Day Centre Reform (Glasgow)
The next item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S4M-05188, in the name of Bob Doris, on day centre reform in Glasgow. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes with concern the current proposals by Glasgow City Council to close three of the city’s seven day centres for adults with learning disabilities; believes that this is a straightforward cut to services for vulnerable people, leaving no adequate alternative service on offer, that there is evidence that many of the people affected by previous day centre closures in Glasgow are still not receiving an appropriate alternative and that a new round of closures would not bring any improvement; further believes that learning disability day services in Glasgow will not continue to meet people’s needs into the future; recognises calls to halt the present process and instigate a full and comprehensive consultation exercise involving the active participation of service users and carers in any proposed service redesign, thus conforming to the general principles of self-directed support, which has choice as a fundamental principle, and believes that the proposals undermine this principle.
12:33
In opening the debate, I welcome to the public gallery a number of family members of service users from the Summerston day centre for adults with learning difficulties. I also welcome former service users—and their family members—of the Accord Centre in Glasgow’s east end, which was one of the three centres that Glasgow City Council previously closed.
In Glasgow, there are seven day centres for adults with learning difficulties. The Summerston, Hinshaw Street and Berryknowes centres have all been targeted for closure. Each of those centres is cherished by the users and those who care for them, as it provides a sense of community, fosters friendship and underpins peer support. The centres also provide vital support to families and carers, many of whom—if they do not mind my saying so—are entering old age.
The closure of the centres means that roughly 320 learning-disabled people will move to alternative day services. The problem is that no one has any idea what that will involve, as no details have been given. The council’s proposal paper says:
“The capacity to use community venues throughout the city is currently severely constrained by the availability of appropriate toileting and changing facilities.”
Members can see our concern about whether, even if other facilities were used, they would be appropriate. The situation will come as no surprise to some of the people who relied on the Accord centre before its closure. The people who are here today tell me that they are still waiting for adequate provision to be offered following that closure.
The Learning Disability Alliance Scotland reports that one Glasgow mother whose daughter used one of the now-closed day centres said:
“Now I take Megan to a church hall, where for £5 we can sit from 11 to 3. For lunch she gets a sliced ham and white bread sandwich and a chocolate biscuit but at least it’s warm and dry. There’s pens and colouring books to keep her occupied.”
If that is the level of ambition for some of Glasgow’s most vulnerable adults, I urge the city council urgently to reconsider its position.
The proposals will also affect the 200 adults with the most profound learning difficulties who will be left using the four remaining centres. They are part of a wider community in the day centre network. They have friends with a range of learning difficulties; they thrive in one another’s company and there is a clear benefit to all. That will be lost, and the danger is that we will marginalise and isolate the most vulnerable in society. I do not believe that that is the council’s intention, but the plans could well achieve that.
I will look briefly at the council’s financial position. The council has recently published plans to cut £70 million from its budget over two years, but I clarify that it does not have a £70 million cash shortfall in its coffers and that it has a £2.3 billion budget. The city has the money to retain the centres, so the closures are a political choice. As things stand, the current administration has made the wrong choice, which I very much hope that it will reconsider.
Will Mr Doris explain why SNP councillors in Glasgow originally wanted to cut £220,000 from the social care budget in the budget proposals last year? That would have meant £220,000 less in that budget than Labour proposed. After the SNP conferred with the other groups on the council, a joint opposition budget was presented, which would have cut £330,000 from the social care budget.
All that I will say to Mr Smith is that I am disappointed that he seeks to make party-political capital from the issue. As far as I am concerned, I am representing my constituents and the centres should stay open.
The council also proposes to save up to £3 million on transport costs for the most vulnerable people. The council questions whether it will provide transport even for the 200 adults with the most profound learning difficulties who will continue to use centres. That transport is under threat, which is unacceptable.
The council says:
“If ... needs were being assessed for the first time today ... in most cases service users would not be assessed as needing full time day centre services.”
However, few users have been through the council’s personalisation assessment in the past 18 months, so no robust evidence underpins the basis of the decision. More important, the decision fails to consider our learning disabled adults as a community in which individual choice is important but the group’s needs are also respected.
