 The next item of business is a member's business debate on motion 2130 in the name of Johann Lamont on care tax in Scotland. This debate will be concluded without any questions being put. Would those members who wish to speak in the debate please press the request-to-speak buttons as soon as possible? I call on Johann Lamont to open the debate. Around seven minutes, please, Ms Lamont. Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank everyone who signed this motion and everyone who is in attendance for this debate. I want to particularly remark on the fact that the Cabinet Secretary herself is responding to this debate and recognising the significance of this debate for many people. I can also acknowledge the work of Scotland against the care tax, Frank's Law, the Coalition of Careers in Scotland and all those other tireless campaigners who have focused our attention on the significant issues that are faced by disabled people and those who need social care. I also acknowledge the particular role of my former MSP colleague Siobhan MacMahon, who, while here, pursued those issues with great passion and commitment and insisted that I for one should ensure that the issue should continue to be raised now that she no longer is in this place. I do not pretend to be an expert on those very important issues. I am very grateful to all those organisations that provided briefings for this debate, highlighting a wide range of concerns from the lack of consistency across Scotland, the unmet need of those with neurological conditions but who are under 65, the danger of cost deterring the uptake of low-level preventative care measures and many, many more, too many for me probably to cover in this debate. I think that the heart of this recognising that for every story, every issue that has been raised, there are human beings behind those stories experiencing difficulties caused not by them but by a system that does not properly acknowledge their needs. I am pleased to say that many of those who really do understand and live with these issues are with us in the gallery tonight, and we will be involved in a meeting following the debate where we continue this conversation. I hope that the minister and others will be able to attend that with us. I think that there is a danger in too many debates that we settle for identifying others to blame and set back on what we are doing ourselves. In building a consensus, I think that there is a central role for the Scottish Government in refreshing its approach, understanding and perhaps addressing the unintended consequences of some of its political choices, and so, of course, must local government, too, in its actions in this area. However, what we cannot do is put this issue in a political too hardbox, settling for telling people how much we care but not taking the action that matches that concern. The motion tonight highlights a fundamental injustice that disabled people and those with long-term conditions such as dementia or motor neurone disease are paying more for social care services. Astoundingly, over the period 2009 to 2013, the amount of money collected from older and disabled people rose by approximately four times the rate of inflation. Those charges are effectively a tax that the rest of us do not have to pay. The disabled people contribute to mainstream services that they cannot access without funding the social care that allows them to do so. The cost of care is availability and affordability and is seeing people priced out of using services with the consequent cost to their wellbeing and with an impact on their unpaid carers who pick up the slack. We know that disabled people are more likely to be living in poverty in the front line facing the consequences of the austerity approach of the Tory Government, but what we should not do is compound their problems with the choices that we make. We know that it makes no economic sense ignoring disability-related expenditure, the extra cost of heating, transport and simply living, denying disabled people who want to work the opportunity to fulfil their potential and to contribute through their taxation, but it costs them to work and their loved ones living with greater stress and ill health. The approach increases costs, increases crisis and with increased emergency admission to hospital, so instead of preventing their spending through proper funding, we are ending up in a position where people can only be supported once they are in crisis. As we look at our NHS, we know that the solution in large part is to invest in local government, not target disproportionately for cuts. That is a rational means of improving the health and wellbeing of all our citizens. It is a matter of logic and of justice to address the question, but, critically, it is a matter of human rights. That is not about how much we can display, how much we care, how much we empathise, about how we can be a little bit kinder to disabled people and those with long-term conditions. No, it is how we live up to our oft-repeated commitment to human rights and equality. It is not a maybe, it should be a must. When people say, I get that, there is an issue here, it is just too expensive, we cannot afford to move towards or eradicate care charges, I say this. Educating our young people is expensive, but we do not suggest only educating our boys as we cannot afford to educate them all. Why then can it be acceptable to deny disabled people the right to live independently, the right to access work and economic opportunities? Why can it be acceptable that the needs of someone with the same degenerative condition will be supported differently on the grounds of age or because of where they live? We have a fundamental choice here. We can increase the size of the resource cake to meet needs fairly through taxation or we can redistribute the resource cake that we currently have fairly. What we cannot do in all conscience is to shrug our shoulders at what is a manifest injustice and a denial of the human rights of all too many in our communities. In conclusion, what I seek from the minister is an acknowledgement of the problem and a commitment to act. It cannot be left to some distant point in the future when we will have solved the problem of spending more while taxing less. This is work that the Parliament can do right now. We can support the Government in developing a proper strategy, focusing on the injustice of this problem, of a care tax on those who need support services in order to live their lives independently. We need a commitment to justice, working with those who understand best what it is like living with a disability and what it means to achieve their potential. This is an urgent matter. It is a matter of equality. It is a matter of human rights, and I believe that it requires in all of us a little bit of courage, the willingness to be bold, to say that this is a problem. We can act. We will open up the debate about why taxation can benefit all in our communities and that a fair