Contents
- Portfolio Question Time
- Business Motion
- Decision Time
- First Minister
Portfolio Question Time
Health and Wellbeing
Good afternoon. The first item of business is portfolio questions, on health and wellbeing.
Question 1, in the name of Hugh Henry, was not lodged; an explanation has been provided.
Primary Healthcare Services (Access)
To ask the Scottish Government how it will use technology to improve access to primary healthcare services. (S4O-03702)
We have made considerable investment in electronic primary care systems over the past 10 years. Developments include two electronic general practitioner record systems; systems to share emergency care information; systems that allow community health workers to access information on the move; telehealth and telecare systems; and an e-pharmacy programme. The next step is to build on that good foundation in order to improve interoperability between systems, develop components that are still missing and create an integrated primary care ecosystem that is linked to acute services.
The GP information technology framework contract is due for reprocurement in 2017, which will offer the opportunity to review systems and applications and to define future requirements to inform the procurement process. We have an e-health strategy, which identifies investment priorities, including those in primary care. The strategy is being refreshed to reflect progress and technological advances.
The cabinet secretary should be aware of the work that Borders Deaf and Hard of Hearing Network does with NHS Borders to use SMS texting for deaf and hard of hearing patients when they make and cancel appointments with doctors and dentists. It is to the credit of Jean Proudfoot and her team at Borders Deaf and Hard of Hearing Network in Galashiels that a pilot scheme has been initiated in the Borders to enable mobile texting to be used so that hearing-impaired people can easily change and cancel audiology appointments.
Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating Jean Proudfoot and her team on progressing that project? Will he commend the pilot to other health boards, to ensure that all deaf and hard of hearing patients in Scotland can benefit from such modest but effective steps to look after vulnerable patients?
I am always delighted to help members with their local press releases. I am therefore delighted to endorse everything that Mr Hume said, to ensure that he does not need to amend the release.
Will the cabinet secretary have officials enter into discussions with the Royal National Institute of Blind People in Scotland and Optometry Scotland about the positive uses of tablets and their in-built software for people who are visually impaired?
Absolutely. That is a good example of the importance of the new technology that is coming through. One area in which there are the most new developments is the use of apps. We have a lot of apps throughout the health spectrum.
Jim Hume and Stuart McMillan have highlighted a number of new technologies. I attach a high priority to working with the industry and innovators, as well as with patients, doctors and nurses, to spread the use of new technologies as quickly as possible, because such technologies can do an enormous amount to improve the quality of life of people who are affected by blindness and other ailments.
Health Budget 2015-16 (Priorities)
To ask the Scottish Government what the priorities are for the health budget in 2015-16. (S4O-03703)
The 2020 vision for health and social care sets out the Scottish Government’s vision that by 2020 everyone will be able to live longer, healthier lives at home or in a homely setting. The 2020 vision provides a focus for the priorities for the health budget in 2015-16, with three central aims: improving the quality of the care that we provide; improving the health of the population; and securing the value and financial sustainability of health and care services.
Is the 2015-16 health and wellbeing budget lower in real terms than the budgets in 2012-13 and 2013-14?
As the member knows, we have passed on every penny that has been passed on to us for revenue spending in the health service. On top of doing that, we announced when Mr Swinney announced his budget a few weeks ago that we are putting an extra £80 million into the health budget for next year.
On the capital side, despite the massive cuts to our capital budget—25 per cent overall—that Westminster has made, the notional value on an annualised basis of the non-profit-distributing and hub projects for next year is more than £300 million.
By any stretch of the imagination, given the very tight budget that we are working to, we are devoting every penny available to our national health service.
How much additional funding would the Scottish Government have had for the health budget’s spending priorities in 2015-16 had the United Kingdom Government not reneged on the 1 per cent pay deal for NHS staff in England?
We estimate that, had the Treasury allocated additional funding to the Department of Health to support the 1 per cent pay deal—which it did not implement south of the border, of course—there would have been additional spend of £300 million in England. The Barnett consequentials for health in Scotland would have been just under £30 million, which would have been a substantial additional contribution to improving healthcare in Scotland next year.
Organ Donation
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to promote the benefits of organ donation. (S4O-03704)
Scotland is the only country in the United Kingdom to have consistently run annual high-profile media and advertising campaigns to promote organ donation and transplantation. I launched this year’s campaign on 27 October, and it will run until January 2015. Our annual campaigns are the reason why 41 per cent of the population in Scotland are now on the national health service organ donor register, in comparison with 32 per cent in the rest of the UK.
