thousands of older people across Scotland. Those plans, which have been widely welcomed, include a massive expansion of care for people in their own homes; targeted investment to tackle delayed discharge and to prevent unnecessary admissions to hospital or residential care; investment in aids and more adaptations; measures to enable more people to retain their homes upon entering residential care; joint management of budgets and services; greater equity of charging; and the provision of universally free nursing care.
In November, the Health and Community Care Committee published its report on community care. I welcome the common ground that has been identified in this area. Today, I have submitted the Executive's formal response to the committee. In December, I published the Scottish health plan "Our National Health: A plan for action, a plan for change". It has put the care of older people at the heart of national health service priorities in Scotland. Also in December, the final report of the joint future group was published, enabling us to improve joint working, joint resourcing and joint service provision for older people. Today, I have published the Executive's response. In December, we lodged our Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill to raise the quality of care for older people in care homes and other settings.
So much has been done, but there remains much more still to do. The report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care has provided us with a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the challenges that we face—challenges not just for Government, but for the providers of care and society as a whole. The Executive has already implemented, or is implementing, most of the key recommendations of the royal commission report. Let me, therefore, set out the measures that we will take forward from today, and in doing so let me endeavour to clarify some of the issues in this debate.
The royal commission report examined the balance of the costs of care between the individual and the state. It identified three broad areas: nursing care, personal care and housing and living costs. The commission did not recommend the abolition of the means test. It concluded that individuals should continue to contribute to the costs of care, specifically in the area of living costs. The commission recommended, among many other things, that personal care, including nursing care where assessed as needed, should be fully funded by the state. It also recognised that any major shift in the balance of funding between the individual and the state would require radical restructuring of the care system and would carry with it resource implications.
We agree with the royal commission that greater equity should be achieved in charging for care and that existing anomalies should be addressed. That is why in my October statement I gave a commitment that we would start by ending the anomaly whereby nursing care is charged for in some settings but not in others. As I said then:
"We recognise that people who have some conditions, such as Alzheimer's disease, require a high level of care, if not specific medical intervention. It is our view that neither the rigid definition of tasks nor the professional demarcation of nursing offers a way forward. Care must be provided on the basis of a person's need, rather than on definitions of what is done or who does it."—[Official Report, 6 October 2000; Vol 8, c 1017.]
At that time, I commissioned Anne Jarvie, the chief nursing officer, to take forward work on the implementation of free nursing care and on the assessment of need. I am pleased today to publish her report, which makes detailed proposals for a single needs assessment for each individual who requires care. That was a central recommendation of the joint future group and the Health and Community Care Committee and supports the royal commission's conclusions.
The proposed approach is person centred. It recognises that different individuals have different levels of need that often result in a complex mix of care needs. Crucially, it builds into the needs assessment process a clear recognition of difficult behaviours to recognise better the needs of people such as dementia sufferers.
The CNO's report recommends piloting and testing the proposed assessment tools with a view to implementing the new system nationwide in 2002. I am pleased to announce today that we plan to take that work forward immediately. The implementation of free nursing care will be co-ordinated with the introduction of the new system of assessment. It, too, will be brought into operation in 2002.
We want to go further. We will extend the provision of free care to a wider range of people and will further remove the existing inequities in different conditions and different care settings. That change is consistent with the royal commission's recommendations and reflects our commitment to progressing the agenda. I recognise that there is a range of views in the Executive parties about our final destination but, together, we are committed to making practical progress in the same direction.
There has been much talk of distinctions between nursing and personal care. The reality is that different individuals have different levels of need that do not fit neatly into such boxes. Therefore, in parallel with the development of a new needs assessment system, we will develop detailed proposals for extending free care and reducing the costs of care for a greater number of people. Our priorities will be to target resources to those who are identified as having the greatest needs and to ensure that the services and support to meet those needs effectively are in place.
In practical terms, those developments will extend the provision of free care to many more older people in Scotland, including those dementia sufferers with greatest need.
But not all.
Order.
It is clear that change on the proposed scale needs to be resourced properly. We have already committed £25 million for the implementation of free nursing care. We will back our plans to extend the provision of free care with additional resources.
