Leuchie House
The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S3M-6753, in the name of Jackie Baillie, on keep Leuchie house. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament regrets the decision to close Leuchie House; notes that Leuchie House is the only respite home operating in Scotland and northern England for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and is one of only four across the United Kingdom; believes that the level of care given at Leuchie House is exceptional; notes that the facility that it offers MS patients to holiday with their carer and their children is unique; notes that it has continually achieved the maximum evaluation of excellent in every area of inspection by the Care Commission; recognises that Leuchie House is much valued by service users; believes that the closure of such a specialised facility will cause a strain on families not just in the Lothian area, but across Scotland as well as impacting on other services, such as the NHS, as they struggle to cope with the needs of MS patients, and is of the view that the facility should be retained.
17:09
In two days’ time, the Multiple Sclerosis Society meets in London for its annual general meeting. As one would expect at an AGM, there are a number of motions on the agenda, but two in particular deal with the society’s decision to close all its respite provision, including Leuchie house. It is not for me to make any recommendations to the society, but I will offer it some advice. It should listen to the people who use Leuchie house, listen to its ordinary members and keep Leuchie house open.
I am genuinely concerned about the basis for the decision and the damage that the MS Society is causing to its reputation. Members may recall the society’s loss of J K Rowling as a patron. Now, it has decided to close Leuchie house, which is the only specialist MS facility in Scotland, together with three other respite facilities in England. I also understand that the society is the subject of three substantive complaints to the Charity Commission. That is not a happy record.
I am grateful to the Presiding Officer for chairing the debate; I know that he has constituents who wish Leuchie house to be retained. I also know that my colleagues lain Gray and Fiona O’Donnell, the elected representatives for East Lothian, have fought hard alongside people with MS, their families and staff to keep Leuchie house.
Scotland has the highest incidence of MS in the world, which is why Leuchie is so important. Members will be aware that it provides residential short breaks and day respite care—500 breaks in a year—for 350 people who suffer from MS and, uniquely, for their carers and families too. It specialises in providing care for high-dependency MS sufferers who have hugely complex care needs. It does all that extremely well, and achieves consistently high inspection grades from the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. More important, this quote gives a flavour of what the people who use Leuchie house think about it:
“It's absolutely amazing because I don’t feel disabled”.
That is high testimony indeed.
Leuchie reduces isolation, and families enjoy learning from, sharing and supporting one another. Many of the people with MS require very specialised care: many require percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy—PEG—feeding, tracking hoists, catheters and ileostomies, and have communication and cognition issues.
What alternatives exist for people who will no longer have Leuchie as an option for their short break? The MS Society tells us that it will accredit, signpost, campaign and influence—it just will not provide. That is very aspirational, but is it real, or is it an empty gesture? Who will provide the same specialist service that Leuchie delivers? Aside from one specialist bed on the west coast and two in the north-east, it will be hospital or non-specialist provision in care of the elderly homes. That means no family and no friends—it will be isolated care, which frankly is inadequate and unacceptable.
What about the needs and wants of the people who are affected? I understand that it was some four months after the decision was made before any thought was given to risk assessments or contacting people to signpost them to alternative provision. Have any of those people been provided with advocates or had alternatives secured for them? I can tell members that with perhaps only 10 weeks to go, a substantial number may not yet even have been fully assessed. That lack of planning is in itself of considerable concern, but when we consider that these are vulnerable people with complex needs, it is appalling.
The decision to close Leuchie has been taken on the basis of a flawed survey. If members need to be convinced of that, I point to the 11,000 signatures on a petition from Scotland alone. I ask members to listen not only to me, but to the people who value Leuchie; I will quote what they said about the MS Society’s decision. One said, “It’s devastating,” while another said that it is
“Leaving the most vulnerable people on their own”.
One even said:
“It's like closing the intensive care ward and replacing it with a helpline.”