The Parliament will be aware that choice is a fundamental principle that is inherent in self-directed support, which empowers service users to extend, terminate or retain services as appropriate. However, the council’s proposed actions will restrict choice dramatically. Personalisation can involve retaining an existing service, but the plans will not provide for that.
I do not oppose reform and the families to whom I have spoken do not object to it. However, they have not been included in any meaningful discussions about what a future service might or might not look like. Families and service users feel that the council has frozen them out. Surely any service redesign proposals should place current users and carers at the heart of the consultation process.
Unfortunately, Glasgow City Council has a dreadful track record in that area, whether in respect of the school estate, the plans for George Square or the most vulnerable people in our society. The short, six-question consultation that the council issued was produced after firm proposals to close three centres were published, and it has been widely criticised as being completely biased in favour of the council proposals and completely lacking in respect of providing families with the opportunity to suggest any alternatives whatsoever.
Glasgow City Council’s leader, Gordon Matheson, should listen to his own carers champion, Dr Chris Mason, who believes that the proposals are not fit for purpose. I agree.
I urge the council to shelve the plans to close the three day centres, to open meaningful discussions with service users and families and, when appropriate, to consult on any new proposals that may emerge. I know that my SNP colleagues in Glasgow City Council agree with that position. I would welcome such a change of heart; more important, it would reassure families, service users and carers, who are terrified that the support that is vital to them will be withdrawn and that there will be no suitable alternative provision.
Glasgow City Council can change all that. It just takes political will to do so.
A number of members wish to speak in the debate. Speeches should be a tight four minutes.
12:41
Obviously, I am aware of the concerns about the proposals to restructure Glasgow’s learning disability day services. Bob Doris is right to say that service users, their families and those who work in the service will be most affected, and perhaps it is they who are most concerned. Their voices should therefore be heard in the debate.
For a range of reasons, the level of need that we face in the city of Glasgow is enormous. As parliamentarians, we need to take responsibility for the decisions that we make that impact on the choices that are available to local representatives on the services that they can deliver.
Last year, the Health and Sport Committee undertook scrutiny of the Scottish Government’s Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Bill, which the Parliament then passed. Self-directed support and the personalisation agenda that Glasgow City Council is pursuing are closely related. As a committee, we took evidence in Glasgow from representatives of service users and carers, and heard their concerns about personalisation. That evidence reflected an experience that I had shortly after I was elected in shadowing an older carer who looked after her adult daughter. The lesson that I learned from both was that change must be communicated sensitively and must be underpinned by genuine assessment of need and an understanding of the impact that change has on individuals.
The other evidence that we heard in Glasgow was from Glasgow City Council’s social work department. The scale of the challenge was made clear. Despite Glasgow prioritising resources for social work services, it has a system that has not provided equity of support and has not always provided the right support for every individual.
I mentioned the prioritisation of the budget, which is important. Glasgow does not have a fair funding settlement and it has very challenging savings to make as a consequence. The prioritisation of social work therefore means deeper cuts in other budgets. That is not easy, so let us not pretend that it is.
I welcome in particular the fact that savings that might be made by the proposed changes will accrue back to social work services. The £11 million for day centres will therefore remain £11 million that is spent on those services. It is about individual budgets and how specific money is spent, so there is not a cut in that respect.
The challenge of personalisation and SDS—which all members in the chamber support and voted for last year—is that, as needs are assessed or reassessed, or as individuals opt to receive support in different ways, the demand for day centres will decrease. The challenge that the Glasgow situation poses for the Parliament is not just in highlighting dissatisfaction with a particular proposal or in respect of supporting the idea that the old way is necessarily the best way; the challenge is to consider the reality of undertaking greater personalisation and SDS. That move will require the reassessment of need at a time of budget pressure and that will be the case across the country.
Does the member agree that self-directed support does not change the need for assessments, which have happened over the years, but have failed to happen in Glasgow? Does he agree that existing services are one valid choice within self-directed support?
Absolutely. The Health and Sport Committee discussed that at length when we considered the bill. I absolutely agree that day services will remain vital for those who need them and that we need proper and genuine assessment. We all agreed about that when we considered SDS.