Next week, Angus MacKay, the Minister for Finance and Local Government, will set out how the more than £60 billion that is available to the Executive over the next three years will be subject to a new best value and budget review mechanism that will apply to the way our budget is allocated from 1 April 2002 onwards. That review will identify the extra resources needed to fund our additional and new commitments. I am pleased that the Scottish Cabinet has formally agreed that additional resources for long-term care will be a top priority for this Administration.
In line with the recommendations of the royal commission, the Health and Community Care Committee and the joint future group, we will initiate a thorough examination of the substantial public sector resources that are allocated to older people's care to ensure that those resources are used effectively.
Extending the provision of free nursing and personal care also requires legislative change. I am pleased to announce that the Executive has decided to introduce a bill on long-term care later this year. That will set in train the necessary legislative changes to give effect to our commitments. Consultation on the proposed contents of the bill will begin next month.
The Executive is determined to work to provide a better, fairer system of long-term care for Scotland's older people. The practical, resource and policy implications of making further progress are significant and complex. There is a shortage of data on which to base decisions and an ever-evolving landscape as legislative changes take place north and south of the border. The existing care system is riddled with perverse incentives and anomalies. In making further change, we must be careful not to add to those complexities. The care system also contains many competing needs and demands for resources that will require us to prioritise carefully any additional investment that we make.
We have conducted a thorough examination of community care services—especially domiciliary care—through the joint future group. We have unravelled many of the complexities in that area and are implementing targeted investment and policy interventions, as well as legislative change, to improve the existing arrangements.
It is clear to me that there is a need for a similarly in-depth examination of the provision of long-term care services in Scotland. I am therefore announcing the establishment of a development group on long-term care. It will not be a review group or a group that duplicates work that has already been done, but a focused, well-supported team that will concentrate—over a short time scale—on action and implementation, that will build on the work done to date and that will help to inform the continuing development of policy, legislation and investment in this area. The group will be chaired by Malcolm Chisholm, the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care and minister with lead responsibility for older people's issues. It will report to me in August, in time to inform the development of the long-term care bill and national and local spending decisions for the year starting 1 April 2002.
The group will also help to guide our implementation of joint budgets and single needs assessment and our commitment to the extension of free nursing and personal care, all of which will come into effect during 2002. It will examine the practical implications of cross-border issues and relations with reserved policy areas, notably the Department of Social Security and the benefits system, and residency criteria. It will examine and bring forward recommendations on gaps and duplication in service provision. The development group will bring together—around the table, not across it—a team of Scotland's experts to assist us in that process. In particular, we will wish to draw upon the knowledge and expertise of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care.
I will announce the full remit and membership of the group shortly. However, I am pleased to announce today that Mary Marshall, director of the dementia centre and member of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care, has agreed to serve as a member of the group. I am pleased also that Sir Stewart Sutherland—chairman of the royal commission—has agreed to work with the group to share his knowledge and expertise.
I have set out today a significant package on the development of long-term care for older people: free nursing and personal care for more people; a new and fairer system of assessing need; the setting up of a care development group; additional resources to be made available; the necessary legislation put in place; and a time scale within which that will be delivered.
This is a clear and practical demonstration of our commitment—a new deal for Scotland's older people.
The statement will be received with dismay by elderly people throughout Scotland. Nowhere in it does the minister commit the Scottish Executive to full implementation of the Sutherland report, either now or in the future. Does the minister agree that what she has announced today still leaves many elderly people behind, faced with the prospect of having to sell their family homes or of using their life savings to pay for help with washing, dressing and going to the toilet? It is help that no one wants to ask for but which many, through no fault of their own, are forced to rely upon simply because they are old.
Does the minister agree that all this comes after three months of Scotland being led to believe by the First Minister—in interview after interview—that the Government would implement Sutherland in full? Today we are being told that that is not what he said after all. It seems that Labour—north and south of the border—is suffering a sudden lapse of memory. Is it not the case that Sir Stewart Sutherland was right? The First Minister has marched Scotland's pensioners to the top of the hill, only to send his health minister to march them straight back down again.
