Official Report 302KB pdf
Good morning and welcome to the Public Petitions Committee's fifth meeting of 2005. We have received apologies from Jackie Baillie, for whom Susan Deacon will substitute. Susan has been delayed, but will be here as soon possible. We have also received apologies from John Farquhar Munro and Rosie Kane.
Robert Burns<br />(Culture and Tourism Policies) (PE824)
Our first petition is PE824, which is by Peter Watson on behalf of Alloway and Doonfoot community council. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to review the Scottish Executive's policy on and commitment to placing Robert Burns and his legacy at the heart of its culture and tourism policies, and to urge the Executive to assume responsibility for bringing together all interested parties to ensure that the flagship assets of our Burns heritage are properly restored and developed in good time for the major events that are planned for the 2009 homecoming year, which will mark the 250th anniversary of the national bard's birth.
On behalf of Alloway and Doonfoot community council, I thank Mr Adam Ingram MSP for his guidance on preparing the petition and for securing the debate on the issue in Parliament only six weeks after our first public meeting. We are indebted to MSPs of all parties for their support and to Patricia Ferguson MSP for her timely intervention with South Ayrshire Council and the Burns trustees.
Thank you very much.
I welcome the gentlemen from Alloway. For the people of Ayr and Ayrshire, PE824 is among the most important petitions to have come before the Public Petitions Committee. It is presented at a crucial time, when discussions are continuing that involve the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport; South Ayrshire Council; the National Trust for Scotland; the Burns Monument Trust; Scottish Enterprise Ayrshire; and other interested parties. Those discussions will decide the future of the Burns heritage in Ayrshire; it is vital that they succeed in bringing about the restoration of the Burns cottage in Alloway and the protection of the artefacts therein.
We consider that to be a positive solution to a problem that is, at this stage, massive. Something like 330,000 people visit the Tam O'Shanter Experience—its situation has brought the issue to the table—every year. From the figures that we have been given, it also appears that 25,000 visit the Burns cottage. Some of those 330,000 people are local people who go into the Tam O'Shanter Experience for a coffee, but we have to get more of those who visit the Tam O'Shanter Experience on bus trips, for example—they walk in, buy some touristy toys, have a coffee then move on—into the Burns centre.
What should happen to the Tam O'Shanter Experience?
Initial comments suggested that people did not care too much about the Tam O'Shanter Experience, but they have subsequently come to realise that it is in some ways a financial focal point, if not necessarily a Burns focal point. I hope that whoever ends up with it—we hope that it will be the National Trust and others—will use it as a visitor centre and that it will still be able to generate the cash that it appears to generate. It should not just be the visitor centre—it should become the focus for Burns. To be honest, the Tam O'Shanter Experience has possibly been running down and the problems have been known.
Do you accept, however, that the concept of the visitor centre as a means of providing an income stream to support the existence of the Burns experience in Alloway was a visionary idea when it was first developed?
Yes, definitely—although it has perhaps not been utilised properly since then. That is my impression, although I cannot confirm that.
The community council has met the chief executive and one of the top managers of the National Trust, and we are now getting more support. The National Trust envisages the local community being involved in running the heritage centre. At present, it is run by an archaic system of trustees and nobody knows who they are. The National Trust wants the local community to be involved, which is why the whole community supports the National Trust.
Are you aware of any private sector interest in running the centre?
There is talk of that.
There has been nothing official.
We have got millionaires staying round about the centre.
Some of them are housebuilders, unfortunately.
I echo John Scott's sentiments. Burns is very important, not just to Scotland but throughout the world. You said that the fact that the Tam O'Shanter Experience is run by the local council has not been good for it or for the Burns experience as a whole. You then said that you would like local people to be involved. In answer to a parliamentary question, Frank McAveety, the then Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, talked about
I can say something about the matter anecdotally. My wife is a school teacher, and I know that some stuff has been done through the schools. Her school goes to the Burns cottage in January every year—I think that they take children in primaries 6 and 7—but I am not conscious that any huge sums of money have been used to focus such activity. The issue is about focus.
Yes—one would think that the money would go into education through the local council's education budget. Mr McAveety went on to say that the Executive has allocated
No—the money is not coming through. We cannot get tickets for the Burns and a' that! festival, although we stay in Alloway. That is all done through an Edinburgh-based company, and the local council has nothing at all to do with it. The money is going there; it is not being spent on the water that is running through the inside of the Burns cottage. It is not getting to the places where it is needed.
Are you saying that you want the money from the Scottish Executive to be filtered down locally?
We want it to come through the National Trust for Scotland.
