Scottish Parliament, 25 January 2001

556 contributions from 87 members. The official report.

Introduction

Roads

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Good morning. The first item of business this morning is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1584, in the name of Bruce Crawford, on roads in Scotland, and two amendments.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. It may just be due to the late receipt of amendments, but I notice in the business bulletin that no amendments to motion S1M-1589 have been accepted. I submitted timeously an amendment to that motion, and I seek guidance on whether it has been accepted.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The key to the issue is five paragraphs up from the bottom of page 2 of the business bulletin:

"The Presiding Officer has yet to select any amendments to motion S1M-1589."

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

When will an announcement be made on the amendments that have been selected?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There will be an announcement later in the day.

I call Bruce Crawford to speak to and move the motion. You have 10 minutes.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The purpose of the SNP motion today is simple and straightforward. We are concerned that the Labour Minister for Transport is embarked upon an irreversible decision-making process that is unfair and unjust. She is set on a course of action that will have a seriously damaging impact on Scotland's capacity to maintain its trunk and local roads to a satisfactory standard, and on its ability to continue with a safe and reliable winter maintenance service. That view is supported widely in the chamber and across the political divides. Today, we ask members to support our motion, not only because their consciences demand it, but, more important, because it is in the interests of good government and best value for the public purse.

Over the past few years, we have heard much from new Labour about the need for joined-up government. We might not always like the soundbites, but no one could deny that the objectives are anything but laudable. However, when faced with the current set of proposals for the trunk road network, only one conclusion can be drawn; that all the talk of joined-up government is no more than a sham. This Parliament cannot allow itself to be blinded by that illusion. We must see the truth about the scale of the mistake that Labour may be about to make, because it is a mistake that will impact on almost every community in Scotland, as potentially thousands of jobs are lost, levels of service deteriorate, and there is chaos during winter emergencies.

I will provide some reasons why I believe that the route upon which the Executive is intent is fundamentally flawed. First, it is obvious from even a cursory glance at the evidence that no real attempt was made before, during or after the tendering process to assess the impact that awarding the work would have on the delivery of services at national and local levels.

To help me to assess the impact, I wrote to every local authority, and I received a plethora of replies. To give a flavour of the responses, I will quote what a few of them say about joined-up government and best value. For example, Stirling Council tells me:

"Private sector contractors maintaining the motorway and trunk road network, quite separate from the local road network, will create duplication of resources and increased costs to the public purse as economies of scale that are achieved by integrated service delivery are lost."

There are many other quotes from Labour-run councils that I could use, so here we have it—Labour councils the length and breadth of Scotland criticising their own Executive.

The immediate impact has been estimated at the loss of anything between 500 and 600 jobs, and anything up to 3,500 jobs once secondary employment issues are taken into account and the effects on economies of scale begin to bite, making direct labour organisations less competitive and unable to win other tender work. Inevitably, that will lead to the closure of local depots and quarries that often are significant employers, particularly in rural areas.

The Minister for Transport has singularly failed to examine the tendering process in an integrated manner. As Aberdeenshire Council put it:

"The Council firmly believe that the principles of Best Value across the public purse as a whole has been ignored by the Scottish Executive."

As a result, the Executive is in danger, by default, of privatising more jobs than the Tories managed to privatise in 18 years. Sarah Boyack said yesterday that the jobs issues were only rumours. If she had taken time to contact only a handful of local authorities, she would have discovered that she is living in a dream world. It is time that she woke up and faced the reality that is staring her in the face. Highland Council said in its letter to me:

"the council would have to shed about 200 staff. Perhaps 100 of these will end up being made redundant and 100 being transferred."

Scottish Borders Council tells me that it will have 50 redundancies, and there will be 30 in East Ayrshire, 28 in Stirling, 23 in Dumfries and 100 across Tayside. The list goes on and on.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

I am glad that Mr Crawford has mentioned rural areas, and in particular Highland Council. Does he agree that this process is tragic for rural areas? It means rural job losses where we need them least. Worse than that, the process will be irreversible, because it will be impossible for councils to return to roads maintenance once it goes to the private sector. Does he agree that the motion and two amendments that are before us this morning are an obituary for council-run road maintenance?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I agree entirely with Jamie Stone's sentiments. It is sad that we are involved in this process today. I thank him for his comments.

The cost savings that have been projected by the Executive also are an illusion. Sarah Boyack has been seduced by so-called large savings that simply are not deliverable. The vexed issue of quantities sometimes is complex and difficult to get one's head around. However, a glaring example exists in the north-west tender assessment process. The assessment showed that the quantities of new road signs indicated a replacement cycle of four to 20 weeks, which compares with a life expectancy of 15 years for the signs.

The quality assessment process is littered with such examples and the only conclusion can be that the whole process is flawed. According to a report yesterday from Perth and Kinross Council, the process is flawed to the extent that it has been estimated to have caused the north-west bid to be overestimated by as much as £68 million and the north-east unit by as much as £21 million. Due to the distortions in the quantities, the savings that the Executive has claimed will never materialise and the eventual contract outturn price will bear no relationship to the basis on which the tenders were assessed.

It is now established best practice to consider both quality and price. In England, the process is weighted so that 60 per cent is applied to quality and 40 per cent to price. What do we find in Scotland? Astonishingly, the Executive departed from best practice by deciding that a simple quality threshold would apply so that all the weighting would be applied to price alone.

Such details will be examined by the Transport and the Environment Committee but, by the time that it carries out its deliberation, folks, it is going to be too late, unless the Parliament helps today by persuading Labour to put the tendering exercise on hold and carry out a comprehensive review of the flawed process.

You know, Presiding Officer, I am sorry, but sod this—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order. Language.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I apologise for the language, but this has been a charade. I know that the arguments that I am presenting are well researched and are as accurate as possible—and I have another couple of pages that would confirm that there is no justice and no fairness in the tendering process—but all that good argument is not worth a jot, because, unless a good number of Labour back benchers support the SNP's motion, in about seven days the contracts will have been awarded on the basis of a process that is a travesty and a fraud.

Last night, when I heard the news that the Labour back benchers were running up the white flag because they had been given the flimsiest of amendments on an escape route to support the Government, I was gutted. Not gutted for myself, but gutted for the guys who drive the snowploughs and the gritters, the guys who operate the road-rollers and the JCBs, the guys who are the roadmen and the fencers—

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

rose—

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

rose—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Aye, ye dinnae like it when ye're getting it this way.

I was gutted for the men who are at the front line of service delivery all across Scotland.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the member take an intervention?

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am just winding up.

Those people will today see a great injustice. That great injustice will be done because not enough people in the Labour party have had the backbone or courage to stand up to a minister who patently does not understand what is going on and does not care about the implications of her decisions beyond the narrow boundaries of her own budget.

Not enough Labour back benchers have the spine to ensure that justice and fairness carry the day. This is the day on which Labour in Scotland will be known for running up the flag of the unfettered free market, which knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Labour back benchers should all hang their heads in shame. Come 5 o'clock tonight, their founding fathers will birl in their graves, unless Labour back benchers prove me wrong and vote to give justice and fairness a chance. They could vote for a motion that is crafted to attract as much support from around the chamber as possible and leave open opportunities for others. I commend Murray Tosh on his amendment to amendment S1M-1584.1.

People are not happy. I am not prepared to accept the Executive's dangerous proposals. Murray Tosh may find that his amendment receives the SNP's support. The choice for members is between a fraud of a tendering process and justice and fairness. Scotland's council workers are relying on members to make the right decision. If they do not, local government workers will never forgive them and will consider the act nothing short of treachery.

I move,

That the Parliament expresses its grave concern over the tendering process for the award of the contracts for the management and maintenance of the trunk road network; in particular notes that there are wide concerns about the contract assessment process, the future operation of the trunk road service and the potential knock-on implications for local authorities and others, and also expresses its deep regret that the Scottish Executive has failed to respond fully to the substantial and detailed submissions by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, individual councils and others.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

In speaking to the Executive's amendment, I will place on the record the facts. I emphasise that, because so much inaccurate information has appeared. I welcome the debate, as it gives me the opportunity to raise some key issues. Bruce Crawford's speech repeated some inaccurate comments that have flown around in the past few weeks and relied a great deal on rhetoric.

The contracts that local authorities won in 1996 expire at the end of March this year. The consultation on re-tendering began as long ago as April 1999. The consultation paper received 66 responses, 27 of which came from local authorities. Many of the respondents saw advantage in the four operating companies concept. The Executive undertook further analysis in a value management workshop, which included local authority practitioners.

It was clear from the outset that we would adhere to the Public Works Contracts Regulations 1991, which implemented European Community competition requirements. They require the placement of new work to be subject to open competition between competent service providers.

Competition rules apply to the process, and the Scotland Act 1998 would nullify any other course of action.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the minister take an intervention?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

To be fair, I will not, because I would like to get into my speech, and I know that members will have many points.

The decision to proceed to tender for four operating companies was announced in December 1999, and tender documents were issued in May 2000. Officials responded to 433 tender inquiries, issued 30 tender bulletins and held three consultation meetings with each tenderer. All tenders were submitted by 31 October. They were assessed before cash bids were evaluated to ensure that they met the stipulated quality standards. Quality ran through the whole process. The quality proposals were carefully scrutinised, and clarification was sought from tenderers as necessary. All met the quality standard, and only then were the cash bids assessed.

Ministers have been aware of the outcome of the competition for more than a month. We took that period to question our officials closely about the rigour and the fairness of the competition and the extent of the external validation. The courts have also examined the competition, and their judgments vindicate the Executive's report.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister just said that the courts vindicated the Executive's position, but did not the judge of the north-east challenge find that the petitioners had made a prima facie case, although the case was rejected for timing reasons? The minister is telling the Parliament an untruth. Will she correct what she said?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I am happy to clarify that point. The member misinterprets the legal judgment. Four actions were taken against the Executive. The Executive appealed against and won the first action and was awarded costs. I do not regard that as the Executive's position being overturned in the courts.

That led to our announcement on Tuesday that, subject to the external review of the quantities issue, we intended to award two contracts each to Amey and Bear Scotland Ltd.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No.

Those bids will provide the same or higher standards of maintenance, for lower costs. We are getting a better deal for taxpayers' money. Amey is experienced in motorway maintenance in Scotland and England, and Bear Scotland has conducted ringway construction and has experience in England.

Maureen Macmillan (Labour, Highlands and Islands)

rose—

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, I have already taken interventions.

The Amey bids for the south-east and south-west are worth £176 million over the five years and offer savings of £50 million over the existing arrangements. The Bear Scotland bids for the north-east and north-west units are worth £182 million over the five years and offer a saving of £25 million over the present cost.

The Executive is committed to delivering best value for every penny that we spend. How could we or any other Administration justify accepting bids that offered significantly poorer value for money?

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

rose—

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

rose—

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Members will all speak later. I will reply at the end of the debate.

There is no member who has not lobbied me on roads expenditure in writing or in the chamber. The demand by members for investment is enormous. This week alone, I announced that the extension to the M74 would go ahead, for which members lobbied hard. Like every other minister, I must work within my budget and the Executive's agreed priorities.

The impact on staffing is a concern to me and to members. I refute Bruce Crawford's interpretation of what I said the other night. However, some of the figures that have flown around have been totally irresponsible.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No.

I have read about figures of between 3,500 and 35,000. Those suggestions have heightened the concerns of employees and the trade unions. In its briefing to MSPs, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities made it clear that it estimates that well in excess of 500 full-time staff are involved in trunk road work. I do not pretend for one minute that the issue is not major and that potentially major change does not affect local authority employees. The new and the existing operators must address the impact properly and resolve it quickly. I fully expect the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations to apply.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, because Murray Tosh will speak next.

I want to respond to the comments that I have heard and received from COSLA and the local authorities. I acknowledge that in the Executive's amendment. I understand well their deep concerns about the importance of the contracts. However, it is untrue that the process was flawed and skewed against the local authorities. The process has been transparent, and extensive consultation took place before and during the tendering process.

I have a direct question. Have any of the Executive's critics stopped to ask why civil servants would seek to disadvantage local authorities and abuse the contract rules? That is the suggestion that is being made. There is no evidence to support that assertion and I refute it. Numerous detailed points have been made about the tendering process, and I ask why they were not raised during the extensive consultations. [MEMBERS: "They were."]

As a Labour minister, I am extremely disappointed with the bids that the local authorities submitted, especially because they were substantially higher than current spending. Local authorities are the existing contractors. They could share depots and staff to exploit economies of scale, and they have direct labour organisation operations that use best-value principles. Local authorities have all those advantages, so I am deeply disappointed, because they should have been well placed to win the contracts.

We are nearing the end of a long and complicated tendering process. The contractors must meet the standards and the quality specified at the rates quoted. As I announced in a written answer this week, the one remaining element of the audit process must be conducted before the contracts are signed. We will continue to respond to the points that members raise.

I fully understand the disappointment of local authorities about the results of the competition. It is important that the rigorous process of assessment and audit is properly carried out before the contracts are signed. Local authorities will have the opportunity to tender for the repair contracts and subcontract work across the motorway and trunk road network, which are expected to be substantial. The Scottish Executive manages that work by setting its framework. In addition, the Executive is investing heavily in local roads maintenance through the capital and revenue allocations that Angus MacKay announced on 7 December. That capital allocation includes an additional £70 million for local authorities over the next three years. Local road work is the major part of local authority maintenance activity.

I do not pretend for one minute that the issue is not difficult for all members, particularly those in my party. As Minister for Transport, I have to make difficult choices all the time. I have to manage the competing demands we face in renewing, maintaining and investing in our vital transport infrastructure.

In acknowledging that local authorities and trade unions are concerned and that we will continue to respond to those concerns, I move amendment S1M-1584.1, to leave out from "expresses" to end and insert:

"recognises the strong concerns expressed by the local government consortia and trade unions about the award of the contracts for the management and maintenance of the trunk road network; in particular notes their concerns about the contract assessment process, the future operation of the trunk road services and the potential knock-on implications for local authorities, and calls upon the Executive to continue further exploration of all outstanding issues."

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I am aware that, for a long time, the existing contractors, the local authorities and all the relevant people have been deeply concerned and have made representations—some public and many private—about the tendering process. The argument that the local authorities have said nothing until recently simply does not hold water. What is true is that the case from the local authorities on the detailed manner of assessing the contracts has been made only recently, because the method of allocating the contracts has begun to filter through only in the past few weeks.