distribution of resources means that we can all achieve our potential. I think that this is an area where we as a Parliament can come together, confronting issues that matter directly to far too many people across our communities. I look forward to this debate and I hope that this is the start of a debate where we will make a difference and will respond to the long-held campaigning convictions of those who deserve the right equality and justice. I thank Johann Lamont for bringing this debate to the chamber tonight and for the tone that she struck in opening. That is an issue that it is important to address, and we need to consider it accordingly. Setting politics to one side and acknowledging there may be a difference between what we might all ideally wish to see delivered now and what might be deliverable in the short, medium and longer terms. What is required is a realistic and informed debate about how it might be possible to meet the aspirations that people affected by this issue rightly have set against the financial pressures that the Scottish Government and local authorities face. The fact is that there are tough choices to make around what we can and cannot fund. From the case advanced by the family of my weight constituent, Frank Coppell, who died of early onset vascular dementia, did not qualify for the sport that he would have had if he had been over 65. Through the arguments, making a similarly strong case for those diagnosed with all types of terminal illnesses or disabilities to calls for blanket outright abolition now, even the most heartless of individuals would surely struggle to disagree with the merits of the calls that they all make. Ideally, abolition of these charges for the under-65s, with the difficulties that they create for them and their families, is something that we would all of us aspire to see. How do you say to any group or individual whatever the strength of your case in the short to medium term, it cannot be addressed? However, if we accept that funding outright abolition, given the increasing demands being made on the health budget, is unachievable in one giant weep, then, as Enable suggests, we can still and I quote, explore some of the pragmatic steps that can make a significant difference on the journey to ending this practice. More than that, we should ensure that the Scottish Government delivers on its commitment to make progress on delivering a fairer system. For that informed debate to be kicked off, we need to have accurate figures for the cost of abolishing social care charging for all under-65s. That is the elephant in the room here, and I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary in responding might offer some hard detail around this if we want to bring some context to the financial challenge concern. However the costs involved, we cannot ignore the case being made here to pursue possibilities for progress and not put it in the too difficult to do box, as Johann Lamont mentioned. The briefings provided from a variety of sources for the debate contain a number of criticisms of the Scottish Government's provision of £6 million to local authorities to take 800 under-65s out of paying any chargers and reducing those born by 13,000 others. I understand entirely that people and their families in such a situation would rather no one was paying anything, but it was a genuine first step along the road that this motion calls on us to travel, and it was concerning indeed to learn that some councillors may have failed to ensure the full benefit of the £6 million was felt by those who were intended to help. Shame on any councillor of whatever political cue they might be who did that. However, I would, Presiding Officer, caution about Russian judgment on such allegations without substantiating them. I was horrified to read an assertion that my councillor in Angus had failed to deploy the money for the purpose that it was received. That, however, turns out not to be the case. If we accept that we will have to move forward at a pace and in a way that will not necessarily meet the aspirations of all, then what could we do? The programme for government revealed an intention to conduct a feasibility study into extending free personal and nursing care to those under the age of 65 with a diagnosis of dementia. Can we move forward on that sooner rather than later? What have Marie Curie's called to consider ensuring that anyone under 65, given a terminal diagnosis, is exempted? What about taking account of any disability-related expenditure before arriving at the point where care charges kick in or the suggestion from the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland that the threshold at which disabled people have to start paying charges is set at £11,000 rather than the current £6,500? It strikes me that, in the spirit of exploring a fairer way forward, those are ideas worthy of costing and consideration. Can I repeat my welcome with this opportunity to debate this issue? Whilst recognising entirely the challenges, I encourage the Scottish Government to make whatever progress it realistically can towards arriving at a more equitable situation. I would like to start by congratulating Johann Lamont on securing this evening's members' debate. The Scottish Parliament passed the free personal care for the elderly policy in 2002, with all party support. However, since the legislation was passed, it has become clear that, for many people in Scotland living with a life-limiting condition, unfair age discrimination surrounding access to vital personal care has now become an unintended consequence. At present, anyone under the age of 65 who requires personal care for dementia, motor neurones disease, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis or Huntington's disease has to fund the cost of their personal care themselves. Since the election, I have met a number of constituents and organisations who have legitimate and genuine concerns about the current social care charging system for people with these conditions. I recognise the strong feelings that exist and I believe that we need to address this issue and respond to the unfairness that is often so very clear to see. There are real concerns about the disparities and inconsistencies across Scotland and the collection costs of social care charges, which make it one of the most inefficient charges and taxes collected. The motion this evening refers to Frank's law. Along with Ruth Davidson, I recently met Amanda Capel to discuss her campaign. I would like to welcome Amanda and others to the public gallery this evening and congratulate them on the incredible campaigns that they are running across Scotland to try to get the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government to act to address this unfairness. I would like to pay warm tribute to Amanda for her standing and high-profile campaigning work that she has personally undertaken to support a change in the law to allow under-65s, with conditions such as dementia and