Binny House
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S1M-2400, in the name of Bristow Muldoon, on the proposed closure of Binny House.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament condemns the unilateral and disgraceful decision by Sue Ryder Care to close the Binny House care centre in Ecclesmachan, West Lothian; considers that this shows a complete disregard for the interests of the residents and staff of the centre; believes that by walking away from very substantial offers of additional finance from health boards and local authorities Sue Ryder Care has demonstrated bad faith, and further believes that, unless this decision is reversed, local authorities and the NHS should regard Sue Ryder Care as an unsuitable partner for any future care projects.
Before I begin the main part of my speech I want to address the fact that some members have expressed concerns to me to the effect that the wording of the motion on Binny House might be too hard on Sue Ryder Care. My reason for using rigorous language was to indicate the degree of my disbelief about the decision to close Binny House. I hope that, once I have described what has happened in the past few months, members will understand the reason for the strength of feeling in the motion and, I hope, give it their backing in their speeches.
Before I go into the detail of that recent history I want to make it clear that Binny House has for many years provided high-quality care in West Lothian. I pay tribute to the people who work there, some of whom are in the gallery tonight, and to the many people in West Lothian and the wider community who have supported Binny House for many years. Any criticism that I make in my speech is aimed at the senior management of Sue Ryder Care; none is aimed at the people who work in Binny House and who provide care to people throughout central Scotland.
Binny House is near Ecclesmachan in West Lothian. It caters for about 30 residents at any one time and provides care for people who suffer from a range of conditions—including many neurological conditions—and some respite and palliative care. About 80 people are employed at Binny House, including full-time and part-time members of staff. Sue Ryder Care, the charity that is responsible for the operation of the home, has announced the home's closure with effect from the end of February 2002. The main aim of the debate and all the actions that I have undertaken since becoming aware of the issue is to try to persuade Sue Ryder Care to keep the home open and to maintain for years to come the standard of care that is being provided to people in West Lothian.
I have mentioned the residents and staff who are in attendance tonight and I pay tribute to the way in which they have gone about campaigning on the issue. They have not given up, despite the announcement of a decision that puts a closure date on the home. Aside from contacting many MSPs, the action group has collected a petition of 10,000 signatures, which was presented to the Parliament last week and is due to be considered by the Public Petitions Committee next Tuesday. I believe that a video will be shown at that meeting to illustrate the standard of care that is provided at Binny House. I urge members who have an interest in the issue and who have been approached by constituents to attend that meeting.
My belief—after dealing with the issue for a number of months—is that the motive that lies behind Sue Ryder Care's decision to close Binny House is purely financial and has nothing to do with the interests of its staff or patients. I will go through some of my reasons for coming to that conclusion. On 13 August this year, Sue Ryder Care announced that it would review the operation of two of its care homes in Scotland—Binny House and Marchmont House, in the Borders. Sue Ryder Care also announced the potential closure of a number of care homes in England. I understand that two are currently under threat of closure in Leicestershire and West Sussex.
I am advised by Lothian Health—one of the major funders of Binny House—that it became aware only in August this year that there was a question mark over the care home. However, in spite of that, it has made a significant effort to try to reach with Sue Ryder Care a new financial arrangement that would allow the home to remain open.
Various funding organisations, including Lothian Health and a number of local authorities, have met Sue Ryder Care on several occasions and have made financial offers. The financial offer that was made amounted to approximately £400,000 of additional public funding to Sue Ryder Care to maintain the home. Lothian Health was also involved in some of the offers for Marchmont House in the Borders, because some of the residents there are funded by Lothian Health.
Unfortunately, Sue Ryder Care decided to walk away from the Lothian offer and to announce the closure of Binny House; however, it decided to accept the offer for the home in the Borders. I would like to explore the difference between the two cases. From information that has been provided by Sue Ryder Care, I can tell members that the offer for Binny House was for £680 per bed per week. The offer at Marchmont House in the Borders was also for £680 per bed for week. The Binny House offer was rejected, but the Marchmont House offer was accepted.