Additionally, on Monday this week, the Scottish Government published the first national report card on organ donation. This is the first time that NHS performance on that has been made available in such a way anywhere in the UK. This year’s report card reflects very good progress; Scotland has achieved an almost 100 per cent increase in organ donations and a 62 per cent increase in transplants since 2007. There has also been a 25 per cent reduction in the transplant waiting list since 2006.
I thank the minister for the outstanding work that the Scottish Government has been doing. However, in light of the facts that, for every one organ donor, seven lives can be saved, and that 38 people died last year in Scotland alone while waiting for organs, will the Scottish Government back the introduction of a soft opt-out system for organ donation so as to increase the number of available organs, as the Welsh Government has done, leading the way—with Northern Ireland and England also promoting such a law—to save many more lives than at present?
It is worth keeping it in mind that the part of the UK that has the highest level of organ donations per head of population is Scotland. We need to be careful not to think that the need for an increased number of organs can be addressed by an opt-out system. There are countries that already have an opt-out system that have a very low donation level. That is not a solution in itself.
We are guided on such matters by the Scottish transplant group, which is made up of clinical experts, donor recipients and their families and carers. At this point, the group’s opinion is that an opt-out system is not appropriate.
We need to continue to build on the very good progress that we have made through the infrastructure changes that we have made, which have delivered record numbers of organ donations. Through our new plan for transplantation, we intend to continue to drive that progress forward in future years.
The minister has told us about recent increases in the number of organ donors. Is that part of the impact of the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act 2006, which the Parliament passed eight years ago? How does Scotland compare with countries such as Spain and Holland, which have had a soft opt-out system for a number of years?
We have made significant progress not because of legislation but because of the infrastructure changes that we have made, such as basing transplant nurses in particular units. Organs can be received from an individual donor only in particular circumstances—in particular in intensive care units. We have taken specific measures to increase the number of organs that can be donated in such circumstances.
It is worth keeping it in mind that, although the Spanish introduced a soft opt-out system back in 1979, it was more than 10 years before they gained any increase in organ donations, because they had not made the necessary infrastructure changes. America has a consistently higher level of organ donation than any part of Europe, but it does not have an opt-out system. It has such a high level because it has developed its infrastructure.
We must be careful in considering the matter, as there is no single solution that will address the issues and ensure that more organs are donated. We can demonstrate that, because of the work that the Government has progressed in the past few years, record numbers of organs are being donated and a record number of transplants are taking place. We are determined to build on that progress and continue to ensure that Scotland leads the rest of the United Kingdom in this area.
Hairmyres Hospital (Inspection Visits)
To ask the Scottish Government what its response is to the recent Healthcare Environment Inspectorate report on Hairmyres hospital. (S4O-03705)
Reducing healthcare associated infections in Scotland is a key priority for the Scottish Government. The inspection report revealed unacceptable standards in Hairmyres hospital, and I have made it clear that NHS Lanarkshire must address the issues that have been highlighted, as a matter of priority. I know that the board is taking the report very seriously and has drawn up an action plan that details how it intends to resolve the issues and to prevent them from occurring again.
A support team led by Health Protection Scotland is working with the health board to help it to rectify the issues that were raised in the report. The Healthcare Environment Inspectorate will continue to inspect the hospital to ensure that the lessons identified are being taken forward and that the cleanliness, quality and safety of services are maintained at all times.
It is extremely important that patients and the public continue to have confidence in the cleanliness of Scottish hospitals and the quality of NHS Scotland services. That is why we have introduced the inspections as one of a range of measures to tackle healthcare associated infections.
People were shocked by the report, which said that blood and bodily fluids were contaminating trolleys, scales, beds and handrails, that there were faeces on the walls and dirt on the shower floors, and that there was a build-up of dust in a ward that was supposed to have just been deep cleaned. That demonstrates an unprecedented and unacceptable deterioration in standards at Hairmyres hospital. Why have the standards declined so much under this Government? Does the cabinet secretary believe that there is a connection with the findings of last year’s Healthcare Improvement Scotland report on NHS Lanarkshire?
Can I hurry you along, please?
Does the report not confirm that Hairmyres hospital and the national health service in Lanarkshire are reaching breaking point?