MND, to receive vital support for their social care. Amanda's selfless efforts are to be commended and I know that her determined campaigning will not cease until we have seen a better system put in place in Scotland. Official figures show that the number of people under-65s being treated for dementia is increasing, and that trend is likely to continue. Dementia can devastate an individual in their family, but early-onset dementia can be even more devastating for family members, and we need to look at how we can better support them to care for their loved ones. The Scottish Government, earlier, as Graeme Day has outlined, announced an extra £6 million for local authorities to raise the threshold at which people can pay, and begin paying for care at home. However, that is only a small improvement, and we will only see a limited number of people actually helped. As Graeme Day has outlined, it is vital that the Scottish Government set out, in as much detail as possible, the accurate costings and projections that it has for extending free personal care to all those who need it, broken down by condition, so that we can have an informed debate about how extra resources are needed and how we can take forward a change in this policy. The Scottish Government's feasibility study of expanding free personal nursing care to people with dementia, who are under 65, is welcome, but it is also important that we look at other conditions such as MND and MS, as well as other further conditions such as Huntington's, who are also in this catchment. I again am pleased that we are having this debate, which is very timely, and I know that charities and individuals will continue to campaign hard on the issue to press the Scottish Government to act. I welcome their continued input and efforts. I hope that we can, as Johann Lamont mentioned, reach a consensus here in Parliament to provide a better and fairer system of social and care support for people under 65 who are in need of personal care at what is clearly the most difficult time in anyone's life. It is vital that we make progress on this beyond a member's debate and that this Parliament and this Government move the issue forward. I would like to suggest to the cabinet secretary the idea that we establish the first-ever Scottish Parliament all-party working group on this specific issue, to look at the issue and to try to work to bring forward costed solutions. I hope that, in responding, the cabinet secretary will agree to the suggestion and that we can look to establish the issue at the earliest opportunity. Deputy Presiding Officer, to conclude, no illness or long-term condition or disease waits for a person to reach the age of 65. For those who need support with social care, regardless of age, we need to see that recognised and provided for when they need it and where they need it. I declare an interest in today's debate as a local councillor and also the fact that, until just after my election to the Parliament in May, I was employed by Parkinson's UK. I also thank my colleague John Lamont for the opportunity to debate this important subject of care charges. I also hope to start a wider discussion on the issue of how we provide and fund social care in Scotland. It is now 14 years since the last Labour-led Government introduced free personal and nursing care to everyone over the age of 65. Today, in Scotland, around 77,000 older people benefit from that policy. However, if I can echo the words on the Frank's Law campaign website, no disability, illness, condition or disease waits until a person reaches the age of 65 and then strikes. Across Scotland, 90,000 people are living with dementia. Not all of them are over 65. In fact, over 3,000 are under the age of 65. If those 3,000 people require care, they are financially assessed by the local authority to determine whether or not they should make a financial contribution towards that care and where they live, often determines how much they pay. It is the same for many other long-term conditions—motor neuron disease, Parkinson's, multiple sclerosis, cancer and many others. In our election manifesto, Scottish Labour made a commitment towards the abolition of those care charges for those under 65. I reiterate that commitment to date. John McAlpine. I thank the member for taking the intervention. Two points could he explain why, given that Labour commitment, the council in Dumfries and Galloway—a Labour-controlled council in Dumfries and Galloway—has lowered the threshold at which disabled people start paying care charges and why it has introduced a disparity for over and under 65 this year? Colin Smyth I will certainly come to that particular point—a policy that, as John McAlpine knows, was supported by the SNP councillors. I hope that, when I responded to the debate today, the cabinet secretary will say whether, in principle, the Government supports the commitment towards the abolition of charges. At the very least, it sets out a timetable for extending free personal and nursing care to those with a diagnosis of dementia, because Labour will support that work. That is an issue that goes beyond party politics in the same way that it did when Labour introduced free personal and nursing care. It is disappointing that, again today, John McAlpine seeks to make that a party political issue by attacking Dumfries and Galloway council, who is a direct result of funding cuts, did bring charges in line with most of the rest of Scotland. Historically, the charging policy in that region was more generous than elsewhere. That was not without its consequences. Overspens and social work and the previous Administrations were common in order to balance the books, and a more generous charging policy meant cuts to services. Faced with this year's unprecedented four and a half per cent cash cut in the Government grant, a review of the policy was instigated as the options for making savings elsewhere became increasingly limited. That review began before the Government announced the social care fund, but we also know that the financial assumptions made by the Government in relation to that fund were flawed. For example, the Government initially indicated that the application of the living wage for care staff from 1 October would cost around £37 million across Scotland. That is approximately £1.1 million in Dumfries and Galloway, but the actual cost to the council of the living wage was over £3.4 million. You cannot claim therefore that there is funding available to east charges when the package of measures required under the social care fund was in excess of that funding. Faced with £21 million of cuts, councillors reluctantly agreed to bring the charging policy more in line with the rest of Scotland. That policy, as I said, was backed by all councillors and all parties, including the SNP. In fact, if I look at the SNP group's own budget where they proposed the change, it showed that the additional income raised avoided having to make a further £500,000 of cuts. That is the