Let me clarify the point about the community being involved. As I understand it, the National Trust for Scotland envisages someone from the community being on the board rather than—as the situation is now—there being a handful of people on the committee, or whatever. Such a person on the board would be able to give the man in the street's viewpoint on things. It is not about 20 people from Alloway and Doonfoot suddenly taking over and running the Tam O'Shanter Experience. The idea is to have a community representative on the board or committee.
Sometimes local representatives are better than other people, so I have no problem with that idea. Basically, you are saying that you would like the National Trust for Scotland to take over and market the park, instead of that being done piecemeal through the local council.
Yes. For the past four years, the community council has attempted to get in touch with the trustees and has offered to do anything to help them. We have written about seven letters, but we have received not one reply.
There is a Burns national heritage park that draws together Burns assets in Alloway. Does it take in the cottage and museum?
Yes. The park includes the Burns cottage, the Alloway kirk—which is also in a terrible state of disrepair—the Land o' Burns centre, the Burns monument garden and what we call the Brig o' Doon. They are all in the same area.
The heritage park has a joint management board, comprising the local authority, the Burns Monument Trust and the local enterprise company. How frequently does the board meet?
We have no idea.
Have you had any meetings with representatives of the heritage park?
We have met one of them, who came to our public meeting but could not tell us who the other trustees were.
Does the board have a development plan for the heritage park?
The only development that we know about concerns the Land o' Burns centre. The centre was visited by more than 300,000 people and, according to its books, was making money that was supposed to be used to help to run the cottage. However, we have no idea what business plans exist. The trust has said that it will take a year to get a business plan sorted out.
Often petitioners have undertaken inquiries before they have come before the committee. Who has been involved in writing letters or taking part in meetings on your behalf?
As we have mentioned, the campaign started with a public meeting that we held in the village hall and it has grown from there. Adam Ingram was present at that meeting and has guided us along the way, as we said in our opening statement. Along that way, we have written letters to all the members of the joint board but have received no responses. We have invited South Ayrshire Council—
Has Adam Ingram written letters to the board on your behalf?
No—our secretary has written the letters.
I may have misunderstood the question. Adam Ingram was the stimulus and gave us clues as to where we should direct correspondence.
I am trying to clarify to whom you have, or anyone writing on your behalf has, written. Have any councillors or MSPs written letters and, if so, to whom? What replies have you received?
No councillors or MSPs have written letters on our behalf.
So no one has written any letters on your behalf to date.
No letters have been written by councillors or MSPs.
We have written letters to and received replies from all the local MPs and MSPs. We have also written to South Ayrshire Council.
However, we have received no replies from the council.
Have the MSPs or local councillors written any letters directly to the minister?
No. The letters have been written by the community council.
I have a couple of questions about the 2009 homecoming year. Who designated 2009 as such? Was that done officially by the Executive?
As far as we know, Patricia Ferguson was in Australia last year publicising it.
As we all know, 2009 is the 250th anniversary of Burns's birth. However, there was a lot more to Burns's life than Ayrshire. The responses to the e-petition reflect the fact that he also lived in Dumfries, where he died, and in Edinburgh, where he came to international prominence. For the Burns experience or Burns heritage trail to receive any funding from the Executive, it would surely need to include Edinburgh and Dumfries as well as Ayrshire. Do you agree?
Yes, we agree totally.
I am not talking just about events in 2009. I think that Burns is seriously underrepresented in other parts of the country. Edinburgh has only one statue of him.
We agree totally with you.
If a series of stages of development is required, Alloway and Doonfoot community council would first want the Burns cottage to be sorted out and preserved. Things could grow from there. I understand that Burns is heralded in 38 different locations throughout Scotland. I suspect that the National Trust for Scotland or the Scottish Executive would have a hell of a job in trying to move in a short time from the present position of doing virtually nothing to a position of having all 38 sites under some umbrella.
I accept that, but that brings me to my next question. Which of the 38 sites do you want the National Trust to take over? If the trust became involved, what do you envisage it would be responsible for?
Are you asking what we envisage happening ideally?
Both ideally and realistically.
Realistically, we envisage that work could be done on the Ayrshire and Dumfries sites, which would become part of a west-coast trail. The Edinburgh and east-coast side would then need to be considered. Ideally, I would like the National Trust to take over the whole thing, but I am not sure that we will ever achieve that.
In response to Sandra White's question, you said that you had written to the trustees but had not had a response. Did you mean the trustees of the National Trust for Scotland?
No, I meant the trustees of Alloway cottage.
Did the trustees not respond?
No. They are a very mysterious group of people.
I would have thought that the Burns cottage trustees would have been anxious to take any assistance that was available, especially from people in the locality.