I gently remind Margaret McCulloch that Hairmyres hospital is a private finance initiative contracted hospital. One of the great tragedies of the previous Administration is that £50 million of NHS Lanarkshire’s budget every year is spent on PFI charges. That equates to 25 per cent of all the PFI charges across Scotland—[Interruption.]
Order, please, so that we can hear the cabinet secretary.
Therefore, trying to blame the situation on the Scottish Government is, with all due respect, absurd. The reason why that has happened at the hospital is that people did not carry out their duties. As I have said—I agree with Margaret McCulloch on this point—that is totally unacceptable.
I am instructing my officials to prepare and issue a tender for a deep-dive review of the PFI contract at Hairmyres, because I am not satisfied that it is providing best value for money for the Scottish taxpayer.
Can the cabinet secretary better explain why the significant hygiene failings at Hairmyres were allowed to get to the current state? Does he agree that it is simply a case that they took their eye off the ball on key issues such as hospital hygiene while they were busy campaigning in the referendum?
To the best of my knowledge, none of the cleaners in Hairmyres was involved in the referendum campaign, so I do not think that the link between the referendum campaign and the standard of cleanliness is very strong.
I absolutely accept that the failures in cleanliness are totally unacceptable, but we did not have those inspections under the previous Administration. It did not inspect; it did not check. We are being open and transparent and we are managing the situation on an on-going basis, which is why such things, which previously were never reported, are now being flagged up.
The inspection system is clearly welcome, but I must say that I called for it two years before it was introduced, and it was introduced in England two years earlier.
The cabinet secretary has made great play of the role of the non-executives: having them walk round and make sure that things happen. How does he feel about a situation in which there has been an unannounced report, a discussion with the board about the problem, then a follow-up report that showed that a ward that was supposedly deep cleaned had not been deep cleaned? Where were the non-execs in all that? That part of the problem is even more unacceptable.
The problem is not being taken seriously by boards because our inspection system can only report to the cabinet secretary—I appreciate that he is trying to deal with the problem—and it does not have the teeth to enforce the sort of cleaning that we all want to see.
I say very gently to Richard Simpson that he was a minister in the Government before this Government.
I was not.
At one point he was. If he was so keen on inspections, why did his Administration not introduce them? Why did he wait for us to do it?
However, like me, Richard Simpson is absolutely correct to say that it is right to have the inspection regime. Clearly there has been a failure to keep Hairmyres clean, which is a failure of management there. I expect the board of NHS Lanarkshire—I would expect it of any health board—to take an active interest in establishing why it happened, why it was allowed to continue, why it was not identified and why corrective action was not taken much quicker.
Richard Simpson raises a valid point on all those questions, which, through my officials, I have already communicated in no uncertain terms to the board and senior management team at NHS Lanarkshire.
Psychiatric Units (Building Costs)
To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the facilities being similar, what the reason is for the difference in the costs of building the Murray royal, Gartnavel royal and New Craigs psychiatric units. (S4O-03706)
There are substantial differences in the scope and specifications of the facilities that Jenny Marra mentions. Gartnavel royal hospital was completed in 2007, with an estimated capital cost of £17.7 million. New Craigs hospital was completed in 2000, with an estimated capital value of £16.5 million. Both have floor areas in the region of 9,000 square miles—sorry, 9,000m2. [Laughter.]
Order, please.
Well, I did say that I was ambitious for the health service.
The Murray royal hospital, which was completed in 2012 and has an estimated capital value of approximately £75 million, is a substantially larger facility with a broader scope of services and has, unlike the other two facilities that Jenny Marra mentioned, a secure care facility. The overall floor area is—I will say this very carefully—approximately 24,200m2.
In addition, construction costs vary substantially over time and there is a difference of 12 years between the earliest completion date and the latest.
The cabinet secretary’s answer is very interesting, because there are actually less beds—
Members: Fewer!
—in the Murray royal psychiatric unit than there are in New Craigs, yet it cost £50 million more to build. I wonder whether the cabinet secretary would put his auditors or national health service auditors on the case of that £50 million increase.
Why did the Murray royal drop £10 million to £11 million in value on the day on which it was taken on to NHS Tayside’s books? The NHS Tayside board has not come up with an answer to that; maybe the cabinet secretary knows the answer.