What about the carers themselves? Only yesterday, a survey that was carried out by the Princess Royal Trust for Carers highlighted the problems with poverty and depression that our carers experience. The Government has made valuable commitments to carers, but what about the carers who deal with the MS sufferers who use Leuchie house? What provision will there be for them? Perhaps the decision is not about choice, as the MS Society would have us believe, but about money. I understand that the chief executive of the MS Society has said that Leuchie house was an “appalling waste of money”. Let us stop and examine the facts for a moment. The annual subsidy for Leuchie house from the MS Society is £600,000, not the £1 million that the society has claimed. I confess to not being an expert mathematician, but as a percentage of the overall budget of £30 million, that amounts to 2 per cent. That is value for money by anybody’s standards.
Incidentally, Leuchie is leased from Sir Hew Hamilton-Dalrymple, who does not charge a single penny in rent but instead expects the society to maintain the land and the building. What I did not know before is that the lease still has three years to run. The society will still be liable for the maintenance and upkeep of the building and land, so let us have it full, not empty.
I could not put it any better than a carer who wrote to the society:
“it is the unique combination of excellent respite care and holiday atmosphere which makes Leuchie the only choice for people in our position ... we have no viable alternative ... if this closure goes ahead my husband and I will never be able to go away again ... At home my husband spends 355 days each year in our room where he sleeps, eats and lives. I am his sole carer for 21 out of 24 hours. For 12 days at Leuchie he enjoys life in a different setting and caring, congenial company with all his needs addressed. Here at Leuchie for these 11 nights I can go to bed knowing that I will not have to get up in the night and I’m able to eat at the same time as my husband.”
I will finish by saying what I believe is required. First, I urge the MS Society to keep Leuchie house open. It has the building and the staff and, overwhelmingly, people want to retain the specialist provision. At the very least, it should give Leuchie until November 2011 in line with the end date for the other three respite centres. Secondly, I ask the Scottish Government to intervene, to echo the call to keep Leuchie open and to write as a matter of urgency to the MS Society in time for its AGM.
If we do nothing, Leuchie will close in 10 weeks’ time. For the sake of people with MS and their families, we must do everything in our power to prevent that from happening.
17:18
I begin by congratulating Jackie Baillie on securing this members’ business debate. I imagine that most members in the chamber this evening will know someone who has been touched by the cruel illness of MS and will be well aware of the impact that it has on the lives of those who are personally affected, and their loved ones of course. There are about 10,500 people with MS in Scotland, which is the highest prevalence of the illness anywhere in the world. Now we face the potential loss of the only respite centre of its kind in Scotland—and in fact in the northern United Kingdom.
I have been privileged to visit Leuchie house on two occasions as an elected representative in East Lothian, and I was able to speak to staff and service users. On one of those occasions I was with my colleague and Lib Dem health spokesman Ross Finnie. Having seen the dedication of the staff as well as the immense benefit that service users derive from their stay in Leuchie house, I know how concerned visitors to the centre are about the MS Society’s plans and how cherished Leuchie has become. However, the loss of the centre is currently an ominous prospect.
I have a great deal of respect for the work that the MS Society Scotland has done over the years, but I am afraid that in this instance the society can do more to ease the severity of the situation. Although the three England-based respite centres have until November 2011 to be transferred to another provider, Leuchie house will close in a little over 10 weeks if another provider cannot be found.
The disparity in the grace periods is attributed to
“the different circumstances surrounding Leuchie house in Scotland”,
which I suspect might refer to the fact that Leuchie is the only centre that is not owned outright by the society, even though there is only a peppercorn rent. Sir Hew himself said that it was a penny, so Jackie Baillie and I will have to agree to disagree on a penny. I imagine that that will be of little comfort to the 85 staff who are employed at Leuchie house. I have been told that it is nothing to do with costs, but of course in the real world funds do matter, and I stagger at the thought of the cost of returning Leuchie house to its previous décor if it is forced to close.
In June, I wrote to appeal to the MS Society to reverse its decision to withdraw support from Leuchie, but it became clear that the society was not for turning on the matter. I have also asked trustees to extend a lifeline to Leuchie by granting an extension that would allow staff and other interested parties to explore the options fully. The society has a duty of care to users of the centre, and in the interests of fairness I would like an extension to be granted to bring Leuchie into line with the English centres.