My words at the village hall meeting were that dealing with the trustees is like finding that your jumper has a wee loose thread—once you start pulling it, it just keeps coming until you finish up with no jumper. Our experience of the trustees has been that we could not find them.
So you are saying that we need a policy to be, as it were, knitted together.
We cannot answer that because no one has taken the time to sit down and explain to us what is happening. We have had an Ayrshire and Arran Tourist Board but, suddenly, we will have no Ayrshire and Arran Tourist Board. The chief executive has now been appointed for the Ayrshire and Arran area but that person now works for VisitScotland. No one has ever taken the time to explain things to us, so we cannot answer your question.
I want to pick up on a point that Mike Watson made. Do you agree that, during the first stages at any rate, any Burns heritage trail that is developed should be a south-west of Scotland trail rather than one that goes across Scotland?
Yes.
Secondly, can you remind me how much national lottery funding was made available for developing the Burns cottage? I have a feeling that the figure was about £5 million or £6 million.
Our community council listened to a presentation from a chap, whose name I cannot remember, who was acting chief executive for the heritage trail. He showed us the architect's drawings for the project. I think that the figure was about £7 million.
Have you any idea whether that money might still be available? Perhaps the minister could look into that.
We have heard conflicting stories. First, it was said that the amount was too much and it was scaled down. Then we heard that it was not enough and the figure was put back up. It has been a bouncing ball.
I give Adam Ingram the opportunity to make a few points and to ask some questions.
Thanks very much, convener. I can answer quite a number of the questions that members have asked. Among other things, the purpose of the money that Frank McAveety provided was to put together a study of the national Burns collections that had been dispersed throughout the country and had never been audited, so no one knew what was in them. We now know what those collections comprise and where they are located. As someone said, I think that they are spread out among 38 sites throughout the country.
Do members have recommendations on what we should do with the petition?
Adam Ingram's suggestions are eminently sensible. Accordingly, I suggest that we seek the views of Patricia Ferguson, the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the views of the people involved with the heritage park. It would also be interesting to hear what plans VisitScotland has in relation to the year of homecoming. That would be welcome information that might demonstrate that plans are afoot.
I agree with John Scott. It would also be good to write to the trustees to find out why no reply has been received to the seven letters that they have received. We should write to the local council as well, because it is also involved in the situation.
I think that that is a reasonable suggestion.
We should write to the National Trust for Scotland to ask what its view is of the suggestion that it take over at least some of the sites.
Do members agree with those suggestions?
When a petition comes from our e-petition website, we usually highlight that fact. I would like to say that PE824 attracted 1,810 signatures on the e-petition website. That is not the biggest response to an e-petition, but I think that the signatories set some kind of record in terms of their geographical spread. There are 260 from the United States of America, 144 from Canada and 142 from England. The list goes on all the way down to two from Belize, two from Brazil, and one each from Estonia, Japan, Lithuania and so on. The breadth of Burns's reputation is demonstrated in the range of signatories to the petition. The petitioners have tapped into something that Scotland has to become more aware of. Perhaps instead of concentrating on tartan and shortbread we should concentrate on tapping into people's knowledge of Burns. We will let the petitioners know what responses we get to the letters that we will write. I hope that the petition will make good progress.
NHS Services (Rural Areas) (PE826)
The next petition, PE826, is from Rennie Chalmers, on behalf of the Mid and Upper Nithsdale association of community councils. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that national health service services in rural areas, such as Mid and Upper Nithsdale, are adequate, equitable and acceptable, as required by the National Health Service Reform (Scotland) Act 2004, especially in relation to out-of-hours services.
I am grateful to you for the opportunity to do so. The petitioner is a constituent of mine—Mid Nithsdale is divided between my constituency and the constituency of Dumfries, but Upper Nithsdale is located entirely in my constituency. The concerns behind the petition fall into two strands: the first is to do with NHS 24 and the second is to do with the out-of-hours service developed by Dumfries and Galloway NHS Board. Across the whole health board region, we have gone from 12 doctors on call out of hours to five. They are no longer spaced equitably across the region; they are based in two primary care centres—one in Dumfries and one in Stranraer. Although both are in the south-west of Scotland, they are the best part of 75 miles apart.
I am conscious that, as a substitute member of the committee, I have not been party to previous discussions, so I am sure that the convener will close me down if I go into terrain that members do not want to rehearse. However, I have a few questions for Alex Fergusson. In particular, I would like to ask about the new model of service delivery for out-of-hours cover that he described. To what extent has that model been driven by the changes made to the general medical services and general practitioner contracts?
Virtually 100 per cent.