Jenny Marra will probably have heard of apples and oranges. My advice is never to compare the two or to try to draw conclusions from doing so. To compare the costs that are associated with the Murray royal with the other two facilities is nonsensical for the reasons that I outlined—the time difference, the configuration of services and facilities, and because Murray royal has a secure care facility. It is to be expected that building something 12 years later would cost more, particularly during a period when construction costs were rising substantially. If the hospital was bigger in terms of the square meterage, and if it included a secure facility, even a poor economist would expect a substantial price difference.
Scottish Medicines Consortium (Breast Cancer Drugs)
To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the Scottish Medicines Consortium decision not to make the drugs Kadcyla and Perjeta available for breast cancer patients, in light of them being available in England under the cancer drugs fund. (S4O-03707)
The Scottish Medicines Consortium makes decisions independently of ministers. Its decisions on these drugs are disappointing for many and, like many patient groups, I encourage the manufacturer to make them available at a lower cost so that more people can have them as a treatment option in future.
Last week, NHS England announced that these drugs are included among those that are being reviewed in England in order to reduce the products and indications in the cancer drugs fund to bring its projected spend within budget.
The minister and I are aware that, in many cases, these drugs can prolong life, perhaps for only a short time, in those who have inoperable cancers. Given that there is a possibility that the decisions might be reconsidered if the drugs companies lower prices, can the minister give any indication of a possible timescale for achieving that objective and having these drugs approved in Scotland?
The member raises a substantial point. Under the reform mechanisms for the SMC, which we reformed last year, we encourage drugs companies to have informal discussions with the SMC before they make a formal application. That allows them to negotiate on cost and price and so, when the formal application is made, the chances of success are substantially enhanced.
One of the other reforms that we made is that when a drug is rejected, there is the opportunity for reasonably rapid resubmission. As I have said earlier and in public, I encourage the manufacturers of these particular drugs to reconsider the price and, at the earliest opportunity, offer the taxpayer and those who are suffering a better deal so that, hopefully, the drugs can be approved.
It is very important to do everything that we can to make sure that people who are suffering from cancer, particularly if they are in an end-of-life situation, have the fullest possible access to the drugs that they need to prolong their life. On Friday, I was at a meeting with a cancer sufferer who has a terminal diagnosis. I am absolutely of the view that, even if the drug extends life by only a few months, we should try as far as possible to make it available, because those extra few months with family and friends matter to the people who are affected and to their families.
Does the cabinet secretary understand the extreme disappointment of such breast cancer patients, given that there is a £40 million new medicines fund for orphan and end-of-life medicines? Were these drugs reviewed using the patient and clinical engagement process? Does the cabinet secretary expect the whole of the £40 million to be spent on orphan and end-of-life drugs this year?
These drugs were reviewed under the PACE mechanism but were still turned down by the full SMC for the reasons that I have explained. I should emphasise that any patient who believes that they would benefit from the drug under the new system of independent application and review can still apply through and with the support of their clinicians to get access to the drug. Therefore although the SMC has made a general decision in the meantime that the drugs should not be generally available, people can still access them through what used to be called the independent patient treatment and review process.
General Practitioners at the Deep End
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the benefits of the project, general practitioners at the deep end, which is being carried out in deprived communities. (S4O-03708)
We welcome the work of the deep-end group of GPs, in particular their recommendations on how we can tackle inequalities in the most deprived areas of Scotland. One of the recommendations was to have link workers in general practice who would signpost and support patients to sources of support in the community and relieve some of the burden on GPs. We have committed to funding that project for five years.
Recognising the challenges in the national general medical services contract in relation to practices whose patients face the greatest inequalities, the Scottish Government has also significantly altered the 2014-15 GMS contract to free up those practitioners so that they can devote more time to the complex problems of their patients.
We are working closely with the deep-end group and with other national health service organisations to develop the most appropriate solutions for areas of deprivation.
I was going to refer to the link worker project in my supplementary. I visited a project in Possilpark with the cabinet secretary to see the good work that link workers have been doing. He mentioned that the programme is being funded for five years. Initially, it was for seven practices in the deep-end 100 most deprived communities. Is that being extended further? What review has there been of the scheme? Can I look forward to more patients with complex health needs across the Glasgow region, who would definitely benefit from link workers, seeing an enhancement of that service in the years to come?