There are clear lessons to be learned from the Glasgow experience. Mr Doris’s motion raises issues that Glasgow City Council should consider further before a decision is taken. Some of those issues are contained in the Health and Sport Committee’s report and were reflected in Chris Mason’s comments, which Bob Doris mentioned. A genuine case can be made for considering whether we need a change fund for local councils so that they can better support those who are affected by change.
I want to mention the role of service staff. The Health and Sport Committee listened to service users and those who manage services, but we did not spend a lot of time listening directly to those who deliver them. I have discussed the Glasgow proposals with, for example, Unite members who transport service users to the existing centres, and it was clear that they, too, have concerns. Councils need to listen carefully to service users and their families, but I remind the managers of any service that the staff on the ground often have the key knowledge about how to improve their work and that their co-operation in any redesign is often vital to whether it succeeds.
12:46
I thank my colleague Bob Doris for bringing forward this debate on an important issue that unfortunately continues to raise its head in the city of Glasgow. We all recognise that, because of the financial situation, hard decisions need to be made and that we need to modernise care services where appropriate. However, we must also recognise that, as elected representatives, we along with our council colleagues have a responsibility and a duty of care to those who are most in need of assistance and that we must ensure that the service that is delivered is fit for purpose.
I have no doubt that there is a lot of good in Glasgow City Council’s proposals. Anything that can widen options and opportunities for those with learning disabilities must be welcomed, including the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013, which we have talked about. If the council was starting from scratch and designing a new service for new users, there would be almost universal support for its proposals as part of that. However, that is not the case. We are being asked to support a scheme in which people with learning disabilities are not asked, but told that they have to give up the centres that have been an important part of their lives, in some cases for 40 years.
Recently, I was asked to visit a number of carers of centre users. It came out loud and clear that the centres give users a sense of purpose and belonging. Many lifelong friendships have been created and, for many, waiting for the bus to pick them up in the morning is the start of the excitement of the day. The carers told me that, during a recent industrial action when their brothers, sisters, sons or daughters could not attend the centre, their health deteriorated. The carers say that the threat of closure of the centres is having the same effect on those individuals. I know that that is not Glasgow City Council’s aim, but it is one consequence of its actions.
In my view, there are two main things wrong with the proposals. One is that, as I have described, no account appears to have been taken of the impact that the closures will have on individuals and their wellbeing, self-respect and relationships. The other issue is the risible consultation process. Many users and carers did not receive the consultation document until mid to late November when the deadline was 7 January, which, coincidentally, was the first day back for many council offices after the Christmas and new year holidays. No account of the holidays was taken in the consultation period.
After my meeting, I contacted the then head of social work in Glasgow to ask him to put back the deadline, even just for two weeks, to allow people to respond. His response included the phrase,
“Whilst I acknowledge that the timescales for the consultation are a challenge”.
You know what? If even the head of social work concedes that the timescales are “a challenge”, why were they not pushed back? My suspicion—it is more a belief—which is backed up by the executive papers, is that the council has already taken a decision and wants the closures to be pushed through on its timetable. I am not the only one who thinks that. When discussing the consultation timescale, the Learning Disability Alliance Scotland concluded that
“it is as if Glasgow has started with the answer first—close 3 centres—when they should have started with an assessment of people’s needs.”
Moreover, the consultation document is inherently flawed. One question that was asked was:
“Do you understand why a new model of day care services is required?”
That is just not acceptable. There should not be leading questions in such consultations.
I accept, of course, that change is needed and that we need to consider a cost-effective system. However, I do not accept that we should, to all intents and purposes, give some of the most vulnerable in our society, to whom we have a duty of care, a deadline to pack up their stuff and go.
I suggest to Glasgow City Council that it postpones the process and talks to members of all parties, users, carers, support groups, third-sector organisations and others about how best to move forward in a meaningful way. By way of assistance, I suggest that the council consider a twin-track approach. It should think about introducing alternatives to the existing model over a longer period, perhaps giving users different options, introducing them to new models and not offering day care unless that is appropriate.
I hope that the social work department, under new management, will delay the decision so that it can find a fairer way to support people with learning disabilities and give them the choice that is an integral part of self-directed support. I hope that it will put care, not cost, at the heart of the decision-making process.
12:50
I congratulate Bob Doris on securing the debate. The future of the day centres in Glasgow is of great importance to the people who use and work in the centres and he has spoken passionately about the work that is done and the services that are offered in them. He has set out his concern about the potential impact on services of a reduction in their number.