So, with the move from 12 to five GPs, those five GPs are now contracting their services back to the NHS, whereas previously out-of-hours cover was a core part of all the GPs' work. Do you have any information about the cost of that service as currently provided? Has the health board made such information available in considering the new models of service delivery?
During the consultative period that led up to the introduction of the new service, cost was often mentioned in negotiations with the health board and at public meetings across the whole region. We were constantly told—and I have no reason to disbelieve it—that cost did not enter into the issue. In other words, it was said that the delivery of the out-of-hours services would not be compromised because of costs. I have no actual figures to give you, but I know that at least five GPs—who are, effectively, out-of-hours specialists—had to be recruited to fill the gap, as local GPs have not revolunteered their services in sufficient numbers to provide total cover. A number of specialist out-of-hours GPs therefore had to be recruited, obviously on top of the usual budget.
When did NHS 24 go live in your part of the country?
Our area was one of the first in which it went live.
You have described the current problems and pressures on NHS 24, which—anecdotally, at least—chime with what is happening not just in other rural areas but in many other parts of Scotland. I would like specifically to know whether those problems have arisen since the GP out-of-hours cover changes have taken place or whether the problems predated those changes.
To be frank, the problems with NHS 24 have changed. Dumfries and Galloway was one of the first rural areas to go online with NHS 24. In the early days, the problems were down to lack of sufficiently detailed training about locations, where the nearest GP was available and similar issues. For example, people were referred to a medical centre 50 miles from where they lived, although there was one only 10 miles down the road.
Do you agree that the crisis that NHS 24 is facing is a problem not only in rural Scotland but in urban Scotland, and that although the feeling of remoteness may be greater in rural areas, the problem is Scotland-wide?
Living, eating and breathing, as I do, in the depths of the rural south-west of Scotland, I am not really qualified to say how NHS 24 has impacted on urban Scotland, but I do not see how it can be other than what you suggest. If a service is undermanned at crucial periods, that has as much impact on somebody who lives in the middle of Glasgow as it has on somebody who lives in the remotest parts of Dumfries and Galloway.
What is your view on the welcome review that the First Minister recently announced? I think that it should consider the concept behind NHS 24 and the fact that it was apparently developed without consultation. Its creation was a political act, so it was in danger from the outset. Over Christmas, health professionals in Ayrshire warned me that it was in imminent danger of collapse. That is a concern for all my constituents and for everyone's constituents.
The need to review NHS 24 so early in its history worries me. That leads one to think that it was not sufficiently thought through in the first place, particularly when all the health board areas came on stream and pressures were exerted. I am interested in what solution the review will throw up, because we cannot step back to yesterday overnight. The increasing concerns from members of all parties and instances such as that which I have described—and worse—suggest that there is a long way to go before the service can deliver what was promised of it.
I noticed that you, David Mundell and representatives from the Mid and Upper Nithsdale association of community councils met the local health board. What did you discuss? What was the health board chief executive's response?
I pay tribute to the chairman and the chief executive of Dumfries and Galloway NHS Board. Throughout the lead-up to the introduction of the new services—NHS 24 and, in particular, the out-of-hours service that has been delivered—their doors were always open to us and they have patiently received representations. They may not always have answered our queries as we would have liked, but I genuinely thank them for being as open and accessible as they could be. I am happy to put that on record.
Is it appropriate to make an observation that flows from Alex Fergusson's comments, rather than to ask another question?
I am more than happy for you to do that.
It is important to make a distinction on cause and effect. Alex Fergusson has talked about the impact of NHS 24, but it is also important to note what he said about why the new model of service delivery was adopted in his area. His response to my first question was that the reason was 100 per cent down to the changes that were made to the GP contract and the option for GPs to opt out of out-of-hours cover. I was interested in what he said about specialist out-of-hours GPs being brought into his part of the country. I observe from that—and from reading the papers for this meeting—that the focus is on the difficulties that have arisen in NHS 24 without there being consideration of the changes to the GP contract, which is by far the biggest factor that impacts on out-of-hours cover in Scotland. I was surprised about the focus of the committee's questions and, indeed, the focus of some the comments in this discussion. NHS 24 was designed and established before the changes to the GP contract were agreed. It was never intended to be a substitute for GP cover on the scale that seems to be taking place in some parts of the country.
That is a sensible suggestion, given the information that Alex Fergusson has given us. I suggest that we should link PE826 and PE814, because the questions that were asked at our previous meeting on PE814 are just as relevant to PE826. I take on board the points that Susan Deacon made, and there is no harm in asking the questions that she raised.