Sue Ryder Care's decision seems even more perverse because Lothian Health is one of the organisations that was present at both negotiations. I am puzzled and baffled by the decision. An increase in funding of more than £400,000 was rejected. An offer to underwrite an additional 50 per cent of any further overspend was also rejected. If that offer had been accepted, the amount of funding from statutory bodies would have amounted to between 84 per cent and 93 per cent of the home's costs, depending on whose figures one trusts. That funding would have been far more than the funding for many of the homes that Sue Ryder Care will continue to operate in other parts of the UK.
I said that finance had played a major part in the decision and I shall now turn to an important financial issue. I have a copy of Sue Ryder Care's financial statement for the year ending 31 December 2000. It shows that the organisation's total income in resources for that year rose from £26.3 million to £26.6 million. However, the organisation's total expenditure rose from £25 million to £29.4 million. Where was that increase in expenditure taking place? I obviously do not know the full details of every aspect of the financial report, but there are some issues that cause me concern. Spending on fundraising and publicity for Sue Ryder Care rose in that year from £269,000 to more than £1 million—an increase of £788,000. Management administration charges for the charity rose from £794,000 to £1.2 million. More than £1.2 million of the increase in expenditure was on areas that are in no way directly related to patient care. I see that you are urging me to come to a conclusion, Presiding Officer, so I shall try to do so.
The National Multiple Sclerosis Society, which also has an interest in Binny House, has written to members commenting on the time scale for the closure, which appears to show scant regard for the interests of the residents.
I urge Sue Ryder Care to return to the principles on which the organisation was founded—principles of caring for the many people in our society who have complex medical needs. It is not too late for Sue Ryder Care to return to the negotiating table. The Minister for Health and Community Care recently wrote to the charity, urging it to return to the negotiating table. Today, the chief executive of Lothian Health has written again to Sue Ryder Care indicating the health board's willingness to reopen negotiations.
My final plea is to urge Sue Ryder Care to prove that it has not forsaken the principles of its founder and to return to the negotiating table to save Binny House.
Seven members have indicated that they want to speak, so I shall set a time limit for speeches of four minutes each. I call Fiona Hyslop.
I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate the closure of Binny House. A number of constituents have contacted me about the matter and I know that it is an important issue in West Lothian, not least for the people who are employed there. As well as residential places, respite places are also provided. I know that the closure is causing a great deal of concern to people and organisations not only in the immediate vicinity, but throughout central Scotland and beyond.
Binny House is unique. It has managed to achieve an unequalled standard of service provision for patients. The important question to ask is whether Binny House will be replaceable if it closes. That is why I am concerned about the terms of Bristow Muldoon's motion, which I have not signed because I think that its reference to a "unilateral and disgraceful decision" will not necessarily be helpful in getting us to where we need to be. We must think about where the patients' best interests lie. Those interests will not be served by Sue Ryder Care's trying to blame the councils and the health authorities and vice versa. The solution is to consider what we can do to rectify the situation.
Does Fiona Hyslop acknowledge that the public authorities—Lothian Health and the local authorities—are prepared to continue to discuss the issue? The motion was lodged only after Sue Ryder Care refused to continue negotiations.
Dialogue is the only means by which a resolution to the issue can be reached. The Minister for Health and Community Care is in a unique position and should take an active role. Everyone should be brought together.
We should not forget the provision that has been available. I have a letter from a former Linlithgow constituent—a patient who has advanced multiple sclerosis, but who was previously very active. That patient requires 24-hour nursing and personal care, which the dedicated teams at Binny House provide with kind, patient and affectionate understanding. The constituent's mind is still alert, but unfortunately his body and tongue do not respond. The unique skills of the Binny House teams have helped to make his life as comfortable as possible. His case is not unique—a number of patients are in the same situation. We would be neglecting our duty if we did not seek a resolution.
