Non-residential Services (Local Authority Charges) (PE1466)
Agenda item 4 is consideration of three petitions. I will take the petitions in the order set out in paper 7.
The first petition is PE1466, on local authority charges for non-residential services. Members will see from the arguments in the paper on the petition that there is little or nothing further that the committee can do on it. The suggestion is that we agree to close the petition but draw it to the attention of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for information. Do members have any comments? Richard?
I am sorry, convener: I am back interrupting you and holding things up. [Laughter.]
And you are quite welcome, too.
The very welcome thing is that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities is now publishing the charges. I know from personal experience that that is already having a political effect. If when local authorities are drawing up their budgets their charges are below the average, they are tending to limit increases to putting them up to the average. Of course, that moves the average up, but nevertheless it is a reasonable constraint, and those who charge above the average might in turn be constrained not to put up their charges. I think that that is very useful.
The letter from COSLA in March 2013 referred to “a fundamental review” of charging policy. Do we know whether that review has been completed? Has the petitioner been advised as to whether it has been completed? Should we advise the Local Government and Regeneration Committee that it might wish to take that matter up with COSLA instead of this committee doing so?
We could certainly also draw the Local Government and Regeneration Committee’s attention to that point, but it is not for us to decide that committee’s work programme. We would pass on the petition and make the point.
I concur with what Richard Simpson said earlier: yes indeed you are back and it is good to have you back, sir.
I remember the previous evidence session on this petition. There seemed to be a bit of nervousness about publishing the various charges that each local authority levies. I think that I suggested that perhaps the local authorities should inform their constituents where they ranked out of the 32 local authorities so that they could see whether, for example, they were the most expensive in the country for having grass cut or the least or most expensive for bulk uplift.
It is good that the authorities are now systematically publishing such information, which I think in itself has been a bit of a result for the petitioner and this committee. Dr Simpson’s comments reminded me of that, and I want to stress it for the record.
Do we concur with the suggestion, then, that we close the petition but draw it to the attention of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee for information, with the addition of the point that Dr Simpson made?
Members indicated agreement.
Respite Services (Young Disabled Adults) (PE1499)
PE1499 is on creating suitable respite services for young disabled adults with life-limiting conditions. Members will see that the paper on the petition suggests that we consider the petition as part of our consideration of the work that we did earlier this morning on transitions between paediatric and adult care. We could include discussion of the petition in our normal private consideration of earlier evidence, but we did not address many of the petition’s issues in the earlier session, so we need to decide how to address them.
Having looked at the petition, I think that, again, it is unclear what role the Scottish Government should play on the issue compared with local authorities or, indeed, health authorities. We have just passed the Public Bodies (Joint Working) (Scotland) Bill with regard to health and social care integration. I agree with the convener that we did not really mop up much evidence on that in the earlier evidence session.
We need to decide what action to take in relation to the evidence session that we have just had, and we should probably have discussed this petition after we had decided what to do in relation to the round-table discussion. However, I would be content to consider the petition as part of the action points from the round-table discussion and specifically mention it in any correspondence that we enter into. The way that the agenda has worked out has perhaps put the cart before the horse, but I would be content to agree to consider the petition as suggested, as long as we specifically refer to it in any correspondence on the round-table evidence.
11:45
We did not really cover the issues in the petition in the round-table session. We were not focusing on acute health service for the most part.
The petition also takes in things such as education. A lot of young people with special needs who are in children’s services are also in education. They go out every day and respite is built into that—there is a whole-family approach. However, the minute they hit 18, education services pull back and, as someone mentioned during the round-table session, those people suddenly find themselves at home 24/7 with a carer whose life might be turned upside down—they might have to give up work because the services are no longer there.
There has to be, somewhere more centrally, a look at how we provide services for people, especially respite for young adults. I have seen people consider care homes for respite for young adults, which is totally inappropriate. We must also look at how we provide an on-going package, recognising that it is the same for some families as it would be if they had a dependent child. The person will not become independent, so we need to view them and how we put support in place quite differently.
A number of my constituents are very concerned about the issue. As we get better at looking after people and as people with chronic conditions live longer—which is a good thing—we have to look at how we cater for them into the future.
The issue for us is how we give the petition due consideration. Bob Doris suggested considering it alongside evidence from this morning’s session. At that point we might decide that the petition does not fit with the committee’s consideration of transition and that it needs to be dealt with separately. We might have to consider whether we should take evidence from the petitioner or, in the first instance, write to the Government to ask it to clarify its response. Should we make a decision about that today or when we consider the aspects of young people’s transition and the wider services that are provided for them?
The petition deals with a transition—services are in place until people reach a specific age—so in that sense there is some commonality with what we discussed this morning. Could we write to the Government about the issues that were raised this morning and the petition? Would that take us forward?
I seek clarification. I referred earlier to my entry in the register of interests relating to a respite centre. Should I declare an interest in regard to this petition?
Well, you just have.
Thank you. I do so.
The petitioner will be following this process, and you mentioned a possible evidence session, convener. The petitioner knows this, but members of the public who might be following the meeting should know that there has been an evidence session at the Public Petitions Committee and that written evidence has been received from COSLA, Midlothian Council, the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care and the Scottish Government. I am not necessarily saying that we should progress towards an evidence session, but if we do we should take cognisance of the fact that those things have already happened. That is only fair to the petitioner. I would not want them to follow today’s proceedings and anticipate that there will be another evidence session.
I appreciate that. I am not suggesting that we would choose that option, but it is one of the options that we would need to consider.
Do we agree to look again at the petition alongside our consideration of this morning’s evidence?
Members indicated agreement.
Speech and Language Therapy (PE1384)
PE1384 is a long-standing petition on speech and language therapy. Since we last looked at the petition, a survey of NHS boards and councils has been carried out, the details of which are in members’ papers. We need to decide whether we can do much more with the petition, but before we can move towards any kind of closure it might be worth drawing the Scottish Government’s attention to what the committee has done and asking it for its comments, which would give us some advice about where we should go. We could either write to the Government for its comments or invite the Minister for Public Health to give evidence.
I do not see any harm in writing to the minister to get information; we should do that.
One of the suggestions was to invite the minister to give evidence on the petition. Although it has still to be confirmed, I believe that he might be coming to the committee in the months ahead. If we need to clarify any additional matters, perhaps we could ask any specific questions at that appearance. That might be a more efficient way to progress.
We should write in the first instance and, if we decide that we want to develop questions further with the minister, there appears to be an opportunity—I am looking at a private paper, so I will not say the specific details—to question him at a later date.
That sounds sensible. Does the committee agree to write to the Scottish Government to draw its attention to the committee’s work, ask for a response and say that we are considering taking some of the minister’s time if necessary to discuss the petition at a future meeting?
Members indicated agreement.
The issue plays into the issue of integration, because speech and language therapy receives funds from both local authority and health board. I do not know who else was at the Glasgow meeting, but at it we looked at speech and language integration, which was very good. There are models.
In our letter, we should ask what working integration models National Services Scotland is looking at. Is it inspecting and monitoring what is going on? If that is not happening, is the Government looking to do it? That comes under points A and B in the list of five actions that the petitioner has asked us to consider.
Thanks for that additional comment, Richard. We have agreed to write to the minister, with the option to speak to him on the record.
11:52 Meeting continued in private until 12:12.