I agree with Susan Deacon. I sat on the Health Committee when it scrutinised the new GP contract, and an issue that arose throughout the process was that the Scottish Parliament was being asked to go through the motions on what was a Westminster-led exercise. The biggest issue was consultation, which Alex Fergusson mentioned earlier. When there was a ballot of GPs on the new GP contract, it was only just accepted—I think that 56 per cent of GPs who responded supported it and that, if my memory serves me correctly, 65 to 70 per cent of GPs who were entitled to vote did so. It was always going to be a difficult area.
I have a question for Susan Deacon, given her experience as the former Minister for Health and Community Care. If there are deficiencies in the GP contract, how do you suggest that they should be addressed? We are talking about people's lives, and the new system is apparently inadequate. Do you have on off-the-shelf solution to the problem? I appreciate that that is unlikely, but I will give you the chance to offer one.
I do not think that anyone has an off-the-shelf solution to any of the big questions that face the health service. Anyone who pretends to have such a solution should be challenged accordingly. I do not think that we can do justice to the bigger question today, although I point out that the Audit Committee has been considering the costs and implications of the three major contractual changes in the health service, so more in-depth pieces of work on the matter are taking place in the Parliament.
Would it therefore be sensible for the on-going NHS 24 review to take into account the terms, conditions and effects of the GP contract? Are you saying that the two are inextricably linked?
I would guess that any review of any aspect of out-of-hours services will by necessity touch on all those different issues. I am simply factoring a point into the committee's lines of inquiry for the purposes of today's discussion.
As I said, that is a valid area for us to investigate. We can link the two petitions, send PE826 to the Executive in addition to PE814 and ask questions on the additional points that Susan Deacon and Helen Eadie have raised. Are members happy with that proposal?
Secondary Schools (Lockers) (PE825)
The next petition is PE825, by Alana Watson on behalf of Rosshall Academy students council and higher modern studies section. The petition calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that every Scottish secondary school provides lockers for pupils in order to prevent pupils having to carry heavy bags throughout the school day, which could potentially cause back problems.
It is good to see another example of school pupils using the petitions system, and of young people being conscious of what is happening in the Parliament and of their ability to access the Parliament.
I concur with everything that Mike Watson said about young people being involved in parliamentary processes.
I think that we will find that under PPP or the private finance initiative, money-saving aspects of the contract prevented the building of areas for lockers. It is really important that kids have lockers. When you visit schools you see pupils carrying big, heavy bags. That has long-term effects in respect of backache and similar problems. We should write not only to Glasgow City Council but to the other organisations that Helen Eadie mentioned, including the Youth Parliament.
I support the petition. The more I read it the more I found myself agreeing with it. I have carried bags about forever and a day. I did not realise that curvature of the spine had a name: scoliosis. This is a worthwhile petition, to which I give my full support.
A wry smile came to my face when I read the petition. This morning I had a heated exchange with my seven-year-old daughter—as we always have in the mornings—about what on earth was in the ginormous bag that was on her back. Upon investigation, I found an accumulation of books and shoes—and other things that are probably best left unmentioned that were rotting at the bottom of it. All those items were getting carted around.
The committee now does an awful lot of primary research so that, if we have to refer a matter on to other committees, we have already done much of the work. Hence the suggestion that we contact as many organisations as we can, so that once they have replied we have as full a picture as possible before sending the petition on to another committee to address.
Hotels (Flame-retardant Curtains) (PE823)
The next petition is PE823, by George McAulay, on behalf of the UK Men's Movement, calling for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to introduce legislation that requires all hotels in Scotland to fit flame-retardant curtains. The Fire (Scotland) Bill, which was passed by the Parliament on 23 February 2005, makes provisions relating to the fire safety duties of employers and in relation to premises.
“The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities” (Implementation) (PE822)
The next petition is PE822 on the implementation of "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities". The petition calls for the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Executive to ensure that sufficient funding is made available to allow the implementation of "The same as you? A review of services for people with learning disabilities", so that all people who have a learning disability can choose to live at home in the same way as anyone else, with the support that they need to live independently and have control over their own lives. Unfortunately, the principal petitioner, Beatrice Gallie, is unwell and therefore unable to be with us today. Jenny Fullarton will speak in support of the petition, accompanied by Kenneth MacLennan. Welcome to the committee. You have a few minutes to raise some points with us and we will then discuss the issue.
Kenneth MacLennan will go first.
Beatrice and I went to a meeting last year. We thought that we had all the money for getting people out of New Craigs hospital, but when we finished the meeting, we found out that we did not have enough money. We only got three people out and quite a few more were left in.
Highland Council, together with NHS Highland submitted a pipeline bid for supporting people money. They were told that it was reasonable to expect that that bid would be met. However, the supporting people money has been cut and all pipeline bids have been ended; they are not going to be supported.