There is a financial issue; considerable amounts of money have been offered by the councils. However, there is a legacy of debt and underfunding by the relevant authorities over a long period, which has built up to the current deficit. I am disappointed that the charity is not prepared to continue in the dialogue and that the decisions and the announcement were made in August. That means that there is but a short period for action.
I am also disappointed that Binny House might close in February. I have seen no evidence that anybody is thinking about what can be done for the patients. The capital receipt from the sale of Binny House will be considerable. Voluntary organisations the length and breadth of the country and those that are controlled in London—where many decisions have been made—are under pressure. However, we must recognise people's needs.
Can anything replace Binny House? I do not think so. If nothing can, how will we ensure that we deal with the deficit that Sue Ryder Care says exists in respect of the property and service so that the service and provision can be continued? If we send all Binny House's patients to the four winds—to the different areas from which they come—I am not sure that services for them will be provided as adequately as they are at Binny House.
We must maintain a constructive dialogue. I appeal to the health ministers to do everything that they can to ensure that the quality service that is provided for patients at Binny House continues to be provided.
I want to put the issue into some perspective and speak about Sue Ryder Care's work since it was formed in 1953. I will refer to the work that it has undertaken in Scotland in particular.
Sue Ryder Care's mission statement is:
"to relieve human suffering, to empower those most in need of our services and help people and to help their families overcome the challenges they face"
as a result of their illnesses and disabilities.
The charity was founded by Sue Ryder in 1953 and its first nursing home was established in Suffolk. Today, it has 20 care centres throughout the UK and operates internationally in 14 countries as diverse as Macedonia and Malawi. The charity has a long record of working for and with communities and its day centres receive more than 10,000 visits each year.
Each centre specialises in the care that is most needed in the community in which it is located. Unlike many other charities, Sue Ryder Care is not confined to dealing with a particular disease. Its role is wide. It provides care for people who suffer from cancer, Parkinson's disease, Huntington's disease, motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy and many other conditions.
We all know that the pattern of care provision is changing rapidly from an institutional approach to a community-based approach. We recognise that many care centres and residential centres are located in old buildings that are in need of regular repair and renovation. Such buildings are costly to run and maintain and are not always the best environment for providing the care that we want to provide for people in our community who have disabilities and particular needs.
We must acknowledge that Sue Ryder Care recognises the change in the pattern of care provision. We should acknowledge the work that the charity is doing in Aberdeen with the Grampian Health Board, the local council and a local housing association. An investment of about £2.5 million is going into a new facility in Aberdeen for people who suffer from neurological conditions, work on which will start in summer 2002. That will be a care centre that follows the care-in-the-community pattern of provision and it will be based on supported accommodation that will be provided by a local housing association.
We must acknowledge the fact that significant progress is being made with Marchmont House in the Borders. That facility has existed for 13 years and has places for about 36 sufferers of Huntington's disease. In the Borders, Sue Ryder Care is in fruitful discussions with the Borders Health Board, the Scottish Borders Council and with a housing association, concerning the creation of another project in Duns in Berwickshire.
Binny House has existed for 14 years and it provides intensive care for people who suffer from the conditions that are mentioned in Bristow Muldoon's motion. If we take account of that, an impressive record of achievement in Scotland emerges, which begs the question why there is an apparent stand-off situation at Binny House. That situation is amply and sorrowfully reflected in the negative motion that Mr Muldoon has lodged for debate, which in my opinion does not take us any further forward and indulges in a kind of finger-pointing blame game that reflects no credit on him or the Parliament.
Will the member take an intervention?
I am sorry, but I am in my last minute.
We all know that the talks between the charity, the health board and the council have failed to bridge a substantial funding gap. We also know from our experience of other charities that it is not possible or reasonable to expect such deficits to be carried year on year—that would not be the action of a responsible charity.