Will Susan Deacon answer the question that is on the lips of every elderly person in Scotland today: "Why?" The First Minister believes that full implementation is a crucial equity issue. The Health and Community Care Committee and the people of Scotland agree. It can be afforded. It seems that the only ones who do not agree are London Labour. Is it not the case that, when faced with the choice between doing what is right for Scotland and toeing London's line, this Government will always opt to keep London sweet and let Scotland down?
Many of us in the chamber have spent probably the best part of two decades, and in some cases longer, campaigning for the creation of this Parliament so that we can develop the appropriate policy solutions to meet Scotland's needs. [Interruption.]
Order. There is too much running commentary. If questions are asked, we must listen to the answers.
That is why in October 2000 I set out a distinctive package of measures to meet Scotland's needs. That is why we have taken forward work under the chief nursing officer to examine how we can best extend the provision of free nursing care, how we can assess need more effectively and in doing so how we can apply and achieve greater equity in the provision of long-term care to the people of Scotland.
During my statement, I heard many mutterings from the Opposition benches. I hope that some of those members were listening. This is a complex area of policy and a complex area of service provision. We have set out some of the most major, radical, bold changes in this area that have been taken in decades. We have started to unravel the confusion, complexity and inequity that we inherited in the care system. We have already backed it with additional investment and I have given an absolute commitment today that we will back it with further investment. We will make to older people in Scotland only those promises that we know we can keep and deliver, that are tangible and real, and that will make a real improvement to their lives. That is what we have done today.
There is no doubt that, in the past three months, the Executive has led Scotland to believe that it will fully fund personal care. That has never been denied in any media reports. As Sir Stewart Sutherland said, the Executive has marched people up to the top of the hill. That reminds us of the grand old Duke of York. The Executive has led
"thousands of women and men
to believe the tale
when you're old and frail
that Scotland would care
if only you dare
and they'll never trust Labour again."
We now have another group, another committee, another delay, another commitment and another year. We had a lottery of care between young and old, then between nursing care and personal care. Now we have a lottery of care on the type and level of dementia. How much more do the elderly have to be demeaned by the Government?
When it comes to personal care, what about the single budget that was recommended by Sutherland and by the Health and Community Care Committee? This Parliament is not dictated to by the Minister for Health and Community Care. The cross-party Health and Community Care Committee fully agreed that we would recommend the funding of personal care, and I ask the minister to give all Labour and Liberal MSPs the opportunity to vote with their conscience and not according to Lord Lipsey.
I ask the minister to clarify the difference between two things that she said in her statement. She said that personal care, where assessed as needed, will be fully funded by the state. She went on to say that there would be free care to dementia sufferers with the greatest need. That needs clarification.
There has been much discussion in this chamber recently about ministerial statements. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to make my statement today. I only wish that Opposition spokespeople had listened to what I said in that statement.
Mary Scanlon refers to a lottery of care for Scotland's older people. I heard David McLetchie make a similar point on television at the weekend. They are right. There is a lottery of care for Scotland's older people, which developed over 20 years when the Conservatives were in power. Along with many older people in Scotland, I take it ill to take lectures from the Tories on this subject.
In the 18 months that the Executive has been in power in Scotland, we have set out additional investment and we are taking forward legislative change. Mary Scanlon mentioned single budgets. Did she not listen to my statement in October and to the commitment that I have repeated again today?
We will introduce major changes to the care system—single budgets, a new needs assessment system, legislative changes to change provision and investment in services to meet people's needs. It is a big, tall order, but we have taken it by the throat—we are taking it forward and backing it with action. We are repairing the damage done by the Conservative party over the past two decades.
First, I welcome the minister's announcement on the further steps that the Executive will take to improve long-term care for older people in Scotland and on the additional resources that have been and will be made available.
In view of the First Minister's repeated statements before, during and since the Christmas recess that free personal care for all older people is a top priority for his Administration, why is the minister so reluctant to do what we in the Liberal Democrats have done and give, on behalf of the Scottish Executive, a clear, firm and unequivocal commitment in principle to free personal care for all the elderly, with a definite timetable for its implementation? Is it because of a lack of personal commitment on her part, or because she is being leant on by the UK Labour Government? Is the minister aware that, in this chamber, she is in the minority and that the majority in this Parliament is for free personal care for all older people?
