THE widow of footballer Frank Kopel said she was “ecstatic” that a bill has been lodged at Holyrood to extend free care to people under the age of 65 with conditions such as dementia.
A member’s bill brought forward by Tory MSP Miles Briggs seeks to implement the so-called Frank’s Law, named after the former Dundee United player who died in 2014, six years after being diagnosed with the vascular form of the condition at the age of 59.
Frank’s Law aims to end the situation where people under 65 who have conditions such as dementia, motor neurone disease, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and cancer have to pay for the care they need.
Kopel’s widow Amanda joined Briggs and other MSPs at the Scottish Parliament as the legislation – which could cost between £40 million and £60m a year – was introduced.
A consultation will now take place but there is majority support for the change at Holyrood, with the Conservatives, Labour, the LibDems and the Greens all in favour. Amanda Kopel said: “I’m totally ecstatic about this. It’s been a long four years since Frank and I began the campaign and in that time we lost Frankie to this horrible disease.
“But every day I can still hear him saying the words to me. He turned to me one day and said, ‘Amanda, tell them – it’s too late for me but it’s going to help other people’.
“I’m absolutely delighted that Miles Briggs and his team, and a lot of cross-party members, have now brought this day to fruition.”
Grandmother-of-two Kopel said conditions such as dementia, cancer and motor neurone disease “don’t wait about till you’re 65 and then suddenly strike”.
As well as the consultation, the Scottish Government is carrying out a feasibility study into extending free personal care.
Briggs said he hoped that when that was completed, the Scottish Government would make the change – but vowed he would push ahead with legislation if it didn’t.
He said: “There’s a majority in the Parliament for this. Every party apart from the SNP has signed up to making this change, and I hope they will come on board. The first Parliament united to pass free personal care. This is rectifying the wrong of having age discrimination in there, so I hope this is an opportunity for all parties to be proud of ending that. It would be something we as a Parliament could say we achieved.”
Former health secretary Alex Neil backed the proposals but added: “When we introduced free personal care itself, the London government took away the attendance allowance of people who were getting free personal care and the result was they didn’t get the net benefit they should have done. People under 65 are entitled to certain benefits, so one of the things we need to be absolutely sure about is that if we give them free personal care, they don’t then lose a benefit.”
Health Secretary Shona Robison said the Government was committed to looking the extension of free personal and nursing care to those under 65 “while protecting existing provision”.
She said: “We are running a feasibility study to consider the costs, benefits, challenges and consequences of extending free personal care, including analysis of the additional demand for care likely to be created and the relationship with social security provision. This will be completed over the summer.
“As part of this work, we are meeting with all relevant partners, including service user organisations and Cosla.
“We have already made progress on fairer charging for social care by providing local authorities with £6m to increase charging thresholds and £5m from this April to ensure that armed forces veterans who receive social care benefit from the full value of their war pensions.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here