I see a perfectly good reason why civil servants might seek to batch and allocate the contracts in this way: the resource transfer between local government and central Government. If we work this so that the savings are taken centrally and we do not care about the local impact, we have a strategy that advantages us and does down our partners in local government.

I want to pick the minister up on the point about local authorities having the opportunity to tender for repair work. How can a local authority maintain staff, equipment, plant and depots on the basis of discretionary contracts that it might or might not win? The minister's point was neither sensible nor valid. If anything characterises Sarah Boyack's career as a minister it is the emphasis that she has repeatedly put on consultation, transparency and partnership. She has been patently sincere in that. What makes this issue so bewildering is that so much of that emphasis by the minister appears to be missing.

Historically, local authorities have been the partners of central Government in the maintenance of the road network; logistically and logically, they still are. In the Highland region, for example, the same vehicles maintain trunk roads and local roads—the work is integrated. Roads officers all over Scotland have said that. It is not reasonable for the Executive to act as if only central Government budgets are involved. I have had answers to parliamentary questions in which the minister has said that it is not a matter for her to deal with. She may be concerned, but she has not evaluated the impact on local government.

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am a little bemused by Murray Tosh's contribution. Does he not recognise that the whole process of divorcing trunk road maintenance contracts from local authorities was begun by the Conservatives when they were in government? They began the process of the new contracts. Does Mr Tosh not accept some responsibility for the road that we have come down?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

As the minister made clear, our laws of competitive tendering are firmly rooted in European Union competition law. I do not regret or deplore that fact, and I am astonished that Mr Smith should. I have no difficulty with competitive tendering or with a process that allocates the work to the contractor who puts forward the best quality and best value offer. I thought that I had made it clear that what I am concerned about is that I do not believe that this process has been handled transparently, that it has involved the local authorities or that it has taken into account the impact of separating local authority work from central Government work, as the division between the two is often highly arbitrary.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

No.

There are matters in the Executive amendment that require to be fleshed out. What does the final phrase in the amendment—

"to continue further exploration of all outstanding issues"—

mean? Are we assured that, in considering those outstanding issues, central Government will consider the impact on local government and on potentially transferred employees? Will it have something to say to the South Ayrshire Council officer who faxed me yesterday to say that, in their assessment, 22 people in their office would not be covered by TUPE regulations?

Will the evaluation take care of the concerns raised by the north-east and north-west consortia about the application of the algorithm that is the method of calculation for the contracts? Sums of money have been bandied about. It is not like a contract for a building, where we know what the final price is. This is not a sum of money—it is a process; it is a formula. The local authorities believe that the application of that formula on a basis other than historical information about the volume of materials and the aggregate volume of work carried out distorts the impact of their bid and loads up their prices and their costs.

There is so much that we need to know about what is implied in the Executive amendment by "exploration of outstanding issues". Does it mean that the contracts will not be awarded until we have sorted it all out? At the end of the day, I am happy to award the contract to whoever has won it fairly and will give the best value. However, that has to be good value for the public purse. The contract must be awarded on the basis that we know that the overall impact on central Government and local government is sound, economical, good value and that it gets us the best use of the available resources. I do not disagree with the minister's objectives. I am simply not satisfied that she has demonstrated that she can achieve them.

I move amendment S1M-1584.1.1 to amendment S1M-1584.1, to insert at end:

"and further expresses concern that the separation of trunk from non-trunk roads for management and maintenance work hitherto carried out on a combined basis may diminish overall operational efficiency and value for money, and calls upon the Scottish Executive to conduct an urgent analysis of the impact of disaggregation of combined operations and to report back to the Parliament on proposals necessary to achieve optimum operational efficiency and value for money across the network as a whole."

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

Many of my concerns have already been expressed in the debate, but I regret that the SNP amendment expresses concern only; it does not suggest any way forward. The Executive amendment at least calls on the Executive to continue to explore the issues—that is an important step beyond the SNP's proposal. The issues must be explored. There is nothing in the SNP motion that asks anyone to do anything. As usual, the SNP is happy to complain about things but not to provide any solutions.

There are problems with the whole operation—it can hardly be said to have been transparent. The consultation period ran from April to May 1999, when the Scottish Parliament and the local authorities were rather busy with elections. The result of the consultation was published on 24 December 1999—a good day for getting lots of publicity, considering how many newspapers were published on the 25th. The tender was, I believe, announced on a Friday afternoon in the middle of the Easter recess last year—that hardly suggests that a great attempt has been made to ensure that the public and the political community were fully involved in scrutinising the matter.

The tender process has been shrouded in mystery. There is a lack of clarity about what was being tendered for, and smoke and mirrors about how the tender was assessed. There are real doubts about the fairness and accuracy of the results. As Bruce Crawford said, Perth and Kinross has produced a detailed report of some of the problems, which indicates concerns that, for example, sign replacement appears to be worth 11.4 per cent in the contracts, rather than the 1.6 per cent that is the reality, while winter maintenance is 13 per cent of the contract value, when it is in fact more like 22 per cent. The minister should address those concerns.

There has been a lack of political and policy input into the process. There is suspicion that the process has been driven by officials who have been following an anti-local government and pro-privatisation agenda, with little understanding of the realities of how road contracts work. Value for money has not been properly considered; it has been considered in terms of Scottish Executive costs, but not in terms of the cost to the public purse.

Gil Paterson (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

I am sorry, but I do not have time to take any interventions, as it is a short debate.

The officials do not appear to have understood the importance of trunk road work to the viability of the local roads operations that are carried out by councils. They do not understand, for example, integrated winter gritting. A snowplough does not run up a trunk road then back to its depot; it goes off and clears other important roads, such as side roads, bus routes and roads to schools. That will all be lost.

The officials do not seem to understand the economies of scale relating to the provision of plant and premises. The purchase of materials is important to the viability of the local roads network. The officials do not seem to understand the need to ensure an overall work load that is sufficient to maintain a viable work force, in order to have the winter maintenance staff available to keep our roads safe in winter. That is an important point. The small part of the trunk road contract that goes to the design work of local council officials enables them to keep expertise for road safety work, new roads and footpaths and bridge works. It is all important—they all rely on trunk road work.

The minister must, in summing up, answer some of the questions that I have previously put to her on these issues. I ask her again to consider delaying the implementation of any contracts by six months to allow proper discussion with local authorities and the new contractors on how the contracts will be implemented. Who will clear a road that is covered in snow at midnight on 31 March this year? I am damned sure that there is no clarity about who will be able to do that job by then. We have to ensure that we get through that period of interim changes by delaying the implementation of the contracts.

I strongly urge the minister to conduct a full study into the implications for local councils and the additional costs that they will face as a result of those contracts. I also ask her to give a commitment that the Scottish Executive will meet any additional costs that local authorities incur as a result of those contracts being awarded. That is very important.

It has become clear that there are real doubts about the assessment of the tenders. There must be a full independent review of the methods and results of the assessment of the contracts before they are signed. The contracts have not yet been signed—

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Where is the independent review to get to the bottom of this?

Iain Smith (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife)

That is one of the issues that has yet to be explored. I urge the minister to give us an assurance that she will go beyond the limited review of the quantities part of the contract and will instigate a full and proper independent assessment of the results of the tenders before the contracts are signed. That is one of the outstanding issues that have yet to be explored. I am glad that the Transport and the Environment Committee will be exploring many of those issues, and I seek an assurance from the minister that they will be explored. At least the Executive amendment calls for continued exploration of the issues, rather than moaning like the SNP.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I am extremely disappointed by the minister's statement. I have absolutely no confidence in Sarah Boyack's judgment on the matter. We are on the edge of making one of the Parliament's worst decisions in its short life. It is a personal and political embarrassment that we find ourselves arguing over such issues in the Parliament. Allowing the management and maintenance contracts to go ahead as planned would be one of the worst decisions that we could possibly make. A flawed process has led to a flawed result—that is what I shall focus on. I have long experience of contracting in the public and private sectors and the current flawed process does not, in any way, offer value for money and it does not provide best value. The process is a shambles.

This is not a battle about public versus private or direct labour organisations versus the private sector. The DLOs are in partnership with many blue chip companies—companies whose joint submissions were based on good tendering practice in the public and private sectors. There should be a level playing field.

Let us go back to the start of the process. Local authorities were consulted and there were meetings, but were the authorities listened to? I have my doubts. Local authorities raised major issues during the consultation process. Bruce Crawford said that he had been writing to local authorities during the past week or so. I have been meeting and writing to them for the past 14 months on the issue. I have correspondence dated 16 January, which refers to previous meetings. We find ourselves in a sad situation today.

Quality is not at the forefront of the contracts, nor is it built into them. In 1995, I was writing contracts that built quality into the process; not in England, where there were 60:40 price-quality splits, but in Glasgow, where I wrote them with a 50:50 price-quality split. I tell the minister that the contract strategy is flawed—it is 10 years out of date. Compulsory competitive tendering mark 1 has been used during the tendering process. No modern tendering processes have been brought to bear on the issue.

Frequencies are the nub of the issue. As many members have said, that continues to skew the local authorities' and their partners' bids in the process. We will fail the public if the contracts are awarded to the private sector.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

Will Andy Kerr give way?

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I will not accept an intervention from Shona Robison, but I will be happy to accept one from the minister if she disagrees with me.

The contracts present us with an incentive not to maintain Scotland's roads. All the money has been loaded into a lump sum and the private sector will make our roads worse, by aggregating the faults and issuing discrete contracts.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

Will Mr Kerr explain how he thinks the lump sum processes work? My information is that the lump sum element for the successful private bidders ranges from 17 per cent to 26 per cent—nowhere near the 80 per cent that he alleges.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

I did not allege 80 per cent. I ask members to look at the values that are attached to the contracts and at the gaps that exist. The minister must be careful—she should look this gift horse in the mouth. How can a DLO with five years' experience in the business with its private sector partners be 50 per cent out in terms of both the local authority and two private sector bids? I think that that gift horse must be looked in the mouth. Who are the partners? Tarmac, Scott Wilson and Morrison plc. I ask the minister to examine the gap that exists because a huge error is about to be made. The contractors had the experience—they knew the pattern of work and the frequencies and they based their bids on that.

Loss of control concerns us all. The one-stop shop approach and co-ordination with local police services and gritting and winter maintenance services will all be lost—they will be thrown out. The process does not reach even the basics of what I regard as best value. On vindication in the courts, Lord Penrose stated:

"Inviting quotations and quoting rates for unquantified work exposes the employer and the contractor to risk."

If that is total vindication of the Scottish Executive, I do not know what ministers are talking about. There are a number of ways out of the situation; for example, there have been judgments that say that European legislation will allow us to extend the contracts.

I finish by quoting the radical left-wing publication, Contract Journal—a magazine of the private sector—which stated that the Clyde consortium's

"complaint . . . about the tender process for Scotland's trunk road management and maintenance contracts, highlights some of the worst aspects of poor client performance—namely a lack of transparency, a gearing towards price rather than quality and skewing the tendering process away from existing contractors".

It continues:

"Perhaps those concerned should read Modernising Construction, the report published last week by the National Audit Office, to ensure that the taxpayer receives value for money on government procured construction projects. It explains to the government what many others already know—that awarding contracts on the basis of the lowest price is a fallacy and that it often leads to grossly inflated prices".

We are on the verge of a decision and I hope that the minister will reconsider her view. At the moment, we are in the jaws of defeat, but I hope that the minister will listen to this morning's debate and do what members have called for, which is to delay awarding the contract, revisit the issue and award the contract on a fair and equitable basis.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

It gives me no pleasure to speak in this debate because I sense an ever-increasing sense of frustration on all sides of the chamber. Members of all parties do not want what is proposed for the road network, but we have no opportunity to force the minister to delay the process. I appeal to all members to find a way to force the minister to abide by this morning's clearly expressed will of the Parliament.

Twenty months ago, when the elections for this Parliament were held, the people of Scotland voted in the belief that a new political system would allow decision making in Scotland to be conducted in an open, transparent and democratic manner. I believe that that view is endorsed by the vast majority of members but—sadly—the events that surround the awarding of contracts for trunk road maintenance have not been open, transparent or democratic. Instead those events have demonstrated the worst excesses of an episode of "Yes, Minister". Several examples illustrate that.

The January issue of Surveyor magazine said that

"the financial model had skewed the comparison so that prices were distorted and not based on value for money".

As a result of the flaws in the tender process, legal challenges were subsequently mounted against the Government by the council consortium. The latest challenge was rejected on the basis of time, but the petitioners were found to have a prima facie case.

Perhaps it would be helpful to emphasise that each of the four consortia comprised local authorities in partnership with the private sector. Members who have tried to speak about public sector protectionism are quite wrong. The system should protect the public and private sectors and should be designed to get best value for the taxpayer. That will not happen if the minister gets her way.

On Tuesday, the minister awarded the contract, subject to an urgent independent review of one aspect of the assessment process. That same assessment process has been the subject of court action during the past fortnight and has been vigorously defended by Government lawyers in court. If the minister accepts that there is a problem, why did she go ahead and award the contracts? It is a ludicrous situation.

Fergus Ewing (Scottish National Party, Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber)

I am grateful that Shona Robison has allowed me to intervene; the minister would not accept an intervention. The review process is being carried out by Halcrow, a company that played a part in the tendering process. How can a company that played a part in the tendering process be given—by the minister—the job of judging its own performance? Is not that absolutely ludicrous?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I agree totally with Fergus Ewing. I am sure that an awful lot of scandals will come to light during the inquiry by the Transport and the Environment Committee. However, it will be too late—by that point the horse will have bolted.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I say to the member that the consultants have a professional reputation to defend. The people who have been allocated to the review were not involved in the tendering. Such practice is well established and is standard in commercial consultancy organisations. The consultant has in the past made robust recommendations to the Executive, upon which we have subsequently had to act. The review is not a way for the Executive to avoid examining the process closely. The review is independent and will be robust and we will respond to it.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

The minister's defensiveness says a lot. I hope that she continues to dig a hole for herself. The reality is that several hundred local government workers throughout Scotland have had their jobs placed in jeopardy because of the minister's decision.

Significant questions about future provision of services remain unanswered. In a briefing paper, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities says that about 500 full-time equivalent jobs are dependent on the contracts. The loss of those contracts will have a significant impact on the operation of many DLOs, which rely on trunk road maintenance for about 30 per cent of their income. Loss of that income will have an impact on the viability of their whole operations and a consequent impact on the maintenance and repair of the local road network.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Will the member give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

No, I have taken a lot of interventions.