The First Minister has stated clearly in recent months that the care—long-term care in particular—of older people will be a top priority for his Administration. Today, I have set out an absolute commitment from all of us—from the entire Scottish Cabinet—that that is a top priority. We want to match that priority not just with words, but with hard, tangible action that delivers what old people need—better services, fairer services and greater equity.
The First Minister said also that we would look to go further than we had already gone in our response to the royal commission report. That is why, today, I have given a clear commitment that, building on the work of the chief nursing officer's report, which was published only today, we will look to extend the provision of free nursing and personal care to ensure that more people have greater equity in the charges that apply to them in the care system.
Yes, our priority is, unashamedly, to target our resources first and foremost on those in greatest need, to ensure that more people in the care system receive care according to need, not means. I have endeavoured to set out clearly how we will take that work forward. I hope that we can all agree that we are taking important steps forward in the right direction.
Before I call any more members, I should say that a large number of members now want to ask questions, so the shorter the questions and answers are, the more we will get in.
I welcome the statement and recognise the Executive's commitment to supporting our older citizens as a top priority for future funding. I also acknowledge the progress that will arise from the statement. Am I right to interpret the statement as, first, a renewed commitment—in reviewing all the resources that are currently applied to the elderly—to achieving equity across all care settings? Secondly, does the statement mean that the false division between nursing and personal care will be abolished and replaced by a care needs assessment whereby a threshold of need will be set, above which all care needs will be met but below which there will continue to be means testing until we can afford otherwise? Thirdly, is it the Executive's intention to drive that threshold down, as resources become available?
Richard Simpson raises a number of important points. I will attempt to address each of them in turn. [Members: "Answer the question."] Let me answer the question. First, Richard Simpson raises the global resources that go into the care of older people. We have had many debates in this chamber about investments of £100 million, £200 million or £300 million. Several billion pounds of public money are spent on the care of older people in Scotland.
I do not believe that any political party, any service provider or any politician would say that those resources are being used as effectively as possible at the moment, not least because of the gaps and the duplication that exist in the care system. One of the royal commission's conclusions was that that should be examined, that there should be more joint working and joint budgeting and that better use should be made of those funds. We will address that to ensure that those resources hit the front line and meet people's needs.
On the distinction between nursing and personal care, I commend to Richard Simpson and to other members the CNO's report, which I published today. It directly addresses the definition of care. As I said in my statement, the report makes it clear that people have complex needs—a mix of needs. We said that our approach to extending greater support for care in Scotland would be needs based. That is exactly what it is and we will continue to build on that approach in terms of investment—a point that Richard Simpson raised—and of improvements to service delivery.
I welcome the fact that the issue is at the top of the agenda and that progress is being made. I welcome the fact that we are going further than the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not welcome the fact that there is not a full commitment to free personal care.
We are in the situation outlined by Keith Raffan. The majority of members of Parliament—and does not being a Parliament count for something—want the full implementation of free personal care. The challenge for the Parliament is to find a mechanism by which it can implement that. The Health and Community Care Committee produced a straightforward, unequivocal, unanimous cross-party report that recommended full commitment. The report put neither time frames nor straitjackets on the commitment. It was unequivocal and the committee knew where it wanted to end up.
Is the minister telling us that the short-term implementation group that will sit for six months will have on its agenda an item to look yet again—although why we need to, I do not know—at whether we should be going for full implementation of the Sutherland report? The minister says that she will remove some of the unfairness from the system. If a system is unfair, it is so root and branch. The question now is whether Mr McLeish is on London's leash or on the Parliament's leash.
Margaret Smith and I share many views and objectives. It is unfortunate that she should suggest that our motives are anything other than to do our best by Scotland's older people. That is what we have been committed to since the day and hour the partnership Administration came into office.
The group that I am establishing is not a review group. It will take forward action and implementation. We want it to work with us to look at how we can extend the boundaries of the provision of free nursing and personal care in Scotland and how we can do that in a way that is effectively resourced, that ensures that services meet the needs that we have identified and that ensures that we look at the overall organisation of the provision of older people's care.