I am concerned that—unlike in other parts of Scotland, where examples of partnership exist—the situation at Binny House has degenerated into a war of words. That is why I have written to the Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care—as many other members have done—asking him to bring the parties together and to intercede in order to find a solution. From correspondence, I understand that additional funds that would enable an improved offer to be made might soon be available. If that is the case, I would like the minister to clarify the situation on that.
Finally, I hope that the minister will reject the suggestion in Mr Muldoon's motion that Sue Ryder Care should in effect be blacklisted by the NHS and local authorities in Scotland. That is a gross and intemperate overreaction to the situation. However, the words of Mr Muldoon's speech reflect more credit on him than do the terms of his motion. I hope that the minister will accept that the tone of the debate has been characterised by a desire to move forward in partnership with the charity, the health boards and the local authorities in West Lothian, in the same way as has been done in Aberdeenshire and the Borders.
I represent Falkirk East. A number of my constituents have used Binny House and have nothing but praise for the service that they received there. There is a genuine need for more respite care. Families feel that Binny House provides the kind of service that they have needed and, in some cases, could not get elsewhere.
I received letters and calls from families when they heard earlier this year that Binny House was due for closure. It was not helpful that that announcement was made without any other information. The issue is not about finger wagging; it concerns the fear of families whose members use Binny House, receive good service and are happy with their family situation. After those families found out that the service was to be withdrawn, there was much uncertainty about what would come next and not enough information about what was planned.
I am not the only MSP who has received letters and so on that have raised issues. I do not think that what has taken place is the best way to run a service, whether it be a statutory service or a voluntary sector service. I understand the problems that can arise for voluntary and other organisations that have a substantial financial shortfall. It is difficult for them to continue with such a shortfall; the Parliament would be critical of any organisations that did.
However, I am concerned about the way in which the closure was announced. The way that people received the news amounted almost to scaremongering; people are still concerned about what will happen to their families and are trying to work together to resolve the situation. Although it is clear that anyone who has a family member who uses Binny House has nothing but praise for Sue Ryder Care, we need a resolution soon to ensure that the many families that are involved are given some comfort. I hope that the minister will suggest some ways of progressing the situation, because there are very few places in central Scotland for people from Binny House to go to.
I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about this subject. As is obvious, Binny House is not in my constituency, but members have referred to the care facility at Marchmont. It will be regrettable if Binny House has to close. The announcement was made at the same time as the announcement about Marchmont. Although I am not as familiar as Bristow Muldoon is with the detailed issues about the closure of Binny House, I think that a number of comparisons can be drawn.
I acknowledge the distress that might be caused not only to the residents and their relatives but to the staff, who might not have a job if Binny House closes. That said, I must praise the highly responsible campaign run by the residents and staff, who have calmly and coherently addressed all the issues. I pay tribute to the dignity and courage of the residents, their families and the highly skilled professionals who staff that facility. Marchmont is one of the biggest employers in Berwickshire—it accounts for more than 100 jobs—and I would not want to contemplate either the residents' distress at being removed from the facility or the devastating consequences of those job losses.
I guess that Binny House is as unsuitable for long-term use as is the building that houses the Marchmont facility. That issue concentrated our minds as we addressed a very similar set of issues in Berwickshire. Marchmont was running a deficit. We also had to take into account what might be called the stately home premium of running a care centre in an old building. Everyone involved in the Marchmont campaign agreed early on to look to the long term and to try to hold the situation in the short term. What has happened is that the statutory commissioners' offer has resolved the issue in the short term until the long-term plan of the development in Duns, which David McLetchie referred to, can be implemented. Berwickshire Housing Association, local politicians and residents' families are co-operating and working to that same end. I commend that approach rather than the language that is used in the motion.
Although I understand the emotions that are raised by the issue, my experience of the many discussions I have had with Sue Ryder Care over many weeks has shown me that the charity will listen to those who take a measured and constructive approach.