equivalent of 15 social workers posts or over 30 carers. If politicians in this Parliament want to attack local councillors for making decisions that they do not like, then at the very least they should have the guts to say where they would make the cuts. I will not, however, hold my breath. In the time that we have to debate this issue, it is only possible to scratch the surface of the challenges that we face in delivering and properly funding social care. Addressing individual issues such as social care charges and isolation will not solve the problems. I hope that today's debate, however, is the start of a wider discussion of the future of social care in Scotland. I would like to start by thanking Johann Lamont for bringing the debate to Parliament. It is a very important issue and I am pleased to be able to use it to raise the interests of my constituents in the south of Scotland. However, I wanted to start by adressing the point that Colin Smyth has made about choices and the kind of cuts that are being imposed on us, let's not forget, by Westminster. I would suggest an area where his council could save money, because his council is raising around £450,000 this financial year on the back of those charges to disabled people. However, the council has also spent a very similar figure on a new group of officers whose job it is to shadow councillors. They are called ward managers and they are on between £42,000 and £46,000 a year. They are not front-line social workers or teachers or learning support assistants, they are bureaucrats whose annual wage bill costs about the same as they are waging on the charges to disabled people. He asked me to make a suggestion, so that is my suggestion. Colin Smyth, do you remember being aware that that particular option that she discusses was actually a saving because there was a cut in the overall number of staff and all the posts have been filled by existing members of staff? Presumably, that is why SNP councillors agreed to that. It did not cost any additional funding, so it will not make a saving. John Macall? I think that that is actually weasel words. They are new posts and they are not front-line posts. The difference between myself and Colin Smyth is that I am willing to stand up and say that I oppose those charges. I do not care who supported them. I know that Colin Smyth supported them, but I am willing to stand up and say that I oppose them. What Devrisad Galloway has done has had a really detrimental effect on some of the most profoundly disabled people in the country. One constituent who wrote to me cares for his profoundly disabled son, and he has seen charges rise up from £0 to £31.30 a week in the course of the last two years. That is over £1,600 annually, which comes out of his ASA and disability payments. It is a rise of over 500 per cent. There is another lady, a pensioner, who wrote to me who has three disabled adult children. She is now paying an extra £60 a week to cover both of them. Devrisad Galloway has defended her decision to hike up charges by claiming a £177 a week threshold that she used up until this year was over generous. That is deeply insulting and insensitive. It is easy to dehumanise people by calling them service users. As some councillors have in the press that they were over generous to service users, I think that if you say that you are over generous to severely disabled people, it brings home exactly the consequences of what you are doing. The guidelines published by Cosley earlier this year were intended to protect people in the lowest incomes from charges using the £6 million that has already been mentioned from the Government. Critically, the amount was not reduced for councils who were, as Collins might put it, over generous in their payments. They still got the same allocation. Devrisad Galloway Council also got £182,000 extra, as it has shared, of the £6 million. Instead of using it to reduce the charges, Devrisad Galloway Council has pocketed it and raised the charges for those people. I realise that this is not an easy decision, but councillors have choices as well. We have constantly been told that we should not centralise and dictate from the centre, but this is a local decision by a local council. It is a very damaging one for disabled people in Devrisad Galloway. Thank you very much. Can I ask those in the public gallery please, just to hold fire on any clapping of hands, if you wish to show your appreciation for any member once the Parliament has closed and the debate is over, you are very welcome to do so, but not during it, thank you. Maurice Corry, to be followed by Fulton MacGregor. I must declare an interest as a serving councillor on Argyll and Bute Council. I would firstly like to join colleagues in congratulating Joanne Lamont on securing today's member's debate on this very important issue. I would also like to commend Joanne Lamont on the passion that she brings to this subject. I thought that it was an excellent opening speech. As a former chair of the Argyll and Bute Health and Social Care Integrated Joint Board, I understand the difficult nature of deciding when someone should be charged for services and how much they should be charged. It is important to keep this debate this afternoon on the level that we are not getting down into petty politics, and I was slightly ashamed of what happened in the previous speaker's comments. It is never an easy question and, for obvious reasons, it creates strong and understandable feelings. A lot of people will see many aspects of the current system as being unfair, whether it be someone receiving different support because of their birthday or depending on where they live. That is why the Scottish Government's announcement earlier this year that an extra £6 million would be given to local authorities to raise a threshold at which people pay for care at home, which was a welcome step, but it is a small one that can and will only help a limited number of people. I hope that the Scottish Government will be able to go further in offering that vital level of help in the future. I have some examples where I have been involved with some people, particularly a young gentleman aged about 63 here in Edinburgh, where I was a guardian to him having had a severe stroke. He received the most brilliant care into getting back to his rehabilitated position back home from the Astley Ainslie hospital here in Edinburgh. However, when he got home, being of that young age of 62-63, there were severe problems financially in providing the full care package that he required, which was obviously put in place by the NHS. Consecantly, there had to be some corners cut, which did not really do many benefits. I understand from practical experience what this problem manifests itself in when somebody is under 65. Also, our case in Argyll, where we had a gentleman who, at the age of 10 months as a baby, had a brain operation because he suffered from severe epilepsy. He is now aged 19, living in Oban, and under total care