I also wrote to the Deputy First Minister in June to ask the Government to investigate ways in which it could support Leuchie to ensure that there is no gap in provision. I accept that the situation is a result of operational decisions by the MS Society, but I wonder how big a burden has been removed from the national health service simply through Leuchie house being available to people who have MS. I therefore ask the minister to exercise some influence over the matter.
The majority of respondents to the MS Society’s surveys and focus groups might have intimated a desire to move to holiday venues where care is provided, but most holiday venues are unable to cater for people with high-dependency MS. I also wonder how many people who have complex physical needs were able to respond to those surveys.
The staff need time to set up their own mechanism for the management of Leuchie, and I intend to impress that upon the MS Society when I, Ross Finnie, Councillor Jacquie Bell and representatives from the save Leuchie campaign meet the society.
The care commission’s inspection of Leuchie house in August 2009 awarded it the highest grade possible for the commission’s four quality themes. Leuchie house was inspected just a few weeks ago, and again it maintained its outstanding record of excellence.
I offer my congratulations to Mairi O’Keefe and her staff for their achievements during a difficult time. It would be remiss of me if I did not mention Sir Hew Hamilton-Dalrymple and thank him for his generosity, which stretches back to the 1970s. Thanks to his kindness in leasing Leuchie for just a penny a year, thousands of people who suffer from MS have been able to experience the benefits of the centre in North Berwick. Service users, staff, local councillors, local MPs, the local community and members throughout the chamber want Leuchie house to remain open. It is simply too valuable to be lost, a fact on which I am sure that most of us agree. We must be given time.
I should have said that speeches should be of four minutes’ duration.
17:22
I am glad to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate, and I congratulate Jackie Baillie on securing it. I also know how much work Iain Gray, the local member, has done, as has Fiona O’Donnell, the newly elected MP for the area; I was pleased to sign her early day motion on the issue.
My contribution is very much a personal one. I confess that I did not know about Leuchie house until I was invited to go along on a visit in the company of Iain Gray and some other MPs. Before I got there, I did not quite know what to expect, but by the time I left—after spending an evening with the people who were there for a respite break, sharing a meal with them, getting a tour around the specialist facilities and hearing stories from people from all over Scotland about how important the centre is—I felt that I had been through a humbling experience. I left feeling that we have something of a gem in that service, and that we ought to be telling people about it.
I was not aware that, a few months on, Leuchie house would be facing potential closure. When I heard about that, I was shocked and then angry, because I could recall very clearly what the people whom I spent that evening with had said to me. The most important thing for them is that Leuchie house is a place where the family can go. There were couples there who would simply not have had the opportunity of having a holiday or respite break together in any other setting.
The idea that the service could somehow be replaced by people receiving respite care in another facility, whether a nursing home or elsewhere, was not something that those people welcomed. As far as possible, despite their complex needs and all the transport difficulties in getting there, they wanted to be somewhere where people understood the medical support that they needed and where that was available on site in case there were any problems. Most of all, they wanted things to be as normal as possible within that context.
When I toured Leuchie house, I was aware that it is an old building—we are very grateful to the owners for making it available. I could see the difficulties that there would be in ensuring that that setting enabled the provision of good-quality care simply because of the nature of the building. The fact that the care commission has given it an excellent rating is even more incredible given the circumstances in which the staff work, and that must be valued.
I do not know the internal politics of the MS Society and, in some ways, I do not think that that is my business. However, to the people who are making the decisions I say that Leuchie house means the world to the folk who use that facility. Many of those people know full well that their condition is likely to deteriorate in the not-too-distant future, and they are making the most of the lives that they have now. For many people, it is straightforward: they feel that, if Leuchie house was not there, they and their families would not be able to cope with some of the difficult times ahead that they face.