Many DLOs also produce a surplus that they return to the local councils at the end of the year. For example, the three councils in Tayside have budgeted for a surplus of around £1 million from Tayside Contracts. Given the loss of such income, will the Minister for Finance and Local Government give a different settlement to local government? I doubt it.

To sum up, I believe that a lot of questions need to be asked. When the Transport and the Environment Committee has its inquiry, a lot of facts will come out about the process that will prove the points that are being made today. The problem is that that will happen after the horse has bolted.

I appeal to concerned members; let us do something about this and make the minister delay the process. That is the will of the Parliament.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Shona Robison finished by referring to the will of the Parliament. I appeal to the Presiding Officer to recognise the will of the Parliament and, at least, to give an opportunity to the Parliament to do something about the matter. As the Presiding Officer might know, I have submitted an amendment to the amendment—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Order, Mr Sheridan. You submitted your amendment after the debate had started. It would be unprecedented, although not impossible, for me to accept it. I have called you early to give you the chance to speak. I think that in your four minutes you should address the issue, rather than procedural matters.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

With the greatest respect, Presiding Officer, I hope that you will accept that—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

You are eating into your time, Mr Sheridan. You have four minutes.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I appreciate that I am eating into my time. I have been interrupted twice now.

Murray Tosh has presented you with an amendment to the Executive's amendment. There is a built-in disadvantage for smaller parties—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Sheridan, please come to the point. I gave you a written note, explaining that I would call you to speak early. That is the decent thing to do. I have called you early. If you wish to speak, speak now. The matter is for the judgment of the chair. I will not allow any further procedural discussion.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I am very sorry, Presiding Officer, but I asked for a deferment of the awarding of the contracts. It was—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Mr Sheridan, you must speak to the motion, otherwise I will call the next member. That is a final warning.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Sorry. I hoped that the chamber would force the minister to defer the awarding of contracts.

What we have had today is a very mature and welcome debate. The SNP stands accused of lodging a weak motion. I think that it lodged a weak motion because it hoped to get everybody's support.

I commend Andy Kerr's honesty. It is absolutely refreshing that the member has come here and said what he feels, instead of being gagged, as members often are on serious issues such as this. I commend him on that.

It is undoubtedly the case that the Executive's amendment is stronger because it refers to

"further exploration of all outstanding issues".

What members are asking is, "What does that mean?" Does it mean suspending the awarding of the contracts until there is further exploration? If it does, I hope that we could all support it. If it means investigating all the issues, but awarding the contracts anyway, then it is—to be frank—only talk. That is why I hope that we will get a commitment from the minister today that there will be no awarding of the contracts until full exploration has taken place, in particular by the Parliament's Transport and the Environment Committee.

I commend Mr Kerr, because he has been consistent. Far too often in the life of the Parliament, we have heard members say one thing, particularly in newspapers and on the radio—we will come to that later with the First Minister—but do something else in Parliament. At least the convener of the Transport and the Environment Committee has stuck to his brief in recognising that the process is flawed. The decision, if it is allowed to proceed, is disgraceful. Let us take the decision to suspend the awarding of the contracts until there has been full appraisal of the whole process.

The minister has talked about jobs. I heard her on the radio the other day and she seemed to be dismissive about the threat to 3,500 jobs. She said that the private companies would take over some of the jobs and that TUPE regulations would apply. I refer the minister to the Amey group's statement of its intentions for this year. I quote from its business statement, which says:

"At the beginning of April 2001, Amey will re-structure to focus more closely on the market segments in which it operates. Furthermore, a market-facing structure, supported by . . ."—

I emphasise this—

"a lean but highly efficient Group centre, is designed to reduce operating costs over time."

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Does Mr Sheridan agree that, whatever the figure for potential job losses, the loss of one, two, three or four jobs—as few as that—will have a fatal and devastating effect on rural communities, such as those in the constituency that I represent?

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Answer and close, Mr Sheridan.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It gives me pleasure to support what Jamie Stone said in his intervention. As we all know, the Amey group statement reveals that the private sector secured the contract on the basis that it would cut costs by cutting jobs. That is what this is about and there is no doubt about that in anybody's mind. Let us not see any crocodile tears. The statement says that employees will be transferred, but they will be transferred to a company that is going to restructure—therefore TUPE will not apply. That is the fact of the matter and the minister must recognise it.

My final point is on safety. We are looking at a gamble with people's safety. Regardless of local criticisms, the performance of DLOs up and down the country in clearing our roads during the winter is absolutely tremendous. That is in danger. Today we are having an Alice-in-Wonderland discussion in which the Tories are on the side of the public sector workers. Perhaps today's debate is not an Alice-in-Wonderland debate but a Sarah-in-Toryland debate.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I thank the SNP for addressing this subject during its non-Executive time. Every member must have had local correspondence on the matter. As Andy Kerr succinctly put it, the process is flawed.

I commend Murray Tosh's amendment to the Parliament, in particular the final part, which calls for

"an urgent analysis of the impact of disaggregation".

Members should look at those words, because members could support that. I appreciate that the SNP motion is not one of its stronger ones, but it was designed to encourage open and clear debate, without interference from party politics. The matter is important and the Executive and the minister have failed to grasp what the situation is about.

The minister said that current contracts expire in March. Any normal contract process has—always—a safety clause at the end. If something goes wrong, there is a mechanism to continue with the existing contract for the short term. I ask the minister to confirm when she speaks whether such a mechanism exists in this case. If that is the case, we can support Murray Tosh's amendment and get the independent review that is required to examine this flawed process.

I was speechless at the minister's blinkered view of the matter; she does not seem to understand the knock-on effects of what is proposed and that point has been made well enough by other members. It is important that she understands that, unless local government budgets are altered to deal with it, loss of critical mass from a local authority enterprise that maintains roads will lead to rising costs for the council tax payer. If she alters those budgets, where is the saving? It would be far better to consider the submissions that we have received from many council directors, especially from Aberdeenshire Council, which said clearly that the best of the public and private sectors were seeking to put the bids together.

I was a councillor in 1995 and I remember some of what Andy Kerr talked about. Under the Conservative Government, we eventually achieved—with support from both sides—a good contracting system, which took account of quality as well as cost. Value for money was important then; it is even more important now.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

Does Mr Davidson agree that in addition to the loss of critical mass—only a rump remains with local authorities—the private sector will cherry-pick the best employees and skills from the local authorities, which will further undermine what is left to the authorities?

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I do not want to go that far. I am more concerned that the chamber acts sensibly today to prevent the minister taking us into a situation that could bring a potentially disastrous cost to all tax payers and road users in Scotland.

We are not talking about party politics or which side is right. The debate is about the process—that is what the chamber must vote on.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

rose—

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

No. Mr Stone has had his five interventions; he has done well.

I do not understand the Executive's approach to responsibility for the roads infrastructure, especially on lifeline projects. In other words, what is a trunk road and therefore the Scottish Executive's responsibility and what roads should be the local authorities' responsibility? I do not understand the Montrose bridge situation—it is apparently a lifeline project, but the road is not trunked, so it is the responsibility of the council. The minister thinks that some other budget will deal with that project. She has said that in her letters to me, but that is not the case. Government departments must talk to each other and consider matters in the round.

In Aberdeenshire, part of which I represent, there are problems with the western bypass. Why is it that the M74 in Glasgow is paid for by the public purse? We all supported that, but we in the north-east are told that it does not matter how economically important the road is to us; Aberdeenshire Council will have to pay for the bypass.

In conclusion, we ask the minister to listen—for once—and to put aside the pettiness that appeared in her earlier speech. We ask her to listen to the strong advice that she has been offered from all parts of the chamber today.

In conclusion, Presiding Officer—

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is your second conclusion.

David Davidson (Conservative, North East Scotland)

I ask the chamber to support Murray Tosh's amendment.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

This is not so much a set-piece debate as an emergency debate. I hope that the minister will listen to the pleas that are being made in the chamber.

The minister said that the process was not flawed, but she has heard more than once today that the court made it clear that its judgment was time-barred, but that it accepted the prima facie evidence. Therefore the process was legally flawed.

Members have talked about loss of jobs. Does the minister dispute the local authorities' figures? Does she dispute the figures that her colleagues have quoted today—that there will be 22 job losses in South Ayrshire, 22 in Dumfries and Galloway and 30 jobs lost in the Highlands? All will be directly related to the loss of the contracts.

Is TUPE fully costed in bids from private companies to which the minister is about to award contracts? If it is not—we have heard from several councils that it is not and that not all jobs are covered by TUPE—will extra money be put into local authority budgets to offset the costs of redundancies?

The minister said that the process has been long and that people have had plenty of opportunity to question her. I say to the minister that I have received correspondence from more than one council. That correspondence states that the councils have, throughout, tried to question the process, but they have not been allowed to do so and the door has been slammed in their faces. That is not what a listening Government would do.

I want to finish by saying—in fact I do not want to finish as I have plenty of time and there are plenty of other points that I could make.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

The quicker the better.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

I apologise.

I will quote from Alison Magee, the COSLA transport spokesman. She wrote to all members, including the Minister for Transport and the First Minister. The letter states:

"on behalf of COSLA I would, again, request most urgently that before any contracts are awarded you undertake an independent and widely defined appraisal of whether the whole process followed will provide best value in delivering road maintenance".

In essence, that is what all members are asking of the minister today. In her summing-up, I want to hear a categorical assurance about the phrase in her amendment that says that the Executive will

"continue further exploration of all outstanding issues."

I want the minister to explain that phrase and to tell us that it means that she will halt the process now and that she will not award the contracts within the next four days, but instead await the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry, which will be full, wide-ranging, transparent, open and public. I want an assurance that, when that inquiry is reported to Parliament, the minister will listen and make her decision based on it. If we hear the absolute guarantee today that she will halt the tender process and that she will await the report from that committee's inquiry, as discussed by Parliament, the SNP will support her amendment.

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

Like Andy Kerr, I find the decision that has been taken unbelievable. I spent seven years as a council leader and three years as vice-president of COSLA fighting for public sector jobs and services. I cannot marry that with the decision that has been taken on these contracts.

This is not about the public sector versus the private sector; the council that I was a member of was involved in private finance initiative projects and stock transfers. It is about the fact that there has not been a level playing field. If the differences in prices had occurred under a fair tendering process, I would have accepted that. I would not have been happy about it and its effect on public sector jobs, but I would have accepted it. However, that is not what this is about. It is about a flawed quality assessment process and a flawed financial assessment model. Enough concerns have been raised in the chamber and by outside organisations, in both the private and public sector, that suggest that we should reconsider the matter.

I hope that the minister, even at this late stage, will be able to say that she will delay awarding contracts until the Transport and the Environment Committee has held an inquiry into the matter.

Tayside Contracts, in my constituency, has estimated that it will suffer a 30 per cent loss of income if the minister's proposals go ahead. That will have a knock-on effect for the local authorities that are involved, which last year had £1.2 million in profits returned to them by Tayside Contracts. That money must be found elsewhere, either by increasing council tax or through cuts in services in the local authority. That is not acceptable. I might not have been happy about the situation if I had been confident that the process was fair, but I am certainly not happy about it in the current circumstances.

The audit—to which the minister referred in an answer to a written question—that she expects will take fewer than seven days is a fig leaf.

PricewaterhouseCoopers and Halcrow are involved in the performance audit group, but they were involved in the early stages of assessing the tenders, so they cannot be described as independent.

Although I agree with the SNP and the Tories on those issues, I must say that the SNP has been disingenuous. If we support the SNP motion, we will be supporting less than the Executive amendment. The SNP has tried to give the impression that supporting its motion will somehow stop the process.

Fiona McLeod (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Kate Maclean (Labour, Dundee West)

No. I am not taking any interventions because SNP members did not take any.

The SNP has been very disingenuous; if we support its motion, nothing will happen. Furthermore, the Tories are simply being opportunistic. They say that they want efficiency and value for money; however, it was the Tories who introduced compulsory competitive tendering, which meant that councils had to make an expensive and inefficient split between client and contractor.

I urge the minister to consider seriously the feelings of MSPs and of both public and private outside organisations.

Euan Robson (Liberal Democrat, Roxburgh and Berwickshire)

We have already heard about the short consultation period on the document "The Road Ahead: A Review of the Management and Maintenance Arrangements for Scottish Trunk Roads". How many of the 60-plus responses favoured the four areas conclusion that was reached? That is the root cause of today's debacle.

Will the minister clarify why the base formula was issued only after the tendering process was completed? Why are some of the base costs eight times the historic reality? That has made it inevitable that the public and private sector consortia would lose out.

The idea of saving centrally simply to spend extra money at local government level is ludicrous and creates a severe problem. It is estimated that 37 jobs will be lost in the Scottish Borders, with major disruption to integrated winter and maintenance services on the A68 and the A7. Part of the problem is that the development department views trunk roads as motorways. In rural locations, however, a trunk road can be single carriageway. The episode has brought us to the point where we must consider a major programme of detrunking and ring-fencing resources to allow local authorities to deal with roads, particularly of the type that I have mentioned.

The Executive spent much time and effort trying to change the atmosphere of the relationship between central and local government, particularly through the recent local government settlement. That was welcome and much good work was done and good will created. However, the deep sadness of this episode is that it has soured that new atmosphere and breached the developing trust between central and local government. I conclude that the situation represents a major failure of public policy.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Thank you for your brevity. Can we have similar brevity from Alex Neil?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for letting me in.

I pay tribute to Andy Kerr's speech. It takes courage—particularly on some benches—to make that kind of speech, and I do not understand how the minister, who heard his devastating analysis, can continue to hold her position.

Yesterday, we witnessed Labour's betrayal of old people with Alzheimer's and dementia. Today, we have its betrayal of council workers throughout Scotland. If the Executive is allowed to get away with that, tomorrow it will be the betrayal of the water workers and others.

My first remarks are addressed not to the minister, but to the members of Unison and the other unions who are in the gallery today. I welcome them to the chamber. I point out, however, that it is not enough just to protest outside it. Many Unison members pay a political levy to the Labour party. Why should they pay a levy to an organisation that is destroying their jobs, their futures and their families? It is time that those workers had a weapon with which to give Labour a taste of its own medicine.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

I do not have time to take interventions, even from someone as articulate as Murray Tosh.

In answer to Kate MacLean's point on the SNP motion, I say that when we submitted the motion we did not know about the Transport and the Environment Committee's inquiry.

No one can hide behind European Union rules on competition; nothing in those rules says that we need this shabby process—quite the opposite.