I would like people with learning disabilities to have a good life, not in a hospital, but out in the community, just like the rest of us have every day.
We have never before had the benefit of considering a petition the morning after a television documentary on the subject.
I knew you would mention that. That is why you were all so quiet.
The programme was informative. It was disturbing to see the impact that funding shortages have on individuals who could live independently if they received the support that they require. The documentary made it clear that the local authority had a big decision to make about whether to provide the £2 million to fund the proposals in the "The same as you?" report. As other local authorities must do, the authority had to decide between funding one service and another. If you received the money, which service would not?
There was a pipeline bid to the supporting people fund for £1.6 million and £400,000 was to be found from other budgets. Because that money will not come, the money that the services receive will be spread more widely. People who already live in the community face cuts in their supporting people budget, which is for service providers in the community. Highland Council and other local authorities face that problem. The extra money was needed to achieve the model of single and shared tenancies, but because the money has not been forthcoming, that will not happen now. I am not sure whether that answers your question.
That is helpful. There was no other programme in particular that needed the money. The decision was about overall spending, based on the fact that the Scottish Executive had cut a fund.
Yes. The supporting people funding cuts will have a huge impact on people with learning disabilities who live in communities in Scotland. Service providers are considering the support that they provide. They have to be accountable for the money that they receive, which is good and which should happen, but that may mean that people who receive fewer services cannot speak up and say, "Hang on a minute—I need that service." The possible cuts in services as a result of the cuts in the supporting people fund may mean that people cannot live in the community in a tenancy as they have done in previous years.
I congratulate the witnesses on getting here from Inverness this morning to tell us about their problems.
The traffic was going one way and we were going the other. There were lots of traffic jams
I have great sympathy with your points. You accurately summarised and illustrated the fears that I have expressed publicly about the strategy for two years. To put it brutally, the question is what we will do when the funding runs out. For example, I have an institution called Arrol Park in my constituency. The Government has said that the NHS and the local authority will adequately fund relocations of people into the community. However, it said the same about free personal care for the elderly. At the moment, funding in South Ayrshire is not adequate to meet such free personal care, even though people have been accepted as eligible by the local authority. Do you agree that it is likely that there will be waiting lists for funding to become available to deliver on the review?
Yes. Although the long-stay hospitals are supposed to close by the end of 2005, this situation means that that will not happen. At the moment, there are no beds for the people in Highland who really need them or who might need some extra support. Although local authorities are trying desperately to support these people in the community, it is becoming more and more difficult to do so. The frightening thing is that, when they have to go to hospital, people who have non-mental health related learning disabilities are being cared for as if they were being treated for mental health issues.
In the desire to fulfil the terms of "The same as you?" people will be taken out of institutions that are certainly much better than they historically were. Is there a danger that they will end up in institutions that are worse, because those better institutions will have been closed down and sold off and funding for "The same as you?" will have dried up? We are looking at a nightmare scenario; after all, funding already appears to be running out. Has this pipeline funding dried up only in Highland, or is the situation the same throughout Scotland?
All pipeline bids in Scotland, not just in Highland, were cancelled when supporting people funding was reviewed. Anyone who submitted such a bid was told that they would no longer receive that money. Not only that, but there has been a swathe of cuts to existing supporting people budgets. If we include inflation, Highland's budget for existing services over the three-year term will be cut by 25 per cent, but these people will still not have been moved from hospitals into the community.
Like I said, out of sight, out of mind.
Even if funding becomes available, are there enough carers to look after the people in your area?
That problem exists throughout Scotland. However, finding the right support provider helps matters. For example, I run the advocacy project for people with learning disabilities at New Craigs hospital, which gives people a voice in the resettlement process. Beatrice Gallie and Kenny MacLennan helped us and the people who lived in the hospital and were able to choose a service provider from a list. They helped with the interview process by raising many questions that they felt people with learning disabilities wanted to have answered.
If I remember correctly, we found that every time we had a meeting, the questions changed.
People went through several months of hard work to ensure that Kenny MacLennan, Beatrice Gallie and the other two people from the hospital who helped understood what they were doing. As Kenny has pointed out, every time we reached a certain place, the questions changed. That said, Kenny and Beatrice played an active part in the whole process and we chose a service provider that allowed six people to move out into the community. There is no doubt that care packages that allow people who have profound disabilities to move out into the community are expensive, but these people deserve them and have a right to them. Their human rights must be acknowledged and they need to be supported to live like anyone else in the community, no matter whether it costs a lot of money. They have had their lives taken away from them. They have had to stay in hospital for many years; now they deserve to come out, take their place in society and not be excluded as they have been.
It is cruel to raise people's expectations only to dash them.
It is.