It is unfortunate that the royal commission report, which is referred to so often in the chamber—all 200 pages of it—is reduced to one line. I have read and re-read that report time and time again. Any member who has not, should do so. It is clear that progress can, and arguably should, happen in stages to ensure that it is managed effectively, that the care system does not suffer and that old people benefit as a result. That is precisely what we are doing. We have been true to our promises and we will continue to be so.
Age Concern Scotland called on the Scottish Executive to make a clear, unequivocal commitment to the introduction of free personal care for all older people. It asked the Executive to announce a deadline by which all personal care costs will be met from the public purse.
Why have the minister and the Government let Age Concern down? Why have the minister and the Government let down the estimated 100,000 people in Scotland who would benefit from free personal care if Sutherland was fully implemented? Why will the Government not invest the £25 million needed to bridge the gap to meet the personal care costs of all Scotland's elderly people? The Government will have £53 million in its reserves; using half of that would meet the full personal care costs of Scotland's elderly people.
Finally, why does Government prefer to listen to London Labour rather than to the tens of thousands of frail older people living in Scotland who have been let down by the minister's statement?
I will deal with the substance of the question rather than with the tired political rhetoric.
In this chamber, not only in this debate but in discussions on every issue, we have heard repeated calls for more, more, more. On health and community care, we have heard demands to do more and spend more on the NHS, community care and the voluntary sector. We have made commitments to additional investment in all those sectors. We will not make commitments when we cannot say how they will be resourced or when they will be delivered.
We want to address the problem that the royal commission report identified—to get to the bottom of what needs exist in our country and to ensure that they are met effectively in terms of a fair and equitable charging system and the provision of services. Many older people need better services. For example, they need action to be taken to tackle delayed discharge. They need support in their own homes, which they are currently not able to get. The measures that I set out in October and those that I have set out today go a considerable way towards addressing those needs. I assure the Parliament that measures that I introduce in future will do likewise.
In her statement last October, the minister told Parliament that approximately 7,000 to 8,000 Scots had to meet the full costs of their personal care—indeed all aspects of their care costs in residential accommodation. Today, she said that the extension of free care will apply to "many more" older people. I have a simple question for her: how many more and how much of a dent does she intend to make in that 7,000 or 8,000?
It is precisely so we can answer questions such as those and deliver on those needs that we are proceeding with the work that I outlined in my statement.
We can meet needs only when they are assessed and identified. The chief nursing officer's report sets out how we can do that—how we can better identify and address the needs of older people with a range of conditions—such as by having a more effective and sensitive way of addressing those with challenging behaviour, including people with conditions such as dementia.
I repeat that we are taking forward meaningful work on that matter to ensure that we get the right data and information so that we can take informed policy and investment decisions. The development group that I have established is not open ended. It has six months to carry out a focused and much-needed piece of work in Scotland, so that we can address the matter that David McLetchie has raised with the precision with which he wants us to address it.
I will ask a question that is not about London Labour, but is about elderly people who live in Scotland.
The minister will know that more than 7,000 people with dementia in long-term NHS care are not charged for any element of personal care. At the same time, more than 30,000 people with medium to severe dementia—either in care homes or at home—are subject to means testing, so they might be charged for personal care. When will all those in the group who are currently being charged for personal care receive it for free? What is the time scale?
John McAllion raises an important point. It is worth noting again that many people currently receive personal care free or receive significant support in their personal care costs under the existing means test. The critical difference in what I have set out today is our intention to extend the boundaries so that more people fall within that net, based on need. We will report on the issue in six months' time, through the work that Malcolm Chisholm will lead. We plan to take action on the matters that John McAllion has raised from 1 April 2002—14 months from now.
Did the minister see Sir Stewart Sutherland's letter to The Scotsman yesterday, in which he stated that, to implement the recommendations of his report in full, only an additional £25 million per annum would be required over and above the money that the Scottish Executive had already committed? Does the minister agree that £25 million, which works out at less than 0.15 per cent of the Scottish Executive budget, would be money well spent to ensure a fairer deal for all elderly people and to avoid the accusations that the Executive has been building up false expectations of full implementation of the Sutherland report?
I remind Dennis Canavan that we are already spending substantially in excess of the sum that he mentioned. We announced £100 million extra in October. Almost £0.5 billion more is going to the national health service this year and, of course, there have been other increases in the local government spend.