Finally, how can a minister stand up and say that the proposal represents value for money when she has not costed the redundancy payments, the unemployment benefits, the effects on local authority finance and all the rest of it? It is amateurish and pathetic to argue that a lower price means value for money. Value for money is not just about the price of contracts, but about the wider question of the impact of this shabby deal on Scotland. I beg the minister to put a stop to this nonsense and start the process all over again.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I thank Andy Kerr and Kate MacLean for reviving my faith in the Parliament; I invite the minister to revive my faith in the Government.

As the technical aspects of the issue have been well covered by people who know more about them than I do, I will stick to two points: first, the partnership between the Parliament and the Executive and local government; and secondly, the issue of democracy within the Parliament.

The relationship between the Parliament and, particularly, the Executive and local government was at a low ebb because the previous local government financial settlement was unsatisfactory. I am not blaming anyone for that situation; however, it represented a shrewd blow against local government. Since then, ministers, supporters of the Executive in the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and members of the Opposition have been working very hard to forge a better relationship with local government. However, although relationships were improving after a better financial settlement, this action will put us back where we were—and perhaps in an even worse position. We must work at this very important partnership. With respect to the minister, the documents produced on behalf of her department which rubbish the views of local government are an absolute disgrace.

In my experience, ministers are decent people captured by civil servants—and I should make it clear that that is not a party political point; I have seen the same thing happen to members of all parties. Instead of listening to the public and their political colleagues, ministers end up believing, on the advice of civil servants and lawyers, that they cannot do anything at all. The partnership between central and local government must be repaired.

My second point is also relevant to the next debate. We have a minister who quite genuinely holds particular views and has pursued a particular policy. It is clear, however, that a massive majority in the Parliament wants a different policy. I do not think that the minister has a single friend in the chamber for the policy that she is conscientiously pursuing. In any democracy, there must be some recognition of that problem, and the Parliament has yet to work out how to deal with it.

Although we do not want crises, votes of no confidence and so on, it is not acceptable for a minister to ignore the majority opinion of the Parliament. As a result, I appeal to the minister to pursue the course advocated by my colleague Iain Smith and other members. There must be a delay in putting the contracts into effect while the whole position is properly scrutinised. Furthermore, we must examine the system's fairness, which has been heavily criticised. If we do not have such a delay or review, many of us will seriously address the state of democracy in the Parliament.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

I sympathise with the minister. I cannot remember another debate in the Scottish Parliament—or at Westminster—in which a minister has stood entirely alone, with not one member from the back benches to support her. I sympathise with her because no other member of the Scottish Executive is here to support her. Rhona Brankin made a brief appearance during the debate, but she has since disappeared. That absence of support is an absolute disgrace, and it perhaps demonstrates the weakness of the argument that the minister is obliged to put forward.

Conservatives cannot be accused of hypocrisy on the issue. We do not regard the argument as about the qualities of the private sector or of local government. Members have referred to the partnerships that existed in the DLOs and the private sector and to the recent contracts that have been successfully fulfilled. Our argument concerns the quality of the tendering process and the questions that arise from it. Andy Kerr referred to the tendering process as a shambles. He and I do not often agree on political measures, but we agree on issues such as contracts, of which we both have some experience. The tendering process has, indeed, been a shambles.

It is not only those who have been involved in contract procedures who feel that way. A QC who defended the Executive's cause in court recognised that the tendering process was flawed, and learned judges condemned aspects of it. That suggests that something is wrong.

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

So far, every member has supported the notion of delaying the contracts. Is that the Conservative party's position?

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

It certainly is our position. Murray Tosh lodged his amendment after the minister lodged an amendment that called on the Executive

"to continue further exploration of all outstanding issues."

Fiona McLeod referred to that request, emphasising a way forward for the minister on that statement. She saw it as an opportunity for the minister to step back, delay and think again. I believe that every member would plead with the minister to think again.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

The comments made this morning demonstrate the value of conducting some of the discussion in public. The past few weeks have been extremely difficult. Before a decision was reached, and until the matter had gone through the courts, it was not possible for me to enter into a public debate. I am grateful that I can begin to answer members' questions. A critical reason for the Executive's amendment S1M-1584.1 is to allow me to answer the detailed questions that members have asked.

Members have put questions of detail and of principle to me over the past few weeks, and I deeply regret that I have not been able to answer them. In my response to the debate, I will cover as many points as I can. If I am unable to address specific points that members have raised, I will ensure that those members receive an individual reply, as they deserve nothing less. We will also have the opportunity to debate the matter further, which is the essence of the last line of the Executive amendment S1M-1584.1.

Phil Gallie (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I cannot possibly give way before I get to my final comments.

Euan Robson talked about base quantities, which ties in with the court case. Let us be clear. It is the Executive's view that the courts ruled that the three-council consortium had not established a prima facie case on the issues raised. The only exception was in relation to the base quantities applied in the tender process, on which the court said that there might be arguments to hear. The court also said that the Scottish ministers might have a good argument on the issues raised by the consortium, which made no difference to the validity of the process.

As a minister, I needed to test the point about base quantities properly, by independent audit, before I could sign contracts. I would love to live in a world without lawyers. For the past five to six weeks, the Scottish ministers have explored every legal opportunity available and we will consider those issues further.

Quality has been assured throughout the tendering process. Only those who were assessed as capable of delivering quality were shortlisted. The specifications were of the same standard or higher than those in the current contracts and ran to two volumes. Tenderers were allowed to explain their proposals and submit them prior to tenders being submitted, so that we could highlight any shortcomings before their final submission. At the core of the contracts is the intention to ensure that there is no reduction in levels of safety. The winning contractors will have to demonstrate a track record on trunk road safety in England and on the M74 in Scotland.

Andy Kerr (Labour, East Kilbride)

Will the minister provide information on that point?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No. I must respond to questions that have been raised already.

David Davidson asked a question that I have also been asked outside the chamber, concerning the extension of local authority contracts: what opportunity do I have to do that? The majority of the contracts have no facility for extension beyond 1 April. Because of their value, they are subject to the European procurement rules that regulate the way in which the Scottish Executive may act. To extend the current local authority contracts would almost certainly be regarded, under those procurement rules, as awarding a new contract without competition. It would therefore be a breach of European rules—

Jamie Stone (Liberal Democrat, Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)

That is nonsense.

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

That is the advice that I have been given. I would love to live in a world without laws. However, the Parliament must operate within our law and within European law.

Murray Tosh made a point about consultation. I am not saying that everyone agreed with the tendering process, but, in responding to the consultation document "The Road Ahead", 15 local authorities said that they favoured the use of operating companies in some form. Although they would have preferred contracts to have been given to the companies without competition, that would not be possible under European rules.

I shall now address the motion and the amendments. The SNP motion condemns the Scottish Executive for failing to keep people informed. My opportunities to talk openly to people over the past few weeks have been limited. The Executive was involved in court action in the new year, during which proceedings it was impossible for me to comment. Several MSPs have written to me and the First Minister has written to COSLA, and we will ensure that that correspondence is dealt with properly.

The Tory amendment is breathtakingly hypocritical. I strongly agreed with the comments of Kate MacLean and Andy Kerr on that point. It was the Tories who broke the long-standing agency agreements with local authorities by putting out to tender the contracts that the local authorities won in 1996.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, thank you.

The Conservative amendment seems to suggest that there is a unified structure, but there is not, and that is at the heart of the matter. The fragmentation of the approach to roads maintenance was begun by the Tories' abolition of the regional councils. The consultation paper issued in 1999 was intended to gather experiences in the aftermath of reorganisation and to establish a more rational and coherent approach to the maintenance of vital trunk roads and motorways throughout Scotland.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, thank you. I will not take lessons from the Tories, given their track record on running down Scottish roads maintenance and decades of underinvestment in infrastructure. I am surprised that the Tories have even entered the debate today.

Let me respond to the comments that were made by Andy Kerr and Kate MacLean. The Executive amendment goes further than the SNP motion, and I give the commitment that I shall continue to explore the options that are open to the Executive. We have considered our options over the past five weeks and we will continue to do so.

Murray Tosh (Conservative, South of Scotland)

Will the minister give way on that point?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

No, I will not. I have given a commitment on the audit. If there are other issues that I can consider beyond the debate, I shall do so.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

Will the minister suspend the awarding of the contracts?

Sarah Boyack (Labour, Edinburgh Central)

I have already delayed the signing of the contracts to ensure that we properly address the base quantities audit and that that information is available to Scottish ministers before we take the final step: that is important. We are exploring the opportunities and have been doing so for the past five weeks.

I recognise that the debate has been difficult for everybody. This has been the first opportunity to debate the issue in the chamber. I will respond in writing to those comments to which I have not been able to respond in my final remarks. I am conscious that I am running out of time, but I have tried to respond to all comments.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order. In the interests of democracy in the chamber, the minister should address the question that all sides have put. Will the minister defer the signing of the contracts? Members want to know.

George Reid (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

That is not a point of order.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

We have seen a fairly astonishing turn of events. I do not think that I have ever been at a debate in which a minister has spoken twice and, after sitting down, has received applause from not one member on either occasion. That shows the chamber's concern and unanimity on the issue, which has caused great concern for a number of people over a long period. I am pleased that we have been able to bring it before the chamber.

I will address the comments made by each speaker. First, the minister has not answered the central question. I am willing to sit down and allow her to intervene if she will say whether she will delay the contracts until such time as the Transport and the Environment Committee has carried out its investigations. [MEMBERS: "Go on, Minister."] Given that the minister has not intervened, I shall proceed.

The tendering process was flawed at 26 different points. In the main, those have been touched upon, but they deserve further comment. How could the assessment process, for example, have been carried out effectively if the current providers—with decades of experience, who have delivered a high-quality service—are replaced by two companies, one of which has little or no experience in Scotland? The tendering process has lacked any transparency. The Government reserved the right to apply unspecified weightings to items within the bid, but the actual weightings applied have never been disclosed.

On quality, tenderers did not know what the quality threshold was. They were advised only if they reached it.

On pricing, tenderers will be paid a lump sum for winter maintenance, irrespective of the type of winter. There is great concern over the flexibility of such pricing.

On price assessment, some of the quantities used in the assessment are three or four times greater than have been or will be used by the Government. In one instance, a differential of over 4,000 per cent has been indicated. That has greatly distorted tender prices. It was made clear at pre-tender and quality meetings that large lump sums and low rates would not be tolerated, yet it appears that they have been accepted. That makes it easier to manipulate outcomes. In addition, the many areas of ambiguity in the tender documents mean that there is considerable scope for claims for additional costs, possibly leading to an expensive claims approach by tenderers using that methodology.

Bruce Crawford talked about the serious damage to our ability to manage and maintain our roads and about the fact that no attempt was made to assess the impact on existing services. Like other members, he talked about duplication, and increased costs for local depots and quarries.

The minister spoke after Bruce Crawford and talked about the use of inaccurate information, but it seems to me that the minister is the only person who holds to that view. COSLA and the individual local authorities have all submitted information that contradicts the minister. It appears that the minister believes that she is right and that everyone else is wrong. How can that possibly be? She has approached the debate like an ostrich with its head stuck firmly in the sand.

Murray Tosh talked about savings being made centrally by burdening local authorities. He was not satisfied that the process had been carried out effectively.

Iain Smith talked about the lack of transparency and clarity in the process. He touched on the errors in base quantities and talked about economies of scale, about depots closing and about materials. He also called for a full, independent assessment.

Everyone in the chamber would agree that today's keynote speech was given with great passion by Andy Kerr. He expressed no faith in the minister's judgment—what can we add to that? He talked about a shambles of a process and reminded the minister that local authorities are already in partnership with the private sector and that we were hoping to achieve a level playing field.

Andy Kerr doubted that local authorities had been listened to and talked of this being a sad day for the Scottish Parliament. He said that quality was not in the contracts and pointed out the fact that the Scottish Government's proposals were 10 years out of date and were simply compulsory competitive tendering mark I. He told us that there was not even a basic level of best value in the contracts.

Shona Robison talked about the conflict of interest with Halcrow and I have been advised by some of the many lawyers on the SNP benches that that could leave the Scottish Government open to independent legal challenge if the contracts were introduced. Shona Robison appealed to members to support the SNP motion.

Tommy Sheridan talked about the honesty of Andy Kerr's presentation and called for a full exploration of the matter. He emphasised the fact that the minister was proposing to cut costs by cutting jobs and mentioned the possible risks to safety.

David Davidson talked about the minister's blinkered view and, although he did not use these exact words, said that the minister was taking us over the abyss on the issue.

Fiona McLeod again pointed out that the minister had disputed the information given by local councils. She quoted COSLA on its adamant opposition to the proposals that the minister has outlined today. I would like to quote David Stewart, the Labour MP for Inverness East, Nairn and Lochaber. He says:

"I have very grave doubts about the Executive's handling of the tendering process. It has been deeply flawed from the outset, and I have no hesitation in supporting the Highland Council's stance. In politics, you have to stand up for what you believe is right."

Kate MacLean also talked about flaws in the assessment process and said that the Executive had let the side down.

Alex Neil talked about the amateurish and pathetic argument that the minister had put forward and I am sure that most MSPs will agree with the point that he made about shabby deals.

Donald Gorrie raised an important point about the minister undermining trust between the Scottish Parliament and the ministers and talked about the need for the ministerial team to listen to the majority.

There was discussion of the fact that the minister is entirely alone in the process and the minister refused to reply to individual concerns that were raised by members. It appears that, in her view, her civil servants are right but that MSPs, COSLA, local authorities, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all are wrong. She even had the temerity to misquote the SNP's motion.

Pauline McNeill (Labour, Glasgow Kelvin)

And the SNP never does that.

Kenneth Gibson (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Nasty.

Best value has been totally ignored and TUPE regulations will be ignored. It is clear that substantial numbers of people will not meet the criteria for TUPE regulations and that local authorities will be faced with redundancy costs. TUPE regulations will apply only in cases in which half of the work of a member of staff is clearly identified with the transferred undertaking. That is unlikely to apply to many due to the way in which direct labour organisations use staff across differing contracts.

The minister may have called for an urgent independent review of one aspect of the tendering process, but one can hardly feel confident of the outcome, given the fact that, in yesterday's Evening Times, the minister was quoted as saying that she is certain that the findings will not alter her decision.

The issue is about jobs, services, people and livelihoods. It is not about a minister behaving like King Canute and holding back the waves of indignation and concern. She should re-examine all aspects of a flawed process to arrive at the best possible solution and to find the most economically advantageous method of delivering trunk road management and maintenance.