Like Mr Doris, I have been contacted by constituents who are concerned about Glasgow City Council’s proposals. At the outset, it is worth reflecting on the centres’ importance for the individuals who use them and their families. As well as delivering educational and leisure opportunities, the day centres provide users with a place where they can develop social interaction and build friendships with other users and staff. For many vulnerable adults, a safe and secure environment in which to build such relationships is invaluable and significant trust is built up with staff over not just weeks and months, but years. For parents, families and carers of adults with learning difficulties, the centres provide a comfortable and secure environment, where they know that users will be supported while they are at work.
The structure that the centres provide in the lives of the vulnerable adults who benefit from them should not be underestimated. Often, the programme of activities, the supportive environment and the provision of regular, nutritious meals makes a real difference in the lives of users, as Mr Doris said. One of the carers who wrote to me about their concern said that the centres that have been earmarked for closure are
“central to the health and wellbeing of hundreds of learning disabled adults in the city”.
It is important to pay tribute to the hard work of staff at the centres. Mr Smith made a good point in that regard, although he was running out of time in his speech at that point. In many cases, it is the relationships that have been built up between staff and users that demonstrate the day centres’ benefit and impact on users’ lives. Given the value of the centres, it is difficult to see how the proposal to reduce their number from seven to four could have anything other than a negative impact on the service that is available to users.
There are specific concerns about the services. Some carers are worried about the impact of changes to the way in which the council allocates resources to vulnerable adults. Members discussed self-directed support at length in the Parliament and the approach received broad support, but many vulnerable individuals would not cope with the responsibility of managing their own budgets.
There is also concern about plans to cut transport for learning-disabled people, who are being pushed towards public transport and other alternatives. Sometimes that might be appropriate, but in many cases it is likely that the transport that is currently provided is the only suitable means by which an individual can get to a day centre. I share some of those concerns. It is important that changes are managed as sensitively as is humanly possible.
As members know, Glasgow City Council’s social work services sought views on the changes. Many people contributed to the consultation, including some of the 520 adults with learning disabilities who currently attend the day centres. I hope that people’s views will be taken on board as the council takes forward service reform.
Given the pressure on local authority budgets, it is clear that councils, including Glasgow City Council, must make difficult decisions about the services that they provide. They must balance their responsibility to provide effective services with their duty to deliver value for money for council tax payers. I hope that, in the situation that we are considering, the right balance can be found, which minimises the impact on the vulnerable adults who have benefited from the centres.
12:54
I, too, congratulate Bob Doris on securing the debate. As the convener of the cross-party group in the Scottish Parliament on learning disability, I very much welcome the opportunity to debate the nature and provision of services for people with learning disability not just in Glasgow but more widely.
I recall well the massive change in the late 1990s to how we supported people with learning disabilities and the move away from long-stay institutions such as Lennox Castle and Woodilee hospitals. That change was transformational for the quality of life of people with learning disabilities and for their families’ experience, and it was the right thing to do.
Will the member take an intervention?
Give me a minute.
We should not keep things the way they are just because it was ever thus. The challenge for us as policymakers is to ensure that we do better and that we increasingly do what is right for the individual.
We have not stood still since the late 1990s, because the trend in policy is towards independent living. As members have said, just a matter of weeks ago this Parliament passed a bill to give legislative underpinning to self-directed support, which at its heart is about ensuring that people who require care and support can be in control of how and when that care and support are delivered.
Whether or not we like it, that has implications for services. If, in effect, we take money from a service to use it differently, as self-directed support would have us do, that has consequences for what is left behind. Nowhere is that more evident than in the case of day centres. It is not about cuts but about changes to how services are provided. My understanding is that not one penny of a cut will be made as a result of the day centre proposals, because the money will be spent instead on individual care packages.
I agree with much of what Jackie Baillie has said, but she mentioned user choice. Does she not think that it was wrong that service users were not asked for their view of what a new service should look like before proposals were presented?
I will come on to the issue of the process in a minute.