I am sure that the member recognised during his visit that a key part of the programme is the evaluation of the link worker role to see how link workers can be used most effectively. Initially, the link worker programme was to be run for about three years. We discussed it with the deep-end practice team and they felt that a five-year programme would be much more effective in allowing the overall benefits to be evaluated. We have therefore extended the programme for a further two years.
Alongside that provision for a five-year period, we have commissioned the University of Glasgow to undertake an evaluation over the initial two to three years of the link worker programme. Once we have that initial evaluation, we will be in a position to make a decision about rolling out the programme to other deep-end practices and to consider what model is the most effective way for link workers to operate in those deep-end practices.
I assure the member that we are determined to do what we can to support these practices, which are working in our most deprived communities, and to do so in a way that delivers the most effective change to allow them to improve their care of patients, many of whom have very complex health needs. Evaluation work will then inform how we can look at rolling out the programme across more of our deep-end practices in Scotland.
NHS Fife (Nurse Numbers)
To ask the Scottish Government what impact the introduction of the mandatory workforce and workload planning tool for nursing has had on the number of nurses in NHS Fife. (S4O-03709)
NHS Fife recently completed its first ever review of the general adult in-patient nursing workforce across all seven national health service sites using the nursing and midwifery workload and workforce planning tools. The review also considered NHS Fife’s existing nurses’ own professional judgment and local quality outcomes. As a result of the review, NHS Fife will be increasing its workforce by more than 100 registered nurses and I understand that recruitment is under way to fill those new posts.
What reassurances can the cabinet secretary give that the front-line NHS budget will continue to be protected to ensure that the improvements that are being made by NHS Fife can continue to be delivered?
Protecting front-line health services is an absolute priority for this Government. We will protect them by increasing the NHS front-line budget despite cuts in the overall budget from Westminster. Scotland’s health service will receive in full the Barnett consequentials from increases in health spending down south. In 2015-16, territorial boards will receive allocation increases of 2.7 per cent, which is above forecast inflation, reflecting the importance that we attach to protecting our front-line health services.
Rural National Health Service Boards (Clinical Staff)
To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to help rural NHS boards recruit and retain clinical staff. (S4O-03710)
The Scottish Government remains committed to the delivery of sustainable, high-quality healthcare in remote and rural areas. While it is the responsibility of NHS boards to recruit staff to ensure that they can deliver services, I expect boards to review current service provision where there are recurring recruitment difficulties, including using alternative staffing structures in situations in which that would meet the needs of patients.
We are supporting boards in that work. For example, I recently announced an additional £40 million of funding for general practitioner and primary care services over the next year, which will help fund local initiatives to improve GP and primary care services where there are particular pressures, such as in rural, remote rural and island communities.
Having visited the Galloway community hospital with me in August, the cabinet secretary will be aware of concerns, particularly regarding the recruitment and retention of accident and emergency staff at the hospital in Stranraer as well as around the lack of training opportunities. What measures is he considering to help NHS Dumfries and Galloway to manage that situation?
I had a successful visit to Stranraer, and I can update the member on exactly the point that she raises, although it is the responsibility of the board to ensure that the correct staffing levels are in place to deliver safe patient care.
I have been advised by the board that its medical staffing position has improved and it has recently recruited an additional 2.5 whole-time equivalent doctors. The board has advised that that takes the complement to 4.3 whole-time equivalent doctors out of a funded establishment of 6.5. As a consequence, there are no uncovered shifts in the rotas up to January 2015.
The board continues with recruitment activity. Official Information Services Division statistics show that workforce numbers in Dumfries and Galloway are up by 5.3 per cent under the Scottish National Party and that emergency medicine consultants are up by 307.5 per cent under the SNP, which is equivalent to 3.1 whole-time equivalent positions.
The cabinet secretary stated that the £40 million was additional funding. My understanding is that it came out of the integration fund and that it is, therefore, not additional funding. He made that point to the Health and Sport Committee a couple of weeks ago.
Can I hurry you along, please?
Given that the issue concerns urban and rural areas, is it not time that the cabinet secretary took control of it and gave us an NHS that is fit for the 21st century?