A very measured, responsible and effective campaign was mounted by people in West Lothian. I frequently tried to act as honest broker between the chief executive of Sue Ryder Care and many of the public agencies. The terms of my motion reflect the fact that the chief executive of Sue Ryder Care announced the decision to close Binny House by press release and that when I urged him to get back around the table he refused to do so, saying that the decision was irrevocable. Sue Ryder Care walked away from the situation. The West Lothian campaign was every bit as responsible as the Marchmont campaign that Euan Robson has outlined.
That is fine. I cannot comment on the details of the campaign in West Lothian and I accept what Bristow Muldoon says. I can speak only as I find, and I found that a measured approach paid dividends.
There is more than just cash to this issue. Perhaps Sue Ryder Care now has a different vision of itself, in that it is trying to become trainer and provider of care staff instead of also trying to provide the buildings and everything else.
My hope for the future is that the Binny House situation can be resolved. That would be excellent for the future of the residents. I hope that the two care facilities will not be played off against each other as the lessons learned from one situation can inform the other. I would be happy to discuss such lessons with Bristow Muldoon and other members.
The care of the vulnerable should be what we are all concerned with. I salute the courage of the residents and the way in which they have spoken up. I hope that the long-term facility that can be developed in Duns in Berwickshire will prove to be the long-term solution for my part of the world. Perhaps the way forward might be to consider developing a replacement for Binny House.
Like Euan Robson, I have no constituency interest in the work of Binny House, but I have been contacted by a number of people who have family members resident in Binny House and who have protested about the proposed closure.
The importance of Binny House to those who depend on its services has already been outlined by Bristow Muldoon. It is fair to say that the threat of closure that hangs over the establishment is causing the people who live there and their families considerable stress and anxiety in addition to the stress and anxiety that they already have to live with.
One woman, whose brother is resident in Binny House, wrote to me praising the ethos of Binny House and the effort the staff make. She pointed out that many of the residents are unable to speak but, through their time in Binny House, have learned to communicate effectively with each other and with the staff. Movingly, she said that, for the people who live there, the closure of Binny House would be akin to breaking up a family.
The tragedy of the situation, which has been touched on by every speaker this evening, is the fact that the residents of Binny House and their families are caught in the middle of a dispute between Sue Ryder Care and the various local authorities.
Bristow Muldoon was right to say that money is at the root of this issue. Money is what is motivating the threat of closure. Fiona Hyslop was also right when she talked about the wider picture: care homes all over Scotland are closing because of a lack of funding. The Scottish Executive must address that general issue.
It is hard for someone—especially someone with an outsider's perspective—to come to any firm conclusion about who is right and who is wrong. Sue Ryder Care says that it has not been offered the necessary financial package; the local authority says that it has. I do not really care who is right and wrong in this case. I care about ensuring that some of the most vulnerable people in our society whose quality of life depends on continuing to stay in Binny House and using its services are able to remain there. That would be right for them, for their families and for society. We should not forget that if Binny House closes, the people who live there will have to be rehoused somewhere else. The financial implications will not go away; they will simply be transferred.
I ask both sides of the disagreement to get back round the table and sort out the problem—it cannot be beyond either side to sort it out. If it is true that Sue Ryder Care has refused to continue to negotiate, I plead with it to think again. I echo many of David McLetchie's comments about the excellent work that Sue Ryder Care does around Scotland and I hope that it does not allow this situation to blot its good record.
If the situation between Sue Ryder Care and the local authorities cannot be resolved, I ask the Scottish Executive to use its good offices to intervene, however gently, to ensure that a resolution to the situation is found and that people who I am sure do not want to be sitting in the public gallery of the Scottish Parliament on a Thursday evening can rest assured that their relatives will get the care that they need and deserve.
I thank Bristow Muldoon for bringing this matter to our attention. Binny House is not in my constituency, but I have a constituent who lives there.