As convener of the cross-party group, I note that of the people who use learning disability services in Glasgow and elsewhere, only around one in 10 use day centres. That does not mean that the centres are not important, but experience suggests that the majority of people prefer to be involved in a variety of activities in their local area rather than go to a day centre. However, for others, the day centre will be their first choice. Any proposal for service change should ensure that service users are listened to, that assessments are carried out and that alternative services, which are sometimes better, are put in place before there is any decision about change. That is good practice. Change is difficult, unless there is a tangible alternative. I make it clear that I would always want any service, whether council or voluntary sector, to take the time to get things right.
However, the reality is that the proposal in Glasgow is where self-directed support takes us. Personalised services often mean a reduction in centrally provided group services, because people make different choices. People cannot support SDS but then misunderstand some of the consequences that may arise from its implementation. Further, I gently point out that Glasgow’s share of the local government settlement has declined each year for the past four years. Had that not happened, Glasgow would have an extra £75 million to spend this year.
I come back to the point that this is not about cuts. The discussion should be about the nature of support for people with learning disabilities. It is not about cuts, because the issue is not confined to Glasgow. I know that it has been an issue of some difficulty for the SNP-controlled Dundee City Council, which recognises that it, too, needs to close a day centre. The difficulty with service changes is how to unlock the money to run alternative services at the same time. The issue is how we deal with transition and maintain day centres for those who still need them.
I invite Bob Doris and his colleagues to join me in asking the minister to look again at the issue of transition and to smooth the implementation of self-directed support. Glasgow is to be awarded £0.5 million for that, in comparison with the £5 million that Birmingham, which has similar needs and similar levels of self-directed support, will get to manage the same transition. If we provided that kind of support, we would make a real difference for people with learning disabilities and not only improve their ability to choose but continue to improve their quality of life.
12:59
Most of what has been said has been excellent. It has been a good debate. However, I am glad that Jackie Baillie raised a particular point at the end of her speech, because I was going to upset the apple cart, perhaps, with my speech. I just think that I need to put this on the record. I would like to lay to rest the false claims by Gordon Matheson, the Labour leader of Glasgow City Council, Labour councillors, Labour MSPs such as Jackie Baillie and some people in the media with regard to how hard the council has it. Glasgow City Council has the largest budget of any mainland council, and it has choices to make about how it spends that money.
I will give just two examples—I could probably give hundreds more—of the choices that it has made. It gave half a million pounds to the chief executive of Glasgow’s Regeneration Agency—a decision that the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator not only criticised but described as misconduct. It has given £15 million to regenerate George Square, but there has been no consultation with the general public in Glasgow. Only 42 people have been asked out of the whole population of Glasgow. That decision has been greatly and widely criticised by Glaswegians.
Speaking as a regular visitor to George Square, my understanding is that the money is actually coming direct from the Scottish Government by way of tax increment financing.
It may be coming from the Scottish Government and from tax increment financing, which Glasgow City Council welcomed, but the council has choices to make, and it made that choice without asking the people of Glasgow.
Will the member give way?
I am sorry. I have only two and a half minutes left.
I want to lay to rest the false claims that continually come from Labour Party spokespeople and councillors.
I congratulate Bob Doris on raising the issue and on his excellent motion. He quoted the mother of a user of a day centre that Glasgow City Council closed down under what was described as modernisation. The person now sits in a heated room and gets a sandwich, but I would not describe that as a day centre.
Day centres are popular, not just in Glasgow but throughout the country, because they meet a range of needs. Many are integrated with community leisure facilities and linked to work opportunities, with people enjoying a wide range of activities that are personalised to their needs and wishes. Some day centres do not draw a line between the community and centre activities, but see them as linked together. That is the type of day centre that we want, and that is why people go to day centres. As I have only a short time, I stress that we should look at keeping day centres open and integrating them with community services.
In closing, I reiterate something that Bob Doris states in his motion. It mentions instigating
“a full and comprehensive consultation exercise involving the active participation of service users and carers in any proposed service redesign”.
That is the way forward. Jackie Baillie said so, as did others, including Drew Smith, and I would like the minister to address that point. That is the way forward for redesigns and for the people of Glasgow who use day centres and do not want them to close. They know that perhaps something has to be done, but they want to be consulted.