I urge members to support the motion.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. I seek your guidance. When we lodged our motion, we did not know—formally—whether the Transport and the Environment Committee would review the whole tendering process; nor did we know whether the Minister for Transport would sign the contracts between the time of our lodging the motion and today's debate. We have a problem, and we need your help and guidance. I implore you to find a way that will allow the Parliament to express its wish that we delay the process and re-examine the tendering through the Transport and the Environment Committee. It is obvious that the chamber shares that view. We must find a way to reach a conclusion. What methods are available under standing orders to allow us to do that?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

It is always open to members to draft motions including such information. That opportunity was open to you, Mr Crawford.

Bruce Crawford (Scottish National Party, Mid Scotland and Fife)

Was it?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Let me continue please, if you do not mind, Mr Sheridan. There are opportunities for members to produce amendments to motions at fairly late notice, but it is always our intention to be able to give members as much notice as we possibly can of amendments. That is why, this morning, we, unfortunately, had to rule out Mr Sheridan's amendment.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

rose—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Is this another point of order, or is it on the same point?

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

It is on the same point: can you clarify the system that you are operating for amending amendments? Every member of all parties will agree that most of us find out about amendments to motions when we receive our business bulletins. As soon as I got mine, I read the Tories' amendment to the Executive's amendment. I wished also to lodge an amendment that summed up the will of everyone here. It was only a few words—to defer the signing of the contracts until the Transport and the Environment Committee had explored the matter.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

What I said earlier to Mr Crawford stands, but I would add that it is open to a member who so wishes to check with the chamber office to find out whether amendments have been lodged. The chamber office will co-operate with members to ensure that that process flows as smoothly as possible.

Personal Care for the Elderly

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

The next item of business is a Scottish National Party debate on motion S1M-1589, in the name of Mr John Swinney, on personal care for the elderly. There are two amendments to the motion. One of the amendments appears in the business bulletin. Copies of the second amendment are available at the back of the chamber, in the usual place.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

In opening today's debate, I acknowledge that our motion was, to all intents and purposes, drafted by the Liberal Democrats. The SNP lodged it for debate in our Opposition time in order to give the Parliament an early opportunity to express its will on a matter of great importance to thousands of elderly people and their families throughout Scotland.

The debate has been prompted by something that the Government has not done. However, before I discuss that, I will first take a few moments to acknowledge what the Government has done. All members welcomed Susan Deacon's announcements on 5 October and yesterday that there would be more money for aids and adaptations and for better home care, a focus on bedblocking and a single needs assessment. All those commitments will make a positive difference to the lives of many elderly people in Scotland.

Let me make one thing absolutely clear. It is not the case—as the Government has implied time and again and as a certain London peer has said—that we face a choice between the initiatives that the Government has already announced and full implementation of the Sutherland commission's recommendations. This is not an either/or question. The payment of personal care costs for all elderly people in Scotland is an essential part of any package to make the system of long-term care fair and to improve the quality of life for all those who require long-term care.

The reason why we are debating the motion is that a majority of MSPs—I believe—and of the Scottish public think that the Executive has not gone as far as it should have gone, could have gone and was expected to go. I will deal with the "should" and the "could" later. Amid the claims and counter-claims about what full implementation of the Sutherland report will mean, it is important to restate clearly the simple but overwhelming case that personal care costs should be paid from general taxation.

First, I will deal with the matter of expectations. The reason why the reaction to yesterday's statement—which, given its content, or rather lack of content, was always going to lead to deep disappointment—turned to fury was that the Government, and the First Minister in particular, had over the past three months misled the people of Scotland. In the words of Maureen O'Neill of Age Concern Scotland, as reported in this morning's press,

"expectations were raised over the past eight weeks only to be dashed"

by the Minister for Health and Community Care yesterday. That is putting it mildly.

However hard Henry McLeish tries to rewrite recent history, the fact remains that he led Scotland to believe that Sutherland would be implemented in full. At the very least, that was how everyone in Scotland interpreted his remarks. The crucial point is that at no time did he or anyone acting on his behalf challenge that interpretation. He was happy to let Scotland believe that he was about to do right by Scotland's pensioners. He then allowed himself to be dictated to by his colleagues in London, letting Scotland down in the process.

I hope that, if nothing else, Henry McLeish pledges never again to play politics with an issue that is so important to so many people. It is no accident that the majority of people in Scotland—including MSPs, voluntary organisations, elderly forums, the general public, Malcolm Chisholm and, at least until last week, Henry McLeish—support Sir Stewart Sutherland's recommendations. They do so because Sir Stewart and his commission were right.

Long-term care for the elderly involves a range of complex issues—on that point, the Government is right. That is presumably why the Royal Commission on Long Term Care was established in the first place and why it was given a year to examine the issues and to come up with its recommendations.

Its conclusion was absolutely clear—it is wrong to charge people for personal care. I can put it no better than the Sutherland report did. The commission accepted that people should, where possible, make a contribution to living costs, but it stated:

"The costs of personal care as such are however quite different. These are the costs which, unpredictably and through no fault of their own, old people have to incur when unfortunately they can no longer be looked after at home or cannot be sent home after hospital treatment. They reflect the true risk and 'catastrophic' nature of needing long-term care.

In our judgement it is right for the state to exempt personal care from means-testing altogether. This is our key recommendation."

In other words, the Sutherland commission was saying, loudly and clearly, that it is wrong to ask people to pay for help with washing, dressing and going to the toilet. That is help that nobody wants to have to ask for, but that many people are forced to rely on, simply because they are old.

We do not now need review after review to consider the principle of the issue when the principle has already been established clearly and convincingly by the Sutherland commission. What we need now is an acceptance of that principle by the Government. Incidentally, that acceptance is contained nowhere in the amendment lodged by Richard Simpson. We need a commitment to full implementation of Sutherland and a detailed timetable for implementation. That is what the people of Scotland want and deserve.

Let me deal with the arguments that have been made against full implementation, starting with the assertion that to pay personal care costs for all elderly people is to target scarce resources at wealthy pensioners. Let me make it absolutely clear that we are not, in the main, discussing wealthy pensioners; we are talking about people who belong to a thrifty generation and who have managed to save a little, or people whose only asset is the family home. We are talking not about wealthy pensioners but about ordinary pensioners, who have contributed to society for their entire lives and deserve support in their old age.

Even to advance the argument about wealthy pensioners benefiting from full implementation is to miss the whole point of the Sutherland report. The point of the Sutherland recommendation is that it is the very nature of personal care, and the fact that it is such a lottery which of us will require it, that makes payment from taxation the only equitable way of resourcing it.

Secondly, there is the argument that we cannot afford to pay for personal care. The only figures that have been presented in the debate are those of the Sutherland report and those of Sir Stewart himself. The report concluded that implementing its recommendation would, by the middle of the century, add 0.4 per cent to the amount of tax revenues spent on long-term care. To my knowledge, that figure has never been seriously challenged.

The report costs implementation of its recommendation at £110 million per annum. However, as Sir Stewart has said, that is already an historical estimate because it takes no account of other commitments that the Government has made, such as to the provision of free nursing care. According to Sir Stewart, the gap between where the Executive was on Tuesday and where people want it to go is £25 million—again, that figure has never been convincingly challenged. Presumably, that gap has narrowed further since Susan Deacon's announcement yesterday.

So, is implementation affordable? The First Minister seemed to think so on 15 January, when he asked in The Scotsman:

"Is anyone really suggesting that with the teachers and with Sutherland, that is money that cannot be made available out of our budget?"

Is anyone in the Government suggesting that we cannot afford to pay for personal care? I await the minister's answer. It is abundantly clear that until last week it was the First Minister's view that paying for the personal care costs of the most vulnerable people in our society was not only a priority for the Government but a policy that could be afforded.

This is not about affordability. It is an issue of political will, and today it is an issue about the will of the Parliament. There is majority support in Scotland for implementing the Sutherland recommendation and I believe that that majority is reflected in the Parliament. It includes, if they are honest, Malcolm Chisholm and Henry McLeish. Today is our chance to assert our authority as the elected representatives of the people of Scotland and say clearly to the Scottish Government that the Government is the creature of the Parliament, and not vice versa. I hope that MSPs of all parties will support the motion so that, together as members of the Parliament of Scotland, we resolve to do what is right for the pensioners of our country.

I move,

That the Parliament, while welcoming the further package of proposals to improve care for the elderly announced by the Minister for Health and Community Care on 24 January 2001, notes that it is the policy of the Liberal Democrats, SNP, Conservatives and others to introduce free personal care for the elderly as proposed in the Sutherland Commission Report and calls upon the Scottish Executive to make a similar clear, firm and unequivocal commitment together with a definite timetable for its implementation.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. At the beginning of the debate, you said—the Official Report will confirm this—that there was an Executive amendment, copies of which were available at the back of the chamber. It turns out that that amendment is in the name of Richard Simpson. Will you make it clear for the Official Report that the amendments are in the names of Richard Simpson and Tommy Sheridan, neither of whom are yet in the Executive?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

You are misquoting me, Mr Rumbles. I did not mention the word "Executive".

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

On a point of order, Presiding Officer. What amendments have you accepted?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I have accepted two amendments: one in your name, Mr Sheridan, and one in the name of Dr Richard Simpson.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I begin by declaring that I am a director of a nursing home, although it operates in England and will not benefit from any action that is taken by the Executive.

The time has come for a mature debate on the care of elder citizens. Yesterday, according to Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia, there was a major breakthrough. Why did that organisation use that term against the cacophony of soundbites from the SNP and the Tories? It did so because it recognises the reality of the future.

There has been a major breakthrough because we have radically challenged the basis of the debate. No longer will any elderly person or their carer have to decide whether the type of care that they receive is nursing care or personal care. That sterile debate is over. Now we have a Scottish solution to the problem. We have a care needs assessment system that will ensure that many more people will now receive the help that they need.

The discrimination against people with dementia, mental illness or learning disability, which was inherent in the concept of free nursing care, is over. The Parliament should now concentrate on the definition of personal living expenses. Not even Sutherland has ever suggested that those expenses should be anything other than a personal responsibility that is met through personal income, pension or benefits. No matter where people live—in a nursing or residential care home, or at home—they will have to meet their personal living expenses, assessed under the benefits system.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No.

The Parliament must recognise that even people in national health service units make a contribution to their personal living expenses, through the stopping of pensions above £15 per week after they have been in NHS units for six weeks.

Yesterday, the Labour-led coalition made it clear that we have begun a journey towards the renationalisation of health care, which the Tories privatised.

Kay Ullrich (Scottish National Party, West of Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

No, I am sorry. The changes that have been announced represent a decisive break with the rest of the UK. Does the Opposition welcome that? No.

Nicola Sturgeon (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

Yes, we do.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The SNP does not welcome the break.

The long-term care bill will offer an opportunity for the Parliament to hold a rational discussion about how we create sustainable funding for the long-term care of the growing number of elderly people who need it.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I accept most of what Dr Simpson has said. Does he accept that the responsibility of the person being cared for to meet the costs of that care, commensurate with their means, can be operated through a system of income tax and a universal benefits system?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

We have to decide and define where personal responsibility ends and the state's responsibility begins. I do not object to debating that matter on the basis of Sutherland, but we have to define that boundary on a sustainable basis, as the demographic pressures on the Parliament's budget will be substantial. The Parliament has an opportunity through the implementation group and the long-term care bill to define reasonable and sustainable boundaries between personal costs and the state's costs.

Instead of acting rationally and reasonably, the Opposition and—I regret to say—some of our coalition partners want soundbites. Rationally, if I were in opposition and had heard the Executive state yesterday that the end of the journey on which we had begun was free personal care, I would immediately have asked what constituted the free personal care that had just been agreed to and where the line would now be drawn. There will always be boundaries between what is personal responsibility and the responsibility of the state.

Alex Neil (Scottish National Party, Central Scotland)

Will the member give way?

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I am sorry; I am in my last 60 seconds.

I tell our partners that, notwithstanding the efforts of the Tories and the SNP, whose sole purpose is to wreck the coalition— [Interruption.]

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Order.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

The SNP's profligate promises to the Parliament amount to more than £5 billion. The SNP would wreck our budget and economy.

I appeal to our Liberal colleagues to join us. We believe, as they do, that we should move towards the restoration of the state's responsibility for the care needs of older people, but we recognise that this is a coalition and that Labour has a commitment to those in greatest need. We have commitments, which we will not abandon, to central heating for the elderly, social inclusion and the extension of respite care to support our carers.

There is no dispute about what we want. Margaret Smith and Keith Raffan know the extent of my commitment to the goals that we share. I appeal to the Liberal Democrats to move beyond the rhetoric and ensure that the path that we are on leads to a common goal. I call on them to join us and not pander to the Opposition, whose sole purpose is to wreck the coalition. They should accept the responsibilities and disciplines of government and support the amendment.

I move amendment S1M-1589.2, to leave out from ", while" to end and insert:

"recognises that there are benefits in providing free personal care for the elderly; welcomes as a major step in this direction the further package of proposals announced by the Executive on 24 January 2001 which set out a process that will lead to a substantial extension of free personal care; notes that there are significant issues of cost and practicality in moving further and calls upon the Executive to broaden the terms of reference of the Development Group to require it to consider the practicalities, costs and implications of providing free personal care for all and to report by August 2001 with proposals that will inform the Executive's expenditure decisions for 2002-03 and beyond."

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I should explain to the chamber that I will now call Mr Sheridan, who will formally move his amendment. He will speak during the wind-up speeches at the end of the debate.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

I move amendment S1M-1589.1, to leave out "and others" and insert:

"the Scottish Socialist Party and the Scottish Green Party".

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I am glad that we are having this debate, as it is right and proper that, once and for all, we decide on some of the issues that are at the core of the challenges that we face in delivering better and fairer care for older people in Scotland. I want a better and fairer care system—I think that all of us want that. We want greater equity and higher quality and we want more and better services. The challenge for Government is how to deliver that care to people.

Already, this Executive has made clear our commitment to Scotland's older people, not only in words but in deeds. Last October, we announced a massive investment package of £100 million a year. That is the biggest ever investment in older people's community care services in Scotland—real measures and real investment to deliver better and fairer services throughout our country.

Alongside that investment, we have provided concessionary fares and warmer homes for older people, again backed by investment, action, changes to the organisation and to the design of services and, where necessary, legislative change. Those actions will benefit tens of thousands of Scotland's older people.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

Will the minister give way?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I thought that those of us who supported the creation of the Parliament spent so long arguing for it in order to make a difference to the lives of the Scottish people.