from his parents, who give him total overnight care and indeed care during the weekend. They share that with the council services and the NHS to provide that. However, again, it is stretching the family beyond belief because he falls into that category of under 65. We have got an awful long way to go to try and rectify that. Finally, they are all too often. I hear of cases of people under 60. I know of two, 53 and 54, who have severe dementia and are struggling for care and trying to finance their care because of their age. As a member of the Scottish Parliament's petition committee, alongside Johann Lamont, one of the petitions that we are considering is a long-standing petition by Mrs Coppall on the subject. It is the sign of her dedication and her work that the petition has the support of well over 1,000 individuals. I know that Ruth Davidson has met on several occasions with Amanda in relation to the Frank's law and the question of picking up on that, and we certainly support that. As it stated in our manifesto in May, the Scottish Conservatives have and do support the Frank's law campaign and, most strongly, as the numbers of those of dementia and Alzheimer's who are under 65 goes up over time, and I give you the examples of that before, the question of how we provide support for them is becoming even more pressing matter than it currently is at present. In our manifesto, it has also stated that we continue to put pressure on the Scottish Government to increase support for dementia, sufferers under 65 and will continue to do so until we see some movement in the right direction. That is why I am glad to say that the Scottish Government has a feasibility study looking into the expansion of free personal nursing care to people with dementia who are under 65, and I support that. However, as Miles Briggs pointed out, it would be a good opportunity to also look into other conditions, such as motor neuron disease, Parkinson's and other conditions to discover what the cost of covering those areas would be as well. Finding out how much it would cost to provide pre-personal care to all those in need of care, whatever their condition and individual circumstances is vital in ensuring that the on-going debate on this important subject is well informed and based on fact so that we politicians can make the correct decisions for our constituents. Today's debate is an important one and one that I am sure will continue after today. It is going to inspire passions. I know that charities and individuals are going to continue to work hard to make sure that everyone who needs to is able to access the social care that they need. I hope that in the coming months we in the Parliament are able to work together to create a system that is better able to provide for those people that are under 65 and are in need of that care. I would like to join with colleagues across the chamber in congratulating Johann Lamont on securing this very important debate. The motion makes a lot of good points and I would like to point out that the Scottish Government already has a proven track record on free personal care. This party campaigned in a promise to protect free personal care for the elderly and the SNP will keep that promise. However, of course, as others have pointed out, there is much more that can be done. In that vein, I welcome the plans from ministers to investigate ways of extending free personal care to other groups who would so benefit from this great service, such as those with dementia, as has been mentioned, aged under 65. That was outlined both in the SNP manifesto and programme for government. The cabinet secretary's commitment to work closely with COSLA to get the best outcome for those in need, is to be welcomed. I hope that the councils throughout Scotland engage fully in that process. I think that it would be fair to say that the Scottish Government is doing what it can to protect those in society in the face of eye-watering cuts. I do not think that many people in the chamber would disagree with that. We often talk quite rightly in the Parliament about the vicious cuts being made by the Conservative party to our constituents throughout Scotland. We talk about how it is a choice rather than a necessity. I know that I will not be alone in this chamber in dealing with a large number of constituents who have been hit by those cuts. It is in that vein that I have been absolutely heartened to hear the Conservative members' contributions and tone on this issue tonight. I was also glad to hear Johann Lamont note that it was not just about the Scottish Government or the Westminster Government taking responsibility but also the local authority. I know that two of my colleagues have already had a bit of a debate on that. In my own area of North Lanarkshire, the administration earlier this year imposed a £5 per week charge on community alarms. That is a massive £260 a year for some of the most vulnerable people across my constituency. It is also fair to say that, for the majority of people who have community alarms installed, it is not simply for the sake of having one. It is a means for them to remain in their own home and for them to know that, if something happens, the help will not be far away. I know that I am not great for time, but I do know that there was a case of a constituent who approached me on Cope Ridge Main Street just a couple of weeks ago saying that she had actually taken the decision to get rid of the alarm, and she was quite worried about the consequences of that, but for her, would it be able to get her thing? I hear what you say, and I think that people are making these choices and they are not getting the preventative care that they might get in the earlier stage, but would you not accept that the Government has also made a choice? The cuts to local government are higher than the cuts to their budget. My point is that that is a choice that they have made, but it is a choice with a consequence that they are not able to raise the money themselves. Local government is not able to raise the money themselves, because budgets have been cut and they are having to make impossible choices. Would you agree with me that we should maybe increase the size of the cake by using our powers to increase taxation on everybody in order that our services can be properly funded? Fulton MacGregor. I thank the member for the intervention. I think that the point has been made that, by all members who have spoken, we all need to work together on that particular issue, and I accept what Johann Lamont is saying in that regard. However, I think that the focus that I was going on here was on what the responsibility of local authorities is. I am not doing my job for my constituents if I am not coming here and saying what is getting to them and what they are coming to my surgeries. I am not going to be able to take another one. In terms of the community alarm scheme, there is also the garden assistance scheme, which is the same local authority that was reviewed