The people who attend the day centre in my constituency, in Hinshaw Street in Queen’s Park, deserve nothing less than to be asked for their views by Glasgow City Council. Given what has happened with the George Square redesign, which I have mentioned, and other consultation processes, I do not hold my breath that that will be forthcoming, but I am certainly one of the people, along with MSPs of all parties, who will push the council to consult the users of day care services.
13:03
I congratulate Bob Doris on securing the debate.
The services and support that we provide to the most vulnerable in our society should always be the very best that they can be, and we should always be prepared to review and, if need be, change that provision to ensure that it is robust and fit for purpose. We must also be prepared to reflect changing methods of care and brave enough to make hard decisions when they are justified. That is why we, in this part of the chamber, backed the Scottish Government’s policy on self-directed care and the legislation that will enshrine it in law.
We believe that people should be able to make decisions about their own care and that of their family members. We also believe that they must be adequately resourced to do so and that they should be able to choose from a menu of services, drawn up in consultation with them, that meets their needs and over which they have real control. That is the standard by which I judge the proposed reforms in Glasgow, under which day centres, including that in Summerston in my constituency, would close. I welcome the representatives from Summerston day care centre who are here today, and others from other centres throughout the city.
I am not content that the process thus far has been entirely appropriate. The timescale for the consultation has been too short—although I note that the leader of the SNP group welcomed the timescale when it was announced. However, I welcome the extension to the timescale that has been agreed and I hope that it will give users and carers much more opportunity to participate.
I also believe that the amount of information available to users and carers has not been adequate, and I have to say that the actions of the chair of the learning disabilities day services sub-committee, in abandoning one meeting and unilaterally cancelling another, have not been helpful.
Will the member give way on that point?
I am happy to give way.
As far as I am aware, the councillor Patricia Ferguson is talking about decided that the meeting could not take place because the information was not laid before them until just prior to the meeting. Therefore, had it taken place, the meeting would have been held under a false premise.
That may have been the situation with the first meeting, but it does not explain why a meeting two months later was also cancelled. I am glad that those meetings are back on track and are taking place, because people need to have the information.
Users and carers have raised with me a number of legitimate concerns. I do not, in a four-minute speech, have time to do them justice, so I will highlight those that concern me most.
First, it would be better to put in place the proposed alternatives first so that users could see what they were and have time to consider how the new system would operate before the existing centres were closed. I suspect that James Dornan and I would agree about that. Secondly, an additional burden might be placed on carers who fear that they will be left to organise activities for their family members as well as cope with the caring responsibilities that they already have—responsibilities that I take very seriously indeed. Thirdly, the cost of travel and the time that users spend travelling are cited as arguments for change. There is a legitimate point there, but by reducing the number of day centres the distances that people will have to travel and the cost of travel will increase. As it is proposed that, in future, only those with the greatest physical need will have a place in a day centre, that seems to be an argument against change rather than for it.
I understand that Glasgow City Council has to comply with Government legislation, but I suggest that a six-month moratorium, during which the council would work with carers and users to come up with a workable solution—one that is planned with the needs and views of the users and carers to the fore—would be welcome. I know that that would be an expensive option, because it would mean running day centres and individual budget processes at the same time. I know, too, that Glasgow has had its budget radically cut by the Scottish Government. Indeed, if Glasgow had the same share of the local government budget as it had in 2008 it would have an additional £153 million pounds to spend over the next two years. Sandra White, I am afraid, cannot gainsay that.
Will the member give way?
The member is concluding.
I ask the minister—as constructively as possible in such a sensitive debate—whether the Scottish Government would consider establishing a transition fund that might allow Glasgow to continue to run its day centres while it carries out a proper and meaningful discussion with users and carers about the services that they need and want and the way in which those can best be provided.
I must ask you to close.
That is probably just as well, Presiding Officer, as the minister is not listening.
Glasgow is doing its very best to protect its social work budget from the effects of Scottish Government cuts, but there is a limit to how well it can do that. It is fair to say that the current transition fund is not enough to allow my proposal on what should happen over the next six months to take place.
I am afraid that you must close now.
We all have a responsibility to make sure that these services are as robust and appropriate as possible for these vulnerable people, but we have to take that responsibility seriously.
Ms Ferguson, you must close.
I hope that the Government will consider some assistance.
I call the minister to respond to the debate. If you could do so in around seven minutes, minister, I would be very obliged.