There are big pressures on GP services and primary care and on acute services. One of the reasons why there are so many pressures on acute services, not only in rural and remote rural areas and island communities but throughout Scotland, is that we need to invest more in our primary care services. For example, we have evidence to show that many people turn up at accident and emergency departments because their treatment is turned around there within four hours, which means that they do not have to wait for days, weeks or longer for a GP appointment. The £40 million is directed at rural areas, deep-end practices and those practices where there is an above-average ageing population, particularly where there is a very elderly population. As rural areas have a disproportionate share of elderly people, they will benefit enormously from that £40 million.
With the Government’s emphasis on moving patients away from the acute services into primary care, what steps is it taking to recruit and retain nurses and health visitors in rural communities such as mine, Aberdeenshire West?
We have quite a number and wide range of initiatives. What is important is to ensure that nurses and allied health professionals have the facilities to work with. I would argue that the heavy investment that we are putting into many areas is beneficial. For example, in Grampian, when the new Inverurie centre—which I know has the support of the local member—is built in two or three years’ time, it will be seen to be a very good example of how we retain good-quality staff in rural areas.
I have been round the current Inverurie centre. Although the staff there do a fantastic job, including some operations, the need for a new facility is urgent, which is why we have given the go-ahead and the new facility will be opened in 2017.
Questions 12 and 13 have been withdrawn. I have explanations—[Interruption.]
I come back to question 11, from George Adam.
Local Authority Care Homes
I was getting worried for a minute, Presiding Officer.
To ask the Scottish Government how important local authority care homes are in the provision of care for older people. (S4O-03711)
Local authority care homes are extremely important in the provision of care for older people. The Scottish Government’s reshaping care for older people programme aims to keep people living as independently as possible in a homely setting, including in care homes. Local authorities have an important role to play in ensuring that there is provision of the right type of care settings in their areas now and in the future.
Now I can announce that questions 12 and 13 have been—
Supplementary!
You want a supplementary?
Is it me, Presiding Officer? [Laughter.]
I got confused because you did not mention Paisley. [Laughter.]
You will be glad to know that I do not intend to.
Will the cabinet secretary join me in congratulating my constituents who campaigned to retain Hunterhill care home? Renfrewshire Council tried to close it, which caused understandable outrage among family members, local Scottish National Party councillors and staff, who all campaigned to retain the home. Does that not prove that councils such as Labour-controlled Renfrewshire Council should consult members of the public more when they make such decisions?
Not only do I agree with George Adam but I am delighted to contribute to his press release, which I am sure is already en route to the Paisley Daily Express.
It is entirely a matter for local partners to plan provision to meet local needs. However, I congratulate all involved in the campaign on their efforts to extend the consultation on the closure of Hunterhill care home. They have convinced Renfrewshire Council of the case for keeping the home open, which will ensure that the residents—some of whom have dementia—will be able to remain in their home without the need for a move, which might have caused disruption or extra distress.
It is extremely important that, in facing up to the challenge of delayed discharges, we retain and build on the capacity and high-quality provision that we have in residential homes throughout Scotland. That is a vital part of our health and social care system.
For the third time, I say that the questions from Graeme Dey and Mary Fee have been withdrawn. I have an explanation.
Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva
To ask the Scottish Government what support it provides for people and their families living with fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. (S4O-03714)
I acknowledge the devastating effects on individuals and families of the very rare disease fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva, which is often called FOP.
The combined bone clinic at Yorkhill hospital in Glasgow provides support for children with FOP through a multidisciplinary team of specialist physicians, geneticists, occupational therapists and an orthopaedic surgeon.
Does the minister agree that FOP is one of the rarest and most disabling genetic conditions known to medicine? It causes bone to form in muscles, tendons, ligaments and other connective tissue. It progressively restricts movement and, in effect, imprisons a person in their body’s bone.
I have a family in my constituency with a member who is badly affected by FOP. The family seeks help through the open market shared equity scheme or any other scheme that might be available to improve the quality of their housing. Will the minister agree to my meeting an appropriate official to discuss how we might best address the family’s needs, not to help the condition to be cured but to ensure that their quality of life is significantly improved?
Bruce Crawford is correct to highlight the challenging nature of the condition, its progressive nature and how it can increasingly result in the loss of someone’s mobility. He is also correct to highlight the open market shared equity scheme, which we developed for people on low to medium incomes to be able to access house ownership. It has as a particular priority those who have a disability, are social renters or are members of the armed forces, including veterans.
I am more than happy to ensure that the member is able to meet a group of our officials who can assist him in considering his constituents’ case to see what assistance can be provided to them.
Next
Business Motion