earlier in the year, charging through the roof prices for many elderly and disabled citizens to have their garden done on behalf of the council. I mentioned the particular charges, because when a charge is placed in a product or a service, it is absolutely required as a tax. Some of the people who are affected by this are the people who have been speaking about it throughout the debate, and they are the most affected. I agree with the overall tone of the debate, and I think that we all do a role in working together as parties, and it definitely has a Government from Westminster, the Scottish Government and the local authority in getting the right deal here. I still have two speakers left wishing to contribute to the debate, and I will not be able to call them unless the debate is extended. I am happy to accept a motion under rule 8143 that the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes is what the rule says. The question is that under rule 8143—oh gosh, I forgot to have it moved, and there is Ms Lamont sitting with great anticipation. Would someone care to move the motion? First time for everything, can I move a motion without notice that the debate be extended? I cannot believe that it is the first time that we have ever had to do that. The question is that under rule 8143 the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes. Are we agreed? I therefore call Neil Findlay to be followed by Alison Johnstone. I also would like to congratulate Johann Lamont on bringing this debate forward, and to all of the campaigners who have been diligently pursuing this campaign. Like Jenny Marra and my colleague and I, I visited Amanda and Frank Coppell's house a few years back, and I remain and will continue to be profoundly moved by that experience. However, I wonder how many other Franks there are, Franks who do not have an articulate voice, an articulate family campaigning for them. How many other Franks are there who do not have access to pressure groups, who do not know the system and who do not get their voice heard? They are foremost in my mind today. The social care system in Scotland is in a perilous situation. We see social care providers with severe staff shortages, care staff underpaid, demoralised and feeling undervalued, council budgets being slashed, IJBs starting life, making cuts and health boards like Lothian in a desperate financial situation. And whilst Government ministers and civil servants claim that there are no cuts being made only efficiencies, every front line, staff representative, I speak to across the health and social care field, are astonished at that claim. In these desperate circumstances, it is inevitable that councils will use all their powers to try and recoup money from anywhere to try and keep services afloat. Let me be absolutely clear from now. I am not here to attack councils. I am not going to play Ms McAlpine's game, where she votes to cut council budgets, shackles them over council tax, then turns round and points the finger at the very same councils for making cuts and imposing charges. I thank the member for making an intervention. I pointed out last week that the cuts to council budgets were the same as the cuts to the Scottish budget overall, however, I might reflect to him that the point that I made about Dumfries and Galloway was relevant because all the other councils in Dumfries and Galloway's position who had higher thresholds have kept their higher thresholds. Only Dumfries and Galloway has chosen to immediately impose this cut on disabled people across the board for all disabled people. That is the difference. I totally appreciate that local authorities are facing challenges. Neil Findlay. I look forward to Ms McAlpine voting the right way when the budget comes before this Parliament. Two years ago, I published a report from the Labour Party Commission on Social Care. The commission recommended that we sweep away much of but not all of the charging system. It recommended that support with personal hygiene, continuous management, meal preparation, mobility counselling, administration of medication and alarms and telecare would be provided without charge. However, local authorities would be able to charge for other support arrangements such as housework, shopping, lunch clubs, meals on meals. All adults irrespective of age, assessed as needing social care, would receive it free. I think that that is a sensible, fair and compassionate approach. I do not understand why someone aged 45 with MND, MS or MS or mobile and reliant on care staff for dressing, feeding and washing is denied free personal care yet someone over 65 with the same needs gets it. That is not an argument to deny the over 65s the help they need. It is an argument to say that others need it too and we should care for all our people according to their needs and not an arbitrary date in a calendar. However, in sweeping away the charging system, this Parliament has to face up to some very harsh realities. We cannot have a system financed by fresh air or left to the vagaries of the Government's latest punishment doled out to Scotland's councils. I would like to see social care paid for in the same way as the NHS, where we all pay when we can and take out when we need. We could do that through a number of different options as we identified in the commission paper. Here are just some of the options that we could look at. We could take a different approach to policy decisions in relation to Government spend. We could increase national insurance contributions across the UK. We could use the Scottish rate of income tax. We could implement wealth or property taxes. My preferred option would be to have a UK-wide tax or estates that would be paid on death by everyone, whether we use the social care system or not. Services throughout a person's life would be free at the point of access paid for after the end of life. Whatever we choose, doing nothing is not an option. Presiding Officer, this is about the fundamentals of how we see ourselves as a society. Are we a civilised society that cares collectively for people throughout their lives, or are we not? The last of the open speakers is Alison Johnstone. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. First, I congratulate Johann Lamont for bringing this issue to the attention of the Parliament. In the last Parliament, as Johann Lamont noted, Siobhan McMahon raised the unfairness in the current care charging system with her proposed private member's bill, and I welcome the opportunity to return to the issue in this new session. I welcome to the call in the motion to explore ways of making social care charging fairer with a view to ending the practice altogether. I believe, as others do, that it is essential that we do so. As the Alliance pointed out in its briefing, independent living is a human right that does not rely on an individual being able to pay to achieve it. It is right to point out that charges for non-residential care amount to an additional tax on disabled people for accessing vital support in order to live independently. Free personal care should be extended to cover all people who require it in order to lead independent lives. Enable Scotland tells us that its members are concerned about the sustained affordability of social care charging, that they cannot afford to do the things that they would like to, and that they are often going without. Jim Elder Woodward, of the Scottish Independent Living Coalition, is right when he says that we now understand that childcare should be viewed as a social infrastructure investment and that that now should be extended to social care support. I, too, would like to thank all those who have provided us with such excellent briefings today. The number of briefings that we have received is testimony to the number of lives that the issue touches. They are very well researched from those who have direct experience of the impact of the charge. I cannot mention them all because I would use my whole four minutes, Presiding Officer, but they are very powerful. They make us aware of the many inconsistencies in the current regime for care charges. Although the cost of procuring care does differ between different areas, with care and rural areas being more expensive to provide, for example, the current differences in care charges between local authorities cannot only be explained by the differing costs of care. Charges for home care services vary from free in Fife to £23.70 an hour in Angus, according to Inclusion Scotland, and the taper local authorities apply to determine charges for care also varies hugely, from 15 per cent of disposable income to 100 per cent. The rules that govern the calculation of charges can vary hugely. Care charging by councils is self-regulated. COSLA develops guidance for the calculation of charges, and local authorities are supposed to take that into account when setting charging policies. Although COSLA recommends a list of sources of incomes to disregard for the purpose of calculating care charges, they are recommendations only. That could mean, for example, that the very welcome increase in carers allowance that the Scottish Government is pledging to introduce could be immediately swallowed up by care charges in some areas of Scotland while in others it might be disregarded. It is difficult to see any justification for this level of inconsistency. The benefits system operates on criteria that apply to everyone, regardless of where they live. As free or reduced cost care is a benefit in kind, so determining eligibility for it should not be subject to such different approaches in different parts of the country. Clearly, we need to urgently bring some consistency to care charging as a first step towards phasing out charges for care. That can be done under existing legislation. The Scottish Government has the power to regulate care charges under the Community Care and Health Act 2002. A decision was made at the time for those powers to be held in reserve until the implementation of guidance issued by COSLA in 2002 could be evaluated. That evaluation has never been carried out, and 14 years later it can reasonably be described as overdue. I welcome the cabinet secretary's comments on that. The abolition of disability living allowance and the reduced number of claimants being able to access the new PIP payment will impact too. Reductions in the income of people who use services may well take more individuals below charging thresholds and place additional demands on stretched resources. The 2014-15 COSLA charging guidance says that consideration is currently being given by the Scottish Government to mitigating the impact that changes will have, and I would appreciate an update from the cabinet secretary on progress. I am very pleased that we are having this debate about abolishing care charges, but, as others have suggested, it needs to come in the broader context of the new powers coming to this Parliament. Opportunities for progressive taxation that can cover those costs. If we believe in healthcare free at the point of delivery, we have to consider that seriously now. We want to live in a truly inclusive Scotland. That unfair tax must be abolished. I do not think that I have ever seen four-minute speeches stretch quite so much in this member's debate. I now call Shona Robison to wind up the debate. Around seven minutes, please, cabinet secretary. Thanks very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think that today's debate has highlighted a number of issues around social care in Scotland, particularly around the fairness of charges for social care, but also some wider issues. I thank Johann Lamont for bringing the debate, but I would also like to add my voice to welcoming the role of campaigners in focusing our minds on the issue of fairer charging, particularly Amanda Copill, who I have met a number of times. Johann Lamont's motion calls for the Parliament to explore ways of making charging fairer. I want to start off by outlining some of the progress that we have made on the journey to making charging fairer. The additional £250 million that was provided for social care in this year has achieved a number of things. Firstly, it is worth noting that it has helped to deliver the living wage for 40,000 care workers, which is important in making sure that the services that people receive have the staff there to deliver those services. Of course, within that £250 million was the £6 million that a number of members have referred to, which was provided to allow local authorities to raise the charging threshold in order to take around 900 people out of charging altogether, but it is important to reduce the charges for a further 13,000 people. The £6 million that I said when I announced it was the first step towards fairer charging, and it was deliberately aimed at prioritising those with the lowest incomes to help to reduce their charges or to take them out of charging completely. I hope that that is a priority that people would agree is important. We also listened to campaigns like Gordon Aitman's campaign for an end to charges in the last stage of terminal illness. Of course, from 1 April 2015, we ensured that no-one in the last six months of a terminal progressive illness was charged for the care that they received at home. Looking forward, from next April, we have committed to ensuring that the guaranteed income payments and war pensions for armed forces veterans are excluded from consideration as income for the purposes of social care assessments. Some progress made and some further progress to be made in response to the concerns raised by the campaigns, including the Frank's law campaign. Today, I can confirm again that we have committed to conducting a feasibility study over the course of the next year into the possibility of extending free personal care to those under the age of 65 with a diagnosis of dementia. It is a complex matter. Members have, of course, pointed to the fact that there are other conditions