13:09
I will attempt to do so, Presiding Officer.
Like others, I congratulate Bob Doris on securing this important debate. I have listened to the views expressed across the chamber and am aware of the concerns that have been expressed by different bodies representing those with a learning disability, their families and their carers about Glasgow City Council’s approach. The issue has also received considerable media coverage.
Like Patricia Ferguson, I have some concerns about the way in which Glasgow City Council has gone about the consultation exercise. It strikes me that, given the nature of the proposed changes, the written consultation period has been extremely short. Indeed, I hope that the council will reflect on that point because, as I am sure all members recognise, meaningful consultation must be more than a simple paper exercise; it has to be accessible to all those who might be affected by any change.
Glasgow’s written consultation asked whether people understood why a new model of day services was needed and whether there should be age-appropriate services for people over 65. It also asked about the type of community services that people would like to see for adults with learning disabilities. In my view, the proposals seem to be more specific than the rationale for reform suggested in those questions and actually set out what the envisaged service would look like. I am not clear what involvement people in the community have had in shaping those proposals. I understand that in a tight economic climate Glasgow City Council needs to make best use of its existing resources, but service development needs to maximise the opportunity for people with learning disabilities to take part in their community.
There remains a question about how firm Glasgow City Council’s proposals are. If the people of Glasgow support a direction of travel in which better use is made of available resources, that raises the question whether they will be involved in deciding which services are to be closed. Will people with a learning disability and their carers have a say in the day services that will be available in future?
I understand that Glasgow City Council intends to make a decision on the proposals next week. I have seen no analysis of the consultation’s findings, but I will watch the proceedings with particular interest and hope that the council will listen to the concerns that have been expressed and will give the people who will be most affected by the changes a chance to influence the way forward.
I also take this opportunity to inform the chamber that the Social Care (Self-directed Support) (Scotland) Act 2013 secured royal assent last week. I reaffirm that national self-directed support policy and the new act are nothing to do with delivering savings but are about giving citizens meaningful and informed choice. I am sure that all members who have had an interest in the personalisation agenda for many years will recognise that it is not a recent development; indeed, the process has been taking place for more than a decade now. Informed choice is crucial in making it work.
Glasgow City Council has made a particular decision on how it wishes to take forward self-directed support in advance of the new duties in the 2013 act coming into force. Of course, those duties go beyond personalised budgets, but I note that Glasgow’s route has not been taken by other Scottish local authorities. Like all councils, Glasgow will have to commission services differently. There is no doubt that hard choices will have to be made but when services become unsustainable the replacement has to deliver better outcomes. If commissioning is informed by real understanding of what communities want as a result of the proper involvement of the people in them, they will be more likely to accept that services cannot be sustained and need to change.
Members may be interested to know that in many ways, the learning disability strategy in 2000 led the way in demands for personalised social care and support. Development and delivery of that policy shifted our focus from service structures to people and what people want from service providers.
Following the review of the achievements of the strategy, we held a public consultation asking what should be included in the new learning disability strategy. The consultation responses are being analysed, but early indications show that people want a variety of opportunities and options during the day, including traditional day centres.
We are taking forward our work through a number of different national strategy groups, and working with people with learning disabilities, parents and carers.
I am acutely aware, as I am sure all members are, of the significant contribution that unpaid carers make. We owe our carers a debt of gratitude and we need to take action to support them. That action must include listening to carers and hearing about what works for them as well as what works for the family members and friends that they support. The 2013 act introduces powers to support carers in their own right and ensures that they have a choice about how support services are provided.
I believe that Glasgow is the first council to identify a carers’ champion. That should be welcomed. Dr Christopher Mason has taken on that important role and I hope that the concerns that he has expressed on behalf of Glasgow carers on the proposed changes will be taken seriously and considered in detail by the council.
Day centre redesign is not easy or straightforward. The centres provide a valuable resource for many people. Even discussion about changes to existing services can be unsettling for those concerned. I encourage Glasgow City Council to engage with communities in a way that allows them to shape the development of services in future, and I ask it to reflect on the concerns that have been expressed in the chamber and elsewhere before it makes a final decision on the future of those facilities.
13:17
Meeting suspended.
14:30
On resuming—