My plea—echoing Jackie Baillie—is for the matter to be looked at again and for another way to be found. If it is about the money, surely there is some way of finding the £600,000 to make up the shortfall. Leuchie house cannot possibly be allowed to close in 10 weeks with nothing else being offered to the people who have benefited from it. I hope that the people who are here tonight will hear that plea and do something about it.
17:27
Jackie Baillie has done us a service by bringing the debate to Parliament tonight. She set out the case for retention in a compelling fashion, and I do not intend to rehearse the ground that she laid out so well.
We have seen a sustained and effective grassroots-led campaign to save Leuchie house. As Jim Hume said, most of us in Scotland know someone who has been affected by MS—it is rare for someone not to have experience of it among their family or friends. Nevertheless, I wonder whether those of us who are not touched directly by it or who are not in a direct caring role can really appreciate the value of the service that Leuchie house provides. I suspect that it is almost impossible for those of us who do not have the same obligations as those who rely on Leuchie house to understand the value of that service to them and their families. It is unfortunate if we reduce it to a cash value because the much more important point is that this is about the quality of people’s lives.
It is also a national issue. I have been surprised—perhaps I should not have been—by the range of areas from which I have received representations about it. I have received representations from throughout the region that I cover, from Galloway to East Lothian. Cathy Jamieson made a pertinent point about people’s awareness of the facility. I wonder how aware people across the country have been of the availability of the service and whether one of the problems has been a lack of awareness leading to a lack of use. My colleague Mary Scanlon told me earlier about a similar facility that had been available in Grantown-on-Spey, in the Highlands. When that service closed, people who had used the service were told that they would be able to use Leuchie house. Where is the alternative now? The alternative that the MS Society has offered is not seen as being adequate by most people who use the service.
The big question is, what can be done? Initially, it must be a decision for the MS Society. I sincerely hope that it listens to the debate and, more important, the campaign, those who have contributed to it and the people who use the service. If it does not, we must ask whether there is a role for the Government in this. Whether or not the Government wants it, there will be consequences for the Government if Leuchie house closes. More important, there will be consequences for the people who use the service that go way beyond the financial aspects.
The situation raises a fundamental point about the accountability of certain service providers who, although not part of Government, provide services that might otherwise be provided by Government. Surely organisations such as the MS Society are under a bigger obligation to take a more holistic view of their services and their obligations to society as a whole. It is much easier to destroy a valued service such as Leuchie house than it is to rebuild it. Once it is lost, it is gone for ever and I wonder whether the society has really understood the consequences of its proposal. It is clear that those who use and depend on Leuchie house do not think so. Surely the society should reconsider its decision and, if it will not, surely the Government needs to consider what it has to do to ensure that the people who rely on the service do not find themselves in an utterly helpless and hopeless position.
17:30
I congratulate the save Leuchie campaigners, who have fought a marvellous campaign. They have refused to give up and I wish them all luck for Saturday, which is a key date in their efforts.
I well remember the first time I visited Leuchie house as the newly elected MSP for East Lothian. Although it was June or July, I was greeted at the door by Santa Claus. I had come at the end of one of the family fortnight holidays in which Leuchie house specialises and, to mark the occasion, the people there were having what I was told was an Australian Christmas—in other words, Christmas in the middle of summer. I think that that illustrates the sense of fun and happiness that one gets with those holidays, which will be recognised by visitors and, in particular, anyone who has participated in the dinners that end them.
That also points us to Leuchie house’s uniqueness. The facility provides respite or a holiday not just for those who suffer from MS but for their carers, usually husbands or wives, and indeed whole families. It is the only facility that allows its users to have a holiday without being separated from their loved ones and their loved ones to have a holiday with them in the knowledge that their care needs will be looked after.
Since that first time, I have been back to Leuchie lots of times and have never heard anyone who has used the service say a bad word about it. I cannot say the same about any other health service, care service or public service that I have encountered. Many users have explained how Leuchie house is a lifeline and an absolute necessity in their being able to continue to live with their loved ones at home. Indeed, the point was never more poignantly made than it was when I visited just after the MS Society took the decision to close the facility.