I will take a quick intervention from Mr Rumbles.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

I respect the minister's comment that we want a fairer system for the delivery of personal care. However, we do not want people to fall through the net because their assessment is wrong. For example, on the income supplement, people fall through the net of the minimum income guarantee. That is the point.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

I have only a few minutes, but I will deal with Mike Rumbles's point. I do not want people to fall through the net. I do not want to make promises to people if I am unable to say when and how those promises can be delivered. I do not want to tell someone that they will receive free personal care if I cannot have the confidence to say that the services are in place to deliver that care. I do not want to tell people that they are going to have free personal care if I cannot say when or how they will receive that care. I do not want to say to people that they will receive free personal care if the consequence of that promise is that other services may ultimately need to be cut. In the Health and Community Care Committee's report of its year-long inquiry into community care, the committee said:

"Clearly the decision to make personal care available free of charge means money is no longer there to be spent on other aspects of community care".

Yesterday, I said that we were determined to create greater fairness and greater equity in the care system. We are ensuring that everyone, universally, will get free nursing care. As I said yesterday, we are pushing out the boundaries and extending the provision of free nursing and personal care to those in greatest need, in order to ensure that some of the greatest inequities in our care system, which affect people with conditions such as dementia and Alzheimer's disease, are addressed once and for all. Those measures will create greater fairness—they are not hollow words, empty rhetoric or promises that cannot be fulfilled. They are real measures that will make a difference to the people of Scotland.

Even the SNP spokesperson said today that she welcomes everything that the Executive has done to date. No one has advocated that we are doing anything that should not be done. No one has said that we should not make progress on the community care agenda. We want to make progress on that agenda. That is why we set out clearly yesterday that care of the elderly would be a top priority for additional investment and why we said that we wanted to examine all the issues involved in extending the boundaries of free care and in improving long-term care.

We will examine the relationship between care and the benefits system. We will examine funding flows through all the other funding streams that come into community care. Malcolm Chisholm's group will advance that work over the next six months and that fixed time scale will feed into our legislative programme. We want to ask the questions and we want to come up with the answers. We want to base our policy and investment decisions on facts, not rhetoric.

If we promise change and improvements for older people in Scotland, we will deliver change and improvements for older people in Scotland. We will say when we will do it and how we can do it. We will explain the consequences of making changes and we will ensure that we deliver change. That is the Executive's commitment; the measures that I set out yesterday demonstrate how that commitment will be met. It is a pity that, on an issue on which we share so many objectives, we now dance on the head of a pin of words, when we all want to deliver change.

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

The Conservatives welcome both the debate and any move that would benefit the care of the elderly. We also look forward to the Health and Community Care Committee's debate in the chamber in February. Today is an opportunity for all MSPs who are committed to personal care for the elderly to vote for it.

Not only is the Executive's response to the Sutherland report disgraceful, but the Minister for Health and Community Care's response to the Health and Community Care Committee's report is overrun by references to the joint future group, which she set up. It is clear that she responded in that way in order to state the Executive's case and to overshadow the committee's report with her ideas. I find it galling that other ministers are able to work effectively with their subject committees, while the Minister for Health and Community Care continually drives a wedge into what could be an excellent working partnership.

I will examine the background to the debate. In 1997, the Royal Commission on Long Term Care was set up. The Sutherland report was published about 18 months later. We are now two years down the line from the Sutherland recommendations. We believed that Labour could not procrastinate any longer with focus groups, strategies, commissions, reviews and working groups, but what do we get? A development group.

If the minister wants to hear a soundbite, I will give her one from Alzheimer Scotland, which said:

"the Development Group is a stalling device."

The reason for the additional delay centres on the definition of personal care, which is set out clearly at chapter 6, page 68 of the Sutherland report. The report says that personal care

"falls within the internationally recognised definition of nursing, but may be delivered by many people who are not nurses"

and should be based on assessment of need, not on demand.

How can the Executive and the Minister for Health and Community Care have any respect for old age when the minister recommends that free care should be provided only to those dementia sufferers with the greatest need?

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

rose—

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

I want to finish my point.

Dementia can only get worse. The minister is setting up a system that will continually test and assess the frail and elderly until they are sufficiently ill to fit her definition. How cruel and demeaning can she be? When she considers her views on personal care, will she follow the advice of the chief nursing officer? Point 29 of the report by the chief nursing officer for Scotland's group on free nursing care states that those who refuse assessment

"need to be made aware that to do so will prevent their nursing care being paid for."

Point 26 says that

"reassessment of need should be as frequent as the person requires".

Where do respect and dignity fit into that approach? The care of someone with mild dementia is not paid for. The care of someone who is cantankerous, thrawn or downright independent is not paid for. Someone who values their self-respect, dignity and independence in old age gets no help. However, someone who submits to endless assessments until they finally fit the new Deacon definition of personal care might just get help. What does it profit a man to gain the minister's grudging, tight-fisted measure of personal care if he loses all his dignity and self-respect on the way?

As Alzheimer Scotland says, the development group is a delaying tactic. We know that the vast majority of Labour members support the funding of personal care for the elderly. Today, they have run out of excuses and run out of time. Today is their opportunity to help old people in Scotland.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Will the member give way?

Mary Scanlon (Conservative, Highlands and Islands)

No—I am on my final sentence.

There is political will in the Parliament to give our old folk care, dignity and security in their old age—can Labour members afford not to support the motion?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

There are two issues at the heart of the debate. First, the principle of free personal care for all older people: an issue on which there is a genuine difference of opinion between the Liberal Democrats and Labour ministers. The second is that of the status of the Scottish Parliament and the extent to which the Executive is not just sensitive but responsive to the clear will of members of the Parliament.

The Scottish Parliament is not Westminster and Holyrood is not a rubber stamp for an all-powerful UK Government. The Scottish Executive is a partnership that has formed a coalition Government between two parties. Ministers cannot get what they want simply by driving it through using a large majority: there is no large majority. They have to persuade and convince; the Executive cannot command support, it must win it.

I will start by saying what we in the Scottish Liberal Democrats want, and why. We want the Executive to make a clear, firm and unequivocal commitment in principle to free personal care for all older people, with a definite timetable for implementation. We do not expect that to happen overnight. Indeed, our own federal pre-general election manifesto stated that the Liberal Democrats

"aim to provide free personal care for those in long-term care, by the end of the next Parliament".

That means by either 2005 or 2006. Being in government means living in the real world. The timing of implementation is a matter of resources and of when those resources become available.

We welcome the minister's announcement yesterday of a development group on long-term care. That group will build on what has already been achieved and carry forward work on implementation. Members need to know as precisely as we can how many older people would be eligible for free personal care and what the cost would be—then we will find out whose estimates are closer to reality, Stewart Sutherland's or David Lipsey's. I know whose estimates I would back.

Why do the Liberal Democrats believe in free personal care for all older people? I do not intend to rehearse the arguments in detail: they can be found in the reports of the Sutherland commission and the Health and Community Care Committee. The arguments centre, of course, on fairness. They centre on equity. They centre on delivery of service to all in need. All their lives, older people have expected to be looked after and cared for in their old age. They have paid national insurance with that expectation in mind. They should not have to face their final years in fear.

Targeting, or restricting, resources to the most needy requires means-testing. It will also result in increased bureaucracy. Worse, it will lead to a lower take-up of what is, for many, a badly needed benefit. Means-testing is stressful for those who have to go through it—and especially so for the elderly. Means-testing does not easily equate with the dignity and respect that is the right of older people.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Does Keith Raffan agree that the implementation of the Sutherland report would not result in the abolition of means-testing? Does he also agree that the single needs assessment process that I announced yesterday—which is to be piloted this year and rolled out next year—will lead to a reduction in bureaucracy in the system?

Keith Raffan (Liberal Democrat, Mid Scotland and Fife)

I am about to pay some tribute to the minister. I accept what she says and I accept that the Sutherland report includes means-testing, particularly of living costs, but we are talking about the element of free personal care. The minister talked about an argument on the "head of a pin". It is that small—we are dancing on the head of a pin. If it is that small, why will the Executive not move towards our position? Why is the minister being so stubborn? Why is she so reluctant to move in principle?

We are proud of what the Executive has achieved so far for the elderly. I might add that I have a high respect for the minister. I have three health boards in my constituency that are confronting major issues and facing serious problems. Hers is no easy task. Despite a £5.5 billion plus budget for the national health service in Scotland, there is no surfeit of resources. Resources are scarce and there is competition for them everywhere.

The minister was right yesterday when she said that much has been done; she was also right when she said that much remains to be done. The Liberal Democrats welcomed her October announcement as a landmark for older people in Scotland. She had every right to claim that that package of proposals, investing up to an extra £100 million a year, would deliver radical change for the elderly—far more than Westminster has so far delivered. That is entirely to the Executive's credit.

We welcome the additional measures, with resources to match, that the minister announced yesterday, to extend the provision of free care to many more older people in Scotland—and especially to dementia sufferers who are in desperate need. We welcome the decision that additional resources for long-term care will be a top priority of this Administration. All the sadder then—from our perspective and in view of the Executive's distinguished record of achievement for the elderly—that the minister cannot bring herself to take that one further step and commit the Scottish Executive in principle to free personal care for all older people.

We are with the Executive on the journey towards improved care for the elderly; it is the ultimate destination on which we differ. There is a genuine difference between us on the Liberal Democrat benches and Labour ministers. However, a difference of opinion is not a ground for divorce. It may be uncomfortable and unsettling for both parties, but working to ensure that the current tension between us is creative—and positive in outcome—can lead to the maturing and strengthening of our relationship.

What we seek today is not the defeat of the Executive but a victory for the elderly—a victory that will make a real difference to their quality of life and a victory that will accord them the respect and dignity they deserve. And yes, we seek a victory for this Parliament too—one that will mark a further step in our development and a significant stage in our growth towards the mature and powerful Parliament for which the Scottish people voted and which our country deserves.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Richard Simpson referred to beginning a journey with the development group. As Mary Scanlon said, that journey began on 4 December 1997, when the royal commission was required to report, within 12 months, on long-term care for the elderly. It did. The report has since lain around for nearly two years. Do not frown at me, Labour members, I am coming to the point.

The Health and Community Care Committee took it upon itself to follow up the work of the report and it produced its own recommendations. I commend Mary Scanlon, Margaret Smith, Kay Ullrich and many others for that. I, too, followed up on it, lodging the first motion in Parliament calling for full implementation of Sutherland on free personal care. I proposed a member's bill at the same time. Since then, I have tinkered with that bill and put it on the back burner because I thought—I foolishly thought—after hearing Mr McLeish's words in this chamber that Labour would deliver on free personal care. Mr McLeish flirted and teased, here and in the press, on this serious and crucial issue. Today, we are coming to a test for this Parliament on delivery for Scotland's elderly people.

Down south, Labour's parliamentary colleagues say that implementing Sutherland in full would help rich pensioners. Well, yes—all these years since 1997, rich pensioners have been selling their council houses to pay for their personal care. Richard Simpson knows that not all pensioners who are selling their houses are suffering from dementia; many are sentient and know that they are losing their homes and their possessions. Families sometimes lie to them and tell them that their homes remain. Of course the personal care that they seek is not free: they have paid for it for years, with their taxes and national insurance. All they ask is the same treatment and care in their old age as others expect in a civilised society.

Yesterday, the minister announced a review. There is to be a report in another six months—conveniently after a general election. The leader in The Scotsman today is headed:

"McLeish plays for time on care of the elderly".

I count the delay from 1997 to now at three and a half years—not bad at playing for time.

The one thing that Scotland's frail elderly do not have is time. The delay is the Executive's disgrace. There is a coalition in the chamber on behalf of Scotland's elderly. I hope that the Parliament will tell Scotland loudly and clearly that across this chamber we stand by Sutherland and we stand by the frail elderly. That coalition is asking with one voice on personal care—when?

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

I will read from the report of the Health and Community Care Committee on the delivery of community care in Scotland:

"The Committee welcomes the steps that have been taken towards implementation of several of the key recommendations within the Sutherland Report. It is persuaded however by the substantial body of evidence presented to it that there should be no charge for services assessed as being required to meet the personal care needs of an individual. It therefore recommends to the Executive that free personal care should be provided on the basis of assessed need."

That was signed by members of all the major parties in the Parliament, including Richard Simpson, despite the impression he has given today.

This morning, I just happened to open the committee report at a page with a comment by Malcolm Chisholm, from 31 May. On the Sutherland report he said:

"I do not agree with the minority report".—[Official Report, Health and Community Care Committee, 31 May 2000; c 972.]

The support in the chamber for free personal care knows no bounds: there is support for the coalition for Scotland's elderly from the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care and other ministers from both parties and from members from every party in the chamber.

As Keith Raffan said, there are two fundamental issues. The first is about policy—what is fair, what is right and what will deliver the best possible community care services. The second is the power of this Parliament. I thank John Swinney: by withdrawing his motion on the powers of the Parliament, he has given us the opportunity to debate these issues. I hope that today we send out a very clear message about the power of the majority will of the Parliament, which is to listen to professionals, carers and users of services, as the Health and Community Care Committee did.

This is about making prudent use of finance. I have not heard anyone, today or in the earlier, long debates on the issue, call for free personal care to be delivered next week, next month or the month after that. However, we are the voice of our country: if this is the majority will of the people in this chamber, then let it be spoken and acted on. That would be the right course of action.

Yesterday, the Minister for Health and Community Care set out important steps on the journey towards achieving free personal care. As she said today, we are dancing on the head of a pin. That is why those of us who are disappointed feel that way—because we are almost there. The minister is responsible for a very great deal of the good work and progress that has been made. Yesterday, she said that people in Scotland are not interested in aspirations. If that were so, most of the Executive documents over the past year and a half would not have been printed.

Aspiration is about what we are, who we are, what we believe in and what we want to see happen for our country. We must send a message to people that we must be prudent, we must take forward work over the next six months, we must audit how the community care pound is spent and we must find the best way to put joint working into practice. There is a lot of work to do to untangle ourselves from the benefits system across the UK and the cross-border links and the possibility of people hobbling across the border into Scotland with their zimmers. What the Health and Community Care Committee wants—and what the Scottish Liberal Democrats want—is a commitment to the end of that process; a commitment that could begin today with the majority will of the Parliament being stated loud and clear.