I have seen Sir Stewart Sutherland's letter. The figures available to us certainly differ from those that he has quoted. However, I have something very important to say: Sir Stewart Sutherland, his royal commission, the Executive and I all agree that more work must be done to identify the need that is out there. The royal commission report is based on estimates and mentions the "funnel of doubt" about both current and projected need. We will act on our promises and extend the boundaries of the provision of free care; however, we will do so in a costed, properly assessed and therefore deliverable way.
Although I know that the Liberal Democrats are genuinely concerned about the situation, I say to them—and the minister—that if they are so concerned they should pull out of the coalition after yet another shabby let-down.
There is a mystery about this afternoon. Although the minister has been facing the pack in the chamber, there is a gentleman at her side—Mr McLeish. We want to hear from the organ-grinder this afternoon, even though we know that the ultimate organ-grinder is in London and his name is Tony Blair. Will the minister stop taking calls from Tony Blair to tell her what to do? Furthermore, will she realise the sorrow felt today by the Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee? The original committee members worked for 10 months on the Sutherland report and produced their own unanimous report—with Labour members very much included—that backed free personal care for all. Does the minister realise that she has personally let down that committee as well as the frail elderly in Scotland, whose concerns are being buried in a time capsule under the floorboards?
I take it from Dorothy-Grace Elder's opening remarks that I am the monkey. I will not take offence at that; instead, I will address the points that she has raised.
We have all debated this matter at length in the past—including at First Minister's question time—and I am sure that we will continue to debate it in the future, as we should. However, when we do, we should not try to reduce a complex and important policy area to single demands or to open-ended commitments and aspirations that of themselves do not make a difference to the people we all care about. Today I have set out a radical programme of measures that will make a difference and we will continue to drive that work forward in the months and years to come.
As Winnie Ewing is the mother of the house and I am the father of the house, logically we will both need elderly care before the other 127 members. I have noticed that, when under pressure, Susan Deacon tends to go pink in the face while Henry McLeish plays with his tie. Both signs are very evident this afternoon.
I have to put my question to Susan Deacon as I cannot put it to Henry McLeish. Will she give us a categorical assurance that Tony Blair, Gordon Brown or indeed any other Westminster minister has not put pressure on her, or particularly on the First Minister, on this matter?
It seems that talk of the time of life is rife in the chamber today—perhaps that is why I am going pink in the face. Whatever the case, I am sure that there are many years left in both the mother and the father of the Parliament and that we will hear a lot more from them.
I am pleased to give a categorical assurance that the policy was made in Scotland for Scotland by Scottish ministers elected by the Scottish people to deliver improvements for Scotland's older people.
Does the minister understand the huge disappointment that will be felt throughout Scotland at the fact that she has dogmatically set her face against a declaration of intent to fulfil the recommendations of the Sutherland report? Does she also accept the fact that a majority of MSPs disagree with her and want her to go that extra mile?
Older people and their families would be disappointed if ministers made statements that did not result in practical change for them. Open-ended commitments alone do not make practical changes, but measures to extend the boundaries of free nursing and personal care will make a difference, as will investment in services. Today's announcement is much more than warm words; it represents hard practical action. I hope that members across the Executive and Opposition parties will welcome the fact that change will come about as a result of the measures that I have set out today.
The minister told John Young not to worry, as today's announcement is not a London let-down but a Scottish let-down. I suggest to her that that does not give much solace to the people who have been let down today. If she cannot tell David McLetchie how many people will be affected by today's announcement, how can she tell us that it is fair and equitable?
This Administration gets its principles and priorities right and translates them not into words but into practical action. We have made clear the fact that our principle is to achieve greater equity and we have made it clear that our priority is to assist those in greatest need. Through the resource allocation exercise that the Minister for Finance and Local Government is overseeing, additional resources will be made a priority and the work that Malcolm Chisholm is doing will match that to need. That is practical politics—the work of Government. Opposition parties may shout from the sidelines; Governments deliver results, which is what we are doing.
As this is an important statement, I have allowed it to run on well over the half-hour period. As a debate in which many members wish to speak follows, we must move on. I apologise to the six members who have not been called.