A unilateral decision was made. There was no consultation and no discussion. I find that unbelievable in this day and age. It used to happen when I first started in social work. We thought that we had sorted it out. It should not have happened and it should certainly not have happened in this day and age.
The motion states that the decision
"shows a complete disregard for the interests of the residents and staff".
David McLetchie does not agree with those words. I think that Bristow Muldoon's language is rather subdued. Had I written the motion, the language would have been much harder. We must ask the question: who is the management of Sue Ryder Care? Is it a commercial enterprise or does it look after people who cannot look after themselves?
Unfortunately, there are times when homes have to close. That is a long process. It involves consultation with families, carers, staff and residents. From my experience, it is one of the most difficult decisions to make in social work: it is asking someone to move out of their home. If any of us moves out of our home, we take a long time to look at houses. We decide where we are going to go, which takes a lot of planning. We check local facilities and schools. That is all stressful even if we want to make the move.
Even when we are asking residents to move out of buildings that are clearly inappropriate, there is much angst and anxiety among them. It is a slow procedure, as it should be. The management has to take families, residents and staff with it: it does not announce in the press that it is closing such and such a facility. That is not how it should be done. The management has to explain to residents why they are being asked to move. It then has to discuss options with them, because, as Nicola Sturgeon said, they have made friends where they are. It has to discuss with them where they may be moved to, because they will not all be moved from A to B together. It takes them to see their new homes. It shows them around the areas. It shows them the local facilities. It discusses with them whether they want to share with each other in twos or threes because they will not move en bloc.
Families, friends, residents and staff are all involved at every stage. It is a dramatic and unsettling time for them all. Not only the staff from the home are involved: local social work departments are involved, as are the local health service and—as Cathy Peattie said—sometimes, voluntary organisations.
My experience is that homes usually close because of bad standards in provision of care or an unsuitable building. That is not the case in Binny House. The care is excellent. The staff standards are excellent. Why is it being closed? I am afraid that I must agree with Bristow Muldoon: the closure smacks of a hidden agenda or a commercial decision. In negotiations with the local authority and health boards, a substantial offer—I know that it was a substantial offer—of additional money was refused. Two hours later there was another press release that said, "No. We're closing."
There are 80 members of staff. Where are their rights? If Binny House were a commercial business, there would be a statutory consultation of 90 days. The staff provide an excellent service. Do they have no rights at all? Of course they do. If the closure is because of a deficit, how could it have happened overnight? Why was nobody talking about it before? Why did they not talk to local authorities before? When I was chair of resources in Glasgow City Council, believe me, such bodies came and talked to me at every opportunity and asked for more money.
The situation smacks of a decision to close, with disregard to the rights of residents and staff. I am really disturbed at the decision. We cannot begin to feel the anxiety that residents, staff and families feel. I know that if Binny House has to close, the local authority and health board will try to make the moving of residents as painless as possible. Believe me, that will not be an easy task.
Unlike David McLetchie, I agree with the statement in the motion that
"Sue Ryder Care has demonstrated bad faith, and … unless this decision is reversed, local authorities and the NHS should regard Sue Ryder Care as an unsuitable partner for any future care projects."
However, I hope that Sue Ryder Care will reconsider its position and get round the table. Bristow Muldoon was right to bring the situation to our attention. We must ensure that any loopholes that would allow such a situation to happen again are closed. I hope that the minister will give us those assurances in his closing speech. The situation should not have happened. It certainly should not happen again.
I congratulate Bristow Muldoon on securing time for a debate on an important issue. I, too, welcome the staff and residents—and their relatives—of Binny House who have travelled here for the debate. In particular, I mention Mrs Robertson, who first raised the closure with me some months ago. Her relative, Sylvia Anderson, has been a resident of Binny House since August last year and has enjoyed extremely good care there.
There has been a strong campaign to highlight the issue and to get to the bottom of why Sue Ryder Care arrived at the closure decision in the first place. I have considerable concerns about how Sue Ryder Care arrived at that decision.