Of course we are not just talking about people who come to Leuchie house from afar. Fifteen families in East Lothian also use the day service and for some of the MS sufferers concerned, the service’s removal means the difference between their being able to continue to live at home with their family or not.
I understand that many MS sufferers might like more choice or more flexible short-break options. However, I do not understand why the route to that involves taking away choice from those who already have what they want. Those who face this situation are clear that they will be offered the choice of a nursing home or hospital, and that is simply not acceptable.
I do not understand why the MS Society has made what I think is a wrong decision. The society should have been so proud of Leuchie house that it could not have considered its closure. I can tell the chamber that East Lothian is proud of Leuchie and does not want it to be closed down.
I have been disappointed by the response not only from the society but from the Scottish Government. When I raised the matter with the minister, I was told, first, that it was a matter for the society and, secondly, that respite for MS sufferers is a matter for their local authorities. Both those things are true, but cannot the Government see that, to those service users, it is washing its hands of the service—not once, but twice? I know that the minister supports better services for people with MS and that she understands the Scottish dimension to the disease. I do not understand why she will not help to find a way to keep Leuchie house open.
I close by mentioning the staff—some 83 of my constituents—whose jobs will go. If they were here—some of them may well be—they would say that their jobs were not the important thing here. However, I know that some of them have found alternative employment but have turned it down to stay at Leuchie for the final 10 weeks, because they could not bear to walk away. Given that degree of dedication to the service—a service so loved and valued by its users—surely we should stand alongside the staff, the campaigners, the carers and, above all, the service users in their efforts to keep Leuchie house open. [Interruption.]
Sorry, I know that it seems harsh, but I must ask that people in the public gallery do not applaud.
17:36
I congratulate Jackie Baillie on bringing the debate to the chamber. I have visited Leuchie house on a number of occasions and, like everyone else in the chamber, I know that MS sufferers from throughout Scotland make use of its services.
It seems to me that there are a number of interrelated issues. The first is the obvious and self-evident position of the excellence of the service that is provided—I will not rehearse the many excellent points that have been made by other members. The second is the MS Society’s decision that it will, perhaps not now but for Scotland in December and for those in England in November next year, no longer provide that service, and the question is whether that is a right policy decision.
A separate but obviously closely interrelated issue is how best to keep Leuchie house open. There is no dispute about the excellence of the service or about the ratings that it is given by the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care. More critically, there is no dispute about the response from those who use Leuchie house, but there is real debate about the MS Society, its decision and the basis of that decision. I will certainly not rehearse the excellent exposition of that that Jackie Baillie gave us.
However, that still leaves at least two possibilities as to how we keep Leuchie house open, which of course brings into play the MS Society’s claim that it is interested in that process, although I have been unable to find any evidence at all of the MS Society doing anything other than issuing disingenuous statements to that effect. Like many in the chamber, I have written to the MS Society but I am still awaiting a response from the trustees to a communication dated June.
The question is this: if the MS Society is genuine about wanting Leuchie house to stay open, why does it put the staff in the position in which—as Iain Gray graphically described—they have to seek alternative employment? The critical mass of those excellent carers is to be dissipated but, somehow, the MS Society would wish to claim that it is actually really interested in keeping Leuchie house open. Open as what?
Cathy Jamieson mentioned the state of the building but, of course, the institution is not the building; it is the people who run it, and the nursing staff who run it have had their jobs put on the line. That is not a message from a society that is genuinely interested in keeping an operation open, and that is greatly to be deplored.
Even if, at the end the day, the Leuchie house campaigners are unable to persuade the MS Society, I cannot believe that it is entirely without prospect that some other organisation might wish to fill that void. The MS Society is therefore again being obstructive by placing conditions, dates and times for closure that make that process well-nigh impossible.