It is a cruel world.
The supporting people fund has been mentioned in numerous debates. I mentioned it to Malcolm Chisholm, who said that he would look into the matter. Perhaps we could write to him to find out what is happening with it. Applications to the fund have been successful in Glasgow—for example, for funding for Lennox Castle hospital.
What would you say to that, Kenneth?
If the Executive made a pledge, it should keep it.
That says it in a nutshell. Thank you. That is probably what I would answer as well. That is the point that I am trying to make.
If I make a pledge to do whatever I decide to do, I really do it. I do not stop until I do it.
I thank you both for joining us today to discuss the issue. It is important—as in many policy areas, but in this one more than most—that we get to hear about the human consequences of policies and the effects of their not being implemented. For the avoidance of doubt, can you confirm that the issue is about ensuring that the existing policy is implemented effectively? You do not have a dispute with the policy itself.
Absolutely not. People with learning disabilities were instrumental in the policy and helped to draw up the guidelines for it. It is what they want, it is what they need and it is what they deserve.
Thank you for that answer, which I find greatly reassuring. I was the Minister for Health and Community Care when the policy was launched, so we have a shared desire to see it through to its implementation. Your unequivocal response is important. In this instance, there are good reasons for getting rid of the old bricks and mortar. That is always a contentious issue in the health service, but people are agreed that we do not want these buildings any more because there are other, better ways for people to live. The challenge for us all lies in making the transition.
Did you watch the television programme last night?
No. I am sorry, I did not see it.
The programme showed Kenneth MacLennan involved in his dream of health and happiness. It was Kenneth who got together with a number of other people with learning disabilities to talk about what was happening in Highland. He felt that services were not good and that they were not being delivered in the way that people with learning disabilities wanted services to be delivered. The concept of health and happiness was born and the project has been very successful. The project got £800,000 from the lottery fund, which was matched with other moneys from the health board and the council; a total of £1 million was raised at the time.
Yes; eight areas in the Highlands.
People with learning disabilities are taking a full part in deciding what they want the money in their area to be spent on. Decisions are not being driven by people in the Highland capital of Inverness saying, "We want this and that and you will have it too." People with learning disabilities in those eight areas in the Highlands have been given a voice and are being supported to make their own decisions about what they want to see in their communities. They may decide on drama workshops or advocacy, which is one of the main provisions that people with learning disabilities require. Advocacy was heavily endorsed in "The same as you?", yet there is not enough of it; people need to have a voice.
Also, the people in the health and happiness programme do not like being called "people with learning disabilities". They are called "important people" now.
They are called "experts".
Experts or important people.
We have talked about funding and everyone's desire for the approach to work. What is the cost range of the care packages that are required for experts? I have heard figures being bandied about, but I would be interested in hearing your figures on the cost of delivering such packages.
The costs for people who are moving out of hospital and who have profound disabilities are very high. They need 24-hour care, seven days per week, so the cost for some people is more than £100,000 per year. However, people have a right to such care. They were locked away in institutions for years and years. That was not their fault; they are human beings just like the rest of us and they should be encouraged to live their lives in the community, out of the institutions. The cost of care is huge. However, in the future, as people have new experiences and develop their potential, the care costs might be reduced.
How much per head would it have cost to keep someone in the kind of institution in which Kenneth MacLennan and Beatrice Gallie used to live? How much money has been saved by closing down such institutions?
That is an interesting question, to which I do not know the answer. Questions have been asked, but I do not think that the answer has been forthcoming. As far as I know, no real figure has been put on it.
Fergus Ewing has joined the meeting in support of the petition and I invite him to comment.
I congratulate Jenny Fullarton on how she has presented the petition, which I am here to support. I also congratulate Kenny MacLennan on his comments—
It is Kenneth MacLennan.
His points are short, sharp and to the point. Perhaps he is after my job.
No. I would not have your job for all the money in the world.
I want to make a few brief points in support of the petition. During the recent recess, I met some parents of those whom one might describe as the forgotten important people who have been languishing in New Craigs hospital for many years. A point that has perhaps not yet been mentioned is that some of those parents were not confident that the policy that we all support, for the reasons that Susan Deacon mentioned—just like anyone else, the important people in question are entitled to be treated as individuals and should be able to live in the community rather than languish in an institution—would work and some persuasion was necessary. In some cases, the parents needed to be persuaded over a long period that, as well as being desirable in principle, the policy was practical and workable. Of course we do not need to spell out what the parents' long-term concerns are. Now that the policy has run out of funding, the hopes that had been raised have been dashed. As Jenny Fullarton mentioned, the hospital in Inverness was supposed to have been closed around about now. It cannot and will not close as long as it is required, but we would do well to remember the fact that expectations have been dashed.