The issue is not one of wealthy pensioners but of attacking thrift and personal responsibility. Despite the welcome announcement by the Minister for Health and Community Care yesterday on single assessments, it is about leaving in place charges for services. It does not matter whether it is called personal care or nursing care or whatever, some people will still be charged. As the Royal College of General Practitioners made clear to the Health and Community Care Committee, some people will not get the services they require and the care they should have.

The minister and the Executive have gone further than their colleagues in England and Wales. In October and yesterday, they put in place a good package of measures to improve things for the people of Scotland. However, the final step is still left. Today the Parliament has the opportunity to say that we want to take that step. It is right for Scotland's pensioners and for Scotland's Parliament.

Margaret Jamieson (Labour, Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

This morning's debate has focused on one issue rather than surveyed the big picture of how we treat and look after our older people who are in need of care. The Health and Community Care Committee took more than 10 months to complete its investigation into the delivery of community care. Yesterday, the Executive published its response to the committee's recommendations. It is a disservice to this chamber to use it to ignore the committee's recommendations and the Executive's positive responses and to pursue just one issue in isolation.

It is recognised that care needs must be assessed and that they must be understood in the same way throughout Scotland. The chief nursing officer undertook the task of considering, for the first time, what nursing care comprises. That report also was published yesterday and it confirms the way forward recommended by the Health and Community Care Committee. The success of that approach depends on all in the care stream being signed up to the process. It is right that a larger pilot of the care needs assessment package for the elderly should be conducted and evaluated before it is rolled out across Scotland. The value of evidence-based best practice was recognised in the committee's report.

The complexity of current funding and services was made clear to the members of the Health and Community Care Committee by the many individuals who gave evidence. A simplified, equitable and transparent system based on assessed need was called for. The committee recognised that that could not be achieved overnight and that significant work would be needed. The commitment to undertake that work was given by the Executive yesterday.

I quote the Executive's response to the committee:

"We agree with the Royal Commission that greater equity should be achieved in charging for care and that existing anomalies should be addressed. We committed ourselves to start by ending the anomaly whereby nursing care was charged for in some settings, but not others. We made clear our determination to adopt an approach which was person centred and based on need. The report of the Chief Nursing Officer's group on free nursing care makes detailed proposals for a move to a single needs assessment for each individual requiring care. The proposed approach is person centred and recognises that different individuals have different levels of needs, often resulting in a complex mix of care needs which do not fit neatly into boxes."

As a member of the Health and Community Care Committee, I recall the collective desire of those who gave evidence to ensure equity, the individuality and dignity of our older people and that appropriate services should be provided for them. I believe that we have embarked on doing that and I commend Richard Simpson's amendment.

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

I will begin by doing two things I thought I never would. The first is to praise the Liberal Democrats for making a stand on principle—they deserve a degree of credit for that. I ask them to resist Richard Simpson's overtures on returning to the fold. I must tell Margaret Smith that a rough wooing might be the way to describe it. Today could be a defining moment for the Parliament; I hope it will be. After this debate and after the motion is, I hope, passed, the fight must continue within the coalition. The issue will not be resolved today and we have no assurance from the Executive.

Secondly, I will come to the defence of the Minister for Health and Community Care—for once. It is unfortunate that she has been left carrying the can for the debacle. Henry McLeish is the person who told us, in all but the detail, that he was going to go down this road. It was Henry McLeish who engaged in the cruel flirtation with Scotland's elderly yet, in an act of unparalleled cowardice, fled the field and left the minister to pick up the pieces. Surely the role of the Minister for Health and Community Care is to fight against that—she should be arguing the case within the Government.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

Will the member give way?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No.

The minister did not do much to her credit when she told us why she would not give us a principled commitment to free personal care. She said that she would not give an open commitment until she had worked out the details of implementation. What has been happening in the two years since Sutherland was published? That was the time for the reviews and thoughts on implementation. That was the point at which the minister should have been taking forward not just the points that the Executive has been praised for—

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Will the member give way?

Duncan Hamilton (Scottish National Party, Highlands and Islands)

No.

Two years on, the minister should know why we should progress and how it should be done. We know that the Executive displays a stubborn refusal to listen to civic Scotland. Dr Simpson told us that that is Opposition carping. I suggest that when the British Medical Association, Scottish Care, Help the Aged, the Royal College of Nursing and Age Concern Scotland come together to say that they are hugely disappointed with the package—Maureen O'Neill from Age Concern Scotland described yesterday's announcement as the worst of both worlds—it is not Opposition carping, but the genuine concern of the Scottish community.

We know about the arrogant dismissal of the conclusions of the Scottish Parliament's Health and Community Care Committee. There was unanimous agreement—including Malcolm Chisholm, who is now the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care—that there should be universal free personal care. That position included Richard Simpson, who, today, has conveniently forgotten that. We know that the situation puts Malcolm Chisholm in a difficult position. However, if the committee or the Parliament and its structures mean anything to Susan Deacon, she must listen to the unanimous, cross-party view.

We do not know where we go from here. Last night, on "Newsnight Scotland", Malcolm Chisholm was asked several times what would happen if—or, indeed, when—the SNP motion was passed. What will be the Executive's response to the majority of the Parliament saying that we believe that personal care should be free? Will that view be resisted or accepted by the Executive? I would be happy to give way to the minister now, if she would clarify that point. I see that she intends to remain seated.

There has been much talk about a constitutional crisis and what will happen to the coalition. I do not care what happens to the coalition and whether it stays together or breaks down. I care about the will of the Parliament being ignored. If the unanimous view of the majority of members is that personal care should be free and the Executive decides to ignore the Parliament, it will set an astoundingly dangerous precedent.

The Parliament is not here for the Executive or the parties of the politicians—it is here for the people of Scotland. Yesterday's announcement let those people down. Today we have an unrivalled opportunity to put the record straight and to say, as a country and as a Parliament, that we believe in universal free personal care. When the Scottish Parliament says that, the Executive had better listen.

Bill Aitken (Conservative, Glasgow)

Let us be clear about one thing: this morning's debate goes much further than the rights and wrongs of the full implementation of the Sutherland report. Surely that argument is finished. Every member of the Parliament is personally committed to Sutherland and only the Labour component of the coalition is dragging its heels on the subject. The arguments in support of full implementation are compelling and have been articulated well by many members. Everyone has accepted those arguments. I draw the Parliament's attention to the report of the Health and Community Care Committee, which recommended full implementation and to which Malcolm Chisholm—then a member of the committee—signed up quite happily.

The issue is not now about care and compassion for the elderly—to which I know we are all committed; the issue is the personal credibility of the First Minister. In interview after interview, news feature after news feature, report after report and in replies to parliamentary questions, the First Minister implied strongly that Sutherland would be implemented in full and in the near future. Now, the hopes of many elderly people and their relatives have been dashed because Henry McLeish cannot deliver.

When such things happen, one must wonder about the relationship between the Executive and the Westminster Parliament. Like Duncan Hamilton, I have a scintilla of sympathy for Susan Deacon. Over the past few weeks, her statements have been much more circumspect than have those of Henry McLeish. Her caution was clearly well founded. If the minister feels some inhibition and embarrassment in having to explain the situation to organisations such as Age Concern Scotland, she would be entitled to feel that she has been sold the hospital pass and left without a prayer by the First Minister.

However, any sympathy for Susan Deacon is dispelled by the fact that she is part of an Administration that has spun mercilessly over recent weeks and has built up the hopes of thousands of vulnerable people in Scotland, only to dash them at the last minute. Labour, and Henry McLeish in particular, has been left without a shred of credibility in the matter. It is clear that Mr McLeish has been unable to carry Treasury ministers at Westminster with him in what he was seeking to do. That speaks volumes about his credibility at Westminster as well.

It is clear that the implementation of Sutherland has a cost. The Conservatives would not pretend that such issues have anything other than the most far-reaching consequences for the future of health spending provision. The Conservative party prides itself on a fairly hard-headed approach to financial issues. We thought long and hard about how the Sutherland proposals could be funded and supported and came to the inescapable conclusion that we could no longer be party to a system where prudence is penalised. We recognised the agony being suffered by many elderly people and their relatives. In common with the Scottish National Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish Socialist Party and the Green Party, we recognised that such injustices had to be remedied and that the proposals should be implemented in full, immediately.

Is it not the ultimate irony that the first crisis that the Executive and the Scottish Parliament faces as a result of the devolution settlement should arise not out of the activities of the SNP, which is committed to independence, but because Gordon Brown refuses to put his money where Henry McLeish's mouth is?

Sandra White (Scottish National Party, Glasgow)

The minister said that she is glad to have today's debate. I am not particularly glad that we are having the debate and I am not glad to speak in it. I am not glad about it because the debate should and need not have happened. It could easily have been avoided if the First Minister—unfortunately, he is not here—had had the courage of his convictions. This, as we all know, is the Scottish Parliament and the Executive is—in Mr McLeish's words—the Scottish Government. It is time that everyone, particularly the Scottish Government, acted on behalf of the Scottish people.

I am convener of a cross-party group on the elderly. In that role, I have met numerous groups across Scotland and the topic that is raised most often is the Sutherland report and its implementation in full. I see that Malcolm Chisholm has turned to speak to one of his colleagues. Perhaps he should be listening, given that he was the former joint convener of the cross-party group. Clearly he is not listening, just as he did not listen to most of the people who spoke to him at the cross-party group.

I would like to mention a couple of people who were involved in the cross-party talks with Malcolm Chisholm and me: Phyllis Herriot and John Wilson of the Scottish Pensioners Association. Those people, among others, came to our cross-party group in the faith that we would listen to them and perhaps put forward their concerns and those of the pensioners whom they represent. Those people have been let down by the Labour part of the Scottish Government. Malcolm Chisholm should think about that.

On several occasions, Henry McLeish made announcements to the newspapers about the implementation of the Sutherland report. He gave hope to such people, who took the time to visit us. He gave them hope and then snatched it away.

I will give Age Concern Scotland's comment: the world is divided into two sorts of people—those who care and those who do not; those who have had to deal with the difficulties of arranging and paying for the care of older people and those who think that old age and its attendant difficulties are nothing to do with them.

Tony Blair has indicated that the Government seems to believe that the majority of the electorate are in the latter category. Let us not allow the Scottish Government to be in the latter category.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

There are still two members who wish to speak. I can accommodate them both, if they will be brief.

Donald Gorrie (Liberal Democrat, Central Scotland)

I join those who paid tribute to the minister for the progress that we have made so far, which is welcome.

On the basic issue, let me give the analogy that we are walking in the same direction, but the terminus of our walk is free personal care. Getting there might take some time, and we might have to wander round a few hills and glens, but we must get there. There is all the difference in the world between stating that our commitment is to get there and saying that various groups will examine the issue and something might happen.

The key point is that on a fundamental issue, the minister and some of her party—perhaps the whole of her party, although I do not believe that—believe one thing. If they do so in good conscience, there is nothing wrong with that—the majority in the Parliament believes something different. We have to have a mechanism so that the Parliament's will prevails. That means that the ministers must take account of the views of Parliament. They cannot just sail on as if nothing has happened at all.

I know that it is difficult for people who have been brought up in the Labour party tradition to accept losing votes. I have spent my whole life losing votes. I have probably lost more votes than anyone in recorded history, having been in two councils for many years. It does not mean that someone is bad or wrong if they lose a vote—I have been consistently right and lost all the votes—but in this case, the Executive has to accept that the majority of the Parliament, coming from different angles but doing so conscientiously and based on good information, such as that from all-party committees and that contained in the Sutherland report, believes that something should happen, so something must happen. It does not mean that the Minister for Health and Community Care has to run up the white flag and say, "I abjectly surrender", but the policy of the Executive must be modified significantly to meet the majority wish of the Parliament. If it is not modified, there will be serious trouble, and I will do my best to create it.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I promise to be right beside Donald Gorrie when he does his best to create trouble. I add my weight, which is shrinking fast, to that.

I shall address only two points of principle, because I do not pretend to be an expert on the matter, and I defer to many of the Labour members who have spoken, with whom I have a disagreement today, because in this area they have expertise that I do not share. However, we once did share a belief in the principle of the universality of benefits and services so that people do not fall through the cracks. I urge those Labour members who still share that belief to realise that the tremendous advances that the Minister for Health and Community Care outlined with regard to needs and care assessments, and the amalgamation of different styles of caring, can be accomplished while achieving the aim of universality.

We have a sophisticated taxation system now, which can be used in a way that previous generations could not do to achieve the dream of universality and equality. I urge the minister to accept the principle of universality of service provision. The people whom the Minister for Health and Community Care reckons can afford to pay and should not be supplied with free services—unlike those whom she wishes to target with means-testing—will still be caught in the net of income tax. There is a way to achieve the principles that are being espoused in the chamber, while achieving what the minister is trying to do in the Executive, or Government.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

rose—

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Briefly, I will mention the other principle, because that is the one on which I think Jenkins will want to intervene.

The second principle is that which Donald Gorrie spoke about. There is no use in having a Parliament if it does not speak for the people. We know what the people say. I urge everyone to listen to them, but I will listen first to Jenkins.

Ian Jenkins (Liberal Democrat, Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale)

We all agree that we are approaching the debate from the correct angle, but I worry that we are in danger of sending out a message to old people that they will never, ever have to sell their house to look after themselves in their old age. If we are talking about spin and unrealistic expectations, we must ensure that that is not one of those expectations.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

rose—

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

I call Margo MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

I do not mind if other members speak.

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

Please close, Ms MacDonald.

Margo MacDonald (Independent, Lothians)

Right.

I am sorry that I cannot guess from this distance what my colleague Christine Grahame might have said. She might have wanted to say, "Ian, we're nowhere near that yet." We are nowhere near the spin on and the interpretation of the outcome of the debate. We are still trying genuinely to debate the issue.

The debate revolves round two principles: long-term care, and the status and effectiveness of the Parliament in meeting the aspirations of people in Scotland.

George Lyon (Liberal Democrat, Argyll and Bute)

I thank John Swinney for making available some of the SNP's time to debate a motion from the Liberal Democrats. In view of yesterday's statement, it was important that the Parliament had a chance to make its views known.

Richard Simpson has lodged an amendment, which Duncan Hamilton rightly described as rough wooing. The level of support for Richard's amendment was shown by Margaret Jamieson's supporting speech, which she made through gritted teeth, to say the least.