I sympathise strongly with Trish Godman's comments, because in my previous job in social work I had to deal with a home that closed. I had to take residents, who were literally in tears, from their home to a new home. The closure of that home damaged the community that had developed there, and I fear that the same will happen if Binny House closes.
Not only am I concerned, but it is clear from the most recent correspondence that I received from Forth Valley Health Board that it was extremely surprised that such a unilateral and quick decision had been taken. The health board does not feel that it was given sufficient time or information to make suitable contingency provisions.
I had the good fortune to visit Binny House on a number of occasions in my last job, organising placements for respite breaks. The last time that I was there was not long after the staff had completed their redevelopment work in the new wing. That wing was an excellent facility and it was clear to me from my experience there, and from residents who had been placed there, that those residents received a high standard of service and care within the home.
The decision to close Binny House will impact on more people than those who are in the home at present, although they will feel the major effect of the closure. The whole of central Scotland, and Forth valley in particular, has virtually no dedicated services for providing long-term and respite care for young disabled people. A few nursing homes there have a variation on their contract, which allows them to take young chronically sick people for respite breaks, but those homes by no means provide an appropriate environment in which to place a young disabled person.
If the closure goes ahead, the central Scotland area will be left much poorer for the loss of the service. I believe that the statutory organisations have done everything in their power during the negotiations that have taken place to try to avoid closure. If the closure takes place, we will no longer have a suitable facility for young chronically sick people in the large population area of central Scotland.
Falkirk Council tried to enter into an agreement with the local primary health care trust, but because they were unable to come up with capital funding, that project, which aimed to set up facilities for young chronically sick people at Larbert, fell.
Many members have spoken about trying to get those who are involved back round the table. My concern is that if we lose the facility, it will be nearly impossible to provide suitable respite or long-term care for young chronically sick people in the Forth valley area.
If Binny House closes, we will require a strategy for the Executive to act on the need to replace services that can provide the long-term respite care that many young disabled people require. If we fail to do that, we will fail those young disabled people. We will be leaving many families to pick up the pieces and to continue to support their relatives without the necessary support and opportunity for respite care.
If Binny House closes, we need to consider what the strategy will be to ensure that the Executive provides appropriate care and support for young disabled people in the affected area.
Bristow Muldoon outlined very eloquently the concerns that many people have about the proposed closure. He articulated tonight some of the real emotions that surround the decision.
Members will be aware of my and Mary Mulligan's support for the motion before we were appointed as ministers. My support, like that of Mary Mulligan, was based on a desire to raise the profile of this issue in Parliament and to draw attention to the pressing urgency of the situation. More important, our support was driven by a concern to secure care for the current and future residents of Binny House. This, as many members have said, is the real issue—the securing of specialised care for vulnerable people with degenerative neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis, Huntington's disease and Parkinson's disease.
I understand fully the emotions behind the motion, and why the local member feels compelled to use such strong words. As David McLetchie said, we need a sense of perspective, and I will attempt to bring that. I also recognise the fine work that has been done by Sue Ryder Care over many years. I am aware that many members are worried that it is not necessarily the question whether a suitable revenue funding package is available that is driving the decision; instead there are worries that the land value that could be realised from the sale of the asset might be influencing Sue Ryder Care at the expense of those who are immediately affected. I should add, however, that—from an Executive perspective—we cannot unconditionally rule out using Sue Ryder Care as a partner for future care projects.
Little is to be gained by mud slinging, and I think that the speeches of Bristow Muldoon and others were about the anguish that people are feeling as a result of the proposal. As many members have said, we need to find a way forward that protects the interests of all parties, particularly the users of the service and their families.