I find those two issues deplorable. I am not sure that I want to get into a debate with the MS Society on its particular policy, although I could no doubt do so if I had infinite time. As I said earlier, I, like Jackie Baillie, think that that policy is fatally flawed, but I am much more concerned about the society’s absolute failure to facilitate conditions and circumstances under which members, the Government and other charitable organisations could have a sane, sensible and rational discussion about an alternative provision for keeping Leuchie house open. The society is to be condemned for that. I hope that it takes a different decision at its meeting. Even if it does not reverse its decision, Leuchie house should at least be given the opportunity to seek genuine alternative arrangements that will, in the best interests of its patients, keep it open.
17:41
I value the opportunity to participate in this debate. I will take slightly different lines from those that other members have taken. Members have covered much of the topic effectively, and it is clear that the central theme is whether the MS Society is behaving in a reasonable and rational way.
There can be no doubt whatever about the massive contribution that carers make in Scotland. That has been said endlessly in the chamber, but it can never be said enough. The necessity for respite care is also fully understood. Indeed, the Government has said that it will provide an extra 10,000 weeks of respite care a year. That may or may not be being fully delivered, but it is certainly the Government’s intention.
The main issue for me is whether the decision in question fulfils the criteria for consultative processes that we have established in the Parliament. In the first session, I was grateful for the opportunity to undertake the Stobhill inquiry. That inquiry was undertaken because the consultation by the national health service in Scotland was very poor, and it was evident that the communities around Stobhill thought that they had not been consulted appropriately. It was clear that the processes were inadequate. Since then, the processes have been changed radically, and there is now consultation. Things are still not perfect, and I think that we will hear about further problems in the future, but the Scottish health council analyses and advises on the efficacy of consultations. I wonder whether we should invite the Scottish health council to look at the processes for voluntary sector societies such as the MS Society.
I say that because I think that the survey that was done was flawed. A report by Professor Bell, I think, suggested that that was the case. There are 26,000 MS sufferers, of whom only 514 responded to the survey. The statistical analysis may be valid and focus groups might be of some help, although focus groups are usually used to determine the questions before a survey is set up rather than afterwards, but I simply do not think that the survey is valid. If there is any question about its validity, that is answered by the fact that 11,000 petitioners have suggested that the decision is wrong.
The results of the survey are analysed in its appendices. Appendix 6.3, on the perception of quality, shows that a staggering 95 per cent of those with MS and a similar percentage of their carers feel that the care that is given in the society’s centres is good or very good. The results for less specialised residential or nursing homes were 65 per cent and 67 per cent, which are much lower figures. The home therefore provides an almost unparalleled level of care, in the view of the respondents.
My concern is that we will lose provision that is highly valued by individuals. Therefore, there is an absolute need for the Government to consider how it can intervene.
We are going into a period of austerity. It will be fundamental in tackling and managing that to have a true partnership between the public sector and voluntary sector providers. The public sector provides the overwhelming majority of the finance for the establishment that we are discussing, but it is partnership that is required. Therefore, there must be discussions with the MS Society as to how that partnership should proceed. It should proceed on the basis of good evidence, not the evidence that has been presented.
17:45
There have been some valuable contributions to the debate. Jackie Baillie’s motion deals with specific concerns about the future of Leuchie house, but it also raises general issues about respite services for people with long-term conditions such as multiple sclerosis.
The motion rightly praises the quality of services that are provided at Leuchie house. I know from the correspondence that I have received how highly valued it is by those who use it. I am also aware of the dedication of the staff there. I hope that an alternative provider can be found, even at this late stage. Ross Finnie outlined in a very well-thought-out speech the importance of that potential solution.
I can well understand the concerns of service users and carers, and of the staff of Leuchie house, about the proposed changes. Any type of change will always be difficult, but the decision is ultimately one for the MS Society. I hope that its decision-making process will take proper account of the views of service users and carers. I am aware that there are concerns about the process and that they will be raised at the society’s forthcoming AGM, as its members are entitled to do.
The background to the issue is the MS Society’s review of its respite services, in which a range of options were considered. We know what the review’s key findings were. I would not like the debate to be about whether we are taking sides for or against the MS Society; it should be about people with MS getting access to the respite and other services that are best for them and for their families and carers.