for those who are under 65 beyond that of dementia that have to be taken into consideration. I will, in a second, am very happy to keep members informed of the progress of that work as we take it forward in response to Miles Briggs asking for cross-party discussions. I am very happy to use that feasibility study as the focal point of those discussions. I thank the cabinet secretary for taking the intervention. I am sure that many people would welcome the feasibility study for dementia sufferers under 65 and the points that she made about veterans. Does she accept the point that my interest is particularly around learning disability? She is the vice convener of the LN disability cross-party group. Some particular groups have more effect, have more lobbyists than others, and their higher profile. I would be concerned that if we pick out certain particular areas, lots of people have experience of dementia. For example, there is a big profile for veterans organisations, but perhaps people with learning disability do not have as many people to speak for them. I think that there should be more equity in those matters. General sympathy with the point that Joe McAlpine makes is that it is difficult to select one group of people with a particular diagnosis, because I think that that would create other unfairness. The feasibility study, although it is focused on those under 65 with dementia, would have to cast a wider look at the issue more generally of charging for those with pre-personal care under 65. Again, I am happy to keep members informed as we take that forward. One of the biggest concerns that has been repeatedly highlighted in tonight's debate is the variation between local authorities and the charges that they make for social care. That makes it difficult for people with disabilities to move between local authority areas. It can cause frustration when they see a lower charge in a neighbouring authority for the same service. As a result, COSLA has implemented a new standard financial assessment that should begin to bring closer alignment between local authorities and how they assess charges for care. We are determined to make further progress in improving fairness, but we are clear that if they do not improve, we can use legislative powers to ensure that that happens, as was outlined by Alison Johnstone. I will take Miles Briggs. What I wanted to hear and see how we develop this is that the feasibility study that you have spoken about is very much focused on dementia. Is there an opportunity to widen that to life-limiting conditions so that we can have the information that we are all looking for that is currently not out there and then take forward the debate that way? Shona Robison, as I said earlier, it would be hard to look at dementia because that would be in danger of creating other unfairness. We would have to cast a wider look at the issue of charging for under-65s for free personal care. Obviously, the focus and the catalyst was the unfairness around dementia, but we would have to look at the wider issue as part of that feasibility study. We are, as I said earlier, putting additional money into social care. Health and social care partnerships now manage more than £8 billion of resources that NHS boards and councils previously managed separately, and that is important in bringing those budgets together. Over the course of this Parliament, there will be £1.3 billion of resources going into social care that is important investment. Local authorities in Scotland are providing over 676,000 hours of care each week in Scotland to people in their own homes, with the average number of hours of home care received more than doubling since the year 2000. That reflects the fact that people with more complex needs now are managing to remain in their own home, and that is important. With the implementation of self-directed support, the number of people choosing a direct payment to purchase the services that they require continues to increase to more than 7,500 clients, and an estimated £94.5 million spent during the last financial year on that, both up about 10 per cent on the previous year. People are being able to remain with that increased level of independence in their own homes. Added to that, of course, is the support to carers that have been provided, and funds such as the independent living fund, which is helping people with disabilities to live independent lives. Of course, a fund that has not been continued in England but is being continued here in Scotland and is going to be opened up to new applications. I appreciate what members have said that there is work to be done in this area. I accept that, but I also hope that members will accept that we have made progress, particularly in relation to the fairer charging elements that have already been introduced. We, under no circumstances, think that that is the job done. That is why we are making further progress over the next financial year and why we are having the feasibility study to look at what more we can do. We are determined to do what we can, particularly to help those on the lowest incomes, and that is why we focused on the threshold. I go back to the point about having the courage to think about more than just simply managing the resources that we have. If the feasibility study leads to an identification of gross injustice and unfairness, are there circumstances that the Scottish Government would look at how it would increase resources through the tax powers that it has, or redistributing resources that it already has towards meeting that kind of need? I want to know what the boundaries are to the conclusions that you made from the feasibility study. I think that it is worth putting on the record that we are looking at raising income. For example, we are not passing on the tax cut for the better off, as the UK Government is doing. We are making changes to the higher council tax bans in order to raise income, so it would not be fair to say that there are not adjustments being made that there is raising income for public services. Within the context of the feasibility study, we need to look at what the options are. I took a decision that I thought was important to focus the initial raising of the threshold on those on the lowest incomes, because there were people who were paying social care charges who were on very low incomes. By raising that threshold, that has been a step in the right direction. Now there are further steps that could be made around the threshold, or there are other policy decisions that we can make. What I want from the feasibility study is to look at what those options are. Of course, that will involve costings and looking at the choices that we can make within the resources that we have within the Parliament. I hope that members will appreciate the tone that I have taken in responding to the issues that have been made that are working in progress, and I am very happy to continue the dialogue with members who are interested across the chamber.