It is, of course, deeply regrettable that Sue Ryder Care has signalled that it intends to close Binny House. That cannot have been an easy decision, bearing in mind in particular the effect that the closure would have on residents and their families. The loss of Binny House would be significant; there can be no doubt about that. It would be a bitter loss, not only for residents and their families, but for the 80 or so highly trained and highly motivated staff who currently care for residents.
Trish Godman and Cathy Peattie were right to highlight the unilateral way in which the decision was made and the lack of consultation, to which Bristow Muldoon also referred. I regret the lack of communication and consultation, which I think has distracted from the main issue and has impacted on the way in which the decision-making process has developed. There is a lesson to be learned about how service providers relate to the recipients of the service and to their families.
Even at this late stage, our hope would be that diplomacy will prevail and that a practical solution can be found. We hope that Sue Ryder Care can again sit at the negotiating table with the relevant commissioners of care, and that a solution can be found to safeguard the future of the home.
Like any other national provider of care, Sue Ryder Care has to make tough decisions. Increases in operational and other costs will, no doubt, have increased pressure on the organisation with regard to what it can deliver. Sue Ryder Care has had to take a hard look at what it can afford and has made some hard decisions about how it can best deliver the kind of care that it provides. It has rationalised and proposes to act accordingly.
It is slightly unfair of Nicola Sturgeon to make a passing comment about the lack of funding from the Scottish Executive. The latest information that I have received is that the local authorities and Lothian Health have come up with a significant offer to Sue Ryder Care.
Will the minister give way?
I really do not have time.
According to the figures that I have, that offer would mean that the public funding element at Binny House would rise to between 84 and 93 per cent, depending on the approach that is taken to the figures that have been set out. That would make the facility the second-best funded publicly funded Sue Ryder Care centre out of 26 centres in Britain.
Will the minister give way?
No, thank you.
We should be aware of that funding package, and that information should be used as the basis for discussion. We should try to understand the reasoning behind the decision, and I would encourage discussions between the relevant parties, with all possible information made available.
It is to be hoped that the deal to which Euan Robson referred, which kept the Borders facility open, should inform a future resolution in West Lothian. The situation in the Borders is different from the situation in West Lothian, but what happened in the Borders was a positive step forward and should be regarded as a reference point for future negotiations.
David McLetchie called for a sense of perspective and referred to the record of Sue Ryder Care. The organisation has had to bear the brunt of a number of accusations. Among other things, it has been accused of intending to terminate its Scottish operations wholesale in order to consolidate in England. The information that I have suggests that there is little to substantiate such accusations. Indeed, as David McLetchie said, the charity has signalled a long-term commitment to providing specialist services in Scotland. Its plans for a specialist neurological care centre in Aberdeen are part of that commitment. Sue Ryder Care appears to be committed to remaining in Scotland. The question of the future of Binny House should not be distorted by unfair accusations and we should concentrate on the situation that is immediately before us.
We regret that Sue Ryder Care has signalled that it intends to close Binny House on 28 February next year. As I said, we should try to understand that decision. However, we hope that representatives of the charity will resume discussion with the commissioners of care in Lothian. We understand that the commissioners have worked very hard to put together a satisfactory package, comprising a substantial funding package and measures to reduce overspending in the future through a range of efficiency savings. It would be regrettable if that comprehensive package could not be used as the basis for a future working agreement. We understand that the commissioning partners would be prepared, even at this late stage, to discuss that and a range of other options to keep Binny House open.
I recommend that the Parliament notes the current situation in West Lothian but refrains from rejecting Sue Ryder Care as a suitable partner for care. Apart from anything else, Parliament should recognise that the principle of subsidiarity leaves local partners free to make their own funding decisions. We do not want to do anything in this debate that might jeopardise delicate negotiations.
At the same time, as Michael Matheson and others have said, very articulately, Parliament has the right to encourage everyone concerned, including Sue Ryder Care, to do everything possible to secure the future of Binny House. The service that is provided by Binny House is largely irreplaceable. If Binny House closes, that will have profound human consequences.
Meeting closed at 18:02.