The Government wants to work in partnership with the third sector, because the third sector is recognised as leading the way in service innovations, as Richard Simpson pointed out. The focus now is on flexibility of services and on finding ways, where possible, of delivering services to people in their homes or communities, to help people participate in society to the fullest extent possible.
If there really is a partnership, what discussions has the minister had, or will she have, with the MS Society?
I have had a discussion with the MS Society about its proposals. I will come on to the role of the Government.
We need to ensure that services and support become even more flexible in future. We are championing self-directed support, because it gives people choice and control over the support that they receive. We know that people’s lives can be transformed beyond recognition through personalised care or support because they get help that matches their circumstances and goals. Central to that approach is integrating within that overall package of care short breaks for a person with MS or their carers and families. For example, in the Borders, the council has provided a package of care for a woman with progressive MS. She uses her direct payments to allow her children to engage in the activities that they enjoy. She can use her flexible-breaks funding to visit her family elsewhere in the country. Her general health and wellbeing have improved markedly because she gets that support. Our consultation on self-directed support has shown strong backing for action at national and local level to bring about a culture in which choice and control are the norm.
Providers of services in the statutory and voluntary sectors are having to make hard choices. Tough decisions are being made at local level about how best to provide and fund short breaks in the light of resource and other pressures. The MS Society has acknowledged that, if Leuchie house closes, that will in the short term reduce the respite choices that are available to current services users. That is concerning. It is therefore important that the society ensures that alternative provision is arranged to meet service users’ on-going care needs.
I understand that the society has plans to contact all those who have stayed at Leuchie in the past two years to determine those needs and how the society can support them. We certainly expect that to happen. That process should involve social work departments, to create care plans for short breaks, and it should be about assisting those people and their carers to access more personalised services.
As I said, this is a matter for the MS Society to decide. It is of course ultimately accountable to its members for the decisions it makes. This is not a matter in which the Government can intervene. Jackie Baillie said that she would not make a recommendation to the MS Society. I am sure that she would not expect any rule other than the rule that she applied to herself to apply to the Scottish Government.
I did, however, offer the society advice. Given the debate that has taken place, I invite the minister to send the society the views of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government and to offer advice.
I will come on to that. [Interruption.]
Order. I am sorry, but I cannot allow that type of interruption.
The advice that I would give the MS Society is to listen to its service users and carers. I will come on to the issue of writing to the society in a moment.
It was unfortunate that Iain Gray chose to take the opportunity to attack the Scottish Government for not intervening. There has never been any occasion, under this Administration or previous ones, when ministers have intervened to change a decision made by an independent voluntary sector organisation. In 2003, when CrossReach was closing care homes in a number of communities in Scotland, ministers rightly did not intervene because that was an independent decision by the voluntary sector. It would be wrong for any MSP to give service users the impression that the Government can wave a magic wand and change a situation when an independent voluntary organisation is making a decision.
I am slightly saddened to hear what the minister has said. Is she aware that one of the leading Scottish National Party councillors in East Lothian has stated that the Government should not bury its head in the sand over this issue?
I do not think that anyone is burying their head in the sand. I do not have the power to tell an independent voluntary organisation to do something different with its services. It would be wrong to raise service users’ expectations that the situation is different; it has never been any different for previous ministers in previous Governments.
The issues that have been raised in this debate are important. Jackie Baillie asked me whether I would write to the MS Society. I am prepared to do so to ensure that it is aware of the strength of feeling and of the issues that have been raised in the debate. I will certainly write to the MS Society.
I hope that Leuchie house does not close. If it does, there could be a knock-on effect on health and social care services. I will certainly commit to monitoring the situation. I would expect the MS Society to provide us with regular reports on progress to ensure that the care needs of current users of Leuchie house are being met. I would be happy to share that information with Parliament.
I will ensure that, in advance of its AGM at the weekend, the MS Society gets the very clear views of parliamentarians that have been expressed this evening.
Meeting closed at 17:53.