Do members have suggestions on how we should deal with the petition?
Something has been niggling away at me. Perhaps I picked it up wrong, but I think Jenny Fullarton said that Westminster says that enough money has been given and no more can be given. Will she clarify that point? Is it lottery money?
No, it is supporting people funding. The Treasury said that it would not give any more money and that the funding had to be reviewed in Scotland. It said that it could not give any more funding to support the pipeline bids.
I have asked that question of Malcolm Chisholm, but you have given the definitive answer.
I want to comment on what Fergus Ewing said about friendships. Yes, there are friendships, but there are also people in the hospital who have a voice and who have chosen not to live with anyone whom they currently live with. There are people whose health, well-being and happiness are affected adversely by the people whom they live with. That must not happen in the future. They must come out of hospital to a place that they can call home.
You talked about the Treasury. Is there an equivalent to the policy in "The same as you?" in England and Wales?
I am sorry, but I do not know.
Does Susan Deacon know? Were you the minister at the time?
There are similar, or equivalent, policies.
I have a huge sense of what we are talking about. Arrol Park in my constituency is much loved by those who are in it, or who have been in it. Those people are now being dispersed in the community, sometimes against their better judgment. It is a huge and complex question.
We have all listened with interest to your petition, and we support it. Susan Deacon was the Minister for Health and Community Care at the time of the policy and she made especially helpful comments. I agree with her that the policy is right. We are all concerned that any policy should be adequately funded. For that reason, I suggest that we link this petition with PE743 and that we invite the Scottish Executive to comment on the issues that the petitioners have raised in PE822.
I am not sure that we should link this petition with the other one. PE822 is quite specific.
The case that we are talking about might differ from the other case in terms of the funding package. However, PE743 was also about the implementation and support of the policies in "The same as you?"; the petitions are, therefore, extremely similar.
I will not force the issue to a vote; I simply wanted to raise my concerns. PE822 is specific to a certain hospital.
We always consider the general issues that a petition relates to.
I know, but I just wanted to point out that fact.
I see no harm in asking those questions.
I was devastated to hear that the pipeline funding requests had been denied and I would like to know what the fall-back position is. Will there be an inadequacy of funding hereinafter? Everybody needs to know that, particularly those who are directly concerned.
I am totally supportive of the aspirations of the petitioners, but the question is what we as parliamentarians can do to pursue this issue for people in all parts of the country. I did not mention this earlier but, in a former life, I visited the facilities that we have been discussing. That gave me a localised picture of the issues that we have been talking about.
I accept what Susan Deacon says about the need to take a strategic approach. In that regard, could we ask the minister to come to the next meeting of the committee? That would enable us to ask him questions about his policies.
We would have to wait to see what the Executive's response is. In linking the petition to a previous one, we are asking the Executive for a response to all the issues that have been raised. As has been our practice in the past, if we think that more questions need to be asked or that more evidence needs to be taken once we have seen the response, we can do that. However, at the moment, we are conducting an initial investigation of the circumstances and asking the Executive to respond to the discussion that we have had this morning. It is a bit premature to start talking about inviting the minister to the committee.
Mr McLennan, having watched the documentary last night, I understand that you are personally responsible for raising about £1 million towards the provision of support services in your area. There are a lot of people who are involved in fundraising in Scotland who would like to be the same as you in that regard.
All they have to do is get off their backsides.
I suspend the meeting for a couple of minutes to allow for a comfort break.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—
I reconvene the meeting.
I thought it appropriate to wait until the end of agenda item 1 to make this point. We do not have points of order in committees, but if we did, the point that I am about to make would be a point of order. Two issues concern me in relation to the petitions that we have dealt with today. First, in relation to PE824, John Scott read out what was clearly a prepared statement of more than a page before asking a question of the witnesses. I know that John Scott has a constituency interest in Robert Burns, but in our role as committee members we are not here to raise or promote constituency interests, and that was, to some extent, an abuse of the committee.
I take on board your points. I try constantly to keep under review how the committee's business is conducted. We have tried to alter some of the methodology by which we consider petitions. We are trying to refine our remit—we have submitted papers to the Procedures Committee in that regard—and I try to keep on top of all that. It is in the nature of this committee, which is unique, that people will raise local issues through the committee and support petitions.
What Mike Watson says is fair comment. He is right to say that I read a prepared statement: I hold my hand up to that. However, I reassure the committee that Alex Fergusson and I did not orchestrate an exchange.
I will accept that.
You are entitled to make your comments, although I might not agree with them.
I will keep the matter under review and I thank Mike Watson for raising it.
Next
Current Petitions