Richard Simpson talked about demographics and about where the line is drawn between the state's responsibilities and those of the elderly pensioner. Sir Stewart Sutherland dealt with that in his report and described the demographic issue as a red herring. He drew the line between state support and the responsibility of the individual, by ensuring that hotel and living costs remained the individual's responsibility. The line is drawn. Richard Simpson's last point was that the Liberal Democrats were pandering to the Opposition. Richard is pandering to London, and that is the problem.

I recognise that the Minister for Health and Community Care and the Executive have gone a long way in delivering Sir Stewart Sutherland's recommendations. Yesterday's announcement took us slightly further along that road, but not the full distance. Why was the Minister for Health and Community Care unwilling to take that last step? She talks about dancing on the head of a pin. It is she who is dancing on the head of a pin. We agree with everything in the statement—it is what was not in the statement that we disagree with.

We all know the First Minister's position. After the previous debate on long-term care, when pressure from Labour and Liberal Democrat MSPs kept the door open, Henry McLeish started to walk through the door. In the media, we have been led to believe that the decision was a done deal. Why? Given the cross-party support for that deal and the unanimous backing of the cross-party Health and Community Care Committee for Sir Stewart Sutherland, why on earth did the First Minister raise expectations to such a level, only for the Minister for Health and Community Care to dash them completely yesterday? We must ask that question. I hope that the minister answers it.

The debate boils down to one simple question—are the minister and rest of the Executive willing to accept the will of Parliament and the wishes of the Scottish people, or will they ignore them? I ask the minister to recognise that—as Keith Raffan pointed out—this is not Westminster. No party here has a majority in its own right. The minister must recognise that, if the Parliament expresses the view that Sutherland should be implemented, that is precisely what must happen.

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

It is clear from the speeches in the debate today that a majority in the Parliament supports the implementation of the Sutherland recommendation of free personal care.

I take pleasure from the fact that, back in September, we were the first party in the Parliament to introduce a motion and a debate on the matter, and I welcome the support that we received then from the Scottish National Party and a few Liberal Democrat members. I also welcome the fact that the majority of Liberal Democrats appear to have changed their position on the matter and are supporting Nicola Sturgeon's motion on behalf of the SNP. That is a very generous sentiment.

John Swinney (Scottish National Party, North Tayside)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes.

The only missing link in the Parliament is the Scottish Executive, although we know that there are many in the Labour group who do not support the Executive's position. Not so long ago, one of them wrote:

"It is equitable that individuals should pay for their own personal living costs wherever their place of residence, but have personal care and nursing care costs met out of taxation. It is what the current generation of older Scots had expected in paying their tax and National Insurance over a working lifetime."

That was Dr Richard Simpson in Holyrood magazine in September last year. It is not the Dr Richard Simpson whose intemperate speech—highly uncharacteristic of him—was delivered in the chamber this morning. If this is the major breakthrough that he claims—and that the minister claimed in her statement yesterday—I ask him, on the basis of his experience, how many of the 8,000 people in residential care in Scotland will benefit from it. What dent will be made in that tally by the minister's announcements yesterday?

Dr Simpson spoke about renationalisation of health care—that is absolute nonsense. As he well knows, since the inception under his party of the national health service in 1948, people have had to pay for personal, nursing and living costs in residential and nursing homes. People are living longer, so what has changed is the scale of the problem, which must have more resources devoted to it. To talk about renationalisation of health care is complete and utter nonsense.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

I am sorry, but I have only a few minutes.

As Nicola Sturgeon said, we know that the issue is not one of affordability. The money is effectively there. It is a tiny fraction of the total health budget, and less than last year's underspend in the Scottish health budget, which was £135 million. It is less than lumberjack McConnell filched from the health budget last year for Scotland's trees and to pay for the landscaping of the Scottish Parliament building.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Will the member give way?

David McLetchie (Conservative, Lothians)

No.

Let us not pretend that lack of money is the problem. Why is the recommendation not being implemented? One explanation that has been advanced is that Mr McLeish and the rest of the Executive wanted to go ahead, but were blocked by the Prime Minister and his emissaries. It is all to do with control from London by Labour.

It may well be a matter of internal party management. There may be internal party reasons, bound up in the Westminster Government and the Labour general election campaign. However, there is another explanation. Keith Raffan asked why the minister is so stubborn. The fact is that there is a body of opinion within the Labour party in Scotland, led by Susan Deacon, which is implacably opposed to the principle of free personal care. That body of opinion is stubborn because it regards the 8,000 people in residential homes in Scotland as wealthy, and it does not intend to devote any additional resources to them.

As Christine Grahame and Bill Aitken said, I do not call someone living in a £30,000 former council house rich or wealthy; such a person does not regard themselves as rich or wealthy. It is an issue of fairness. Those people have paid into the national health service throughout their working lives. Now, in their hour of need, they feel that they have earned the right to be looked after. As Bill Aitken said, their prudence should not be penalised.

It is quite clear from the contributions to today's debate and from the way it has gone over the past six months that the Labour Scottish Executive has lost the argument. Susan Deacon has lost the argument, so why does not she quit while she is behind, accept the terms of the motion and act on it?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Nicola Sturgeon and Margaret Smith referred to my previous views. I am happy to refer the whole chamber to the speech that I made on 28 September, when I said that free personal care was a priority, but so was the expansion of home care and respite care and the ending of delayed discharges, so that everyone can get appropriate care wherever they happen to be. That is the big picture that Margaret Jamieson was referring to.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

While he is reminding us of what he said in the chamber, perhaps the minister could also comment on what he said when he was a member of the Health and Community Care Committee:

"Ultimately, we should not change what we think because of what the Executive thinks".—[Official Report, Health and Community Care Committee, 6 September 2000; c 1148.]

What has changed for him since then?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have just told members that nothing has changed. The considerable resources that we have put into services for older people must meet all those priorities. I remind members of the £100 million announced by Susan Deacon on 5 October 2000 and of her commitment yesterday to make additional resources for older people a top priority in future. We are determined to move forward on a broad front, increasing the quantity of services, improving the quality of services, dealing with the systems issues and addressing equity of charging. Mary Scanlon referred to the Health and Community Care Committee. There was substantial agreement between the Executive and committee members, particularly on systems issues.

It is not only today's issues that are relevant to charging. I remind members that, on 5 October 2000, we said that we would try to address unevenness of charging across Scotland, and we will take a reserved power to ensure that that happens. Today, however, we are focusing on Sir Stewart Sutherland's recommendation on personal care. The important point to make is that we have started a process that will push forward the boundary between what is free and what is to be paid for. We cannot define the precise end point, but I remind members of the Alzheimer Scotland—Action on Dementia press release that said that there had been a major breakthrough. I also tell George Lyon that what is proposed is certainly not a London solution, because the journey that we are going on is quite different from the journey south of the border.

Mike Rumbles (Liberal Democrat, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine)

When he was a member of the Health and Community Care Committee, Malcolm Chisholm supported the committee's call for free personal care. Now that he is a minister, he is against that call. Will his constituents in Edinburgh North and Leith understand his position?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I have already dealt with my views, all of which are on the record. I cannot spend any more time on that issue, although I should remind Bill Aitken that I left the Health and Community Care Committee on 1 November.

One of the tasks of the development group, as Dr Simpson's amendment states, is

"to consider the practicalities, costs and implications of providing free personal care".

I thank Keith Raffan for supporting that objective. The development group is not a review group, but a group focused on action and implementation over a short time scale.

Christine Grahame (Scottish National Party, South of Scotland)

Why is it taking two years? The Sutherland report will be two years old in March. Why has it taken the Executive two years to set up a development group?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

On 5 October, we announced our response to the report and we are now pushing it forward. We have had two excellent announcements for older people, one yesterday and one on 5 October.

I appeal to the Liberal Democrats to support the process that we have started and to have confidence in the group. They may not be reassured by my chairing it, although I hope that they are, but perhaps they will be reassured by the presence on the group of Mary Marshall, who is the director of the dementia services centre at the University of Stirling and who was a member of the royal commission. Perhaps they will also be reassured by the words of Sir Stewart Sutherland, who has not taken the attitude of some Opposition members, but is willing to work with that group. It would be entirely consistent with what the Liberal Democrats said in their Scottish Parliament manifesto and in their new manifesto for the UK general election for them to support the group and to support Richard Simpson's amendment.

Margaret Smith (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West)

Will the member give way?

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

I think that I am out of time. Is that right, Presiding Officer?

Patricia Ferguson (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill)

You are indeed. You must close now.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Okay.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

First, my amendment is basically a tidying-up amendment. I do not think that the SNP will disagree with it in any way, as it merely seeks to state a fact, which is that of the six political parties represented in the Parliament, five are committed to a definite time scale for the implementation of free, universal personal care.

It has been pointed out that the debate is about the elderly citizens of Scotland. I read in the Evening Times last night the comments of one Bill McVey, who may be known to some of the Glasgow members, as he is chair of the Glasgow elderly forum. He is a 77-year-old activist, if that is not a contradiction in terms—he has a lot of energy; he is a war veteran. Bill said of the whole debate:

"We are the generation who gave everything, now the politicians want to take everything."

That type of comment reflects the point of view of the likes of Bill McVey and tens of thousands of senior citizens the length and breadth of Scotland, who are asking the Parliament to make a firm commitment today to implementing universal free care. No one today has attacked what the Executive has announced. No one has undermined in any way what the Executive has brought forward; what we are attacking is what it has not brought forward.

Let us be absolutely clear about the time scale. In March 1998, the Sutherland commission was established. It had until March 1999 to give its one-year report. The minister commented on the report in October. Let us be clear: the minister gave a very honest assessment of the Executive's response to Sutherland. She ruled out at that stage the implementation of free universal care. The majority of members, certainly those from the Opposition parties, opposed the minister's position when she made her statement.

Susan Deacon (Labour, Edinburgh East and Musselburgh)

Would Tommy Sheridan care to examine the Official Report and the detailed written response that was made at that time? I said that we agree with the principle of equity upon which the recommendation is based, but that we believe that to implement it at this time, when so many wider needs exist, would not be right. Our discussion of the subject and any progress on it has been based, as Malcolm Chisholm said, on asking how we can make progress, while ensuring that we meet other priorities and do all the other things with which all members in the chamber also agree.

Tommy Sheridan (SSP, Glasgow)

The minister will accept that she talked the language of priorities. As far as she was concerned, this particular recommendation of Sutherland's 24 recommendations was not a priority. We had the debate. We had the fall-out. We had the argument. There was a lot of disappointment across Scotland. The problem is that the First Minister then intervened. That is what changed the whole debate. The First Minister entered the debate and raised the prospect—the hope—of the decision being changed. Unfortunately, from November right up until now, he dillied, he dallied and he dazzled. Ultimately, he has failed to deliver. In fact, the Minister for Health and Community Care has been consistent throughout the debate. The problem is that the Parliament's expectations have been raised, only to be dashed by the First Minister.

As a socialist, I disagree with the Sutherland recommendations, because they argue for the retention of means-testing in relation to living and housing costs. As a socialist, I believe that we should tax people directly, so that when they need personal or health service care, they get it free at the point of need. I disagree with retaining an element of means-testing. However, Sutherland did argue for the removal of means-testing in relation to personal care. What the Minister for Health and Community Care is failing to do today is to announce that that is what the Executive will do and then deliver the resources to achieve it.

It is a failure of the Government to say, as the minister said this morning, that it cannot make that announcement because it does not think that it has the ability to deliver on it. Is not that what government is about? Make the announcement today, name the date when it will be implemented and then ensure that the resources are available to deliver universal free care for our elderly.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

This has been a good debate, and I hope that it ends up being a defining moment for the Parliament. As many members have said, it is about the will of the majority of the Parliament prevailing on an issue that is of huge importance to tens of thousands of people throughout Scotland, and their families. If there is to be a defining moment, I want it to be about such an important issue.

The SNP welcomes the steps that have been taken to improve the delivery of community care in Scotland. Time and again, when the minister has made an announcement that will improve the lives of elderly people in Scotland, we have said that we welcome it.

This is not a choice between what the minister has announced and what is in the SNP's motion; they are not mutually exclusive. Members—including Margaret Smith—have said time and again that this is about completing the last part of the jigsaw.

If this is about dancing on the head of a pin, as Susan Deacon claimed, why all the fuss? It is an awful lot of fuss about a very small pin.

The more the minister refuses to accept the will of the Parliament, the more stubborn for its own sake she is seen to be, because her arguments against full implementation have become weaker and weaker in every debate that we have had on the issue. The case that has been made by all members cannot be opposed rationally by Susan Deacon or Malcolm Chisholm; they have lost the argument, so it is time to accept the consequences and do the right thing.

To be fair, Susan Deacon has remained consistently opposed to full implementation, unlike her leader, who has given clear signals in support of full implementation over the past few weeks. At least that has given us the opportunity today to finish the debate once and for all, by accepting the majority will of Parliament fully to implement Sutherland and to get on with the job of doing so.

Susan Deacon implied that that would be a dangerous road, as services might not be in place to cope with the consequences of free personal care. That could be solved easily, by today setting a defined and clear time scale during which the necessary services could be established and put in place. There is no problem. We do not need another review; we need an unequivocal statement from the minister that she will commit herself to full implementation within a clear time scale. Nothing less than that will do. We do not want any more of the delay that Christine Grahame mentioned—three and a half years have passed so far. We do not want to wait another six months or another year; we want the statement now.

If the SNP motion is passed today, we will expect Susan Deacon to come back with a timetable for the full implementation of Sutherland. That is what we will expect and we will settle for nothing less.

Can we do this? Yes, we can. Clear evidence has been given about affordability.

Richard Simpson (Labour, Ochil)

I draw Shona Robison's attention to my amendment, which requires the development—not review—group

"to consider the practicalities, costs and implications of providing free personal care for all and to report by August 2001".

That is the absolute intention behind the development group.

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

In that case, why has the minister time and again refused to commit herself to the full implementation of Sutherland? That refusal clearly indicates to the Parliament that she does not intend to go through with full implementation unless the Parliament's will prevails and she is forced to do so.

Malcolm Chisholm (Labour, Edinburgh North and Leith)

Will the member give way?

Shona Robison (Scottish National Party, North East Scotland)

I want to continue.

Affordability is not an issue. The last piece of the jigsaw is estimated to cost about £25 million. Henry McLeish has said:

"We will be spending approximately £55 billion every three years. Is anyone really suggesting that, with the teachers and with the Sutherland report, that is money that cannot be made available out of our budget?"

If Henry McLeish does not seem to think so, I will take his word for it. We should be able to find the £25 million without any great difficulty.